The Highwire with Del Bigtree - RADICAL TRUTHS

Episode Date: July 30, 2022

They Lied! Are You Surprised?; Paxlovid Problems; Farmers Lead The Fight Against Agenda 2030; Injunction Stops U.S. Air Force; Are You A Radical?Guests: Pierre Kory, MD, Aaron Siri, Esq, Maajid NawazBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. How about we all step out onto the high wire together? You know, I reflect sometimes on how strange my life is. I mean, think about when I look up my Wikipedia page, it's awful. I mean, don't even do it. I know you're tempted right now. Stop. Don't do it.

It's horrible. There's nothing I can do about it. I get attacked. It was funny. We had a whole conversation once with the staff. Like maybe we could get all the people that like us to like continue. you just rewrite that Wikipedia page, and then the next day it got locked, and there was nothing we could do about it's locked forever. But every, you know, then I've got the New York Times attacks, the Washington Post, I just think how strange it is this world where I get attacked when I'm really think I'm trying to do what's right in the world.

I'm telling the truth where I find it and all of these things. It's just weird. I think back to growing up and my mom would say to me, you know, Del, sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. I live by that, and I think I've put it to the test more than just. just about anyone I know. So mom, thank you for those wise words. But when it comes to wise words, there was other words that came about back when we were kids. And today I wanna sort of use the old expression, I'm rubber, your glue, whatever you say,

bounces off me and sticks to you like this. When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not gonna get infected. Dr. Fauci says he has COVID again for the second time in two weeks. I started to feel really poorly, much worse, than in the first go around.

If you've done the right thing and gotten vaccinated, you deserve the freedom to be safe from COVID-19. This morning, I learned I tested positive for COVID-19 as well. You're okay. You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. Hey, folks, guess you heard this morning I tested positive or COVID. Taking the vaccine, we can get hurt immunity. Then you'll just stop the exponential.

billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates has tested positive for COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated and boosted against the deceased. COVID is the villain here unless everyone is vaccinated. Well, like virtually everyone in Washington, Nancy Pelosi has taken innumerable shots at the Corona Vax because she's a good person, unlike you. And yet, and this is kind of a bewildering fact for those of us who believe in science, Pelosi announced that she's tested positive for Rona anyway. How does that work? vaccinated it gives me some comfort. COVID has derailed opposition leader Anthony Albanese's campaign,

something his Labour colleagues have called inevitable. What I didn't expect was to feel quite so overwhelmed. In fact, it's a little embarrassing. I shed a tear because I finally saw that we had something now in New Zealand that could keep everyone safe from COVID-19. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardenne has tested positive for COVID-19.

I want to take this opportunity to remind Canadians to please get vaccinated. The most important thing is that you get vaccinated and not just for yourself, but for people around you. And I believe that I'm an example of why it's important to get vaccinated and boosted. Get vaccinated. There you have it. I mean, lots of promises that fallen apart. But, you know, and I feel bad for all the people, those of you that are watching the show, that really were disillusioned over the last couple of you.

years. I get it. Look, it makes no sense that you shouldn't be able to trust the president of the United States or the head of the CDC or the head of your, you know, global COVID task force. I get it. It was a really weird job to have to be the one trying to tell you. Look, they're not telling you the truth. This thing is not going to stop your infection. And so, but, you know, when you watch the news still, like there's this word salad going on. Tony Foucher say, I never said it doesn't stop infection. I always knew it wouldn't, you know, that it wouldn't stop infection. It was really about clinical disease or Deborah Burke's like I, you know, whatever, you know, they keep like backtracking. But the problem we have here, folks, is, you know, we're not like, you know, in the founding moment of America here. We're

not sending things via carrier pigeon, you know, or Pony Express. We have something called video cameras, right? We're all on record for what we said. It's on record. There's nothing you can do about it. I know what I said. You knew what you said. So let's all be honest, shall we? So I want to be honest here. I want to show what's going on. First, let's be really clear on what Tony Fauci was saying just, you know, as we were really starting to get deep in this pandemic. Here it is once again.

When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they're outdoors or indoors. Obviously, that has not aged well at all. That hasn't aged well. And then we have Deborah Burks that took it a step further. Not only is it going to stop infection, this is how we're going to get to herd immunity by getting enough of you to take this product that will then protect everyone around you because we'll be like a herd of vaccinated people.

Here's that statement. To truly achieve herd immunity is going to take through the summer and potentially even into the fall. That's getting, you know, 80, 70, 80 percent of Americans immunized. 70 percent, 80 percent immunized. Then we'll get herd immunity, which is, you know, what is the whole goal? And we'll eradicate this pandemic. We'll all come out of our lockdowns and hiding. and we'll, you know, take the boards off of our businesses and hope that we can get back on track and maybe recover our lives, which, you know, has been difficult.

These are difficult times. But when we look at these statements, they're amazing. They're truly amazing, but they're there. It's what they said. Now, Deborah Birx was making that statement. We will achieve herd immunity through vaccination in December of 2020. Let me show you what I told you in December of 2020. Here it is.

I'm on record. We're all being taped. I have no problem with that, trust me. Have you been asking yourself, why is it sometimes they say COVID-19 and other times they say SARS-CoV-2? Well, there's actually, here's the difference. SARS-CoV-2 is the infection that we spread to each other, that we're asymptomatic carriers or whatever's going on, we sneeze, we spread to each other SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 is just the symptoms that come from SARS-Co-2. as the disease, right? The part that makes you ill at ease. This is really important for me to explain what's going on here. So when you were watching that news, and they do this on purpose, you were under the impression when they say 95% effective at stopping COVID-19, you think, well, that's it. We can reach herd immunity because it stops the infection. And I can't spread it to anybody else. And you keep hearing all the scientists and pundits saying, we got to get as many people to get this vaccine as fast as we can in order to achieve herd immunity and stop the infection around the world. But here's the problem. They are not telling you that it stops the infection.

It is stopping the illness or the symptoms known as COVID-19. You are still, as far as they know, infected with SARS-CoV-2. You can still spread SARS-CoV-2 to anybody you meet on the street. Thereby, when they're rushing you to get a vaccine to begin with, saying we can reach herd immunity, there is nothing in science that proves that that's true. The news will have you believe that 30,000 people are part of this trial. But it's really not true. The trial is only going to come down to, in this case, about 196 people. It's called the endpoint of the trial.

The study is actually of 196 people. And in this case, those that got vaccinated, 11 of them ended up being infected within this time period and 185 of the placebo group got symptoms right that actually ended up having a cough or sniffles or things like that this does not say 95% effective at stopping your illness or stopping the actual infection that would lead to herd immunity this vaccine and these trials cannot do that all this is doing is blocking your symptoms turning you into essentially an asymptomatic carrier there it was i mean we are talking you know over two years ago now we laid out the truth i don't know what else to tell you i lost my youtube channel because i said that i lost my facebook channel there

it is youtube terminates anti-vaccine figure del pictures account after he pushed dangerous coronavirus and vaccine misinformation i mean it was ever it was a total complete attack we lost it and and all being pushed by the government saying you know we can't have this misinformation out there i told you exactly the truth. How did we know it? Because we were reading the trials, as we always have. If you're brand new to this show, just know all you have to do is sign up to our newsletter. You just go down the page on the Highwire where you're watching this and sign our newsletter, and we will show you the evidence. We showed you then the exact trial data of what I was talking about. That's it. Highwire.com, just put it in there. And then every Monday, you will receive all of the facts,

the actual detailed studies of everything I've talked about. So you don't have to take my word for it. I don't want you to take my word for it. I want you to have the evidence in your hands. And if you were watching the high wire, you would have had the evidence in your hands that this was the case. Now, let's be clear. They're now trying to start stories about the fact that's the unvaccinated that continue to spread.

This is why, you know, we still have the pandemic. Not true. Let's be clear here. If those that are vaccinated, which is what this study proved from the very beginning, that you were going to catch this illness no matter what, you were going to shed it to other people, your body and this vaccine was not going to kill off this virus, as Gerevan Bosch has described

it, it's a leaky vaccine. Therefore, it was never going to create herd immunity. In fact, there was a real potential and it looks like it's now a reality that it would keep us from getting to herd immunity because nobody vaccinated can neutralize this virus. Only those that catch it get a full immune reaction. Then they are, you know, it bounces off them and maybe it sticks to those that are vaccinated. That is what has happened. And so that is the reality. That is the truth. And now, just to prove, when we think about like the misinformation campaign or the disinformation

campaign, look what they're saying. Remember, Deborah Burke said we will get to herd immunity if you all 70 to 80 percent of you get vaccinated. Now here's what she's saying. I want to get your take on a lot of people looking at the president now having this. And all these people who have been fully vaccinated and boosted and all that. and they're getting it. The 20% or so of Americans who've not been vaccinated might look at that doctor and say, well, why bother? Why bother? What do you tell them? Well, if you're across the south and you're in the

middle of this wave, what's going to save you right now is Paxilovin? But once we get through this wave, during that law, you should get vaccinated and boosted because we do believe it will protect you, particularly if you're over 70. I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against, And I think we overplayed the vaccines and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will. But let's be very clear, 50% of the people who died from the Amacron surge were older, vaccinated. What? 50% were older and vaccinated.

I always knew it was never going to stop infection. I didn't tell you that. And by the way, I was a part of a commission trying to figure out how to basically shut down. anybody that decided they would tell you the real truth and that's the world we now live in. Now think about these people. They are still in office. They are still governing and they are still making decisions for you. They are still writing policies for all of us. Your jobs, your careers, everything that's wrong in our economy now is because these people lied to us. They lied to us. And so now, I would say once a liar, always a liar. We should all be very,

very careful about what we hear coming out of these people's mouths. So let's go ahead and dissect what she just said, essentially, you know, that, well, I always knew that there would be infections and that we would, you know, and so the whole point that you would get to herd immunity is lost. It was never going to happen. And now we find ourselves in a real crisis. We'll find out later in the show how, you know, it ended up being that maybe the virus is getting worse and worse. Even Tony Fauci is saying that. And I want to say that, you know, they are literally writing laws, these same people, These liars are writing laws right now, working with Homeland Security things, to try and make it, you know, basically a domestic terrorist offense to say anything against the CDC, a government agency. You're not allowed to speak out against the terms of the CDC.

In California, a law is this close to being passed that will make it that a doctor's license can be taken away if they don't spout the exact statements being made by who? The liars. Deborah Birx, Tony Fauci, those lies that you just saw. that said this isn't going to stop your infection. You may really want to consider whether you need this vaccine or not, how healthy are you. Those doctors right now are fighting for their careers. So we have liars in charge. Now, she said something else that I think is very important for today. We have Pax Lovid. She said if this thing is running through the South, it's too late for you to get the vaccine that won't really protect you anyway, certainly won't stop infection. What you need right now is Pax Lovid. This is the drug they've all decided to get behind. I'd think twice about it. I mean, Honestly, from the mouths of liars, now this is their miracle cure. Their previous miracle cure, which they actually knew wasn't a miracle, but they didn't tell you that. They told you it was a miracle. But now their new miracle cure is Paxlovan.

It is such a miracle that they don't even want doctors involved. They don't want doctors getting in the way of you being able to get to it. Can you imagine if they'd have done this with hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for us? Hey, we don't need to get in the way. You make the decision for yourself. That's what they want to do with Paxilov. You're like, wow, great. They've come a long way.

Maybe they've grown up. Look at the headlines on this. how easy they're making. U.S. pharmacists receive permission from the FDA to prescribe Pfizer's COVID pills, known as Paxlovid. Oh, great, so I don't need a doctor. I can march right in. Hey, I got COVID. Everybody, stand back. I'm about to get myself some Paxlovid. Is that a good idea? Well, great. Now they're loosening up the reins around this thing so I can treat myself. Yeah, only one problem. This thing's not nearly as safe as Ivermectin, not nearly as safe as hydroxychloroquine. Why? Well, I'm going to let the guy that wrote an article about

this tell you. Pierre Corey is trying to save you right now. This was his op-ed. My op-ed on the insane Paxloved distribution program. Now remember, this is a guy that wants drugs out there for. He's been fighting for multiple drugs for us all to be able to use in order to protect ourselves. So why does you have a problem with Paxilovid? It's my honor to be joined right now by one of the great crusaders, one of the greatest doctors of our time, not afraid to lose his license, not afraid to stand up for the truth. I'm joined now by Dr. Pierre, Corey. Pierre, it's awesome to see you, and how you doing? Yeah, nice introduction. I appreciate it. You bet. Well, I mean it, man. I mean, we've watched you, we've watched you steep, you know, speak before our Senate, you've put it all

on the line, you have been traveling all over the country, you and I run into each other on multiple stages, trying to speak to the truth. Now, first of all, you're watching the same news I am. Can you believe the gall of these people, basically, to us, writing books, bragging that they lied to us, that they lied to the President of the United States, that, you know, the things that they were doing out there, you know, what kind of world are we living in? And yet you, you're currently having an issue where there is, you know, investigations of your license for having told us the truth from the beginning. What is the state of medicine right now? Well, I think that point you made a, you know, once a liar, always a liar,

right? And when I've been a student now of the pharmaceutical industry and the stuff that they've been I didn't pay as much attention in my earlier career, but now it is so central to this pandemic and how it's being conducted. But if you look at the decade of lies by findings to hide adverse effects of their products and to overinflate the efficacy of their products, it really is an endless stream of lies. And so you covered the stuff around the vaccines. And then, you know, Pax-Load really hits me sort of, I find that even more infuriating. as an early treatment expert who studied dozens of compounds that are effective,

literally our country is getting behind a very expensive, novel, not very well-tested drug, which has a single mechanism, though, and it's the same mechanism that ivermectin has, but ivermectin has many more, you know, therapeutic mechanisms. And yet this is the drug that we're doing. Well, let's talk about that for a second. What are the mechanisms? What is the mechanism compared to it? And what is it that ivermectin could do?

So it inhibits a protease that is important for the viral virus to replicate. But that's essentially the only mechanism. Ibermactin has numerous anti-inflammatory as well as other antiviral properties that interrupt the replication. So for instance, Ivermectin is one of the most tightly binding drugs to the spike protein. So it can't enter the cell. It becomes harder to transmit when you rid yourself for the virus quickly. The time to viral clearance in numerous studies has been shown to be reduced with ivermectin. So it would limit transition.

And it's highly effective in COVID. I mean, we have 88 control trials, 39 randomized control trials. And when you summarize the data, it shows it's one of the most effective medicines in any disease model. But yet we're subjected to lies around Ivermectin, calling it a horse dewormer. And we know why they do it. It's why we're talking about this, Dell. It's because they always wanted to keep the market open for their novel, high profit, pricey Paxloid pill. And the challenge is not only.

the cost and the billions that the government has given the you know Pfizer for this pill but this is not an easy to use pill i mean Biden gave a press concesses he called it easy to use and he even exalted you don't even have to see a doctor to get it this drug del you know about this drug it has a 120 important interactions with other medicines 120 other medicines that interacts with approximately 75 you cannot even give it concurrently and then another 29 you have have to adjust the dose. I in my career have never used a medicine with this many interactions or requirements for dose adjustments. Never. And number two, I think this goes outside. I've never use Paxilovic. I never plan to use Paxilovic. I'm an expert of treating COVID. All of my

patients get through fine. I know how to treat it. I use combinations of repurpose drugs. This is unnecessary. So let me just, let me just because I know sometimes we can tend to as viewers sort of just sit back and go, well, it really sounds bad. I think this is important for everyone out there because, you know, we still, we are still seeing new strains. We've got Omicron B4B5, you know, out there. And so when we think about that, there are those of you that are going to be infected. You're watching this show right now and you're going to ask you myself, what do I do? Paxlova is going to be the easy one to get to, right? You can run right to your pharmacist. But how many of you want you to think right now, if you are taking any other drugs,

then you have some deep doctor-like research to do for yourself in a world where they're telling you don't be a doctor Google. They are forcing you to be a doctor Google because they just took your doctor out of the equation to take a product that reacts. And what we mean by reaction, Pierre, right, is it can be a dangerous, if not deadly reaction between two drugs that you may be taking, you know, with the Paxilov and that drug. So where does someone get that information? Like how do they even protect themselves? You know, that's essentially the mission of my organization, right? So we're a nonprofit that has since the beginning sought to try to disseminate pragmatic, evidence-based, expertise-based treatment protocols. And so on our website,

we have a number of protocols for prevention, early treatment, hospital phase, and now we're really focused on helping all the vaccine injured and the long haulers. And so if you go to FLCCC.net, you have access to protocols. As a public service, we've tried to put lists of telehealth providers, many of them see patients across 50 states that do early treatment and know and have a lot of experience using these very safe, very cheap, repurpose drugs that are highly effective. And so that's kind of our mission, Della, is we try to give agency to citizens to protect themselves from what we know is regulatory capture and lies. I mean, they will lie to put profits ahead of patient's health. They've been doing this for decades. It's how that business operates. And we're trying to stand up for people just

like you are. So there's 120 drugs that Paxlovin reacts with. For the viewers out there, What are going to be some of the issues, the physical health issues they might have that if they're not really thinking about what they're taking, what would be the people that should be looking at that there's a really good chance you're taking a drug that could react? Yeah. Well, of those 120, it spans 25 different classes of medications. So for things like blood pressure, anxiety, depression, blood thinners, lots of immunosuppressive drugs. I mean, the list is really endless. And so the challenge is as a physician, if you were to decide to put someone on Paxilovid, you'd have to look at what other medicines they have and for what diseases and how severe are

those diseases? What is the risk-bran effect profile of holding someone else's medicines for a disease which may require pretty careful medical management to put them on Paxilovid? I mean, even President Biden, from what I understand, was taken off two of his medicines. Now, it was probably deemed that they weren't critical for the short time. He was treated. But for a pharmacist to know the history and the history of management and medical manipulations that have been done with that patient, they can't have that access. And so I think that's a complicated enough drug. It really should be prescribed by that patient's hopefully longstanding relationship with an internist or a physician.

