The Highwire with Del Bigtree - “OVER 500,000 COVID DEATHS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED”

Episode Date: February 2, 2022

On the heels of the groundbreaking ‘Covid-19: Second Opinion” panel, Dr. Richard Urso joins Del in-studio to talk through some of the most eye-opening statements from the over 5 hour long hearing featuring the greatest minds in science and health.#SecondOpinion #RonJohnson #DrRichardUrsoBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The purpose of today's forum is to discuss the global pandemic response. What we did right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. I sit here with an esteemed team of bipartisan colleagues from all walks of medicine and politics and life. We're physicians and scientists. And we understand virology. We understand how disease works.

Mandating these vaccines makes no sense. sense and is completely inconsistent with the core principles of Western bioethics developed since the Nuremberg trials and codified in federal law as the federal common rule. Thousands like me have lost our jobs for declining a novel injection whose safety and efficacy data still remains hidden. We had treatment early on from the very first day in March. There was treatment for inflammation. There was treatment for blood clot. There was even treatment that we could try for the virus. There's treatment for respiratory demise.

It's been a fraud from the beginning. The media studiously avoided covering the 10 proper trials of hydroxychloricine outpatient use that showed significant benefit for hospitalization and mortality. So the question is, why? Why have cheap, safe, and effective drugs been ignored for the treatment of COVID-19 which could have saved maybe 500,000 lives.

These are crimes against humanity. We have patients who are falling ill with a treatable disease and they can't get treatment. Let's face it, nobody, nobody can tell you the long-term safety profile of these vaccines. Nobody. It's unknowable because we haven't taken the time. We are seeing unprecedented numbers of athletes dying on the field in Europe. Unprecedented. Of these cardiac arrests, half of them don't come.

come back. I am seeing an uptick in cancers. I'm seeing these odd stable cancers take off like wildfires after the vaccines. We should have tested these for cancer-causing potential before we started giving them to our kids. The CDC is not the nation's super doctor. And I'm going to scandalize a lot of people by saying the CDC is not a medical organization. It's a public health organization focused on infectious disease spread. This false construct from our federal agencies that this is a pandemic and the unvaccinated are spreading is a pathophysiologic lie. It's time to come together and move forward using fact-based reasoning rather than outdated and politicized policies which are not consistent with current scientific data.

We have so many tools in the toolbox. It's the message I want everybody to hear. We can beat this disease. That's called the practice of medicine. All right, well, it was an incredible event. I want to thank Senator Ron Johnson, who has been spectacular with this conversation, bringing in first the injured, some of which were injured in the trials of the vaccine and letting them be heard and going down on the Senate record there. And then on Monday, what you just saw was a five-hour discussion amongst some of the best doctors and scientists in the world on the topic of the pandemic, on masks, on lockdowns, on the vaccine,

the development of the vaccine. And as he said, we have only scratched the surface by the end of that. We are only scratching the surface, and we're certainly going to even make a lighter scratch today. But I want to take you through some of the highlights. And so many great things said. But for those of you that have a short detention span or a family that will never watch that, we're going to sort of isolate these highlights. And I'm so honored to be joined right now by one of the great doctors that was at that hearing, Dr. Richard or so.

It's really a pleasure. Thanks, Del. All right. Thanks for all you do. Absolutely. So first of all, you know, how did this come about? Like, I mean, how did this event get set up? I mean, because it was like the best of the best.

I love you saying that because I was driving here today. I was thinking to myself and I was talking to one of the other organizers. And I said, we're really America's team. Yeah. And I said, so it's not the Cowboys anymore. We're the America's team. We're standing up for all Americans right now, and we're really, we're able to join together for several reasons. We all were picked off.

You know, I've been fighting the fight since March and got tagged pretty hard in March 2020. Okay. Many others did. And then one by one, we all came on the seam, Harvey, Peter, and all the others. And then when Malone came on board this year, you know, it was fantastic. Here's the creator. Here's the creator of what's now Frankenstein. I mean, what greater vindication than the creator of the technology you've been arguing, fighting about saying this isn't working?

When the creator himself comes and says, yes, I'm one of the guys invented this, and it is a Frankenstein. It's not doing what it's supposed to do. We must stop. That's pretty incredible. Yeah, yeah, I like that. I like, that's a good thought in my mind. We've created Frankenstein now. Lipid nanoparticles carrying a mustard RNA toxin is absolutely scientifically, not a smart thing.

So, but basically, we all came together one by one. And eventually, we started going online together. And then we formed a group in late August, in September last year, and basically called Global COVID Summit or the International Alliance of Physician and Scientists. It was a core of mostly the people you saw there. Yeah. And we formed that core. And then with our declaration, which I don't mind just saying, we said, let's doctor be, let doctors be doctors. Let us treat, let us treat. patients, let us heal patients, let us do our job. Patients understand that we know and can give them advice and inform consent, let us do our job for inflammation, scarring and wound healing. That's all it is. It's not that hard. Number two, vaccination of children is absolutely, should not be mandated, and this is a very dangerous thing that we're seeing. This is not a disease of children. This is not a problem for children. This should not be happening. The 5 to 11 year olds, for instance, it's 0.1 for 100,000 infection fatality rate. And the third part of our message was natural immunity denial needs to stop.

There's no such thing as super immunity. There's no Superman. Right. It's natural immunity. Right. Natural immunity denial is ridiculous. We have 146 studies versus the CDC's one study. 146 to 1.

Right. Fantastic. Well, you're a very passionate guy. You shared some of this, that passion. And so here's just a taste of Dr. Urso on the panel at the center hearing. Early on there's so much we didn't know him. We were all. Well, Dr. Russell was shaking his hand.

No, that's not true, Senator. We knew early on. We had treatment early on from the very first day in March. Yes. That's a fabricated light. It's scientific fraud to say that. My first patient, I treated with hydroxychloriclin, azithromycin, vitamin, D, aspirin, and steroids.

And I literally was shocked when I went and talked about it that people were really coming at me about the steroids. Because anybody who treats respiratory-sensitial virus and other viruses, the inflammatory phase is typically one of the most important phases. The NIH, the CDC, and the FDA are not involved in medical education. We went through a residency of medical school, a residency program. I've seen 300,000 patients. I've never called the FDA, the NIH, or the CDC one time.

For advice. It's not who we call. So to have them dictate our medical practices has to stop. We've got to reinvent the wheel, basically, because our current system is the corporate practice of medicine telling doctors what to do when we already know. I mean, it's really such a powerful point. You know, one of the things that kept coming up at this was the discussion about the doctor-patient relationship.

What is, you know, when you came through school, define what the doctor-patient relationship is supposed to be. My mentors were guys like Red Duke, Cooney, DeBakey. There were people who looked up to you. I remember coming to the medical center, the Texas Medical Center, and wondering what city this was. And they said it's the Texas Medical Center. And I was like, wow, I couldn't wait. and these people lived in the hospital. They lived for their patients.

They cared so much about their patients. The passion and the intensity that they brought was something that right now, as I talk about, I have chills. This is what I grew up with, and this is what I wanted to embody as I went forward. And it was a wonderful thing, and it kept going through the early part of the 90s, Adele. We were still, the doctors were still pretty much in charge. The hospitals were our partners. It felt like the insurers were kind of on the outside. And then the hospitals banded together and I thought, well, that's good because we'll be able to fight the insurers a little better.

Some of my good friends were actually the head of two major hospital systems. By sort of incorporating making bigger hospitals. Yes. We'll be able to deal with some of the pressure coming from insurers and telling us what to do. The hospital will protect us. Yes, exactly. Because we felt like we were kind of weak against the insurers at the time. And so I was all excited about it.

I went in a private practice in 2005 and I went to a place where we had two officers. and I thought, you know, there's a couple of us there thought, hey, let's do what the hospitals are doing. We banded together and we ended up bringing 27 hospitals, 27 offices together. We had the biggest practice in the nation, and now we're the second biggest practice in the nation. So I think the growth always seems good at the time. But what it's happened is it's taken away the power from the physicians who are now almost all employed by either medical schools, hospitals, or some other corporate entity, and I suspect now we'll probably get Walgreens and these others that are going to take over. They've taken over, you know, it's going to be

the corporate practice of medicine. That's what we're seeing. That's why they won't stand up. That's why they don't speak out. It's not because they're not critical thinkers. They're just afraid. So the doctor essentially now is being dictated to a policy. It used to be whatever I feel like my patient needs. It's my personal response. I mean, the doctor to me is the only one personally responsible for my treatment as a patient. Hospital's not responsible. They don't care. Certainly Tony Fauci over there in Washington, D.C. doesn't affect him at all if my patient dies. But if my patient dies, it affects me, it affects me emotionally, affects my record, and what's going on. So if you're making decisions for that patient, certainly with your butt on the line,

it should be your decision. But that's not what happened here, right? Well said. When it comes to this COVID, you know, and how we're going to handle it, the hospital started dictating, you know, how you're going to handle it. Where are those dictates coming from? Tony Fauci, maybe their pharmaceutical sponsors, how much money. And the incentive is incentivizing, right, that happened whether it was getting incentivized to call the COVID patient. Well, let's just shut down and only take COVID patients. We'll be in the money, you know, and incentivized to use remdesivir of failed drug.

And then incentivized, and all of that flies in the face of if you were as a doctor, didn't want to do it. Did you have a choice? You covered so much ground there. Yeah. So, you know, part of what I wanted to people to hear is that we, we basically were stuck in the system where if you did something against the system, you're going to lose your job. Wow. And, you know, you heard Paul Merrick say it. Yeah.

