The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NEW STUDY REVEALS GOVT COVID MEASURES HAD NO IMPACT

Episode Date: July 20, 2024

A new study has been released looking at over 100,000 models of measures taken by governments in over 180 countries to try and curb the COVID pandemic. The shocking results show that lockdowns, masking, fiscal stimulus and school closures had no impact on stopping the spread of the virus. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

You look at some of the history books trying to be written right now, they'll say because the government stepped in and did what they did during COVID, school closures, masking, contact tracing, vaccine mandates. Because that, they saved a lot of people's lives. If they didn't do that, this pandemic may still be going on. We were under emergency. We didn't have all the information. But what we did helped save lives. I mean, let's be clear. It doesn't matter what country you're in, what political party you come from.

They all said exactly that. Donald Trump said, I saved you from millions. people dying. Joe Biden has said, we've, you know, we saved you with all these measures. Thank God, we did this in Tony Fauci, of course, you know, I was doing the best thing. We, you know, we saved millions of lives. We hear it over and over again, but all around the world have been saying. We've been rewarding on Australia, England, everybody depending what they did there. So, so why is important now? Well, it's important now because the largest study has come out, looking at all of those measures and seeing if they really did what they said they did. And so let's look at this

Anybody can pull this up here. It's called epidemic outcomes following government responses to COVID-19 insights from nearly 100,000 models. 100,000 models they looked at over 181 countries. So 181 countries, 100,000 models. They looked at all of it, modeling. What effected all these measures have? Yep. So what did they look at? They looked at containment and closures. So the school closures, masking, business closures. They also looked at the medical response. So they looked at, contact tracing. They did not look at vaccine mandates. Wow. They did look at the economic relief as well. So trying to keep these businesses afloat by giving them loans and trying to make sure they didn't go under. And what did they find? They concluded this. In this study, we found no clear pattern in the overall set of analysis or any subset of analysis. We are left to conclude that strong claims about the impact of government responses on the COVID-19 burdened lack empirical support. So that's science.

So now if you have Tony Fauci going in front of Congress and saying, we save lives, that can be fact-checked with this. They can't find it. We cannot find, sort of like our vaccine issue. We can't find a study that says what you're saying publicly. They're saying we looked at 180 countries, 100 models that have looked at this, and we find no evidence that any of the measures that you did had any effect on COVID, the deaths, the spread, any of it. It was all a waste of time, energy, destroyed economies, destroyed lives. So then you look at, they're not even talking about the negative consequences. They're not talking about the rise in depression, the rise in drug abuse, in household abuse.

Right. You know, all of the issues, suicide levels going through the roof. Education, our children have dropped back. A generation has fallen out of the education system, falling behind. I mean, just disastrous consequences. You know, our economy shot, millions of jobs lost. and that's all in the face of what they're saying for no reason. No way we can find out that there's empirical evidence to say that this did something.

Wow. Yes. And so why are we bringing this up right now? Well, we are facing down the barrel of a bird flu potential epidemic. It started in 2022 in this country, and it's been raging, and it's in the headlines everywhere. They're developing vaccines for them. We have something on the horizon in Washington, D.C. in October called the bird flu. summit. And this is, you know, it's kind of like Event 201, which if people don't remember that,

that was kind of like a wargaming scenario for a fictitious coronavirus that came out of China. And, you know, strangely enough, just a couple of months later, it actually happened. So when I'm seeing Bird flu summit and they're starting to war game a bird flu pandemic, this is when we really start to pay attention in Washington, D.C. I'm sure paying attention because, as you said, the last time we ran Event 201, which was a, well, what if a coronavirus swept the planet? We didn't have a vaccine. We'd have to force people to wear masks. We'd have to maybe even lock them down. They literally said and tried all those things. And as you're pointing out, months later, it actually happened. And this has been our concern.

When you start seeing patterns like this, now they are basically rehearsing the war game. The bird flu, the war with bird flu, they're going to go rehearse that in October. Just prior to our election, just prior to, you know, cold and flu season. It's something to put on the calendar. And let's look at the brochure for this. They actually have a brochure and they have breakout sessions. So, you know, when I'm looking at these stills, these slides from these breakout sessions, I'm seeing something interesting.

