The Highwire with Del Bigtree - SEPTIC SCIENCE

Episode Date: September 24, 2022

The Remdesivir Lawsuits; Big Tech Censorship Lawsuit Heats Up; ICAN FOIA: CDC Celebrated Censorship of Del Bigtree; Septic Science; #TrudeauMustGoGUESTS: Daniel Watkins, Michael Hamilton, Paul Marik, M.D., Pierre Kory, M.D.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you've.

are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Well, usually on a day, on a show day, as we call it, you know, all drive in, I try and stay peaceful, listen to some peaceful music and get prepared to stay completely focused on the topics. And as you know, there's a lot of them in the shows as they've been. But every once in a while, you know, one of you out there, some of my friends will text me in a piece of video or a news story or something. It'll grab my attention. This is one of those. mornings. I am actually completely totally incensed at a video

that I was sent by my friend Ben. Yes, you, you know who you are. Here it goes. It's about to spark a rant and maybe you've seen it on the news. This is the latest from our dear friend, Tony Fauci. Of course, when you make recommendations, if

the primary goal, when you're dealing with a situation where the hospitals were being overrun in New York, intensive care units, were being put in hallways, you have to do something that's rather draconian. And sometimes when you do draconian things, it has collateral negative consequences. Just like when you shut things down, even temporarily, it does have deleterious consequences

on the economy, on the school children. You know that, but you have to make a balance. Oh man, I can't tell you, you know, I don't know if you feel it too when you watch that. And we've reported on this. This backsliding liar has, you know, slowly just changed his tune over time. But the fact that now he himself is using the term draconian, that he brought draconian measures upon us. For all of you conspiracy theorists out there that were accused of exaggerating the situation and calling it draconian, well, guess what? Now, the man himself is calling it draconian.

Bouchy admits he knew his draconian. would have collateral negative consequences on school children and businesses and everything else that America holds dear. Now, I don't know if I'm going to go where you think I'm going to go on this because, as I've said before, I am politically marooned. Okay, if you're expecting me to, you know, take sides in some political perspective here, you've got the wrong guy. I grew up a progressive liberal in Boulder, Colorado, which I've said many times. I no longer adhere to those principles, nor do I accept all the principles of the Republican Party. But let me be perfectly honest what this interview has done for me. Here's the first point. Like in the end,

he says he brings these draconian measures upon us and that when you have to do that, because the hospitals were overrun. Why were the hospitals overrun? Because you totally misdiagnosed was taking place here. You believe that ventilators were the only things that would work. And so all these oxygen masks sitting next to beds all throughout your hospital were not allowed to be used. You had to quarantine and only use your ICU, which limited your hospital's capacity down to only the ICUs. So you were idiots in how you handled this and how you diagnosed it. Beyond that, even only using the ICUs in New York and California, wherever the hot spots were, you never touched one single bed in the Army hospitals. So I want to take a little bit of an issue with the fact that you're saying

the hospitals were overrun. Overrun, what? Where? They never filled a singular ancillary annexed hospital that was built anywhere in this country. But here's my real beef. We talked about Tony Fauci, and he's the one sitting here now, well, you know, we had to be. We had to be. We had to be it. We had. We had to be it. We've been. We've to make a balanced decision. We had to take in the accounts that the hospitals were overrun, therefore destroy all of your jobs, destroy your livelihoods, destroy your credibility, go ahead and destroy your children's lives, their education. Now we're behind an education, you know, when we're compared to the rest of the world, and all of these other situations, suicide and drug use and all of it were nuts, because what, what balanced discussion? And this is the point I want

to make. Who put Tony Fauci in charge? If there was discussions about the education of our children? Were there educators in the room saying, you know what, maybe this isn't a good trade-off? Where were the businesses? Where are the discussions about what would happen to our economy? What would happen to our place in the world? What would happen to our deficit? What would happen to inflation in the future if we just handed out money because we took everyone's job away? And why was Tony Fauci the only guy making those freaking decisions? Because as Ron Johnson has told us, and Lattapo and those that got near him, we read Scott Atlas's book, you hear all of them were complaining to who?

The guy that put him in charge, put Tony Fauci in charge, and I'm talking about President Donald Trump. So I'm going to voice a little bit of a beef here because this is what struck me today. Who put this idiot in charge of our entire country? He knows barely anything about science. He's never treated anyone in his life. He certainly knows nothing about economics

or how to take care of our children or our students or any of that. So why was he in charge? And as we're being abused by this moron, where was our president? Where were you, Donald Trump? Where were you picked this moron? And then you gave him the keys to our car and let him just drive us all off a cliff? I've had it. I've had it with blaming Tony Fauci.

It is clear he is one of the most talentless morons that has ever walked this planet, especially when it comes to health. But our president put him not only in charge of our health, but in charge of our economy, in charge of our education, in charge of essentially our international global. decisions. He was never qualified for that. We hired somebody to make these choices. Essentially, we hired our designated driver. It was Donald Trump. He had a really nice car. We all thought let's go in his car. And he said he wouldn't drink. But instead he goes to the party,

finds the biggest drunken idiot he can find. The guy that is so full of himself, so drunk on his own power, so drunk on the only decisions he wants to make, so drunk on selling us on vaccines that will never work, so drunk on selling us on drugs that his friends are making, that he can barely crawl to the car. And you, Donald Trump, gave him the keys to our car, and a million of us died in that car accident, and more, and counting. So yes, we had an idiot at the wheel, but who put him at that wheel? I think it's time to start talking about this, because I'm really getting tired of it. Are we going to continue to say, oh, poor Donald Trump, or Donald Trump really meant well

or they just weren't listening to him, you're president of the freaking United States. Ron Johnson wasn't bowing down to his constituents. He wasn't bowing down to medicine. Neither was DeSantis. Ron DeSantis wasn't either. Those are real leaders. They said, I don't care what my health department's saying,

we're going to make some sense here. And by the way, we all said, well, Donald Trump was a businessman. He ran the country like a business. Really? Because our businesses were destroyed. We had a business president that had handed all of our business decisions to Tony Fauci, seriously,

and then stood back as our jobs were destroyed, as our schools were destroyed. That's right. As we hear this story more and more, Donald Trump didn't want to get rid of Tony Fauci because it might cost him the election, which, by the way, it cost him. It might cost him the election.