You know, he sat and watched. You heard the tears. I've seen him do it. That's real. We're going to play his video coming up here in a minute. He basically sat and watched seven people die while he gave remdesivir. And for people who don't know, the virus is replication incompetent. It can't replicate after about five or six days, which means it can't.

it can't, Remdesivir can't work because it needs the virus to replicate in order for it to work. So I always say people don't die of the virus. They die of the viral particles in day 8, 9, 10, and so on, causing inflammation and blood colliding and respiratory stress. So that's one of the things I think people don't understand is that there's actually very good treatment for respiratory stress and there's very good treatment for inflammation and blood clotting. And we're ignoring that. We're all thinking about Fauci and the virus.

There's no, he doesn't, no virologists need to apply after the fifth day. We don't need a virologist. We need pulmonologists. We need cardiologists. We need hematologists. That's, you know, that's who we need. It's going right, because once you're past the infection point, and we have a, I mean, what I've said on this show, for the first time ever, as far as I've ever seen, I can't think of a single disease or a single issue where the mantra in all modern medicine is early treatment is best. Early detection and cancer, breast cancer, whatever.

Early detection, early treatment is the best way in every scenario. here we hear in every hospital there's really here's our treatment it does appear you have COVID so go home let this thing proliferate through your body we're not going to do nothing to stop you know the expansion of the virus throughout your body and the proliferation and then if your lips turn blue come back to us then then we'll put you in a respirator and give you a drug that is now at this point and capable of doing anything as you said we're moving into all sorts of respiratory and brain issues you know when it comes to you mentioned

hydroxychloroquine was what you started working on. Dr. Harvey Rice talks a little bit about that, so let's take a look at this video. We heard at the beginning of the pandemic that one of the medications that has been used in early treatment, hydroxychloroquine or HCQ, was a game changer and would be effective in the treatment of COVID outpatient starting during the first few days of the illness. And then we heard study after study and media report after media report, saying that HCQ doesn't work. However, this was a sham. The media reports never covered

how the negative studies were actually fake studies. And the media studiously avoided covering the 10 proper trials of hydroxychloricine outpatient use that showed significant benefit for hospitalization and mortality. That was Dr. Harvey Rish talking about the fake studies. Now, when you hear that, you think, what does he mean by fake studies?

What does he mean by fake studies? Well, I think, everyone needs to hear this if they haven't heard it. If I told you that Harvard was in on the game and our major journal, The Lancet was in on the game, if I said this two years ago, I said, that's crazy, three years ago, it said, no way, that didn't happen. So one of the major studies was done in England, okay,

and they used hydroxychloroquine, and they had something called the recovery trial. But the one that I'm talking about, the one that was the backbreaker for hydroxychloroquine, was the fake fabricated Lancet's study, done by Harvard CV-Docs, not just any, the head of Harvard cardiovascular. He who hadn't seen a single patient, 693 hospitals, 93,000 patients, six continents. I knew it was fabrication right at the beginning.

So the depth of the fraud is so deep. It goes to our highest levels of institutions. Harvard are highest levels of journal, journals like the Lancet. and they actually put a fabricated study and we all uncovered it in literally like two weeks because most of us who do scientific research knew that you couldn't compile all that data that quickly and get all the ethics reviews that you need it's it's a nightmare to go to each individual institutions and how remind me the numbers again how many institutions they said it was uh 671 hospitals now remind you they don't they're not on Windows XP okay they're all on their

own separate thing they don't know this was from around the world or from around the world around the world they were saying we have China Australia Africa, like... And somebody said, wait a minute. They collected... Pull that off the amount of time

that you said you're doing as impossible. I would say, I would sometimes say, Soros had to get like 20,000 people to work on this and donate about $50 million

dollars and might have gotten done. But obviously I knew it was a fraud, right, from the get-go. And so it got called out and guys like you started saying, show us the data. Show us exactly where your data

comes from so that we can start looking at. Surgesphere was the one collecting that data. And as it turned out, they refused to provide, it didn't have it the entire thing was fraud it was made up and the Lancet had to retract that paper and that was being quoted by Tony Fauci being quoted by the health agency in the

United States of America saying it came from Harvard and now we know hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and the entire thing was based on a fraud there's complete corruption and fraud at the highest levels but let me say this I know people at the CDC the NIH and the FDA it doesn't trickle all the way down the line some fantastic scientists there But the problem is at the top levels, they're basically very closely aligned with Farmageddon. And basically at this point, we really have no control over what's going on there. We can't even get them to show the data.

Pfizer's not going to show us the data. So we literally are stuck not being able to review the vaccine data, for instance. And this is a novel vaccine. Everyone wants to review the raw data. That'd be fantastic. That's called transparency. That's how we're supposed to do science. All right.

Well, this is Harvey Rish talking about the immune system. them. People who've had COVID and then get vaccinated have lower levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. And this means, and since the vaccines don't address the nucleocapsid antigens, they only address the spike. It means that they're doing something that's damaging the immune response in a more general way than just what they do with the spike. And this is empirical data that Public Health UK has published. So we know that that, that this is happening. It's not a theoretical issue about all of the niceties of laboratory biology and virology of things that could happen. It's a real thing that's been really observed

by their testing. I mean, a lot of us know Dr. Harvey Rich because he is, you know, one of the go-toes on Fox News, but I just want to show his CV. I mean, just when you look at this, folks, this thing is 73 pages long. We can spend the rest of the day showing you how much, you know, Dr. Harvey Rich has achieved in his career. And so when you hear the pejoratives thrown at you guys, you know, that, oh, they're just extremists or fringe doctors. You guys are some of the most mainstream doctors in the world as we know it. So when he was saying, when he's talking about the immune system and nuclear capsid,

for layman, what does that mean? So what's being thrown at us is, again, the superman, superimmunity. So if you get the virus and then you get the vaccine, you'll have super immunity. No, you don't. And he points that out. And there's a couple scary things. Not only do you not get super immunity, but you get attacks on P53 and brocogenes. These are your mutation suppressor genes.

They're called tumor suppressor genes. These have being attacked by the spike protein. The paper was cited. I cited it on after Harvey finished talking. The other thing that's happening is to like receptor seven and eight are getting attacked. That is important for T-cell surveillance in your immune system. That's not a good thing for the spike protein, is doing that after the vaccinations. So what he's addressing is not only is natural immunity denial ridiculous,

but to say we have superimmunity, it's actually, in some cases, the antibody production is going also in a way towards the spike rather than the nucleocapset, which is this more superior immunity. So in which way we have a counter argument that is much more detailed, much more well done. And like I said with the natural immunity, dena, 146 to 1. We have almost indisputable evidence that everything we're saying is completely true. And that's the scary part for them. Because we've done our homework.

We have world-class people. That's why I say we're America's doctors, we're the world's doctors. That's what we're trying to do is lift up the others so that they can come forward and feel free to speak. It's a scientific fraud. Next we have Dr. Paul Alexander, who was brought in by the Trump administration to oversee. He worked for the WHO. He had been asked by the WHO as soon as the pandemic started to start really looking the data. He is, you know, his ability to crunch numbers and look at it and figure out what was happening all over the world is bar none.

So from his vantage point, from inside of the firestorm that was taking place with the panace, pandemic from the perspective of having worked with health and human services. This is what he had to say about natural immunity. We put together about 150 pieces of evidence and we found conclusively that natural immunity is not just equal to but far superior and vaccinal immunity. And I think there was this misperception from around the fall of 2020 to the beginning of 2021 when the vaccines were beginning to get to the completion phase and be ruled out. There were some studies put out there, some small studies saying that,

look, your blood antibodies are waning, so therefore you're losing your immunity. But these public health officials at CDC and NIH, they knew better than that. They knew that they were misleading the public and they were misleading the government and the population. They knew better than that, that your serum antibodies can wane. but they knew that we had another compartment, your cellular immunity, your long-lived, B-cell immunity, T-cell immunity, that was robust, potent, lifelong, durable. We had a study done around 2008, 2009, published in CIDRAP, that looked at the persons who, there were some persons still alive at about 95 years old from the Spanish flu, and they were infected.

And what the research showed is that those persons who were still alive, their blood still produced a cellular response, T-cell immune to Spanish flu, 90 years prior. That evidence to us to robustness of the immunity. I mean, bringing evidence, and frankly what he's saying there, and the indictment there is they knew, meaning the guys I was working with, Tony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Deborah Burke. They knew natural immunity was superior to this vaccine from the very beginning.

Yet all to this day, all we hear is, well, I'm not sure about natural immunity. We are locking down. We treat naturally immune people as though they are completely unvaccinated or a leper, really, when we know that they have the strongest immune system there is. What are your thoughts on this? A couple of thoughts. One, we have the SARS-CoV-1 patients from 2003, and they, a really good distinction. were done at the Karolinkka Institute and they showed that the requisite immunity, the T-cell

immunity, the robust T-cell immunity was still there. Remember though that there's also memory B cells that make antibodies. So we have requisite immunity in many levels to deal with past invaders. That's what this our system isn't designed to do. So you know it's to deny that is again scientific fraud. Everyone knows it's this is this is, this is, This goes to Immunology 101. So to say the highest level politicians, I'm gonna call him politicians, are saying in our political fields,

Fauci, I'm gonna add him to that list, unfortunately, because he's obviously a bad scientist. So to say these things are not true, means either he doesn't know, which makes him a very bad scientist, or it's fraud, and I know it's fraud. So. Now, let me ask you this question.