I'm seeing regulatory framework being looked at. They're going to try judiciary committees rolled in the bird flu pandemic, political responses. They're war-gaming political responses, vaccine development, of course. And so that's all. something that they're probably learning what they did wrong during COVID. I mean, all the wins that I can't had for the vaccine mandates. They're probably looking at those and going, how do we avoid that this time if we have to push this vaccine and mandate it? Right. This is what everyone needs to be looking at here. But the overall picture, what really took a hit during COVID was

free speech. And there's an organization titled the Future of Freespeach.org. And they're calling it a free speech recession hits home. They looked at 14 countries and produced some graphs I'm just going to show a couple of them, but just to show the gravity, it's not just the United States. You know, you would think if one country was a little more vocal and the government clamped down, we would look at that and say, wow, that's interesting they're doing that. But as we've reported on, across all the countries, it's the same response everywhere. They're doing this. This is a coordinator response.

And it shows you that you now have a globalist system in play. You have some sort of global governance when you see countries that can't even really communicate with each other, maybe on the verge of war with each other, but somehow treat their systems. and information exactly the same. Yeah, and so looking at some of the slides compiled by this organization, we have looking at the developments just from 2015, you can see basically a complete rise in what they're calling speech restrictive developments. And you can see some speech protective developments try to come in here in 2020.

So these are basically like the different policies or legislative things that are actions that are happening, the pink ones or all that are happening that are taking away free speech, and And then the blue ones are the ones that came about with people trying to protect free speech. Right, right, exactly. And looking at this next slide here, some of the reasons that governments were using to take away our speech. And you can see they fall into very distinct categories. So you see there in the middle of COVID-19, you have election integrity of public safety, disinformation, prevention, national security, hate speech like we saw in Scotland, they hate speech laws.

So they're all using similar kind of overlays to push this agenda forward. So it's very, it's, it's very mathematical almost. Yeah. But in the United States here, we had big tech companies that were using the coercion from the United States government to censor people. And we have Murthy v. Missouri. Yeah. And that was being heard. That was a court case being heard saying that the government cannot coerce big tech to censor private citizens.

This is the case that, you know, we've been following where you're essentially the Biden administration went to the social media companies and said to them, you need to start pulling down these different. sites. We fell afraid to that. We lost our YouTube channel. We lost our Facebook channel. So sort of right in the middle of all of that. And so this case, we've been following it. What's the latest development? Yeah, the conclusion in this case, I'm going to go to Reason Magazine. They have a headline, the Supreme Court's dangerous standing ruling in Murthy v. Missouri. So what they did was it says it certainly did not rule that what the government did here was illegal, but the restrictive approach to standing adopted by the majority might make it very difficult for victims of the indirect government coercion to get their

free speech claims heard in court. So what they did was they said there's no standing for the plaintiffs in this. Who were the plaintiffs again? Like what's the specific? Batcharya, we had a U.S. right to know several individuals as well. Okay. And basically what they're saying was we're not even going to bring this to a level where we're going to face this and have this conversation, does this violate free speech? Because it doesn't have standing. Right. It doesn't even going to get up to that level. So meaning I'm not the one that could bring the case. The wrong people brought the case. This is something that we don't talk a lot about. Yeah. And all the vaccine work we do with Aaron Siri, huge announcement coming up later in the show. But when you're bringing a case, one of the hardest things to figure out is how do we get standing?

How do we, we can't just say, where I can, and we're pissed off that you forced us to get the COVID vaccine in Texas or whatever. Yeah. We don't, we're a nonprofit. We don't have standing. We can't show that the assault hurt us. Right. Right. You've got to sort of find who is the actual person is claiming this law or this thing that was illegal hurt me personally. Right. That's where standing comes in. Absolutely. Yeah.

And so the Supreme Court is saying that the people that brought this case don't really aren't able to show that they were actually hurt by what may be legal or not illegal. That is not what we're deciding. What we're saying is you don't have, you're not the people that can bring this case. Right. Exactly. And it's terrible. It is.

It is. And it's not the door shut on that, but it's probably won't help future litigation. They'll be more. This isn't going to end here because the censorship did not stop with COVID-19, as we know. Yeah. And so why is all this a big deal? Well, they may not be able to find injuries to people, but it has hurt our country. It has hurt the discourse.

It has hurt the open debate, which is a steam valve for all of these issues going on right now. Well, when you talk about when you saw the reasons for bringing the end of free speech is misinformation, malinformation, disinformation, all of this stuff that we're trying to defend ourselves against. If I can't get in the courtroom and say, you can't, first of all, prove its disinformation, prove its malinformation. We can't get to a standing place if the Supreme Court just keeps making the bar too high to, you know, get over. Right.