So this rogue gunslinger we all want to talk about in Donald Trump, was he really that rogue? Was he really that different than every other politician that's only thinking about how they're getting reelected, because that seems to be how the choices were being made. We didn't have a businessman looking at our country like a business and weighing whether it would be okay to destroy our lives and our families and our businesses in the face of a small group,

a quarter of 1% of people that were dying from this illness, and I'm sorry for those people, but you don't destroy your country over that. So I place blame on the guy that we hired to be our designated. native driver. You handed our keys to the biggest drunken idiot the world has ever seen. And for that, I believe you should be held responsible. I know a lot of you are going to be upset with me for saying it, but that's just where I'm at and welcome to the high wire. Okay, I am transparent with how I feel and I'm sure, Donald, if you want to tweet out about it too, I'll listen to what you have to say

also. But I'd like you to start talking about it. Why don't you explain while you were so completely powerless to an idiot that had nothing to do with our businesses or our schools or anything else and barely knew anything about the science. In fact, got it all wrong. Got it all wrong on the vaccines. Got it all wrong on the drugs. Got it all wrong on the lockdowns and the masks. Why did nobody, especially our president, do nothing to protect us from the world's biggest

idiot? All right. Well, speaking of the idiot and decisions that. he's made. There's a lovely drug when he was shutting down hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin and all the things we're going to talk about today. You've got a huge show coming up. I got Dr. Paul Merrick joining me. Really one of the world's greatest ICU doctors had a 50% reduction in deaths compared to virtually everyone else in his field. Yet his tools were taken away from we're going to talk about that. We've got legal cases now against a drug coming up and I'm going to

talk about in the second. But what is that drug? It's this one. The one, the idiot. gave to all of us. Let's talk about remdesivir. Remdesivir. Remdesivir. Remed severe for COVID-19. A trial that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is the Institute I Direct sponsored, was started in February 21st of this year, and it was a

randomized placebo control trial, comparing the Gilead drug Remdesivir with a placebo. This is the first very highly powered about 1,100 individuals. The results were clearly positive from a statistically significant standpoint. The improvement was 31% better chance of recovering and getting out of the hospital. Independent group thought that the improvement was compelling enough and significantly enough to actually say that they couldn't continue the trial as it was in the placebo arm had to receive the effective drug. So it's a first step forward. I think from a clinical standpoint, if you have one shot to provide therapy,

you want to provide the therapy that you have more certainty around, and that would be Remdesivir. It's like watching a team of bobbleheads on the dashboard of my car right now is they have to sit through these videos of these people, all of them, less talented than the next. But Remdesivir was pushed on us, and as Tony Fauci, there was disastrous studies all around the world. But the one that he did, the one he did for his partners at Gilead, who he'd paid out,

God knows how many millions and billions of dollars through the years to have a buddy-buddy relationship, our NIH and Gilead, they came out with a study that looked like it might have some promise. Well, we talked about how promising that was almost exactly two years ago on the high wire, and this is what we said then. Remdesir may not have been a reason this thing is going down. This was out of science, mag. This was... Surprise, surprise.

Yeah, this was Tony Fauci's golden pony. You know, this is the one he thought was going to be really just the amazing come from behind slam dunk. Remedesimir falls flat in WHO mega study and COVID-19 treatment. So more than three quarters of this study was providing evidence of Remdesimir. And this was over 11,000 people worldwide, 400 hospitals. And let's look at the study itself. The study basically concluded in its discussion. that remdesimir regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19,

as indicated by overall mortality, intubation of ventilation, and a duration of hospital stay. So they looked at it basically over 2,700 people in hospitals receiving this, 11% died, 11.2% did not, and that was the placebo arm, so they could have said that point two is probably related to chance. So there you have it with remdesivir. That was October of 2020 that we gave that report that the WHO had said this thing doesn't work at all. And so where are we at now? Two years later, how many of you have relatives that lost their lives and felt powerless? Weren't even allowed in the hospital as they were running these draconian measures on you

and locking you out the hospital, putting your loved one on a ventilator, which we found out later doesn't work? And then remdesivir, which could shut down their kidneys or cause heart problems. How many stories were going to be telling some of those in the future here on the, the highwire, but they are stories that never had to happen. Well, finally, finally, there is a group of attorneys that are doing something about it and saying, no, we're not going to let this slide. We're not going to worry about whether or not we have the right to sue or liability protection or prep this or prop that. Instead, they're going to do something about it. Check out these headlines. Uniform consent. Three California hospitals face lawsuits for use of the Remdesbier

protocol attorneys alleged led to wrongful death. It goes on to say, Watkins said they filed the lawsuits on behalf of 14 Fresno area families who allege the hospital engaged in medical deception and failed to provide informed consent relating the potential side effects such as kidney failure. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Daniel Watkins and Michael Hamilton. Daniel Michael. It's an honor to have you here and you know we you know we are fairly litigious here at the informed consent act network which is the nonprofit that makes this show happen, but there's just not enough attorneys in the world. And so every once in a while, when a couple of guys like yourself step up, I couldn't be more excited. And this is such an

important issue. So tell me, to begin with, how did you, you know, how did you get into this discussion on Remdesivir and its use in hospitals? It came from the families themselves initially. A couple of people in the Fresno area experienced the type of care that you've outlined here, and they felt that it was really off. And through God, I think bringing some other folks together. They all started to talk and discover. This treatment was not right. We were separated from our loved ones.

