The Highwire with Del Bigtree - JOHN OLIVER RECYCLES GARBAGE VACCINE MISINFORMATION

Episode Date: August 14, 2024

HBO funnyman and vaccine shill, John Oliver, made another attempt this week on his show to amplify the mainstream vaccine safety narrative, citing the same studies he referred to in a similar segment on his show in 2017. Del once again destroys his stale, recycled misinformation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We talk a lot about winning here because we're getting really good at it on the high wire. I've been bragging for many weeks now at all the incredible advancements we've had in disseminating truth and the ability to give out truth. And the reaction by those that have been lying to us for a long time as being the ultimate proof of our truth. Well, this week, a gallop poll was done, again, looking at the United States of America to just see how deep is the truth at the high. wire is sharing. Of course, it didn't mention our name, but it did mention one of our number one topics. This is what the headline was. Far fewer in U.S. regard childhood vaccinations as important. This is an article by Gallup, and this is what it went on to say. Americans are now much less likely than in the past to say the government should require children to be vaccinated against

contagious diseases such as measles. 51% now hold this view. meaning 51% believe that the government should require to have them. That's down from 62% in 2019. The question was also asked in a 1991 poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which found at that point, 81% were in favor of vaccine requirements at that time. So just since 2019, basically look at what COVID did. It dropped it down. I've been saying that on this show, that I believe that 50% of America,

roughly, I guess I was off by one percentage point, but 50% of America are now questioning this vaccine program for many reasons, especially when they watch the debacle of COVID, a rushed vaccine that was never tested for safety. They put it out in front of their own eyes and mandated it just like they do all the childhood vaccines, which freaked a lot of people out. And thus sort of caused this issue. There's the, I guess that's the childhood CDC vaccine schedule. You can see the list of all of the vaccines we give our kids.

Can you imagine if as adult you had to go back in to the doctor to get forced to get all of those? That's the dream, by the way. Right there, that's the dream of the most powerful lobby in Washington is to line you up. Yes, you, all the adults in the room watching this right now. If you think they think you're done with your vaccinations, trust me, you're due for the same amount. Your kids are getting up until 18. You need them all over again. So imagine 72 vaccines for users as an adult.

How long is it going to take them to convince you that you've been dying all this time because you didn't get them? That's right. It'd take a really long time. It'd be like, I've been doing just fine. I don't know what are we talking about. It's about the same thing that's true for our children. But as I pointed out last week, we have been winning so much that now they're sending out scientists, Dr. Paul Offutt, tried to defend the vaccine, saying, of course, we can't do the proper safety trials because there's just no way to do them. and I pointed out what that was all about last week.

But when the scientists don't work, what the industry likes to do is it likes to go to its highest-paid shills. Sometimes that's even a comedian. And that's what happened this week. This week they rolled out none other than the vaccine shill John Oliver to give his diatribe and tropes on vaccine safety and how amazing they are. Now, if you're not aware of this, John Oliver did this exact same segment all the way back in 2017.

It was an absolute and total repeat, almost no new information. And for those of you that have been watching just recently, that's actually the episode that put me on the map. We went and refuted every single statement he made in about a 30-minute piece that he did. It took us, I think, almost like an hour and a half to get all the way through it.

I'll play that. I think sometime we'll do a replay of that because it's amazing to sit and watch. how accurate we were and how he apparently hasn't, you know, gotten any of the information. But just for a flashback of just what it felt like to be talking about the episode he did back in 2017, this is what that looked like. And even when it comes to other serious side effects, like a severe allergic reaction, it is literally, according to the CDC, close to one in a million.

All right. One in a million people are injured by vaccines. That's what the CDC website says, so I can't blame you, John, for getting this wrong. But that's actually a complete and total lie. We are not having one in a mentally injuries, and I'll tell you how I know that. We have a national surveillance system called VERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system. Essentially, this is a system where every doctor that sees their patient injured by a vaccine, they have to log into VERS and report that injury. Well, just last year, 2016, we have that VERS report. And what we find out when we look at this VAERS report is that there were 59,117 reported injuries from vaccines in just last year alone.