I just the proposal to have people show up at a pharmacy to test positive and get access to a very tricky drug. I just don't, it's just not pragmatic. It's not good medicine. It's not sound. And it's also unnecessary. I mean, they've suppressed the evidence of efficacy for numerous other safe agents. And in order to promote this Pfizer's Paxlova drug, and Dell, the last thing is, if you look outside, what I call the United States of pharma, and you look at many countries that have employed early treatment strategies, and I've detailed this in a number of writings that I've done, but you look at cities in Brazil, you look at Uttar Pradesh, you look at Mexico, city. So many health ministries that weren't fully captured by the pharmacy industry deployed mass treatment strategies and prevention strategies with Ivermectin with just astounding results.

Hospitalizations plummeted, case rates plummeted, deaths plummeted. I mean, we know that works. And that's only one of them. You mentioned hydroxychloroquine, you know, almost as robust evidence as ivorymectin. And then you got fluvoxamine. I mean, there's dozens of repurposed drugs that we have identified that work. And how did we identify it? It's because doctors all around the world were trying to help their patients.

And they were trying, they were selecting medicine that was available to them. They were comfortable with prescribing because they'd done it before. They knew the safety profiles. And they knew some of the biological plausibility. And so as they started to treat patients, we started getting lots and lots of data of things that work. But that's not information that the average U.S. citizen is aware of. It's kept from them. It's from unrelenting censorship to further their financial goals.

And it's, I don't know how you do this all the time, though, because I've been out this two years, and I'm just exhausted, and it's infuriating, and it's really depressing. It's really upsetting, and, you know, can I assume, I might have to assume people most likely will die because they're going to get this drug, it's going to interact, and they will just be another unexplained death, sudden adult death syndrome. You know, they were suffering from, you know, stress or heart disease, we're taking Medicaid, whatever the news article ends up being, but this isn't necessary. And just to be clear, how many drugs, like you said, $1,000, 20 drugs, 25 different classes of drugs, all can have bad reactions with Paxilovine.

How many, when we look at Ivermectin, how big is that list for Ivermecta? So if you talk about important drug or actions, it's literally under five. Like important, where you probably wouldn't want it. One is a blood thinner which you don't use very much anymore. It's not as common. And then very rarely organ transplant patients. There's a couple of, those are pretty much the only important ones where you really have to not combine.

But that's less than a handful, Dell. It's not 75. And, you know, we also been using Ivermectin for 40 years, a hydrocemicine for 60 years. And so, you know, there's so much familiarity and comfort with using that. You know, the other thing that we have to mention is this rebound nonsense, which didn't come out of the trials. It came out in real world data, right?

Suddenly they started treating everyone. They get sort of feeling better. And then, boom, they started getting rebound. Even Anthony Fauci had rebound after his. The only thing that I found surprising about is that he admitted it. But I found that shot. So he decided to tell the truth about that, but he still peddled plenty of other lies that I've had to observe. Is there something more insidious going on here?

In the one instance, you had doctors that were prescribing ivermectin hydroxychloroquine early on, having real success. Incredible testimonies. I was just talking with Senator Ron Johnson just the other day. the great panel you were part of. We were talking about Dr. Paul Merrick, talking about how they literally, this man had reduced his death and serious illness inside of the ICU

by 50% compared to everyone else he worked with. And then the hospital came in and took the drugs away that he was allowed to use. And he literally said, I had to stand there and watch my last seven patients with my hands tied behind my back. I had to let them die when they could have been saved. I mean, it was really powerful.

But in that case, they took the doctor out of the equation. a doctor using a drug. And now in this case, you know, it's in one way you can say it's the opposite, but it's sort of the same. They're now delivering a drug to the people and they're taking the doctors out of the equation. Don't go to your doctor for it. You can go straight into, you know, your pharmacist and get it there. Is there some desire? I mean, is this just moving to like some kiosk where I'm just going to walk up, never have a doctor again?

And what's my problem? Here it is. They pump a drug out for me. Are doctors really even going to be necessary in this world? What's happening here? I think they're trying to convince you otherwise, but doctors are critical. We are necessary. I know how challenging medicine can be.

We have to put a lot of thought into the decisions we make, and we always have the patient's interest as our primary consideration, not just blind access to a pill. But you're right. The things that you just detailed, Dell, those are unprecedented. So in my career, I've never been told I couldn't use a medicine. You know, we used to have as a sort of a safeguard for physician practice and behavior, it's called malpractice. You know, if you did something that was, you know, unsupported, that was either reckless or, you know, offered more risk than benefits.

I mean, that was sort of what the guardrails were. I mean, you would be subject to a malpractice suit. But it never went so far that I had to be told what I could and couldn't use, especially one of the safest medicines known to mankind. So you're right, that power that they're exerting is unprecedented. and the extents and the lack of limits to it has been really sort of very, very traumatizing to observe. So the attacks on our licenses, what that hospital system did to Paul, they essentially ended his career and took away everything that he was using to help patients stay alive and recovering the ICU. I mean, Paul was traumatized that week. He literally felt handcuffed and was

watching young people die and he could not use the therapeutics that he knew were effective. And, you know, I have to tell you, that kind of real world experience, not being able to have access to cheap, safe, available drugs that you know work because there's some regulatory structure that's interfering and putting themselves between you and a patient. We've never had that before. And so, Del, we have to fight back. You know, on my organization webinar last night, we had a couple of an advocate and a legislator. And we talked about all the legislation going across the states, you know, serving the correct what you just highlight, you know, protect the autonomy of doctors. allow access to cheap safe repurpose drugs. I mean, I don't know if you know, but in Tennessee,

they passed a standing order legislation very similar to Paxloid, but for Ivermectin. And I have no problem with Ivermectin because it's safe and it's been done around the world. We have models of entire cities giving this out. And so we know how safe it is and it can work on a large scale. But you know what? The federal government wants to go with Paxhlovin. It's an amazing time.

like opposite world. If they're recommending something, I got to think twice about it. And because, as we said, once a liar, always a liar. You have been telling the truth from the beginning, as we have on the high wire, FLCCC, great website. And there, I mean, where do we go? For those people are watching this saying, well, how do I get my hands on Ivermectin? Is it possible? Is Ivermectin available in the United States of American place? Are the ways to get to it? Yes. So Ivermectin, it's a little tricky. The retail pharmacies, they've all, been sort of I think beaten into submission the pharmacists are scared they say silly things like the FDA hasn't approved it you don't need the FDA to approve it but retail pharmacies are tricky

we have found support with compounding pharmacies so there's still access I work with a number of them are super friendly supportive they know the evidence they know the data and they help us and they help our patients and so we do have a pharmacy directory on our website we also have a provider directory to get access so you can get physicians who are experts in early treatment we've had a lot of groups support us because they've used our protocols from early on they know it works and we're you know again it's it's a war you know you know this is a war right it's a war of information and we're just trying to get sound pragmatic medical advice and access to care and effective

safe drugs to the average US citizen so for all these out there again FLCCC dot org to get all that information find those that I mean, dot net, sorry. FLCCCC. Dot net. My bad. Dot net. Also, look, if you want to be following all the information that Pierre is sharing out there,

you've got to go to his substack, an amazing writer, Pierre Corrie's Medical Musings. That's where he would have found my op-ed on the insane Pax Lovid distribution program. Definitely get this to all your friends and family members. Really important that they know what's going on with Pax Lovid because they could just unknowingly walk right into a very bad decision. Many millions of people have done that around the. the world over the last couple of years. We're trying to stop that, trying to save people's lives. And Pierre, we have kind of a bit of an announcement today, right? For us, it's a really big

moment. You've been working on a fantastic book, and we have been working to really start helping those voices get out there that we want to support. So this is going to be the first book. I Can Press is going to be launching Pierre Corrie's book. It's a very exciting moment. Here's the book, The war on ivermectin, the medicine that saved millions and could have ended the COVID pandemic. It's not quite out yet. You can pre-order it right now at Amazon.com and other places where you can pre-order. But we are really excited about that. We're excited that you took this opportunity that we're going to be working together to get your book out there.

So important that people not only know the truth, but understand what happened here. We have got to wake up people to what took place, you know, this incredible travel. that is going to cost countless lives, didn't have to, but looking into the future, our knowledge is how we stop this from happening again. So excited about the book. What, you know, what can we expect from this book? What's it really about? Yeah. Shaddell, first of all, I agree. I'm very happy about the support and, and, you know, your ability and willingness to help promote the book, because it's, it is key. You know, the book is somewhat of a narrative, but what happened in my career during COVID is I became an expert at the treatment of the disease.

Once Paul Merrick and then myself became expert at the role of Ivermectin, you know, what I then learned and what I'm now an expert on is what happens when a repurposed drug shows high efficacy in the treatment of a disease. And what happens is the industry, the pharmaceutical industry, borrowing from decades of tobacco industry practices, they engage in what's called disinformation campaigns. And I learn about every facet, every lever, everything that they pull and do in order to suppress. press evidence of efficacy of a competitor. And remember, I don't think there's a time in history that Ivermactin has had, has one drug like Ivermectin has had as many competitors. It threatened the entire vaccine campaign because you can't have an alternative, you know, all of the other competitors like Paxlilovate and Molinopiravir. And so basically, you know, I then became an expert at what pharmaceutical disinformation looks like. And, and I use the example of Ivermectin.

Ivermectin is not the only drug that has been attacked by disinformation, hydroxychloroquine. That war was fought in 2020. You know, I came around during the ivermectin era. Now they do it to fluvoxamine and others. But going back to your point, Del, the book, I believe, is important because I want people to know what they do and how they do it. So that you can see it in the future. So we can learn from this. We can pick out those lies that you do so well at identifying, right?

and what using data, using analysis. And so I want, again, I all, it's, I want to, you know, you know, arm people with that ability to protect themselves from lies because that's what disinformation is. It's lies and they hurt people and people are dying. You know, we know that there is hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. Had truth, good science, evidence-based, you know, data been available and guided, you know, been able to guide physicians and patients.

And that's not what happened. We've got to fight back. We can't have this going on. Agreed. Look, it's an honor to know you. It's an honor to watch the work that you're doing. Can't wait to read the book. So glad we're a part of getting it out to the world.

The War on Ivermectin by Dr. Pierre Corey coming from ICAN Press. Check out his substack. Definitely go pre-order the book. Check out his substack. If you want to get more information on the drugs that you can use, ways to get through COVID, should you have that unfortunate moment still waiting for you? there, just go toFLCCC.net. Pierre, keep up the good work, and I am sure we'll see you soon.

Thanks for taking the time. You too, Del. Thanks. All right, bye. All right, well, we have a huge show coming up. I have, you know, probably a bucket list interview. Definitely one of those that I'm so excited about. I'm going to be sitting down and talking to Majid Noyes in just a little while. We met out in England during the Better Way conference.

Super interesting guy. Once an Islamic, you know, I guess extremist is the correct word, but now tries to fight extremism. We're going to talk about this extreme world we're living in. And we have a huge announcement coming from Aaron Siri, who's going to be joining me in just a minute to talk about, you know, another legal victory and some really interesting information coming your way. But first, it's time for The Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. There's so much going on. it's really amazing.

But I mean, the lies, the way it all just keeps revealing itself, it's like these people actually forgot that we had cameras rolling, right? Right. And, you know, I really respect Dr. Pierre Corey. A quick story. It just popped. You know, I'm on standby here listening to these stories. And we initially reached out to him.

I reached out to him and talked to a woman working for him, a secretary to get him on the show, you know, years ago when he first came out and did his testimony. And the secretary said, you know, I looked, I looked you guys up. I looked up Del Big Tree on Wikipedia and it said you were anti-vaxxers and, you know, we kind of want to just really keep this space pure and to see him come around full circle and have this journey in the public eye and the courage he had to take to really get to the truth. Yeah.

I so respect him for that. And I really think people need to understand that, that he has done so much work in the last really two years of awakening. and he's brought the entire world along with him. So hats off to Dr. Corey. I agree. But in the news here, so kind of out of nowhere, we've had Dr. Birx, Dr. Fauci start to do a media tour and they've really only accomplished incriminating

and contradicting themselves. And here's Dr. Fauci, take a look at this, talking to you like I guess it's 2020 still. Take a listen. All right. The Lancet published the study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning immunity with time. And the study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals eight months after the administration of two doses was lower than than that among unvaccinated individuals.

I guess the question I get a lot is why don't we hear the downsides of any vaccines? We really don't hear that. There's a study out of Germany that says the Federal Institute of Vaccines, Biomedical Drugs, the rate for a severe adverse reaction, according to them, is one reported severe reaction per five. vaccine injections. Do we have any data about, you know, vaccines and the back end of that or the negative side of that? There's been a number of studies. New York Times just did one about menstruating cycles and how that is affected by vaccines. Yeah, well, the menstrual thing is something that seems to be quite transient and temporary. That's the point. That's one of the points. We need to study it more. There are downsides to every intervention, but the issue is,

Brett, you've got to balance what we call the risk benefit ratio. And if you look at the deaths and the morbidity of the curves that no one will argue with when you look at a vaccinated person versus an unvaccinated person, particularly a vaccinated person who's boosted, you look at it and it just explodes out of a slide at you. The difference is stunning. It's not perfect. No one is saying it's perfect, but it does a very good job

in protecting you from severe consequences. We didn't anticipate that we would have a virus that has such a capability of evolving and continuing to mutate. And the reason for that, I might say, is because when you give the virus the opportunity to continue to spread from person to person. It gives it an opportunity to mutate,

and when you give it an opportunity to mutate, in many cases, some of those mutations lead to a variant that has characteristics, we call it phenotype, has a characteristic that makes it a bit more dangerous in the point of being able to spread better. That's what we saw with Amacron, and that's what we're seeing with BA5 right now.

I mean, I could play like 10 flashbacks. We didn't know. We didn't know. We were just discovery now where we did know the whole time we knew. But, I mean, he is almost sounding like Geert van den Bosch now. I mean, just short of explaining that he's actually the reason that the vaccine that was a leaky vaccine couldn't stop infection, therefore didn't stop transmission, therefore allowed this virus to live amongst us longer than it ever should have. Had we all developed natural immunity, we would have kicked it out.

It would have been a barrier. It could have been stopped. Instead, everybody vaccinated is just catching this over and over and over again. Their bodies can't fight it off. And now he's telling you, and it could lead to more dangerous variant, more infectious variants. Well, that's it. And we didn't know that that was going to happen. Well, Gerevan Basque was telling you that was going to happen, you know, when all of this started.

So, you know, it's just shocking. It's shocking. And now they're finally, because there's no, we said this, right? We said it all along. The truth will prevail. In the end, we will know whether we were right or wrong. we've been right the whole way. All the scientists we're talking to have been right the whole way.

But there's so much to this that he's wrong about. And there's so much that is really a continued lie, right? Right. There's so much in there. I mean, this menstruating thing, we probably should study that more. I don't know. It's just the basis of one of the most important female anatomy components when it comes to, you know, childbearing. So, but, you know, he's essentially saying there, you know, no one's going to argue the data just explodes off the slide.

It's just another way to say this is, you know, he's basically saying this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated still. He's just, he's just dressing it up a little differently. Get your booster, go out and get that sucker. But any conversation, like you said, transmission, infection, they're not even trying to defend that hill anymore. That's gone. And so now they're talking about severe, critical, and fatal COVID. So it's going to keep you from dying, get that booster. But any conversation has to start with this recent study recovered a couple weeks ago from Qatar.