Has there ever been a vaccine? that is said to be equal to in the duration and robustness of the protection. I mean, as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, natural immunity is superior, and every vaccine that's ever attempted to mirror it may come close, attempts to, but has there ever been one that reaches it or bypasses it? So natural immunity, the purpose of vaccines is to provide immunity in places where there's a high rate of death. So if you, you know, if you think about it that way, there is a reason for vaccination. That's why we believe in vaccination.

That's why my six kids have had 300 vaccines. All right. But at the end of the day, this is to say that natural immunity is not superior. If you could survive smallpox, you have an incredible immunity at that point. Right. So to go and say natural immunity is not superior would be the first time ever. Okay. Now, I kind of, when I was sitting there, all you guys waited on natural immunity.

right and it's something that we've talked about on this show years before there was even the pandemic and um you know i myself grew up i wasn't vaccinated as a child um i have natural immunity to everything that i did catch that was available to catch handled it fine think i'm doing pretty good um but i was a little frustrated and i want i want to like i'm going to chip at you a little bit because i feel like mainstream medicine have not uttered the words about natural immunity you all seem to know about it said it's you know it's immunity immunology 101, yet I can't remember the last time I heard a mainstream doctor mentioned natural immunity. I think you guys have always known, geez, if we talk about that, then my belief in vaccines will be undermined, and maybe my patients won't think about, you know, getting the vaccine.

Am I wrong? I mean, it's, it's, I'm glad it's happening now, but I'm a little frustrated that it took, you know, a lie this big and a dangerous vaccine to actually get doctors to start telling the truth about natural immunity. I think you hit the nail on the head with what you just said. There's a couple things here. One, most docs aren't exposed to vaccine injuries. So in general, if somebody says, how many people have died of the flu vaccine? Not that many. You know, there's a lot.

So this is the first vaccine we've been exposed to in history where, you know, it's, as you know, this number of vaccine over this last year has trumped amount of deaths that's occurred over the last 30 years. Correct. So the numbers game comes in and makes it really apparent that vaccines aren't always safe. But historically, you're sort of trained like, oh, yeah, you know, we stopped smallpox. We did, you know, we did all these things, wonderful things with vaccines. What people don't know, all right, for the public is the real reason we have a burst in population is basically clean water. Right.

And I'm not taking anything away from vaccines. They help some things. But they, the clean water has led to a major rise in population that is, dwarfs everything else. It's probably 95% of the reason that we have a reason. that we have a rise in population. So you need to put it in its perspective. So all these people saying vaccines are fantastic and now you're just going to kill all these people.

No, it's clean water. That's the main thing that's basically done the job. And to go to your point, yes, I think most of it, including me, really never thought that much about it. And now that I look back on it, I see that was probably a mistake. We were letting it creep. I remember, you know, I don't know, Del, if you remember this,

but back in the early 80s, they were saying, they cried wolf, like, if we can't get, you know, the lawyer's office, we're not going to make these vaccines. And a lot of us were like, well, that seems kind of unfair, you know, like we don't, we want them to make good vaccines. Yeah. And so that story stuck here in most of the people in my generation, like, oh gosh, we don't want the lawyers.

Of course, we're prefer for instance in the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program, which took all liability away. The industry is saying we're losing money from death and injury. lawsuits against us on vaccines. They said to Ronald Reagan, if you don't protect us from liability, we're going to stop making vaccines. And of course, the medical industry said, whoa, don't let that happen. Give them the liability so we can keep this great life-saving measure on the shelves. It's sort of paired with the smoking thing, with the smoking injury. Like, well, we'll build a, we'll be in a fun like we did for smokers and asbestos. And it's like, well, okay, that's catching

some of these people. It seemed reasonable at the time. Okay. All right. Well, I'm glad you're, you know, I'm glad we're able to have this conversation because it's what this is about. And I know I'm challenging a little bit. Well, so when we start thinking about, you know, and a lot of the conversation at this hearing really started getting into the ethics. And one of the questions that I'm having, and I'm sure those of you that are, you know, fighting the good fight, shall we say, is how is it that so many doctors are going along with protocols and programs and decisions that seem completely unethical?

So speaking of ethics, a guest that we've had on the high wire. This is Aaron Kariotti talking about the ethics around this situation. I want to talk about medical ethics because I'm concerned that many of our pandemic policies have ignored foundational principles of medical ethics. During the initial lockdowns in 2020, hospitals sat empty for weeks. hospital staff, including doctors, were even sent home as we had cancelled surgeries and other procedures and were waiting for an influx of COVID patients that did not arrive until months later. We effectively abandoned patients that were suffering from other conditions and had other medical needs. Another thing that patients in the hospitals and their families were denied was the basic

human good of burying the dead. I don't know if folks are aware of this, but in the early days of the pandemic, a theoretical risk that maybe a corpse maybe might somehow, even though it contradicted all known science on respiratory viruses, somehow still spread COVID. This is a very weird paranoid thought, caused many health departments with the support of the CDC to refuse to give the body back to the family. The bodies were, the bodies were incinerated, basically, and they would give you the ashes, whether or not you, whether you wanted a burial or not. One of the most painful conversation I had in the hospital. As the head of the Ethics Committee, I had a lot of conversations with families whose loved ones were dying of COVID. And this was a case of a patient

irretrievably at that point dying of COVID. The family had four. finally come to accept that difficult reality that the patient wasn't going to survive the hospitalization. And then they asked about help for funeral arrangements. And the social worker told them, no, I'm sorry. You know, we can't give your loved one back to you. We can't give the remains back to you because the health department won't allow it. So this theoretical, nonsensical risk that obviously turned out to be false anyway was placed a... above that basic human good of bearing the dead. No sane society in the history of humankind

since the days of Antigone has ever done this to people. I mean, that testimony is so shocking. Of course, you really should see that the breadth of what was said there. We're cutting these into smaller pieces. But the idea, we've seen it, people that can't be with their loved ones when they are dying. And then to add insult to the great

injury and horror. Now you can't even get the body back. You can't, you know, doesn't matter what your religious belief is around how the body should be handled. We kept people from getting the bodies, all, none of it based in any sort of science. You know, it reminds me there, you know, when we played a video sometime back of nurse Nicole Seratek, who took a moment in the middle of an ER break that she was at, in tears saying how inhuman they were being. Well, she appeared at the Senate hearing and this is again her expressing just the incredible horror that is taking place inside of the hospitals. In May of 2020, I was one of the original nurses that went to NYC to help with the COVID pandemic because the pandemic and the hysteria that was created from poor public health

measures and poor execution of appropriate early intervention strategies and the handicapping of medical professionals doing their job has led to where we are right now and into the crisis situation that we are in. What we saw in these front lines, we knew what was happening. And when we asked for the IV-profen, they said, no, it was contraindicated. When we asked, like, why aren't we giving them steroids? Oh, well, it's not. We're just following orders. Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths that has occurred in these hospitals. I didn't see a single patient died of COVID. I've seen a substantial number of patients die of negligence and medical malfeasance. Now, while I was there, and I saw that the

pharmaceutical companies were rolling out remdissevere onto the patients. I tried to get a hold of the IRBs. I tried to get a hold of my appropriate chain of command. I tried CMS. I tried Department of Health. And they rolled out remdissevere onto a substantial number of patients for which we all saw it was killing the patients. And now it's the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. Our level of health care has been deteriorated to substandard third world nation health care, whereas I tell people you are better off in South America in a field hospital than you are in level one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. I've had patients that haven't been bathed, haven't been fed, haven't been given water, haven't been turned. And if you ask me, this isn't a hospital, this is a concentration camp.

I mean, that's a very serious indictment. at so many, you can see the doctors and nurses in the background all nodding their heads. Like this is true. I mean, is it, hospitals have been reduced to, you know, you'd be better off in a third world, she called it a concentration camp? So, you know, I went through this experience myself with my dad and I found the nurse called me and said, the doctors don't go in the room. So what do you mean the doctors don't go in the room?

Well, you know, it's COVID. We don't go in the room. So doctors are not going into the room. If you think they are, they're not. sit outside the room, they look at the numbers, and they walk, and then they go away. That's what's happening to people in the hospital. And, you know, you can't go in and see them because you're going to maybe get COVID. They don't recognize it's a replication incompetent virus after about five or six days.

And that's why you see the CDC change from 10 days down to five days because it really is replication incompetent at that point. So there's no way to catch something. If you went in and you got particles on you, that's like getting a vaccine on you. You know, pieces of the vaccine, basically, pieces of the virus, dead body parts. So we have so many things that are just basically don't follow science. And then you have what's happened in the hospitals where I could never get to see my dad. He basically died without us seeing him.

We had to do it on Zoom. You know, this is. What is that moment like for a doctor? I mean, I mean, a regular, we're reading about all these articles, all these moments, all these papers, everything. People saying, I can't get to my family. But we don't know the hospital system. We don't know how it works. we just know this glass door and being held out.

I can imagine that's frustrating. But for someone that moves in and out of hospitals can say to someone, I'm a doctor myself, I want to see my father, and even you can't get in there? It was very frustrating. You know, the words, I knew I could, okay? So I tried to think my dad's words are ringing in my ears. I'll be okay.

Like, he feels comfortable with his passing. He feels he has strong faith, and he's like, I'll be okay. Like I could see him saying, don't get in trouble for me. And that was ringing in my ears. He didn't say that to me, but I knew that's what he would have said. Okay. And so in some sense, I was literally wanting to go,

knowing that if I did go, I'd probably have severe repercussions from it because no one else could go, like what makes me special that I can go. So I didn't go. It was very frustrating because I already knew that there's no way I can catch the virus because it's replication incompetent at that point.

