The Highwire with Del Bigtree - MIND GAMES

Episode Date: November 26, 2022

Del’s Thanksgiving Wish; Monsanto Caught Over Paraquat; The Disaster At Camp Lejeune; Mr. Aluminum Details Decades-long Alzheimer’s Fraud, and a Great Hope for Science – Have a Happy Thanksgiving!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 are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire.

Well, here in the United States of America, we are celebrating Thanksgiving. For those of you around the world, because this is an international show, maybe you don't know exactly what Thanksgiving is, or for those of you that are living here in America and really haven't thought about in some time other than eating turkey and thinking about pumpkin pie, I just want to discuss, you know, really what this celebration is all about. It's the coming together of people from almost opposite sides of the spectrum, sharing bread, breaking bread, finding time to put all of our differences aside and be thankful that we all exist on this planet together. Essentially, after the pilgrims had landed in the United States of America,

there were many years of hardship, many had died, and starvation was always a looming possibility. But one fall, the Native Americans and the pilgrims came together for a feast. If you look it up, most of the descriptions of this story goes something like this. Although the modern-day Thanksgiving feast takes place on the fourth Thursday of November, the first Thanksgiving did not. This feast most likely happened sometime between September and November of 1621. No exact date for the feast has ever been recorded, so one can only assume it happened sometime after the fall harvest.

The celebration took place for three days and included recreational activities. Guests at the feast included 90 Panawag Indians from a nearby village, including their leader, Mesasoit. One of these Indians, a young man named Squanto, spoke fluent English and had been appointed by Mesasot to serve as the Pilgrims translator and guide. Squanto learned English prior to the pilgrim's arrival after he was captured by English explorers and spent time in Europe as a slave. Neither Bradford or Winslow's account indicate whether the Indians were actually invited to the celebration or how they learned of it. Many historians have simply assumed they were invited. Edward Winslow's account merely states, Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fouling.

That's so we might, after a special manner, rejoiced together. After we had gathered the fruits of our labors, they four in one day killed as much foul as with a little help beside served the company almost a week. which time amongst other recreations we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king, Massasoit, with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God we are so

far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty. The names of the pilgrims are listed in a manifest from that Thanksgiving celebration. I mean, just think about what is being said there. Number one, there was a lot of fear amongst pilgrims of the Native Americans. There was many skirmishes and lots of people had died. And even in this discussion, Squanto had been taken as a slave by European settlers somehow made his way back, but new English, because of that obviously difficult circumstance. And yet all of these people, these groups of people, put their differences aside to celebrate life together and realize that there is something so fantastic and plentiful about this

life experience that we have. We have gone through a very tumultuous voting season. The last couple years have had us divided. We have a television set that does nothing but try to get us to argue with each other over who's at fault. And ultimately, we're being divided. Our government no longer gets along. It doesn't seem to find compromise. It just tries to stop anything that doesn't fit their particular narrative.

Everything is agenda-driven. It's almost as though the world is being run by children. But I think this Thanksgiving here in America, and those of you that are watching around the world, why do we take this day to remember family? Take this day to remember, in the end, we're all just God's children. We're all on this planet together.

We are sharing this space. We are neighbors with each other, whether we like it or not. And though our differences may seem vast, if we actually spent this day talking about what we agree on on the earth, what we dream of for the future, and put all of the politics and the politicians aside,

and what the news pundits have said, but stuck to just the facts that we are all grounded in, I think you would find that we agree on more than we disagree. Our disagreements, I think, are being injected and forced upon us. So take this day, put it all aside what we've been through over the last couple of years, whatever decisions were made, and love one another. That's what this is all about. We are not going to make changes in the world. We will always be divided.

It will be mostly 50-50, or we're going to have to learn to compromise and find some way forward. There's light at the end of this tunnel. Thanksgiving, I think, is that match which lights that candle of us coming back together. And I think that that's what we need to start seeing in America and around the world. So happy Thanksgiving to everyone out there. We've got a spectacular show coming up. I got an opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Christopher Exley. He was called Mr. Aluminum, the official leading scientist in the world on aluminum.

We spoke to him years ago when he was looking at the aluminum in vaccines after years of a career looking at aluminum in all the other different places and how it affected our lives. This is a very important interview for those of you that are really dismayed by what you saw with the COVID vaccine, but have never really looked at all the other vaccines. because aluminum is one of our biggest issues with the modern vaccine program. We're going to get into some of those details a little bit later. But first, it's time for The Jackson Report. All right, happy Thanksgiving, Jeffrey. What a beautiful day.

It's great to see you and get to celebrate. Even though we're distant, it feels like your brother-in-arms. We're in this together. We get so much time spent together. So I want to thank you for this incredible relationship that we share with each other. Yeah, my pleasure, Del. And happy Thanksgiving to you and your family and to the team. And, you know, for so many wonderful years of being together and sharing all this information to help people.

And we're going to continue to do it today. So I just want to thank you and the family as well. So, you know, if you're sitting there watching TV or listening to radio ads, you may hear an ad recently that's been running and wonder what the heck's going on. It sounds a little bit like this. Take a listen. Attention. Did you serve live or work? Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, between 1953 and 1987.

Congress just passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act to help compensate veterans exposed to polluted water at Marine Corps based Camp Lejeune. Exposure to the chemicals in the Camp Lejeune water led to an increased risk of birth defects. Camp Lejeune babies in the study were four times more likely to have neural tube birth defects, such as spinal bifida, and oral cleft defects. Parkinson's disease, leukemia, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, multiloma, aplastic anemia, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. You may be entitled to financial compensation.

Your financial compensation may be substantial. You've served our country well. Get the justice you deserve. I'm glad you're going to finally bring some, you know, understanding of this because my radio, I hear it all the time, the television, these ads suddenly came out of nowhere and I'm like, This is an issue that sort of ended in 1987, I think. So why am I hearing about it now? Right, right.

Well, it's because President Biden signed an act recently, and this was what the act was called. This was the actual website. You can check it out if you want to read it. But it's the President Biden signs Camp Lejeune Justice Act into law. And this act allows military veterans really for the first time in this large of a basis to file civil lawsuits against the U.S. government from, injuries that were caused by the water, drinking, basically drinking the water, bathing in the water

at the largest Marine Corps base in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. And the reason we can do this is the act precludes the U.S. government from asserting its sovereign immunity. So if you have to sue the government in these instances, it has to allow you to. So it's basically saying in this, what President Biden signed is saying, we're allowing civil lawsuits here. So this just open the floodgates for lawyers. That's why you're seeing all of these ads. And that's what's happening. But This isn't, as you said, the first time this has really come about this conversation about Camp Lejeune. Ten years ago, President Obama signed an act that gave the people that were injured by this water, this contamination. President Obama signs the honoring America's veterans and caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.

And this was arguably spurred by a documentary a year before. And this documentary really chronicled trying to get this information to the public going on capital, Hill trying to get this information out. A 2011 movie documentary reveals how contaminated wire at the nation's largest marine base damaged lives. And you can watch this. It's called Semperfi, always faithful. It's on Netflix, Amazon Prime. And it's it's just truly very interesting, sad and empowering movie because people are finally getting justice. And now let's look at Camp Lejeune. So people are saying what the heck is this camp? Why does this have to do with me? And we're going to connect this into a larger picture, which is very important, I think, to everybody.

watching here. So Camp Lejeune, this is on the Veterans Affairs.gov actual website. And you can see the coverage area. They actually designated a disability disability benefits coverage area. And you can see here Camp Lejeune military reservation. Everything in green is the benefit coverage. Outside of that, that kind of white creamish color, no benefit coverage. And so notice up at the top, Jacksonville, North Carolina. So if you're not a military veteran from this camp, you're a civilian. and you're in Jacksonville or any other city just right next to this camp, you're not getting any benefits and you're not getting any, you know, disability payments if you were injured by this water.

And obviously the water knows, there's no firewall to keep the water in the base that it's going to be in the groundwater and the contamination. So that's really important. And there's three primary toxins, I guess you want to call them, that are in this camp lagoon, this contamination is benzene. Benzine was like a component of crude oil. Then we have trichloral ethylene and per chloral ethylene. Their degrecer was one of them.

And the other one is basically a dry cleaning solvent. So this is the stuff that has been leached into the water there. And so if you go to the Veteran Affairs website, this is one of the most shocking things I found in this research. And it says here, you can get care and coverage and your bills paid for your health bills. if you served at Camp Lejeune or MCAS New River for at least 30 cumulative days from August 1953 through December, 1987, not 30 years, not 30 months. If you're on that base for 30 days and you serve there.

I mean, that basically if it's 30 cumulative days, that's like over 30 years, which is how this existed, one day a year accumulating to 30 days. It's that toxic? Right, right. Several cancers, neurological disorders, etc. but you know we're raising awareness here because we know viewers out there the doctors the lawyers the researchers military personnel and even just just regular people sitting on their couches or listening in their cars right now you can do things proactively to protect yourself and this is

where we're going to expand this story out a little bit so the some of the main contaminants at military bases were the three I mentioned at Camp Lejeune but also we have this other this other contaminant coming into the picture it's PF And these are called Forever Chemicals. And these are being found at military bases as well in large amounts. So this is one of the headlines, toxic forever chemicals found in groundwater near more U.S. military bases. And again, this is the other common contaminant. And PFAS is kind of like an umbrella term.

And there's an image here just to kind of give an idea. So it's per and polyfluoral alcohol. These are the substances, PFAS. That's the acronym. And then those are really just called Forever Chemicals. and under that umbrella are thousands of other chemicals. But if we take a look, this is a map from the environmental working group, and it shows the entire United States military bases.

And it's broken up into two parts. Suspected military sites with known or suspected discharges and confirmed military sites with known discharges. We have 7008 total military sites, and you can find your state on there, find your location. And the confirmed ones, you really got to be careful there because there's no wiggle room on that, obviously. suspected military sites. This list is growing. And so this is why we're taking this time to really

report on this story, because this is information you need to know, testing your tap water if you have the means for this, but at the very least, filtering your tap water. And this PFAS conversation is really growing and it's large. It's the military bases and it's also going into the firefighters using these this equipment so we see here uh massachusetts just before we get into the firefighters there's a great movie uh that i watched this called dark waters i believe with mark ruffalo and it really points out the issue and the cover up right i mean we i just feel like it's like groundhog days i know as we dig into these stories it's just the same cycle of cover up i'm sure we're going to find out there's you know government agencies and the military blocking the truth from getting out uh but it's really

these scary stuff because, you know, it lasts forever and ever and ever. It doesn't go away, right? So, you know, people should really look out for it. So, but you're saying a carbon filter, you know, on my water tap is really what it takes to filter this out if I happen to have these contaminants near me? Right. In 19, as early as 1974, the military, the Air Force actually found that carbon filters were enough to, to filter most of the stuff, 75 plus percent of it out of the water. but now with this two-stage filters or the other the more advanced filtration systems, you can filter a lot of this stuff out. So I mean, it's a simple, really proactive technique that you can use to avoid, I mean, gigantic problems.

And this is just an empowering piece of information. And then let me just, let's just take this moment for those of you that are new to this show. I have to imagine most of you watching the high wire now have some form of water filtration system or water delivery system that you're using. But if you're not, drinking your tap water is, I think, crazy at this point. Given that, I mean, look how long these things take. Decades and decades for someone to admit there was ever a problem. How many problems are we going to find out 50 years from now that are happening right now that the lawsuits, you know, are beginning, but we won't hear about for 50 years.

So, you know, these are the types of things. We've got to just be taking these steps for our family, for our own health. There are cheap water filters out there. The pitcher ones that already do it for you or just under your sink doesn't. necessarily have to be your whole house but everybody I really recommend that you would take the these small steps that it takes to at least get rid of another environmental toxin. The one thing I want to say is I don't want people I don't live in a world of paranoia. I get it. It's a toxic world. I'm sure the food I just had for breakfast had something on it from somewhere, but I feel like if we

just do what we can where we can at least we're you know we're limiting it. We're lowering it instead of just getting full exposure to everything because we've just thrown up our hands and given up. Don't give up. I think that all these little things add up and every single chemical you keep back or 75% of it is an advantage in the long run. All right, right, right.