And it's the duration of immune protection they looked at, across their national database of SARS-CoV-2 with natural infection against reinfection. So what did they conclude? The authors wrote this, effectiveness of primary infection against, here it is. Severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3%. Irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning, similar results were found in a subgroup analysis for those over 50 and equal. That was in the group that did not receive the vaccine but had just a previous infection.

So after that primary infection, 97% effective at getting any version, any variant didn't matter. You are not going to catch it. Something that they cannot save for the vaccinated who we just showed a montage or catching this thing over two, twice, three times. It's unending. Absolutely. And so we have new research now out of the New England Journal of Medicine. This was a correspondence. And they're talking about shedding.

So duration of shedding of cultural virus in SARS-CoB2 Omicron infection, but still, again, is the BA1. We're kind of past that. But what they found here, they're right. We did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted and those who were vaccinated and boosted. But let's look at the slides from this study. And take a look at this.

This was the time since people's first PCR positive test. And you can see this step down. On the bottom, those are the days. And then you have different colors. You have in the red there, those are the unvaccinated. And you can see that the unvaccinated and the vaccinated, that would be two doses. They have that from the first day positive. They test the negative about 15 days.

But I'm sorry, but the boosted are at 15 days. So basically, it's everyone, they look at the PCR test. You have the unvaccinated, the vaccine, the boosted. The red line is the unvaccinated. The yellow dotted lines is the vaccinated. and then there's the boosted with the dotted green line. And then it's how long it took before you finally got a negative, you know, PCR back.

And clearly there, the unvaccinated lead the pack at 15 days out, they are doing far better than the vaccinated who go up to 20 days still testing positive. But what I think is interesting is that line drop, right, right there around day seven, like day six, day seven. Look how far down the unvaccinated. A huge group of them are testing now. negative by day seven, yet that's prolonged further out for the vaccine and boosted, isn't it? Really interesting. Yeah, it has a little longer. Yeah, it has a little longer tail on that.

And now, so those are just the PCR test. So someone could argue, well, you know, the false positives. Sometimes they're not that accurate to begin with. They may be positive for longer that someone is infectious. The researchers also looked at the culture, positive culture, so viral loads essentially. And let's look at this next slide here. We have, again, the unvaccinated, still dropping down at about the day 10, but then we have the vaccinated and the boosted. The boosted are that green dotted line. That shoots out to almost 15 days. They're still carrying that. They're still have a positive viral culture. And to look at this a little- Meaning they can be shedding and infecting people. So they're infecting people for 15 days, whereas the unvaccinated might potentially be infecting people for 10 days.

I'd also argue that if the vaccine does what it says it does, which is remove your symptoms, that person that's unvaccinated probably has some symptoms isn't running around going to work, deciding to stay home and be practical about it. The person that's boosted potentially is running around and getting people sick, not knowing that they are infecting people. That's an excellent point. And to look more at this data a little different way, there's a chart here, and it showed, as you correctly pointed out there, that big drop. Now, this is, again, back to the PCR positive test. At day 10 here, that blue line is the unvaccinated. You can see only 31% at day 10 are still testing positive,

but we have 62% of the boosted and 70% of the double dose vaccinated are still testing positive as this thing goes down. But again, really the important one is the viral culture. And let's look at that slide. This one here, we have only basically 6% of the unvaccinated testing at day 10 with this viral culture load, 8% of the double vaccinated, but the boosted are walking around with 31% still at day 10. And then you can see it drops down to 15 days. So that just, again, points to that fact that these people are

walking around. It's a small cohort in this study, a small amount of people, but the data is the data. And are we seeing this reflected in the real world? That's really the question here. We see these studies. We see these really controlled environments. And this is data out of New South Wales, Australia. This is Joe Smalley. He's a data analysis. We've covered some of his information before. This is his substack. And he writes, New South Wales, Australia, COVID update, proves the pandemic of the vaccinated. So what they're looking at here, he takes the data from New South Wales government, from their own government. Remember, a lot of governments have stopped publishing data because people are doing this. And what he looks at is hospitalizations. So again,

we're not talking case anymore. We're talking about that severe, the critical reason people are going to the hospitals. And let's look at the chart that was. created using this data. It shows here a stepped process. So each color is a dose of vaccination. So the blue, we have no dose, all the way up to four doses and that light blue is unknown. And you can see the four doses is the one like the green just for people if they can't read it on their phones right now. That big tall green line, all those green lines, those are the four doses. Right behind it is the red three doses. The yellow is two doses. The I guess it's like a dark blue is one dose. And then at the beginning of each of these charts or each of these columns, you'll see a tiny little

blue line down there. Those are the no dose, the unvaccinated. Okay. And so what do they look at looking at this here? What's going up? Something's going up. I can see it's going up. Yeah, this is the rates per one million people by vaccination status for hospitalization. So we have a step progression. And what that means, what we're looking at here is it's dose dependent. Hospitalizations using New South Wales data is dose dependent on whether you're going to the hospital or not, depending on how many vaccination doses you have had. And that is a really, really big deal. So let's look at the risk multiplier between the Vax and unvax. There's a calculation that was done here.

And Joel Smalley writes this, according to their own data in the last seven weeks, that was what this data window looks at. You are 37 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID if you are vaccinated than if you are not. I mean, that is the data, ladies and gentlemen, and that is a shocking graph that should really be talked about a lot more. I don't know why people aren't talking about this, but that is dose dependent and it's showing hospitalizations, which is no, that's not a small cookie there. We're not talking about a false PCA. And for people that are watching for the first time, we can be very technical. Some of it I know is really easy to understand. Some gets more technical.

But why we keep saying dose dependent in science, you know, imagine you want to make sure you're not seeing an anomaly. Just some weird thing that happens and you don't give it too much. importance. Dose dependence is one of these things that really is a strong marker that you have a problem. If you have a problem when you give this much and then the problem gets worse when you give this much and then the problem gets worse when you give this much, it shows that there's actually like a coterminous event happening with the interaction of this product and the human body or in this case the virus or the disease. That's what they're seeing here. That, you know, if it went one, two, and then it drops way down, you say, well, maybe those first, that first dose was an anomaly. We're not seeing

that. This product is clearly getting in the way. And when they say hospitalizations, there you have it. The hospitalization is going through the roof amongst those getting that fourth dose. And I sit here, Jeffrey, and I think how many times we do a show and think that should be it, honestly, if we just ran your report right now all day on CNN today and MSNBC, just give us one day. Let us show you everything that we've showed you from the beginning of this show, how they lied to you, all the way to hear that, no, the vaccinated are not doing better, better than that. than the unvaccinated. You're the ones who are spreading it longer. You're the ones ending up in the hospital. Unfortunately, I'm not proud about this. These are just the facts. How long we in this mess

anymore? How long is Deborah Burke still appearing on TV? How long is Tony Fauci still got a job? This is why this is so important, folks. If you are not signed up to our newsletter, you can't really get this across to your friends. I know. They're hypnotized. We know the Matias Desmond thing. Well, how do you unhypnotize them by talking to them? What's the best way to talk to them? How about be on our newsletter? So on Monday, you're going to say, hey, you're going to go and sit down with them and you say, look at this chart. Just look at this chart. These are charts.

This is real life data. You can look the data up, but here it is. The vaccinated are shedding longer. Here's Tony Fauci admitting. Here's Deborah Birx meeting. All of this is in your hands. Seriously, utilize this, folks. We only win this by enrolling people.

If you're just tuning in because this is entertainment to you, man, these people are going to eventually kill us all with this stupid stuff. All right? You don't want to die? You don't want to be another lockdown. You don't want the next product to come along and be forced into you with no choice, no ability to get a job. Then start doing your part, start taking these tools we're handing you and use them with your friends. At least those that are intelligent enough to be able to read it and understand what we're talking about.

Great stuff. Amazing. Right. And Dell, it's starting to feel a little bit like Groundhogs Day. You know, two years ago, plus we were reporting on COVID. But something else is on the horizon now. And this is what it looks like in the news. It's called Monkey Pox. The stark warning about the monkeypox outbreak.

Powerful words from the head of the World Health Organization amid rising cases of monkeypox. The global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern. A public health emergency. A public health emergency. A public health emergency. Monkeypox cases surge in more than 75 countries. Here in the U.S., there are about 2,900 cases, including two children. States across the country are struggling to get the monkeypox vaccine as cases are on the rise.

The U.S. originally ordered a 2.5 million vaccine. They've now ordered an additional 2.5 million, but health officials admit they do not have enough vaccines to meet demand. We got an allotment of 200 vaccines, and the appointments for that went in about an hour and a half. The Biden administration considers whether it will also declare a public health emergency here in the U.S. I think they're going to be reluctant to use the word pandemic because it implies that they've failed to contain this. And I think at this point, we failed to contain this. I think the window for getting control of this and containing it probably has closed. So far, the majority of the cases have happened in men who are intimate with other men.

But officials stress this, anyone, anyone can get this virus. Yeah. So, well, we have a public health emergency of international concern, basically just that asks other countries to donate money. to this trying to, it's basically a big fundraiser and get public awareness onto this. But really, right from the beginning, this is the headline here because there wasn't a solid consensus on declaring this. So Tadros really did step in and did a authoritarian declaration, if you will. Unprecedented. W.H. Chief Tadros defined, defied experts to declare monkey pox emergency falsely claims nine to six vote a ties. There was nine people against this thing and

six for it. And he stepped in and said, well, I'm going to break this tie. breaker here and just kind of do it. So he must be like one of the first graduates of common core. Nine and six is equal. Nine is equal to six. It's a tie. It's amazing. All right.

And so we have the critical work of one of our previous guests, Dr. Claire Craig. She has diagnostic pathologist. And she took to Twitter and really looked at these international health codes to figure out how this happened. And here's the chart she came up with. See this big flow chart. And then you say, because Tadro said so, right?

in the corner that that kind of trumps everything here but but to get back to a more serious topic in the u.s here the bide administration is uh is mulling the idea of declaring an emergency here in the united states uh Biden administration ways declaring uh monkey pox a health emergency there um they may name a coordinator a monkey fox coordinator that's going to look good on someone's resume i'm sure as early as tomorrow uh i have read and you know the big question here is we're talking, what can we do or what is the administration going to do to try to counter this? And that's the vaccine. So we're back to the vaccine route. And just let's imagine here because we just had Pierre Corrie on, right, talking about this. You know, the pharmaceutical lobby is the most

powerful lobby in Washington. So they're in everybody's office right now saying you need to declare a state of emergency. And what does that do? It frees us, Pfizer, Sinofi, Moderna, freeze all. It frees all of us up to start making drugs or dreaming about drugs that we can rush out to you and we get to skip all of that expensive and pesky safety trials. We can just rush it out because now it's an emergency. So you know the pharmaceutical industry loves every emergency declaration. Now they get to try all the different drugs. Maybe it's for hiccups, but shoot, let's try it on smallpox because we don't have to do a safety study anymore. I mean, the whole thing, this is what that pressure in government is. And I'll kind of be shocked if Biden,

doesn't declare a state of emergency, given the amount of controls we see from the pharmaceutical industry in the middle of politics. So here we are. Emergency sets everybody free to do whatever they want, rules out the door, safety out the door, efficacy, who cares? We'll lie about it. And when Tadros, the Director General of the WHO, declared this public health emergency, we had during that same press conference, actually right after he talked, there was the head of global infectious hazardous preparedness. He had something to say, too. Take a listen. I would like to underline one thing that is very important to WHO. We do have uncertainties around the effectiveness of these vaccines because they haven't been used in this context and

in this scale before. And therefore, we are calling and working with our member state that when these vaccines are being delivered, that they are delivered in a context of clinical trial studies and prospectively collecting this data to increase our understanding on the effective risk of this vaccines. Thank you. What was that? Wow.

Wow. Then I'm going to put even more money onto the table that Biden is going to call this emergency because now I get it, right? The vaccine may not work at all, probably has side effects we don't know about. And in order to protect everybody, you're going to have to protect them the Prep Act,

all the protections like the 1986 Act, prep act protects anything that during emergency, Yeah, we didn't know a lot about it, but you can't sue us because it was an emergency. So, I mean, I'm sure that's where this is going. Now that I recognize the product is potentially a dud and they're admitting it right there. And this just wasn't an isolated concern that was brought up by the WHO or within the confines of that establishment. We have the CDC's own website. Let's go to the website under considerations for monkeypox vaccination.

And it reads, there are no data on the efficacy of genios for PEP and PEP and PREP, that's pre and post exposure to monkeypox. Genios is the vaccine, the monkeypox vaccine, from the current outbreak, although this is also true for ACAM 2000, that's the other vaccine for monkeypox. There is evidence that the related dry vacs vaccine worked well during the smallpox eradication period. Side note on that, dry vacs was approved in 1931. That's that smallpox epidemic. Why? Public health officials have concern about the lack of efficacy data for genios, especially because it requires two doses 28 days apart. So that's what you're talking about to elicit, you know, an unknown efficacy response to this.

And just a side note, the incubation period from monkeypox is known. That's the time from, that's the interval from infection to the onset of symptoms. It's known to be about five to 21 days. So, you know, this vaccine's not really even kicking in. If it's going to kick in at all for, you know, we're talking about at least three weeks to four weeks, according to this, 28 days apart. So we have these two. So you get your second shot, then how long to that second shot actually works? And then we're back to the Geert van and Bosch question.

If you're vaccinating during a pandemic, how effective is it going to be? You're having a suboptimal response in your antibodies with that first shot. And now you come in contact with monkeypox. What does that do? I mean, it's a whole can of worms, none of which has ever really been studied prior to COVID. So now we're going round two. Let's try vaccinating the middle of a pandemic again. Right.

And we have this genus vaccine. We're being told there's shortages of it. So the other one that was approved in 2007 by the FDA, that's ACAM 2000. Let's look what the FDA has to say about that. It says adverse events following ACM 2000, including myoporiodicarditis or vaccinia virus transmission to household contacts, can be serious. There's a high rate of a higher percentage of myo-periocarditis with this vaccine. It's one of the reasons the genios vaccine was brought in, although it still showed some higher

troponinin levels. But let's- And these are live. virus vaccines, right? I mean, technically, it's the same vaccine that they would use for smallpox, right? I mean, it's an orthopox, but we're literally, I mean, these live virus vaccines can be problematic. They can, you know, end up being shed, spread. We just saw the first case of polio in America because of such a vaccine. Someone that got vaccine for polio brought it and infected someone here, I believe it was in New York. So there's an issue here. It makes me a little bit nervous,

especially when they're saying, we don't know a lot about it. Now you're going to give it a bunch of people running around, me and my children all over the place. And, you know, we look at the U.S. how could the U.S. be caught so flat-footed with this vaccine rollout? Really, I mean, we're told that we have these stockpiles. And let's look back to 2013. This was Bavarian Nordic.

This was their press release. This is the company that makes the genios vaccine. And they say monkeypox vaccine from Bavarian Nordic wins EU approval. So they have the EU approval, but they also have in the United States, Bavarian Nordic completes delivery of 20 million doses of Evamune, that's the smallpox vaccine genios, to the U.S. strategic national stockpile. And it says in here, again, 2013, this order completion is the result of a decade-long research and development partnership between Bavarian Nordic and the U.S. government and fulfills

the original contract awarded in 2007, valued at USD 549 million. It goes on to say in April, the U.S. government awarded Bavarian Nordic a new contract valued at up to U.S.D. 228 million to supply eight million additional doses of Yvamune needed to maintain the 20 million dose stockpile over time. So let's do a little math here. We're at 777 million around 2013 when that was done. So now all of which, let me let all of which, by the way, let's point out since we now have the W. W.H.O. saying just want to warn everybody, you're really. a part of a giant clinical trial because we have no idea if this thing's actually going to work. So what I know for a fact, that statement is out of the $770 million my country has given you, none of that went to doing a proper efficacy study. None of that went to a proper safety study. You're still telling me it's unknown.

So you're just pocketing the cash instead of doing the work to true R&D to make sure this freaking thing actually works. Two decades they had. And I have a little more bad news on that front for you. So let's go to a 2020 press release. This is Barta invests another 83 million into Bavarian Nordic smallpox vaccine. It goes on in there to say this follows a $106 million investment into the vaccine made in April. So now we're up to about $966 million.