432 of them were deaths, 109,000 permanent disabilities, and over a million visits to the emergency room all because of vaccines. It gets worse, John, a lot worse, because health and human services, this is the government agency that oversees all of our health departments. including FDA, CDC, NIH, they're the big Kahuna. And what they investigated and reported was that 1%, only 1% of the vaccine injuries are actually being reported to VERS. Doctors aren't doing what they're supposed to. They did a study and found that out. So only 1% are being reported to VARS.

So that means, based on the HHS's stats, that we could potentially have had over 5 million injuries, reported last year had everyone done their job. So does that mean there's five million, million people in the United States of America? I don't even know how many zeros that is. Is that like a gazillion? It's just, hey, is there such a word as a gazillion? I don't know. But you get my point. It's a huge amount of injury, not one in a million. That show was a real hit. It's probably partly why we can afford a better screen behind us now. And I was even able to afford a haircut since then. It's fun to, you know, look back.

And, you know, sometime we'll go through that show because at that point, I had no teleprompter, no way of seeing it, no way of knowing where we were going. And there was like 20 different things that were refuting. And I was trying to pull up the science and the team. And that was episode number 13. I mean, we'd only been at this for, I guess, like four months or three or four months, something like that. So it was brand new to us, but a very effective show. But not effective enough to obviously have gotten through the John Oliver, which, by the way, We had Aaron Siri, our lawyer, all the way back then that was helping us, you know, sue the government and we were just getting started.

But we sent the legal letters showing all the things he got wrong, especially that one in a million, which he even touted once again this week, as though it's just one in a million, which is just as about a moronic a statement as it can be made. And that's why I really love it when people like John Oliver do pieces like this, because they're really making a time capsule. John Oliver once again has put himself in a time capsule so that the future of, you know, human beings will look back and say, what an idiot. When the entire world was waking up to what was going on, when the science was collapsing all around them, this moron still went out and stated facts that no longer are facts anymore and don't exist. Same facts we debunk back in 2017 with a couple of new ones. But just to get a sense of what it felt like this time, here are some of the tropes that he fired out on John Ovalor on HBO. Take a look at this.

Not only have vaccines already held to a higher safety standard than other medications, thousands of studies have found that they're safe and effective, including a systematic review of over 160 studies on vaccine safety that found any serious adverse reactions were extremely rare. You could also look at this study of over 650,000 children born in Denmark, some vaccinated, some not, which concludes that the MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, or this meta review of 10 studies involving over 1 and quarter million children, which also revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism.

There are so many examples like this. And it's why experts will tell you that a person's chance of having a bad reaction to a vaccine is about one in a million. As one expert we spoke to pointed out, given that we have over 40,000 deaths by car accident in the US per year. the most dangerous aspect of vaccinating children is driving to the doctor's office to get them. Especially, by the way, if your kids are singing Baby Shark the whole time,

because that will make you drive off a f*** cliff. I think John Oliver's piece is going to make any one of us drive off an effing cliff. But, you know, let's just look at the statements he's making. Once again, and I've done this every week, and I'm going to use some repetition because your television stations are doing this to you all the time. He keeps saying that it's inaccurate to say that vaccines were not properly tested prior to licensure,

which is just simply now been absolutely proven. One of the most famous graphics online is one that we made. It's being used all the time. It's this one. We show absolutely this is the list of all the vaccines with the inserts that arrive with every vaccine. So in their own words, describing that they never do a placebo study on any of the vaccines. You can grab that bitly right there or just take a shout of that QR code if you want to hand this document, which is absolutely irrefutable, that there was never a long-term placebo trial for any of the childhood vaccines prior to licensure and explains exactly where we got that information in their own vaccine insert. But it's gone so much further than that now.

instead of us just having the evidence in their own writing, now we have literally the godfather of the vaccination program, which I told you last week. The largest textbook on vaccinations is written by Stanley Plotkin. It's Plotkin's vaccines. That's the name of it. That's how important he is. If you're going to talk about vaccines, Stanley Plotkin is the guy. And, you know, John, I don't know how you missed the news because we've been saying this for over a month now. This paper came out from Stanley Plotkin.