We weren't allowed to be with our loved ones. And then in many cases, we said in Oremdesivir, they gave it anyway. And so the family started to talk, and they started looking for attorneys and reaching out. And a couple really spirited individuals kept looking and kept looking, and they found Michael and myself. Michael and I don't work together on a regular basis. In fact, this is how we first met in this case. Okay. But God brought us together. We both were in and we started we got to fight.

I mean, what you're talking about in terms of providing care that has been objected to. I mean, that's just beyond anything I've ever seen in my practice. And we needed to step in the fight. Yeah, we have several stories just later. Michael, you know, in the face of real liability protections that have been put out there, when we look at the PEP Act, when I read that, it seems like it almost gives doctors the right to shoot you in the head and say, you know what, that was just the best treatment we could. figure out at the time, what is the case?

How are you going to deal with sort of that liability protection? Essentially said in the face of an emergency, doctors are allowed to use whatever treatment they find necessary as we're trying to grapple and find a way through this. So even though they came out against drugs that did appear to be working, in this case, how are you going to deal with that from a legal perspective? So these folks have done their best, Dell, to convince everyone that they're immune because of the prep act but they're not immune from intentional misconduct they're not okay and what we see are they're not giving people informed consent

they're not telling them what they need to know they're not telling them the dangers of remdesivir they're not telling them about ivermectin hydroxychlor effective remedies that ivermectin won the Nobel Peace Prize for medicine yeah you know it's effective it's good but they're not telling them about that they're not giving them the informed consent that's required for an emergency use authorization and they don't get immunity for intentional wrongdoing and that's what we've alleged in the complaint a couple of the causes of action in particular when they did something intentionally to fraudulently conceal

information from the patient they did it intentionally it wasn't a mistake it's not medical malpractice when they provided care administering remdesivir over objections of the patient that's not a mistake right that's intentional prep act we're going to argue doesn't cover that and it is a limited liability it's not complete okay from every single piece of conduct that goes down. So, you know, and really there's another part of the lawsuit that thinks really important.

We want to win, of course. We want to win against the facilities that the treatment took these lives. Good people died, really good people. But the families are really more about bringing awareness to this issue, to the community. And that's why your show, and bringing us on is so important so people can know when they go in.

Say no to Ram Desavir, demand that is not gonna happen. and demand the efficacious treatments of ibupmectin and hydroxychlorcline. So if the PEP Act is somehow interpreted by a court and then the court of appeal and the court appeal after that to beat us, keep taking it. So it'll be, oh yeah, we're all the way. All the way. We're going to push this policy because it cannot be interpreted to allow doctors and hospitals to intentionally deprive people of the care that they're entitled to. So tell me then what, go ahead and because you have so many clients involved in this, is there a common out of the health?

Is there a commonality to the story and what does that sound like? There's a tremendous commonality. I was aware, even before I connected with Dan Watkins and we brought these cases in Fresno, I was seeing this in multiple states, multiple hospitals. The protocol is, I'm going to describe a protocol, and it varies almost not at all. Okay. Someone comes into the hospital, maybe they have a twisted ankle. Maybe they have a cough.

Whatever they have, they're told, well, you have COVID pneumonia. We're going to put you in a room. We're going to isolate you from your family. No family allowed. And they separate them. Then they put an oxygen machine on their face, and they start pumping oxygen in at very high level. People are having a difficult time breathing. They try to take the mask off.

Oftentimes their hands are zip tied to the bedrails. No way. And then their phone is put across the room. They can't call anybody. They can't ask for help. Oftentimes the button for calling for a nurse is removed. They're in this room. They're isolated from the family.

They're zip tied down. The oxygen is being shoved into them. And then sometimes a psychiatrist will come in and say, well, you look agitated. Let's get you on a morphine drip. And then they just, they can't fight the effects of the rindesivir, which is doing something to their kidneys. Their lungs are filling up with fluid. They're not given food or water of any kind, not through an IV of no kind. no kind. Average time to death is about nine days and they are and the doctors are giving word

tracks to the families. They're saying you don't have you don't have medical training. Right. You know right and they're bullying them and they're saying look if you don't do this if you leave against medical advice your insurance is not going to cover it and you're going to go bank. Wow. So basically blackmailing them. Bullying them. Yes, absolutely. It's it's it's it's and it's torture. They're starving to death. Their hands are tied to the bedrails and they're and the remdesivir is being pumped into them but not just remdesivir they're getting they're getting all kinds of drugs. I mean we have clients and I know folks who have received 30 40 plus drugs many of them contraindicated for use with romedesivir. Unbelievable. And it's it's really an unbelievable situation.

It's, they're coming in every couple of hours to test them and they can't get proper sleep. They're sleep deprived. They're deprived of their families. It's a disaster. Let's take a look at the stories that we're working on here at the High Wire. November of 2021, my husband, Kyle, started getting sick. His COVID tested, come back positive. I took him to the urgent care and they checked him in.