The Biden administration just bought about $2.5 million more for over $100 million. I think it was $116 million. So we're over a billion dollars invested in this vaccine so far. And to your point, it doesn't seem like there's much in R&D and the research part of it for efficacy. So now when the green light comes, second we need this thing we have statements from the w h o that cdc saying we really don't know the effectiveness of this thing but we're going to try and you're in the clinical trial congratulations and as we saw with you know just to end this up for a second as we saw with the the covid outbreak more testing

meant more cases so this is probably if i was a betting man what we're going to look at here u.s monkey pox cases jump as testing increases the bi administration has freed up five national labs, Abbott Labs, other labs, it's kind of the same players in the COVID-19 pandemic to do these testing. Before that, everyone had to send it to the central repository at the CDC and wait for the results to come back. So now that's what we're looking at. But let's look at some of the stuff. It is a great decade for lab, you know, for laboratory work. I mean, I wish I'd invest in. Someone told me the PCR test was going to, you know, is the future, man, billions to be made there. Who has seen that coming? A test, it doesn't even work too well. It's going to make a lot.

of money. So let's look at the studies. We have one of the first studies out of the New England Journal of Medicine looking at this current outbreak. This is monkeypox virus infection in humans across 16 countries, April of June 2022. This is looking at 528 people between those times in 16 countries and the authors write this. Overall, 98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men. 75% were white and 41% had human immunodeficiency virus infection. The median age was 38 years. transmission was suspected to have occurred through sexual activity in 95% of persons with infection. And that's what the science is saying so far. I mean, that's really the elephant in the room. And this is what I find so interesting about this conversation. We live at this time now

where I don't even know what pro downs, you know, you're supposed to be being spoken to about, like, how do we talk about, you know, our genders, our preferences and all of this. But let's just sort of get to the focus here. I mean, there really is a group of people that are, risk here and here's my problem I don't want to I'm not in this group I wasn't in the elderly group that was at risk for COVID I was in the healthy group the ones that were all asymptomatic I do not want to see this turn into a situation where I'm suddenly going to have to do something and change my life because this is affecting a very specific group of people now look if that group of people wants to line up and get

a vaccine that's never been tested that's your choice is the United States of America what scares me is emergency use authorizations this decision that vaccines only work if everybody on the planet gets it. So then we create the herd that like protects everybody. So, you know, and I read an article in The Guardian that really kind of states it plainly. And here's, you know, what do we talk about? I literally screamed out loud in pain my two weeks of monkey pox hell written by a New York describes his harrowing ordeal to receive care through a system under equipped to handle another pandemic. But here's the part of he says. I had sex with several guys over the weekend. Then a week later on the 1st of July, I started feeling

fatigued. I had a high fever with chills and muscle aches, and my lymph nose were so swollen, we're protruding two inches out of my throat. Now, here's the thing. Like you said it, right? Monkeypox has an incubation period abruptly five to 21 days or so, and then you have the postules, and then they go away. Now, my understanding is you have to be symptomatic to be spreading this thing. Is that, is that the case? Is that mostly what we know about it? Oh, you're, did you mute or do, okay, there we go. Go ahead. Yeah, they are finding some evidence of asymptomatic, but the studies are really not out there at this point for that. All right, but isn't it, I mean, you know, look, I don't like to tell anyone what to do. This is, I am all about, you know,

every man for himself, but you're creating a situation where now we're getting WHO announcements that this is an emergency. We have our own press. making announcements about an emergency. And I want to know how far this goes because it seems to me that, you know, what would be really nice is if for like the next, I don't know, 28 days or so, if everybody in a community where men are, you know, sleeping with other men that perhaps, why don't we just chill out for a second? Can we just chill out for a moment? I know I'm probably going to get attack mail like crazy. But, you know, every once in a while, I fast once a year. Like I don't eat any food for a little while just to like regenerate, you know, some biome, change you

up? You know, is there anything wrong with maybe just a little bit of, like, hold off on, you know, little celibacy for just a little while so we can let this thing go away before they end up locking us all down, masking us, putting my children through hell, stopping down airports, destroying my jobs, and then forcing me to take a product that is nothing to do with me. All right, I've said it. Go ahead. Attack me. But that's what's going through my mind while all this is happening. For once, I think you and the WHO are on the same side of the fence. This just came out right before we went on air. W.H.O. advises men who have sex with men to limit partners amid monkey pox. So that is the official statement now from the WHO. It doesn't seem too radical,

and that is the advice at this point. So we'll see if the Biden administration does call this emergency here in the U.S. But moving over to another kind of emergency of a different, of a different route, I guess you would want to call it. We covered the Netherlands about two weeks ago, those farmers were up in arms because of a climate push that the government was doing. They wanted them to have a large percentage of emissions from fertilizers cut, which meant lives, getting rid of livestock. And so we're seeing that same push here in Canada with Trudeau and his administration. And what's happening in Canada, this just last week, and now it's, it's kind of running really fast. Here's the headline. Farmers feel ignored as Trudeau government

pushes them to reduce emissions. This is emissions of nitrous oxide fertilizer. So when they put fertilizer on the ground, it releases this. And then also with the manure and the urine from cows, that's releasing that as well. And so it says in the article here, there was no prior consultation. There has been no modeling or analysis provided to explain this 30% target. It appears to have been pulled out of thin air, one industry source said. In fact, the reduction target wasn't even developed by Agriculture Canada. It was the work of environmental and climate change, Canada,

which is why neither farmer nor industry groups were consulted. And sure enough, days after that, the headlines look like this, as they did in the Netherlands. Trudeau fertilizer emissions plans, sparks, backlash from farmers and provinces. So we have Alberta, we have Edmonton, we have Ottawa. There's some footage of farmers protesting. We have semis. Basically people, they're waving both flags in unison. We have the Netherlands flag.

We have the Canadian flag. And people are not going to have this. And you can see them, again, stopping up cities, stopping up roadways, just like. like they're doing in the Netherlands. A lot of people are not happy with this. Really, first and foremost, we have a lot of the administrators, government officials, and this was in Alberta and Saskatchewan. They put out a joint statement.

Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta disappointed in federal target for fertilizer emissions reductions. And they say in here, quote, this has been the most expensive crop anyone has put in following a very difficult year on the prairies. Alberta Minister of Agriculture, Nate Horner said, the world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages.

The federal government needs to display that they understand this. They owe it to our producers. So remember, this is the agenda 2030. This is trying to get to net zero. And number one, the number one tenant of agenda 2030 is end world hunger. So we're kind of scratching our head here by saying that, you know, this global food shortage, people are looking at Canada for this. Canada's cutting its farmers.

Now this has been a conversation that's been going around in the background for a couple years, will they do this? Will the government put these cuts in? And this is in 2021, the Western Canadian wheat growers association. They have, they put this newsletter out, analysis of proposed fertilizer emissions reductions will devastate Canadian farmers. They did an analysis and they said, if Canada adopts the EU model, which it now has, the potential economic impact of reduced fertilizer use would be devastating to Canadian farmers. The calculations show that by 2030, the prairie provinces will have the following losses. Alberta, $2.95 billion. Saskatchewan, 4.61 billion, Manitoba, 1.58 billion. And this is losses to their corn and spring wheat

and canola, just devastating, devastating losses. And who is really speaking up? Well, we have these industry groups speaking up. We have some members here and there, but we have a member of the Canadian Parliament. She also has a master's degree in environmental studies and a law degree, Leslyn Lewis. She's been doing local talks to really raise the alarm and try to tell people what they're signing on to for this and what net zero actually is and what it looks like. Take a listen. This whole net zero is a nobody has ever asked to define net zero and that's what the farmers are fighting over right now because the government of Holland and Sri Lanka and here has defined net zero and I'm going to give you an example you eat a piece of steak that steak the carbon footprint is

calculated by every single thing that that cattle consumed up until you ate it and then the fat that you ate it. That's what the carbon footprint is. And so the nitrogen in the soil, the feed, the transportation of the feed, everything is calculated. And then they do an equation and then they say it's not sustainable. And the problem is, is that even for agricultural production, where farmers have gone to even zero tillage and has invested in technology and they thought that that would have been enough. And that's what the government in Holland said,

that would have been enough. Then they changed the rules and they said, no, it's not enough. All that money you invested, I'm sorry. It still doesn't meet net zero. And that's the problem. Because the net zero calculation is almost like, it's sorcery almost because when you look at an electric car and if you're going to do a net zero

calculation on an electric car and you look at a coal mine or even a computer too a cobalt mine or a lithium mine and you look at the degradation of that and then you look at the fact that five-year-old African children are working in those mines and then you look at the battery in an electric car and how it gets disposed of afterwards and the years that it would take to break down that battery and you do a carbon footprint on that, you would see that that is far more damaging than agriculture, but it's agriculture what is being attacked. And that's why I believe that there's an agenda. She makes such a good point here. And again, I want to tell everybody to just be to totally honest. I grew up a progressive liberal from Boulder, Colorado. I still considers myself an

environmentalist in the old sense of the word, which I want clean air, I want clean water, I want healthy, clean food for my children. I want all, you know, a world where my kids can fish and eat the fish and not have to be totally filled with poisons, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. So I believe in that. But the point she's making is, is a good one. Like you are just picking. and choosing. I said the last time we talked about this fertilizer shortage, all right, I get there some issues there, but where's the discussion of glyphosate? How about stop spraying this deadly chemical that causes non-hospital inflammation? They're not saying that. So she's right, there's an agenda. This isn't really about health or a healthy environment. You're all lying.

And then she talks about, you know, the electric cars. I'm not against trying to create new ways to move things. I think the electric car is very interesting, but we should be looking at the batteries. thing is this. You know, ultimately, you have a battery driven car and we're, I'm in Texas. We have, we have a serious, you know, drought. We have heat issues in Arizona, even in the UK, California, all these places where, what are they saying? You know what? Limit the use, your electrical use. You've got to limit the use of your air conditioners. We don't want to blow the grid. But by the way, go out and put, you know, a million electric cars on our grid. It makes absolutely no sense. These people aren't making any sense. And she makes some great points in there.

and I looked into the lithium part about the batteries. And Chile has one of the world's largest, if not the world's largest lithium reserves. And they're extracted through this method. It's a water-intensive method of evaporation of the brines found beneath the salt flats of something called the Atta-Kama Desert Salt Flats. And I think we have an image of this. I had sent over.

And there's brine pools and processing areas. And there's a picture of it right there. And so this is basically in a desert. And what is it doing? And they need a lot of water to do this. And they're using the local water to do these things. And what has that done is headline here. Lithium mining is leaving Chile's indigenous communities high and dry, literally.

And it's a really interesting article read there. The quotes are really heroin quotes of just people having to bottle in water now and just wait for trucks to deliver their water because the local water is being used for this. But then it reminds me of fracking, by the way. Like I remember at, like I voted for. President Obama, you know, I was really excited. I was in the environment and, oh, the great idea there was fracking. It's like fracking and get natural gas and all these things.

Obama says fracking can be abridged a clean energy future. Well, it wasn't that simple, as the Washington Post pointed out. And what do we see? We saw his vice president saying during the election, I'm going to stop all fracking. That's a terrible idea. You know, we're destroying the environment. We're destroying all the water that's being used to frack. All things that are true.

But guess who's stupid idea that was? So great idea yesterday, terrible idea today. This is what we're talking about. Vaccine, great idea today, terrible idea tomorrow. I mean, I'm, this is again, these people are making terrible, terrible decisions, yet they're enforcing them. They're pushing them upon us without a place to go. Right. And what Lesland Lewis said about child labor, I thought, wow, that really sounds like an explosive claim she just made. And I looked into that. So they make these batteries, not only do you need lithium, but you need cobalt. And here's something written up from Amnesty International. This was written. up about several years ago, but exposed child labor behind smartphones and electric car batteries. And it said in 2014, approximately 40,000 children worked in mines across southern Democratic Republic of Congo, many of them mining cobalt, according to UNICEF. Now that was then.

We know that the globe, the slowdown has killed economies. So how many of these kids are working just to just put food in their mouths and their family's mouths right now? But don't worry, the World Economic Forum has a solution, Dell, and they just published it on their own web. website. And here it is, three circular economy approaches to reduce demand for critical metals as we make this transition. What's number one? Go from owning to using. Another word to say that, go from owning to renting. Number two and three are basically just use old stuff and repair it.

So, you know, while we climb into our private jets and laugh at you from our gigantic ships out in the ocean, go ahead and reduce yourself down to all the rusted things you had. And if you need something nice than that. We'll rent it to you for a little while. Right. And now let's look at the other countries. So Netherlands, we're going to keep an update on this because this is again, rolling stories as we continue to report on this. More countries are signing on to these climate reductions and emissions. This was written in their paper in the Netherlands. It was translated. We posted and broke it at the high wire here. This is the headline Dutch Ministry of Finance Report. 11,200 farmers must stop 17,600 reduced livestock by third to a half.

This was an internal document by the Minister of Finance that was forced into the public by the members of Parliament requesting this. And this is basically what it said. This was translated. The current nitrogen strategy of the cabinet will mean according to the calculations of the Ministry of Finance that 11,200 farmer businesses must be stopped in another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock by a third to almost a half. The calculations were published on Wednesday afternoon to show how hard the agricultural sector, the total of 40,000 to 50,000, farmers with cattle is affected by the nitrogen fertilizer plants of the cabinet so again just massive reductions already on a glow on the back of a global downturn from COVID food shortages we have these

and the same things happening in the UK people you know you got to start scratching your head when you read these headlines British farmers are being offered a lump sum payment to leave the industry but at what cost to agriculture and this is the UK's own website here it is right here how to apply for a lump sum payment to leave or retire from farming and it It goes on to say, before you receive the lump sum payment, you must do all of the following. Transfer your agriculture land to England, but you can keep up to five hectares or plant it with trees under a woodland creation scheme. Transfer grazing and pennage rights you have on common land in England where require give up, surrender, your English BPS entitlement. So basically, get the heck out of here because, you know, the food choice is another big deal.

Maybe if you change your mind in the future, we'll rent it back to you. I mean, like the whole thing is so disturbing. Are the farmers are the problem? Farmers are. Not all of the industries that are tracking us and tracing us or causing problems around the world or starting wars. It's the farmers. Those people that are out there digging the dirt, bringing us our food.

And where's our food going to come from? And like you said, the whole place to stop global hunger. Yet the very people saying that are literally paying people to shut down their farms so that they don't grow anything. right or under attack man i mean that's i don't know how else to see it by some really really stupid sinister dark strange i don't know how to call i can't even put them people uh entities yeah and and dell one of the things i found interesting you and i talked about this is that it just a couple months ago we were reporting on the war in ukraine right in russia causing a fertilizer slowdown

through this, we're unpacking this, but it's really important for people to be realistic about what possibly might be happening here. So I pulled some more data points on this story as it's moving forward and developing. So this is out of Bloomberg talking about Russian fertilizer. So Russia joltz global fertilizer market by seeking end to exports. So the Ministry of Industry and Trade in Russia is urged their Russian fertilized producers cut volumes to farmers due to the delivery issues because of what's happening there. And let's look at one of the the image, one of the images from this article here, just to give an idea. So here we have, Russia is 9 million metric tons. Belarus is 8 million metric tons. Together, 17 metric tons

of potash. It's the fertilizer that they are exporting. Interestingly enough, at the bottom there, Brazil is the world's largest importer of fertilizer. And so they, they're one of the, they lead the globe in exports of soybeans, coffee, sugar. So that's, that's on the, uh, the docket too, as they do not get these fertilizers coming in, the exports of soybeans, coffee, and sugar are, you know, people are keeping an eye on that as expected to go up as well, because this is all interconnected in this food chain. Wow. You know, it's really weird to look at that now under the circumstances. We talked about Sri Lanka is now revolting because they can't use fertilizer.

They're having to get rid of cattle. We're talking about the Netherlands. You know, we're looking at Canada now. All of those countries are basically saying to farmers, We are not going to allow you by law to use the amount of fertilizer. You've got to reduce nitrogen. Yet, as you pointed out, we were reporting here in America, there was no fertilizer available. Oh, there's a shortage.

You know, so farmers are going to have to find another way to grow because we have a shortage of the stuff coming out of Russia. I mean, but you realize it all suits the same agenda, right? It all suits the agenda of reducing nitrogen. And, I mean, you really have to ask yourself, is this just two sides? the same coin or the exact same story. In the countries where you don't have freedom, where you don't have a First Amendment or a Second Amendment, we're just going to tell you straight up, we're denying you the use of fertilizer. You're not going to get to use it because we signed on with Klaus Schwab and we're going to reduce it by 30% or what have you.