So I want to say that over and over again. When they're holding you out of the hospital, there's no reason. The virus, now you might get some. something else, mycoplasma or some other thing in a hospital, just like we always do. When we go to the hospital, it's full of germs. And people don't know, the hospital's full of germs. Good to know.

It's true, right? I mean, it is truly one, like, when I was working on the doctor's television show, they would say, and it's sort of a new philosophy, this soon as you can get out of the hospital, get out. Like, it used to be hang out. Now, like, get up, walk around, you just had a heart surgery. As soon as we can get out of here, we got Mercer crawling on the walls, CREs everywhere. We don't want you to get infected.

You got to get out of here. Doesn't matter how much lysol we sprayed all over this place. We just can't seem to get ahead of it. Now, Nicole mentioned something, and I remember you really, and we don't have the clip, but you really got intense about the use of steroids. That, you know, there are treatments, and might understand this, that we would use almost in any other respiratory condition or situation where someone comes in, especially an unknown one, it starts with steroids.

Yet that is not allowed, right? And what's that? She said we weren't using steroids. steroids when we know we could. So back in March 2020, I knew right away that when you got into the later phase after the first week, steroids would make a lot of sense because many conditions, the inflammation from the viruses will cause a lot of the problems. And we use steroids over and over and over again.

And steroids reduce inflammation. They reduce swelling. They reduce inflammation. And they're a really important part of that process. They're probably the best drug for – we have tons of drugs for inflammation. are historically been the best drug. And what they ended up using was really small doses of something called dexamethosone. So they're under-treating.

It's a disease of no treatment early and under-treatment in the hospital, where literally they give puny-6 milligrams of dexamethosone. Solumedrol is better. We can go much higher. I typically, at the end of a surgery, a small surgery, like if I did a small resection of something on the face here, I usually give eight milligrams, and I do this about four. four to five hundred a year where I always use eight milligrams of dexamethone.

For a small resection on the face, I do that for the last 30 years, at the end of the case, to reduce the swelling a little bit. Here they are people, this is mass systemic disease, and they're giving six milligrams. So I just, I leave it out. What would be the proper dosage? Well, first of all, I probably wouldn't use that, but I probably use like 20 Q12 or 30 Q12, depending on the size of the person. So we sometimes go by sizes of the person.

So basically, rather than six a day, I do three times twice, three times a dose twice a day at least. So in a sense, they're way under-treating with this, and that is the reason why you don't see people coming out of the hospital, because the drugs are not only, are they not sequentially, if you hear Peter McCullough talk, sequential multi-drug cocktail. What that means is viruses and cancer cells are very similar. You need to attack them from multiple places.

So early in that first week, we attacked the virus. But in the second and third and fourth week, we're attacking the inflammation. We're attacking the blood clotting. We're attacking the respiratory distress. So there's a sequence of things we do as the disease progresses. And each individual patient may have something a little different that we might want to tweak the formula. Right. Hello, that's how we practice.

And you heard me say it on there. It's called the practice of medicine for a reason because there's always something new. If you have somebody who's 220 pounds, diabetic, you know, five foot six, we might do it a little differently than someone who, who's, you know, five foot six and 110 pounds and 22 years old. Right. So every person is unique. And we know this. And they try to pass this over that this disease affects everybody.

Everybody's going to die. So many people haven't even come out of their house yet. So it's a scientific fraud in our job. And what you've done so well is bring that message to people. And thank you so much for all you have done. You are a true scientist. When I listen to you sometimes, I'm like, oh my God, Del. Del, did you go to medical school?

I'm like, it's amazing. We're pretty deep. I know you are. I thank you for that compliment. So we had Dr. Christina Parks on our show a month or two ago that we taped it. She came up to me before this hearing and said, I just want to let you know that my father was with me. He got to see me on the high wire.

And really, I lost him just a few days ago. She lost him just before having to do this hearing. and she said, I just want to thank you because that memory that I have of him seeing me on the high wire is an important memory and it's one of the last memories I have. This is her talking about how her own father was handled in the hospital. My dad just died, right? He died Friday. Couldn't get a test. Couldn't get monoclonal antibodies. We treated him at home. Unfortunately, we had an oxygen machine that didn't work. so his blood saturation went down to the point where he was incoherent. We called EMS. They said, your problem is your oxygen doesn't work.

They put oxygen on him. He went to 98% saturation. We moved him to the hospital. He recovered all his cognitive functions. He was doing quite well, but he was no longer getting medications that reduce his inflammation. He was no longer getting medications that blocked the histamine response. He was no longer getting the medications that he needed, and he was no longer getting you know, lung steroids and he just declined and declined and declined until he passed away on Friday,

and I say he passed away from lack of appropriate care. It's an incredible story she lays out there. Obviously, she's a doctor, or she has the background. She can treat her father at home, but they had an oxygen machine that didn't realize wasn't working. So once they get them in the hospital, oxygen comes up, and you would think, can you just continue all the drugs they had were working? Obviously, the oxygen was the only thing that went wrong, and they're like, no way, no how. I want to talk about that.

So what happens is they get in the hospital, you put them on oxygen, then they think, well, let's get them something for anxiety. They give them some medazolam. They give them Presidex. It suppresses the respiratory depression. Before you know it, it's like knocking dominoes over. And I'm going to tell you, if anybody looks and you have people in your family that have passed away in the hospital, I can tell you what happened. They got medazlam, they got Presidex, then they got remdesivir, and it was basically a lot. knocking over dominoes all the way down to that's going to give him psych drugs yeah to get rid of the anxiety

this is very very very common almost every patient that I encounter absolutely unbelievable remdesivir obviously you mentioned this is a failed Ebola drug was so toxic they pulled it early from the Ebola trial saying this is a complete failure I sort of read that as you're better off deal with Ebola than mess with this drug and yet it gets repurposed for this situation We'll talk about in a second, but this is Paul Merrick, who is, as I said, an ICU doctor for decades. His CV goes on and on and on. I believe he's credited with being the second most published ICU doctor in the world who was having a complete success treating his patients until the doctors told him he had to change his approach.

Listen to this story. If you look at the four independent studies, including the large study by the WHO, it shows remdesivir increases the risk of death. Let me say that again. Remdesivir increases the risk of death by 3%. It increases your chances of renal failure by 20%. This is a toxic drug. But just to make the situation even more preposterous, the federal government will give hospitals a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill if they prescribe remdesivir to Medicare patients. The federal government is incentivizing hospitals to prescribe a medication which is toxic.

It should be noted that Remdesivir costs about $3,000 a course. Ivermectin reduces the risk of death by about 50%. It costs the WHO 2 cents. 2 cents. So as regards dexamethosone, this is the wrong drug in the wrong dose for the wrong duration of time. Yet every clinician in this country will absurdly use this homeopathic dose of dexamethosone. Why? Because the NIH tells them to do this.

The NIH and other agencies have ignored are multiple FDA-approved drugs. These are FDA-approved drugs. These are not experimental drugs, which are cost-effective and safe. and have unequivocally, unequivocally been shown to reduce the death of patients in the ICU and in hospital. You are more likely to die from taking Tylenol than ivermectin, yet the FDA calls this a dangerous horse deworming medicine. Hospitals have become dangerous places for sick people. Patients must do whatever they can, to avoid the hospital. When they imprisoned in a hospital they denied their rights. They are not allowed a patient advocate. Their family are denied access to the patient. They are prisoners

in the system. They have no rights and they get the treatment dictated by the hospital. There are dangerous places for sick people and that's for me as a physician practicing hospital medicine for 40 years saddens me to the core. I can tell you what happened to me. So I was using our protocol to treat critically ill patients in the ICU with a whole host of repurposed drugs. I then, this is a memo, this is a memo sent to the entire healthcare system, but they targeted me personally. And what did this memo say? These medications will not be verified or dispense for the prevention or treatment of COVID. This list includes either mectin, becalutamide, etopsycide, fluboxamine, dutestoride, and finesterite.

And then just to stick it to me, they added acorbic acid. What was I to do? My hands were tied. As a clinician for the first time in my entire career, I could not be a doctor. I could not treat patients the way I had to be to treat patients. I had seven COVID patients, including a 31-year-old woman. I was not allowed to treat these people. I had to stand by idly. I had to stand by idly watching these people die. I then try to sue the system. And you know what they did? They did something called peer sham review. It is a disgusting and evil concept. They then accused me of seven most outrageous crimes that I had committed

and that I was such a severe threat to the safety of patients. They immediately suspended my hospital privileges because I possessed a pose such an outright threat. to these patients, ignoring the fact that under my care the mortality was 50% those of my colleagues. So here I was standing up for patients' rights and this hospital, this evil hospital, ended my medical career. So that's what they do. It's an outright, outrage, it's evil to the core. When people question why I use terms like Nuremberg trials and I look at

at the, you know, smar me Chris Hayes and these people referencing doctors like this. One of the most decorated doctors in the history of the world losing his job because he was having a success rate 50% better than everyone else around him. No one asked, what are you doing? They took his tools away and forced him to watch his patients die. I'm sure there was some heated conversations in those hospitals that led to his losing his job. You know, this is It's so powerful. I mean, to feel, you could feel his care for his patients. I'm still a little choked up about it.