Yeah, basically filter your water and move on with your life. You don't need to deal with any of this stuff. And so even the firefighters, Massachusetts firefighters, firefighters from really all over the country are bringing lawsuits against this chemical as well. Here's one of the headlines, Mass firefighters sue three, M, that's the maker of this chemical. DuPont over chemicals in gear, they say the companies knew

were dangerous. Three M has since stopped making this chemical. But it's been known by the military since 2000. So in these court cases, in these military documents, this come out, one particular was in 2000. This was an internal memo from the commanding officer of the Naval Research Laboratory. And he says this, and this was when 3M was phasing out this solution. So the aqueous film forming foam a f f f fom F FOMFF that's your acronym so it says 3M is voluntarily phasing out production of a FFFFFFF because the floral carbon surfactant in their AFFB biodegrates to per Florocytal sulfinate PFOS PFOS PFOS has been identified by EPA as environmentally persistent bioaccumulative in blood and toxic to aquatic life from laboratory animals the degree varies by species

so DOD officials Department of Defense officials waited after that memo another decade to issue a risk alert to the service members. And they didn't phase it out till they didn't, they didn't replace it to 2015. And the foaming agent they're talking about is a firefighting agent. So this is mainly what it's been used for on military bases is it puts out fuel fires very effectively. So when you see these large foam shooting at the fires, that's what this stuff is.

And part of it is part of that foaming agent is this PFOS and PFAS. But the firefighters are suing, normal firefighters are suing, because it's been found that all three layers of their protective gear, their turnout gear, has this PFS in it. So it's opening up a lot of lawsuits for these firefighters. But if you want to really get ahead of just the tapwater conversation in general, the environmental working group has a tap water database. You can go to it. It searches millions of state water records. All you do is enter your zip code and you can check it out in there and see what you're really dealing with.

Maybe not so much for the viewer, but you have someone maybe part of your family, maybe your husband, your wife or your family members are saying, I like the taste of tap water, I'm not filtering this stuff. You can show them this printout and say, well, here's the list of what's going on in our county from our databases. And this is what's in our water

and this is what it could possibly or potentially, you know, cause down the road as far as health benefits. So this would be a good conversation today on Thanksgiving as you're visiting relatives. Hey, everybody, let's gather around the computer and see how many toxic chemicals are in our drinking and maybe, just maybe, you'd like to put a homehouse filter on here.

It's important, I think, to point these things out and those types of visuals and those types of resources really help people recognize that there's ways to inform ourselves, which is what this is all about, right? The highway is all about learning to inform ourselves so we're making better decisions. That's a gift you can pass on today with that website. Absolutely. You know, the high wire viewers must be the most fun people at at a party. I got to say with all our research here, just factoids. Okay, so let's go into another story here.

This is, I mean, this is one of the biggest stories that we really researched in a while. And this had to do with Alzheimer's. And there's been some just massive potential research fraud. And it has shaken up the entire industry, when I say industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and also the researchers and the scientists that have been involved in it for decades. And what are we talking about here? Science.org, it's a website, did an independent investigation into these allegations. And this is the article.

This article lays out the entire story, very detailed, blots on a field, a neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication and scores of Alzheimer's articles threatening a reigning theory of the disease. So this is the guy here. His name is Matthew S. Scrogg. And he's an assistant professor of neurology at Vanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, PhD. He took this research by a couple of other neuroscientists that were petitioning the FDA to stop a drug that they were going to approve an Alzheimer's drug. They were going to prove that targets this plaque for Alzheimer's. And they hired this guy because they said, look, I think we think there's fraudulent, there's fraud in this research.

I'm going to hire you. I want you to go through here and look at these images to see what you can find. And this guy did this. I mean, he was paid for it, but he did this because he really didn't want the people in the trials to enter these trials thinking that they may get something out of it when there was really no chance if it was a fraudulent trial of any improvement whatsoever. So really, someone after our own heart here at ICANN. But this is the study. So what he did was he was looking at the research of the drug trials. And it forced him to go back to the original study in two.

2006, a specific amyloid beta protein assembly in the brain impairs memory. Sylvan Lesne at University of Minnesota, he was the first author, and he's really coined the term amyloid beta star 56. So for almost a century, people have known, researchers have known doctors, have known that these plaques in the brain, amyloid plaques in the brain, may be associated with Alzheimer's. They find them in the people that have passed. And then they started to whittle this down, well, there's Amelite Beta, and now we have Amelay Beta 56. So they're getting more of this like honing in on, well, maybe this is it. And so this is the paper that really kicked this off and just sent the research establishment in a frenzy and saying, we got it, and we're going to now

start aiming therapies and designing therapies towards this Amelite Beta Star 56. So this is what the paper says. Some look like shocking, blatant examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer's expert at the University of Kentucky. The authors appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments, says Elizabeth Bick, molecular biologists and well-known forensic image consultant that obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results and that data might have been changed to better fit a hypothesis. It goes on to say, really, this is the big takeaway here. Hundreds of clinical trials of amyloid targeted therapies have yielded few

glimmers of promise. However, only the underwhelming adjelm, we're going to talk about this in a second, has gained FDA approval yet amyloid beta still dominates research and drug development. NIH spent about 1.6 billion on projects that mention amyloids in this fiscal year, about half its overall

Alzheimer's funding. Scientists who advance other potential Alzheimer's causes, such as immune dysfunction or inflammation, complain they have been sidelined by the amyloid mafia. This is how big and reaching this thing is. When we talk about research fraud. $1.6 billion the NIH gets behind this. And again, the same NIH that didn't oversee proper

testing of remdesivir or Paxlovid. We don't even have to bother with the whole vaccine conversation. We're also nauseated by that. But it's just the same thing. These regulatory agencies are as hoodwinked as everybody else if they're not in on it. They may actually be in on it. I mean, it's just hard to imagine with the talent pool that's available at the NIH, CDC, FDA, that you couldn't analyze and look at the photographs that are talking about and say, hey, these look like they're spliced together. I mean, why does this stuff take so long, and why does it come from independent, you know, universities and things when this, isn't this what we have a regulatory agency for?

Right, right. And that is the theme. If anybody's watching and really looking for underlying themes of our reporting all the time, these regulatory agencies, they have to be questioned. It's not, it's not, you know, we can obviously throw up our hands and say they're no good, but it's just a question, the simple questions, look at their data, ask the questions, look at their track records. And so this is one of the images that they use a Western blot analysis.

And these are some of the issues here. This dash red box shows the levels of amyloid beta star 56. And you can see it increasing. It's getting darker, it's staining, increasing the older mice as symptoms emerge. So this is what could have been made to a. appear more abundant than it was in the findings, if it was fraudulent. And so that's what we're really talking about with these Western blot analysis. But let's go back now.

We're talking about therapies because that's really where the rubber hits the road for the general public is, how do I help my family? And when we're looking at therapies in November of 2020, this was the headline. And people may have been excited about this or they may have been sad, but FDA panel slams, biogens, controversial Alzheimer's meds. So they biogen has this med that's going through. It's going to target this amyloid beta plaque. And they have within the FDA, you know, we have, we know we have the VIRPAC committee with the vaccines, but they have a peripheral and central nervous system drug advisory

committee. So that's their version of the VIRPAC for drugs. And they were asked, you know, they looked at all the evidence of these trials. And they were asked, is there strong evidence of efficacy? It was only a one to eight vote. One person said there was strong evidence. And then they went back and said, well, is there a supportive evidence of this? And it was a zero to seven vote.

So this independent panel slammed this drug. This drug, it should have never even gotten through the door, according to this panel. So what happens? June 2021, did the FDA do the right thing? Here's the headline directly from the FDA's own website. FDA's decision to approve new treatment for Alzheimer's disease. This is Adjahelm. Now, understand it's the first novel therapy approved for Alzheimer's disease since 2003.

The paper for Ameloi Beta Star 56 was 2007. So we have this new theory, 2006, we have this drug that's going to maybe start focusing on this. It comes out of, you know, testing from biogen. For the FDA, it's, well, this is the first novel therapy since 2003. We have a lot of research that's advanced since then. Let's just push this thing through, even though we really don't know. We can, you know, maybe say the benefits outweigh the risks. What happens after that?

Well, very similar to what happened during the booster push during COVID in 2021. This is the New York Times headlines. Three FDA advisors resign over agency's approval of Alzheimer's drug. The drug adjahelm, a monthly infusion price that $56,000 per year was approved this week despite weak evidence that it helps patients. And they also resigned. I mean, we just talked about this just a couple of weeks ago about the COVID booster, where we had two of the top FDA officials that have, you know, 30 years experience in the field

walk away because the government is pushing through. FDA pushed through that booster without any evidence that would work. We're talking about Dr. Marion Gruber in that case, and Phil Krause, MD, and here we are. And it's the FDA. I mean, it's the same agency. Who's running this agency? Like, what you mean?

So everyone's jumping ship that actually does the science that says, look, we had a one, was it one out of eight vote that said this thing's garbage? And then zero of us when we looked at sort of, is there a secondary evidence? evidence. Zero out of the seven, you know, voted that, yeah, there's evidence. There's no evidence here. This is a, and so is the idea, is the FDA basically saying just so that we look like we're doing something for Alzheimer's, and since we really haven't put out a drug recently, we're going to take this one that has no evidence of doing anything for you, but just so you feel like you're doing something by spending $56,000 if you're hardered money to try and save your mother and father,

that's what's so insidious about this, right? These illnesses are so horrendous. To watch, watching your parents usually go through this or, you know, loved ones, I guess, unfortunately, sometimes it's your brother or sister. You want to do something. So you go to the FDA, go, oh, there's this drug. I trust the FDA. I mean, that's my food and drug administration. They wouldn't be recommending if it wasn't valuable. So I guess I'll scratch up every penny I have, try and collect insurance policy, see if I can get this $56,000 a year, all for essentially a ruse.

Right. And it went through an accelerated track at the FDA because the evidence wasn't so conclusive that they say in their own documents and their own press release that they presume the benefits outweigh the risk. And because there's really no treatments in this, you know, over two decades, almost two-decade window, we're going to put this out there because something needs to be done. So, I mean, it's kind of like, yeah, we're going to give it the old heave-ho, just our best we can do, but it's really not that good.

And we're going to let you know it's really not that good. So what we're seeing here, you know, understand too, there's no, there's not a lot of people looking at the cause, the root cause. I mean, epigenetics has been known since 1940s about how your environment can change your genes and change the expression of that. We're looking at like the after, after, after effects of whatever is going on at these plaques and targeting the plaques. It's really interesting, but we'll notice on the headlines now, the current headlines, there's no admission that there was any type of research fraud or anything like that. but you can start to see the headlines changing. This is what they look like now. Alzheimer's researchers are looking beyond plaques and tangles for new developments.

The shift comes after a series of experimental drugs have succeeded in removing amyloid plaques and tau tangles from the brain, but failed to halt the disease. So we're talking, you know, 20 plus years, they've failed to halt the disease. We were led on a little dead end road of lies, wasted billions of dollars on R&D, investigations, all while there's a real culprit out there that's being avoided, all while Alzheimer's continues to rise in our populations, and these people will walk off from the sunset, probably rich because of it, having done nothing to serve humanity, only to just set us back by decades. Right. And, you know, if there's a moment for other researchers to throw off the hand of suppression and get a platform, there is a space here for researchers like Chris Axley.

to enter into this conversation and really make a difference. And, you know, this is one of the reasons we're bringing this information forth right now is because there is a space. You know, what it looks like, how hard it is to get into, that's going to be determined. But there is a space now where researchers have thrown up their hand and said, look, we've tried our best. It's not working. Let's look at other alternatives what's out there. Yeah.

And to that point, we've tried our best to hide what looks like. I mean, look it, my mom was telling me when I was just, you know, turning a teenager about to get first deodorant saying don't use deodorants with aluminum in it. It causes Alzheimer's. That was something that was like known, you know, to us. And then, you know, I'm going to get deeper into this with Christopher Exley, but a couple of years ago I asked him about that. He dissected the brains of Alzheimer's patients and came out with the conclusion. The levels of aluminum were so much higher in the Alzheimer's patients than those that didn't have it that he concluded no aluminum, no Alzheimer's. He still stands on the ground that all, you know, you know, you

you know, Alzheimer's is an aluminum disease. All of this science, all the FDA, all the NIH, why are they lying to us? Because they're trying to protect the industries that are using aluminum in all sorts of ways in your cooking pans and your food, in your body products that is causing this. They're protecting them instead of you.

This is the ongoing theme here. The regulatory agencies need to disappear. We need to get rid of them because they stop doing what they were supposed to be doing, which is protecting you from industries that are poisoning you. Now they're protecting the industries from, you know, you so that you can't sue,

so that you have no knowledge of what's going on. I mean, it's really, really bad. And again, like the vaccine issues, like, you know, the rise in autism, same thing. We know you talk to enough parents, you triangulate, you know what's going on here. You have regulatory agencies that are trying to make everybody look everywhere but, you know, the shell that actually has the problem underneath it.