Under all the pressure asking, are we properly testing these vaccines? This is what he went on to say, funding post authorization vaccine safety site. Now look at that title. What this whole article is about is after the vaccines have already been released to the public, we need funding. I'm asking for funding so that we can actually study safety of vaccine products. So that mountain of evidence, like all the thousands of studies that John Oliver has tried to convince you exist, He's telling you, we would actually need funding to do those, John.

We would need funding for that. Here's what the article goes on to say. However, the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use. There it is. He's not even trying to, there's nothing unequivocal. I mean, he's not equivocated.

He's not saying, look, we do some studies. He's telling you our traditional method is we assume safety. And the only studies done on safety are after it's been authorized and injected into all of you. You're literally walking test subjects. All right? So if that's not problematic enough, the public also wants the public authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse reactions. Oh, well, how ridiculous that we want that, which no longer seem rare. They don't seem rare anymore.

They don't seem like one in a million when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people. Well, it goes on to say when it comes to post authorization, it is critical to examine adverse events following immunization. No kidding. That have not been detected in clinical trials which weren't designed, as he just told you to ever find a problem, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccinations. We would need to do studies. But how are those studies going? Well, progress in vaccine safety science has understandably been slow.

Really? It's not understandable to John Oliver, often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate. So all the things that John Oliver, and I'll explain some of it, why it's inagicuit, to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete, which has adversely affected vaccine. All of our studies are bull crap, is what he's saying. They're not well done. We have no funding.

They're not big enough. We can't make a causal determination. Is there one more paragraph to this? Here we go. And currently in the United States, right now, as we exist in 2024, when the advisory committee on immunization practices recommends a new routine vaccine, it was never tested, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccination procurement, meaning.

buying them. We buy them to make sure that they're sold. And for the vaccine injury compensation program to pay you if you end up in the vaccine court. Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no zero zip nada resources earmarked for post authorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which is zero zip nada, which must be approved by Congress each year and they've never even thought to do it, John. So I don't know what you think you're pointing to there, but it's a giant pile of rubbish put out by a totally corrupt agency called the CDC. And I'm glad that you're down on video because I'm being proven right on a daily and yearly basis.

And slowly but surely you are going off the edge as being one of the largest buffoons to ever cross a television set. But let's get into a few of the details too, because he doesn't just stop the fact that it was properly safety tested, which now the leading authority in the world is telling you that never happened. He gets into autism and the Danish study. This is probably the newest piece of information he brought out, and we've talked about a lot on the show.

This is March 15, 2019, and he talks about how this study proves that MMR doesn't cause autism. All right. First of all, there are tons of studies done by totally independent researchers that show a causal or at least a strong correlation between MMR vaccine and other vaccines and the use of vaccines in autism. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the pharma-funded studies that prove that their own products are safe, which is what this is. This is an MMR study. And if you were going to try and create a study to exonerate your product and hide any problem you would want to hide, let me tell you how you do it when it comes to autism. I call it the Jack Daniels study and let me explain why.

Here's what they do. What they do is they take a large group of children that were all vaccinated. In fact, everyone in this study was vaccinated. And they grabbed the hundreds of thousands that received every single vaccination. vaccine there was except for MMR. And then they grabbed the group they got all of the vaccines plus MMR. And then they compare those two groups and they say the amount of autism is relatively the same.

It actually was a little bit lower in the group that didn't get the MMR, but not significantly significant. All right, it wasn't significant enough. But why I call this the Jack Daniels study is this. I could prove to you that Jack Daniels does not cause intoxication. And here's how I do it. I have a group of people that take 10 shots of vodka. And then I take a group of people that get 10 shots of vodka plus a shot of Jack Daniels.

Then I put them all in cars and I send them out on a track. And guess what? About the same amount of people had car accidents. Therefore, if the group that only got the vodka shots had car accidents, and so did the ones that also had the Jack Daniels, they mitigate each other, and Jack Daniels doesn't cause intoxication. That is how this study was done in Denmark. And the reason this study makes no sense, and I'm amazed any scientist has ever touted it, is the only way this study would work is you have to prove that all the other vaccines you're giving your kids don't cause autism, because that's your control group. Your control group was all of the other vaccines, all of them stacked together against all of them plus MMR. Do you see how this works?

