The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ICAN MAKES HISTORY

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

ICAN Secures Religious Exemption From Vaccination In Mississippi in Historic Legal Win for Medical Freedom; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on the Censorship Industrial Complex, which Has Stooped to New Lows, Then Science is Starting to Show Why the Antidepressant Epidemic is Destroying America From Within; New Study Suggests COVID Vaccine cuts vital bifidobacterium in half. Study Author & Microbiome Expert Joins Del In-Studio to discuss; A New Zealand Pastor Spoke Out Publicly Against Lockdowns and Mandates. Now He is Set to Serve Months in Prison While Govt Admits Overreach and Mistakes.Guests: MaryJo Perry, Lindey Magee, Aaron Siri, Esq., Billy Te Kahika, Sabine Hazan, M.D.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you,

You are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Well, I'm very excited to report that actually this week, of all the great lawsuits and things that I can has been a part of, I would say this last week, I can actually made history, especially when it comes to the issue of medical freedom and choice. This is what that looked like in the news. A federal judge rules that Mississippi must join most other states in allowing religious. exemptions from vaccinations that children are required to receive in order to attend school. This ruling comes as a result of a lawsuit filed last year by several parents who say their religious beliefs have led them to keep their children unvaccinated and out of Mississippi schools. The deadline for the Mississippi Department of Health to allow religious exemptions

is July 15th. This is an incredible story. We could just say, there it is. But I really want to get into the details of it because so many of you out there have been working. with us, trying to really make a difference in this space and make sure that we maintain our right to body autonomy now and forever. This is going to be a huge milestone in that journey, especially for those other states that are still suffering from the same type of authoritarian pressure when it comes to your right to opt out of the childhood vaccine program. I want to, though, sort of talk about how we got here, because there's many years behind this work and a lot of brilliant people that were a part of it. So this story actually begins for me when I made the documentary

Vax from cover up to catastrophe. We had, you know, got a bus that said Bax on the side of it. We were traveling the nation and people were signing the names of their injured children on the side of it. Well, one day we pulled the bus up into Mississippi. And there it is. You can see the signatures of all these children who have been either killed or damaged by the vaccine. It's a powerful site. That bus now sits on our campus here. at the campus of I can decide. But there it was. We're in front of the Capitol, and something happened.

A couple of mothers, warrior moms came up to me as I stepped off the bus. And we were usually there just to speak out. We want to take you in the Capitol to meet with some of our representatives, our senators and assembly members. We think you should be talking to them. I had never done that before. And so as they dragged me into the Capitol, I found myself in these conversations with different political leaders there.

And, you know, I have to say that the process, was super interesting, trying to figure out what really was their perspective, why they believed that you should have no religious exemption, one of the few states in the country that had that level of oppression on this conversation. And when the day was all over, I would say that my life was changed forever. I was reflecting on it and thinking, you know, as I'd done it, I walked out the Capitol and thought, I actually really enjoy this. I mean, who would have ever thought talking to politicians would be fun or interesting? But the whole game of sizing them up, trying to figure out what things they cared about, and find that, that door that

you could open up into the conversation was really interesting. And I thought to myself, you know, I'm pretty good at this. This is something I want to do more of. And I really changed my journey. After that moment, more and more, I was leaving the Vax bus and flying to different capitals to do exactly that. So word got out. Dell likes talking to politicians. But these warrior moms blew me away at how much they knew about the political system, the relationships they'd already developed with many of these politicians. And that is sort of the root of what happened. This law would not have been changed, as it was last week, had it not been for the incredible work of mothers, and I mean moms, like very few fathers anywhere to be seen. When we look

back historically, it will be women that really fought to make a difference in this space. It is my honor and pleasure to be joined by two of those warrior mothers, Lindy McGee and Mary Jo Perry. You guys were there. You dragged me off the bus. I still remember that moment. I remember being terrified how these women just marching into Capitol talking to people they don't know.

You know, Lindy, when you, you know, think about that moment, how long had you already been at this conversation before the Vax bus arrived? How long have you been fighting this, you know, removal of religious exemption in Mississippi? Well, Vaxed was in 2016 and we founded MPVR in 2012. Wow. So we had been at the Capitol for a few years by then and we're blessed to have been kind of had our hands held by some women that had been working on this ahead of us that were grandmothers by then. So at least three years since 2012. So when we think about this, is my understanding correct that Mississippi was the first one to lose the religious exemption?

How long had that been gone when you guys really started ramping up this attempt to bring back the religious exemption? They're freezing. Oh, am I frozen or they're frozen? Here we go. Technology. Okay. Mary Jo, how long ago did Mississippi- I'm not sure somebody was frozen, but I think we're back again.

Yeah, great. How long ago did you guys lose your religious exemption? So back in in into up until 1979, Mississippi had on the books a religious exemption, but it required that the family either be clergy or that it was part of their religious tenets and practices that they could not take vaccines. And so in 1979, a chiropractor from Rankin County, which is where we live, filed a lawsuit against the state and the state actually decided in the state courts that unconstitutional, that our vaccine law for religious exemption was unconstitutional. And so they revoked it. And then ever since then we've not been able to get something to replace it. And the battle with our legislators has monumental and even impossible. We've been promised over and over again that if we, you know, if we would jump

through certain hoops and get a certain number of legislators on board that they would pass it. And we've had overwhelming support before almost the entire Republican caucus. And our Speaker of the House, Philip Gunn, still blocked our bills for religious exemptions. So it's been impossible and it's really disappointing that we wound up having to take it to federal court. But perhaps this was the best way anyway because now the state of Mississippi can never take it away from us. It's really amazing. 1979 then, so over 40 years, Mississippi, I mean, for so many people in this movement, it was like California SB 277, 2015, this horrific moment that they lost, you know, their religious or personal belief exemption. Right after that, fairly soon after that was Maine, Connecticut is hanging in the balance.

But you guys have been at this longer than anybody, which is why I think this is so fascinating that you've been, you know, really on the forefront. of this fight. Now, you know, Lindy, I think we had the schedule that you had for me when we, when I first got off that bus, it was shocking to think, oh, I'm just going to talk to a bunch of moms. You sort of dragged me in there. And you, I mean, it was like, you know, at 9 a.m. He meets with this person, 9.30, this person, you know. And, and so we went through that process. What I think is interesting about this, really, is that when we think about the religious exemption, this is something I want to talk about. I had been there. So I went in. So I went in. the first day went really well.

We talked to politicians. You guys said, Del, that was really effective. Now, part of it, it seemed that, unfortunately, this is, the politics can sort of be like a man show. Was it, do you find it was difficult, even though it was only women in there to really be taken seriously? Absolutely. Absolutely, we did.

We, our lawmakers are misogynistic and paternalistic and saw a lot of us. just saw our movement as a bunch of emotional mothers. We would come with the science and the facts and leave the emotions behind and, you know, armed with the science and they were not hearing it. They dismissed us. And so when Vax came on the scene and you were speaking out in moral courage,

that is why we wanted you to come in and speak to our lawmakers. And we did find that they were more receptive to you. You know, Mary Jo and I, so many people that are part of MPVR who were up there lobbying. Our husbands are back at home working so that we're able to do that. And we just were not taken seriously. Speaker gun, the speaker of the house, like Mary Jo said, would give us hoops to jump through. We would jump through every one of them.

And he would just move the bar year after year so that we couldn't get anywhere. Well, I remember I visited several times over the first couple of years there. and it felt like we were really starting to get traction. And then one day you called me and said, Del, we have finally got a hearing in front of, I believe it was the Senate Health Committee, if I remember correctly. House, yeah.

The House Health Committee. And you said it were going to allow us to have a speaker speak, and we would like you to do that. I remember I came down and said, of course. And that morning, you know, I woke up and I was really actually, you know, praying and thinking about how are we going to address this body of people? I had never done it before.

we'd never really had that whole like health committee allowing us to like give a presentation. They said you can do a PowerPoint. You said they're going to be open to a PowerPoint. And I remember that morning thinking, this is wild that we're in the Bible belt here. We are where, you know, religious belief really carries more weight than anywhere else I'm fighting this conversation, certainly more than California. And it just dawned on me, you know, and I sort of, you know, was moved to think, you know, my dad is a minister. I grew up in church. Let me actually connect these two thoughts together.

And I gave a speech that I have since sort of, you know, weaved in throughout speeches I've given since. But this was the first time I sort of, you know, also showed the science, but moved into a conversation about spirituality and even more specifically the Bible. This is fascinating. It's raw.

You get to see me early days. Dell does a little Bible thumping. Take a look at this. Genesis 27. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Man and female he created them. Then God blessed them. And God said to them be fruitful and multiply. We are created in the image and laus of God. Seriously. Who said this? That God needed this. That perfectly created bodies need 72-bats. to survive here it goes on now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the feet

little later on and the serpent said to the woman you will not surely die for God knows that in the day you eat above this tree your eyes will be over and will be like God knowing good and evil this is what we're supposed to protect ourselves up from. This is what we're supposed to keep remembering that our egos and our ideas and want to beat God or do something better. It makes us make mistakes. We make mistakes when we get out of control. When we start thinking we're better than God. And then, in the end, they cover themselves and leaves and God's looking for him and says, so he said, I heard your voice in the and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.

And he said, who told you that you were naked? Had been eaten from the tree which I command you that you should not eat. Who told you you were naked? Who told you you needed 72 vaccines to live in God's life? Who told you that God had failed so miserably in creating you that you had needed all of these facts things grown on animals and aborted to beal tissue who told you that that was shut i still remember that moment and you know when we sort of showed the sign of pharma ki that was so similar to that you know biblical image of adam and eve and the serpent wrapped around the snake and there was this

gas i mean i've never experienced it like an audible gasp through everyone in the room uh that that I was looking at. And I honestly felt like that the conversations we started having from that moment on changed in a very serious way. Did you know, I mean, we really started gaining traction in Mississippi from that moment on. It was powerful.

That speech was absolutely powerful. And you know, we're in Mississippi, the Bible Belt, and our seeking a religious exemption just makes sense. And the fact that we were met with such opposition, position is so evident of how deep the medical establishments clause are in our politicians. And I know not just Mississippi is dealing with that. But you know, we are predominantly Republicans here, a red state, but as far as how our legislators legislate, we are purple at best.

Yeah. And of course, there was just a part of a conversation where I'd already laid out all the science, what was wrong with the vaccines, the dangers, the injuries, all of it. But in that moment, we really struck a chord. And Mary Jo soon after that, I started feeling like we were holding majorities in voting bodies. But the problem kept being that we couldn't get to the floor. I remember we were talking to, you know, your representatives in Mississippi. Look, if you get this to the floor, I will vote in your favor.

I am now, you know, I'm with you. But we just kept getting stalled by, you know, being put into like a health committee that wouldn't allow out of committee. I mean, it was like years of incredible frustration because you had the votes. Do you feel like you had the votes this whole time? I do think we had the votes the whole time. I think that the problem all along has been the leadership in the House and in the Senate. And I don't know if it's like this in other states, but the leadership kind of, they rule with an iron fist. And there's been a lot of discontent in our House of Representatives because our Speaker of the House,

has ruled with an iron fist. And even those legislators who were not on our side, the year that we had almost the entire Republican caucus, who, you know, had agreed, committed to vote for our bill, you know, even then he wouldn't, he wouldn't let it out a committee and made some excuse like that they all just said that they would because they felt guilty. Like it was, it didn't matter what we did. And I'm not really sure where the power is. I don't necessarily think. it's the drug companies, I think it's the medical association. They're very afraid, they're very afraid of the white coats in our capital. Well, last year, Aaron, Siri and I, and we've been looking at approaches all around the country, and we really started looking at, certainly when you're losing ground in California, watching Maine, Flip, Connecticut, hanging in the balance, it's just always been a goal, to stop that blood loss and actually move it in another direction. Something that's never happened.

You know, we're starting to see that we can block bills better, California, having some luck there, but we've never been able to reverse it back in the right direction. That does not happen. And Aaron, Siri and I got together and really started brainstorming. Is there another way to look at this? There's been cases that say, you know, we have a religious right, you know, to body autonomy, a connection to God,

but it keeps losing because it just, was too general and they would point to things like Massachusetts versus Jacobson, a 1905 ruling around smallpox and the minister there. But Aaron and I were talking and we came up with a new strategy. I'm joined now by, I think, someone who will go down as one of the great constitutional attorneys of all times and the lead attorney for ICANN, the work we do, Aaron, Siri. Aaron, can you describe, you know, what was unique about this approach and this lawsuit that I can funded? Obviously, there was plaintiffs there, all the mothers and families there that have been working so hard. They're a huge part of this, but we were happy to, you know, sort of, you know, support this and bring in a little bit of a new perspective.

So can you give some details on exactly how we brought this case and what made it unique? Sure, happy to, Dale. And yeah, it's extremely heartening that a federal court has now found that there is a religious right under the United States Constitution. Yes, huge. I mean, something. Yeah. In the state of Mississippi. Yeah.

And that precedent is generally applicable and can be applied pretty much to any state in this country, which is what makes it even more incredible and more hopeful in terms of where everything is going in this country when it comes to medical freedom. And that said, yes, the issue in Mississippi, as you pointed out in your discussions with Lindsay, Mary Jo, is that despite the incredible lobbying efforts that they and you and the other parent groups and parents in Mississippi had done for a decade, my understanding is that there had been a bill proposed every year for the last 10 years pretty much to add a religious exemption to the vaccine requirements to attend school. Mississippi, despite the introduction of those bills, never get out of committee. In particular, my understanding is that the lieutenant governor wouldn't let that happen. So while there might have been the political will by even a majority of the members of the Mississippi legislature, and while there was an incredible lobbying effort by the parents who had their lives often torn asunder by the lack of religious exemption, where they had to put, they had to choose between sending their children to school or violating their sincerely held convictions

and potentially damning their children and their immortal souls when they had to make that incredible choice which no American should ever have to do that's why it's the first amendment the first right under our constitution when we looked at that issue I think it became clear that the solution here was not going to come from the legislature it needed to come from a federal judge deciding that under the United States Constitution, which overrides the entire state of Mississippi's state law, legislative body, governor, executive branch, and under the United States Constitution, the citizens of Mississippi do have a right to a religious exemption to the vaccination requirements. And that was the sole and singular ground on which we brought the

the case that we brought using precedent that had developed over the last two years that had come out of the United States Supreme Court. The constitutional landscape around religious freedom in America had changed over the last two years. Okay. And we took advantage of that. And in a truly excellent, extremely well-reasoned decision, and, you know, the judge gets incredible credit for a really brilliant decision. 39 pages laid out precisely why in Mississippi there needs to be a religious exemption. But there had been, I mean, look, there have been religious exemption cases in New York, you know, sort of fighting on we just have a constitutional right.

But I think what was really unique about this was you sort of use this comparison, right? Saying, you know, essentially the Constitution is saying that, you know, that if you have any sort of right or protection that's given to one group of people, that isn't religious. The religious group has got to have that, has to have that mirrored protections. That's essentially, I mean, that was the added nuance, I felt like,

because it wasn't the first time, you know, religious rights was argued. No. There has been there have been cases for pretty much 100 years in this country, seeking to find that. We have a right

under the First Amendment to say no to a vaccine to attend, to have our children attend school and they have failed unanimously. This will be the first decision I'm aware of that has found that there is a constitutional right under the First Amendment to say no to a vaccine to your child to school. What changed on the Supreme Court constitutional landscape is that governors, as you are aware, and your audience is certainly aware, started shutting down and doing all types of closures during the COVID-19 vaccine pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic, including of churches.

But while they shut down churches, they let Walmart, grocery stores, and other places stay open. People brought challenges to that saying, hey, whoa, whoa, wait a second. If it's not a health imperative that everybody has to stay home, if you could still go to Walmart, you should be able to go to church. Right.