Right, right. And, you know, our, there's, that is one of the things. that we're talking about here. And our next story really defines the mission, the core mission of the informed consent action network, which is to end man-made disease. And we do that with information partly. And this is a piece by Carrie Gilliam. She's a longtime investigative researcher into environmental contamination. And her article here at the new lead, this is actually a new publication, secret paraquot papers reveal corporate tactics to protect weed killer link to Parkinson's disease. Paracquot is an herbicide, just like glyphosate, and it's actually replacing glyphosate on the U.S. market

because glyphosate is, you know, getting phased out in the popular culture because of the lawsuits and all of the papers that have come forward, the internal document showing the damages caused and how they knew it. So Paracot is getting the same treatment right now. So this is what this article had to say, looking at a lot of these discovery documents. In one defensive tactic, the documents lay out how the company worked behind the the scenes to try to keep a highly regarded scientist from sitting on an advisory panel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is the chief U.S. regulator for Paraquot and other pesticides.

Company officials wanted to make sure the efforts could not be traced back to Syngenta, the document show. So there's one of the reasons that, you know, our regulatory agencies may be kind of having issues with this is because the industry is stacking them, you know, in their own documents, is stacking them with people that favor their products. The article goes on to say in this research, as independent researchers continue to find more and more evidence that Paraquot may cause Parkinson's, the documents describe what Syngenta called

an influencing strategy that proactively diffuses the potential threats that we face and to maintain and safeguard Pariquot registrations. The strategy must consider how to best influence academia and regulatory and NGO environments. So that's the conversation. is Paraquot is leading to the development of Parkinson's, which is a horrible degenerative disease,

neurological disease. And so looking at the story, people are saying, well, what do we do about this? Well, here, this next graph, this next chart, this is an easy one. You look at this, you can see use by year and crop. This is Pariquot. This is from the US Geological Survey.

You can see here, obviously, it's been going up quite a bit. Obviously in 2014, 2016, 2018, you're seeing it skyrocket. Those are really the years that glyphosate has been under a big microscope. So there's a switchover from glyphosate to paraquot. But you can see corn, soybeans, and cotton. You're not going to be obviously eating cotton, but soybeans and corn are really the two biggest users of this. And they spray them on the fields, but they also spray it on after they pick the crop as a drying agent. So there's a double shot on there they get.

So when we're talking about Parkinson's too, if you put that graph back up, the disease is the disease of Parkinson's is blamed for. causing almost 330,000 deaths in 2019. That's an increase of more than 100% since 2000. So if you look at 2000, you have a 100% increase in Parkinson's deaths, essentially. You can see since 2000 on this graph, there's an increase there.

Now, you know, weak correlation maybe, but this is what investigation we're trying to do here is keep people from, you know, give people an understanding of maybe how to avoid some of these things. But again, like Groundhogs Day, similar playbook we have you know i almost want to call it an attack profile of these corporations you know defend deny so we had um uh singenta that's the maker of paraquot and chevron the oil company they were another producer of paraquot but they had an interesting come to jesus moment if you will in

1985 and this was one of their internal memos this is what it says here periquot now a canadian study at that time came forth with a lot of information about paraquot and they added this to the memo and they said paraquot is chemically very similar to the byproduct of synthetic heroin manufacturer nt pt which produces almost instant parkinson's by killing dopaminergic neurons in the brain pariquot is among the agricultural chemicals used in the area of canada in which an extraordinary high correlation point nine six seven was found between levels of pesticide use and parkinson's cases the incidences of the disease in the area was about seven times the rate in in areas where use was low. So Chevron officials looked at this and they said this. The bankruptcy of the asbestos manufacturer, the Manville Corporation has highlighted

the especially severe financial risks involved in selling a product which contribute to a chronic disease. Parkinson's can go on for decades. So in this memo, they're saying, look, we're an oil company. We broke, you know, in the early 1900s, we broke off from standard oil. We do oil. This Barrequot thing could bankrupt our entire

company, one product, because this goes on for decades. So what do they do? 1986, Chevron exits the Paraguat market. Gone. So now we have Syngenta. And Syngenta currently is facing over 2,000 lawsuits alleging Paracquot caused Parkinson's. And those are going to start being heard in February of 2023. So we'll definitely be reporting on those first trials. But in early 2000, so now we have this handoff to Sygenta. They're the big dog in town, so to speak, when it comes to this paraquot, this chemical, this herbicide. And so in the early 2000s, they started doing their own in-house testing.

Now, this is where it gets really interesting because we've seen a lot of, seen a lot of this with Johnson and Johnson as well. But when they started doing their own testing, their position at that time in the early 2000s was to defend the idea that Paraquot does not cross the blood brain barrier. So that's their defensive position. Okay. So look at this slide from the early 2000s because it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier. Seems simple enough.

enough great talking point to defend for legislative so look here highlighted this was highlighted by somebody else but avoid measuring uh paraquot levels in the brain since the detection of any paraquot in the brain no matter how small will not be perceived externally in a positive light this is their research activity at syngenta strategy to be followed great so don't look at the brain the best way to prove that it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier is don't do any tests on the brain I mean, folks, this is exactly what the CDC, the NIA, and this is what they just did with the COVID vaccine. Don't test if it's stopping infection. Then we don't have to say to the world, it doesn't work.

You know, don't test the heart or the lungs or the kidneys or the liver to see if the vaccine is actually going there. Because if you do, then we can't say it stays located in the arm. They want to be able to lie to you so they avoid doing the most obvious science. Like a study to prove it doesn't go to the brain, that doesn't involve looking the brain. You can't make this stuff up. It'd be a comedy if there weren't so many lives being destroyed by this level of corruption. Exactly. And, you know, as we continue to just put out these playbooks, hopefully it becomes so just normal to understand this is how the operation happens.

Anybody listening will just reflexively not believe because this is the playbook. So in 2011, there's a study that came out that really just threw everything through everything out the window when it came to, came to defending Paraquot and causing Parkinson's. So this was on the NIH's own website. This was the press release. NIH study finds two pesticides associated with Parkinson's disease. So it's kind of over at that point. And this was Tanner.

He was the lead author on this. Rottenau, Paraguat and Parkinson's disease. This is the study. And it says in here, and this was really one of the big nails here, results in 110 Parkinson's disease cases and 358 controls. Parkinson's disease was associated with use of a group of pesticides that in inhibited mitochondrial complex one, including rotanow, and with use of a group of pesticides that cause oxidative stress, including paraquot. And if you see the OR after the word paracrot,

that's the odds ratio is 2.5. So you have a 2.5 times higher rates of Parkinson's disease when you use this paraquot than not using it in this study. And it says, the authors went on to say, to our knowledge, we have performed the first analysis, a pesticide classified by presumed mechanism rather by functional categories, herbicide, you know, example of herbicides, or chemical classes, example of organochlorines. We found significant associations of Parkinson's disease with use of groups of pesticides classified as complex one inhibitors or as oxidative stressors, providing support in humans for findings from decades of experimental work in particular,

Parkinson's disease was strongly associated with Rottenau and Paraguat. So with that being- And I don't understand by what they're saying that we think we've performed the first actual study of Paraquot in directly how it affects the human body, unlike the modeling we've done, looking at herbicides in general and other things in general that we used to approve this, right? But that's what they're saying. They didn't look at the actual product. This is the first time ever.

Once they finally did that actual study, as it turns out, we shouldn't have been spraying this all of your crops for the last 20 years. Right. And that, you know, understand that was similar to glyphosate. Remember, glyphosate is only one. It's the active ingredient in Roundup. All the other ingredients weren't tested. So there's one ingredient. How about synergistically testing these ingredients? That was the big secret with glyphosate. But here's the other angle with Syngenta. And this is an overlay for the vaccine conversation, for the drug conversation. So they influenced the regulators. And they did so directly by this internal memo. This is from 2003. And in 2003, the European Union was about to vote to reinstate Paraguat throughout the entire European Union. So they had a strategy. This is the regulatory strategy, 2003. And this is in their executive summary. And listen to the word.

See if you can pick this out. Pariquot continues to attract significant regulatory and NGO scrutiny, often as a result of the perceived environmental persistence or acute toxicity hazard to man. Development of science, particularly in the field of neurotoxicity and the development of precautionary regulatory policy. over risk-based decision-making present the prospect of additional challenges in the future. So they're saying the development of science is a challenge to our product. Regulatory agencies wanting to take a precautionary principle is a challenge to our product. How do you read between the lines? I mean, honestly, people, someone wrote that.

I mean, someone wrote that. A panel of people sat around and read it and said, I like that languaging. That's perfect language. That states it. Now we know what our mission is. Our mission here is to figure out how to get the European Union to not see how toxic our product is. Forget that Chevron backed out of this because, man, we got billions of dollars to be made here. And this toxicity problem is really getting on our way.

These are human beings supposedly that literally put that in ink and sit around and go, yeah, all right, that's good. This should work. We should be able to push this stuff through and get it back into innocent people's lives. And I'm sure we'll pay off a couple regulatory agents to help us with the process. Right, right. And going back to that same document, if you want to see pressure points. So if you flip these words around in this next sentence, you can see the pressure points that the corporations are really concerned about. So it says here in that same internal memo, that strategy executive summary, retailers and other organizations are increasingly placing pariquot on a negative or blacklist based on image, hazard, or perceived risks, indicating that growers cannot use the product.

together these developments present a serious threat to Syngenta's gramoxone business objectives so that's how you do it you place paraquot on a negative or blacklist you make it unappealing to retailers and that's a really big deal to these companies so in 2007 so there's a short window in the european union in 2003 to 2007 in 2007 the european unit court reimposes a ban on periquot weed killer that was the headline out of reuters at the time yep and they they basically said they found in court that the regulars did not do the sufficient testing to see if this harms humans. They said there was plenty of evidence and studies and they did not look at those and incorporate those in. So we're banning it. It's been banned ever since, it's banned today. So that brings us to

headlines like this current one here. And the big question that might be on people's minds in America, why does the U.S. allow a controversial weed killer banned across the world? And if you look at this map here, these are the few countries that still allow Paraquot, you know, arguably one of the most toxic herbicides, U.S., Argentina, South Africa, India, Australia, and Japan. And in 2021, the U.S. greenlit further use of paraquot, so that was up for a reanalysis. They said, hey, move along, nothing to see here. Keep it going, guys. But there's going to be a reanalysis. But as people are waiting for this reanalysis by the EPA, this is what is happening behind the scenes. California is being urged the regulators in that state.

California urged to ban Parkinson's linked herbicide paraquot. So you have a lot of NGOs, even Michael J. Fox's organization, a foundation is in here, really pushing California to do this on a state-by-state level to get some action. So instead of waiting for the federal government, this is why these votes are so important to get people in here that will move this needle on points that matter like this. Yeah, really. I mean, all three of those stories are all sort of, linked in many ways to the stories we keep telling. And it's what I say. You know, my feeling, Jeffrey, and I think life has shown me that people lie, they cheat. From the time we're little

kids, we have our hand in the cookie jar who took the cookie, wasn't me, I wasn't there, you can't prove anything. It doesn't matter if your, you know, BP oil and you spill oil, if you've got a product that's poisoning people, time and time again, only after a multi-billion dollar lawsuits, do we get these interned emails and we see the right of the right? where they actually admit, yeah, we got this problem. We got to figure out how to hide it from everybody. And these people poison us. They poison our children.

They poison us. They poison our food supply, our water supply. And you know who's not stopping them is helping them get away with it? Our own regulatory agencies. And then you see that map. Can we bring that up really quickly? If you have any idea, if you really believe that U.S. is really, you know, the greatest nation in the world, and we have the best scientists in the world,

look how few people in the world still allow this guard. to be sprayed on their food. And the U.S., that bright red burning horror show, that's what our regulatory agencies are doing for us. That's what currently the Biden administration is doing for us. Thank you very much. Yeah, just keep putting in, you know, people from Shenzhena and Monsanto into our EPA and our FDA

and just keep putting, you know, Pfizer and Merck and, you know, Sinopea Ventus executives into our CDC and NIH. And we'll just see how well this plays out for, our longevity as human beings. All right, Jeffrey, well, really great information. And in many ways, you know, there's ways around this, right? I think that, you know, we have real solutions here. Get a water filter right away.

You don't have one, start with a small one, work your way up. You'll find that, you know, you just keep upgrading as you get along through life, but at least do something. And by all means, please, you know, buy organic food. You really cannot afford to be playing with this. I know in our minds they say, geez, it just can't be that bad

or they wouldn't allow me to be eating it. I hope if you're watching this show, you're recognizing that they are allowing you to eat it. Jeffrey, great reporting. Happy Thanksgiving. And I look forward to seeing you next week. Happy Thanksgiving, Del. Thank you.

All right. All right. Well, you know, look, I want to point something out. It is Thanksgiving, and there are things you can do. Hopefully at your dinner table, at least you brought organic. you know, meats and fruits and vegetables. And yes, I know that people say, Del, that's not a perfect system. Again, use whatever system you have. We need to support these systems at work.