But in the United States of America where you have a First Amendment right and you might just own a gun, we're probably not going to just try to tell you what to do. We're just going to lie to you. We're all out of fertilizer. There's none available. You can't get to it. So you're going to have to figure out another way to farm. I mean, it really makes you wonder if we're just in America, we just be lied to. We're in other countries that don't have our same freedoms. They tell them the truth because there's nothing they can do about it. I don't know.

It's suspicious. Same results. Either way. Reduction in fertilizer. It seems like the same story we were given with the gasoline shortage. That's Russia's fault. But at the same time, they're coming out on the other side of the mouth and saying, this is a great, great transition to electric cars that we've been waiting for forever.

So you've got to really start digging in these stories to find the truth. And hopefully we can present enough of the information to where we can find it together with the audience. Absolutely. Great job, Jeffrey. Amazing stuff. Lots of information there. Just I love the work you're doing. We'll see what you got next week.

All right, Del. Thanks. All right. Great. Well, look, you know, there's so much that we do here on the high wire. You've seen us. We've seen us out in public. We go out.

We meet people. We speak to politicians. We have, you know, this show that's amazing. but one of the big things that we're involved in is the lawsuits, trying to fight for what's right. And in many cases, that takes us in the courtrooms. We've talked time and time again about the amazing legal team we have with Aaron Siri and his team at Aaron Siri in Glimstad.

Last week, we told you there was a big decision, or maybe it was two weeks ago, I guess, when we're in Las Vegas. A big decision with the Air Force, basically making them, you know, they can't fire anybody that has a religious. or anything like that while they try to figure out the case. But there's a tweet that went out. I want to read to you right now from Aaron Siri. Here it is proud to announce our firm, along with at Chris Weiss 11 and Tom Bruns,

just obtained a national preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Air Force Space Force and Air National Guard from penalizing service members. They refused a COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons. My understanding is two weeks ago that was a TRO, which was temporary. Now we seem to have the full injunction at the moment, but Aaron's theory is joining me now to give me some more details. This is huge news. I mean, you know, I know it sounds kind of the same, but two weeks ago, we announced the people, TRO. This is gone a step further.

What happened since two weeks ago to now that the judge sort of really seems to put his foot down? Well, yeah, temporary restraining order is a stopgap measure that a judge will. Institute so that nothing changes between the time the request is made to the court for an injunction of preliminary injunction and when the judge rules on the preliminary injunction. So, you know, a judge that issues a temporary restraining order may not then convert it into a preliminary injunction. Okay. In this case, that's what happened yesterday and hence it's the moment to really, you know, publicize it obviously the TRO was great news, but obviously the preliminary injunction is excellent news for all of those

service members who are facing serious consequences for simply trying to adhere to their faith and their beliefs. Now, this injunction now lasts all the way to the end of when the case is finally decided whether their religious rights should stand up or not. Now, after a TRO, when that was submitted, is that another moment where like both sides get, like, does the government come in and say, here's why you shouldn't give the full injunction? I mean, junction, is there a moment? Is there a moment? where the lawyers sort of weigh in there? Yes. There's a briefing that typically almost always occurs between the TRO and the issuance of the preliminary injunction,

where the lawyers get to argue to the court why the judge should or should not grant a preliminary injunction. In this instance, the defendants, the Air Force brass, are represented by the Department of Justice. So it's the DOJ that is defending the military against the request that we made on behalf of the service members for this preliminary injunction. And the Department of Justice put in their papers and tried to tell the court, look, it's the military. You have to give them great deference. Stay in your lane a bit. It was where their papers read if I could characterize it in that. So they kind of brace this judge a little bit.

Like we're the Air Force. We rule Supreme here and we need to be allowed our freedoms, which don't necessarily work like everybody else's freedoms in the country. Right. But fortunately, we live in a country with three branches of government. Right. And all of them are required to follow the Constitution. In fact, the members of the military are sworn to protect the Constitution.

And the first freedom is religious freedom. And what kind of country would be if those that we send out, to fight and spill their blood to protect our freedoms. We don't respect their very freedoms. And so this judge took that oath very seriously and made clear to the Department of Justice and military, you might be great generals, but you're not great judges. I know what the Constitution says. I know what their rights are and granted the preliminary injunction. Even if I may quote one sentence from the judge's decision, quoting Marbury v. Madison, which is a decision from 1803, the founding Supreme Court decision that really made clear the separation of powers in

this country between three branches. The court says, quote, the court reminds defendants, the military that, quote, quoting Marlborough v. Madison Madison, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, end quote, reminding the military that it is the judge, the judiciary branch, that decides what the law is at the end of the district. day and won't be have that dictated to the court by the military in the decision what I liked was there was a sort of a personal story an anecdote that he sort of puts in there about one of these decorated um uh colonel here it is active duty lieutenant colonel edward joseph stepan

the third who logged 174 hours of combat time flown in operation Iraqi freedom and earned two air medals testified the preliminary injunction hearing in this case as follows the question was now you understand the seriousness of things of the decision that you're making today, correct? Yes, ma'am, I do. And if pushed, will you in fact go to prison to stand behind your religious beliefs? He says, yes, ma'am, I don't see that I have any other alternative. When I meet my maker, I'm going to be held responsible for the decisions I've made, and I'd much rather go to prison. There's been a lot of saints that have gone to prison, so I'm willing to do that. And the judge sort of uses this story to say the following. As such, decorated Lieutenant Colonel Stepan,

who also testified that there is a shortage of pilots would rather endure prison than betray his sincerely held religious beliefs. And the enforcement of this vaccine mandate would take this American hero and his other patriots and discharge them from their hard-earned duty stations. Accordingly, and with a respectful nod of a gratitude to the father of our great country, this court as a sworn guardian of the Constitution will not order the Air Force personnel at this stage to forfeit their protections of our laws and of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I mean, it's powerful stuff, and it feels to me like by putting that sort of anecdotal story in there, which isn't necessary, he's really sort of showing a passion about the position that he sees the courts in here.

Now, you got to submit some information. Did you ask for the exact same things of the TRO? Or did you shift it a little bit? Have we expanded it? You know, what happened there? Yeah, in the preliminary injunction that was issued is broader in terms of the relief provided to members of the Air Force, Space Force, and the Air National Guard, than what was provided in temporary restraining order.

Our firm has put up a website and it is Air Force Class Action.com. Again, that's Air Forceclassaction.com. For anybody who's in the Air Force and affected by either the denial or facing any type of potential issue with regards to the COVID-19 vaccine exemption that they've submitted, they can go to that website. They can see precisely what the decision was. They could see all the court papers. They could see how they get help. And they have a way to contact our firm to assist them if anybody in the Air Force,

force is violating that order in any manner and so that we can take action on their behalf. Man, can I just say you are the man? I mean, it's amazing air, the work that you're doing. It's so powerful. It's so important. And these heroes of ours that protect our constitutional rights finally have someone standing up for them an amazing, amazing result there. And it seems that, you know, with that expansion into some of the things that you're looking for and the judge granting that, boy, I don't, I mean, my reading of it is that the Air Force made a huge mistake in sort of trying to really, I would say, sort of bump or brace this judge and put him in his place. It looks like in some ways that might have backfired. Yeah, but I don't think

that was what the primary driver behind the decision is. I think the primary driver is the substantive rights as laid out before the court. I appreciate the credit that you're throwing my way, but I like, you know, I think a lot of the credit also goes to Judge Matthew W. McFadden, who is the terrible judge in the case, who issued an incredible decision and saw the real, the real day-to-day lives. The hearing that was held here, you know, had a number of the members of the Air Force come in and testify. You read a little bit of that testimony, many of them in their full military gear with their family sitting there. You could see the real impact that requiring these service and who,

who served our country for some of them decades. Yeah. And now they're going to be tossed aside because they don't want to inject something into their body. They sincerely violate their conscience. If we can't respect that, we've lost our way. Even during the Revolutionary War in this country, when we were fighting for our very existence, George Washington, you know, made clear. And I don't think anybody thought otherwise.

they did not force the Mennonites, the Quakers, the others who had religious beliefs against fighting. They didn't make them fight. And there are very survival, the very existence of this country was at stake. That's a founding principle of this country. And Judge McFadden, I think, gave that life again. And also, I also can't take full of credit, have an amazing team at my firm. Wendy Cox and numerous other attorneys and my co-counsel, Chris Weiss and Tom Burns, you know, we all work together as a great team. It takes a lot of people to pull off

these kinds of victories for the members in the Air Force and other places. All right, good. Well, indeed, I hope you'll give them a full Del Big Tree, like really exaggerated, excited. Thank you from us, all right. Appreciate it. Look, Hugh, you've been helping us with our FOIA request for ICANN. You're the one that's been, you know, winning all these lawsuits for us and the work that we're doing, the amazing win, Washington, D.C., taking down the law, the minor consent for vaccination, so many other successes. But these FOIA requests, freedom of information act requests, things that we're asking from the government, they work for us. We get to demand to see their emails, their documents, things like that. A really sort of amazing set of documents just came

through. Tell me, I'll let you announce it. Oh, sure. And yes, we do a lot of four requests, as you know, for ICANN. We've got hundreds probably before every federal health agency in the United States. With that said, they love us. I'm sure. Yeah. They have a picture of you, and Dell, I think, and it's framed. As long as you're in the picture right next to me, I'm fine with that.

So every time there is something, there's a news story, there's a study that comes out where we believe that the federal health agencies have information that could assist in further understanding the truth in analyzing an issue. You know, we on ICANN's behalf, FOIA for that information. A number of months ago, there were reports that there are certain lots. of the Pfizer back COVID vaccine that had a disproportionate number of reports in theirs regarding death and serious injury. Right. And so we wanted to understand, well, is that meaningful? Right.

If knowing that a certain lot has 20 times the number of deaths in theirs versus other lots is only meaningful if, for example, that lot was only distributed at the same rate as other lots. Right. That is not 20 times. bigger. If it's 20 times the lot, then that would explain why you're having a higher reaction in theirs. So you need to know how many doses were in that lot when it was delivered. Exactly. We have to have to have an understanding of how many doses are in each lot

distributed and ideally used, but at least distributed in the United States. So we forward for that information on behalf of I can. And we're pleased that we have to receive a significant amount of information with regards to many of the lots, not all of the lots, we're still working on that, we'll get there, many of the Pfizer lots. And so now with that, and it's at least 2,500 of the Pfizer lots distributed in the United States, there is now the number of doses distributed. That information, I understand, I can.

Here we go. Let me put it. You have to go to I can decide.org. That's our website. We have this page put up the exclusive Pfizer lot and dose data release. This is not one of those things that's 50,000 pages. For those of you that are numbered crunchers, especially those of you have been really involved

in the investigation of VERS. You will find it at our website. You can open it up and it has these lists. Do we even show, can we show what it looks like? Do we have like sort of the columns and you see all that? No, we didn't get that. But then you're gonna have to go to the website

to check it out. But look, this is breaking right now. It's brand new. It's just going up on the website today. For those of you that want to do the investigation, just go to Icandecide.org. You can get the documents there. It's really important information.

And this is a place where, like, you as citizen journalists, as scientists, doctors, as mathematicians and epidemiologists, you can take this information. Report back to us. If you find anything that you think is really interesting, just send that to info at Icandecide.org, and we will look into it. This is how we all get together and start really trying to get through all of this information and figure out where the truth is. All right. So, Aaron, amazing. Just, are you a little bit surprised? I mean, are you surprised? Like, we get so many things that are like fully redacted? I mean, this seems like it's got some meat on the bone. Were you a little shocked that it came through free and clear?

We sue for these four requests all the time. I mean, I think we've got probably half a dozen pending right now. Yeah. And also when we bring those foyer suits, we typically don't really compromise that much unless there's a reason to. Right. So I think as a general matter, there's, it's good. They don't play as many games in terms of what they redact and don't redact. Got it. So they realize we're going to sue anyway, so they might as well just give it to us, like, who needs that?

this is something that they just going to sort of release it. I think there's a bit of a lack of a term. I think there's a bit of an understanding in that regard. You know, this is the law. Foyer provides the whole idea of FOIA is government transparency. Yeah. If they won't provide the documents, there's no transparency. And, you know, we've been to court around FOIA requests many times, right?

Yeah. You've covered a number of those. Almost all of those are on behalf of ICANN. And so they know that ICANN does not shy away from demanding to get what they're entitled to in for you, even though there's no, let's call profit in it. I mean, ICAN does this to get to the truth. And I think that that makes it an irregular player before these federal health agencies. But they, and they, you know, I think they have tested in the past, what is ICANN's resolve? and I'm well aware if I can't resolve, which is if it requires an appeal, we appeal,

it requires a full federal lawsuit. Federal lawsuit. It requires going to the circuit court, go to the circuit court. So I think they understood. I think there's an understanding in that regard. Well, I'm glad there's an understanding, and I'm glad you're the one that is sort of standing there demanding that they make that understanding and know it to be true. You're doing great work.

I'm going to let you get back to it. Thank you for taking the time and sort of helping us understand a little bit around this work that you're doing. So important and really, really proud to be working with you on these issues, Aaron. Keep up the good work. Thank you. And we appreciate the opportunity that can gives us to do this amazing work. All right. Take care.

Well, I mean, look, folks, you know, this is, I've been accused. When I talk to the New York Times, Washington Post, they'll say you're not a journalist, Dell. I mean, you're an activist. You actually, you sue the government. You, like, have law firms and stuff working like journalists don't do that. And I remember the first time I heard that. I was like, is that true? I mean, I guess that's probably true.

It's probably not the definition of a journalist. So I guess I'm not a journalist. If that's what the definition is, is I'm supposed to just stand by and watch as I see crimes taking place and just say, well, there's nothing I could do about it. But here's the news. That's not what we do here. We're into making a difference in the world. So I don't care what you call this. This is the high way we're bringing the truth.

we're fighting for the truth, and that fight takes us into courtrooms if that's where it needs to be. You know, well, you know, we need your help. All of this. When you hear about it, right, we'll appeal, we'll go to a Supreme, we'll go to, you know, appellate court, we'll go to a Supreme Court. We'll push back. We'll ask for more. We'll go against the DOJ. All of that.

All of those different things that are happening cost the, you know, cost us money. This is a law firm that is not, is fighting for you, right? We're fighting for you. We're fighting for your freedoms, for you. your children, for your military, right? I mean, even though we didn't fund that, I mean, let me be clear up, we did not fund that, that Air Force thing, but the investigations and the FOIA requests and things that we do around that are a part of this entire thing. So if you're just watching and thinking, you know, I don't know if the world is going to change,

it's not going to change if you don't get involved. It's not going to change if you don't help. And the easiest way to do something that actually makes a difference that we present to you every week, you can see that the difference we're getting to make is because of those of you that have committed, those of you that have stepped up and made all this possible, made it possible for us to fund really expensive legal battles all across this country. As he said, hundreds and hundreds of FOIA requests sitting on desks all over our government right now. There's all the legal wins that we've had, many of them against institutions, WHO, FDA, CDC,

Health and Human Services. So get involved. Help us out. Just become a regent curing donor right up in the upper hand corner right now on the website. this on or if you need to transfer to our website, you're watching this on Rumble, just click on donate. Help us out, make a difference in this world, whether it's a cup of coffee, you know, $6 a month. We're asking for $22 a month for $22 or if you're of greater means in these difficult times, we really could use your help. We have got Goliath rock back here. We are in the winning

position. We are winning against the government of the United States of America. We are making truth happen where only lies are being produced. Don't you want to be a part of that? Please, please, please help us out. It will really make a difference. Well, speaking of fighting for truth and standing for truth, probably no one understands truth more than someone that has been on the other side of the truth, that has been on the wrong side of the truth, that has found their life, you know, changed and torn apart and gone through experiences that make them see the world in a different way, with a clarity that's not just socialized or been brought to them on a silver platter, but from life experience. I don't think anybody represents that more, that life experience, that clarity, that gift to

waken us all to things that we may know nothing about because we never experienced it. My next guest in this interview coming up, I'm so excited about talking about Majid Noaz. And if you have no idea who he is, here's just a quick review. He is the founder of the world's first counter-extremism think tank quillium international. One of the bravest people on Twitter relentlessly telling the truth, no matter what the response is. Majid Nawaz. Majid Nawaz. Majid Nawaz.

For 13 years of my life, I was involved in an extreme Islamist organization. Some ideological recruiters from a group known as Hizbert Dahir recruited me. And I spent the better part of the next decade, my teenage years, up until... 24 proselytizing for global caliphate and I ended up as a political prisoner in Egypt. Now he devotes himself to rebutting the very narrative he once passionately promoted. Frankly, Leslie, I think it's the key factor in solving the problem we're experiencing in the world at the moment. Countering the narrative.