You can't say these two activities, which effectively have the same amount of risk, going to church or going to Walmart, but yet you're going to favor a secular activity and not permit the religious activity. If there are two activities that are effectively similar and you're going to permit the secular activity to go forth, you can't then claim you have a compelling interest to have to crush the First Amendment religious freedom right to stop an equivalent religious activity. In particular, Fulton, tandem, these are two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that came down in the last two years.

And in some ways, the overreach, the fact that some governors in this state decided to go too far resulted in those decisions, and brought that jurisprudence to a real, into real focus. And we use that same exact precedent. In fact, I would call it a clarification, a development of the jurisprudence. At the end of the day, our Constitution is a living document. And what it means, for better or worse, is what the United States Supreme Court at the end of the day says, and as well as the circuit courts and the district courts below it over time. And that jurisprudence had moved decidedly in the direction.

direction of protecting religious freedoms and had done so within the context of a pandemic. So it was, it was, it was directly became applicable to what was going on in Mississippi. Right. And, you know, in reading those decisions, they're long. If anybody wants to read them, you know, Fulton's 100 pages almost. Great reading though, if you're, if you're interested. Yeah. And the whole litany of those cases and we took those exact same principles, that precedent, and we brought a lawsuit saying exactly the same thing. We said, hey, look, in Mississippi, there is a secular exemption to attend school without a vaccine.

It's called a medical exemption. Right. And if there isn't a health imperative to exclude children for that secular reason, that means there is an opportunity. There is a possibility to send children to school without vaccines. And hence, if you're going to have a secular exemption, you need to have a religious exemption. The judge agreed and were heartened he did. Again, like I said, in a short 39-page decision that everybody's free to read.

I think we have an excerpt from that decision, very powerful stuff. Here it is effective July 15, 2023. The enjoined party shall be enjoined from enforcing the compulsory vaccination law unless they provide an option for requesting a religious exemption. By July 15th, 2020, defendant state health officer Dr. Daniel P. Edney shall develop a process by which persons may request a religious exemption from the compulsory vaccination law. And the Mississippi State Department of Health shall make the process or any forms related to it, on its website. Thereafter, while this preliminary injunction remains in effect, a person may seek a religious exemption to the compulsory vaccination law by requesting religious exemption pursuant

to the process developed by the Mississippi State Department of Health. There it is, signed. It's an incredible decision, Aaron. I think this is arguably the biggest lawsuit win we've had. This one really is going to set precedent. And I want to say personally, that I plan on through the sponsors that we have that support all the work we do to send you in every other state that thinks that they're gonna rob people of a religious exemption. We're gonna send you forward to get back

the religious right to freedom, body autonomy, all across the country, still left on the docket. Of course, we've won in Mississippi. We're going after California, West Virginia, New York, Maine and Connecticut. And you know, this is a very exciting moment. I know there's a long road ahead. What was the moment like?

I mean, as an attorney, obviously, we've all watched you in the Plotkin depositions and doing these depositions. You have this great sort of stoic, you know, approach to things. You know, you know, lead through with grace and candor. What was it like the moment this was decided for all of those mothers that were there that had been fighting this for years? Just from your perspective, you can describe what that was like? Absolutely. Absolutely. If I may just give the backdrop of that day for a moment. We had an evidentiary hearing actually in the morning, which lasted a few hours. And we had six plaintiffs, three of which took the stand. One of them, for example, was a pastor in the state of Mississippi who is the head of a school in which he cannot send his own daughter. In fact, he wasn't aware of the Mississippi vaccination laws. And his daughter was attending. his school as long as and as well as other parents in his in his church and in his community and he had

to actually exclude people from his own congregation from his own school including his own daughter who then had to be homeschooled we had another one of our plaintiffs took the stand and explained how she moved right across the border into alabama but effectively lived her whole life in mississippi Her children came into Mississippi pretty much every day of the week to play baseball with all the kids they could be going to school with and said they couldn't to hang out with their family, with their friends to go to the club that they hung out with. And so they slid their lives in Mississippi and just had to drive in every single day, but, you know, send their kids in Alabama. And we had one other plaintiff of a similar type of situation. It was a doctor. And so, you know, those, I think that really set the stage for the day. right then and there with these incredibly powerful,

you know, real world life experiences of our plaintiffs and what they have endured to hold true and fast to their religious convictions. You know, nothing shows your religious beliefs, unless you can burn somebody at the stake, I guess, I don't know, then the sacrifices they're willing to take to maintain them. And these folks have endured incredible sacrifices. After that hearing was done, the judge actually,

actually, I would say in a uncommon, in my experience, move, asked that everybody please come back to the courtroom in around an hour and a half, and the judge would at least issue a tentative ruling from the bench. The judge, you know, I think sensitive to the crowd, wanted to give, as he said, everybody a sense of where this was going so that they knew

that they weren't left in suspense. And the courtroom, it was an incredible, one side of the courtroom was packed with families. I see a picture on the screen. And that's just some of the folks that were there in one side of the courtroom. And the other side of the courtroom for the government side was completely empty.

Okay, that's the scene in the courtroom, all right? And so we left and we came back. And before we walked in, I had an opportunity to just address all the folks who were coming in in support of getting a religious exemption. I asked them, you know, I'm sure that whatever the judge decides, it'll be emotional and folks could just, you know, keep it just underwraps just for a moment

until the judge leaves the courtroom so that there wasn't an outburst while the judge are still in the stand. You know, you are in federal court, there's a level of decorum that's always, and, you know, And I could tell you when we were sitting there and the judge came out and the judge had quite a long line up, wind up. I would, you know, and I thank counsel on both sides for, you know, the papers and the arguments.

And, you know, I too would have actually thanked the Attorney General's office and the Department of Health's attorneys who were both extraordinarily professional throughout litigation. And I thought that they also did a very effective job in representing their councils. And I think the judge was right to commend them as well for their work in the case. And then the judge finally said, and so I've reached my decision, and the preliminary junction is,

and the judge just paused, and you could just feel the air in the courtroom just was as thick as it could be. And then you heard of the word granted. It was an incredible moment. I mean, I chills go up and down my spine. Let's bring Lindy and let's bring Lindy back in here and Mary Jo. You've been there, you've been at this fight for so long.

What was that moment like as you sat there in and test anticipation of it and to finally hear those words? I'll just say that after. Go ahead, Lindy. After a decade, more than a decade of getting our hopes up and being cautiously optimistic, optimistic over and over again. I was very optimistic about, especially when we left at lunch, that the judge would rule in our favor. But it was just, it's still, it's still serene. It's still serene. And I wake up every day just thanking God for finally delivering Mississippi from the oppression that these parents have lived under for all this time. It was an incredible,

incredible day. Or Joe, is that moment like, you know, the reactions by the moms, were they able to keep it quiet? There was, well, we were instructed that we weren't allowed to make a peep until the judge had left the court room earlier. So everybody was sort of holding their breath and as soon as he was out the door, there was tears and hugging and we all went out afterwards and I remember walking to my truck and thinking, I mean, just breathe in the air and just thinking, Mississippi just, just

feels different already. It just felt different. But I'm convinced that, you know, scripture tells us that God is going to make the small great and the great small. And Mississippi is sort of, you know, look down on. We're last in a lot of things. But I believe that because Mississippi is the most religious state, it's mostly Christian, that we have a lot of praying people here. And I think that we've got a spiritual battle going on in the country and that Mississippi is being used by God to begin to heal our land. There's a scripture that's gotten sort of cliche because people say it so much, but I'd like, I'd like to read it. Second Chronicle 714 says, if my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their

wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and I will heal their land. And, you know, we had, we've got a huge prayer group of MPVR families. And any times, something like this comes up, you know, we're fasting, we're praying. And, and I really think that our faith is what has kept us in this so long, kept us from giving up. But I just, I just feel so blessed to be in the middle of a battle for what's right and be on the winning side because we know we have the Lord on our side. So, but I especially want to thank you. I feel like God has his hand on everything that you're doing. And Aaron and everything that y'all have. done over the years, the moral courage, the stepping out and doing the uncomfortable thing,

the unsure thing, not knowing really how it's going to turn out and what's going to happen. And I believe that when we do that, when we follow God's call, that ultimately that and we leave the consequences to him that that's where we find victory. And I think that's what's being. I'm just beyondwards to be a part of it. Well, I just want to, you know, congratulate all of you, Aaron, the great work you've done, Mary Jo, Lindy is a final thought and you know we have been conversing with each other and working on this for I mean honestly you know since Vax rolled through in 2017 but for 40 years Mississippi has been oppressed and the irony that one the most probably religious state was the one

you know blocking a religious exemption to finally come through all of that there's so many people fighting now that are watching the high wire millions watching the Highwire, whether they're in states that have similar oppressions or around the world where sometimes it's even worse, being arrested. We're going to be talking to someone from New Zealand coming up in just a moment, being arrested for sharing his spiritual beliefs on this subject. What is your advice? How did you stay strong through all of this? And what do you want the world to know about this journey for you? That it is worth it, that we sacrifice for things that are important. And our phones were all blowing up when the ruling got out very fast.

And I know Mary Jo has as well, but I've heard from so many state leaders across the nation, some in states that have religious exemptions and some that don't, who share just how encouraging this news has been to them. And I would just cling to faith. And, you know, Galatian 6-9, let us not become weary and doing good for the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up and you know I feel like the time that it took to get here just makes the victory that much more sweet we've been able to educate so many people it took in PVR growing to be the beast that we are with over 8,000 families it took I can growing to be the beast that I can is with

the legal team with Aaron for everything to fall in line and just continue on. Do not give up. It's worth it. You know, this is for our children for the future of our country. Aaron, I just want to say our, you know, our emails are blowing up. Our felons are blowing up here at ICANN. I want to thank you for the incredible work you continue to do for us. And just, you know, we are so hopeful. I mean, just views like this is a time. hope, that we actually can use the systems that are in play. And this is some of the beauty of it. As we say, you know, we have to watch ourselves as to say we're warriors or these war words because they want to take those out of context. But what we mean by fighting is fighting using this brilliant

court system that we have, a constitution that we have. Does this give us hope that there's still, you know, something, you know, sort of in the heart of what America represents, in the heart of our constitution, the dream of our forefathers, at a moment where we're losing so much hope that America is going to be this beacon of light and freedom. This feels like a moment where we are saying, no, the heartbeat of America still exists, and what that dream of our founding fathers left for us is still, it's still possibly be realized. Absolutely.

In fact, I couldn't, I don't know if I could say it better. When this country was founded, it was founded on the idea, on a central person. core principle, among others, but one of the core principles is the idea of religious freedom. Now, what that meant back then, I think was far broader when people think of it today. People think of religion as something narrow, something you do on Sunday. But it's not. It's what convicts your heart every day. It's what drives you in how you live your life, how you think, what you do. And many people have deep health convictions and beliefs that are not grounded on something that's from a pure of each study, but ungrounded in the way that they view the world,

whether they call it God a creator, you know, people still have deeply held convictions that in many ways are religious, even without directly using that exact term. And I think that, I think our court system in particular is beginning to recapture the real meaning of religious freedom, again, the first freedom in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And when you look at Mississippi as the example, these are families, these are parents who, as we talk but earlier, sacrifice so much to hold true to their convictions, to their beliefs. And the court's finally is beginning to recognize that. So when we think of religious freedom, when we think about a freedom, a religious exemption

to vaccination, that really is something emblematic, not just about vaccines, but even in a broader context, it's the ability for every American to live out their convictions, their beliefs, because everybody who has different beliefs often looks at the other and goes, well, I don't know about those beliefs. I don't know about those views, right? And if all we do is accord the views of the majority or those that are considered the norm or those, then we've lost our way in this country. The whole idea is to make sure that those who have the views that aren't the majority, that aren't considered the norm, that aren't, you know, the mainstream accepted views are respected in this country because that's why our forefathers had to flee from England and other places of persecution.

why the First Amendment exists. It exists precisely to make sure that those who are in the minority and no doubt those who want a religious exemption to vaccination aren't a minority in Mississippi. And for too long, for 44 years, that state has crushed their rights. But as of two days ago, that is no more. We couldn't be more heartened that that's the case. I'm so excited, you guys. Well done. Well done. I mean, absolutely astounding. I know for us, we've been emotional here. It's, you know, Aaron, as long as I'm, as long as I I've been working on this with our team here, working with your legal team.

This really is a bucket list moment. I think it changes the conversation now. Never before have we reversed and moved and show. We are now showing that this movement around medical freedom, medical health, body autonomy is no longer just some distant thought. Now we are moving the needle in our direction. The world is moving our way. And I really think that, you know, first of all, we've got them on their heels now.

Goliath is rocked back. This is a spiritual war. It's a beautiful, powerful moment to really recognize that God is good. And I'm going to say it. I really, you know, sort of get into that space. But we're talking about the religious exemption, folks. And it is now coming to a state near you. We're coming for you if you want to continue to take the rights of American citizens away.

Aaron, Lindy, Mary Jo. Congratulations. Thank you for being a part of all. Thank you, Joe. All right. Take care. All right, folks, look, I mean, we do this every week. We talk about the work that we do.

There's no other program like this. I don't know what other news agency. There's other great reporters out there. We'll bring you some, you know, decent information once in a while. Nobody has delivered the truth the way we have all the way through COVID and even before. But it's this legal arm that changes what media is. If media could make a difference was our dream. If we could not only tell us,

stories, but fight for the truth in those stories and bring justice, what would that look like? Well, that looks like the high wire, and it is only made possible. All of these legal wins that we now have, and the list continues to grow is because of your incredible support. We would never be able to do this if we had to answer to sponsors like Pfizer, Sinopje Bensis, or Pamper's, or Exxon. We are fighting for you and you are the one supporting us. Please, can you imagine now, there is going to be a huge pushback to this, okay? The pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful lobby in the world. It just locked you down and took away all your rights and your president, both of them.

Trump and Biden rolled over for them. There's only one group fighting for you right now and that's us and we're winning. We're showing the way forward. We're leading other lawyers to know what to do. But I can is going to be there in every courtroom fighting for you if we can afford it. And that's up to you. So please join us. now. Stop watching and being an

arch chair quarterback on this. Why do you get involved? Be a part of the movement that is the informed consent action network. Get in here. Be a recurring donor. You can click on the tap at the top. We're asking for $23 a month. But even if you can only give a dollar, each one of you

makes a difference and make yourself a part of change instead of just watching it happen outside your door, bring it into your home and see what other blessings come to you because you are now an active member of society for all of you that have made this win possible. I want to thank you. The victory is yours today. Yours and gods. And we will continue to fight for all that is important. All right. I have a

huge show coming up talking about standing in a space of conviction. Billy Takeahika is joining me from New Zealand. He is scheduled to go to jail for simply standing up against the lockdowns there. And then I'm going to have an amazing conversation with Dr. Sabine Hazen, who is an incredible gut biome specialist. She has a view into COVID and many of the problems around autoimmune disease that are happening in the world that's going to blow your mind. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. Big day here at I can in the high wire, Jeffrey. What do you got for us? Big day, big smiles. All right, Del. Well, congratulations to everybody and Aaron as well. And let's stay on this idea of the Constitution and the First Amendment. So outside of religion,

there's another thing in that First Amendment, which was freedom of speech. And the people in America right now are at an inflection point, a crossroads, with that point, that direct point. Their speech, their open debate has been whittled away, has been chipped away at and outright censored over the last three years in ways we've never seen before, particularly in the area of health. And that is while we've had the hardest mandated medicine push the world has ever seen. And this whittling away free speech. There's been an open purpose of the people doing that to change people's thinking and behaviors. Now, we have to have an open debate about this. And let's start with the commissioner of the FDA right now, Robert Caliph. So he was a paid consultant, a longtime paid consultant

with Merck, J&J, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly. He was also a lead strategy and policy advisor for Alphabet's health subsidiaries. Now, Alphabet's a holding company. They have Google. Google in there, a lot of Google companies as well, but he was a full-time head of strategy and policy for Google's life science and health divisions. So we have in Caliph, he's only been there for just over a year now at the FDA as this position. We have a curious new hybrid. We have a three-way revolving door with big tech, big pharma, and big government. And he has something to say about this debate around health. Take a listen. All right. One thing I learned in my work at Alphabet, which I did between my two FDA stints,

Google would be the company people recognized within the alphabet family. You know, people come to the clinician. They have a very limited amount of time. There's a little bit of discussion. Then they leave. They're immediately inundated with information they're getting on the Internet. If you're not thinking about that, talking with your patients about it,

asking them where they're getting their information, you're really missing the 95% of the time they're getting other information compared to. to the 1% of time that they're spending with you as a clinician. How did your experience working in the tech industry, working at Alphabet, impact how you think about the role of the tech industry in helping try to stop some of this misinformation or disinformation?