And by the way, we'll be in, you know, lawsuits if we find out that organic word is being bastardized or someone's cheating it. That's all part of what we've got to do. But don't give up. We've got to make a difference everywhere we can. I think it's fantastic. I said during my interview with Joel Salatin, just a couple of weeks ago at his Pollyface Farms, you know, I'm seeing organic food in Walmart. That's a good sign. Of course, he's saying, please don't shop for your food at Walmart. I agree, but it shows that we are evolving. We're evolving because of the court of public opinion, which is a huge part of what the high wire is involved in here. I also want to brag a little bit that my executive producer, Jen Sherry and I both produced major shows at CBS.

I did my own on the daytime talk show, The Doctors on Monsanto's product glyphosate. She did a follow-up story after I'd left and brought in all the lawyers. And we found out that my original show that had Donna Farmer on it, the head toxicologist for Monsanto, I had brought her onto the show to defend the product when the WHO was saying it looked like it caused cancer. I had a debate. Well, they're actually using that footage from that show in the legal cases. I had the opportunity to speak with attorney Brent Wisner about how he uses it in his cases. And he says it's one of the most effective things that we use on the stand for the jury. And so these are the types of things that make a difference. We may not always, it may not just be our lawyers. It's the content we're

sharing. You never know when you get a piece of this information how valuable it may be in the future. I'm saying this because, you know, as we get near to the end of this year, we really need your help. I want you to ask yourself, you know, what other things do you donate to in the year? When you think about giving and thanksgiving, what are you thankful for? Are you thankful for the warriors that are stepping up and doing things where maybe you can't? And what I mean is by supporting us, we've taken a different approach. You know how many people have said, well, there's nothing that can be done. There's liability protections on vaccines.

Well, yes, that was true. I want you to think of what other, you know, nonprofits you're involved with that said, screw it, we're going to see the government. We're going to go right after the government. the regulatory agencies themselves, we're going after them because they're the problem. We're always going to have lying and cheating by industry. As I said, that's unfortunately the nature of humanity and people making billions of dollars. But when the government gets involved to protect them and not us, that's where I can comes along.

The informed consent action network. We are winning lawsuits against NIH, the CDC, the FDA, Health and Human Services. I don't know anybody else has taken this approach. But by the way, once you win all those lawsuits, we have got a quiver now. now of tools being used by other lawyers and law firms all over the country in private cases, in personal cases, say, look, the government admitted this to ICANN. Who do you think is responsible for, you know, when we find out that after 75 years, FDA wanted to hold back the Pfizer data, you now have that because of Aaron Siri, who's our lawyer.

They wanted to hold back the VSAVE capture system. They wanted to hold that back from us. We sued. We spent a year in court for you. so that we could see this data. And anyone that wants to be a Debbie down and say, oh, none of it adds up, it does add up. Where's the confidence at now in the COVID-19 vaccine?

Where do you think that confidence would be if the high wire wasn't here? If we weren't suing the whole time, if we weren't outing them and revealing all the lies they had in the Pfizer data and showing you what the British Medical Journal was finding out? Who else is doing this for you? And where would our world be without the high wire? I want you to think about that today because we're here for you. You're our family and we need you.

your help please help us continue this work as we come to the end of this year and look to the new year where we are under siege by contaminated lying regulatory agencies we're the ones going after them for you and it's expensive so please help us out just go to the highwire.com and click on donate today you can do it there's always a button on the top corner donate when you donate we're asking to become a recurring donor this is the last moment you can be a part of $22 for 2022 before the year changes become a recurring donor that allows us to know whether we're going to be able to be in court for a whole year on an issue or not because we can see our

projections on where we're going. Folks, everyone that is a part of this, everyone I run into out there that watches the high wire and is a recurring donor, they come up to me and say, Del, it is so true. When I hear about the victories, I feel like I'm finally doing something in this world. I just want the rest of you to get to have that experience. You're watching it. I know you love the show. It's awesome. You're sharing the show, but just a couple dollars a month and you get to say, I bet on the winning horse. I'm a winner. We're winning. Hashtag winning. Become a winner. All you have to do is donate to the informed consent action network. I can decide.org. I want to thank all of you for this incredible year. I know we have to sit here and ask for your help. I'm

happy to do it, but the truth is, is, man, we have achieved so much. I can't tell you how thankful I am. I'm also thankful for all the scientists and doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, all of these brilliant people that put their lives and careers on the line to sit at this desk with me this year to bring us the truth about a product that they used to love, that they believed in. They didn't like, they weren't so locked up in the ideology that they They couldn't see the forest through the trees. They brought the truth forward. But, you know, now I want to get back to a little bit of an older story.

There's so many of you that are brand new to this conversation. But before we had Dr. Peter McCullough, before Dr. Robert Malone, we had doctors like Chris Exley that was out there in England that was investigating aluminum and doing brilliant work on aluminum, first starting with acid rain and how is it affecting our fish and our trees and our environment. And, you know, he investigated how brilliant it was as a substance. Do you realize we live in the aluminum age? Everything around us, our cars, our technologies, our microchips do not exist without aluminum.

This is one of the most important metals there is. But what happens if it's also one of the most toxic? How do we deal with this world? Well, that was the work that Dr. Christopher Exley was doing, and he was celebrated for it. He was one of the top, you know, at his university, winning awards all around the world, all until enough people kept saying to him, you know, you did this Alzheimer's study and it's really brilliant. And, you know, some people don't like what you did there. But if you looked at the aluminum in vaccines, they're actually using aluminum injected into our babies to try and trigger their immune system.

If it's bad when we drink out of aluminum cans, if it's bad when we're using aluminum pans, what happens if you know, inject it right into the bloodstream. Well, it wasn't lost on him, that that is a dangerous territory to go. And I imagine, for the most part, he was trying to jog away from us for some time. But eventually, it caught up with him, and he decided, I have to do that study. And he did a study of autism brains, brains of those who had died with autism. And he ended up concluding in that incredible study that he had seen the highest rates of aluminum ever in the brains of Alzheimer's But when he looked at autism, those brains were even more contaminated with aluminum. And scarier than that, the brain of a 15-year-old child had more aluminum in the Alzheimer's

brain of the 15-old child, I mean, the autism brain of the 15-year-old child than the 80-something-year-old Alzheimer's brain. How was the aluminum getting there so fast? Well, obviously, he started tracking how we inject aluminum and how it gets to the brain. Instead of avoiding a brain study, he started doing them, and he lost his job. His career as a professor investigating aluminum. For the same reasons we keep seeing.

These industries go in and take funding away from universities where the proper investigations are being done. This man is a hero. I consider him a great friend, and it was really awesome to catch up with him in light of the amyloid plaque fiasco that tried to distract the world from Alzheimer's and say, don't even think about it.

aluminum, it's amyloid plaques. Well, now that that's come crashing down, where is he at with aluminum and what should we know? This is my good friend and scientist, Dr. Chris Exley. All right, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Chris Exley. Chris, it's been a while. I haven't seen you since we were in Mexico together back in 2019. How are you doing? Well, it's great to be in this sort of virtual moment with you. Like I said earlier, it would have been great to be able to be able to just reach forward and shake your hand. Let's do it. Let's just a little virtual handshake.

Get in here. All right. There we go. It's great to be talking to you again. Yes, indeed. I've missed you too. And, you know, for many years before COVID, you've been really one of our rocks when it comes to scientific integrity,

the discussion of science. We've run things we are looking at by you. You've always been very open to fact check for us and help us understand what we're looking at. So today, you know, there's a lot to talk about. But just to bring my audience up to speed, I have a vastly larger and different audience than when we last spoke.

You're called Mr. Aluminum. You know, that's sort of the nickname you've been given. Why? Why is it that we call you Mr. Aluminum? Just what's your background? Yeah. And in fact, it was at one of the earlier keel meetings in Aluminium. because we met, of course, in Mexico at the Kiel meeting on Aluminium in Mexico,

but it was at one of those meetings where an Italian academic actually announced to me and everybody else, the thing that I didn't know, he said, you know, we all call you Mr. Aluminium, and I had no idea at that point. And actually, I took it as a, I took it as something that was positive, that respected what I had done. And it even allowed me to reflect upon that. So I was able to think back, well, yeah, I started looking at the role of aluminium in Living Things in about 1984. It was part of my undergraduate degree in Sterling.

And I used the old fishing analogy because I went to Sterling because there's a lot of good fishing in that area of Scotland. and I was a fisherman. And I didn't really know anything about anything really much when I went there. I did biology there. But once I started to look into aluminium as a research project, I was hooked to use that old fishing analogy. And as I've said before, I haven't been able to throw that hook ever since. So I went on and did a PhD. And in the PhD, I was incredibly lucky to be involved with some very high-profile scientists and indeed, scientists. scientists working in industry. In those days, scientists working in industry had integrity and were great. And I was able to work with them and they brought me up as a scientist.

And I became, you know, some people would say, obsessed by understanding why the most abundant metal in the earth's crust had absolutely no function, but did appear to be killing. things. So the subject of acid rain, which in America you'll remember from places like the Adirondacks, killing fish, killing trees. And I did research in that area and I found out that it wasn't the acid rain. It was, of course, the aluminium being released by the acid rain that killed the fish and killed the trees. And then, of course, I was never a fish biologist or botanist or anything. and I immediately started to think, well, if it's killing fish, it must be having an impact upon humans. Right. And so back in about, I suspect about 1990, 1991, we started to look at the suggestion that aluminium was involved in human disease.

And of course, at that time, there was a lot of information about a possible role of aluminium in Alzheimer's disease. So that was an area we began to look at back in the time. in the early 90s and we started to demonstrate interesting relationships there. So it became something that, you know, I've always said that, you know, I am not your archetypal a scientist. I don't do science for science sake. I do science because I found a story that had to be investigated. I found questions that had to be answered. Yeah. And that's what I've been doing. And following curiosity, right? Your curiosity is piqued.

I feel the same way about the work that I do very much. I've always felt that similar connection with you. I didn't choose this. You know, when I see the articles written as though I found something that I wanted to push on the world. But it was the same thing. A whole set of questions that weren't being asked by anybody else and yet seemed so critical and important in the world that we lived in that I couldn't stop myself.

And so, you know, when you started this, it wasn't controversial to point out issues of toxic toxins in our environment. I mean, the world, I mean, I suppose it was a little bit, but it's really, it's really changed. I mean, it's really changed. But just taking it back, just a few things that I remember from our conversations,

you've said that, you know, our bodies are made up of, all sorts of different metals and coppers, and you find all the elements of the earth in many ways, you know, in our bodies and through our bodies. But you said something, and I want you to sort of re-explain this, that there's no, is, am I right in remembering at least in mammals? There's no animals that we see any history of a contact with aluminum. We don't see aluminum in the bodies of animals looking back throughout history. Is that, is that accurate? Yeah, no, that's spot-time.

What we're saying is that there is always some form of signature, even a footprint of previous experience of something from the environment such as a biologically available metal. So through natural selection, some metals have become essential to living things. Others have been selected out because they're not essential, not useful. And indeed, those that have been selected out, our bodies retained, in fact, our bodies and bodies before us and every evolutionary form retains a memory of having experienced those metals. There is no such memory for aluminium. In other words, biology proceeded for all of its biochemical evolution in the absence

of biologically available aluminium up until almost you could say man learned how to get aluminium out of its inert ores, the bogsites and other types of ores, create an aluminium metal, create aluminium salts, and we had what I call the advent of the aluminium age. So it is an incredibly new arrival in biochemical evolution and that is evidenced from biochemistry, from evolution. There is no, not a signature, not a footprint in the sand like you have of a dinosaur or something to say that it's been there before. It hasn't been there before.

It's there now. It's in every cell in your body and every cell in my body and hopefully we have less than But it is there now. So it's fascinating. I find that fascinating so that until we mined this stuff out of the earth, broke it free of the other chemical components that sort of locked it up and kept it from being by avail. We broke it apart, which created the aluminum age. And you said this early on.

We literally, the age that I grew up in, all the automobiles and cell phones. And virtually every piece of technology that has advanced our society has aluminum in it. So we took this element. Our bodies had never come in contact with. And we made it the most ubiquitous element that we're in contact with now in the world today. And I think about like a science fiction movie, it's as though a meteor from some foreign world hit our earth and has released something that none of us had ever come in contact with. it would have had the same effect in many ways.

