The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NO WOODS, NO MEAT, NO FREEDOM

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

Unusually dry summer conditions on Canada’s Atlantic coast have prompted two provinces to take the unprecedented step of banning hiking, camping, and even walking in the woods in a bid to prevent forest fires. Learn about other alarming measures being floated in the name of climate change—from ticks that can trigger a meat allergy to proposals for calculating the carbon footprint of every medical procedure to determine its “importance.”Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

If you go to the UK government's website, there's a drought going on in several parts of the UK right now. They're also experiencing what they're calling water shortfalls. So if you go to this, this is a document from their government. It says how to save water at home. And you can see here, well, you want to avoid watering your lawn. Brown grass will grow back, so kill your lawn, that's fine. Use water from your kitchen to water your plants.

Turn off the tabs. This all makes somewhat sense. Take shorter showers. But then the bottom one, it really got me thinking. old emails and pictures as data centers require vast amounts of water to cool their systems. So again, we're seeing this narrative. You limit your life for this climate narrative. But data centers, artificial intelligence, give it all up to them.

Give them your energy. Give them your water because they need them. Go in there. Amazing. Picture grandparents going there trying to delete their old pictures and emails and their grandkids because the data centers need them. How many data centers are in the UK? Well, it's a hub.

There's about 477 according to this website right here. Here's a picture of them. So that's what needs the water, not the people, according to this. We're getting into this climate narrative. And, you know, I just released a documentary High Wire Plus just a month ago, this rush to net zero. And what it really costs for us. And so I want to move over to Canada now because there's a major story here. We've been conditioned to headlines like this in the past.

Unprecedented Canadian wildfires made worse by climate change, scientists find. So people have been watching any fires, any droughts, any floods. It's climate change. And of course, you know that's your fault. You're the reason that's happening. And so we think about, well, what are the links they would go? Would they restrict access to people going into even the woods? If there's too many fires, well, take a look at this.

All right. Some strict new wildfire restrictions due to the ongoing hot and dry weather. Extreme fire risk has pushed Nova Scotia leaders to take big steps. A leisurely walk in the woods is no longer allowed in Nova Scotia and it may not be for the rest of the summer. We're telling Nova Scotians stay out of the woods. Hiking, camping, fishing and the use of vehicles in the woods are not permitted. According to the province, the penalty for violators will be the same as it is for the burn ban put in last week. I have a ticket here for, let me see if you can see that.

$28,800 and $70.50. sense. Much like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick is taking further action on extreme wildfire risks, with Premier Susan Holt announcing Saturday that the province will be closing all crown land to the public. We're here on a Saturday afternoon to ask all New Brunswickers to get out of the woods and to stay out of the woods. As a society, we must do everything possible to protect each other, to protect our communities, to protect property and, of course, to protect lives. The notion that me going for a walk in the the woods is going to cause a fire. I can understand why people think that that's, that's,

that's ridiculous. But the reality is it's not that you might cause a fire. It's that if you're out there walking in the woods and you break your leg, we're not going to come and get you because our first responders are focused on an immediate and serious threat to our province. This is, you know, I saw this happening in the news and it is very, very disturbing. And so I think I've mentioned on the show before, but when my wife and I, Lee were in Geneva, Switzerland, and I did the whole report on the WHO Empire being built there. We ended up in a hotel in the hot tub area, and all around us were these beautiful photos of nature, but no windows.

There's no windows in this spot. It was like down in the basement. And we both got to just pontificating about the idea that are they going to take nature from us? Does environmentalism get to the point where they're separating human beings so far from nature as a part of their conversation that we will be banned from going to national parks. I have been very, very concerned that this is the future, that we are seeing our last days where you're allowed to go camping, hiking,

or fishing in a national park. They're going to say that is precious zone. Nature can't be hurt by human beings. In this case, they're using fire, but then they backtrack. No, it's not the fire you could break a leg. Well, then let me take a friend that can carry me out. Are we both going to get $28,000 tickets? I mean, you can tell the whole thing is built on such a pile of baloney, but, you know, Canada,

I think we have to keep looking at Canada now as the puppet for the WEF. Anything they want to try is happening right across the border from us. That is what they want for the whole world. You have to recognize this is not an anomaly. It is not going away. They are going to make it so that one day we are dipped down into a vat of jelly like the Matrix. We are, you know, vicariously experiencing the Grand Canaan. I just saw because Kim Kardashian is going to take a trip down there sponsored by CNN,

and that's the only way you get to see this space. I'm serious, folks. This is getting really scary, and it's really close to our border. And for those even Canada, I don't know what to say. How are you voting for these people? How are they getting there? Please. This should be career-ender for anyone that takes your woods.