Countering the narrative is the core of the solution, making this narrative as unfashionable as communism has become today. in your so-called caliphate, you'd have me killed, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you have me, am I an apostate that deserves death? Why are we busy making excuses for the terrorists? Why don't we protest against the terrorists? Unfortunately, the bar has sunk so low that people are happy that the definition of a moderate is somebody who condemns ISIS.

And I often say even al-Qaeda condemn ISIS. That's not the definition of a model. It takes intellectual courage to accept that you've been peddled a lie for most of your life. If you were to look up, who'd pay? the largest criminal fine in history. The results of the pop-up is Pfizer and GlaxoSmith Klein, two big pharmaceuticals. The assumption that these companies exist for your benefit is one that really must be interrogated. They exist for profit and you are the product. You are the thing that needs to be exploited for the purposes of profit. Our states were no longer

serving their people, but rather they were serving vested interests for the purposes of maximizing profit. That's fascism. You came 11 years ago to convert people to extremism. You've come back to what, undo what you did. Absolutely, to undo what I did, but by using the same strategies and skills that I learned inside these organizations to try and use those skills against their message. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined now by Majid Nuiz. Majid, we've been playing phone tag with each other. I've been wanting to talk with you ever since we were hanging out at the Better Way conference. So to begin with, how are you, man? Here we are. How's life? I've got to say, Del, somebody mistook you for me and me for you because clearly we've adopted the same look

with the silver going on on both sides of our heads. So it's a pleasure to finally have the opportunity to speak to you. I want to thank you for joining me. You know, we could just do a whole whole episode on your background, where you come from. I'm just going to say this right now. I think Joe Rogan did an amazing interview with you. And for anyone that wants to really have an understanding of your background, you know, the entire journey you've taken, I think that's a great place to go. And of course, we had some pieces of that 60 minutes story that was done there. But I mean, you have been inside of an Egyptian prison. You have been tortured. You have, you know, shifted your way out of experiences like that into really helping people understand, you know,

brainwashing tactics, how we get manipulated, all the places that's happening in our lives. And so it's just really an astounding journey you've been on. Do you feel, let me just ask you this question up front. Do you think it's accidental or do you feel that there's some sort of, you know, I don't know, spiritual or cosmic rhyme or reason to this journey your life has taken. Well, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to give you, tell you that my life has some higher purpose in myself because that I think would contradict the very essence of such a message if I were to say that. But I can say I have a teacher, a spiritual teacher that helps ground me.

You have to be grounded. Part of the problem that we've got at the moment is that the on the onslaught we're facing by globalists and it's not just in the UK or in America but as the name would suggest they do what they say on the tin they're globalists and they are operating in pretty much every country because they desire one world government and this onslaught of course part of it is to shake the ground from under our very feet so that we no longer have a sense of reality and that i think is why it's so important for us to remain grounded. If you look to some of the recent media messages and I saw in the clip there in the little film you made there, thank you for that was very flattering, that film you made with me mentioning the importance of challenging the narrative. Part of what the

media is currently involved in is to attack everything that we have found sacred and that includes for example children you in the United States of America would be familiar with that because of the children being presented at sexualized drag queen shows and I'm not commenting on I'm not commenting on the drag queens I'm commenting on the fact that children are present in highly sexualized shows and that's that's my point there whether it's that being normalized or indeed the gender debate which you mentioned in this show yeah of late now cannibalism I just released a substack on this kind of cannibalism is now

corporatist media is now normalizing cannibalism and in fact army hammer Rolling Stone reports army hammer was outed as being a fantasist harboring cannibal fantasies with women he was speaking to online they doxed him to reveal this and he starred in Call Me By Your Name which is a movie some of you may have seen well his co-star and lover in that movie call me by your name after army Hannibal after Army Hammer I'm sorry was outed Hannibal, yeah, right. Army Hannibal Lecter.

Indeed. They're now making a new film with the co-star he starred with, and the film is about romantic cannibalism. And this is being in the Venice Film Festival, it's coming out later this year. And of course, the New York Times reported that cannibalism is all the rage in pop culture at the moment. So what's going on here is back to my point.

When the corporatist media and the globalists that control the corporates media, attack everything that we find sacred. What does that serve? Well, if there is nothing left that is sacred, children, gender identities, eating human flesh, if nothing remains that is sacred, then everything can be commodified. Now, if you think about that, what does that do? If everything can be commodified, another word for that is slavery. And that's what's going on here.

Technocratic slavery is their aim. And by that I mean having all of us bound by digital identities that log every single one of our transactions forever. Now, of course, the problem with that is, as happened in Canada, with Trudeau and the truckers protest, the minute you do think or say something, and I put the word thinking there on purpose, because if you're monitored, then the machine will know what you're thinking as well. If the minute you do think or say something that is upsetting to the powers that be, they can switch off your bank account, as happened in Canada, they can freeze your ability to engage in financial transactions. They can stop you leaving the country with vaccine passports. That infrastructure has already been set up. So it's total slavery. And that's what they're seeking.

And to achieve that, you have to undermine our understanding of everything that is sacred to shake the ground from under our feet. So back to your question, that's why I think it's important to have teachers that ground us in these very difficult times. Absolutely. Amazing. And it's why, you know, I reached out to you. We were playing phone tag, but something came up this week that I think speaks to all that, this idea of enslavement. In some ways, for those of us that grew up here in America, discussions of communism, the Soviet Union and China and this control of people. And we start, you know, feeling like those things are going on. but there's a difference than feeling it, and then a reality where you start seeing it really looks like we're moving in this direction.

And so the thing that really sparked my attention is you put out a tweet this week about this new person being hired at the WHO. A 40-year member of the Communist Party of Britain, Susan Mitchie, has just been appointed chair of WHO's technical advisory group for behavioral insights in science for health. Now, I'll admit, when I saw this, I was like, oh, come on, that can't be true, Majid. I mean, do we have self-declared communists in the U.K.? I don't know that that, I mean, I don't know if that's here in America. I don't hear it a lot, but we looked it up. There's headlines all about here. I'll just read a couple of them.

The headline, government scientists who has advocated for more COVID control as member of the Communist Party. Communist British scientist dubbed Stalin's nanny who wanted to face masks in social distancing forever is given top job at World Health Organization. So I reached out to you and said, I mean, you know, you're looking at this too. And communism is one of these words that you've sort of done some work in, right? It's all about controls of the masses, controls of the mind. And here we have sort of in the behavioral discussion side of the WHO, it says to me, your messaging space, right?

The people are going to be involved in messaging and how the WHO gets his ideas across and how the WHO is going to communicate and think about citizens around the world. We now have a self-proclaimed commis that, I mean, is she a communist? Is this real? Is this legit? What are we talking about? So, first of all, it's important to understand that here in the United Kingdom, we do have an active Communist Party, the Communist Party of Britain. We also have a socialist workers party.

And then we have the opposition party in Parliament, which is the Labour Party, which is not communist, representing the, you're trying to represent the working classes, though under their currently, they're not doing too much of a good job, Sir Keir Stama. But yes, we have active communists, and the part of that is because Europe, of course, go back to World War II, and we allied with the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis, and because they're right here, next to Europe, a lot of that legacy remained with us. We never had a reckoning with communism as we did with Nazism, and by a reckoning, I mean, a total victory. Nazism was totally defeated. Communism was not totally defeated,

because we needed the USSR to help the total victory against Nazism. So then, of course, we entered the Cold War period. What happened with communism, the system ended up becoming bankrupt and collapsed, but there was no total and final victory over communism. And fast forward, the Chinese Communist Party continued to carry the mantle because the baton was passed to them. So she is and has been for over 40 years. This is not a opinion.

This is not a controversial thing to say. She was even interviewed about this in our, of our morning TV shows. It's called Good Morning Britain and Richard Madley. I think we have that. I think we have that. Let's play it. Let's play it. Let's take a look. So there's a point I really have to put to you and you'll be aware of this because there's been a lot of commentary about this in the British media about you. And it's to deal with your politics. And you know I'm going to ask you. You've been a member of the Communist Party for about

40 years now. You're still a member. And we know that communism is basically statist. We look at communist countries around the world and we see that they are, tremendously top-down dominant and controlled societies that they rule over. And I just wonder, and I'm putting this question on behalf of those who wonder about your politics, if your politics actually informs your sense of control, it's not just the medical arguments, but you have a kind of a political bent to want the state to tell people what to do. I've come on your program as a scientist, as to all people who come on to your program as scientists, They come on to talk about the evidence, relevant theories, how we approach our scientific disciplines.

And you don't ask other scientists about politics. So I'm very happy to speak about science, which is what my job is, and to limit it to that. So you're saying that your politics doesn't inform your opinion on this subject? I'm saying that I agree to come on this programme as a scientist, and I'm very happy to talk. talk to you about the issues that you're raising as a scientist, which is the same for other scientists that you invite onto the program. That's a perfectly fair answer. Thank you for, thank you for that. I mean, it's amazing really. I mean, I mean, obviously she doesn't want to answer the question, which I never understand it. Like, I don't understand why someone doesn't, if they, if they are

self-proclaimed, they speak out on a topic, and then you ask them about that, why they don't say, yeah, well, I mean, here's my perspective on it. But it really does matter. Doesn't I mean, you know, we are talking about she's moving into a position, the WHO that just basically recommended policies that shut down our world. I want to know how you think about the world and what your dream is of how the world looks, right? Well, well, thankfully, Del, we do know a bit about her views. And there's another interview where she was specifically asked about COVID mandates. and that included because she referenced it in the interview, not just vaccine mandates, but also mask mandates.

Okay, we have that. We have that. We're going to see what she had to say. All right, great. We've had so much hope on the vaccines, hopefully changing everything, bringing an end to the pandemic, bringing an end to these changes we've had in our lives. Do you think it won't be enough?

Vaccines are really important part of the pandemic control, but it's only one part. Test trace and isolate system, border controls are really essential. And the third thing is people's behaviour. That is the behaviour of social distancing, of when you're indoors, making sure there's good ventilation or if it's not wearing face masks and hand and surface hygiene. We'll need to keep these going in the long term. And that will be good not only for COVID, but also to reduce other. At a time when the NHS is going.

Sorry to interrupt Professor Mickey. When you say long term, what do you mean by that? How long? very quickly. I think forever. Wow. I mean there you are now now that's why it's relevant that she's been a member of the Communist Party for over 40 years because clearly at least people if they don't know much about Susan Michie who's now let's remember just been appointed in the World Health Organization as chair of their behavioral scientist group right that's it the title right there technical advisory group on behavioral

insights. Now, why it matters is this woman believes that she needs to, these mandates need to remain forever. And of course, communists believe in the state and the power of the state. They believe in a state heavy way of organizing society. But the other thing I'll say, Del, is that the person that was chair of this committee in the World Health Organization before her was an American. He was Obama's information czar, Sunstein, S-U-N-S-T-E-I-N, that's him there, Cass Stanstein, Obama's information's are. Now, but the interesting thing is what these people believe in. They say with their own words. They tell us what they believe. And so he's written a paper in which he spoke about the need to challenge conspiracy theorists and the government needs to do so. This is the paper. And in this paper, there's a very interesting word that he uses. One of the recommendations he makes right there at the bottom of the page you're looking at now is cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories. Now, I believe, Del, that this is an incredible. sinister term. You can see in recommendations one and two, he talks about banning conspiracy theories and the government taxing, taxing, or are the financial, otherwise imposing some kind of punitive

measure on those who disseminate such theories. So already they've got the banning and the taxing financial implications. Let me read it. Let me read it for people because it was really quick. Let's read through just a couple of these points really quickly. So here's what he wrote. Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshalling arguments, discredit. conspiracy theories. Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. Government might engage in informal communication with such parties encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects for costs and benefits. And there at the bottom, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the

groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of three, four, and five. Let's read the top. What can government do about conspiracy theories among the things it can do? What should it do, we can readily imagine a series of possible responses. Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. I mean, so, yeah, I mean, like just total control. It's certainly not based on the Constitution and the dream of America.

Which also, again, is under attack because people are now going for the Second Amendment. but the term their cognitive what they use their cognitive infiltration is what I would like just a moment to dwell on because I think it's an incredibly sinister term. Now, it's not just talking about planting government assets within opposition groups who they're calling conspiracy theorists. That would be bad enough. It's also not just talking about false flags. It's also not just talking about spying on them. Now, cognitive infiltration, I believe, takes it a step further. What I believe this is referencing is weaponising our thoughts against us and our fellow people in society, our fellow citizens.

How would you weaponise human beings against other human beings through cognitive infiltration? Let's talk you through this. So you remember that phrase, abide by the COVID mandates so that you don't kill grandma. We had that here in the UK. I don't know if in the US it was as popular, but they told us that if we break those mandates that Susan Michie was referring to, we'd be guilty of killing our grandparents. Now, if you can use the media, corporatist media, to spread propaganda, because that's the right word for it, that convinces the populace that by breaking these mandates, they're going to kill their loved ones. What you succeed in doing

is turning them into weapons of enforcement. They will willingly, without the need for a policeman to help them do so, snitch on their neighbors. They will willingly use physical force if they need to to stop you killing your grandma, their grandma. So cognitive cognitive infiltration means getting inside your head under your skin and weaponizing you to act as an agent of the state against your neighbors and against everybody else that you're your friends and family. And that's where you begin seeing that during this COVID period, our friends, family, loved ones, people we thought were friends began turning against us if we weren't singing from

the same hymn sheet. So I believe they've achieved to some extent that that cognitive infiltration, the weaponization of human beings. And I believe that Susan Michie, who's now going to succeed Sunstein in that position, as a member of the Communist Party for over 40 years, is very well versed in how to use our ideology to subvert our social contract and the values that make up the core of our society. And I believe that they know exactly what they're doing here. You sent over just like we got to see the news really challenging, Susan.

And we've got Sunstein being challenged by a videographer. You sent that over. Let's just see how he responds when he has to confront the statements he's made about this infiltration, discussing, you know, conspiracy theorists. Really interesting. He certainly doesn't seem to be celebrating it. Take a look. I know you wrote many articles, but I think the most telling one about you is the 2008 one called conspiracy theories,

where you openly advocated government agents infiltrate activists groups of not love truth, and also stifle descent online. I was wondering, why do you think it's the government's job or why do you think the government should go after family members who have questions about 9-11, responders who are lied to about the air, survivors whose testimony commits, and also government whistleblowers that were gagged because they released information that contradicts the official story.

Why do you think the government should do that? I think, as Ricky said, I've written hundreds of articles and I remember some and not others. That one I don't remember very well. I hope I didn't say that. But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that one. I know that I'm just asking because you may be the next Supreme Court Justice.

I'm going to. And you didn't write those things, and that's why I want to bring them up to you. So all I can say is that there are a lot of things I've written, I guess, and there are even more things I'm said to have written. And I may agree with some of the things I've written, but I'm not exactly sure to focus on what my boss wants me to do. I just want to know, is it safe to say that you retract saying that conspiracy theory should be banned or taxed for having an opinion online?

Is it safe to say that? I don't remember the article very well. So I hope I didn't say either of those things. But you did, and it's written, do you retract them? I'm focused on my job. So you're not retracting that? Do you still believe that? Do you still believe that?

People should have freedom of speech. Thanks very much. I'm happy to talk about this, by the way. I can go on the record. He's the man who wrote about it. So, Cass, do you still believe in the Joseph Gerbell's approach? Please don't. Please don't.

I'm asking a question. I know, I know. I'm asking a question. You know, you know. It's a job of a journalist to ask. I'm sure to give a book, sir. Okay, go get your books. I mean, you have two circumstances where both these people won't speak to their past

or things that they've proudly said in public and stand by. I don't even understand that. I can't, I mean, I don't think you could, I mean, you can ask me anything of things I've said, even if it was a mistake, I'll tell you, well, here's why it was a mistake I started through to like, I don't remember it, I don't stand by it. I certainly don't think I said anything like that, yet it's a, like it's a, document, by the way, it's not just any document. It was one that was reported on over and over again. He was dragged through the mud on this when he wrote it to begin with. So it's not like

one of these things like I wrote it was forgotten. He was like bludgeoned with this thing. So clearly he knows he wrote it. Well, listen, Del, again, I think what's going on here is that they know exactly what they're doing. And what they need to achieve is a specific objective for why they're in their position. They're focused like soldiers. And they're making. sure they don't get derailed. So if you look at both of those conversations, Susan Michi and Sunstein, they stay on point in the conversation, a bit like we do when we speak. Those of us who are trained in media understand how not to get distracted. We understand what kind of question will throw us off the point we're seeking to make in any given conversation. That requires a certain

level of training. Now, what these people are doing is that they're trained to achieve the aims for why they were put in government. So what matters is what are those aims? And clearly we can see in both Sunstein and Susan Mitchie's case that they are seeking to increase government state power to impose on people against their will, whatever mandates the state requires, whether it's to censor, because in Sunstein's case he was an information as a, or the COVID mandates in Susan Mitch's case has now taken Sunstein's position, let's remember. Now, what that leads to, of course, is a huge gap of trust between the people and the state. the more stringent these mandates become, the more upset people get. And I believe they also understand that. They know that this is going to break apart the social fabric. That's precisely what they want.