You know, we all went through this. I remember back in even March 2020, when I was like, how can, I was talking to people on the medical board, and I was like, we can't let people die without treatment. I was just, I was completely appalled. And that's how he ended up on social media. I literally talked to my wife and I said, look, I know how to do drug design.

I know how to do this stuff. And I go, if I don't speak up, I don't know who is. And so I mean, I... Of all the people in there, you have an understanding of the inner works in the FDA, how a drug gets approved. Why is that you have that sort of special? So I did nine years in a lab and I invented an FDA approved wound healing drug that basically, you know, it's not that easy to do it. and at the end of the day, the pharmaceutical companies end up, the pharmaceutical companies end up doing a lot of the work,

but the original patent design, all the intellectual side of it was all done by me. At the end of the day, I do that over and over and over again as we go through practice. And a lot of other doctors are always problem solving, you're a critical thinker. And the critical thinking comes in when you go into medicine, like, okay, this is inflammatory, this is cardiac,

this is pulmonary, and you start grouping things in the categories, and then you come up with solutions for each and every one of those things. That's medicine. And we weren't doing that. We were just like novel virus. I was like, novel. There's 63, you know, I work with,

I'll tell you this, like when I looked at it, I was like, okay, how many things could affect coronavirus? In about two hours, I found like eight things that might affect it. This is back in early March. And so within a very short period of time, I said, well, here's some tools for the tool blocks. I didn't know if they're gonna work,

but it was clear that they had worked against SARS and MERS. And so these are other coronaviruses with 78% similarity. And I thought, well, it's worth a try, at least give these drugs a try. But at the very least, we've got to treat the inflammation. We've got to treat the blood clotting. We've got to treat the respiratory demise. That's not hard at all.

We already have all those drugs. We don't have to invent anything new. So that's why I said, and it shook me up kind of hearing him because he knows how to be a doctor in the ICU. You address each and every problem in a unique way. Sometimes you don't, but you have tools in the toolbox and you pull them out when you need them. and that is how we've always practiced medicine. And this current corporate practice, this current, I don't even know what to say about it,

this current system we now have is so corrupt that, just shocking some of those older guys. We just can't believe we're sitting here, having to let patients languish and die at home or languish and die in the hospital with puny doses of dexamethone and an antibiotic and a drug that's a malnipyrivar and remdesivir, nucleicide analogs. These drugs are from the 1950s. They put a little bow tie on it. This is not creativity, Dell. These are not creative thoughts. This is old

nucleosite analogs from the 1950s. They're mutation drugs. They mutate your mitochondria. They mutate every single cell in your body if it's replicating, including cancer cells. That's why they're old cancer drugs. And they use them for viruses. So it's killing viruses, killing cancer cells, killing your normal cells, your mitochondria especially. So this is what we're left with. It's a shame. And I just can't believe it. But we are going to reinvent, and that's what you're leading the world too. That's what we're doing now, our doctor group. We're going to go through messaging. We're going to form our own medscape. I can't wait to have that press release. It's going to happen real soon.

We're going to reinvent telehealth. We're going to reinvent urgent and ambulatory care. And we're going to form hospitals and surgery centers. This has to stop, and we're going to work hard to make it stop. I agree with you in the high wire. And I know other groups like ours will do everything we can to help make that dream and reality. We need to do it for ourselves. This isn't about helping you or helping. This is about our future. When you have one of the greatest ICU doctors that ever lived

saying hospitals are dangerous places for sick people, you know, Houston, we have a problem. I want to step into the vaccine discussion now. There's a lot of conversations about the vaccine, but one of the questions would be, what is in this thing? I mean, for doctors that are trying to figure out what am I dealing with. If I have an injury, I need to know how to treat it. I need to know what it is. This is a brand new technology that's never been injected in my understanding into any animal other than human beings, never went through animal trials. It's sort of raised to gene therapy that's been, you know, turned into a vaccine and whatever it is. This is Dr. David Weissman, complaining about exactly this. Why can't we find out what is in it?

In every single drug in package insert, you see a chemical structure. Don't do you not. There is a chemical structure. We need to know the exact chemical structure, the exact sequence, of the RNAs and the DNAs in these vaccines, okay? They are being withheld from us. FDA needs to show us what those structures are. I mean, you can imagine the frustration of that. Well, who might know what's in it? Perhaps, you know, one of the guys that's really sort of leading this,

we're trying to figure it out himself, but has some understanding of the background. Why? Because he invented it. This is Dr. Robert Malone talking about one of the issues he's very concerned about fertility. These lipid nanoparticles go all over the body, just as Richard is saying. and oddly they seem to differentially go to ovaries and bone marrow, but ovaries relative to testes.

And it's important everybody kind of latches onto this and they say, oh, there's spike protein in the ovaries. No, that's not what they measured. They didn't ever measure spike protein. What they measured was the lipid component, these synthetic lipids, which is the other thing you didn't mention in this cocktail. These synthetic lipids go to ovaries. Now, who cares? Well, when your child is born, when your daughter is born, she has all the eggs she's ever going to have in her ovaries. And we do know that, and the CDC now finally acknowledges after women all over the world complaining about their altered menses and getting, I mean, it was, I felt like I was in the mid, mid-20th century.

It was attributed to hysteria, much as your own story. These alterations and menstruation were believed to represent hysterical women. The CDC is now acknowledging it. The thing is that the ovary drives menstruation, as Ryan will, I'm sure, attest. Hormonally, the ovary drives menstruation. When we're seeing altered and menstrual soft, cycles, we're seeing the phenomena of postmenopausal women starting to bleed. That's a hallmark that something's going on in the ovaries.

And we know that these lipids are going to the ovaries. We know that these are synthetic abnormal fats that insert into membranes and change the charge of cell surfaces. That's all true. And unfortunately, apparently, the FDA made a determination, that they would treat these products using their standard checklist approach for a standard vaccine. And they did not use the checklist that they would use for gene therapy. And furthermore, they didn't make any special accommodation for the novel nature of this technology,

which has not been previously characterized. And so what we end up with is the FDA making a decision to move forward with a data package that's grossly inadequate. we have a clear trail of breadcrumbs about reproductive toxicity that's not being followed up. And I am concerned about our children. I'm concerned about all of those effects. Brain, heart, blood coagulation, reproductive system, immunologic system, and furthermore, they're not at risk for this virus. why are we doing this? And mandating these vaccines for children

just breaks my heart. It's impossible for me to wrap my head around the fact that this guy is not on every news channel in the country and in the world. This is a man who knows what he's talking about. He's so clearly understands he works somewhat like you do. He's worked with the FDA. He's worked in the Department of Defense.

He knows what it takes to, he works on repurposing drugs. He knows he was part of the drug. designing this drug, this vaccine, this gene therapy, as he calls him. And we get attacked for calling a gene therapy. It's a vaccine. I mean, here you have the inventor himself. How do you explain? I mean, I know you're not in media, but it doesn't boggle your mind that when the inventor comes out and says, I think we have a problem here. These lipid particles are showing up in the ovaries, and that means the baby, these little girl, you're going to give this to a little girl, a child, whatever it's

doing in her ovaries, it's permanently, it could permanently be causing damage that will affect her ability and fertility perhaps in our future or generations to come. And yet all they do is sit there and giggle and smirk on these news agencies that some, you know, out there, you know, guy that doesn't know what he's talking about. It's so inappropriate, you know, it's so inappropriate. Lip-and-anal particles have been used for other things. And Robert is absolutely, Robert Malone is, as you said, if he can't speak about this, who can't?

Right. He's invented this technology. He knows it intimately. And it's just, we have the Pfizer biodistribution data, which you know about, which shows it goes to the bone marrow. It's going to the ovaries. It's going to the brain. It's not in that. It's not in that.

He mentioned it in a backwards way. When you're doing a drug design, you have to look at brain accumulation with the vaccine. You don't. Because guess what? Vaccines don't usually go to the brain. All right? I tell people like, a normal vaccine can't get out of the room unless you open the door. but a lipid nanoparticle in case vaccine could slip under the door cracks.

They're like garlic. Isn't it technically designed to do that? It's technically designed that way. So for the audience, if you haven't heard it, lipid nanoparticles, one of the things we were trying to do was get lipid nanoparticles to carry chemotherapeutic agents to the brain. It's one of the things that was good about them was like maybe we could direct chemo to the brain without having to do intrithecal therapy, spinal tap to the brain. Okay, so that's what they were used for.

But guess what happened with lipin nanoparticles? They ended up with the ovaries. They ended up in the bone marrow. They ended up in places we really didn't want them to go. We don't want to carry chemo to the ovaries or the bone bone bone. Got it. All right. So this is, when they first were designed, I knew right away they were going to go to the brain and the bone marrow and the ovaries because that's what lipid nanoparticles do.

And guess what? How many ACE2 receptors are in the ovaries? A lot. Is it going to create inflammation? Yes, it is. So we need to be cautious, very cautious. and giving this to young women. Women are born with the amount of eggs that they have from the time of birth.

So any age that you give it is going to potentially create massive inflammation in the ovaries, potentially. I'm thankful to say that I hope that that doesn't happen. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic and say that I pray that it doesn't happen. But to not look at this scientifically, it's the worst thing I've ever seen. I can't even believe that OBs are actually recommended as to pregnant women. We never recommended. That's another area. So you have young women of childbearing age getting a product that caused inflammation in their ovaries taking this drug.

And you have women who are pregnant taking this. I've never seen this in medicine. Never, never. Because of the thalidomide scare, we've always been very careful with. Thalidomide being the drug that was given for morning sickness, I understand. And then the babies ended up being born missing limbs and things like that. We never give this to pregnant women because of that. Right.