I think there is a real need for better regulation of how we deal with this complex information. If our health was better than anyone else's in the world, I'd say, okay, well, just work this out over time. But our life expectancy is going in the wrong direction, and we need to think hard about what we can do about it. I mean, I'd have to say it's the same argument I make because you're killing us.

The FDA, the CDC, is poisoning us on a constant basis. Amazing that he thinks that those that are trying to resist that are what's causing the health problems. Exactly. And so there's further conversation during that interview. this is one of the headlines that came out of that interview. FDA commissioner calls for crackdown on health misinformation claims it reduces life expectancy. He says in this article in that interview,

why aren't we using medical products as efficiently or effectively as our peer countries, Caliph said? A lot of it has to do with choices that people make because of the things that influence their thinking. Well, let me just hold on to that point for a second and go to that. Only the United States and New Zealand allow direct consumer marketing. Right. So where is that in the conversation? And then let's talk about how much pharmaceutical companies spend worldwide.

I have a chart here I want to show you. The United States makes up roughly 41% of total pharmaceutical spending worldwide. China comes in second with a market share of nearly 12%. But understand China has 1.4 billion people roughly. United States has just under 332 million. So you can see the offset there of the spending. And so I don't know what he's talking about that. We're not using the pharmaceutical products enough

or we're not taking them enough or people are getting their information in strange ways. The United States is over-farm it. I mean, this would be the exemplary country if there was ever one on the globe. So let's just look back. We should be the healthiest people in the world. We are drugged more than anyone else in the world

using far more drugs on every single level there is, as you said, direct to consumer marketing. And amazing when he talks about like social media, social media is not where you're getting inundated. I look at Facebook. I don't see this on Twitter. But on my television, every freaking commercial break and every sitcom is talking about how we're on drugs and need more drugs to survive. It's total insanity. It's killing us.

And we have just been through the hardest influence push, censorship push around the health conversation. So what he's talking about we need more of, we just had the biggest one in the world. and really the history of the world when it comes to the digital aspect of this. And let's just go through what we had. Now, he's calling for a double down on this because I guess it didn't work. But let's look at this. Let's look at the CDC. The CDC provided 156 million in funding.

Here's a little infographic. And this is a fiscal year of 2021 to 500 plus other partners at the national state and local levels. So you can see that this influence here. And this is all funding for partners specifically for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake. So this is what we're looking at. see there, that little red box is the CDC Foundation. Interestingly enough, that's a nonprofit organization that was created by Congress as a go-between. So instead of the CDC directly interacting with Big Pharma or Big Tech, which it wouldn't be that good with the integrity piece, they have the

CDC Foundation, this nonprofit that's a go-between. So this nonprofit can interact directly with any corporations it wants, any NGOs, and do this type of work. So that's interesting. But then We have studies upon studies of hired out third parties saying, well, if we were to censor, how would we go about doing that? What would that look like? We have Stanford's Verality Project. Now, this was a pilot program. Here's one of the headlines that came out of this.

Latest Twitter files tackle great COVID-19 lie machine flagging true content as disinformation. This virality project was a seven-month project from Stanford University to monitor anti-vaccine narratives, as they call it, online. And what happened was journalist Matt Taibi. He gained access to the Twitter files. These are the internal files, the emails that were going back and forth before Elon must take over. And he found some curious things.

This is what he reports. Reports of vaccinated individuals contracting COVID-19 anyway, natural immunity, suggesting COVID-19 leaked from a lab, or even worrisome jokes, all were characterized as potential violations, he writes, or disinformation events by the virality project, a sweeping cross-platform effort to monitor billions of social media posts by Stanford University, federal agencies, and a slew of often state-funded NGOs. But here, Del, this is the golden nugget. Virality project, he writes, emails were found in the Twitter files describing stories of true vaccine side effects as actionable content. It says true content which might promote vaccine hesitancy.

That's the bullet point. Underneath that, it says viral posts of individuals experiencing vaccine hesitancy or stories of true vaccine side effects. This content is not clearly miss or disinformation, but it may contain malinformation, exaggerated or misleading, also included in this bucket or often true posts, which could fuel vaccine hesitancy. I hate making this comparison, but I have to. And this is what happens when you have Nazi Germany and some journalist wants to say, look, there's these concentration camps. And though it's true, it's going to create hesitancy towards our job to try and, you know, clean the blood. of our nation. I mean, this is how scary this is. They're saying these are true. These are real

vaccine injury stories, but people should not be allowed to tell their stories to each other, or they might just start causing hesitancy. This is really, really scary stuff. Right. And, you know, this project, when they talk about it, it's not some neutral project. Let's just going with an open mind. Let's see what's going on here. Clearly, from those data points, This is a very targeted, actionable events that are targeting true stories. And we've talked, I mean, we've interviewed so many parents that have said they've been censored for just telling their story about how their child was harmed by a vaccine or how, you know, an adult, how they were harmed by a vaccine, no longer.

And we've seen Facebook take those stories off. We knew this was happening, but now we have it in black and white. So the rowdy project's over. That was just a fun little experiment. But now what appears to be replacing it is something a little more permanent. This is the Mercury Project. And here's a press release from the Mercury Project, Mercury Project to boost COVID-19 vaccine rates and counter public health miss and disinformation in 17 countries worldwide.

So they're researching. This is a research initiative on how this miss and disinformation that they call it spread and also how to combat it. So let's look at the research framework here. Again, all this is not enough for Dr. Caliph. We need more of this. I mean, what I want to point out here is I think the one thing I will agree is I think they named it properly is being one of the most toxic substances on earth in mercury. It's exactly the toxicity with which this type of government intervention will be upon our constitutional rights. I mean, it's really,

really far behind, but go on. Yeah. Yeah, so what we look into there, we'll dig into the research framework. This was published on their website on March of 2023. And it says here, I mean, right off the bat, first line, vaccination is an action with clear health benefits. Well, if you're not, if you're not on board with that Dell, you're clearly going to be a target for this research initiative. And it goes on to say, but individuals may face a variety of barriers to realizing those benefits, including the direct and opportunity costs required to search for accurate vaccine information. They call those, quote, search costs. And then another is to assess the accuracy of multiple forms of vaccine information. They call those decision costs. And to acquire the actual vaccination itself, which is the logistical

cost. But, you know, so, okay, we have search costs. So in that, they wrap that, in, that takes cognitive efforts. Oh, that's tough. And then in their decision costs and when people are deciding, they said, well, one way we can help them to decide is to flag content that is misinformation. Well, they've been doing that for three years. And that actually, you know, I can save them a lot of money here. That has the opposite effect of what you're trying to do. And if you're talking about cognitive effort, shouldn't you be investing in the cognition of the people to make their own decisions to develop their own intuition about what to do with their own bodies. That seems like that would be better for Americans and be a better investment than just labeling

some things misinformation. So let's look at whose funding because it always goes back to who's funding these projects. Where's the money coming from? So here's the snapshot on their own website. We have, oh boy, don't say it. Bill Melinda Gates Foundation. There we are. Rockefeller Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

And the National Science Foundation, which is interesting because that is that is funded each fiscal year by Congress. So now you have direct government, U.S. government involvement in this initiative, which, you know, is very, very interesting and worrisome and problematic. And so we're at a space here where we have literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of, you know, we'll call them now citizen journalists. These are just normal people sharing accurate information. And we have this censorship industrial complex, as it's been called by Tairobi and Michael Schellenberger, that's coming down and saying, you know, one of the tip of the spirits is Robert Caliph saying, we need more of this. We need more censorship. And this is the battle right now. So it's the humans

really versed the algorithms on this digital space. And right now, the message is getting out. We have this moment of breath where we're winning, where we're really showing people what is. Yeah. I mean, and that's the problem they talk about, right? I mean, they are looking, they've got the sites on us. It's why we are investing a lot. in our infrastructure and technology here at the high wires that we'll always be able to broadcast to you but while you're going to work you know all week we are trying to figure out how they're going to try and stop us from being able to communicate with you this is it's getting serious folks it's really happening and when you see these politicians and we watch someone like caliph who is now

he literally in a human body represents this horrific merger between you know medicine and AI and technologies very, very dangerous and scary things ahead if we don't, you know, take back control the system and get people that actually believe in our Constitution, our rights to freedom to be running this country. Yeah, yeah. And so when we're talking about this, let's focus on one product line of pharmaceutical products. And these would be products for mental health issues. We're talking about let's go Adderall. This is breaking news. This is out of the JAMA. Journal American Medicaid, I'm sorry, Journal of the American Medical Association. Yeah.

This is the headline here, one in four students misuse ADHD drugs in parts of U.S. study finds. So this is really concerning because these drugs are being handed out like candy. They have been, and especially during the COVID response, you saw mental health disorders and prescriptions being filled for these just skyrocket. So we have like really big widespread misuse up to 25% there of kids using the, these off-requit. And that doesn't even include all of the, you know, the kids that are on the drugs being pushed by these doctors.

And I'm sure it just doesn't get to be enough. These are uppers you're giving how many of our kids. I mean, they are turning our children into drug addicts. Caliph is telling us if we could just get more contact with the drugs into the society, we'd be better. They are drugging our kids and low and behold, shocking that they turn to the streets to get heavier doses, more doses. You're creating entire environment, moving on to Oxycontins, all sorts of other things. I mean, you want to talk about gateway drugs. How about gateway drug pushers?

Your pediatricians are drug pushers now. Right. And this is almost like the largest quiet experiment on the central nervous systems of Americans. And it's tough because, you know, it's a quiet, so you don't see it. It's not overt. And so let's also focus on this, the antidepressants, that's Prozac, Paxil, Zolof, leprexo so let's look at some of the headlines here let's talk about how many americans are taking these now this was in 2016 one in six americans take antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs study finds and it's

hard to find the actual numbers of people taking it but in the new york times here we found some some uh basically some quotes from this and the title is the age of distract oppression so distraction and depression it says antidepressants continue to be the most commonly prescribed of these medications in the united states and their use has become only more widespread since the pandemic began with 8.7% of an increase from 2019 to 2021 compared with 7.9% from 2017 to 2019. So going up pretty much the whole time, but it also goes on to say about how many prescriptions are being filled. IQVIA, a global health technology and clinical research firm found that in 2021, a total of 337,054,544 prescriptions were filled.

Wow. But here's the kicker, Dell. This is where we start drilling down to the really dangerous. parts of this. For some age groups, that change has been more pronounced. Since 2017, that's, you know, years before the pandemic, there has been a 41% increase in antidepressant use for teenagers included in the Express Scripts data. So that was a study of 19 million kids. 41%. Same thing happening in the UK. This is what's going on over there with their antidepressant use. One in eight people taking antidepressants as pandemic blues linger. Now, this is, this is a This is a study we have not talked about is one of the most important studies on this topic

that has ever been published. And you probably didn't see it on NPR, government funded agency or the, you know, CBC. Here's the headline, the serotonin theory of depression, a systemic umbrella review of the evidence. The author's aimed to basically evaluate the evidence on whether depression is associated with lower serotonin concentration or activity in the brain. So when we think about depression, most people just have this reflex action. They don't really know where it came from. Oh, yeah, it's chemical imbalance.

Chemical imbalance. There's chemicals off, serotonin. And we don't know really where that came from. So these researchers, they looked at basically three of the major research databases. And they looked at from the inception of when these ideas were found in the databases all the way up till December of 2020. And listen to what they wrote. They say this, our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin

shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with or caused by lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Remember, this is the whole point of these medications. It's like, you know, what, over a decade of exactly what you're saying. We've just all written it off as it's been proven. It's a lack of serotonin. It's got to get your, you know, chemical imbalance out. And this is where, you know, when you get into work, we do, you start realizing everything

is built on a pile of bull crap. Assumptions, desires by the pharmaceutical industry to push the agenda because they have a product that can boost serotonin, whether it's good for you or not, let's make, billions of dollars off of it. And now when you finally start looking at it, they have no science to back it up, you know? And then, you know, you ended up having someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson show up and tell you, well, the consensus says, right? Consensus is following a lie. We're looking at it for specifically for antidepressants over three decades of this idea. And this is why this piece of research right here is so important. So these authors go on

to say this, even more damning quotes. This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated. Now, one of the authors went on to do an interview with a magazine, and you can read that here, and he spoke a little more freely outside of that study. This is the title, depression is probably not caused by chemical imbalance in the brain, new study. He goes on to say this. It is important that people know that the idea that depression results from a quote chemical imbalance is hypothetical and we do not understand

what temporarily elevating serotonin or other biochemical changes produces produced by antidepressants due to the brain we conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI depressants is worthwhile or even completely safe so del i ask you this how the heck did we get here well it appears to be kind of the same um calculation the same equation as how we're we got here with opioids, how we got here with big tobacco, marketing, marketing, marketing. So in the British Journal of Psychiatry, there was this headline, the 25th anniversary of the launch of Prozac gives pause for thought. Where did we go wrong? And the author of the writer says this, the uptake of Prozac. Prozac was the first antidepressant on the market. The uptake of Prozac became

almost a cultural phenomenon comparable with the fashions for high protein and low carbohydrate diets to lose weight. Quote, Washington City full of Prozacet. headlined the New York Times in 1994 City Full of Prozac. Just imagine, he writes, I am not aware of comparable historical claims for any other pharmaceutical agent, penicillin included. He goes on to say, how do we account for this success? It was partially a result of relentless marketing undertaken with an intensity, not here to scene in pharmaceuticals. By 1993, Lilly had 1,600 sales representatives in the field in the USA, surpassed only by Smith-Klein-Beacham's 1800 reps for Paxil. That was another antidepressant.

So understand that they were flooding the market, flooding people out there, talking to your doctors, talking to the ad agencies, and just putting as many people on the streets as possible to tout this thing and say it's the greatest thing ever. So we have Prozac, which was fluoxetine. That was approved by the FDA in December of 1987, was launched to the market in January of 1988 by Eli Lilly under the name Prozac. So, Del, let's get to the nitty-gritty here. We're all aware of these school shootings. We're all aware of increased in mass shooting at the United States. We're all looking for answers. And the reflex action has been to blame firearms, but why? Why are we blaming firearms? Why are we leaving one of the key components off the table of this conversation every time?

And the Washington Post wrote an article recently and revisited a very important event that happened in 1989. This is the headline here. One of the America's first workplace shootings had an unlikely suspect prozac now they're talking about the standard gravier shooting in 1989 so printing company in louisiana kentucky and joseph west becker walked in with an assault rifle killed eight people injured 12 and then unfortunately also killed himself and this was the deadliest mass shooting in kentucky history and so this uh really did this this unfortunate watershed moment kicked off an era of mass shooting in the Prozac window now.

We have this window that started. And this is what that looked like in the news. For the first time, America really saw this through the lens of an antidepressant. Take a look. It was one ambulance after another, bringing in the victims of the shooting spree to the emergency room at University Hospital.