Now, they've never done those studies. And I have evidence of that because I sued our government looking for it. I said, look, if you're going to do a study that says it's okay to get all the other vaccines. This is the article that when now CDC fails to produce support, to support its claim that vaccines given during the first six months of life do not cause autism. So when we look at the vaccine, the CDC schedule, you can see in the first six months of life, there's six vaccines given in multiple doses, and that's hepatitis B, rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, and acylia pertussis. One of the ones most blamed for autism, right there, by the way, the D-TAP, hemophobicinoccal, inactivated polio virus, all of those.

And look at multiple doses inside those. So you're in third, you're in dose number three on pneumococcal by the time you're six months old. So you got a whole load of vaccines already happening there. So if you want to say that they can take all those vaccines and there's no autism, but if I take all those in the MMR or the autism is about the same, then you got to prove that those don't cause autism. That's what we did. We said to the CDC, will you please show us every study that you relied upon to determine that those first six vaccines, the first six months of life that ends up being like 20-something total vaccines by the time you're six months old. that they don't cause autism. What studies did you use?

And they fought us for a year. They wouldn't even respond. And they were like, come on. And then the judge is like, I don't understand what's going on here. He's saying to the CDC, just give these people what they want. Show them all the studies you relied upon. I mean, your website says vaccines don't cause autism. Certainly you have evidence that they don't cause autism.

That's what they're asking for. Well, they ended up, you know, giving in and they gave us 20 studies, 22, I think, in fact. And here's how that breaks down. Of those 22 studies, one of them is MMR. That's given at two years of age, not in the first six months. So throw that one out. And that's the one we're trying to figure out if we've done a correct study to prove that that doesn't cause autism. Then the second one was an MMR and a D-TAP discussion, which also MMR.

And that one, that's the only one's close. And I'll come back to that because it did have D-TAP. That's in the first six months of life. And then four of them were MMR and thimerosol. Well, MMR is after two years of age. And thimerosol is not in any of the vaccines that are inside the first six months. So those are irrelevant. And then you have, again, I think it's what is that, eight, whatever, 15, 16 on thimerosol,

which again is not in any, it's a preservative, not in any of the childhood vaccines we're asking about. And one study that was just done on antigens. And in that study, they say this study cannot be used. to determine whether vaccines cause harm or not. This was not a vaccination study. It was an antigen study. So of all the 22 we got, the only ones, that purple one, the only one that addressed the first six vaccines,

given the first six months of life, was the one that included the D-TAP vaccine. And if you go to that study, what's fascinating about it, it was done by the National Institutes of Health, adverse effects of vaccines, and in it, this is what we read. the conclusion of causality by D-TAP and autism, the evidence, this is what they found in this worldwide meta study, the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship

between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acillia pertussis containing vaccines in autism, which is what Stanley Plotkin is saying. We haven't done enough studies to actually determine in the post-licensure phase whether or not there is a connection. The reason they were saying that in this case is they couldn't find a single study in the entire world looking at the D-TAP and autism that proved that it doesn't cause autism. They did find one that proved that it did, and they mentioned that. The committee reviewed one study to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of D-TAP vaccine. This one study, the Geyer and Geyer study, was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system and,

an unvaccinated comparison population. They're a placebo group. The very thing that they skip with every single childhood vaccine, they never do a placebo group. They're saying, well, we can't count on this study because it didn't have a placebo group. Like, that's how you do all your studies. This thing is such a fraud.

It's absolutely insane. But still, this is a lot of words. It's a lot of jumbled up. And I'm trying to explain it to you with vodka and Jack Daniels. So let me make the same exact point I made last week. If there is mountains of evidence, John, don't you think that the leading vaccine makers and pushers in the world would know about that mountain of evidence? And when they were under the stand, under oath, and being asked, prove to us that vaccines

don't cause autism. Wouldn't you think they have that mountain of evidence? Well, once again, let's look at the vaccine Bible, as they call it. Stanley Plotkin on vaccines, Plotkin's Vaccines. One of the other authors is Catherine Edwards. I did this last week. We're going to do this again for John, because John obviously missed my episode. It's probably told you should make your own because this guy Dell's making people really question vaccines. Well, we had Catherine Edwards on the stand underneath Aaron Siri.