The Lidomite scare where they had massive amounts of women having babies that were significantly had loss of limbs and that way that's still if you just look at the pictures if you haven't seen them go look on there you'll see the pictures you'll see why this came about we don't give pregnant women new products. How many pregnant women were in the Pfizer and Moderna trials? It was a really small number. I don't remember because sometimes it's less than a hundred and the one thing that wasn't in the trials they never allowed. a person who already had COVID into the trials. None of the trials had a patient in there with somebody who already had COVID. So if you had COVID, you're not in there. So they went out of their way to kind of exclude pregnant women, but of course some people found out they were pregnant while they were in the trial and exclude people who had COVID recovered. And they did

that for a reason. They didn't want the bad outcomes that would likely come from giving a new product to those groups. Next, we have an issue that we've spoken about on the show. with Ryan Cole, who is a pathologist, has looked at hundreds, if not thousands, I guess, cases of cancer and everything else. And this is what he has to say about vaccines and cancer. I do about 40,000 biopsies here. I'm a busy pathologist.

And I thought, gosh, I'm seeing more of this type of cancer and this type of cancer and this type of cancer. And so I've tried to talk to other laboratories and aggregate a bigger data set, which obviously, these federal data sets are a very easy way to see that signal. Obviously, I've been canceled, I've been ridiculed, I've been maligned, etc. for saying so, but I've been observing it. And I can't deny observation. That's how science happens initially through observation. So we have genes in our body. We have mechanisms in our body. We have bad

cells in our body every day. Our body says, oh, I can kill that, knock it off, you know, shakes hands with every cells. You're gone, you're gone, you're a bad cell. There are genes there are suppressor genes p53 it's the guardian of our genome there's another breast cancer gene broca gene we know that the spike protein binds to the receptors for these genes and can activate them that is a mechanism of the spike protein so putting this spike protein in the human body via a gene shot that is completely investigational these are not approved and to mandate something that that's investigational that can bind to cancer.

And now when we travel with these groups and summits, I have oncologists, I have radiation oncologists, I am seeing an uptick in cancers. I'm seeing these odd, stable cancers take off like wildfires after the vaccines. It is happening. We need federal funding. The NIH isn't looking at this.

Getting a grant to look at anything related to the vaccines is next to it impossible. I get this sense as I was sort of listening to these, do you listen to specialists? They got a cancer specialty. heart doctoring, all these specialists. You know, the vaccine makers are biologists, right? And immunologists,

they make a back, they understand one part of it. But if the thing starts causing cancer, they don't know what the hell that means. Brock a gene, what is that to a vaccine maker? So you have like this totally uneducated group on what all the issues that are now being created by the vaccine they made. And yet the specialists, they're now saying,

now this vaccine has just jumped into my area of expertise and I need to speak about what I'm seeing, And the news is saying, well, we side with the immunologists or the ones that made the vaccine on this and this is just a crazy person. It's not a crazy person. This is a specialist that knows exactly what he's talking about. He's saying we're seeing a rise in cancer. And I mean, I'm hearing this all over the country that people are seeing this rise in strange cancers and return of cancers of those that were in remission. So my background is one of the best cancer hospitals in the world as the chief there.

So, you know, I have a big background there too. and this is a very scary thing. It's blocking the guardian of the genome P53. The spike is going into the nucleus and binding up something that whenever your DNA is made, it basically sometimes breaks apart and makes rearrangements.

And sometimes those rearranges make mutations. And the P53 makes sure that those mutations are fixed. And it's a repair. It's a tumor, it's a mutation repair gene, basically. And BRCA also. So that's what these are doing. And interfering with those is going to make a lot of mutations, potentially make a lot of cancer cells.

And so, as he said, we literally need to see the data from big databases like the VA and other federal databases. In my own clinic, where we have a huge number of patients over 300,000 a year, basically we've seen a big uptick in Bell's Palsy and in shingles. So we're seeing the immune surveillance system, which takes care of cancer and viruses, is definitely being affected by this virus. I mentioned it earlier, P53 and BRCA, the two tumor suppressor genes, and then the to like receptors,

which involve immune surveillance of these viruses running around the body. These are things that we all have to deal with, and they should be being looked at. And instead, the CDC stopped tracking data May of last year. There's no reason for that. They're spending $27 billion given it to Pfizer. We need some data for the research.

We need autopsies. We need the ability to track this so we can help people. So we can, and we're going to do it. We're going to do without it. We're doing it now. We get together, Ryan and I, we're talking the last two nights about how we can start collecting more data on the cancer side. If we see just a dramatic rise in cancer, let's be extreme about it.

Let's say cancer doubles, you know, in 2022, 23. Do you think that that will be detected? and is it possible for them to cover that up? And how will they cover that up if it happened? So great thing. I mean, you look at what just happened, that insurance company, the actuaries came up with the data. I don't know if you talked about it on the show.

But basically... I heard of explain it again, though. Yes, so it came by accident. We ended up finding out that in this one insurance company, 40% more deaths. A 10% rise would be a 1-200-year phenomenon. A 40% rise is, you know, one in a million or so. I believe that was the age group 18 to 64 if I remember correctly

40% rise in debt. The productive people working people of the world 18 to 64. So you're looking at the most driving the economy. These people are dying. These are highly insured people, most of them. So what you're finding is that data is being collected and accidentally got slipped out. So that's how we're going to have to get this data. They're not going to voluntarily look for it. They're not looking. So it's going to be hidden. I don't know if you Listen yesterday, you were there on Monday when they said that the data was changed. I don't know if you talked about that on the show, but they actually took the data from the federal database. And actually, when they went back to look, they found it had been altered from, you know, just the look they had from two months ago.

So instead of being like 784, it was down to a smaller number. Oh, yeah. Just cases being removed, things being removed from the data. Yeah, things were being removed. So, you know, we're going to find out because, it's a number. Eventually, you know, people die. Enough people die, you're going to know. But it's going to be a, it's already a tragedy,

and we have to prevent it from being a bigger tragedy. That's why the positive message is we're not going to stop. We're going to keep going. We've got a group of doctors, 17,000 now, and we're going to get more on board. Hopefully it'll be 30 and 40 and 50, and we'll grow the movement and we'll prevent it. They're using physicians like they did in Nazi Germany to say, those people are eugenics, they're not good people. Let's get rid of them.

And they're using us to do the same thing again to turn us into the vaccine unvaxed, the bad versus the good. They're using our profession and we're going to stand up against it. And we need more doctors. If you're a doctor out there, a nurse, we need to stand up against it. We need to do this together. This is Peter McCullough talking about the academic fraud that's taking place. The CDC in the last few days said there's five more papers showing the vaccines even with Omicron. with the reduction in hospitalization.

But it's only in U.S. hospitals, not in South Africa, not in Germany, not in Denmark, not in the U.K., and not in Israel. Americans should be asking the question, why are the vaccines only working against hospitalization, but they don't work against binary occurrence of the respiratory illness or reduce spread, and they don't reduce mortality,

but why do they only reduce hospitalization? And by the way, they reduce hospitalization in most studies in the United States. by 85%. How does that happen? That is basically academic fraud. And this is something we're talking about today.

We're looking at data that's coming in. We're now seeing in Scotland, increased risk of infection amongst those receiving the vaccines. And it sort of gets worse. One dose, you know, it's about a third is more. And then by two dose of the vaccine,

twice the amount of infection, twice the amount of these conditions. So clearly yet, here in America, we're being told, Oh, no, the vaccine is working great. We see studies all over, seeing a rise of death. We're seeing in multiple cases where the people dying that were vaccinated from COVID are being put in the unvaccinated category.

Yet here in the United States of America, we're still hearing pandemic of the unvaccinated, even though they're backing that away in Canada because they know the data is now showing that that's not true. They're backing away, I believe it was in Germany admitting health ministers saying, sorry, clerical error or computer error. as it turns out, we overblowed this unvaccinated problem. But here in America, where we're supposed to have the greatest hospital system in the world, the home of Microsoft and Apple, and here is the place where our data seems more corrupted than everywhere else.

And what he's saying here, it's not possible. We can't look at data coming from all over the world. Same people, two arms, two legs, same vaccines being used, breathing the same air circulating the planet. They can't be having totally different results than we're having here. Is that what he's getting to? It is so true and I don't even know what to say to it other than to say to point out, thankfully Scotland and England are actually given us real data where we see that the vaccinated

are dying in higher numbers right now. And if you look at the per 100,000, I mean, this is what we're seeing. And of course, we have to look at that to see why. Why? We want to help people. We want to help the vaccinated people. We want to help the unvaccinated. We want to help everybody.

And the only way we could do that is to have honest information and transparency. So as we go forward, if we don't get that, we should all be upset, not just the vaccinated people, unvaccinated people. All of us ought to be, why can't we get real information? And thankfully, we have some so that we can at least draw attention to it and say, look, this is really happening. And I just can't believe how arrogant they are. I mean, I'm still in shock about it almost every day when I literally come in and I literally come in and I, see them go on TV and say 99% of the people in the hospital are unvaccinated. And to bring to your point, Pierre Corey talked about this.

What we're seeing is if you're vaccinated, a lot of those people in the ICU are said vaccination status unknown. Unknown. And let me say, I had one nurse and she wanted to do Project Veritas. I said, don't do it. You're just going to get destroyed. But 16 of 17 people were vaccinated, listed as vaccination status unknown. in the hospital in Houston, Texas. Yeah. Wow.