And so when we think of the natural world, we hadn't come in contact with this. And so our bodies have developed no, whether it's, you know, we're not in concert with it. We don't know if we're against it. And that. So when you entered this space, you know, is the investigation of what is this new, you know, contact with the metal our bodies have never really been in contact with before. And so I remember growing up, my mom, my mom was really into this, don't, she would say to us, as soon as I remember being a teenager where I needed a deodorant, she says,

never use a deodorant with aluminum in it. It can cause Alzheimer's. I remember she said that to me. So that would have been, that would have been probably like early 1980s, I guess. She would have said that to me. And but I also know we never used aluminum pans in my house. and my mom was really against Teflon. I mean, so, and people have watched this show have come to see my mom as sort of a cult heroic character for some reason.

She was on to these things. But where did the thought first come from that aluminum might be associated with Alzheimer's? I mean, just to go back slightly. Of course, when the meteorite hit the earth and released aluminum aluminum, if it had been useless, it wouldn't have been useless, it wouldn't have. mattered, but it turned out to be the most brilliant metal available for man. And that's why it's become ubiquitous. That's why, you know, the variety of ways in which we use it, it would take you and I several hours to go through and list them all, you know, from using it as an antiperspirant in a

deodrant, through to using it in the fuel that enables a rocket to leaves the Earth's atmosphere. This is the incredible flexibility and myriad uses that there are for aluminium. And I would like to say, well, you know, it was our research or even the relatively early research of the 70s which first highlighted aluminium as a toxin. But it's not true. Actually, there's a society called the Cancer Society of America in the early part of the 20th century within within 20 years of us being able to smelt aluminium and produce aluminium metal and salts they were already warning that this metal was dangerous and they were always trying to prevent it being used for example in it was used in flour and a number of different ways just to

provide colour and all sorts of different applications baking sodas and things but Back then, in the early part of the 20th century, they were already worried about it, and they brought up neurological problems then. Huh. You know, of course, the first documented case of Alzheimer's disease was described by a fellow called the Lois Alzheimer's, and I think about 1906, and we now know that that was a case of familial Alzheimer's disease. In other words, this person had genetic predispositions to develop Alzheimer's disease. Now, what we've found since, of course, in our research is that people with familial Alzheimer's disease have more aluminium in their brain tissue than we've almost ever recorded in any other individual.

Wow. So what that suddenly looks like is that predisposition to Alzheimer's is predisposition to Alzheimer's is predisposition to the accumulation of aluminium in brain tissue. Wow. And that was one of the reasons why, you know, after two decades of my own research, in 2017, I wrote a paper for Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports where I said categorically, unequivocally, no aluminium membrane tissue, no Alzheimer's disease. I qualified it by saying within the normal lifetime of an individual, because the fundamentals

of Alzheimer's disease could certainly occur in extreme age. If one was to live 120, 150, then other toxins would produce some sort of similar type of response. Aging itself might produce that response, but my point was that without the presence of aluminium, you will not get Alzheimer's disease in the normal lifetime of an individual. Right. And so, you, you know, You know, you ended up doing, you know, work on, you dissected how many brains? I mean, you did a huge study dissecting the brains of Alzheimer's patients. Just tell me a little bit about that and what you discovered. In total now, we must have looked at it.

Well, all human brains over a variety of different conditions, more than 200 human brains. Wow, okay. And approximately over 100 of those. were in relation to Alzheimer's disease. Primarily the large group to do with the sporadic form of the disease. It's 90% of people who get Alzheimer's. There is no genetic predisposition, more than 90% probably. And then we also had a group that we said with the familial Alzheimer's disease brains. And then of course we also look at, and what's perhaps most definitive and actually since you and I last communicated, we published a paper in

the Nature's Scientific Reports where we brought up the fact that if you look at so-called control brain tissue, if I asked my consultant neuropathologist at the Brain Bank in London to provide us with brain tissues from individuals that have no neurological disease whatsoever, no symptoms and in fact post-mortem these brains showed absolutely no neurodegeneration so they're clean in terms of newer degeneration in terms of Alzheimer's disease and he found 20 brains that we could look at and we looked for aluminium in these brain tissues and hey presto we didn't find any so these were individuals aged from about 65 all the way up to about 105. Wow. So we could then compare the aluminium content of those with sporadic Alzheimer's disease,

familial Alzheimer's disease. We also made a comparison with multiple sclerosis, which we've also worked on, and indeed, of course, we made the comparison with the autism brain tissues. So that categorically shows that if you do not have a significant amount of aluminium in your brain tissue, you do not develop neurological disease, neurodegenerative disease. You do not get Alzheimer's disease. It's only 20, but it's the best 20 we could get from the largest brain bank in the UK. Okay, and look, I think it's really important to revisit this conversation. We're going to talk about Alzheimer's a little bit more because there's been some recent developments.

But I just want to finish up the whole story for our audience. Really, in many ways, you know, you're at Keel University. you are, you know, Mr. Aluminum, the world sees that there's really no scientists that spend more time looking at just this one element on the earth, its interaction with plants, animals, and especially human beings. You are, you know, the premier scientist when it comes to this investigation of Alzheimer's, in the connection with aluminum in the brain, which, as you have stated, you know, very clearly, no aluminum in the brain, no, no Alzheimer's, that it's, that clear to you and the work that you've done.

All of that seemed to be, you know, okay. It was okay for your university. It was okay to look at those things. You really took a step down a road that got you into a whole different place. The moment enough people, you know, were saying to you, well, you've looked at the aluminum in Alzheimer's brains. Would you look at autistic children? Because, you know, I don't know if you were told.

There was a lot of parents. We were aware there's aluminum and vaccinations. There's been this connection between vaccinations and autism, but a lot of people reaching out and said, could you look at the brains of some autistic children or adults and see what you see with the aluminum there? Now, were you reticent before you stepped into that? Did you already sort of see that as a potential third rail

when that idea came to you? You're absolutely right. Of course, there had been a number of studies published, both animal and indeed human studies, where this possible relationship between aluminium and autism had been brought up many times. And in my own mind, I'm thinking, well, I'm seeing autism in young children, right? This is my, I'm seeing it developing in the first years of life. I'm not seeing autism developing in someone in their 40s or 50s or 60s. So I'm thinking young children.

Well, everything I know about human exposure to aluminum tells me that young children will not have very much aluminum in their brains or even in their bodies. Well, I had to investigate that. Am I right? Am I wrong? So we asked the brain, the autism brain banking. The idea, just to be clear, just to be clear, the reason you're thinking, I'm thinking I shouldn't find that much is because all of your investigation has been over a lifetime

exposure. The older these people are, they've been in contact for whatever reasons of the aluminum collecting in their body, collecting in their brains, but it was over a long period of time. So how would a child have enough aluminum in their brain, the short existence on this planet to have somehow coming in contact with enough aluminum and collected enough to make a difference, right? Is that basically the thought? Yeah. Okay. and to produce autistic traits, autistic damage. Yeah, absolutely.

That's absolutely where I was. But we've already done the work in Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, we've done the familial Alzheimer's. And so if the tissues are available, we should do it. And that's what we did. And we contacted the autism brain back here in the United Kingdom, where they had brain tissues from 10 individuals who died with the diagnosis of autism.

Five of those brains were suitable for quantitative analysis where we could measure how much aluminium was present. All 10 were suitable to use our very, our beautiful technique of imaging aluminium in tissue and brain tissue. And that's what we did. And when my PhD student who did the first measurements of the aluminium, how much aluminium there was,

was in the brain tissue, came to me with the results, I told her to go back and look at all of this again because we thought we had seen astronomical amounts of aluminium in familial Alzheimer's disease and then we saw values at least as high in autism brain tissue. And as I wrote eventually in the publication that we made in the abstract, you know, why a 15 year old boy brain when he died would have amounts of aluminium almost never measured before is almost incomprehensible so yes we suddenly found something which i was i did not expect at all to find and i said this many times in my interviews post publication of that research yeah but it's there and we needed to find a reason and so thus sent you on as you said you're curious

your curiosity onto a journey, which we've been a part of documenting some of and witnessed you going through. You have an amazing team or you had an amazing team at Keel University that were also excited to start tracking how the aluminum was getting there. And if I remember correctly, there was a different location in how the aluminum was in the brain in Alzheimer's compared to how it was in the brain in autism. Yeah, a very critical observation. So when we find aluminum in brain tissue in older brains, perhaps to do with Alzheimer's or even multiple sclerosis,

most of the time we're finding the aluminum associated with debris in the brain, in other words, cell death, perhaps in neurons sometimes, but generally either in a neuron or a dead neuron. In other words, debris, and as we saw in familial Alzheimer's disease associated with amyloid. When we did the same thing in the ten, looked where the aluminium was, in this time in 10 individuals who died with the diagnosis of autism, we found something completely different.

We found that virtually all of the aluminium was not in neurons. It was in the housekeeping cells of the brain, which such things as the glia and the microglia. It was also in lymphocytes, white blood cells, macrophages that appeared to be crossing from the blood into brain tissue across the meninges, across the blood-brain barrier. We all of a sudden saw that aluminium was potentially getting into brain tissue via white blood cells via macrophages, via lymphocytes. And, you know, this was the, this was that moment when all of a sudden, yes, I can now begin to understand why, um, why we found, can find so much aluminium in autism brain tissue. And the reason is because previously we had not previously, there was no evidence,

evidence that these types of cells were playing any role in putting aluminium into brain tissue in, for example, ages or individuals or Alzheimer's disease. The mechanisms there were still unknown actually, but there was no evidence that that was the way in which aluminium was getting in, whereas for these autism brain tissues, it was probably the mechanism whereby aluminium was getting in. And of course, it fitted remarkably in some ways with our research looking at what happens to aluminium at the vaccine injection site. Right. Because at the vaccine injection site where an aluminium adjuvant is in the vaccine, what we saw were these same types of white blood cells, macrophages,

filling their filling up with aluminium. They could actually ingest it until the whole of the volume of the cell was full of aluminium without causing them any immediate damage. They can then go off around the body. They can go off to the lymph nodes, perhaps helping to initiate the actual immune response that the vaccine was given for. But they can go elsewhere. They could go to brain tissue. Roman Gerardis group using rats showed that they could go from an injection site to brain tissue.

So we now have a mechanism for loading up brain tissue with aluminium. And that is through these housekeeping cells of the body. From my layman's perspective, let me see if I got this right. You know, you inject this vaccine. The aluminum is there for people that don't know it as an adjuvant. It is there to sort of incite the body into sort of inflammatory response, which wakes the body up that it's in some ways under attack, which is how a vaccine works so that the antibodies will start being produced.

But the white blood cells or these, you know, this macrophage, as you say the cleanup, they come to save the body. They gobble up the aluminum to protect the body and hopefully try to get it out of the body. But what you're saying is it could hold massive amounts and then they just fly out and start traveling around the body and then can be delivered to the brain inside of these white blood cells. And so that was the mechanism. Now, when I saw you in Ushmall, Mexico for the aluminum conference there, you and your team were presenting amazing research where you were starting to do tracking, you were tracking, you know, an injection site aluminum through the body,

how and really starting to map out how it was taking this trip into the brain. And right about there is where your university really basically just said, Chris, enough is enough. You got to cut this out. You got to, you know. And so I remember when we were in Usual, 2019, you said, this may be my last aluminum conference. You were bringing an aluminum scientist from around the world. Giorardi, who you just pointed out, one of the most powerful statements I've ever seen made when I watch it. And it brings me to tears when he said... It's very difficult to work with serenity.

We are attacked every day from every part of the landscape. The general press is aggressive, the health authorities are aggressive, the government is not supporting, and it is a difficult issue. But it is such an important issue that we must insist. We must insist. And so just to fill out this story, you returned to Keele University, what happened with the research, this incredible research you were doing on aluminum, autism, and the aluminum and vaccinations? Yeah. So, you know, that moment when you and I last spoke about this was February 2019. When we got back, we did the control brain study that I mentioned earlier. We hadn't yet done that study because that's very important in terms of setting the context.

Control brain being the ones that were the healthiest you could find. You said, give me the healthiest brains you can find. That would be the control and you couldn't, there was no aluminum in them. If they had died and their brain was healthy, you know, if there's no neurodegeneration, there's no aluminum. Okay, very interesting. We began to report on that study late 2019 and the publication came out early 2020. Now what I now know, which I sort of didn't know then, was that there were already things going on in the background. This, particularly the publication of this paper in Nature Scientific Reports in 2020, was already setting up some sort of fall for me and my group.

Now, I think that was actually interrupted by COVID. Because in March 2020, we weren't even allowed to go to work. So all of a sudden, for four months, five months, we couldn't even go into work. And so I feel that what happened there was there was any focus that had been on what we had achieved and what they didn't like, and I don't know, and they, perhaps come to who they might be, but what they didn't like got distracted by COVID. Okay. And it was only at the end of 2020 that I got some sort of spurious emails from, particularly one from a journalist working for the Guardian newspaper, essentially questioning not only the validity of our research, but also our funding and our funding streams and asking, and they had apparently placed freedom of information requests

to Keel about this, although Keel never told me that these existed. And I ignored this person because I'd come to ignore most journalists who I know are on some sort of trip where their only interest is not the truth. Let's put it that way. So I ignored that. And then early in 2021, when this journalist converted commas published the article in the Guardian newspaper, Again, I thought, well, you know, I've seen this before. We've had these attacks by mainstream newspapers before. I'll do what I did before.