Because let's not forget, you cannot, you cannot build something new, build back better, unless you first destroy it. And that's what the great reset part of this is. They want to destroy our trust in institutions. And of course, they control those institutions. And they are able to, therefore, destroy our trust in them, because they are implementing policies that are absolutely bonkers. So they will destroy our trust in these institutions.

That will lead to a huge gap of trust between the people and the state. The people will reject the state eventually. There will be food shortages, gas and energy shortages. That leads to riots, it leads to crime, it leads to a breakdown of society. They're attacking everything sacred, as we've just discussed. And what they're hoping to achieve is the, through the tearing apart of the fabric of our society,

is the total collapse of our finance, our financial system and they're hoping they can replace that with their new world order now president biden by the way he's already given a speech in which he's declared that it's a new is time for a new world order and he found it somehow relevant within that speech to say that the last time there was an attempt for a world order and he was referencing world war two he said 60 million people needed to die and he put that in there in the speech talking about today this day and age saying we're entering a new world order this is no conspiracy theory when they tell us every single precisely what they're seeking to achieve.

It's the Great Reset, then it's build back better, and it's a new world order, and that means one world technocratic government. I want to sort of dive into probably a little bit more sensitive space now with you, because it's something that's on my mind. I mean, your background, right, you get radicalized as a young teenager, you know, that, you know, you see a world that's not treating you right, you're getting beat up in the streets for your color, for your religious,

beliefs and it makes you upset with what you think is the government and you go on this route where you're sort of anti that establishment seeking to enroll others in sort of undermining governments that you think are doing bad then you come back around and you know you you go through a horrific experience almost from you know the Egyptian side then and then Amnesty international all these groups get together and I know I'm paraphrasing here but essentially you see this beauty this beauty in the side that I'm against. There's some things I don't have right. And then you really set out

and your work now is to stop extremism, right? To teach people how we undermine these groups. You go out and try to de-radicalize, you know, groups, some of them being Islamic extremists, saying, you know, have you really looked at our own side?

What we've done to ourselves, is there a way to practice our religion and really look at all these things, bringing a lot of beauty to it? But this question of like, whether it's an extremist perspective or a, or we call them terrorists, now we're in a place where these, you know, you've come full circle, you stand for good governance and, you know, and the right ways for society to move. Yet now these governments, the United States government, the British government, Australia, they're moving in these oppressive tactics. They are not acting,

in a respectable manner, and they're accusing those of us that speak out against, you know, the destruction of, you know, I'm not against my government right now. I'm against the destruction of the foundational principles of my government, the Constitution, the declaration, my Bill of Rights, but they are literally telling us that you better be careful because we're going to try and list you as a terrorist. I'm not sure how, where you are, this I'm sure you are, but Homeland Security, put together a whole document laying out what they believe are domestic terrorists in America. Here's just a few of the things in that bulletin that are alarming for someone like me. These extremists may see, this is from a larger document,

these extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential reestablishment of public health restriction across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal. strains and tensions driving several plots by domestic violent extremists and they may continue to be more violence this year. Nation state adversaries have increased efforts to sow discord. For example, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of vaccines. I just,

I don't think you saw the beginning of my show. I just opened up the whole show, how they told us this vaccine would be effective at stopping the infections. And I showed them how, I did a flashback of how I on the show in December of 2020 told you, this is not going to stop infections. They know it doesn't. The science isn't there. This is only there to reduce symptoms at the very best meaning you're going to spread it. You're going to share it. This pandemic's not going anywhere. So there, I guess I'm aligned with Russians and Chinese and Iranians with spreading information about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It wasn't effective. We now know it wasn't. And then we talk about origin.

I mean, it's amazing these two things in this document, because unfortunate for them, this document came out before the whole world changed. And now everyone's staring at the Wuhan lab. The major rolling theory is that it is a lab leak. Yet I have a government document saying you're potentially a terrorist if you are sharing these facts and these things. And so tell me where I'm at. Like, I mean, I'm not, you know, I'm not radicalized.

I'm a journalist, but you see language like saying, no, Del Batry is like, you know, should be on a terrorist watch list. What, how did this get flipped? How did we get here? Yeah, I'm glad you raised this. This is not a sensitive topic at all. You've just, you've just touched on a topic that happens to be my forte, right? So you mentioned Homeland Security. I mean, those guys know me.

They know me on intimate, on an intimate base. I trained them all. Secretary Chertoff, when he was head of Homeland Security, when Bush was president. I went in, I testified under, in Lieberman's committee in the Senate, the first former Islamist in history to testify in the US Senate. I was brought in under a parole visa because I was banned from entering the United States at the time due to my time in prison in Egypt, attempting to overthrow the Egyptian government. And they called me in as an expert witness. I testified at the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate under Senator Lieberman's Committee there.

Then I went to Homeland Security, met with Chertoff, trained his department on counter-extremism, to President Bush, Blair, Cameron, all of them have called in my help. I've been to Downing Street more times I can remember, help the UK government policy and counter extremism strategy from the day it was conceived. I am the guy they would come to to understand extremism, Del. And I'm saying that they have weaponized the extremism debate, the way they have weaponized the health debate, which is why the Quillium organisation that you referenced in a little, again, very flattering film clip thank you for that um that clip where bill marsezi founded uh quilliam a counter extremism organization it's true i founded that in 2008 i shut it down when covid hit and i mentioned on

the rogan interview the reason i shut it down is because they have weaponized this debate i can tell you in no uncertain terms i can tell you that people that attended the january the sixth uh uh protests outside congress whether or not they walked into congress or not Because I do know one thing, I've seen videos where the doors were open and the ropes were lifted. But regardless, however they went in, even if they broke the law, that's not terrorism. That's called a criminal act. It's called trespassing. Terrorism is a very specific thing.

And it's an insult to all of us that have risked our lives. I'm on al-Qaeda hit lists, on ISIS hit lists. I've toured 27 cities in Pakistan. When Manala Yusuf Zai was shot in the head, I organized a public protest in cities in Pakistan against the Taliban, who at the time, or 100 miles from Islamabad. I've been to the Taliban headquarters in Quetta in the west of Pakistan spoken to crowds against the Taliban in their own stronghold in their capital in Quetta where they had the Quetta Shura, which was where their headquarters were based, wearing a flat jacket. I've been to Nigeria to the north speaking against Boko Haram in Bayora University, again to a mass audience

where Boko Haram terrorists were in the audience and stood up and accused me of being an apostate. I'm the guy who understands what terrorism is. And I'm saying it's an abuse of our industry. It's an abuse of everything we hold dear, and it's a weaponization of that term to label Trump voters and even protesters and even illegal protesters who may have trespassed. It's an abuse to name them terrorists. A robber is not a terrorist. A burglar is not a terrorist. A rapist is a rapist. They are not a terrorist. Terrorism means something specific. But the reason the state is weaponizing this term is the second.

reason they have weaponized the environmental debate so net zero is the weaponization of the environmental debate and BLM is the weaponization of the racism debate what they do is they weaponize these debates to serve their ends what are those ends well as you saw with BLM it was to force you to comply and I want to say to everybody listening I stood in the UK as a liberal Democrat candidate I'm a Muslim who has been imprisoned in the war and terror the word racist will wash off me like water off a duck's back. I have fought neo-Nazis using hammers and knives on the streets of Essex when I was 15 and 16 years old. Nobody can call me racist and I'll say I would never get on one knee because they tell me to get on one knee for BLM because I only bow for Allah. And that point there

is the point I'm trying to make that it's about control. They want to try and control you by weaponizing everything we hold dear. So racism, nil. Environmentalism, zero carbon, which means you have to drive electric cars and if you do something we don't like we can switch your car off it just won't move because it's controlled by by the internet right so these are these are debates that are being weaponized likewise with extremism so rather than al-qaeda and isis being the problem suddenly trump voters become the problem they want to bring the entire power the might of the department of homeland security again remember i trained those guys asked mitch silver new york counterterrorism air counterterrorism uh of new york

police they all know me on first names basis i trained all those guys whether it's the dhs whether it's new York City Police. USA would also work with us. We used to go. We've been to Iraq. We've been in prisons in Iraq speaking to convicted terrorists, right? There is no way. There is no way that what they are doing now is legitimate. It should never be tolerated. They are weaponising this debate to seek control because, of course, once you say that somebody falls foul of the terrorism side of things, what does that mean, Del. Think about it. It means that you can do to them what they did to people in Guantanamo Bay, right? You can do to them what was done. to me in Egypt, right? You can drag you through a torture dungeon, blindfolded with your hands

tied behind your back, you can torture people on their teeth and genitalia, and nobody gives a damn because you're terrorists. That's what they're trying to do. And it is sinister, and it must be called out in the way I'm speaking now. Be in no doubt whatsoever that you are on the right side of this debate. And anybody that tries to throw these labels, even for your listeners, I'm not a Trump voter. I'm a political. I'm non-partisan, to be more accurate. I've moved beyond liberalism, as I said, I was a liberal candidate. I'm not even that anymore. I'm non-partisan.

I like to think for myself. But anybody from your viewers, if anyone tries to smear you and call you an extremist or a terrorist simply for supporting one particular candidate over another in a democratic way, or even, and I don't encourage this, but breaking the law while you're protesting, that's not terrorism. And you can quote me there. You might be breaking the law. I don't encourage that, but it is certainly not terrorism. And it's like mixing terms.

Suddenly, somebody that commits a traffic violation. What are they, a racist? I mean, you can't just mix terms like that. It's incredibly important because it's an insult to people that lay their lives down, that travel countries risk everything to try and fight these people. They are basically, they are making a mockery of everything we hold there.

People have died doing what we do. People have died trying to fight terrorists. And they're now basically just overusing the terms that it has no, it means nothing anymore. And that's what the problem is. point is it's control now you know and i've obviously i know that i know who i am and you know you're only worried because you're seeing the language around you being manipulated people and you're right they are we watched this whole thing weaponized we watched people turning in their neighbors i've said

on this show as i said i was always fascinated by the idea of you know of Nazis as a kid you know he got a lot of debates to my friends and i'd always say look i think everybody can end up being a Nazi if you're socialized. If you're in the right environment, I don't think we have some natural, deep, ethical, moral structure that we're born with. Maybe there's a small group of people that seem to like really just not be affected. But in the end, we can all sort of fall prey under the right circumstances. I just didn't know how fast it would happen. I mean, we watched people turning in each other like overnight. It was incredible, you know, over just announcing a fear, a virus. If you're not with us, you're against us. This whole idea.

Dale, let's not forget. Let's not forget the Jan 6 people that were arrested, they're still being held in jail, right? No trial, no charge. They're being held in communique. So that's what happens when you start using the word terrorism. Right. What, so what, just, just help me understand, since we're right here, what is a terrorist? Right? I mean, I, it was, like I was thinking, in some of the videos we watched of you, you're talking to young, radicalized, you know, and they're saying things like, you know, the West is, you know, propagating, you know, why is homosexuality and why is sexual, why is there no sexual boundaries being held

and everything's collapsing. They're after they're, you know, and these perspectives. And in some of it, you know, as you watch it, when you watch all the issues, they're oppressing their own people, they're oppressing group, you know, and I'm like, well, I mean, some of that you could hear in a Christian church here in the United States of America, right? So that's not a terrorist. What is a terrorist?

So you're right, that is not terrorism. And in fact, considering recent events with everything, as we've mentioned, being attacked, that is sacred, there is a lot of truth in some of that criticism as well. We have to acknowledge that. You know, when they talk about sexual excess, now we're looking at cannibalism being glorified for romantic purposes, in other words, lust. And so, you know, there is some truth in that criticism. Terrorism is a, there we are. There's a New York Times headline. cannibalism has a time and place. And then you look at the headline at the bottom, a taste for

cannibalism. It's just unbelievable we've got here. When we talk about terrorism, what it is, and it's not that difficult. In fact, the people talk about one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. Even that's a trope. It's wrong. Because when we talk about freedom fighters, we're looking at military targets. So in Afghanistan, while our British and American forces were there, if the Taliban were only targeting the soldiers, then that's called war. They are in a war and it's an occupied country and they believe they are trying to liberate their country by attacking occupying soldiers. That's not terrorism, that's war. And in the context of war, there can be war crimes, you know, where for example, you break the rules of war, for example,

you take prisoners of war and you torture them. That's a war crime. Or you engage in medical experimentation on people against their will. Ring a bell. And that's why in Nuremberg, it was considered a war crime. Terrorism is something different. Terrorism is targeting non-combatants. People we use the word civilian but again it's important to understand because you can be a civilian working in a military context like for example a military contractor so more accurate a more accurate phrase is a non-combatant so when militants attack a non-combatant it could be a child it could be a man or woman who don't have weapons and are simply trying to you know get on their way do their business get on with their lives you attack and kill non-combatants to serve a political purpose that's

terrorism it could be done by anybody it's not a Muslim specific thing though in Islam it's strictly prohibited of course the modern terrorist groups that emerged from Muslim communities don't believe it to be prohibited but that is that is what terrorism is and that's something that should be condemned now when states do it because of course states kill non combatants as well drone strikes and Obama by the way launched more drone strikes than President Bush ever did and kept a presidential kill list where he would go about go about executing citizens across the world by a drone, even if they were American citizens.

In one case, a 16-year-old boy that was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. So when states do it, it's a war crime. When non-state actors do it by attacking and targeting non-combatants, that's what's called terrorism. All right, very interesting. Okay, let's just get into some of the politics now that we're sort of come through at least the inert and initial surge of COVID. we had some discussions when we're in England together,

but a lot of things are shifting right now. In the UK, for instance, headlines on, you know, the NHS staffing. You don't have enough doctors or nurses here. Just tens of thousands of NHS and care home staff could quit over COVID jazz. Well, that was the original 32,000 care home staff and tens of thousands NHS personnel could quit over the government's insistence at both workforces get vaccinated against COVID. It is feared. This is what started.

but it's led to this giant shortage, right? You have a giant shortage now that they're complaining about, and they're scratching their heads like, wow, we don't have enough doctors, we don't have enough nurses, but we don't know why it's happening, you know, and we're stuck here. And you're talking about, like, health. You're talking, I mean, what I'm hearing, and if I'm wrong, you've got people lined up needing care for real health issues, heart conditions,

and there are not enough doctors to handle that. And all of this because of declared, here it is, is the NHS beyond repair. This is in the spectator. Research found that NHS England is 12,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses and midwives short at the moment. There are more than 99,000 vacancies in the health service with 105,000 in the health and social care sector.