16 to 17. So Dr. Peter McCullough, who is a heart specialist, that's what he has written more articles on it and been published on this more than anyone in the world. So when he starts describing the issue of myocarditis and what is happening here, I would listen. There are great unknowns with respect to the vaccines, their mechanism of action,

and disease categories like cancer, but there is a disease category upon which the FDA, the CDC, and all stakeholders agree that the vaccines cause, and that's myocarditis or heart inflammation. And I will tell you, as a cardiologist, it is crystal clear that these vaccines cause myocarditis. We now have over 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on myocarditis, sadly showing the rates of myocarditis are far in excess of what the CDC ever imagined. It is clear the risks of the vaccines are far greater than the risks of COVID-19. I'm telling you as a specialist, myocarditis is not mild. There are papers by shower and now by Trong,

at University of Utah at Salt Lake. When they do MRI on these individuals with suspected myocarditis, 100% are having heart damage. there is the father of a boy here in this room who's died of myocarditis one death is too many one one we have 21,000 cases of myocarditis and climbing in the united states that the cdic is verified one was too many under no circumstances under any circumstances should a young person ever receive one of these vaccines, let alone ever be pressured to receive a vaccine, let alone ever be mandated to take a vaccine.

Every time I see a Facebook post with someone saying, look at my young five-year-old, just did what was right, got her vaccine, or he got his vaccines, doing his part for America. I get just something, some part of me inside, like dies. I feel the same. As I think about the greatest heart. doctor in the world what he's saying here. Nobody should be getting this thing. How did the CDC approve this thing? I mean, this to me, this is what starts stacking up as crimes against humanity. You are, you know, the studies show that myocarditis, he says there's no, there's no

mild case of myocarditis. Many of the studies show that within 10 years, 50% of those that suffer myocarditis will be dead. I mean, is that, I mean, think of that future for these children that had zero risk from this disease. What you're seeing over and over from the doctors, we've seen patients gasping for breath. We're there with them, treating them. And you feel that when you're with the person. You're trying to save their life.

And I mean, this is why Peter's emotional. He's seen it happen. And this is why Merrick sat and watched seven people die. This, with your hands tied behind your back, back. It's literally should not be happening. No one, no one is rising up for these children. No one's rising up for these people. And that is the heart of why, why we're here. And that's the heart of why we want to keep going forward. Because we are letting people down. We are letting people be like fed to slaughter. We are feeding people to slaughter with this vaccine. This vaccine is not safe for children.

And what Peter said, you know, mechanistically, a lipid nanopartisan, goes through tight junctions. We talked about it with the brain just a few minutes ago. The heart basically has pretty tight junctions too. It slips, the lipid nanoparticles slips through and gets to the periscites on the outside of the cell walls which have a lot of H2 receptors. The virus doesn't do that. The virus, remember I told you the virus has to have the door open. So the lipid nanoparticle does not. That's why the virus is not as bad on myocarditis as the lipid nanoparticle because the lipid nanoparticle gets through and to where all the H2 receptors are on the periscites.

And that is the reason why we're seeing such a high rise in myocarditis to these children. Because the tight junctions get a little bit loosened up with exercise. And so at the end of the day, there's mechanisms and there's data. And the data is about at least 1 in 2,700 of these kids are getting myocarditis. It is not mild. The tissue repair, wound healing, scarring. With my background, it doesn't come back. They don't come back.

It's scar tissue. Chris Hayes talks with somebody mentions the athletes, the over 100 athletes that have plunged face first into the pitch. There's a quote in an article. We have a video that keeps going. We take out those ones to find out whether they're vaccinated or not. But I can't remember a time in history. I cannot. And it's been our question here. We're not saying the vaccine's causing these people to grab their hearts, these soccer players, many of them tennis players, football players, plunge face forward onto the grass. But what we are saying is when do you ever remember?

remember seeing videos like this, seeing stories like this, in the numbers that we're seeing them all at the same time that, you know, what Peter McCullochers saying is true, they have admitted these vaccines cause, you know, blood clots, thrombocytopinia, myocarditis, parocharditis. Is it really that hard to think that this forced vaccination program and athletes all around the world could be having a detrimental effect, especially to those that are maybe, you know, highly strenuous athletes. So think about what we're talking about here. We have you and Senator Johnson arranging groups of doctors,

not the FDA and the CDC and the NIH. How does that make sense? How are they not doing autopsies? Right. How is it they don't care? It's crazy. All these people are dying. Where are the groups of doctors trying to figure out the scientists saying,

let's find out, let's do the autopsies. Let's find out what happened. Let us try really hard. Let's all group together. We can beat this together. That's how we do things. We're human beings. We're social constructed groups. We go in groups. That's why we form groups. And that's why you're bringing us together. Because you know together we're going to be stronger. And at the end of the day, this makes no sense. And we've got to come up with a way to fight back. And the only way we fight back is by grouping ourselves together and saying we're going to do the autopsies. We're going to find the data. We're going to do our own studies. We're going to collect our own information. And then we're going to publish and we're going to quickly think. And we're going to make a, We're going to make changes as we go. Oh, this virus right now is changed enough.

We're not going to use de-tastoride anymore because it's not binding TMPRSS as do. We're going to make changes as we go because, again, the practice of science is not just cut in stone. It changes constantly. And as the virus is changing constantly, as the entire disease representation constantly changing, so obvious. Well, it wouldn't be right to not give a moment for Senator Ron Johnson, who is really pretty, his neck out on the line of this. I mean, I didn't see any senators in the room. It's shocking. He's not surrounded by a body of senators that are all saying, hey, man, I'm here. I've loved to hear what he got. Hopefully, they're watching on a feed somewhere else, but he's out

there all alone, and this is a little bit of what he had to say. These are real world experiences from people that are on the front lines that are treating patients. And it's different from probably anything you've heard unless you've been following these people in the media, trying to break through, trying to convey the American public and provide the information that I think we all need, that we all deserve. Now, you know, my antenna is always up because I'm getting cues of spreading misinformation all the time. So I can imagine how the news media is going to treat so much of this. They're going to pick little phrases out, and they're going to pick it apart.

and they're going to try and marginalize this entire event. This shouldn't have been necessary as our information grew, as we became better and better educated, less ignorant about the coronavirus, COVID, the COVID vaccines, this should have been made public every step along the way, but it wasn't. So again, I'm just asking the viewing public to have an open mind, respect these individuals who have paid a significant price professionally, reputational. These are highly qualified individuals. They speak from experience. We've got to fix this problem. We can't let this continue. We can't let it happen in the future.

I mean, we were just saying it, you know, and one of the things that I say to people is that, you know, I might be jaded, I'm a journalist, you know, I've always investigated stories where malfeasance is taking place. I tend to say people, especially large corporations that make billions of dollars, they lie, they cheat, they're there to make money, they're there to pay off their stockholders, and pharma is no different. You know, just like when, you know, shell oil spills, you know, unbelievable amounts of oil, they don't just call up and say, hey, come and help us, let's work on us, let's fix us.

They try to hide it. Like a kid with their hand in the cookie jar from the moon. moment, you know, there's something about human beings or nature is to just lie about it. Okay, I can accept that. That's what a corporation does. What is so shocking right now is that we know that that's what corporations do. We know these pharmaceutical industries pay out billions of dollars for having lied about the safety of their products.

Then they get caught. We're able to sue them and get to the bottom of it. We can't sue this product. We cannot sue. It's being protected. We cannot get to this information. And the one group that is supposed to be monitoring and watchdogging this, the FDA, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, Health and Human Services, they're supposed to be

protecting us. And in every situation here, as you said, they're not doing autopsies. They could care less. They're not looking, they're looking at 22,000 deaths now on bears and saying, well, that's our system, but we don't trust it because we never decided to make one that we actually trust it works. Even though when they say it's, you know, it's, it's inefficient at capturing data, it's never been to the positive side. No one has ever done a study and said bears is overreported. the issues. Every single investigation of Bear says it's underreporting. Between 10% to 100% to under reporting. 22,000 deaths by most estimates means there's got to be at least 200,000 people have died and it could be as high as 2 million if Harvard Medical School's investigation

was correct. When you think about this as a doctor, you've been in the FDA situation, you had to get through that FDA gauntlet. Has the FDA changed or has it always been this totally corrupt and captured? The capturing has gotten more and more over the last two decades. And I would say that there was a lot of barriers to entry, and it's very hard. If you want to get a drug through back in the 1990s, you would spend $600, $700 million to get it through.

It's a lot of barriers to entry. So it's always been a big money game. So I'm not shocked and surprised. Part of me would say, gosh, Dell, if Remdesivir was amazing and saved everybody's lives for $3,000, I would have looked the other way, honestly. I wouldn't be here fighting,

because they were saving lives. Right. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be here. I'm here because we have data now. What I love is the truth comes out. Data from the insurance company, 40% more deaths from 18 to 64. Hello, we know. Yeah.

We know there's something there. That's a smoking gun. The VERS data. It's blowing away every other year. You know, it's blowing it away. So there's plenty of, plenty of crumbs sitting around to tell us, you know, the fact that Harvard, the head of Harvard's CV, still has his job after putting out a complete lie,

is, can you imagine that? Yeah. Head of Harvard's TV. Lancet, you know, putting out fake papers. These are things that we've, they're, they, nobody's afraid. They're just out and outlying to the public and controlling a complete media the whole time.

So here we are. Because we're a small force. But you can see, and I know you know, 30, 40% of the people are woke up to the point they're listening. And those are the ones we're going to talk to. And we're going to go for the other 60%, 70%. We're going to bring everybody in.