The hospital was in its Code D disaster emergency plan, mobilizing doctors and nurses to assist the critically wounded. We needed a lot of personnel, doctors, nurses, X-ray technicians, operating room, personnel, recovery room. So we had to mobilize a lot of people. Jefferson County EMS assisted Louisville's emergency medical services, but there were so many victims that some were brought to the hospital in police cruisers. Altogether, we were faced with 15 patients who were, many of them critically ill,

some of them not so seriously injured. I'd say at least half of those patients needed things done right away. That would be IV fluids, resuscitation, major operations, big tests to see if they had certain injuries. Family members began arriving at the hospital to check on their loved ones. Some were overwhelmed with grief. For others, the news wasn't so bad. Jeff Seidenfotten says his father, David, did not realize he had been shot in the chest. As far as he knew, it was an explosion.

He didn't know he was being shot or anything. I'd heard from some of the other people in there that I was talking to, that their family members had played dead, that they, you know, were the first to be shot, and they played dead so that they wouldn't get killed. I mean, these stories never get easy to hear, but in that moment, it was like a rarity, and I feel like, I don't know with the exact numbers, but it feels like we're looking at a mass shooting now in America almost, you know, I don't know if it's every day, but certainly every week, you know, there's something going on. It's really bad.

Right, right. It's, you know, it's almost like, war reporting, but from a health aspect because of these health connections to these. And I want to be clear because, you know, you and I both know, we will be attacked for even, you know, venturing into this conversation. But let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying drugs should be off the table when I'm saying, I mean, that guns should be off the table, but drugs should certainly be on the table. And this is happening in almost every important conversation we need to be having here in America and around the world. When we talk about vaccines, which we do, and COVID vaccine and all the excess mortality, I'm not saying that COVID,

itself, the disease isn't, you know, causing that or might be a part of it. But you can't take the vaccine that you gave everybody off the table when you start seeing rises of death after COVID is gone. I mean, it's the farm, and behind all, this is the pharmaceutical industry, the most powerful industry in Washington. It owns your television set. It owns your government. So every time you want to have a decent conversation here, you're ridiculed and called, you know, insane for daring to say, wait a minute. What are these efforts? SSRIs doing to the brains of people who were already depressed. We've always had depression. Why do we start seeing school shootings? Why we start seeing mass shootings? We've always had guns.

Why do we suddenly start seeing all these mass shootings? What was the actual change in our society? Oh, I don't know. It just happened to start like with Prozac. Right. And I'll use the same ideology that I've heard CDC ASIP voting members do for vaccines. If this vaccine can save just one person, we have to put it on the market. So flipping that around, if these antidepressants cause just one of these shootings, we have to have this discussion and really have it seriously here. So let's go back to 1990, the summer of 1990, the Chicago Tribune. This was the reporting. Remember, Prozac was just put on the market in 1988.

We have this headline. Suits take aim at Prozac, widely hailed Lily Drug. And it says, in the last two weeks, after 30 months on the market, the drug's glittering reputation has begun to tarnish amid a mounting outcry about alleged negative effects. Lawsuits claim that Prozac caused one user to embark on a murderous rampage in Louisville and a Louisville printing plant last year and that it prompted another recipient to repeatedly attempt suicide. It goes on to say Edward West, a spokesperson, get ready for this, Del. A spokesman for Lily declined to comment on the suits, which together asked for 300 million in damages from the firm. The company, he said, contends that information about the

drug should be communicated to people by their health professionals, not the media. have we heard that before. I mean, we're talking 30 years later. Same thing. He says he he asserted, however, that an estimated two million patients have taken the antidepressant with no notable adverse effects since Prozac received FDA administration approval in December of 1987. So again, two talking points that that we continue to hear clearly these are talking points. You just deflect to how many people have taken the drug or how many people have taken the vaccine. Great for the consensus. It's great for the larger group. Let's not focused on this little pesky problem with these ones that seem to get off kilter and go and kill their friends.

Right. And what did this drug company executive or this spokesperson say? The media shouldn't be talking about this. This should be communicated by trusted individuals, this type of information, because it's very dangerous. So here we are full circle with Robert Callis saying, you know, again, trusted information. We can't have this misinformation out there. So now let's focus on this lawsuit because, okay, we have Prozac, we have a lawsuit actually pointing the finger at this drug in a mass shooting. What happened? Well, unfortunately, the people that were trying to pin this on Prozac lost. They lost that. And then Eli Lilly was going around saying, you see, it was found in a court of law that our drug was safe.

And they went around with that talking point. But now we find this. This is the headline. Prozac Maker paid millions to secure favorable verdict in mass shooting lawsuit victims. Say, remember, this was the one that could have set the tone for the rest of the world. We probably would never hear of Prozac again. It would have just been a cautionary tale. It says in this article, the drug maker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Westbecker's victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at standard reviewers secretly paid the victims 20 million, 20 million to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company. Indianapolis base Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury's verdict. And if that isn't enough, we have, and this, we have from the BMJ missing documents from that trial. So not only do Eli Lilly come in and swoop in and give money to these people to sway their decision,

it appears that some missing documents were taking out of this conversation. There's the headline here. This was a, this was the headline from years ago, FDA to review missing drug company documents. And this, this is really bombshell. It says in here, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has agreed to review conference. confidential drug company documents that went missing during a controversial product liability suit more than 10 years ago. The missing documents, which were sent to the BMJ by an anonymous source last month, include reviews and memos indicating that Eli Lilly officials were aware in the 1980s that fluaxeteen

had troubling side effects and sought to minimize their likely negative effects on prescribing. And then here's where it really gets into the regulatory part. David Graham currently associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety criticized the analysis of postmarking surveillance data submitted by Lilly to the FDA. After discovering that Lilly failed to obtain systematic assessments of violence and had excluded 76 of 97 cases of reported suicidality, Dr. Graham concluded in a memo dated 11 September 1990 that, quote, because of a parent large scale underreporting Lilly's analysis cannot be considered as proving that fluoxetine and violent behavior are unrelated. And get this.

it goes on to say this one of the people at the FDA that originally approved this drug for use came back and said this dr caput the original reviewer of fluoxetine told the bmj quote if we have good evidence that we are that we were misled and data were withheld then i would change my mind about the safety of fluoxetine i do agree now that these stimulatory side effects especially regards to suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation are worse than i thought at the time that I reviewed the drug. Wow. And so this is what we're saying.

And this is what's amazing about this is hypocrisy, right? On the one hand, you have something like 75 million kids, let's say. And so if you want to say, well, school shootings are rare, it's only, you know, maybe, let's say it's happening 200 times. I just make, you know, somewhere in here hundreds of times, it's tiny in comparison to 75 million. So if you just go with that sort of Neil deGrasse Tyson view of science, which we can keep beating, on, which is it's great for the majority. Why focus on this pesky little side effect? Well, that pesky little side effect is claiming space in our news and making us all terrified, trying to lock us down, take away our rights, our first and second amendment rights. Well, you know,

then we've got to look at this. It is just a small group, but that's all it takes. That, you know, that clearly, if this has any ability to give you suicidal thoughts or homicidal thoughts, meaning I feel no reason to live in this earth, and therefore nobody else or none of my friends should either. I mean, it's crazy that we cannot have this conversation. Exactly. And, you know, the studies are now coming out. It seems like the researchers are, it seemed to be a little more free to talk about this.

This is one of the headlines out of the UK, actually. Just recently, a warning over antidepressants, top experts say powerful drugs may raise risk of suicide. It says a team from the University of East London examine, nearly 8,000 inquest, these are coroner's inquest, that took place in England and Wales over the last two decades, which mentioned the drugs, these SSRI drugs. They found that around half were definitively ruled to be suicides, demonstrating that antidepressants clearly did not work for thousands of Brits, and one in eight of the deaths involved in overdose using antidepressants themselves,

showing they can provide a mechanism for killing oneself, the researcher said. So, Del, Del, I want to add the caveat, you know, people watching this, it's very important. and this is all the research will say this and the medical professionals will say this too you do not want to come off these if you're on these things which a lot of people are throughout the world you do not want to just come off these things cold turkey you need to talk to your doctor you need to to find out a regimen to get off these if you decide to do that this is not something you want to take in your own hands basically yeah i mean i think we have a graph to give you a sense of the rise in schools and mass shootings in the u.s are on the rise incidents which four more people were killed or injured so he's a man Here's some numbers for us just in 2021 during the lockdown 690 mass shootings. 2022, 647. Currently, it looks like in 2023, we're at 131 so far. These are just really, really sad, horrific numbers. And I am so damn tired of having the pharmaceutical industry controlling our news and our airwaves

and every shill that calls themselves a journalist attacking anyone that wants to ask a very important and obvious question. What are these drugs you're pumping into our kids having to do with this incredible rise in carnage and lack of connection and love for one another? Right. Absolutely. And this is an investigation that is just as important as anything anybody's doing out there. I mean, this is the future of, you know, the future of America is held in this space, in this conversation. It's important to do open conversation and to be able to have hands. hands-off government open debate on this.

It's one of the most important conversations of our time. Jeffrey, great reporting. I love that you just boldly, bravely go in there, pulling out the sort of old data and seeing this cover up, hiding data. This is what you do so well. It's an honor to be working with you. And congratulations, once again.

You're a huge part of the win with ICANN and the work that we're doing. So, you know, just it's a great day to be alive. It's a great day to be a journalist on the high wire and you're doing an amazing job. Thanks. We're so proud to be here with you. All right. They'll see you next week. All right. Well, you know, as the sort of house of cards continues to fall around COVID.

And I know, you know, obviously we're stretching out to a lot of different conversations, but we keep coming back to this because whether or not we want to think this entire thing is in our rear of your mirror, there is still an oppression. There's still some of the authoritative pressures are still attacking people that were involved there. But it's all leading. When you watch Caliph, he isn't saying that a month or two months ago. He's saying right now what he was. wants to do is lock us down even harder. Take more of our rights away because the pharmaceutical

industry that funds him in the Silicon Valley tech giants and AI, you know, um, lunatics that are funding him and funding our government want to make sure that we have no choice in these conversations. Well, in America, you know, I was having this conversation recently, some really good friends. We did have a constitution that held up. I mean, though, you know, we did see a mandated vaccine. our courts mostly ruled that that was unconstitutional. The masks on planes were unconstitutional. And you didn't really see anyone getting their door kicked in. And I don't know that many people that were arrested for speaking their mind.

But in other nations that we used to believe as, you know, free and sweet and beautiful nations, they didn't fare so well. I'm thinking about Australia and New Zealand and Canada. Well, this next story comes out of New Zealand. Imagine if you are a freedom fighter just like Del Bigtree, who stood on the Capitol steps of Mississippi fighting the state. issue, you know, year after year with all of these, you know, mothers and, you know, a few fathers, trying to get back your own rights and maintain that sort of connection you have to your own

body autonomy. That's all that was happening here, but there's been documentaries about him. They're attacking him, and now he's facing jail time. I'm talking about Billy Tehah Kahika. This is just a short piece of a documentary. It gives you a sense of how the media wants to portray this story. You may or may not have witnessed the phenomenon that is Billy Takahika Jr., leader of the New Zealand Public Party, co-leader with Jamie Lee Ross of Advance New Zealand. So it's time for me to shut up and handle my COVID to Billy. Preaching to his followers.

And I woke up to it very early on that something did not smell rage. To support his key political plank that the government does not tell the government. truth he does. We know we are thinking logically, what we said early on that the media claimed of a conspiracy theorist is now mainstream. What he says stems directly from QAnon, the unfounded conspiracy theory that began in the US in 2017 and is now sweeping the globe, at its core that there's an elite cabal which covertly controls the world.

The disease was never lethal as it was made out to be. And it's morphing to include... anti-5G, anti-lockdown thinking that coronavirus is a hoax or no worse than the seasonal flu. Billy Tikahika and his falsifications might not matter if nobody was listening, but they are. We are your party, advance New Zealand, your voice, your power, your party. His rallies are full, but it's when you analyse his social media that you really get a sense of his influence. In the past two months, their Facebook party page has had nearly 800,000 interactions, and this is the really telling part, nearly 4 million video

views, way higher than either Labor or National. What's in it for him? Fame? I think he's very dangerous on a whole lot of levels. Stop this 1080 for a start, it's 5G, it's got to go, it's killing all our people, man. We've got to question the COVID and the virus. Freedom! Freedom! He's speaking what we've been thinking, right?

He's an honest man. What he's saying is sounds more true. He's the only one speaking the truth. Is the only one confronting the government? Is the only one calling all these bs-up? You know, when I think about these draconian measures that, you know, Billy was fighting against, I too was fighting, standing in front of crowds just like that.

You think about what's happened with this conversation. All of the authoritarian, so many of them have lost her jobs since New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, lost her job. She had to step down under just massive hearing. just massive hatred from the country for her authoritarian measures and other things. You look at Boris Johnson, who was doing the same thing in the UK. He's no longer there. Andrew Cuomo was taken out.

He decided instead of being attacked for killing people in nursing homes, he'd rather be accused of sexual misconduct. And of course, Lori Lightfoot just lost her standing there in Chicago. But although all that change is happening, there's these repercussions of things that happen to normal people. And in this case, you know, retrospectively, and just, you know, now that's, the court case came up for Billy Tekehika. This is the headline that we're now seeing in New Zealand. Conspiracy theorist Billy Tekehika jailed for COVID-19 protest.

He's on appeal at the moment. Judge Peter Winters sentenced to Kahika to four months in imprisonment. This is the moment he was arrested. We have the event he was at, and this is just some of the personal footage that was provided to show this horrific and stupid moment in New Zealand. I'm under arrest right now. No, no, no, no. Hey, it's alright.

Do not force me? Do not force me? That's fine. Hey, no violence. No violence. Hey, go ahead. Don't force me. We don't want to see violence.

Stay calm. Stay calm, stay cool everybody. Yeah, get me out of you, right? We knew this was coming. And, but I hope that he's not blinds. He's not blinds going on. Please email people back there and tell them not to be bombed. I've got to do the right thing.

I mean, amazing. It just shows the character that in the moment of being arrested, the only thing he's concerned with is making sure that those around him do not fall into violence, that that's exactly what they want, thinking about the protection of the police officers. I mean, truly a beautiful and noble spirit. You can see it there is my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Billy Tekeh. Thank you so much for taking the time.

This is a horrific outcome at the moment. So, you know, what went down this court case? Was the judge just sort of totally against you from the beginning or, you know, what are we talking about here? Yes, Kiyota, greetings, Del. It's a great honor and privilege to be here today. Yes, it's quite funny. You know, one of the things that we just heard in the mainstream media slander attack on me is

that they are saying that I was spreading falsifications, including that the COVID-19 SARS-2 was the equivalent of a flu virus. Well, you'd be pleased to know that three days ago in mainstream media New Zealand came out that a leading university epidemiologist was covered in a very, very significant article was saying, well, guess what, everybody, it's time to move on. COVID-19 is the same as the seasonal flu for most New Zealanders, which is what we were saying back in 2020. You know, it was very, very clear to you, Dell.

You know, you and I and Dr. Rasha Bhuta spoke about this 18 months ago. Yeah. And so the IFR was very, very clear the infection fatality rate that we were dealing with an influenza equivalent mortality rate here. And it's out now. The narrative is crumbling. But unfortunately, the judge that we had during this trial, which involved, three district court appearances with myself turning up to face these charges for breaching the COVID-19 public health response act 2020 it became very very clear that the judge that we were dealing

with was a true believer of the government narrative of the of the narrative that had no science behind it had no justification behind it and had no logical sense behind it he was a complete believer I don't like to disrespect anyone in the judiciary. I'm a former member of the Army and police, but he would not entertain any of the improved and up-to-day current information, which tells us that lockdowns offered no benefit but only harm and destruction, which is the whole reason why I protested that day. I became the counsellor for New Zealand now,

and I heard all the stories of suicide of people dying alone, of economic business destruction, but social harm, social uneasen disease was just through the roof like it has been in other countries. And I had to stand up against it, not thinking I would be arrested, but not only thinking I wouldn't be arrested, but found guilty of the charges. Now in New Zealand, the right to protest is guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Because I was just going to ask you that. What is the actual charge? you being charged with? So the charges I'm facing what I have faced include attending a protest and organizing the protest. Now the protest itself was very, very tiny, less than 100 people.