I'll ignore it. So I did. But the senior management team of the university did not. And they almost within a few days suspended all of my research. Wow. And suspended all of my funding. So we were all of a sudden, Even though we were back in the labs under COVID restrictions,

we were almost unable to do anything anyway. That's the point when I brought in my lawyers and we started to find out what was really going on. And what was really going on was that probably what Keel might call some of their major investors, funders were putting pressure on my vice chancellor, the head of the university, to stop us, to prevent research from going on. And he was, we then found out and people can read about this on my website. I have a leaving statement with all these details, but essentially he was more than happy to go

along with this and what he did was, again, without any discussion with me whatsoever, he wrote a letter to something called the Keews University Governing Council saying that I was an anti-vaxxer, that I was actually one of the leading academic anti-vaxers in the world. All of our research was anti-vaccine and that we must be stopped. So he asked for approval to stop all of our funding, to disable our website. And as they say, the rest is history. That is what he did. He sent this letter, he got the approval. He just produced an entire document of lies.

And actually, the people on this council, they wouldn't know me from, you know, they're in the university bureaucracy. They wouldn't know me from Adam. They're not members of the staff or anything. He treated me as if I was like some second-rate sort of scientist. He didn't even call me a professor in the, he called me doctor. He didn't even recognize my position that he had granted me, you know, previously. So it was clear and obvious that something was going on. And I don't think he instigated it.

I think he responded to pressures for external pressures. I mean, one of the things that alerted me almost as exactly the same time was something is when Google starts to censor you. Yeah. Now, I'd never experienced that before. But if you put Chris Exley into Google, normally you just get a myriad different articles from, you know, literally thousands and thousands and thousands. of hits. At one point in early 2021, you put Chris Exley into Google, you hardly got anything at all. In other words, I was already being censored somewhere and the powers that be came together. I spoke to lawyers obviously about it in depth, very good employment lawyers, very good advice,

but literally just said to me, Chris, yeah, well, we, We can fight this, right? We can fight it. But all that will happen is if we go to a tribunal, which you can win and you can, but they'll still sack you because they're able to do that. Right. Or they'll still do what they're doing

because they can't, the tribunal won't be able to reverse what they've done. It will just be able to say what they've done is not right. And you might get a small amount of compensation. Right. Or we can try to. to do something else, which involves me offering to resign. And once I knew that I was not going to be able to do

any research again at Kiel, there was no point to me. That's what I said to you earlier about, I'm not a scientist for science sake. If I can't answer the question that I live for, right you. What's the point? You live for doing what you're doing. And if you can't do that, then I leave the,

you know, I'm going to leave the building. leave the stage. And that's what we decided to do. Let me take this moment to talk to my audience for a second that may not know why this is important to them. There are so many of you that are brand new to this conversation and you've come to the high wire because of our investigation of the COVID vaccine, which we predicted would be a failure

long before it's now being admitted years ago, you know, in the beginning of this. What we're talking about now is an issue that exists in the childhood vaccine program and vaccines you may have received as an adult. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine that's being given to your baby within the first 24 hours of life inside of a hospital has aluminum levels that are off the charts. And let me explain this. When they approved aluminum to be used in vaccinations, there is not a single human study of aluminum and its safety in human beings to be found.

There's a rat study where they gave. aluminum to rats ingested to eat aluminum and they found that that amount would be the extreme sort of toxic load now that was a rat study it was ingested let me ask you this just and this is where I'm not a scientist but your logical people right now would you imagine that eating aluminum would be more toxic or do you think injecting it straight into the body might be a little bit more toxic you know I'll let me just put it out there that you know you might be to eat peanut butter, but if you inject it straight in your bloodstream, it's going to have a much

more serious effect. So, when we think about this vaccination, I want you to imagine if 25 micrograms is the limit of what you should eat or a child should eat in a whole day, don't you think that 25 micrograms injected straight in the bloodstream would be way off the charts and maybe potentially extremely dangerous? Well, let me make this clear. It's not 25 micrograms. It's not 50, it's not 100, it's nearly 250 micrograms of aluminum in that vaccination given to your baby that is this big. Now, a child doesn't matter if it's a premature or, you know, a full 10-pound baby. We are giving nearly 10 times the amount of aluminum that was, was, you know, came out of a rat, steady eating it. We are now injecting into a baby. And I will say this, anecdotally, we see some of the high, in America,

we're really the most prolific in giving this vaccine in the first day, we have the highest rates of first day infant deaths in the entire world. No other country has more babies die on the first day of life than the United States of America. The list goes on and on. Then we can look very quickly at the Gardasil vaccine for teenagers, teenage girls and boys to stop the HPV issue. This was an attempt to have a vaccine that could stop cancer. And so that vaccine, has, as we understand, huge amounts of aluminum. And when I got involved in the research of vaccines, that vaccine has been discussed with people I've interviewed as having caused more issues than any other vaccine I'd ever seen until COVID. That Gardasil-HBV vaccine is terrifying when you start

talking to people. So many people talk about the paralysis of their children. There were hundreds of girls that all ended up being paralyzed down in South America. that all got at the same time. And the medical establishment said they all went crazy at the same time, that there's no way that they had this physical effect. So I bring all of this to the point that aluminum is now, you know, a huge part of the childhood vaccine program. We don't just give that hepatitis B vaccine the first day of life.

Also, if you're getting your vitamin K shot, that was a huge shot of aluminum also. And so it just goes on and on. Aluminum is right there. and it is present in massive levels. And so that's why this conversation should be grabbing your attention because what Chris X-Exley discovered with his team was that these children with autism had at least as high,

if not higher levels of aluminum in their brains within the first few years of life than the grandmother that died of Alzheimer's who had a lifelong contact with aluminum through the environment. We're injecting this stuff. So he did work and saw that it is definitely traveling straight to the brain. And therefore, the university shut him down and destroyed the career of the most prolific aluminum scientist in the world.

That's why we're here. I want to play a video very quickly because I think it gets to the heart of this. I want to remind you all what Tony Fauci said when he was being questioned about the science around COVID and the COVID vaccine. All I want to do is save people's lives. That's what I have done for the last 50 years, 40 of which was 37 of which was leading the Institute. And when I see people who scatter around misinformation

and lies that can actually endanger the lives of people, but also it is very easy to pick out an individual and make them a target because that's what people can focus on, But you're talking about systems. You're talking about the CDC. You're talking about the FDA. You're talking about science in general. So if they want to, I mean, anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this.

So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets. at Tony Fauci. Well, people could recognize there's a person there, there's a face, there's a vice. You can recognize, you see him on television. So it's easy to criticize. But they're really criticizing science because I represent science. So, Chris, when we see this statement by Tony Fauci, at first I thought it was just a statement of arrogance that Tony Fauci is obviously full of himself, is self-aggrandizing on some level. But as I, reflected on what was happening with the science around ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine in this

COVID discussion, when I started thinking about what happened with your career and others, other scientists that were also doing their own investigations into aluminum, into aluminum being used in veterinary medicine and vaccines. Everyone was losing their job. And how were they losing their jobs? They were losing their jobs at universities. Funding was being shut down or somehow there was an attack on the universities. And I realized really when I was reading Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, he really laid out how Fauci is moving tens of billions of dollars through science, that the NIH is funding universities, funding science and funding doctors. And I realized the power he has with that he can give money and he can take money

away from universities that can either be a huge benefit or a massive tragedy if it's pulled away from that university. And therefore, he would be able to affect how certain scientists are treated. If they're doing science that Tony Fauci and the NIH does not approve of, then he can systematically destroy the funding in a major way to a university. And I would guess that something like that happened at Keel. Someone, whether or not it's Fauci or not, does. doesn't like that you're dancing in this arena of vaccinations. And so they threaten the funding of that university, saying we will cut. And it's probably not just direct, you know, Fire Exley, but it's like, look, we love the

cancer research you're doing and we have big money going into that and all these other places, but we really don't like the work being done by Professor Exley. So we think you should do something about it. Do you think I'm inaccurate in thinking? So then I look at Fauci and think maybe he's right. If he's been moving tens of billions of dollars through the university systems around the world, then the only science that's being allowed is science being approved by Tony Fauci. So maybe he's right.

If we're questioning the current science of our day, which is a disaster, we're questioning, or we're questioning him, we're questioning science. What do you think when you sort of look at that perspective I just shared with you? Well, if I can go back one step, right I want to if I put into context a little bit why now was the time to get rid of my research because you know 10 years ago I had discussions with the welcome trust because they put out a call for research on vaccine adjuvants so I had a conversation with them about this saying well look This is an area we're interested in.

We work on the most common of the vaccine adjuvants, aluminium salts, in more than 80% of all vaccines. They said to me at the time, we're doing no more research on aluminium salts in vaccines. So I assumed from that it meant that we were going to see a change. We were going to see perhaps alternatives to aluminium. They didn't say why they weren't going to, but they said that was the case. case, so don't bother applying essentially. So 10 years on, actually what we see is something

completely different. So only about two years ago, perhaps less. So for example, my government put a huge amount of investment into a new factory in Scotland in the United Kingdom, making aluminium magivants. So they enabled, I think, a French company who are the actual company, with tens and hundreds of millions of pounds to produce a new aluminium adjuvant manufacturing facility. People ask a lot about the COVID situation. And of course, these messenger RNA vaccines, there's no aluminium anywhere near these. But the reality is that those messenger RNA vaccines, regardless of what people tell you, are not the future because they don't work.

Right. And now if what you see is you see more and more new vaccines with respect to COVID being developed in the old fashioned way with adjuvants and the adjuvants being tested are aluminium salts. Now this is happening more and more. In other words, no one has given up on aluminium adjuvants. Right. But what they didn't like is the fact that new. research was telling them they should have given up on them and if they don't give up on them further research will make it more and more obvious that these are killing people,

killing babies and prematurely ending the lives of other people and contributing towards neurological conditions in adults that all of that was coming true to them. Right. Well right now they've got a period of time because Exley's gone and you know well that I try to drive this subject globally through the keel meetings in every single way. And the easy thing is you remove Exley who spent a good deal of his time encouraging and working with people all around the world. And those projects, they have lost faith. They don't want to continue in the same way.

They know how difficult it was for me and they don't want to do that. They're scientists for science sake. They want to move on to something where they can get. funding for right so there will be now a huge void created by the removal of me and my group which will allow these vaccines and these disuse of aluminium adjuvants to continue for many many years to come that's the worry that we all have right now and the evidence for it is out there even with respect to COVID vaccines not you know we and I know that COVID vaccines are just the tip of an iceberg

Yeah. All the other vaccines, wherever they are, a hundred different vaccines given to human beings, vast majority of them were adjuvanted with aluminium salts and will, and have continued to be so, of course. Nothing has changed there. We are still poisoning the population with these. I've written on my substact now that if we had a moratorium on aluminium adjuvants, we said you can't use it anymore. My personal opinion is that if that meant that, all the vaccines that use aluminium adjuvants can no longer be used until something safer is demonstrated it would have zero impact on the health of the population you know i am absolutely

convinced by that so this is really now what needs to happen but of course it won't happen but that's just putting it in the context that you know don't think this is something that has you know from the past or something this is something that's been planned it's going on and aluminium adageants will become a greater part of everyone's life. Everyone who decides to have a COVID vaccine in the future will find it's not going to be an messenger RNA because, A, they don't work and B, we know they're killing people. They're going to go for something which historically at least they can claim to be safe. Yeah, well, let me just, while we're right here, one of the scientists that's caught a lot of

attention here at the Highwire and of our audience is. Dr. Kirt Vanden Bosch out of Belgium. He really put forward this idea that the vaccine was going to pressure the virus to become stronger, more virulent, potentially more deadly. In my most recent conversation with him, out of nowhere, he made a shocking statement that immediately made me think of you. Let me play it for you. Take a look at this. You very well remember the discussion about aluminium, right? Yes. Many years ago. This is the first, we were very close to removing aluminum from the vaccines, I can tell you. Really? This is the first time, this is the first time that I've seen all the

big vaccine companies sitting around the very same table because they had the same interest to defend. Imagine that they would have banned aluminum from the vaccines. I mean, all these, all these vaccine companies would have been in deep, deep trouble. right i mean it's completely changing the manufacturing completely changing everything all the clinical studies all and and of course they're what they were saying was come on guys if we need to do this there is going to be a tremendous deficiency in supply of the vaccine so all the kids in africa are going to die etc and of course w hos was very much involved in that as well so you know if yeah well i had no idea of there all right so look now that that i already want to

just jump right in because aluminum's been a big conversation i have had no idea we were ever close to having that or discussions were happening on WHO level to have that removed. I mean, that was just, I mean, you can see the shock in my face because you and I had had so many conversations about this here at Vanne Bosch, whose background is working with the WHO, looking at clinical studies. He was involved, you know, with the Ebola vaccine program up in Africa. But this guy's in the thick of it. And he tells me in that moment that, that all of the vaccine makers came together with the WHO to discuss aluminum, which would mean they're discussing your work because very few other people were doing the level of work that

you were doing. Are you shocked to know that all the vaccine makers actually came together at all, that this conversation made it to a WHO worldwide symposium level? No, I'm not shocked at all. In fact, I expect that conversation to happen, but not from the point of view that they are going to act upon it in a way to remove aluminium, but how they can do something about it, because they know full well, they cannot do what I've said needs to be done, which is the moratorium of aluminium magivance in vaccines, it cannot be done. It cannot be done on existing vaccines and it cannot be done if, for example, let's just take an example that we do actually have a true problem with a disease.

in the future which could be global and could be dealt with by a vaccine, they would never ever be able to produce that particular vaccine, as I say, alive, attenuated or something of that sort. They would need to have minuscule amounts of the actual antigen which would require an adjuvant in order to try to make the vaccine work. And the only adjuvant that would be quickly and cheaply available to make literally tens of hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine would be now. I mean, you imagine. So they are never going to have that or make that decision. But yes, I'm absolutely, I think the decision they made was to close Chris Exley down.