But we've got to start with hot coals. We've got to start with the people who are on fire to learn the truth. And at the end of the day, you know, we've got to go against this complete corruption because it's real and it's big. And I'm sure that we're targets in some way. You for sure. Me, I'm pretty small. But I mean, at the end of the day, you're bringing truth.

And we're so thankful for what. you're doing like I can't thank you enough I can't well speaking of hot fire and corruption I think the person probably encapsulated the sort of internal rage and frustration you're probably feeling at home and certainly these doctors they're finding themselves in the middle of it are feeling this is I'm going to give the last word from this event to Pierre Corrie I'm sorry to have to do this I feel like a broken record but I'm listening to my colleagues call out all of the inanities the insanity is the absurdities okay these departures

of our policies from what we know are to be scientific truths. It's things like denial of natural immunity. We have to understand why. To sit here and point fingers and they're doing this wrong and that wrong, why are they doing this? There could be multiple reasons. The simplest and most easily understandable and provable is every vaccine,

every these, you know, these novel patented high-cost drugs is profits. They are putting profits ahead of patients. You know, we can call it. attention to all of these policies. They are non-scientific. They're failing at having scientific support, yet they're being carrying out and they're being distributed

across the country. And doctors and states and health departments are willingly accepting this without question, without critical thinking. And that's what I want us to be clear that we're calling attention to today. This is corruption. Plain and simple.

It's corruption. Sorry. I. So, so. They love him. Yeah, I love Dr. Pierre Corey, his passion, you know, as we sort of close this up, you guys, what is the best way to track all the work that frontline doctors are like, is there a website?

So our current group, this International Alliance of Physicians Scientists, we're putting out stuff on Global COVID Summit. Of course, Pierre was doing the FLCCC but he's a core founding member of the group. And so we are trying to coordinate ourselves to do more, which is like I was just saying, we're going to go into information. That's important. We have to have a place where people can go and it's not run by a pharmaceutical company. Medscape is run by a pharmaceutical company.

WebMD is run by pharmaceutical company. We're going to have a messaging. We're going to come out. The press release will be here. Then we're going to go and do telehealth where you can come and you have trusted doctors. They're not going to care if you're vaxed or standing upside down or whatever. you are, they're going to take care of you, and then move into more of the ambulatory care, and then move into hospitals, and then we're going to get into supply chain side.

We're going to keep growing the system because, like you said, we have to reinvent. We're going to do it. We can do it, and we're going to do it. We have a great team to start with. Well, this is how it happens, right? This is what change takes. It's a birth. You sort of have to have the old die and the new begins.

And so, you know, I really appreciate being around. You guys, it feels so blessed and honored to get to spend this time with you. you the time that we all had in D.C. and I look forward to future events to come. And I am hopeful. I am hopeful. It is great to see guys like yourself finally talking about natural immunity again. I think that there's a place. There's a, you know, a coming together of different thoughts, of different modalities and a future to medicine and science that is so exciting if we can get past what I call these Neanderthals of medicine that are clinging to their relevance in a dying perspective. And we've got to get it. We've got to pry.

medicine back out of the hands of bureaucrats. These are not people that we vote for. We cannot have health departments deciding whether we get to work our jobs or whether we can breathe the air. And as you pointed out so well, I have never gone to the CDC or the FDA or the NAA for any questions for any question. I want to thank you for answering our questions today. It's really been spectacular, right? Thanks, though. Appreciate you. All right. Thank you. All right. Look, if you're watching the show. I know many of you, you know, and it's beautiful. When we get attacked in all these articles, one of the great side effects is that new voices and new eyes and new hearts come to us and say, I want to check out what was being attacked. What is it they're so afraid of? Well,

maybe you've been injured by a vaccine. Maybe you took those vaccines. Okay, everyone has their moment, as I said, at the beginning of the show, that wakes them up. But if you need help and you're trying to deal with that injury, we'd like to help. And so we've decided a program to get involved. If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial, go to Injured by COVID vaccine.com. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support, including connecting with medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury.

We can provide assistance completing a report to the CDC's vaccine adverse events reporting system. So if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a COVID-19 vaccine, go to Injured by COVID vaccine.com now. Well, it's been an incredibly powerful and deep and scientific show today. Once again, it'll probably be one of our longest. I want to remind you that, you know, we do this show every Thursday. We could probably break these shows up into multiple days across the week, but that would take a team 100 times as big as what we have in order to vet

and make sure we're getting the stories right, which is why we've decided to cover everything we have to cover on Thursday. But immediately, as soon as we're finished with the show today, an amazing team, a very small team, but dedicated and passionate team of individuals will start cutting these pieces out so that if you just want to watch, you know, the breakdown of the Senate hearing, you just want to get that piece to your friends. By this evening, you'll be able to start delivering those pieces. Or if you only want to watch the show a little bit at a time, all of that's available to you.

And I know I don't have to say this because now six million of you have figured out how you want to get through this show and experience this with us. I want to thank you. I'm telling you, I guess just people that could brag about six million. I'm not happy with that. I, you know, someone said to me six million, wow, it's amazing. No, you know what would be amazing? a hundred million. You know it be more amazing than that than a billion? Because this isn't about how big this show is. This show represents the truth and the more people that watch it and the more

I hear that watch and the more that walk up to me in airports and say, hey, I'm watching the high wire, the more I know we are getting closer and closer to that divine future that Dr. Richard Erso was just describing, a place with new hospitals and systems that get back to the doctor-patient relationship where we embrace new technology, where we embrace natural health. and natural immunity. All of that is on the horizon. It's a light that shines on the edge of these very dark clouds we find ourselves in the middle of. Those clouds are lifting. And if anything showed us that it was that this weekend that the people are rising up. I know that the next rally that we're going to put together will be even bigger than that and they know it. And that's what's so

powerful. They are scared. They are afraid because their news agencies are crumbling. Their hospitals aren't trusted, their doctors aren't trusted, and now the confidence in the CDC and the FDA and the National Institute of Health, and Fauci himself is coming down. And boy, are they afraid that you might start voting for politicians that decide to say, I'm going to question the science of vaccines, and I'm going to have an investigation of Tony Fauci. You better get involved in your politics that way. I don't care if it's a Democrat. I don't care if it's a Republican, but they better answer to your concerns over what happened in this pandemic and what happened. with this vaccine because an investigation is needed. A half a million people at least,

if we are correct about the dangers of remdesivir and the success of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin that we've seen around the world, if we're right, then 500,000 people were murdered by medical malpractice here in the United States of America, led by Tony Fauci. I'm sorry. Those are Holocaust level numbers. And if this vaccine proves to have issues of antibody dependent enhancement, which was in the hearing, but we didn't cover today, but myocarditis and infertility, if we lead to destroying the fertility of the world, if we end up seeing this vaccine continue to make those more sick, to have antibody dependent enhancement where the next time someone comes across a flu virus or a coronavirus, that the vaccine helps that virus kill them and raises the death toll.

If we keep seeing the 40% rise, what happens if it goes to 50% or 60% rise? What if the death rates in America start doubling because of this? vaccine program or even worse we could be looking at millions of deaths in our future even billions and so for anyone that says you're not allowed to make the comparison to the Holocaust because that was an atrocity if these numbers bear out if these issues end up proving true then they are comparable and all I have ever asked for no one is calling for violence in fact I will be the first to say we are a peaceful and loving movement.

I don't need to be violent. I have the greatest lawyer in the world. Aaron Siri is winning against the government. We have beat the CDC. We've won against the FDA. We've won against the National Institute of Health. We've won against Health and Human Services. I am using, there it is.

There's the list of the cases that we've won. Right there. We're winning. I use the courtrooms. And so I guess if you're threatened by my statement that I'm going to have trials that come after you should only really be a threat if you're worried about going to jail.

But don't try to turn that into some threat of violence. We're not threatening violence. We don't need violence. We have the truth. We have the courtrooms. And we're winning. And I know you know that. So for all of you out there, your support is making this possible.

These lawsuits have got them on the run. And believe me, now is the time. Now is the time we want to come at them hard because this is when they made mistakes. This is when they start trying to cover up their tracks, and in covering up their tracks too soon, they reveal what they've done here. We need to stay hard on them. We need to stay strong. So please continue your support. If you haven't already got involved with donated to ICANN and the Highwire, please do it now. At thehighwire.com, it's where you're watching this. Donate to ICANN. We're asking you for 2022.

Why don't you give us $22 a month? That's certainly a lot less than you're paying for CNN, which is falling apart. and Fox, which is at least many of the people there aligned to you in MSNBC and others, less than your cable bill? Why don't you get involved? Why don't you be able to say, hey, when I saw Brandy Zerosny, you know, really quibling and upset and saying, Del look like a rock star and do you realize that, you know, they're making more money and then they did last year? And by the way, they're bringing more lawsuits than they did last year too.

You can say, I did that. I'm the one that's helping make this all possible. I'm the one that's helping build that new future that the high wire and the informed consent action network is involved in. In the end, it's all about us. In the end, on this day, as we look at, you know, 77 years ago, we were able to shut down Auschwitz. We're celebrating the Holocaust today. What greater celebration is there than the recognition that it took place, that it is. possible to happen again and that even if we're being overly sensitive by nipping at

every little possible milestone that looks similar to the Holocaust if we are being over sensitive let that be our issue certainly being overly sensitive versus not sensitive enough is the greatest tragedy that could ever happen this is the high wire we do not forget our past We are here to protect our future.