One of the most beautiful nations, Canada. People go fly fishing. They fly from here to go fish, and now you can't. What are we talking about? We're all going to live in cities, 15-minute cities, no nature. This one gets me because I'm a nature lover. It really does. And I care about nature.

I care about the environment because I got to be in nature. What do they think? Anyone's going to care about the environment if they never get to see it? This is insanity at an all new, new level. And you notice the man in that video who broke the climate lockdown as he wanted to call it the beta tests. He is a Canadian military war veteran, Jeff Evely, and he's making headlines here, but you think he's worried about breaking his leg when he goes into the forest.

I think he can handle himself. Veteran ignites debate by challenging Nova Scotia's 25G. Fine for Woods Walk. So again, there's this aggressive net zero push. The hammer always comes down on the people, and we've traced that back to out. Club of Rome, Alexander King wrote a book called The First Global Revolution. And in that book, he's talking about they were looking for something to unite people. around and they chose global warming and they chose the people as the enemy. They were the problem,

ultimately. And so this is this narrative that is just expanded from there, like an accordion. And so you see in the United States, once again, like with the First Amendment, you see kind of more of a rational conversation here. This is the Department of Energy, and they just put out a review of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. climate. And it says attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2, emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies. Moreover, solar activities contribution in the late 20th century's warming might be underestimated. Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically

than commonly believed and excessive aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial, like banning people going into the woods. It says most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity, not cleaning up the deadfall, the debris, allowing these places to be Tinder boxes. This is forest management that's gone back to the beginning of time. People have known to do that. It's been abandoned by and large in the United States and in Canada and other countries as well.

And then these forest fires break out. So where is this stop? And I wanted, this is a conversation I'd like to unpack here and present. Where does this stop? Is it just physical barriers? Because after COVID, physical barriers, people are really on the lookout for that because the lockdowns and the masking and social distancing, people are not going to put up with, don't go in the forest.

But what about other barriers? What science and medicine looking at? Well, you had last week, Dr. James Neu and Schwander on and you guys talked about tick-borne illnesses, Lyme disease, which, you know, you know, So it's only been a few decades since these have been discovered and accepted by medicine. They've been conspiracy theories. People didn't even think Lyme disease caused anything for quite some time. Well, in 2016, at a World Science Festival, there was a bioethicist.

And remember those terms, bioethicists, because they seem to be leading the charge now and this narrative that's straddling climate change and what we should do about it medically. This is what he had to say. People eat too much meat, right? And if they were to cut down on their consumption on meat, then it would actually really help the planet. But people are not willing to give up meat. Some people will be willing to, but other people, they may be willing to,

but they have a weakness of will. They say, wow, this steak is just too juicy, I can't do it. I'm one of those, by the way. So here's a thought, right? So it turns out that we know a lot about, we have these intolerance to, so I, for example, I have milk intolerance, and there are some people are intolerant to crayfish.

So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we're intolerant to certain kinds of bovine proteins. So certain kinds of bovine proteins. And there's actually analogs of this in light. There's this thing called the Long Star Tick, where if it bites you, you'll become allergic to meat. I can sort of describe the mechanism.

So that's something that we can do through human engineering. we can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering. Oh, my God. World's worst ideas being put out there. Tick delivery systems to stop meat consumption. You know, how do I get off, Jeffrey? Where is the off?

I want off this bus of insanity. The people on here are crazy. The only way out is through, Del. go straight through and keep reporting what we're reporting on. So people wake up. Yeah. So I want to talk about this. Why are we showing a video from 2016? It's almost 10 years ago. Who cares what some bioethicists who spouten off at the mouth at a festival says? Well, there was a paper that was published last month and talking similarly to what he was talking about. It's almost like it's a trend in the bioethics community. It's called beneficial blood sucking. And it goes on to say this.

Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tick-borne AGS, that's alpha-gal syndrome, are also morally impermissible. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tick-borne AGS is morally obligatory. You got to do it. You got to genetically modify these ticks so they bite people and keep them from eating meat. It's our moral obligation.

And you look at this paper and you think, what professor is writing this? What is he? Who is this? Well, here's a book he wrote in 2021. And this is an academic level book for college students. Moral enhancement in the public good. The abstract says, currently humans lack the cognitive and moral capacities

to prevent the widespread suffering associated with collective risk, like pandemics, climate change, or even asteroids. In moral enhancement in the public good, Parker Crutchfield argues for controversial, and initially counterintuitive claim that everyone should be administered a substance that makes us better people furthermore he argues that it should be administered without our knowledge okay so i want to make it said this was in 2021 so you think about this this is a clearly a person that believes that that pandemics were caused by climate change and it probably lockdowns

helped everybody a masking with scientific and social distancing came from rigorous science and he probably wrote this book going this is going to be the next thing i'm going to write this this We're going to just give people a moral substance, and we're going to give it to them without their knowledge, and we're going to stop asteroids. This is this guy. Right. Amazing. And terrifying at the same time. It's really eugenics, right?