It was outdoors. It was a very nice day. It was peaceful as anything because all of my events have been peaceful. All of them have been beautiful events. I work very, very closely with the police to make sure that protest, as police and public are safe, which I did at every event I did and yet that meant nothing on the day. They had made up their mind they were going to get me that day. It was day one of a national lockdown because of one case of COVID, one case of the flu equivalent. Wow. And they'd made them wind up.

They were going to get me that day and they did. And normally with breaches like this, you'd be sort of protest and processed and released after two or three hours, but they kept me in New Zealand's largest prison, Remand Center for about for a day and a half and the police did not want to let me go. They consider me a public enemy. Wow. And yet you're peaceful, you're just there speaking your mind, stating science. And so you're saying the judge wouldn't even allow the science really into the courtroom to discuss what we now know retrospectively, almost like you're being tried based on what was understood in the dark ages versus what we now know that has been, the light is shining down on it. I mean, this makes me nervous too. And for those, you know, obviously we're an international.

show. Here in America, my concern is we feel like, oh, this could never happen here, but we are so close. I mean, our neighbors in Canada, we watch bank accounts being shut down by people that were supporting truckers. I mean, you know, it's not lost on anybody. What is your message right now to other freedom fighters around the world? I mean, obviously, it is so clear they're making an example of you. You feel like that is what this is about to deter anyone from ever thinking they can stand in front of an audience and defy mandates by the government? Yeah, correct. So it creates a chilling effect across the citizenry that may be interested in protest activism. And what it does now, it's communicating to New Zealanders that if you say

something that the government doesn't like, that you may be victimized in this way, you know, Dell, a few months earlier in New Zealand, during another lockdown, Black Lives Matter had two gigantic protests, each with 10,000 people at it, no masks, no social distancing, breaching a level two lockdown, and there was not one arrest. Now that proves to me that we've got an ideological warfare going on here, and unfortunately the government which controls the judiciary, and they do control the judiciary in my view, will make war against you if you come out and you're saying things that they don't like. But if you sort of are working within the safe parameters of the work cancel culture of the left, then you're going to be perfectly fine to breach all day long. The message to other freedom fighters around the world is steal up. You know, take a robust approach to this.

But be careful because, you know, what I'm dealing with now is, I found guilty for breaching this Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1919 guarantees my right to protest, peacefully protest in any situation, but that was overridden, which is unbelievable. And given that I have no previous convictions, I have a long service record to country and community, I'm a pastor, I'm a family man. I've done many, many, many, many big campaigns about helping New Zealand be a better place to live in.

The judge read all this out and said I had a significant number of. of excellent character references that attested to my good character. And then he sentenced me to five months prison, which if you had been there, Dale, the feeling that went through the courtroom was one of shock, absolute shock and horror. Even with the police staff, that were shocked. They were absolutely shocked.

Wow. They were absolutely shocked. How do we help out? I mean, you know, we got this audience of millions of people watching right now. Is there any way we can put some pressure or help? I know you're sort of bringing this up on appeal. Is there something we can do to, get involved because this is just a crime against humanity. And if we allow it to happen to you,

then you're just the beginning. And it starts happening all over the world. So what can we do to help you out? Thank you, Dale. That's really important. Well, we're doing a couple of things right now. Number one is that we have a petition on change.org. It's called Justice for, there we go, for Billy TK and Vinny Eastwood. Now, Vinny Eastwood is my dear friend who was arrested with me. and we launched this just a few days ago. So the petition is growing. So we'd like people to recognize that what's happening with me just makes no sense. Dell, in the last two weeks, we've had killers,

we've had people charged with manslaughter, gang members involved in drive-by shootings, child molesters receive home detention. Wow. That the community detention option was available to the job. I mean, really, I should have been found innocent charges dismissed, but he didn't. And so he found me guilty. He sentenced me to prison, but he could have easily had just convicted me and given me a fine. Let me go and we move on more life.

But he hasn't. And my key concern is that we've got this appeal underway now. My key concern is if they get me in prison that they may try and have their way with me inside. Now, you know, I just about vomit when I think. say that, not out of fear, but to say that that's possible in New Zealand, you know, we used to be the flagship country for freedom and critical thinking people and good people in a good country. But that's been absolutely eradicated and destroyed in the last six years, you know, and I was listening to what you were saying earlier in your interview with Stephen. I mean, everything

that's happening in the United States around conflicts of interest with drug companies is here. You know, we've got the same problem. We've got government doctors and scientists that are putting out this flyers about vaccine hesitancy and overcoming it, saying it's an independent paper. And on the bottom of it, it's got probably sponsored by Pfizer and GSK, you know. And but it's rolled out into the enforcement area as well. So in terms of helping me, if people could go to that website. Well, let's do this post.

Get out your pens. papers this is what we do here at the high wire I don't want you just sit around look how easy it is why we just fill out this petition right now there's 5,000 signatures we can do way better than that you're looking for 7,500 I want to blow this out of the park let's let's go ahead and just you know hit it up here so that he can walk in and say look at the world is watching you and that's all that petition like this does is you walk in the courtroom and say just want you to know the world is watching how you act here and you will go down in history about how you decide this case. Let's make sure they're being watched. And as you're going through all this, my

understands you're also working on a documentary. Yes, Del. And boy, I tell you what, this is funny how God works because you've been on my list because I've got, I've got Russia on board and Russia's a good friend of ours. And Russia, Buttar, great, great doctor, done a lot of great work out there. Yeah, he's great. But we've got a documentary. It's called The River of Lies, the New Zealand Scandemic. And investigative documentary, and it's a boomer. We've filmed 1800 minutes of interviews, data, scientists, interviews, including Dr. Mike Yeadden, another great medical leaders and sovereign medical activists.

But we've got the stories of people that have been harmed for no good reason. One of my dear friends, his wife died after receiving the second jab, and they did it because they needed their jobs. is either go and get the jab or lose your job and you lose your home. And that's the reason why many people got the jab. But this documentary, it's an absolute bomber. You know, we've got all the evidence. Did I miss me?

Can we watch it now or are you still finishing it up? We're still editing it. So I want to interview you in the next week or two to get you and you would be the very very last guy we're going to interview. But it's been edited right now. we had planned originally it was going to be a one episode documentary but we had a production meeting a couple of weeks ago and it was decided that no we've got too much good data here it'd be a shame to waste any of it so we're going to have a three episode documentary but the thing is

i want to i want to impress upon the what your audience del is that what's happened in new zealand is a is a representation of what the globe has gone through what we've all gone through and so the data that we've got in it is something that um anybody around the world can use to educate people that are perhaps sitting on the fence not sure or not even on the fence and on the other side of it because what what the way that i crafted the documentary is that we didn't want to go down any rabbit holes we don't want to be you know called conspiracy nut jobs we just wanted a fax jack and we wanted to be calm cool and clicked it in the way that it's presented so we didn't want to you know i mean i get

called a kuanong guy i've never had anything to do with kuanon i get called a trump guy i've never had anything to do with with President Trump either. But we just want to be very, very calm and very centered in the way that we present the evidence and the facts in such good layout that anybody would be able to go, well, to a family member that they lost, you know, because they spoke up, say, look, mom, dad, sister, brother, cousin, just look at this.

Just look at this and then make up your mind. Because the world has to make a choice too, Del, is that as, as, the narrative is crumbling and breaking down. You know, all those that slam G where's a conspiracy nut job, slam me is a conspiracy nut job, you know, now have to come to terms that they're wrong. They're completely wrong.

And the way that we get them over that line completely is to very warmly but factually and firmly present the data that cannot be fact-checked and dealt away with. Well, what I really look forward to in your documentary and though, you know, there's many out there now, But what is so interesting about New Zealand is you truly are an experiment. We've been talking a lot about Australia. But when you look at islands, your lockdown was so complete that you're really one of the only experiments that got to vaccinate everybody, but before the virus was actually there.

So if the vaccine was ever going to work, it should have worked in New Zealand and the fact that it hasn't. And you had the same infections rates, they skyrocketed through the roof. You've had massive death that the vaccine didn't seem to help from. And the same stupidity in hospitals, you know, putting people on. ventilators, I mean, all the same things, but it was done in a microcosm, in a much more contained space. So it gets outside of the argument, well, we were already under attack by the virus. We didn't know what's happening. New Zealand sat back and was able to hide itself and really make a calculated effort based on what the WHO and the CDC and the FDA said, if we could only do this,

it would have worked great. It was a disaster for New Zealand. It's been a disaster for your economy. It's been a disaster for your society. Now they're going to try and scare anyone from telling the truth the next time they pull this by, you know, throwing you in jail. We're going to do everything we can to support you. So if you want to get involved with the documentary, here's that information again. River of Lies in New Zealand's scandemic, riveroflise.co.n. And please, let's sign that change.org petition and support Billy here. He is standing up right now as a warrior for the world, a warrior for all of us. We cannot allow this type of insanity to stand. Billy, thank you for taking the time. Thank you for your courage and honestly,

thank you for your peace and your candor and that truly beautiful loving vibe you're putting out. Love is the only way we win this and you really are representing that in such a beautiful way. Thank you, Del. I look forward to speaking you for the documentary and just want to wish everybody to be in God's care. Thanks, brother. Appreciate you the great deal.

Take care. All right, as we look at the science, I just want to, you know, this is really at the heart of what the high wire does is an investigation into what is happening around the science of vaccination, what's happening to our bodies, what are these things doing? I got to see a few videos recently that just blew my mind and I've been really excited to try and get this next guest on the show.

And I want to make it clear because a lot of what we do in this investigation is get into therapies, get into ideas that are happening. Some of them are hypotheses. Some of them are proven. We've got peer review. But as you've seen, science is an ever-moving space. So I want to be careful to say, you know, in all that we do here at the high wire, you need to do your own investigations. Don't just take it, you know, hook, line, and sinker.

Also recognize that we're involved in an investigation here that is ever moving. So some of the views that are about to be shared may or may not be views shared exactly by the high wire or I can. But it's a part of our desire to try and triangulate the truth of what's really going on here to be a part of the scientific method, challenging it from all sides. no one is bringing a more, I think, clear and riveting challenge than Dr. Sabine Hazen. And she is going to join me in a moment. This is what she looks like in the news. Joining us is gastroenterologist, Dr. Sabine Hazen. Gastroenterologist, Dr. Sabine Hazan. Dr. Sabine Hazan is a gastroenterologist and CEO of Regina Biome.

She's a gut bacteria expert. The whole basis of my research lab is really to write the dictionary of the microbiome and disease. We are seeing that if you have an imbalance in the gut, you are more predisposed to disease. You're basically an expert at running clinical trials, right? Clinical trial gave me a view of what was the future. So when clinical trials didn't work, I would do a procedure called fecal transplant, taking stools from a healthy donor and putting it into a medical trial. the patient. And it was amazing because you would have a patient that was dying

and miraculously he lived after people transplant. In the world of the microbiome, unfortunately, we only know about the 1%. We've only identified about 15,000 bugs and there's about trillions out there that we have no idea what they're doing. Will humanity survive when we start introducing 4 billion prescriptions, you know, per year given? Will humanity start surviving when we change the microbiome of and remove the diversity? You and your team were the ones that discovered COVID's entire genetic code in the stool. So why do you think the virus was found there in the first place? COVID actually sits on the ACE2 receptor.

Where is the biggest organ where the ACE2 receptor are found? The ACE2 receptors are found the bowels. So it made sense to me to look at it. there because that's where everything ends. When I saw that hydroxychloroquine and ZPAC had an impact on COVID in the stools and started the creation of my protocols and writing my protocols, I lost no one. No one died. So we're talking thousands of patients.

And then all of a sudden on Twitter, a post goes off. Dr. Hazen is doing unethical protocols. So this is the patent of azithromycin, vitamin C, vitamin D, and than hydroxychloroquine. What I understand, a lot of people have used this formula that you're saying, you're not collecting on this. No, I'm not. It was my donation to humanity.

It was like a mark in history, you know, being on the right side of history. To me, that was more important. We're entering into a world of individualized medicine. I think doctors need to be doctors again. It's my absolute pleasure to be joined by Dr. Sabine Hazen. Thank you so much for coming into the studio today. Thank you for having me.

You know, I've been watching some of these videos now, and there's been a lot of celebrity of great doctors that have stepped out. But as I start looking at the work that you've done, in many ways, some of that's sort of built on the work that you've done. And so, you know, I'm just so honored to have you joining me. Right now, of course, you did a great interview with Epoch Times. But I want to talk about just this. What caught my attention is when we're looking through some data

And someone said, did you see this video? It was a discussion about a study you did where you took some of your peers. You knew they were about to get the COVID-19 vaccine and said, hey, could I get, what was it, fecal samples? Yeah, fecal samples. So fecal samples, before you get the vaccine, then after. Tell me what it is, you know, what made you decide to even ask that question? I think in order to answer that question, you kind of have to go back to the history, my history.

Okay. So I'm a gastroenterologist, and I've been doing, you know, I was doing GI for a long time, and then GI went from GI to clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies. And then, you know, one of the bugs, which is known as Clostridium difficile, which is a bacteria that, you know, kills a lot of people. Sea diff. So we hear about it in the news a lot, yep. So C-diff was essentially killing a lot of people. I was known in the world of clinical trials as the queen of C-Div. Okay. Because pharmaceutical companies would come to me because I would recruit these patients,

try them through different clinical trials, and then when the clinical trial didn't work, I would do a procedure called fecal transplant. Fecal transplant is essentially the process of taking stools from a healthy donor. We don't extract it, they just donate. And then putting it into the colon of the person that, the person that is sick with C-DIF. So the first case, you know, and this was a movement that was started in GI, you know,

started in the 1950s. You know, Fred Einsman was the first one that did the first two cases by Enema. Okay. And that Dr. Tom Barodi, my partner, also, you know, started in the 80s doing a lot of cases. And writing the data, presenting it to the American College of Gastro and different meetings. And, you know, it caught on fire in the, with. the GI doctors because we started seeing something that was working, right? So when that was working, you know, at least, you know, even though I put patients on those clinical trials, I always knew,

well, you know what, I'm going to have the funding from the pharmaceutical company to pay for this clinical trials, right? So I felt I'm putting the patient through the clinical trial. I'm doing the trial, but then I have funds to do these fecal transplants, right? When fecal transplant became a capsule of poop. Right. I looked at the whole field and I said, okay, so we've gone, I've been doing clinical trials for pharma

for at least three decades. Yeah. We have gone from antibiotics for everything to biologics for everything. Remember, biologic started for Crohn's disease. You mera, ramekate, you hear it all over the news. And then to, unfortunately, biologics for psoriasis, for everything. So then now we're in the fecal.

material business, that's what's coming. And I said, we're literally going to be giving people fecal material in capsules, and we have no idea what we're doing, right? Right. Just sort of kind of, I mean, which ironically, as I've invested, I'm not a scientist or just a journalist, but when you really look into the very first vaccines, when you look at the first vaccine, all of it is just kind of this guessing game. Let's take this pus, slap it, oh, it looks like it works. And it's amazing how many, sometimes centuries, the science goes on. And no one really ever asked why is it working. We don't really understand the mechanism.

Yet the science is building this foundation and saying, we know everything. You actually don't know much at all, right? And this is what is really shocking, I think, to people. Exactly. And especially in the microbiome space, when you look at the microbiome, what is the microbiome? It's trillions of bugs in your bowel. Trillions. Trillions.

T, okay. around you, in the air, on your skin, in your nose, in your bowels. We only know about 10,000 bugs. But of those 10,000 bugs, we probably know about maybe 500, and that's being generous of what they do. What they actually do? What they actually do. So we have about 1% that we've identified on being generous. Okay.