As we're driving to the hospital, I told him, I'm very worried about you. And he said, well, I know not to go on COVID protocols. I know not to take remdesivir. I know not to do a ventilator. They started right from within the first 24 hours talking about him receiving a remdesivir. They said that that was part of their protocol, that they used to treat COVID patients,

and that he should really, he should consider that. The very next day that he was in the hospital, he woke up with the IV in his arm, and I knew that he was in the hospital. kidney shutting down from being given remdesivir is pretty common. Called the hospital and I got a different nurse on the phone and said oh yes he was given remdesivir as soon as he came in. Roughly nine days later his kidneys were at 6% function. He was vented full-time dialysis. His kidney lab started to go

bad and so the doctor started him on dialysis the next day. And the doctor told me that Ryan was a full code. So he said that he would do CPR if I wanted to. But he told me that it would only prolong Ryan's death and not prolong his life, that Ryan was really gone. She pulled the emergency cord and code blue and everybody ran in. She jumped on his chest and started doing CPR. He fought so hard.

He's been through so much. And we told him to stop. They shut the machines up and everybody was gone and Kyle was gone immediately. Guidelines that have been put in place by Dr. Anthony Fauci. I feel they definitely have part of his blood on their hands. They really should consider what they've done to me and millions of people and families. I don't know how they can sleep at night. I think Stacey Garakie and Sarah Mitchell for sharing their story with us.

That will be, they will be featured later on in October in a deeper conversation about these issues having the hospital. But how similar is that to the stories that you're hearing? Dead on. It's right on there. And you know, I've been working in medical and dental malpractice defense work my entire career, 30 years. And when I first heard these stories, I was introduced to the family. A couple stories from the Fresno area. And I thought, well, it's probably a little dramatic, a little overreaction.

to the bed actually and you know I wasn't quite there yeah then the fourth story fifth story tenth story 20 story then email started coming in from all over the state and since the press conference I think we've recently seen thousands of emails and phone calls from across the country in 32 states was the last count we had I'm blown away about the similarities there's no exaggeration in here we have pictures of patients with their hands strapped to the beds with bruising and all sorts of discolourization through their hands it's it's incredible And that's what really got it going.

I am into this new in the last year. The rage that I feel, I'm watching that, how can your heart just not be shattered for these people? They went in there trusting the healthcare facility, trusting the doctors, and the doctors are not practicing medicine. I know Dr. Merrick's probably going to talk about this. You know, Dr. McCulloch talks about it. They're not practicing medicine.

They're following a rote script driven by somebody above them that doesn't care. That's really what we're trying to drive at. Yeah. We want to find out as far as we can go. And if it's not just these cases, we'll file other ones. And we're going to keep filing them until we get what we hope everybody's looking for. How much of this case is dependent, or these cases are dependent on the science?

Because in the end, I mean, if this is a successful drug for some people, do you have a case? I mean, is there science around the issues of this drug? Is that a part of the case? There's definitely science. And, you know, in the end, it's going to come down to a battle of the experts. But, you know, there was an Ebola study. And in the Ebola study, Remdesivir was found to have such a high mortality rate that it was pulled from the study. Right.

They're like, we're not even giving us to people that have Ebola. We're not going to give it to them. I mean, literally making the decision, you're better off dealing with Ebola on your own than taking this drug. This drug's worse than Ebola. I mean, and you said it in the beginning of the show, 99.97% survival rate with COVID, and you have something that's too toxic to use. for Ebola. Right. But they're giving it to them.

And so we see that. We see the European Council came out in 2020 and said, don't give this to people. And the World Health Organization said, don't give this to people regardless of the severity of their symptoms. Now they've amended that two years later, but in the beginning, and especially when all of our people were dealing with this, the World Health Organization said, don't give it to anybody that has COVID-19, regardless of the severity of the symptoms, does no good. They're giving it to him and it's insane.

We've covered a lot of the sort of kidney issues around this, right? As you said, people being put on dialysis. I mean, literally when you think of pneumonia's, your lungs are filling with water. You know, I know Dr. Brian Ardus said, you know, in his own, he had a family member. He went in and they're like, well, his lungs are filling with water. Like his lungs are filling with water because you've got him on remdesivir. You know what I mean? Get them off this drug.

But you're also focused in some of the science that you're, you're also focused in some of the science that you sent over on heart issues. I wasn't as aware of this. So tell me a little bit about the heart side of this. So in terms of that, I want to leave the medicine really to the doctor. Okay. But what we're highlighting with that is that REMDesivir, to the extent that the other side is going to say this is all COVID-related problems, and Ramdesivir is not the issue. Remdesivir clearly enhances the problems, right? It clearly enhances both the renal problems and cardiac problems, and Dr. McCulloch will speak to that on our behalf. And that was one of the things. because Michael's right, it's all going to be about the experts at the end of the day.

They're going to have to battle it out. The team of experts that rallied behind this case, the stars, the people that really know it, and they're behind it and they support us, that's what sold me. And so we pitch it to the jury if we get that far and the jury gets to make a decision. But we have some talented, exceptionally good doctors that are going to be able to explain exactly how Remdesivir exacerbated the problems to the point that it led to the death. Had they been given an option to take ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, for certain they would have survived or had a much better chance of survival than with the revdesivir. Yeah.

So that's how we go at it. Let me ask you because, I mean, you know, I know, on our team, one of the things I always appreciate you about Aaron's theory, our lawyer is he's very reasonable. I mean, law sort of forces you not like overstep, like standing what you can prove, stand in, you know, the space that you're in. but as reasonable, you know, lawyers involved in these cases, certainly you must lay in bed at night and ask yourself, how did this happen? How did good doctors, good people, end up systematically? And I want to make systemically murdering people.