It's another form of eugenics. Whether you kill people off or you alter them as beings so that they act in the way that you want them to. It's amazing people that's in a book. Oh, that was my outside voice. That was just your outside voice. You put it in print. And we have to take these people very seriously because these are almost like preloaded narratives that they didn't get the signal that a lot of a lot of people are not following this anymore. Just like in Canada, they're not getting the signal that shutting down the woods for climate change is not really going to be that popular because we just came out of lockdowns.

But they keep going and they keep pushing. So this is why we need to report on this. So for example, here's an example of this. 2020, we had headlines like this, which we were rolling. our eyes about this is crazy gene editing cows could cut greenhouse gas emissions from their farts and belches studies suggest well it took only five years from that study to meet reality now the headlines same article meet hilda the calf who is genetically modified to burp and fart less so this goes on even into the medical piece of this which is really interesting

because you would think when when it comes to climate change or reducing racing towards a net zero world that actual medical procedures wouldn't really be able to a big deal. It kind of be the last thing you want to look at when it comes to, I don't know, cars or the sun. But we have anesthesia. This is stuff that when you go under, you can put this mask on and puts you out so you can do some big surgeries. Because in the past, you'd just have a bottle of Jack Daniels, and that didn't seem to work too well. So this is medicine actually improving itself. Well, the society that regulates that said, no, I think that actually causes too much global warming. So here is the new headline, a reduced carbon footprint from inhaled

anesthesia with new guidance published. What's the guidance? Here's what you need to do. The lowest possible fresh gas flow should be selected when using inhaled anesthetics. So the fresh gas flow imagine someone in the middle of a surgery going, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, what's going on? Hey man, we're fighting global warming. Basically, whatever used to be safe, just back. Jack it off a little bit, almost wake up. Oh, geez. Outer ridges. So it's interesting you're finding these conversations permeating the medical conversation, but they are.

So here's another part of this where it's just, it's kind of a head scratcher. Carbon emissions, this is a study, carbon emissions analysis of aortic valve replacement, the environmental footprint of transcatheter versus surgical procedures. So, you know, in the past, up until now, I guess surgical procedures were measured by successful surgeries, maybe the prolonging of somebody's life so they can spend more time with their family and and experience a greater longer life. Not anymore. This is all now under the fine microscope of, are you saving the climate enough? Here is the actual image from inside the study. This is what they measure. They're not measuring successful health outcomes. They're measuring what is the

carbon emissions from your aortic valve replacement. And it's not just the replacement. They have three sections preoperative. So they're measuring the lighting, the testing, linens, the laundry. And then when you go into the operation, lighting is still going to be measured, the medications, the surgical instruments, there's an anesthetic. And then here's the best, post-operative, when you get out, they're going to measure your diet, your nutrition, what they're feeding you, the, I guess the carbon output of that. The lighting, again, there it is, the linens and laundry. So you can picture, I don't know where surgery goes after this, but here's the conclusion, just like the cows, just like the anesthesia, the conclusions, the carbon footprint of surgical

aortic valve replacement is about twice as high as those from the TAVR and catheter T.AVR. Transcathor aeric valve replacement. These findings should potentially be considered when making population level decisions. Della Swam, I bring it back in the reporting we've been doing for a while now. This is the AI artificial intelligence conversation. When artificial intelligence gets hold of this data preloaded with climate change narrative, you can see humanity leaving the room at this point. You can see it. It's not too far away in the near distant future that this could be a reality. If we don't really put the spotlight on this and talk about this conversation and wake people up to this. I agree. I mean, you think, well, what does this have to do with health?

Or what does AI have to do with health? Or what does, you know, global warming have to do with health? They're the ones that are tying all of these things together. These are all the tools that are going to be used to oppress your choice, your body sovereignty, the decisions that you thought you were making on your own that are now being made for you. How many of those decisions can be made while you're under anesthesia or not? or how much is being, I mean, these are things that I just keep asking myself, ticks, you know, being dropped out there that can turn me into a vegetarian. Is there a law that could stop that? What if the government gets behind it? What power do we have?

These are the things that, you know, working on ICANN and the high wire, Jeffrey, and having the legal work that we do that's really made me see the world in a different way. Like, what grounds do we have? You know, who would be the plaintiff? How do you stop that? How do you stay ahead of it? We don't want to be Europe. You don't want to be undoing censorship that's now but in place.

So how do you stop it and nip in the bud?