And there's about a trillion. We have no idea what their names are, what they do, And this is just in the bacteria level. Wow. There's a virus level. So we've isolated a few viruses, right? Epstein Bar, HSV, CMV, J-CV. Right.

But there's a whole world of viruses out there floating around that we have no idea with names they have. Okay? Which, by the way, is one of my arguments I had with a friend that was like screaming at me because I didn't want to use the COVID vaccine. He's like, where you could finally be safe?

I was like, I don't know how you feel safety adding a 17th vaccine onto the 16 you're already taking in the face of probably millions of viruses you're doing nothing about. I don't know why that makes you feel safe, that this tiny little rice drop in an ocean has anything to do with actual health. It's kind of crazy because Barbara just tells you, get this one, and then all your problems are solved. We'll worry about the other million things we don't understand at all some other time.

And that's the problem. That's exactly why I stepped into this, right? So I went from not understanding, well, how do we fix? How did we fix C-DIF, right? How did the process? What is in the stools? Why is it working? Microbes are acting with what, right?

So I felt that, well, here's a, and at the same time, if you remember, there was a company called U-Biom that was selling stool samples to everybody, and then other stool samples. And I looked at that, and I said, well, they have a good idea. let me send some of my stools, right? Before and after, I treat C-DIF. Let me see what I see. I couldn't see anything. It was basically nothing, and it was not even reproducible. In other words, I test the stools the first time, and then the same stool sample, I get a completely different result. So when that started happening, I said, well, this field of stool testing is non-valated, non-verified and non-reproducible,

that defies science and research to begin with. Because the one thing about if you're going to do an experiment in research, you got to make sure you have the same results over and over again. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges, right? Right. So if I'm comparing your stools to mine, for example, well, we can't be compared to each other. We're from different areas.

We've eaten different foods. So when you look at these stool samples and it tells you normal, well, what's a normal? I'm a scientist. I'm a rebel. I question the narrative constantly because it's my body, right? So I need to understand. You mean to tell me that just whatever the consensus says is not where you like to live?

No. Like living in the consensus? I'm the opposite. In fact, I was probably a rebel in med school. I was a rebel in residency. Because I believe that science evolves, for one. Science changes. One day, how much, you know, in medicine we've seen.

so much, so many changes over the years, right? Dejaxon one year is great for heart disease. The next year, hold off. It's not great for heart disease, right? One treatment for a bug is important, and then the next, you know, 10 years, it's not important, right? So it all depends who is the science of the hour, the scientist of the hour that becomes, you know, popular with his narrative, right?

I mean, and this moment could be me, right? I could be saying it right or I may not be right, right? Like the disclaimer you say, right? I'm on a path to discover the microbiome. I could be right. I could be wrong. Someone might, some smart ass would be, you know, pardon my language, will probably try to disprove me, but that's fine.

I acknowledge that. I like the criticism because criticism is what allows us to look at the other side of the scenario. So from fecal transplant started seeing a lot of improvement with fecal transplant. Then started noticing that there's a lot of wrong microbiome stuff going on in that there was no validation. So I basically opened up. So it turned into like a fad, but the fad wasn't actually getting to the... The fad had no basis, none whatsoever. And so I started saying, well, I think the best way to do this to look at the microbiome is to essentially

take the microbiome at a clinical level. Let's look at what the Japanese in Japan look like versus the Japanese in America. Let's look at the vegan versus the carnivore. Let's look at what medications are doing before and after in the microbiome. And essentially, you know, this was kind of like a path for me of discovery, of asking questions and wanting to understand the question. So, you know, So my path, how did I get here? COVID hit. And it didn't, I didn't, you know, I've been doing clinical trials for pharma for 30 years practically. Yeah. Since University of Florida, my first year of GI.

And I couldn't understand why a vaccine that was so, first of all, I couldn't understand a virus that was mutating and giving it a vaccine for everyone. Right. thinking that we're going to just stop this virus, right? And then I couldn't understand why are we stopping early treatment? We should be turning off the fire. In other words, a couple of scientists have this idea. They put this idea and they turn off the fire. A couple of scientists have this idea.

They turn off the fire this way. And then that. So basically, to me, it was more important to turn off the fire quickly, save as many lives as possible, and then look back. Right. I mean, we literally, when you think of the term fire, we said in hospitals, come get tested. Right. Oh, as it turns out, the fuse is burned.

You are now on fire, but go home. You're not totally in flames and it hasn't gotten out of control. When it gets out of control and you have a forest fire in your body and, you know, it looks like you're going to lose your house, then come back here and we'll see what we can do about it. It was the most insane thing we have ever watched in a world that has always said early treatment and every single problem there is in medicine is best. We said there will be no early treatment. You can only come back here when you are in full on, you know, death. You know, defying death. So absolutely.

And so that was essentially the problem, right? Those were the red flags to me. Yeah. Those were the red flags that said, why do I? First of all, remember, I was in 2020, in March 15, 14, 15, I was writing protocols. So I was studying when COVID hit, I was still in the farm. pharmaceutical world of, hey, clinical trials, this is the way we do it, we go with the FDA. I was still doing all that, right? So my thought was, well, this is a chance to save humanity.

I'm going to step in as a clinical trial physician. And I'm going to look at what is the best protocol that I feel is the best protocol. So I had a couple of, you know, you know, running hurricanes, as I like to call them. The first thing was I told, I had. created because all these labs were non-validated that analyzed the stools, I had four years prior to that started my own lab to look at the genetics of the gut microbiome. Yeah. So I was already on this path of, let's look at the microbiome. We're heading into a world where pharmaceutical companies are going to be developing products

with fecal material. I want to know, does my fecal material patient that's coming have bipolar, disorder because then I'm swatching C diff for bipolar disorder right right so I as the consumer you know if I ever get to be the patient would like to know who is my donor right who is my donor and what does my donor have and you know and right so that's so interesting because if the body if just taking a fecal transplant fixes this one problem is it bringing over a problem that that donor might have had am I taking that on is it that I mean it's it's almost like computer programming

that in a way. It's a little bit like computer programming. I mean, it's remodulating the genetics of the microbes. Yeah. So it is a little bit. So yes, I mean, we have seen cases of, you know, first of all, we've seen cases of people dying from fecal transplant. So obviously, we were aiming to fix C-diff, and then we put in another bad virus or bacteria in there that killed those people. You know, we have seen miraculous cases, you know, when you do the analysis properly, when you look at the microbes. You said you give me one image of this allopatial it's just a sense of, imagine if your microbiome can just achieve this. Basically, this was the beginning for me. It was, you know, two cases of alopecia areata with C. diff. And we essentially, you know, fix the C. diff with a new

microbiome. But on top of that, the side effect was they grew here. All right, here we have a, I think we have the image now. Look at this, folks. Just simply by, doing, you know, this vehicle transplant, you fix the seed it, but look what happens in the hair. I mean, this is, this isn't totally shocking people who've been watching our show for many years, but if you're new to it, this is really, I think, probably the most exciting space in medicine there is. I think so. Because this idea, you know, I mean, we always hear you are what you eat. 100%.

Never has it been more true than what science is showing us right now. And I think it's really what made those two cases was really the donor, right? Okay. But we've not been, other doctors have not been able to reproduce these cases. They can't reproduce it. So what is it in the donor? So that's my question, right? What is it in the donor that allowed the microbiome to grow hair in those two patients, but not in others, right?

Right. So I had a case of Alzheimer's where the husband lost his memory and he had C-Diff, and I did. fecal transplant on him and he remembered his daughter's date of birth after six months. So this was obviously the first that made us start looking, wait a minute, if we fix the gut, maybe we can fix the brain, right? Wow. But until we get, so the problem is in medicine, people are in a rush to develop these products, right? Because it's all about the products.

Well, you know, it's not about understanding the diagnostic. We need the diagnostic. Imagine if people were bleeding. Well, where's that, is that rush from the investors or the parent companies that, look, I don't care how it works. It's working. Let's get it on the market. Somebody else will worry about that later.

Just hand it over. I mean, it's sort of what it is. Exactly that. Who cares why it works. Just get it out there. It's the story. It's the story that drives the marketing that drives the funds, that drives and the story from the hope, right? Right.

So you have a disease. You have Parkinson's. You have Alzheimer's. You want this to happen for you. Hope, hope sells. Hope sells, right. But at the same time, there is hope with, let's do meticulous science, and there is hope with, let's just put mud on the wall and expect it to stick.

Right. And the problem is if it doesn't stick, then they're going to go back and say, well, the hypothesis was wrong. There was nothing in the gut. But that doesn't mean there was nothing in the gut. It's just you rushed to the wrong microbiome implicated. You rushed the science. And that's not how science works, unfortunately. So with hope comes, you have to do things meticulously. You have to have a good diagnostic tool. And so that's what we don't have right now is a good diagnostic tool. So as we are heading into a world of putting stools into the colon of people, we are going to have complications. We're going to have complications with, you know, you swap C diff for, for, bipolar disorder because the person who is the donor, he's getting his $200 for donating poop.

He is not going to put on the questionnaire, no psychiatric problem. He's not going to put on the questionnaire, didn't travel. You know, half the kids that are donating from MIT, you know, they put on these questionnaires, never travel, never use drugs, you know, healthy. I mean, come on. Don't use alcohol. I mean, you're a college kid, okay? Don't tell me.

So that's the problem. The problem is we are trusting these questionnaires. I'm just saying this is taking something that has trillions of ingredients in it. Some of those ingredients we understand. Most we don't. You take it over. In the one hand, it had what you needed, but it could totally not have exactly what you needed or be out of balance.

Clearly, there's got to be a balanced conversation that happens here. How are they interacting with each other that's giving this result? Right. And most people don't even know what the, balance is. In fact, you know, I read data and I read papers all the time on the microbiome and I'm like, oh my God, they are so wrong. So, you know, this is the problem. We're following, you know, one science, one group of people, et cetera. So, you know, this is, unfortunately, if we don't do things meticulously, we're never going to have answers. So let's get back. COVID's sweeping,

you know, the world. Yes. And you start looking at treatment. Like I want to get involved. So what What part of the treatment conversation did you get involved in? Are there treatments that work? Yeah. So first of all, the first thing I was doing is I was treating on the front line. So remember March 15, I wrote a protocol to the FDA. And I said, and I looked at all the data. So one of the data that I saw was from Dr. DDA Raoul.

Right. Out of France. Out of France. And what impressed me with Dr. Raoul was the way that he did the studies. You know, testing the PCR on a weekly basis. And by the way, remember, it didn't come to America yet when you were already publishing his 20 patients. He was already working people falling in China.

Yeah. And I was, I speak French. So I got to read his first paper. So that was the first thing is I got to read what are other doctors doing. And also I'm in the clinical trial business. So I have about, you know, thousands of doctors that do clinical trials and that are on the front line of research. So I would make phone calls. I made phone calls to Italy.

I said, what's working there? So Italian doctors would tell me vitamin C. I'm like, oh, vitamin C. And then I made phone calls to China, Hong Kong. You know, I called some of my colleagues. And I'm like, what's working there? Vitamin D. I'm like, vitamin D.

And then I started looking at the whole zinc blocking COVID, right? And then I started, I saw the hydroxy Z-PAC and zinc from Dr. Raoul. And I said, you know, I mean, what, again, what impressed me was his, methodology of his research, but also the fact that here he was risking his life, you know, on the front line and he was still surviving. Right. And remember, I'm, so the first, the first few cases that we had of COVID. So here I am, I'm writing the protocols, ran it through the FDA.

The FDA within 24 hours said, Dr. Hayeson, moved this protocol to full on. You're allowed to run the protocol. So your protocol was what, those things you said? Hydroxy, Z-Pag, vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc. Okay, and the FDA heard that from you and said, great, we're in. Proceed. Proceed with research, proceed. I didn't even need to do a clinical trial on it.

Wow. So then within 24 hours, I'm sorry, Dr. Hayeson, we have to do a full-on clinical trial on this. So I said, okay, fine, I'm ready. So I said, well, instead of a phase one, so clinical trials, there's different phases. Okay, yeah. Phase one is like, first there's the animal studies. Right. Okay. Then there's the phase one. Then phase two, phase three, phase four sometimes, and then off the market, okay? So I said, can we skip the phase one? Because it's a safe drug. I mean, it's hydroxy and ZPAC. You know, it's not that. We use it all the time. We use hydroxy for lupus patients and ZPAC. I mean, how many people have like the cold or flu and they give ZPAC? Right. So I said, can we just move to phase two? So they allow.

Phase one, most of like the safety side. Just make sure that this is ethically safe to move forward with. Okay, got it. Safety phase. Got it. So I said, can we just go to the safety and efficacy? Now, remember, I'm still, you know, I'm still innocent the whole world of FDA and pharma and all this. And I'm thinking, I'm going to start my own pharmaceutical company, right? Right. Because I have this protocol.

I patented. That was the first thing I did because I already was treating people. So I showed. Where's Zelenko in this? Is this Zolenko ahead of you? No. So I had written the protocol. I had submitted to the FDA.

April 3rd is when it went on clinical trials.gov. So we were number three or four on clinical trials.gov. So I had two protocols. One was the prophylaxis protocol, hydroxy, two pills only, and then vitamin C and D and zinc for three months. So that was my prophylaxis idea. Why did I think two pills of hydroxychloroquine when you're exposed to someone with COVID? Because I felt, look, when you have a patient with scabies or lice, right? You're going to treat you and you're going to treat the family, right?

So the first thing is you're exposed, your wife just coughed on you and you have COVID. You take those two hydroxy. People don't realize that hydroxychloroquine stays in your system for 29 days. The half-life of hydroxychloroquine is 29 days. So therefore, to me, I felt if you're exposed, it's like I'm taking the pill. I'm covered for 29 days. Now I just got to boost my microbiome with vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc for the next three months. So that was the thought process of this protocol.

And I started recruiting all the physicians at the beginning, okay? So this was on clinical trials.gov. For those who don't know what clinical trials.gov, that is the site where every doctor who wants to know what's current, in medicine or science goes to. You want to know what is the latest treatment for acne, you go to Clinical Trials.gov. So everybody, it's the biggest platform in a way to raise awareness.

And so what did I do when I posted it on April 3rd and 4th or 4th is I sounded the alarm. I basically, in full transparency, said, this is what I believe as a pharmaceutical company, Topalia therapeutics, Topalia, the genus for Dove for Peace. Okay. I said, this is what I believe is how to prophylax yourself,

two pills if you're exposed, and then vitamin CD and zinc the rest of the pandemic. And then the treatment, hydroxy Z-pack, vitamin C, and zinc, right? So I started doing, I got approved. Then we had to go with what's called the regulatory body. IRB. So the IRB waited a month. We're in the middle of a pandemic. Yeah, there's a month. And so, and by the way, my experience with that IRB was that previously when I was doing pharmaceutical trials, I would give a protocol to the IRB within a day or a week. I would get that protocol.

Everything else he'd always done takes like a day. Yeah, everything. Suddenly they're telling us we're in a pandemic. We don't understand this thing at all. We're terrified. We need answers. 30 days are waiting to just give you approval of something that always said, it looks pretty good, go ahead. And so I had to fight every day because I was, what do you mean? We're in the middle of a pandemic. How long is it going to take? People are dying.

There's this. So I wasn't going to wait for my protocol. I was treating as a physician on the front line. And I started gathering my peers, right? And I started telling them about my protocol because I needed them to refer patients because what was happening at the beginning was we couldn't even advertise. So here we are. waited 30 days for the IRB to approve us. The IRB now says, okay, you're approved. That night,

a tweet goes off. Dr. Hazen is doing unethical trials. Dr. Hazen, five drugs in a one arm. In other words, I wasn't doing a placebo arm, right? Because the protocol was approved as a open label. Let's see if it works. Let's see if it kills people. And then let's worry about bringing on a placebo or sugar pill, right? So that tweet went off, and I really didn't pay attention to it, right? Because I said, who's paying attention to Twitter at this point? But it was sent by someone that works in public health at Oxford University that had 396 followers. So I started, and Oxford, remember, is the one that started Moderna vaccine.