It's so hard. It's so hard to understand. I mean, it's hard for me to imagine. I have friends who are doctors, you know, and to imagine that they're killing people for money, and doing it on purpose, that's hard. But doctors have been so conditioned by their training, by the sleep-deprived process that they go through

to become doctors after they finish medical school. They've been conditioned to accept, without question, information from sources that are no longer trustworthy. They're trusting. Well, their leadership. The unfortunate part of this is they're trusting the CDC. They're trust in the FDA. They were taught with.

Whatever CDC says, whatever Tony Fauci and NIH says, man, go with that. That's the leading science. So in essence, they're like a military body, right? Charge it at bunker. Don't ask questions. Just do what you're told, die if you have to. Whatever the case, you don't question leadership. Is that essentially how the system is built?

It is. And, you know, when they were seeking emergency use authorization approval, the panelists that went in front of the CDC to ask for that, nine of them were from the NIH. nine of them from the NIH had financial ties to Gilead Sciences. Oh my God. The maker of Remdesivir. Right.

That's where the money trail starts. Right. And now we look in California, and now the numbers vary from state to state, but in California there are three ways to treat somebody. Outpatient, inpatient, non-complex, inpatient complex. You treat them as an outpatient, give them some, give them something that works, give them some Ivermectin, send them home. Right.

$3,200 is the average charge rate in California. Okay. If you treat them as a non-complex patient inpatient, you let them have a room in the hospital, we're talking $11,000 and change. So a difference between I send you home with take some vitamin C, take some ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, there's some great doctors out there that got some protocols you can use at home.

3,200. That's right. Over $100,000 is by bringing you in to treat you. But get this. If they become a complex patient, and all that's required is you either intubate them or you put them in the ICU. Or you say they're in the ICU,

maybe they're just in a room. At that point, they're a complex patient. Average charge rate is $450,000 in change. On top of that, our government has incentivized the use of remdesivir to the exclusion of other remedies. If you don't offer ivermectin, you don't offer hydroxychloroquine, you just offer remdesivir. Now you get a code, and you get a 20,

and you get a 20% bump on the entire hospital stay. That's another $90,000 on 450, roughly. I'm using round numbers here. So I hope your mathematicians in the audience don't get too hard on me. You're over a half a million dollars incentives to a hospital system to whether or not the doctors are aware of what's going on, the bookkeepers. And by the way, when we think about this,

they're being told to shut down all their other departments. There's no oncology anymore. There's no heart, you know, doctors in the building. All of your money is going to have to come during COVID from COVID. So what are you going to do? You're going to send them home for $3,200? Are you going to say, as one of the stories there, he just tested positive. There wasn't much more with them, but we brought them in.

And then they just get sucked into the system. And you look at a system that they don't want that over a half a million dollars for this patient if we do all the wrong things to treat them. And you're right about in the evenings and you think about this. and I'm it's beyond my comprehension to look at this and say that's all about money. Well, I hope it's not. Yeah. You know, but at the same time, if it's about following some order from somebody above

and failing to practice medicine and to ask questions that are in the best interest of the patient, I mean, that's pretty bad too. Yeah. You know, and I think what we're really trying to do here is exploit that. And so the patient's no going in now. What we once thought was a super safe place to go, you go to the hospital, you're going to be treated with care and concern and love, and they're going to have your loved ones there.

They're going to work to make you better, and they're going to give you all opportunities, right? And you're going to get to make the choice as the patient. The doctors are replacing their judgment for the patient's judgment in medical choices. Right. And that is just unbelievable to me. And not even the doctor's judgment, literally Tony Fauci's judgment. The guy's sitting in some crystal tower somewhere that's never touched the patient.

And I guess what I'm saying, that they've given up their right to think independently, and they're going to let the NIH, the CDC, or their hospital leadership drive one solution. In the midst of a supposed pandemic, in a disease that a virus that supposedly takes you out, they're going to let one solution be driven and they're going to give up their independent thinking. We have to change that. And if I could make one pitch to the doctors out there that want to practice medicine. Yeah. And that have, we've talked to more and more, they've left the hospital.

or wherever it was because they saw what was happening. If they could reach out to us at Declaretruth.us Okay. And go to the help tab and give us information under legal help with Vremdesivir, who they are, that will remain confidential, we want to hear from them. Because that's the kind of thing we need to know for the patients that are out there. We want to start spreading that information. They can help in these cases.

They may be able to have a case local that they can help in, or they can give us information. But that's what's missing, at least what we're pushing to get back to, where you go and the doctors are focused on the patient. I mean, look, I think that people could look at this the wrong way. They'll try to say, you know, you're attacking doctors. And the truth is, is I think you're actually trying to free doctors up. So many of these doctors that were going through to say, my hands were tied.

I want to give these other things. I will lose my job if I do what my, what my belief, my science, when my investigations told me, I will lose my job. So what you are doing, I think, is drawing attention to really the fall of American medicine especially. I mean, we live in a country. where the one beauty we had is we don't have some NHS, we don't have some socialized government system where the government's deciding what treatment we get.

We get to get a second opinion. That second opinion usually should be different than the first one. Different doctors using different treatments. This is what has worked for me. I don't like the sound of that. My friend went to this person. That really worked out. They're wiping all of that out

so that we are going to a cookie-cutter communist system where whatever the government says is the treatment, that's all you get. It's a one-stop shop. It's like the Soviet Union. only one kind of bread, one kind of meat, one kind of treatment, and you're out the door. We cannot allow that to happen. So I think you're fighting for something much bigger right now than just patients that were just incredibly, you know, mistreated.