Right. That was the decision that was come to. We don't know. He didn't tell us when this meeting took place. You're right. That's true. timeline for it. We don't have a timeline for it, but if it was in the last five years, then that adds more to the, you know, we're all grist to the mill, that we know what, why this

happened. I mean, you know, the university didn't start trying to stop me from working in 2021. From 2016 onwards, I've had nothing but grief from what used to be my university. kill university senior management twice before I had to bring lawyers in to protect my position wow so I was already under fire on a continuous basis it's just you under what are you under the Alzheimer's conversation also was that already causing problems or was it just autism that brought the conflict without going into detail it was personal things in other words can we get actually for personal issues and that's what they did and they manufactured personal issues and they took me to disciplinary hearings why this is why I had to have lawyers and of

course with good employment lawyers they had nothing to stand on but they were still able to admonish me and put things on my record the fact that they've created a disciplinary issue, it went on my record. And Keogh, many places have this three strikes in your out. You have three things on your disciplinary record within a period of, say, 12 months. They can sack you then without even having to worry about it. So they'd already started this process back then, but they hadn't been very clever. Somehow or other, somebody said to them, hey, just stop his funding.

You know, actually loves research. He loves this. And that's somebody told them that and that was of course the clever thing to do. Right. If they'd done that in 2016, I would have had to stop them. The universities are totally autonomous in this respect, DEL. People think of them in many different ways, but they can act exactly as they wish to act. And yes, you can prove them wrong, but you don't get anything back.

Sometimes some compensation, but you know, compensation is done. nothing to someone like me, there's no amount of money that can compensate me. You've taken away a career, a passion, a life for myself. So compensation is irrelevant largely. So, you know, this, their sudden, you know, lightball moment, oh, we can stop Exley's research if we get approval from the governing council and that's what they did. And congratulations to Keel. They've got rid of me, and in doing so, I suspect the subject will suffer. Indeed. I mean, as you said, you're the leading voice, the scientists that were following you around the world,

and you were having these aluminum conferences bringing really incredible discoveries about aluminum and its use, especially in vaccines and pharmaceutical products. So now the reason I decided to call you was I saw. article that I found shocking. Here where I'd grown up and my mom had said no aluminum pans, don't drink out of aluminum cans, don't use aluminum deodorants, all of those things, which I still live by. But the aluminum seemed to leave the Alzheimer's conversation. It all became about amyloid plaques and is the term oligamer, oligamer? Am I saying that right? That's right, yeah. And this discovery and all the drugs, all the manufacturing,

actually all the future of stopping Alzheimer's was going to be drugs that sort of stop this toxic oligomer and these amyloid plaques. And then this article comes out that basically shows that there is now a giant question behind the base science. Here is Science Alert. Explosive report claims a leading Alzheimer's theory may use fabricated results. This is all about the work by Sylvan Lesne, I think is his name. that he had put together this idea. And everyone, they were already looking at amyloid plaques, but this sort of oligamer connection seemed to have given them an approach.

We can go after that and somehow cure Alzheimer's. And so these drugs have been coming out. They've been having no value whatsoever. And that's sort of what set off this investigation looking at why the drugs weren't working that were being sold and were they a fraud and deeper analysis showed that, wait a minute, this whole theory looks to be fraudulent, having set, I mean, hundreds of millions of

dollars around the world invested into these drugs that we're looking at dealing with this issue. And again, I mean, this weird, we keep getting these stories, the, you know, the conversation of cholesterol over sugar. We found out that the sugar bought the science to make cholesterol the issue when it came to high blood pressure and heart disease. So again, this is yet another one of those moments. As I look at the Lancet and the British Medical Journal and all of these different publishers and editors have said the same thing. You cannot trust the science happening here. None of it can be repeated. Here again, the entire world of Alzheimer's and Alzheimer's investigations was set in an incorrect course. And now we're finding out,

all based on a fraud. Did you read that? I mean, I know you wrote your own sort of article about this on your substack, but for people that don't understand, what's the basis of what took place here? What is this fraud if it happened? I know there's more investigation that needs to be done. Yeah, I mean, I don't know where they're up to in respect to the investigation. It seems to have gone a little quiet, but.

Yeah. And as usual, those journals that were responsible for publishing the fraudulent papers have gone quiet too, in particular nature. And essentially, the question was when the normal protein called amyloid, normal protein in the body forms something called an amyloid plaque, which is what you sometimes find in the brains of indeclite, individuals with Alzheimer's disease, but not always, but sometimes. It goes through a process and that process involves a number of steps, essentially where a single, we call it a monomeric unit of the protein becomes a huge aggregate. And one of the processes, one of the steps involves things called oligomers. And oligmas are where several of the proteins form a distinct structure. That's called the oligama.

And these oligamers can have different molecular weights. They can be different sizes. And this group in particular, and in fact, yes, Lesnay was a PhD student at the time who's been hoisted whatever, where their particular petard on this. But the lead scientist is Karen Ash, and she's going to have to be the one who actually answers to all of this. Okay. They not only made a suggestion that one of these oligomers existed, for starters, but they then went on to say that it was present in tissue taken from people without Alzheimer's disease. Now, the way in which this was largely proven was using a method which identifies the presence of something as a sort of little smear,

But that method in itself has always been prone to not only error, but fabrication, because you can more or less copy and paste these little things that are supposed to stand for a particular protein from one of these diagrams, call it a diagram from one diagram to another. And the suggestion is that that potentially is what went on here, that they may have been able to make this illegitabre in the lab, inverted commas, in completely unnatural conditions. But then they tried to make out that it was a real player in the actual disease etiology. Now, why this was bought by so many organisations from your own NIH National Institute of Aging all the way through to some major drug companies as being,

worth the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't know because I've been working with amyloids since early 90s. And while we only work on it in test tubes essentially in vitro, we do work on it under physiological conditions. In other words, we try to replicate conditions in brain tissue in a test tube in vitro. And in all the time we worked on this, we never managed to find almost any oligmas. Never mind this particular eligma. In other words, for us,

eligmas, if anything, were an extremely transient phase, but generally were not something that will persist and produce toxicity in an Alzheimer disease brain. And we'd written about that. And we argued it. And I've written as a referee on many papers about it. But for some reason, we don't quite understand why it was picked up

and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and directed in that way. Some people are saying that this is the end of the amyloid cascade hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease. I don't believe that to be the case because my work on familial Alzheimer's disease where individuals with familial Alzheimer's disease produce significant amounts of amyloid in their brain tissue in their early 30s, 40s, 50s is also where we found the aluminium. In other words, there is something happening with respect to amyloid and Alzheimer's disease. I'm absolutely convinced about that, but it's got little or very little to do with this

oligma hypothesis, and particularly the one, which was, I think, they called it a 56 mare eligma, but anyway. So we will see you find out what happens. But, you know, this is just another example of where you pick and choose. the science that you want to be successful. And when I wrote about it on the substack, I talked about the fact that it's a similar time, while people were deciding that the illegible hypothesis

of Alzheimer's disease was everything that we should all be doing and all of our money should be directed in that way. Another paper published in Nature in the same journal by someone called Landsberg et al from the team of Frank what at Oxford had fraudulently said that there was no aluminum human brain tissue, and it was all contamination, even though they knew they were wrong. But nature were happy to publish that, but was funded by the Welcome Trust. And so at the same time was that one possible series of the Welcome Trust, the same group, but let me just to put it together, the Welcome Trust,

the same group that was doing adjuvant studies. You reached out, said, you know, I'm Mr. aluminum, I'd like to look at the aluminum adjuvant and say, we're not doing that anymore. Then you find out they funded a fraudulent paper that's published to say there's no aluminum in the brains to disprove all of your work altogether. Absolutely. Same people. Yeah, I mean, you know, I used to believe in the Welcome Trust. They are a completely corrupt organization like many. I mean, we talked a little bit about, so what do we do now when our regulatory agencies when our funding agencies, when our industries, when our charities cannot be relied upon to fund independent high quality research.

What do we do about this? And, you know, there is an answer to this. There is an answer, and it's called philanthropy. Yeah. And pure philanthropy, which does exist, and I have been the benefit of it, where those either individuals or groups making the donations, make absolutely no, they do not make any sort of inferences with respect to what you do or how you do it or anything. They just simply give the money. Yes. This is possible. It is still possible.

Honestly, it's what makes the high wire possible. The only way I can do the stories that I do is because I don't have sponsors that say that's too dangerous, Dell, we don't want you to do that. We don't want to interview that person. In our case, it's a lot of very small donors and some larger out there, but the body of the work that we do and the most investment we get is from small $1.5, $20 donors. And so to all of you out there want to thank you for making this possible, but it's what you're talking about. That's the only way any of this is going to work.

We're not going to get real media. We're not going to get good science unless the people get involved and support it themselves. Because in the end, Fauci's or the Fauci's of the world are moving, they're moving all the chess players, right? They're funding all of the game as it's being played. And anyone that's doing good science is finding themselves under attack, losing their jobs, being threatened, or get off of that, focus on something else. And, you know, it's really, we're in a terrifying, terrifying moment here in science. You have brilliant, like yourself. I mean, I've watched, in the course of the high wire, the world's leading authority on aluminum loses.

job. I am watching the world's leading authority on the heart in Dr. Peter McCullough because he has come out and said, look, clearly you have a heart problem with this COVID vaccine, but he had to move universities. He's under constant attack and threat. We have talked to Dr. Paul Merrick, the leading authority on ICU hospitals has published more work on work inside the ICU. He discovered vitamin C can cure sepsis in almost every circumstance, yet it's not being used around the world because the pharmaceutical institutions came out against him and tried to make him look like a fraud. And then ultimately his career was taken when he wanted to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and was having a 50% reduction in deaths amongst in the ICU, the worst place, the final stages

for these people, lower rates than anybody else around him. And yet he is threatened and ends up losing his job. We're watching Dr. Robert Malone, a great scientist who first thought of the idea of making an mRNA vaccine. He comes out. He's under attack. Shut down by social media. I mean, what in the world is going on? I mean, science is under attack. Are we in threat of losing science altogether? We are not because, you know, science exists in itself. It is something that is, waiting to be discovered. Obviously the process of discovery often requires significant funding, but not always of course. And some discoveries don't upset anybody, Del. You know, working how the swim bladder of a fish actually works upsets no one. So that science will be funded, published,

and lauded. So you, there is already, as you know, a global narrative as to what it is we can discover and what it is we cannot discover. And it's the cannot discover stuff, which, let's be honest, when you set out in science, you don't know you're doing something that's not allowed to be discovered, but you soon find out because you don't get any funding. The clue should be there. I mean, the clue should have been there for me. In the mid-90s, one of my bosses at Royal Society said to me,

Chris, you need to change subjects. I said, well, why? So because you won't get any funding in this area, I can promise you. He was, cause, he was, he was actually right. Perhaps he wasn't thinking of it in the same way as we know is happening now. Yeah. But they know these sorts of, this is, there is a lot of great science that is still receiving funding from government, charities, industry,

industry, perhaps less so, but charities and governments that is not offending anyone and still goes on. Now, it is the science as we said just now that may come up with the discovery that you are not, in other words, answering a question you are not supposed to answer where you are always going to come across a problem. Right.