Yeah. Right? So I'm following the tweet and it has 77 retweets and I'm, my name is trashed already and I'm, what's going on? And that's basically when that was sort of like the first, you know, red flag for me. Right. The next day, there's a stat news. Stat news.

Dr. Sabine Hazen, a clinical trial company, progena biome, is doing a trial without placebo on five drugs. Is this even research? What are we doing here? This is totally not research. So all the side, but that post didn't make it to mainstream media. That post made it to all the regulatory officers, the IRBs, and the FDA. That day the FDA calls me and says, Dr. Heisen, I'm sorry, we have to ask that you do a placebo control trial. Now, at the same time, you know, Zelenko was like doing his own thing. The doctors were treating. I was treating. You know, so everybody was kind of on this rumble of hydroxy and Z-PAC, right? So, and by the way, I partnered with Dr. Tom Barodi on these protocols because Dr. Barodi is the father of fecal transplant. He's the one that brought

triple therapy for H. Pylori to market. And he's done tremendous work in medicine and in GI. So I felt, you know, older physician, scientists, that all of us as gastroenterologist followed because he really led us to the world of fecal transplant. So to me, I felt like this is the most legit physician that I could be part of with this. And as I was running hydroxy, he was looking up ivermectin doxycycline. And he was telling me, Sabine, it's all about ivermectin. It's all about ivermectin. So I said, Dr. Barodi, I'm too busy right now fighting with the IRB. And at the same time, saving lives and at the same time I convinced my scientist that we needed to look at the stools for COVID. So my scientist, Dr. Papootsi, said you're never going to, it's going to cost

you close to $200,000. You're wasting your money. You're never going to find COVID in the stools. So I said, well, if I'm not looking at it, I'm not going to find it. So we basically had this little bet, him and I. And then the first thing I did, as I was writing the protocol, was also collect stools of patients with COVID. So the first patients that I was treating, one of them was like a pediatrician's or daughter had COVID, a couple of friends of mine in Malibu or in Beverly Hills. And I started collecting. I'm like, I need your stools. I need your stools. So we had the first samples, like eight or nine samples. And so we developed, we had to develop a whole pipeline to see COVID in the stools. So that was the first moment that we discovered.

COVID was in the stools, whole genome, not a small little portion, but a whole entire genome. Not one time in the stools, but thousands of times. In other words, thousands of copies of COVID in the gut. So let me just, there's this conversation going on a lot with our audience that the, it's never been isolated, that COVID was never isolated. Is that an accurate statement because it sounds like you're looking at something? Yeah, so you have to remember this virus, and now the whole data is kind of, you know, more in the open where we know it was manipulated. Yeah.

And I'm going to be upfront with that because I'm in the genetic sequencing business. In a way, and the reason there's, so you have all these older scientists or that are from an older mantra, right? Of, you know, you have to isolate the virus. you have to give it and then by reproducing it, then you know, in other words, I isolate COVID, I give it to a mouse, the mouse gets COVID, there's my experiment, that's scientific. That's what we call inside. That's the old method of doing science, right? The idea of culturing a bacteria or a virus, right?

Yeah. To therefore prove its existence. Right. We no longer have to do that now. because we are in the level of genetic sequencing. So in other words, we look at sequences, codes, DNA, RNA, then reproducing to RNA. And those sequences determine what is matched to the virus or to the bacteria. So you're able to sort of using computer technologies to get deep into this.

You can isolate, pull this out, and see an entire genetic code and say, wait a minute, we know that's coronavirus because it has all the attributes of the coronavirus. We can see where, because I'm hearing all about these incidents, we see all of those things. And what you're saying is that for you, it doesn't make sense to going back and sort of scrabia, put it in petri dish and sitting down to see if it grows or put it in a mouse. Correct. We can see, we have enough scientific evidence. We're so deep in, why go back to sort of an archaic isolation process? Yes.

Yes. So, and you have the clinical, right? In other words, you have a patient that fits the PCR, positive PCR, even though these PCRs, you know, are so the sensitivity and specificity is really poor, in my opinion. You still have a positive PCR, the same symptoms, right? Loss of smell, loss of nose, coughing, short of breath, fever, diarrhea, you know, the same symptoms. And now you also see in the stools this sequence. of the virus, right? Now, if we didn't see the sequence of the virus and we had all these symptoms,

I would say, well, you know, there's maybe, maybe there's no COVID, right? But the fact that we saw this sequence, call it whatever you want to call it, the sequence matching the symptoms, you have to put two and two together. So you see the sequence. You see if they have these symptoms. If I look for it, look, there's a sequence. If you don't have the symptoms, I don't see the sequence. So you sort of able to isolate through groups like there is these two things are going together. Correct. And it removes this whole sensitivity and specificity because this is forensic medicine. You go deep enough into the microbiome that you find. And in a way, it's in isolation. So we were the first lab in the world to use the technology to isolate the

whole genome in the stool samples. Okay. Here's your study that you got detection of stars coverage two from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. All right. And so super fascinating. You find it. You see the work that you're doing work around it. Now, the government knew about my work because I'm in contact. So remember, four years prior, I'm working with the government.

I'm trying to standardize my lab test. I'm trying to do everything by the book, right? So I work with the NIH. I work with the FDA. I work with the NIST National Institute of Standard, which basically, basically standardizes all these stuff. So I called the National Institute of Standards, and I basically said, you know why you guys need to pay attention in the stools?

Because we're finding it. And actually, China had found it by PCR, but they didn't find the whole genome sequence. So we said we found the whole genome sequencing in 100% of the positive patients, but also we're finding it in the asymptomatic. And when you take the history, you realize a week prior they had symptoms, right?

So it was all correlating. It was like, you know, basically forensic. So that's when the National Institute of Standards started looking at the septic tanks because they realized maybe that's how we tracked the virus. And that's how they started looking at the dorms and the colleges because now it gave them a new way. You set that off. You're the one that you can find it in the stools. In the stools. That was my whole platform because I felt, you know, here.

And it was so funny because you were talking about God before, you know, this whole thing has been divine intervention for me. Because it's the moment you realize you have a genetic sequencing lab, you have a clinical research company that does clinical trials, and both those things are really needed for this pandemic. And who else has both those companies except me, right? Right. And so I said to myself, that's why I kind of jumped and I knew in my gut I was going to find COVID in the stools. And so when we found COVID in the stools, that's basically we started noticing hydroxycy. chloroquine and ZPAC eradicated the virus in the stools. And so, you know, 10, 12 patients later, I said, this is the way. To be improving a mechanism. I can use this. I can show you and prove the

mechanism. So I had the diagnostic. Yeah. I had isolated, if you want to call it isolated. I had found COVID in the stools. I had found that hydroxy and ZPAC eradicated. So to me, that became my patent, right? So, and that became my, my clinical trial, right? What happened is that, and going back to the IRB, finally the IRB approved us, we get stopped by the FDA to run a placebo control trial. So I convinced the FDA to let me do the trial and the placebo was going to be high dosages of vitamins. So basically, and I had to make my own vitamins. So I called a pharmacist in Beverly Hills and I said, formula, I need a formula. I cannot have, the capsule needs to be vegetable and needs.

to be pure vitamin C, pure vitamin D, zinc. Because I need to give all these patients my vitamins that are in the clinical trial. I can't have them buy vitamins at CVS, Walmart. So let me get this straight. To isolate hydroxy chloroquine, you gave just the vitamin part? Is that what you're doing?

No, I gave hydroxy Z-Pack and vitamin C-D and zinc. Okay. But the hydroxy Z-Pack killed the virus. Right. The vitamin C-D and zinc, what we discovered, as, you know, we were testing patients with vitamin C on their own, vitamin D. It actually increased a bacteria called bithidobacteria.

Okay. So that's where my path took me. So, but before I get to that, because I know I tend to be a bit hurricane in. That's all right. The IRB finally approved us. The FDA stopped us. IRB stops us again. And then the IRB comes back and says, I'm so sorry, Dr. Hazen.

So this is May. They're like, I'm so sorry, Dr. Hazen, but we can't do your trial. you're going to have to find another regulatory board. That regulatory board was hired by Moderna to run their clinical trial. Okay? So while they said that I'm finding another IRB, and I'm trying to find someone that's preferably independent, small, boutique, it's not very easy in the middle of a pandemic.

And I found someone, and then within a week they approved the protocol. That week, or within that week, that's when, as I was open for enrollment, ready with my protocol. And remember, I'm in the clinical trial business. I know how to recruit patients. You know, I have my ways, you know, from search engine optimization to everything, right, to get patients. I could not recruit one patient in that clinical trial because they already, the lobbyist used, you know, they used Trump to create chaos within my protocol. So here you have Zolanko talking about hydroxychloroquine in hope.

to save people. And I didn't really say anything back then to say, hey, it's my protocol, my patent, because I felt, you know, he's saving lives. That's what he's supposed to do. He's going to do what he's going to do. You know, the guy had terminal lung cancer. Yeah.

And he was fighting this for humanity. So I said, this is his platform. This is his time, right? From Zelenco, you know, the Trump, I was shocked because I live in Malibu. I'm trying to recruit in Malibu, my colleagues. And, you know, nobody wanted to, they called it the Trump.

drug. So that protocol was destroyed. We couldn't even, we could not even post an ad that is approved by the IRB on Facebook or Instagram. In fact, I'm banned from Facebook and Instagram on all my pages. You know, I have like LA clinical trials, Ventura clinical trials. I mean, I have a lot of clinical trials pages to recruit these patients. None of them we could advertise. So that's when I started seeing the power of lobbying in... in America, right? And, and the Moderna vaccine lobbyist, the Pfizer, Moderna, probably Johnson and Johnson, all just go in and really just put pressure on these IRBs and the entire system to not let any other product. Now, and I've said this in many talks because I think the motivation is the emergency

use authorization says you're not going to be able to rush the vaccine product out, you know, because rush it through its trials. If there's any other product that works, they can't have any other product work. Well, if they had a product work, they would not be able to advance the protocol. Right. So they would not be able to advance the vaccines. Right. So I knew at that point, well, I'm kind of stuck with hydroxy. I'm not going to, you know, and I was treating people with it, and I was still looking at the stools, right? Because science is an evolving, you know, a tool or an evolving field, rather. And so in July, because I could, I was stuck, I mean, you know, recruiting, Dr. Barodi said, why don't we move to Ivermectin doxycycidon?

So that was July 2020. So July 2020, I started rewriting another protocol. And remember, these protocols are like 300 pages, you know, and you have to write a consent. And you have to, you know, it's a whole team 24-7, just rewriting, correcting. And then we have to resubmit it to the FDA, fight with the FDA to get it approved, then get the IRB to approve it. So we started in July. We got approved end of August for Ivermectin doxycycycycy.

Zinc, and vitamin C and vitamin D, because I believe that vitamin C and vitamin D and zinc is huge in treatment, prophylaxing, improving your bifidobacteria, improving your gut. So to me, that was the basis. And then so what happened was, you know, we passed through the IRB, no problem. We started, and then, you know, my friends and colleagues, remember back then, so it was Peter McCalla was on the hydroxy pan. Yeah. And Pierre Corey was on the Ivermectin.

Yeah. So I basically called Pierre, and I'm like, Pierre, dude, there's a role for hydroxychloroquine, too. And, you know, Ivermectin is not just on its own. It's got to have other drugs. So I basically connected those two because I said, we're at war here, okay? Obviously, we're, so somewhere along the line, and I told Dr. Barodi this. I said, look, I'm going to put these protocols to go on. but I'm telling you there's going to be another movement to kill Ivermectin.

And I was right because, and that really ticked me when I saw that because it was Seth, Sef Myers, the comedian. Yeah. Yeah. Posted, oh, a horse pace. And the whole time I'm like, why is a comedian talking about Ivermectin? He doesn't even understand. It's a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria.

that is similar to bifidobacteria. You know, so to me, this whole thing, like, just little by little, I just, you know, my fumes started going on in this pandemic because here I have treated everyone. No one died on my shift. No one. I mean, we're talking about, you know, officials, politicians, celebrities. I mean, I'd be on the front cover.

You know, I'm a Malibu physician. Right. So, and of course nobody's talking because they don't want to talk about hydroxychloroquine and they don't want to be political because their show is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, right? So I was stuck in this little thing, right? Of here I am doing the research,

here I'm doing the clinical trials. I saw what was happening to my colleagues, right? The defamed, the defamation, the physicians. I'm still sitting here thinking you didn't get sort of that free negative advertising, which these guys did. I mean, that's when I started looking, we started talking. Like, wait a minute.

You know all these guys. You're in the middle of it. In fact, you're in the lab doing the most important work, which is you can prove this. Right. Yeah. And actually, you know, I tried to stay under the radar. You did a pretty good job. Guys.

Yeah. Thank you. I think I was trying to stay under the radar, but I think there's also a huge force trying to keep me under the radar because, let's face it. I mean, you know, I've done over 300 clinical trials for pharma. So, you know, there's a lot of trials. in my storage facility that we have to store for 25 years. So, you know, I'm the person that basically brought drugs to market, right?

So I'm, I'm, you know, in bed with, you know, the evil side, right? But unfortunately, there is, you know, and I'm not going to trash pharma because pharma does do a good job, some pharma. But what we've seen in this pandemic is a rush of products, a rush of vaccination of everyone. and not proper research. Yeah. Okay? Because proper research would have been, let's do the animal.

I understand rushing and you're panicking and you're, you know, you're this, you know, housewife that's 300 pounds and you're afraid of COVID killing you. And you want a vaccine. I get it. Okay. But at the same time, why didn't we continue the animal studies? Why didn't we continue looking at the genetics? Right.

Is the vaccine affecting the genetics? Is it affecting the P-503? We have the technology before and after, you could look at the P53 and see, did it affect it? Did that spike? What is P53? P53 is basically a marker that we test for cancer. Okay. So, you know, we have the technology.

If we have a hypothesis and we say, well, these vaccines are causing cancer, right? Well, we can look at it and say, is it causing cancer, right? So basically, as all these protocols were going, I was doing it the right way with the FDA watching, with the FDA coming to my office. And at the same time, I was also running other protocols, you know, autism, fecal transplant. I was running, you know, other protocols for pharmaceutical companies at the same time. So to me, because my whole attitude of why I stayed in clinical trials is because I am one of those doctors that is actually, has an oversight. PI oversight is what I am.

So in other words, if a pharmaceutical company comes to me and says, we want you to investigate this product, no problem. But if the product has a side effect, I'm going to be making the phone call to the FDA and saying, this is a side effect. I'm not going to hush it and close it under the, you know, I'm not going to put it under the table. I'm going to report it.

Because that's what's called vigilance in research and in medicine. So that's why I stayed. independent. People have wanted to buy my research center to own me. I never wanted to. I, you know, I want to do research the right way because at some point I'm going to be the patient, right? I'm going to be the patient that's going to be taking that drug and I'm going to be the patient that's going to be needing that drug. So we really need research to be done properly, ethically, and not, you know, mess it up because of a price of a stock. Because that's what it's all about. So then, you know, so Ivermectin is getting killed, hydroxyglorequine, you can't get your trials on the way you want.

So you decide, well, hold on a second. Here comes the vaccine. Now the vaccine's coming out. Your friends decide, you know, most of medicine is going to jump in. And so you said, can I test your, can I get some fecal samples ahead of time and after? What did you think you were looking for? What was it that you want? I honestly didn't know what I was looking for, right?