But it's a system that is turning on us right now in this country. Dale, I'm so thankful for voices like yours. I majored in philosophy with an emphasis in Marxism. When this whole thing started, I saw right away that this was a collectivist tyrannical takeover of our country. country the masks the shutting down places where people talk about freedom shedding in bars shutting down restaurants shutting down places where people gather to talk and that was and isolating people in public with the masks I saw all that I've sued on behalf of America's frontline doctors and others

really on the vaccine mandates and and we just we saw immediately that this was this was just a crazy tyranny they pulled off all the gloves they pulled out all the stops and they're going after everything they're going after the Constitution there in the name of medical tyranny they're going after everything yeah you know one of the things I've observed though because when you look at it in those terms it looks like you can't win right yeah what I'm starting to see and I believed in it my whole life but now I'm actually seeing in action is that unified people come together the people that

really realize the rights being taken away if we unify and we push together in one force, we can win. We can make an impact. But better than that, if we unify with God behind us, if we bring him into the fold, then we help him drive us, and we look to love our neighbor, the people that are going there are mistreated, we all need to speak out against this. We all need to be vocal, and we all need to move forward. And there is something to the civil disobedience pushing back against this. And we're starting to see little progress on that. So in California, we're representing thousands of health care providers, first responders and teachers against those entities who fired them because they wouldn't get vaccinated.

They exercised their religious liberties, said no, they get fired. And what happens? Thousands of teachers, teachers, hospital personnel, first responders, they're out of work, right? Then they started with a booster. Okay, how many people are saying no to the boosters? A lot. Then the second booster, more saying, the third booster, more saying no. And so you have entities like Kaiser and other health care facilities who are now all of a sudden saying,

you know what, we're going to recognize that religious exemption and get back to work. And people are saying no. They recognize that that vaccine is not a vaccine, it's not efficacious, and they're going to say no. And we can do that with Ramesvir, we can do that with other things that try and jam down our throats, we can push back. And if we can reverse that collective thinking, and as a group of people, I know it's big thinking, but we've got to come at it like that. And that's why we need more attorneys to help to push back.

We need doctors to step up and help. And if we can get that going and we can get the people to understand what they're, facing and believe that it is a problem and push back. I think we can win. I think we can get back to where we want to be. I agree. Power to the people. It's what this audience for the high wire is all about. You know, we have shown huge progress. It's been a horrific time, but in many times, you know, we needed a wake-up call. This has been that wake-up call. You're fronting another important, you know, I think, armada in this battle. So how can we help? How can the audience out here help? I mean, are there costs or the things that we can do to sort of get involved?

Del, we're so thankful for your voice. Dan and I, as brothers in Christ, who are fighting against a great evil, there's a great evil of foot in our country, but God is greater than the evil that we see. And so people are always asking this question. How can we help? Prayer. Pray for us. First and foremost, pray for our clients.

Pray for our country. Pray for Dan and I as we enter this battle. And then if you're able, give funds. Okay. Declaretruth.us. There's a way to give funds. Here we have it right here. This is a give send go. Uh, dot com slash Fresno, Remdesivir, uh, death. Now look folks, this is what we do here at the high wire.

We don't sit on our couches and complain about the world. We are actively taking part. This isn't Fox. This isn't CNN. This isn't MSNBC. We actually do something about it. Get involved. Let's help these cases out.

These individuals that are, you know, fighting this system, is going to affect all of our lives. We can make a difference. We can make a difference in their lives at the Declared Truth.US. But remember, this is about us. This is about the hospital systems. One day, unfortunately, we're all going to end up having to use one of these hospital systems. We need to get it back to working the right way.

Any last thoughts? I just want to thank you guys so much for stepping up to this. You're right. I've said it before. You know, if you look at this on paper, you look at this, you know, all alone as a singular individual. Our odds look terrible, but in the end, we have accomplished so much because we aren't just a set of odds. We aren't just singular people or, you know, marks on a paper. We are humanity.

We're creating the image of likeness of God, and I believe we're vessels that are going to bring change, and you guys are doing that. Any last thoughts to the audience as we sort of move into, you know, the next step of now cleaning up this mess and fixing the problems that are now so clear to us? The one brief thing I want your viewers to know is that as they give to the gifts and go, they're supporting the families. These families can't afford the expenses of a lawsuit. Dan and I are not in this for the money. You know, when we saw this fight, we didn't say, should we do this? We said, how can we not? Right.

And so the funds that we're raising, those aren't for attorney fees. Those are for the expenses, and it's an expensive lawsuit. Okay. And these families have lost everything. We're supporting the families. I appreciate that. And just in a final thought, it's really just about, for me, the awareness part of it. And the families really support us in this too.

They want awareness to this issue. And they're, for the most part, God-fearing people as well. And what we're trying to help people do is if they feel that nudge on their heart, if they fill the rod to their head to change this path, to say yes to something that they're being led by, follow it and say yes. This is the time. We are in the battle. There's no more waiting for the battle.

There's no more prep for the battle. It is now. And if God's leading you, please say yes. Give him a chance. And when he does, get ready. Absolutely. Because he will load it up for you. Thank you for hearing the call and stepping up and being warriors.

That's what this is all about. Thank you so much. All right. Love you guys. You take care and keep us to post on everything that happens in the future. 100%. All right, great. All right, everybody.

It's time for your favorite part of the show, the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. What do we got going on today? Well, Del, over the last couple of years, it has been framed as a war on COVID. That's how we were taught to see what we were in. We gave up, we made a lot of sacrifices. Yeah.

Obviously, as your last two guests have said, we gave up a lot. And we, you would think when it was over, we would have a celebration, maybe like the parade in New York City at the end of World War II, or at least a national address to say, we can move on with our lives. But I don't think anybody really thought it would come while leisurely perusing the floor of a Detroit Auto Show. Take a look. Mr. President, first Detroit Auto Show in three years. Yeah.