This is the fall of a nation, right? And not that we're any different, but I'm is you know we have a lot of people in England watching this show am I wrong is this this is bad news well listen I think it is it's bad news but it's also inevitable at this stage because of the policies this government and I say this government the prime minister has been ousted but it still be it will still remain a conservative government the policies they implemented during the COVID period you mentioned the vaccine mandates the nursing times I have a figure here and that's a trade newspaper for nurses so that you know you can rely on their figures they've stated in november 2021 when

these vaccine mandates were due to be introduced that 126 000 61% of this of the staff would leave their jobs because of non-compliance with a new requirement that's at the bottom of what you see there on your screen the policy would also see 126 000 61% leaving their jobs because because of non-compliance with a new requirement that requirement being a COVID vaccine mandate so That's one big reason. The other thing I've got to say is again their policies related to COVID is that during lockdown they implemented a triage policy whereby everybody including those that had cancer, those that needed heart surgery, everybody was delayed and only COVID patients were prioritised. Now the absurdity here, Dell, is that COVID of course, as is mentioned in Hansard, which is our

parliamentary library record, it's the record of the British Parliament. It's called Hansard. It's officially recorded in Hansard by a government minister's response to a question that their official government policy is that the infection fatality rate for COVID is 0.096%. Now, that's similar to the flu, Del. Now, you would of course be aware of this. You've probably had other guests mention this on your show. So you've got something where a policy was implemented to prioritize an illness that had an IFR and infection fatality rate similar to the flu. Meanwhile, people with cancer, people in need of heart surgery, people that were severely ill, were all delayed while something similar to the flu was treated. Now, the other thing that when we have the Office for National

Statistics reported, and again, it's on the official O&S website, it's the government statistics body, that the total number of people that died from COVID with no other comorbidities in the UK throughout the entire period from the beginning to the end of that two-year lockdown period that we had here in the UK was and I say only of course every death is a tragedy even one death is too many but compared to the hundreds of thousands figures we are being fed the official ons figure is 17,000 that's it we were being told hundreds of thousands now that's with no other comorbidities in other words we have this distinction people that died of COVID and with COVID right so 17,000 died of COVID without any other comability in other words it

wasn't anything else that killed them and that's assuming that's assuming two things that they a didn't contract COVID after being hospitalized and B that the PCR test that was used was a reliable way of telling us they had right and of course we know those cycle thresholds aren't necessarily accurate right so first of all the entire thing was completely blown out proportion but the the triage policy meant that everybody was delayed. So now we've got these huge backlogs because of this insane policy, this overreaction deliberately done, by the way, deliberately done for reasons we've spoken about

with a globalist agenda and desiring to diminish trust in our institutions so that we despise our state. Right. So you've got the situation where that's also contributed to the backlog and the final thing is corruption. Again, the same government made billions, billions available, a bit like, I think you may have seen in the US as well with Biden's, he tried to make billions available for this, but the UK government currently has a four billion black hole for the NHS test and trace program. Nobody knows where it went. We've done Freedom of Information requests, there have been newspaper articles, you could even, your viewers could Google this, 4 billion NHS test and trace. No one knows, including the government,

nobody knows where it went. But what we do know, is that the health secretary at the time, his name was Matt Hancock. He had to resign because while he was telling everybody that we couldn't even go to our own grandparents' funeral, he was having an affair in his office with Gina, caller, DeAngelo, forgive me if I've mispronounce her last name. It was caught on CCTV, government CCTV, and somebody decided in their outrage to leak it. Again, people can Google that. The video is online. I don't think you want to play here on this show, respectable as you are. But he had to resign.

Now that guy, the reason I'm mentioning him is because we mentioned this $4 billion that's still missing. The PPE contracts were going to people like his friend who was a pub landlord that had absolutely no experience in any health sector whatsoever. He was a pub landlord and he got a PPE contract. That's the level of corruption we're talking about here. So you combine all those factors, the misplaced triage, the wasted billions that could have gone to funding the NHS by the way, because we're told that the NHS needs an extra billion a year. Well, there's $4 billion right there, disappeared, right? So it's the corruption, the triage, and, of course, the vaccine mandates leading to the staff leaving that have all led to this catastrophe in the NHS.

And I don't think at this stage, it's possible to repair it. I think we're going to have to start looking at reforms and ways to try and mitigate against the damage that's done. We can't turn the clock back. We could go on and on and on. We've been talking on our show a lot about these food shortages. using the environment to crush farmers stopping fertilizer usage things like that all while we know we every headline is we thrust the world into famine you know and we need to you know clow swabs since they're the we've got to stop you know famine while

it's those very the 2030 agenda to you know reduce you know nitrogen use and all these things that is taking away massive amounts of food supplies we talked today about paying farmers to give their farms back over to the government so that they take that farming away. But my question to you is this. I feel like in many ways, COVID was a tool. They clearly had an agenda to try and get us tracked and trace, like you said. Not just we've got, you know, Harari, Noel Harari,

out there saying things like, we don't just want to track where you are. We want to track what's happening under your skin, which you've said clearly here also. I don't think they pulled it off. I don't think that the pandemic achieved at the level they had hoped for. In many ways, many people woke up from it. Many people are backing away.

Many people, I would say nearing a majority of the United States of America are seriously questioning the government right now, are seriously questioning our medical establishment. I think only 30% of those that are viable for a booster shot are now getting that booster shot, which says 70% of people that, are in that in position are rejecting CDC recommendations. We're in a totally different place.

Do you think we're through this? I mean, in your mind, I know that you saw all this sort of this being weaponized, are they going to try this again? Or do you think we can just walk off, say, we showed, we're just too big of critical thinkers for them. What do you think, you know, we've got monkey pox is now floating around. We have variants that are out there. We've got like, you know, tracking carbon footprints.

You know, where are we at? And what do we need to be thinking about as citizens in this world? So I think they're going to try it. But again, I think they're going to fail. They'll try it with climate change, the weaponization of environmentalism, which is a good thing. I agree with you, Del. I care about the fact there's not plastic bottles in the ocean.

I care about the fact that when I go outdoors, my five-year-old is knee-high isn't breathing the person. pollution coming from the exhaust because he, of course, he's going to get in his lungs. Environmentalism is a good thing, but they've weaponised that for their net zero agenda. That's the next stage. That, again, will fail, is failing. We're in the middle of its failure. They tried it in Scotland with that big climate summit.

But then after that, you've got this, let's not forget, the CBDCs, Central Banking, Digital, they say currencies, I say coupons. And the reason I say coupons is because they're not, it's not cash, they can turn it on and off, They can program it so you can only use it for certain things. It functions like a food voucher. So these CBDCs, when the financial system under the strain it's under right now, when it collapses, or we sink into some severe depression, I believe we're either in it or about to go into it, they're going to say that fiat currency, the money is no longer

the way forward because they've been printing too much of it to keep us in lockdown. They were giving us here in the UK free handouts of cash. They call it the furlough system, paying people to stay home to afford that. They were just simply printing money. They call it quantitative easing. They've just been printing more money than he can ever imagine. Now, that's unsustainable. The current frontrunner, there's two front runners to replace Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

I mentioned that the PM was ousted here. One is Liz Truss, who I think is probably going to win, but the other is Rishi Sunak. Now, Rishishishan, I again mentioned in my interview with Joe Roben, because he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer for up until now, that's, he's been his job. And what that means in American is he was running our economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer runs the economy. He was a finance secretary, right? So he has given a speech as the Chancellor of Exchequer in the UK,

and the UK was head of G7 at the time, the G7 nations, advocating for central banking digital coupons, they say currencies. And so he's a huge fan of those. And when I think what I'm worried about is when, or if the financial system collapses, it actually collapsed in 2008, it's on life support right now, and the money printing has only led to it being sort of going further into its grave. When I think this whole thing, this House of Cards comes crashing down, they are going to seek to implement CBDC, central banking digital coupons over all of us that are linked to a digital identity

so that we cannot buy or sell without going through this digital identity. And the way that we currently pay electronically on our phones, of going through these are a mastercard we're going to have an account as they've told us already by the way directly with the central bank now for that to work the century it has to be tied of course to our identities and they're going to merge all of our records together so health criminal and any other records financial insurance social credit all of it merged on one system so that when we buy and sell they can determine whether for example we've met our carbon targets for that day if i had for example i don't know a beef burger for lunch i can't buy a steak for dinner because i've used up too many carbon credits for

that day so the coupons the cbdc that i'm trying to use to buy the steak simply won't work like a voucher right they simply won't work i can only buy certain things so by the time at dinner dinner time comes their view would be i have to eat bugs because i've had a burger for for lunch eventually phase out and eat altogether so i think that's going to be the next stage that's the total slavery stage and i think what we've got to try and do what's important for us because I don't think we can stop that coming, by the way. It's because the financial system is under strain and fiat money is increasingly becoming worthless.

So something will replace it. And I don't think they're going to allow it to be the gold standard. They want it, at least what they're telling us at the moment, they want it to be CBDCs. So what we have to do is make sure that the off ramp is protected. And what I mean by the off ramp is make sure that other decentralized cryptocurrencies are not made illegal. I won't say only Bitcoin because of course there's a huge debate as to which one's the best one. I don't really want to get stuck in that debate. As long as they are decentralized currencies that anonymize you at the point of transaction,

then you have an off-ramp whereby you can buy and sell without being monitored 24-7. But of course, they know that, which is why in China they banned decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. India has been going through similar motions. And it's important that it doesn't get banned. because if it is banned, just imagine there's no cash. The gold standard was taken away in 1971 under Nixon. And so what we got left? We'd end up having to either barter, which again, they can make illegal or use their CBDC system.

So we have to try and protect the offer out there. As we, you know, when you do the work that you do and I do, we keep bringing the truth to people. But people are busy. They're trying to survive. They're just trying to feed their families. It's getting harder and harder. Their gas is more expensive than it's ever been. Their food is more expensive than it's ever been.

And their salaries have never been tighter than they've ever been. What do you and I, like, what do you, what do you say to yourself as your job right now? What is it we need to do so that these people that are the citizens of the world and of great nations like the UK, America, dreams of freedom, dreams of, you know, of being. able to always progress and have, you know, a future that is not predetermined by other people, by governments. What is the job right now? Del, this is the front line of this war. We're in an ideological war. I've spoken to you about this, of course, before when we met in the Bath Health, the World Health Council in Bath. This is a war, but the war we're fighting today isn't over nuclear bombs and infantry and cavalry

and trenches because of course the nuke power of today's data. And you mentioned Yuval Vohararari. He's on the other side of this war, but he also recognizes that it's a war over data. In fact, he has a religion. In his book, the two books he's got, Homer Sapiens and the other one, Homer Deus, he talks about dataism. He coins this word dataism to describe his belief system, whereby just imagine if you can, we surrender everything to the AI,

Every choice is made for us by, for example, like you know when you Google search and it gives you a prompt automatically thinks what you're trying to type and it completes it, also correct. Every choice is made for us by the AI. He believes that that's a good way to proceed. And of course, that system is only as good as the data it has at its disposal. That's the war. Now, we're not AI. The AI, its weapon, is data.

But what's the other side of it? Who are we? We're human beings. We think we have consciousness. we process our own information in here. So on the front lines of this war, what you, me and others have to do is preserve the sacred, protect what it means to be human,

elevate consciousness, and then jealously guard that territory, the territory of consciousness. And that requires will, determination, it requires sincerity, it requires being grounded, as I mentioned. Having some form of spiritual grounding is so important. Because as I said, if nothing is sacred anymore, then everything is commodified.

And if everything is commodified, another word for that is slavery. Brilliant, brilliant words. Majid, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here today. I want to thank you for your gift to this world, man. It's truly amazing to watch you out there expressing the truth so fearlessly in the face of incredible risk. And, you know, I look forward to maybe we're going to. can get you in studio sometime we can get in deeper but it's really just great work you're doing great words i know that i have to sort of ponder some things you've said today but uh keep up the

good work love what you're doing out there thank you it's been an absolute pleasure speaking to and i'd love to have you uh on uh one of my two shows as well be an absolute play i've got a news current affairs opinion show like yours um not as established as yours it's a new one because i was recently canceled on my national broadcaster channel. But I've also got a more kind of casual lifestyle conversational thing. It's called Warrior Creed, where we talk about some of the, some of the spiritual grounding that we've mentioned that you're required to be able to do this work. It's a bit more behind the scenes. And I think that might be a good one for us to speak on. Let's do it. You also have a couple books out there. Let's sort of take a look at those

real quick for people that want to read. Your work radical, the journey out of Islamist, extremism, amazing, Islam and the future of tolerance. And to follow you, what websites do you like? I mean, we have Radical by Magidna was that's your substack. Anything else that you'd like to have us take a look at right now? I think the first show I mentioned, I didn't mention its name, but it's radical on Odyssey. An Odyssey spelled O'D-D-Y-S-E. It's a decentralized video platform that is a competitor to YouTube and you own your own content on there. You can't be banned because it's sits on the blockchain. So that's where that show sits. It's called Radical at Rajid Nawaz on O'D-Y-S-E-E-E-E-Odice. And of course, I mentioned Warrior Creed.

That's exclusive to Getter. We live stream that every Friday. And that's the one I think you and I could have a lovely chat on a more casual conversation. But it's been a pleasure speaking to you, Del. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll talk to you soon. Wonderful. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. All right. Well, it's, I mean, wow, this show has got so much information. It's been an amazing journey, even for me, like today. There's days where I feel like I'm learning something here. But one of the things I love to do is speak in public to get out. It was so great to be in Las Vegas just a couple of weeks ago to see the audience. There's opportunities where you can see me out in public. And there's a great event coming up this

in August. And that, of course, is Autism One. Autism One really is where, in many ways, this started for me, the discussion of autism around vaccinations. I've presented there many times, Vax, the documentary that threw me in the middle of this conversation, really sort of launched and was screened at Autism One. But for those of you out there, it may be new to this conversation, but are now recognizing that some issues with your child or a loved one revolving around being on the spectrum, ways to deal with that. There's really, Autism One is one of the great conferences for that, not afraid to have any conversation. That's what I love about it. Bringing you specialists from all around the world.

At this event, there's going to be a lot of discussions about S2C, which is spelling to communicate. Here it is Autism One Conference. Register now. There's the Bitley. You can check it out. I will be there August 18th through the 21st in Mesa, Arizona. So really, just want to give a shout out. Here are the speakers to Terry Aranga.

and of course this year will be the first autism one where we won't have Ed Oranga, just a beautiful soul that really dedicated his life to this journey for so many families. So our hearts and love and intention goes out for Ed, but Terry is still making this happen and I'm really looking forward to being a part of it. You know, we can look at all of these things we're looking at. We're talking about a lot of things. We're moving outside of just vaccines. We're going to discuss a lot of what Majid was talking about there.

We are looking at banking systems, cryptocurrencies, but right now, food shortages, staffing, nurse shortages, you know, water shortages, what is really going on? And it's weird that the people that sort of predicted this and told us things like, you know, maybe you want to rent everything, they seem to be gathering more and more ground or attempting to. I don't want you to forget right before all this sort of started with COVID that there were announcements we should have been paying a lot more attention to. Let's just revisit this strange moment where ultimately the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, unites with the UN. This afternoon, the Secretary General and Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, will witness the signing of a memorandum of understanding on a strategic partnership between the UN and the World Economic Forum, outlines areas of cooperation to deepen engagement between the two institutions and to jointly

accelerate the implementation of the 2030 agenda. Well, you know, it's scary to think that people that are attempting a globalist take over the world now have really what I would deem a military body, an international military body in the UN. They are all somehow working together. You now have the WHO, which is writing laws to basically say that every member state, the United States of America being one of them, but not the only one around the whole world, that we will beckon down to the statements any future, you know, disease or crisis or emergency that under those circumstances and development of an emergency, the WHO will make the decisions for the world. And now we, as we found out today,

we have a self-proclaimed communist going to be involved in the behavioral side of the work at the WHO. All of these things are things that we have to recognize. I am not here trying to push fear. I am trying to make sure that you are awake to what is taking place. We are not here to tell you what to think. We're trying to show you how to think, where you find your information. This show today is packed with enough. If you spent the next week and said, let me just take a little bit at a time.

Let me take the documents that were provided here. Everything that happened today should be all you need to wake up any human being that still has blood moving through their brain. It should be all you need to go and talk to your senator or your congressman and say, I'm not down with this. And if you start looking like you're down with these issues, I'm not voting for you. We still have the power. And by the way, this is a great time to do it as they're all recognizing they're sick as dogs after, you know, using a vaccine and getting. all the boosters that they promised us would work and aren't even working for them. This is a great time to remind them that the people that they made us listen to lied to us

and that we are not listening anymore. In fact, we are going back to our constitutional rights, which are ultimately defined by our founding fathers and a dream. When I think about Thomas Jefferson, who said very clearly about your rights, if a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, obligated to do so. If a law is unjust and a man disobeys it, he is not a terrorist. He is a patriot, a citizen of one of the greatest nations in the world. There are others that look up to us. We do not call people bringing you the truth terrorists unless we ourselves are the terrorists. Our government needs to look out now because our government is for the people and by the people. and the people are getting pissed off because you've lied to us.

You know that we've been lied to because of programs like this, the high wire. I'm not afraid of any name they call me. It doesn't matter if they want to threaten me and say they're going to put me on some sort of terrorist watch list because I am simply dictating the truth that we find in the science that exists. You knew that vaccines would not be effective because of, we said it here. You knew that ultimately we would not stop the pandemic because we talked about it here. We knew that Pax-Loven was a problem. We know that Ivermectin works. All of these things that were being lied to by the government are being spoken about here. We're going to need your help

protecting this. Trust me. We know we're under attack. We're looking at our websites. We're looking at the things we do. All of this is going to need your help so that we can continue to make sure that the truth, which I think is the most valuable commodity on this earth now. There is nothing more rare. Everything, every new station you're watching is lying to you now. The high wire is almost all alone, except for a couple of other great journalists and individuals out there like Majid Nawaz. We need your help, not just in supporting us, but supporting the truth that we're handing you. Do not stick this under your bed. Do not shovel it away or hide it for yourself. The truth is here to be shared. Only by sharing and enrolling do we advance the

dream of freedom, of liberty. Don't stop believing. This is our time. This is our prayer. I'll see you next week.