I, you know, I knew what the microbiome looked like, you know, before COVID. I knew that in kids, babies, especially, they had a lot of this bacteria called bifidobacteria. Yeah. I knew that, you know, the probiotic industry, if you turn around the bottle and the label, it says bifidobacteria. It's very important. So, you know, that was basically bithidobacteria was very important, right? So the first thing I started looking at is what is the microbiome of people that have severe co-victure? versus people that have been exposed to COVID

and never had COVID. Okay, so an example, a farmer. A farmer, his wife had COVID. He never had COVID. He took her saliva, smeared it on his face, and we did a YouTube video together, by the way. The YouTube was removed in the last couple weeks. And all we were talking about is farming

and how it's similar to the microbiome, how the micro, we learned so much about the microbiome from farming, you know, fertilizers, poop, etc. So we were talking about... Because it's the biome itself. Yes, the biome. Right. That's...

When you use a fertilizer, it's the poop of the cow. Right. That's your microbiome, right? So we were talking about just all those things, right? And one of the things that he said, he said that to me. So on that video, that was in 2020, I think, 2021. He said to me, he never got it. So the first thing I said is, Matt, on YouTube, I said, Matt, can I have your stools?

And can I have your wife's stools? So what did I realize with Matt is what I realized with the, I did a study of 70 patients, 43 had severe COVID and 20 had exposure to COVID. and a couple like 10 had or 10 to 20, I can remember, but it was 72 patients altogether. And basically what happened was the asymptomatic had bifidobacteria. The symptomatic had zero bifidobacteria. They exposed had a lot of bifidobacteria.

But they also had another bacteria called fascinobacterin-prets-neetsi, which we don't hear too much about it because it's not a pharmaceutical or probiotic. But this is another bacteria that actually is in the colon of people. Some people have a lot of it. Some don't have a lot of it. So those people that were severe with COVID had zero facelobacterium, zero bifidobacteria, high bacteriaries, which is a bacteria that's like not necessarily a good bacteria, if it's out of balance.

And then loss of diversity. In other words, their microbiome was eaten by some. something, right? So the hypothesis became, did the virus cause the dysbiosis, the imbalance, the killing of these microbes? Or did the killing of these microbes occur because of the fact that the patient started off with a messed up microbiome? You know, you think of your patient that took antibiotics for tooth and then all of a sudden, you know, gets COVID. Or the person that's, like, drinking heavily and the next day gets COVID, right? He was in a big crowd, drank heavily.

Did he kill his microbiome and therefore was he exposed to COVID? So that was really the beginning, right? That showed me this is what I may be looking at in my colleagues with the vaccine. So I really wasn't looking at, hey, let me pinpoint the bifidobacteria specifically. I was just seeing what is a severe... There's a pattern you're seeing. Yeah, I'm seeing a pattern with severe COVID. I'm seeing a pattern with highly exposed COVID patients.

And then let me see. I didn't even know. And honestly, you know, I wasn't, you know, I was not convinced of this vaccine from the beginning because of the fact that I saw the mutations. Remember, those eight patients, they were all different. They all had a different mutation. So some people had like four spike mutations. Some people had three. Some people had one.

So, you know, there's different combinations. And as you see the progression of this virus, you see it that has one head, one body, one tail, and then you start seeing it with like 10 heads, 10 bodies, 10 tails, and then 20, 33. So there's multiple combinations to this virus. So when you get a vaccine, and I'm giving you a spike protein, right, they try to mimic that original spike protein from Wuhan, right? The one head, one body, one tail, and now it's already got 20 head. The one body, the spike, right? So now we're at 33 spikes, but there's different mutations. So you're going to put 33 spikes? It doesn't make sense. So you're always catching

your tail trying to beat up this virus. So to me, the idea was build up the microbiome, right? Let's look at the microbiome. So as I was stopped, you know, from recruiting and, you know, and also I was, wasn't doing too much clinical trials. I had a lot of time, well, sort of. I do a lot more than most people do in one day. So I basically, I can get that. I get that. So for me, it was like, okay, hurricane mode, let's get stools. So I started collecting stools from my colleagues, and, you know, and people would come to me and say, hey, I heard you're doing a trial on looking at the vaccine before and after. And I'd like to make sure that I know what my baseline microbiome looks like before. I get vaccinated, right, because we don't know what's in the shot and, you know, is there

contamination? We don't know, right? There was so much we didn't know. So I basically, you know, I accumulated like four samples. And one thing that I noticed was the bithidobacteria, which is this important billion dollar industry drops by 50 percent and some of them dropped to zero. After vaccination, after this vaccine. So then I said, okay, well, let me look at more people, right? And then we looked at 34 patients and we noticed that indeed the bifidobacteria dropped. What was interesting is I didn't lose track of these patients, right? I basically said, okay, well, let me keep looking, right? Now, remember, all these stool samples are expensive.

So I collected the stools to say, okay, well, let me continue looking, right? And what we discovered is that 90 days, right, into the virus, into the vaccine, The bifidobacteria dropped from like, you know, if you were at a million, a million reeds, for example, or relative abundance of maybe 5% to zero in 90 days. The damage kept on persisting. Wow. So basically, and that's what you're seeing, you know, and that's 90 days. So you saw a drop.

Nine months later. Wow. So you saw a drop up front just, but a serious drop over time. It's getting worse. It wasn't correcting itself. And in fact, what you saw with that paper, with that was were four patients and one of them was actually taking vitamins so we thought well it's probably skewing that's probably why he went up and he was doing probiotics etc but then even though

he was on the probiotics and the vitamins and everything his bifidobacteria still dropped so this is why i didn't really change anything in those patients you know i didn't change before and after because i wanted to see i said i want you to do the same diet i want you to say do the same if you're taking probiotics, if you're taking vitamins, just stick to the same program because I just want to see what the vaccine is doing by itself. And then what happened is, as I was seeing that, you know, there was a little girl, and I'm not going to say her name, but paraplegic vaccine injured, who everybody that listens to your podcast knows, you know, came to me and I decided, let me look at her microbiome, right? So I looked at her microbiome and her brother who had gotten the placebo.

Now, remember, kids have a lot of bifidobacteria, okay? This kid had zero bifidobacteria. Her brother, who was basically got the placebo. In trial, but in the placebo group, had a lot of bifidobacteria. So here's in the same family, the kid that's paraplegic that got the vaccine got zero bifidobacteria. And here's this. I had someone I know recently. This is why it really actually got my interest that got the vaccine.

And then I would say weeks, if not a month or so later, told me, oh, my God, I got the worst food poisoning of my life. I had to go to the hospital. I almost died. I've never seen anything like it. I think I got a piece of bad meat or something like that. And it just didn't really, there's something about it. And it lingered, right?

Yeah, and they're really struggling to get back to feeling healthy again. Yes. Is that, would that be sort of what we would see if you lost your bifida bacteria? Yeah, that's the trend, right? That's what we're seeing. So I started seeing, so Dr. Denise Hertz, who's been very, you know, she's a gastroenterologist has treated tons of celebrities, a prominent gastroenterologist, got vaccinated, and herself became debilitated after the vaccine.

And she speaks about it. And I tested her tools because she actually came to me from a neurologist that said, Hey, Sabine, I know. And by the way, all my colleagues thought I was crazy at the beginning because they're like, look, you're becoming an antivaxor. And I'm like, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I put these trials to market, right? I want to see the science. I want to see the data. It's not being an antivaxor to ask questions and to defy the narrative. It's not. Anyways, all these doctors now believe me because guess what? They've seen CMV encephalitis. They've seen, you know, herpes encephalitis. They've seen increase in part.

Parkinson's increase in Alzheimer's, they can't explain it. So this doctor came to me, and by the way, Dr. Denise Hertz is one of the most ethical, righteous physician and we're very respected in the community of physicians, okay? And she came to me and was debilitated. I tested her microbiome, zero bifidobacteria. And let me just say, from there, we started doing, her and I started like increasing the awareness because I'm not afraid to speak. I'm not afraid for full transparency, everything about my life.

I'm on Twitter every day. I even say what I'm eating. Is this the first time it's been done? Just because I know that this is something, this gut biome thing has come up in the work that I've done. People looking at autism, we've seen the fecal transplants there. And no, you've been involved in some of that. But we really haven't ever looked at this element of what are vaccines. And I would guess drugs, do you think that as we move forward, it seems to me good science,

especially as we're realizing how important this gut biome is that a part of safety trials and efficacy trials. trial should be testing stool samples before and after a product? 100%. And not only before and after, but like nine months, a year, we want to know, right? Same thing with antibiotics. Yes, we understand antibiotics kills strep pneumonia that you have because strep pneumonia is going to kill you at this moment. But is the antibiotic killing the rest of your microbiome, and therefore are you going to have

a bigger problem down the road, right? Think about going back when we were doing antibiotics for everything, right? Then C-DIF started popping up. And then we had to do fecal transplant. It was no longer a pill to fix. It was taking stools from a healthy donor. What happens when you can no longer count on the healthy donors? And that's why, by the way, I started looking at it.

And imagine if you just were the vaccine wiped out ever, like, we could see that entire population. And that was the mistake. And that's why I stood up is because we are not equal in our microbiome. some of us have a resilient microbiome, right? You think of the person that survives COVID and never got COVID, the whole pandemic. Resilience, right? You think of the person that got vaccinated five times and never got a side effect from the vaccine. Resilience.

So resilience is an important thing that we need to protect, to preserve, because the resilient ones are going to be the ones helping the non-resilient. So if there is something to this, you know, science of mind that I'm directing and we're killing the microbiome, well, you have no hope for Alzheimer's. You have no hope for Parkinson's or autism if you're demolishing the entire microbiome of humanity and also globalizing. What gives us the, what makes us believe that we can just have a pill that fits all of us? Crazy. Right? I mean, Africans have a different microbiome. They're in the jungle.

You give an antibiotic to that African, you wipe out his whole diversity of the microbiome. You know, you give an antibiotic or now what I'm showing, a messenger RNA to the Amazon jungle. They can't survive. They've adapted to living in the jungle because of their microbiome. So once you change that microbiome and you make them like city folks, they will not survive, you know? one little microbe that's in the earth. So fascinating. We're really, we've gotten really deep into this and I want to have you back on.

But I do, you show me an image and it's in sort of a different space, but I want to share it just to sort of close this out because it really gives a good visual. This is super interesting. Well, this is my fecal transplant. So this is the case of fecal transplant. The first column is the child with a bacteria we've identified as lactobacillus animalis. So that giant blue is just one. One big microbe just taking over.

Taking over everything. Totally out of balance. Totally out of balance. He came to my office, kicking his head, breaking his teeth. The parents, each one of them were taking turns at staying up all night to stay with him because he could not sleep. He had like a huge amount of proteobacteria, which are not necessarily good microbes. The second column is his sister's microbiome. Now, you could see she's a neurotypical child that is diverse, amazing. And then after that, after transplant, the kid matches his sister. And what did you transplant with? You take the six.

His stools, her stools, gave it to her brother who's out of balance. By a home o'anoscopy. And the third one, what happens to that biome? We get that blue under control. And then after and continuing, and you could see he started with a Shannon index of 2.2,

which is essentially a loss of diversity. And then he went up to 6.2. And I'm happy to say last week, he went with a girl to prom. Wow. So this kid is sleeping. He's doing amazing. So there is hope, but we cannot kill the diverse microbiome,

and we got to understand what is killing the microbiome, you know, and especially in this messenger RNA vaccines that are developing. So is the spike protein triggering other viruses and therefore killing the microbiome, possibly? Well, I look forward to seeing more of your work. I want to thank you for taking the time. Thank you. So incredibly fascinating. Anything we can do to help, you know, if you ever need funding or help or support,

That's what we're here for. Thank you. Yes, we're trying to look at the microbiome of newborns, a vaccinated mom versus non-vaccinated. So, please. Do you have a found, how do we follow what you're doing, have a foundation or any way? Yeah, the microbiome research foundation. The microbiome research foundation. The microbiome research foundation.

There we go. Microbiome Research Foundation.org, folks, I think we need to get involved in this process. And you can even sign up for clinical trials. You can sign up for clinical trials. We basically, on progena biome, We have a bunch. We put your name on a list and as we get funds. And as we need patients, you know, we're doing Parkinson's right now.

We're looking at the microbiome of Parkinson's. Wow. And then from there, we're going to do animal studies to see if those microbes are real and create a mouse model for Parkinson's. So a lot of exciting things. I'm working with Dr. Adams. We're trying to develop an assay for autism so we could prevent autism, but also try to treat it by what you saw with the technology.

So, you know, there is hope in the future. I think we cannot censor. I was very disappointed to see that one of my papers on Frontiers, I found out Frontiers Journal is a predatory journal. I published the paper. It was a hypothesis on why Ivermectin works. Yeah, we have that. I think we could pop that up really quick.

Yeah, and that was. And you said it's a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis. Ofvermecting affecting the biome, Microbiome, Biobion-based hypothesis on Ivermectin's mechanism

in COVID-19. Ivermectin feeds might bifida bacteria to boost immunity. It says right there it's a hypothesis. Why would you get pulled the whole idea is let's start

a discussion. Anyone else want to jump in and take a look at this. You know, science is about prove me wrong or prove me right. Now it's about

censor you, shut it down, burn it, make sure no one ever sees it again. And by the way, I send that a hypothesis to every physician

I know in academia so they could see what's going on in medical field. So I'm not going to led this slide. Amazing. You are a superhero. Thank you. It's really great to finally have you in studio. We look forward to seeing more of the great work that you're doing. When we, you know, look at this entire cover-up and who was involved and think of the media, how you watch, you know,

Seth Myers, what is a comedian doing saying things that is destroying studies that are trying to be done? Yes, Seth, you had that about a power. Maybe we put you on the list that got people killed when we look back historically at this whole thing. But somebody took Tassie. with the BBC, someone you might know on almost exactly this issue. Take a look at this. You've changed the COVID misinformation. Has BBC changes COVID misinformation? The BBC does not set the rules on Twitter, so I'm asking you. No, I'm talking about the BBC's misinformation about COVID. I'm literally asking you about you change the labels, the COVID misinformation labels.

There used to be a policy and then disappeared. Why do that? COVID is no longer an issue. Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking and side effects of vaccinations and not reporting on that at all? And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change the editorial policy? Are you aware of that? This is not an interview about the BBC. it wasn't. I see now why you've done Twitter spaces. I am not a representative of the BBC's editorial policy. I want to make that clear. Let's talk about something else. We want to talk about the BBC.

All right, let's let's talk about something else. First of all, I just want to say, Elon, you're on my bucket list, man. I'm here in Austin. If you ever find yourself sweeping through town, we would love to have a conversation with you. I've got some serious questions about a lot of what you're doing, but also So excited about, I think you've been one of the biggest news stories, but here at the Highwire, we've gotten so much of this right. We didn't listen to the mainstream. No one was pressuring us because we don't have sponsors. I'd love to have a conversation with you about how we all move forward in this really

dangerous and precarious world. You have such an interesting voice and you're just one of those people, I think, would be fascinating to have here. So next time you're in Austin, won't you give us a call? All right. Look, this is the High Wire. We are so excited about what we do here. I am so thankful that I'm a part of this network, this growing body of people.

That's you out there that are actually making a difference in the world, that are actually stepping up and doing something, standing for science, standing for medicine, standing for freedom. And it doesn't matter if you're a mother or you're one of the great, you know, microbiome specialists in the world. We all have a job to do right now. Our children, the future of this species is dependent on all of us breathing, right? right now. If you're watching the high wire, that means you. That means everyone you know. How many world changes are out there that just don't really know the truth yet because they're not looking

the right place. Please show the high wire and get them focused in the right place so that we can inspire them because we need them, that specialty, that thing they do that makes us all unique. We're all God's creatures. We are all a part of something so important. We are watching the world clothes in on us, the liars, the thieves, the moneyed interests, they're trying to rob our world from us and make decisions that could wipe out everything that makes us healthy, everything that makes us free. It has never been a more important time to be alive. There's never been a more fantastic and special time to be a human being. Celebrate what we're in right now. No human beings ever been needed more than you are needed right now. At least that's what I say.

think. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing on the high wire and I'll see you next week.