Is the pandemic over? The pandemic is over. We still have a problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work on it. It's, but the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one's wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it's changing, and I think this is a perfect example.

You know, I mean, obviously everyone's, playing this sound bite. You know, the pandemic isn't over. The panic is over. I realized that's all that's happened. Nothing changed. They are literally doing what we said they should have done from the beginning, which is you aren't, this is a virus, you can't hide from it. Your vaccine isn't going to work. We said that ahead of time. And here we are. The vaccine didn't work. The mask didn't work. The lockdowns didn't work. None of it worked. In fact, a lot of it got a lot of people killed, maybe even more that would have been killed. But we're back to letting this thing run its course, as everyone's going to say, well, it's still here. There's still people dying. Yes,

there are. The only thing that changed is the hypochondria, the panic around it. The panic, apparently, is finally over, probably because it's really bad in upcoming elections to still look like a panicked freak when nothing you have done has worked. And behind the scenes there, he said, you know, the masks are off the people. Well, the masks are off the people predominantly because the people fought back legally and parents at their school boards, you know, we're voicing their, their passionate opinions of how they wanted these masks off the kids. So that's really why the masks are off. But the media didn't really treat Biden too well on this one. It's been all over the place after this comment. Just looking at a couple of the headlines here.

This is one of them here. Biden's pandemic error, it's over. Here's another one. Biden's comments about pandemic widened public health split over how U.S. should respond to COVID-19. But, you know, you think the Republicans, let's go to the House Republicans, you think they would be the first to know because they had pushed Biden since February 22nd. They put out this headline here, House Republicans press HHS to end COVID-19 emergency. That was over 70 House Republicans. And then after Biden said that, this is what Republican leader Kathy McMorris Rogers put forward. She's the leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She's asking Biden to provide your plan to unwind the public health emergency. Tell us how you're going to unwind this.

Give us dates. Give us how you spent the money, the billions of dollars that we gave you. So that's really what's going on there. And it took them by surprise too. But let's look at also how this vaccine push is doing it. And this greater picture here. So the pandemic is over, apparently. So how is the vaccine?

We have an Amacron-specific booster. And this is when the headlines is on Axios reporting on that booster push for employers. Employers sit out latest COVID vaccine booster push. says here, without a vibrant promotional campaign led by health officials, politicians, or employers, few people are likely to get inoculated. Let me add there, celebrities, social media influencers, community leaders. They're basically saying this thing's dead in the water. Employers aren't going to push it on their employees. And if we don't have all this money behind the PR campaign, no one's really want to take this. And that goes the same for parents trying to get their kids

inoculated. It's not really taking off there either. This is the headline here. COVID shots for young kids arrived in June. Few have received. them. So you can see there, it's really fizzling out this vaccination program. Just to take a moment and say, America, thank you for waking up. Thank you for actually, you know, wrapping your head around this insanity and deciding to just say no. Just say no. It's an old slogan, more important than ever. And just a couple of weeks ago, we reported on the Head Start program. They were one of the last people in the United States to mask. They were masking two-year-olds and up in this program. So this is a federal program that provides children and their families at or

below the federal poverty line with education resources they need. And again, they were the last people to have their masks taken off. This is the headline here from six days ago. And I'll tell you why we're reporting it from six days ago, HHS to drop universal masking requirements for the Head Start grantees. Now, in this article, the director of the Head Start program says he wasn't aware of the change until he heard about it today. He didn't even know it was coming. And HHS said, Well, we're going to end this, but we don't have any dates. It's maybe in a couple of weeks. It was very nebulous.

Well, maybe they knew this was coming. This is the recent headline here out of Louisiana. Louisiana federal judge blocks Biden COVID vaccine mandate for Head Start program. So this, again, this is the Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. He brought this suit forward. He's been moving this forward. And now it's blocked. So that is what took the mask off, this action by an attorney general in this case.

And it's interesting here, the judge ruled that the liberty interests outweighed any kind of benefit from the vaccine mandate. So that was an interesting ruling by that judge. Let's just take a moment. I just want to take a moment here to recognize the beauty of the American system and our judicial system. And God bless lawyers. You realize where we would be if we didn't have, you know, this judiciary and the ability to bring your complaints through, you know, legal representation. I mean, and then the Attorney General's Attorney General, which are out there, you know, really then standing as the ultimate legal representation for the public. I mean, these are the moments.

This is where this, this is why the High Wire is so involved and ICANN is so involved, not just in the media side of this, but also the legal side of this. It's going to, you know, and then talking to legislators and the Ron Johnson's and Ron DeSantis is it's going to take everything, right, hitting it from all sides. But a lot today what we're talking about, just talking to two great attorneys that we just did, you know, we've got to appreciate how important attorneys are in this fight. And for all those people out there, they maybe have the funds, bring your lawsuits, don't just sit there be quiet. If you're a person of means, this is how you start making a difference in this country as we lead the world out of this very, very dark time.

And the attorneys generals are, they often are called the people's lawyers. So you can see that they do can they can wield a form of power within this system. And most of them are elected. So that's on two fronts. You're seeing you're seeing really some good news there from from that specific part of our system, if you will. But now that let's look at the other side of this, you know, this unwinding of this COVID response. There's still a lot going on here. New York City.

They're still firing teachers. This was a headline out of out of New York City. 850 more unvaccinated New York City teachers, AIDS fired for not completely. applying with a mandate. That makes almost 2000. And HHS is expected to renew the COVID-19 public health emergency for the for 11th time. So this is going to be in October. That's the expectation that's being put out there right now. Understand that emergency use authorization vaccines are only available because there is a public health emergency by HHS. So right. They end this thing. Every EUA vaccine is off the market immediately. So that's something to keep in your mind.