And those areas are getting, I would say, more and more. The other worrying aspect is, perhaps we saw with the Illegamer story, is that when they want to push science in a particular direction, they can do so by just funneling research in that way. You know, when I started out as a research scientist, So when I made my first grant application to the United Kingdom grant agencies, I could actually make an application to do research and I could be 30% sure I could get a grant. And the reason is because at that point, in the early, in the early, late 80s, early 90s,

the infiltration of government agencies by industry had not taken place to the extent it is today. Now, every government agency is run by industry, every large charity is run by industry, industry makes the decisions for all of them. They decide what government-funded research will take place. They decide which research will be funded by their large charities. You know, people go on marathons and they think they're providing funding for a charity that's going to end Alzheimer's or cure cancer. Sorry, folks. You are just a tiny part of what is happening in that organisation. The vast majority of what is happening in that organisation is being driven by industry. You know, everyone should ask themselves the question, when someone is

unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and it is a terrible diagnosis to have, because there is no quality end whatsoever. Why is it that all of those people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease are still given drugs for Alzheimer's disease that have zero benefit? My old professor I work with Akiel, Peter Chrome, prove, for example, that one of the major Alzheimer's disease drugs are a recept. in the massive study show that Arecept had no benefit whatsoever in Alzheimer's disease. It's still given to people today. Why? Because it makes billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical

industry. It also does this. It gives the doctor the ability to look like they're doing something. Instead of saying to the patient, I got nothing for you, which I'm not going to have many patients, I'm going to give you this drug and the patient gets to say, oh, well, you're, you're, you're, My doctor's a great doctor. He or she's doing something for me. Because without that, they got nothing, right? And so what is this especially, what are they doing? Now, so as you're saying, is it just, is philanthropy the story now?

Is it, and how, I mean, even your philanthropy money got shut down by Keel. Did it not? I remember your portal for which we were all donating and trying to make something happen. Even that was taken away from you. Yes, that's true. I mean, I have hoped because I think that this entire pandemic experience woke a lot of people up. And hopefully it woke a lot of philanthropists up because I think that, you know, there is a future in getting good work funded and things like that. But just as I think about it, you know, you had an amazing team at Kiel.

What happened to your team? Did they also, did, you know, when you lost, you know, your position? there at Kiel, what happened to the team and the great work they were doing? Let me just go back one step, right? Okay. Philanthropy is an answer. It has to be in the context of independence, which means that we need to go back and, you know, decide, create independent institutes.

You know, we are never going to put, you know, close Pandora's box or whatever, however you want to call it now, we are never going to reverse the influence that industry has on governments, charities, etc. It's just not going to happen, not in any foreseeable future. So how do we make sure that difficult science gets done? We set up research institutes through philanthropy, which isn't cheap. So it requires true levels and high levels of philanthropy. But you know, I told this many times, if we'd have been allowed to do one or two of the projects that we needed to do, and they would have cost a fraction of any project or

research program carried out by industry, we'd already know now that aluminium is a cause of of Alzheimer's disease. No one would be. And when you read my book, the last page of it, you'll understand why. Let's talk about your book. Imagine you are an aluminum added, discussions with Mr. Aluminum. This book is out anywhere where you can find a book. What was the goal in writing the book? It started off as a reference and then I realized, oh no, I can't do this. I just cannot write an encyclopedic like reference thing I can only write like I talk to you yeah I can only write from my heart my soul and so that's what I decided to do which sort of went against perhaps what the publishers wanted and other people wanted but that's what I did

hence the title imagine you're an aluminium or aluminum atom and the publisher would hated the title and still does even suggested recently let's change change the title again. I said, no, I love this book. I absolutely love it. Because the book is me, but it does contain more or less, up until the time it was published, citations and references to all of the science. So I retain my integrity with respect to the science. I do not make spurious comments or accusations in the book, but I do talk about them from as I talk to you as a person yeah with passion you know from the gut so I love the book I love for people to read it if they can but and I won't be writing another book

everybody you know this is it the publisher seems to think everybody writes lots of books no this is the book it's done this is Chris Exley in a book Mr. Aluminium enjoy. I love that and it happens to be I think about one of the most unknown yet important issues and substances in our lifetime as you've said everything we're doing is in contact with aluminum and not understanding how it affects us will lead to our own demise and there's lots of things we can do to avoid it with our children with our with ourselves so as we, as we, We sort of sum this all up. Science is under attack. I think there's an awakening happening. You know, as you've watched this pandemic, I mean, I don't know, you know, what your experience

has been, but we seem to see these institutions that have gotten into the way. As you talk about governments that are now being driven by industrial funding, we have the lowest level of confidence in the CDC we've ever seen in America, the FDA. I think the vaccine is now proving to be a disaster and even scientists that sort of supported it, like Dr. Paul Offutt, I see him running for the hills and trying to distance himself. Tony Fauci is running for the hills. Is there a moment here where we can push into or breathe into and demand a difference? Is it through politics? Is it through, as you say, just building private institutions? what would be your dream?

If you were to say this is where we need to go, what is a future that looks brighter and what would have happened to have achieved that in terms of science? We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As I said, lots of good science, great science, goes on today funded in the normal way. It's just not science,

not science that creates controversy. It's not science that is rubbing industry up in the wrong way. I mean, sometimes it might be in the future, of course, and no one quite notices at the time. So all of that, we have to, that has to go on, and people have to believe in it first of all. So we mustn't go anywhere near this, you know, science is dead. No, we're talking about scientists,

Scientists follow money. Scientists have proven in particular during this period of COVID that if you give them a grant to prove black is white, they will do it. They will do that. It'll do it well. And they don't care almost about being able to publish it as long as they get the money.

Because if they're in a university, universities are only interested in money coming in. their interests in what goes out in terms of publications, it's a minor thing. It's, you know, has a little bit of benefit now and again. I mean, it made me laugh recently when I saw a link on a search to an organisation that ranks academics in universities. And when I looked up Kiel, and I looked up, for example, the natural science at Keel, still at the end of 2000,

the end of, when was it, August 2022, the number two scientists at Keel was still me. And I'd left a year ago. The number one scientist in chemical sciences was still me, you know. You know, my senior, the senior management team at Keel, they would have loved to use this information because the type of thing they try to use all the time

to blow their own trumpet. It must have really hurt them to see this. But these are the bits and pieces that we won't change the people that are the organizations that are influencing the areas of science that are too dangerous. I just don't believe we can now. The infiltration of these organisations is way too much. But I still feel optimistic that difficult subjects can be broached through independent research institutes if the right sort of funding can be found. And let's be honest, some people, and I'm not talking about the super rich, I'm just talking

about the generally rich have enough money to set up their own research institute and it still won't make a massive impact upon their daily lives. In other words, there's a lot of money out there that if someone is interested and perhaps the only interest they might have is having their name on a building or something of that sort. Who knows what personal interest philanthropists have and many have none they just give the money away and that's it but there's a lot of money out there and so there is more money out there than there are difficult subjects in science the majority of subjects in science are completely benign to those people like the world economic forum and others who have an agenda for us all the vast majority of

subjects are completely benign but there are some that aren't and some that will prevent the future that the World Economic Forum and others want to see happening right and in fact they will do more than that they will change the world changing the world is you know something you we often think about yes you know and it's something that is done in different ways but if as I've said to you before if you imagine a scenario where it is announced by by the media and by prime ministers and others and serious scientific bodies that aluminium is a cause of Alzheimer's disease the world will have no choice but to change dramatically and people will have to change with it

you know what the vast majority people will follow the money if the next lot of money goes into proving something which before you weren't even allowed to address, that's what will happen. They'll go there. They'll follow it. So it's possible, Del. It's possible, but it needs these people who have the same sort of spirit, perhaps you and I have for what we do to apply for their philanthropic sort of feelings and say, I'm going to just put it out there. Just let's see what can be done. You've re-inspired me. It's, you know, before COVID, we talked a lot about our team.

I can is, you know, our nonprofit is definitely deeply involved in legal issues. We fund some science, but I want to help you on this mission. I think it's time that we start building independent institutions. I hope that the people watching this out there, some of them, maybe we have sparked that person that wants to make a difference in the world. And I hope to facilitate that. We need you back in the game, Chris, we need your vision, we need your honesty, we need your integrity. It's a critical time. And these difficult issues in science happen to be the most important issues. Sure, there's the benign, but the benign is not affecting our lives, like the decisions that are being made every day. Either we are going to watch humanity fall because of it, or humanity rises

up to recognize the importance that science plays in our lives. So I just, I can't thank you enough for your work. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to share with us today. I think this is a very important conversation and I hope everyone's as inspired as I am to to attempt to make a difference in this space. I think we can. Yeah, well it's it's absolutely great to talk to you again. And don't forget, the science is there. It's published. It's in a book where I'm concerned and as long as I am able to talk, I may no longer be able to be at the lab, which is, which I miss terribly, by the way. But as long as I'm able to be there to explain it and talk about it, I will do that, as you know.

Anyway, thanks a lot. And we will meet, we will, was it virulent, we'll, we'll meet again. We will. We will. We don't know when, but hopefully Texas. Okay. I look forward to that moment. You take care, Chris.

We love you. Thank you. Man, you got to love that guy. It's truly what science and scientists are supposed to be. You have to check out this book. It really is spectacular. Imagine you are an aluminum atom. Discussions with Mr. Aluminum. You know, one of the things about the high wire that I know you get is how passionate I am about these topics. And we bring in people that are passionate about their topics. You may not think you want to know about aluminum. but when you read, you know, Chris is so enthralled by this, he makes it an experience for you with information

that is literally affecting your life. I know you probably want to stick your head in the sand and say not another thing, but go ahead. Get this book anywhere books are available, Amazon, you name it, Barnes & Noble. Imagine you are in aluminum, Adam, discussions with Mr. Aluminum. So important that you understand what's in here. so important that we support science by guys like Dr. Chris Exley. And, you know, that just brings it back to.

And at the end of that conversation, it's something, you know, I have real dreams for what we could do with the informed consent action network. And so many of the things we've done, you know, are beyond many people's wildest expectations. But if all of you out there were watching this show just gave us what little bit you could, just said, you know what, I can skip. a cup of coffee this week and help the high wire out and more importantly informed consent action network. Right now we have major functions. We have the legal cases we're winning. And by the way, we're starting to fight for your food supply. I've told Aaron Siri, we're going

to expand everywhere where our conversation is you see us expanding on the high wire because it's all interconnected, whether it's banking or food or energy. We're going to be bringing lawsuits where we see crimes taking place in those spaces. But there are scientists losing their jobs all around the world that we're doing the proper work to protect us. We're revealing things we needed to know and that is being stopped by the moneyed interest. Can you imagine all it would take would be for everyone watching for you to just say, you know what, I'm going to do it today. If you started helping us, I would love to build a laboratory for Chris Exley and other

scientists like him that maybe, you know, lose their jobs so that we could help support their work. And all you'd have to do is text right now to seven. 7202 and donate. I don't care if it's a dollar. I would recommend $5 because we're going to start having some real bonus programs that are going to be available in that space. We can change the world. We are, but we can do even more. And so to end, you know, this, I just want to say how thankful I am for those of you who have made this whole thing possible for me and the team that makes the high wire possible. For Aaron and Siri and his team, I know they're thankful that they get to do

this brilliant work, you know, legally helping us change the world and protecting children and human beings in this country and setting precedent for lawyers around the world. There's so much more we want to do. I especially want to thank my incredible team. It is literally the best in the world. I worked at CBS. I've seen, you know, what television can be, and the best of it's happening here. To all the international scientists that help make the high wire possible, that meet with us every week, and bring us information around the world to all the international lawyers that are helping us understand the legal cases

and all the politicians that are quietly, sometimes anonymously feeding us information. For all the whistleblowers out there that are using whistleblower at I can decide.org to feed us information from inside of regulatory agencies, from inside of these industries. Some of you are getting ready to come forward. I look forward to that time.

And for all of you out there that want be a whistleblower. Just know your secret is safe here until you wanted to go public. Until that moment happens, we just use it to help us understand where we're supposed to be looking. That's why this has been so successful. But all those whistleblowers that have appeared, I want to be thankful for them that have been on the show. This is an incredible work we're doing here. It's an incredible work you're doing by sharing our show and when you make this possible. This is the informed consent action network. We're a network of human beings that are critically thinking

and informing ourselves to be the best human beings we can be. Celebrate that today. Be the best human being you can be today with your loved ones, even those difficult ones. Love on them. They're doing the best they can with the misinformation that they have been marinated in for far too long. We have our work cut out for us,

but we have to keep smiling while we do it. I love you all. Happy Thanksgiving. and I'll see you next week.