And once again, what does the leading authority do when she's pressed on the evidence that vaccines don't cause autism? By the way, this was just recent. There's more recent than any study John Oliver just showed you. Take a look at this. According to your profile, you have done most of the predictable trials relied upon the license, many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay.

So you're highly experienced conducting clinical trials, correct? I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that rely upon the license, many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct? I am. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received, many of which are still on the market today? Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism?

No. You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that's probably the answer. Is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. In the expert disclosers for this case, it asserts that among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism. That's correct.

It's your testimony that Head B vaccine cannot cause autism? That's correct. It's your testimony that I poll cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that Hib vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. Your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes.

It's your testimony that Prevna vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. It's your testimony of D-TAP vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. And do you have a study that supports a D-TAP doesn't cause autism? I have. I do not have a study that D-TAP caused autism. So I don't have either.

Do you have any study one way or another of whether I, call causes autism? No, I do not, sir. Do you have any study one way or another of whether Endrex B causes autism? I do not have any evidence that it causes autism, nor that it does not. And what about Hidtiders vaccine?

Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism? And what about Prevnor vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir. And how about Veracelil vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one or another test for whether it does or doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as varicelya itself.

No, sir. No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. Right. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible. Okay. Which study are you referring to when you say that? Well, why don't you show me this study and then I'll see whether I agree with it.

That is literally, you know, maybe the second or third most smartest person on vaccines there is John Oliver. And his author on many of the types of articles, and by the way, the thousands of articles you see out there, it's thousands of metadata that is done on the same two or three studies. They're all fraudulent. If they weren't fraudulent, she would be bringing them into a courtroom right now. And I challenge anyone out there to sue me if I'm wrong. Any of the vaccine makers out there, sue me, sue me and say Dell is spreading misinformation about our product.

We can prove it doesn't cause autism. Sue me. I'm right here. I'll take it. Let's do this. Let's go to court. John, are you ready for this? what an idiot you are.

And by the way, you're supposed to be a journalist. You're actually supposed to be able to do an investigation, though I forgave you last time for believing what the CDC told you, which, by the way, the same CDC that told you that, you know, oxycotton is non-habit-forming and past fen-fen and every other product that's been recalled from the market. The same regulatory agencies that have glyphosate being sprayed on all your food and P-FAST, which we're going to talk about,

very soon. We have corrupt regulatory agencies that are poisoning us. We have the sickest generation of children in history. And by the way, you even took issue with the fact that, you know, saying, well, anyone that says that, you know, we should be able to see 70-year-olds with autism is just, you know, somehow not understanding that we've gotten better and better at diagnosing autism. That's not the point, John. If we've gotten better at diagnosing autism and it's always been here, Here's the question. Where are the 70-year-olds with autism right now? It's not a mystery.

They should be filling old folks' homes right now. We should be able to walk into any old folks' home and see people stand in the corner, spinning, having repetitive motion disorders with limited language issues, inability to communicate. Where are they? It should be one in 22 of the men, and about one and 34 of all humanity.

Why were we all so shocked by Rain Man we'd never seen it before. We didn't know who that guy was. He wasn't our child. He wasn't the neighbor. But now we all know that person. We all have one of them in our family. So clearly this really is on an increase.

And to say we're just diagnosing it better makes you look like one of the biggest fools that has ever lived. How is it we're diagnosing it even better than 2012? We didn't have the technology back when it was one in 69. No, 2014, we really figured it out at one. And one in 59. But then the science really kicked into gear in 2016 when we figured out was one in 54. But hold on. The world changed in 2018 when our technology finally showed us it was one in 44.

And then in 2020, lo and behold, the final piece of equipment that showed us, it's one in 36. You don't think it's going to go up in two more years? Come on. You're living a lie, John, and you're lying to people and you're getting them injured. But that's okay. The group of people following you are becoming fewer and fewer. And those that are following me are becoming larger and larger.

Not just me, every scientist and doctor that's waking up to the reality that this has all been a giant lie, a dangerous one. So maybe you'll wake up, maybe you won't. Keep going those booster shots. And I doubt there's many more years we'll have to see your videos at all.