Absolutely. Let's think about these teachers too for a second, right? If you are sending your child to a public or private school system in the New York City area and that is adhering to this, what you must recognize is your children are only going to be taught by people that have given up all critical thinking, given up any sense that the human being has power in the United States of America. So forget civics, forget concepts of liberty and freedom or your constitution. You are literally sending your kids to a bunch of teachers that have given.

given in, been broken and brainwashed by a system that's all that's left. God help New York, but please, all of you in New York watching this show, it's time to homeschool. It's time. It's that time. If you're asking yourself, is this that time? This is that time. And, you know, another dark chapter, really, if you will, in the COVID response over the last years was the attempt by government agencies and big tech media as a whole to control the information flow. So we reported, I think, two weeks ago now, that the attorneys general's, in Louisiana and Missouri brought forth a suit to hoping to expose who or what in the Biden administration, what agencies were colluding, if at all, with big tech to censor information. And so this,

this came out. They were granted discovery. The court ruled in their favor. They granted discovery. And those emails have been out now. And it shows, it shows weekly collusion in the case with Facebook and the CDC on vaccine misinformation. They're meeting weekly to talk about this. They were taking people's accounts at their behest. So now this has reached the committees here. So we have Senator Josh Howley. He is in the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and he brought forth some of the higher ups at TikTok, Twitter, Facebook meta, and he had this to say. Take a listen. We had conversations with the CDC, with the World Health Organization and with other public health organizations, not just in the U.S. but abroad. In order to understand how to help make sure

that folks weren't getting information that could cause imminent harm. Fair enough. So you're saying that this was, in fact, company policy to have these kinds of meetings with HHS, with the CDC, with the White House directly that you did engage in this behavior, and you think that it was entirely fine. Is that your testimony? Senator, I do believe it's appropriate for companies like ours

to be in consultation with public health organizations and with government. And you can confirm that things like taking down a private Instagram account and adjusting your policies at the behest of the White House and putting into place misinformation policies at the behest of CDC, that those things you think are appropriate. This was company policy to do so. Is that fair to say? Senator, I'm not familiar with the Instagram account specifically that you're referencing, but we do know that people expected and hoped from the platforms that we would help them get

accurate information about COVID during the unprecedented time, especially at the beginning. Well, isn't there a difference between you as a platform putting forward information and censoring your users at the behest of the White House? The administration more broadly in the CDC, isn't there a distinction there? We specifically wanted to work with public health experts to understand the relationship between information and behavior. And so we did consult with the CDC, the World Health Organization, and others to understand how the platform policies we built or affecting public health? Well, you didn't just consult with them

to understand how they affected public health. You actually censored on their behalf. I mean, you took these emails, I'm just quoting from a sample of them, which, by the way, have been disclosed in litigation. These emails show that you took censorship steps. You took down accounts. You planned misinformation policies.

You adjusted your policies at the behest of the United States government. I mean, that's not just some theoretical thing. That's actually targeting your user's speech. But you're saying, I appreciate your forthrightness, by the way. But you're saying that that was, you think that's fine, and that was your policy. Senator, we've been public about our policies on COVID misinformation specifically, as well as on misinformation generally. And so you think there's nothing, you're not concerned about any of this.

Nothing that I just read to you. You're not concerned about it at all. Respectfully, Senator, I think the balance of how to protect free expression as well as public safety is a difficult issue, but it's one we're committed to working with outside experts and publishing our work. Well, I appreciate you being so forthright. As I said, this is actually from litigation between the state of Missouri and the state of Louisiana and the federal government. I anticipate that your remarks under oath today are going to be very interesting and helpful about litigation. I'll just say this. My view is that the United States government is bound by the First Amendment.

they cannot encourage or coerce or incite or collude with a private party to get around the First Amendment, but you've just said to me today that that's basically what they did, that you coordinated with them repeatedly over a pattern of months and years to adjust and target your speech policies for protected speech at the behest of the United States government. I have to tell you, I've got a big problem with that, and I think all your users should do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. I mean, I'm so jazz to be alive at this time in the world, but especially here in the United States of America. This is such a critical, critical time.

These, you know, this COVID has revealed so many problems and issues that we're just going to run away like freight trains, our privacy, you know, our freedom of speech, all of it hanging in the balance. And I get, I do get, I mean, maybe I'm naive, but to listen to Senator Josh Hawley, like, you get a sense, we have a chance, man. is actually real politicians, really asking all the right questions, you know, drilling down on whether or not we're going to have a constitution going forward in the future, an amazing back and forth in that testimony right there and inspiring. And what's important, as Senator Hawley said, is that testimony is on record. So that could be used in the legal hearings moving forward, any lawsuits moving forward. So that's also why that's important.

But one of the things in 2021 Biden said at that time was, You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. And so at that same committee that we just saw Senator Halliatt, we had Senator Ron Johnson as well. And he had some questions there at the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Take a listen. All right. So obviously, this was just, this was published.

And they were publishing other similar information during that time period when President Biden lied to the American public that this was a pandemic of that and vaxed. And if you got vaccinated, you're not going to get. You're not going to go to the hospital, you're not going to be an ICU, and you're not going to die. Well, 63.5% of the people fully vaccinated were dying in England at the exact same time. Why didn't you pull this? Have you ever labeled the president of the United States' comment as misinformation? Have you ever done that?

Any of you? I'll take that as a no. So again, I just wonder who are the authorities, who do you think? think you are to censoring information from eminately qualified doctors who had the courage and compassion to treat COVID patients when the NIH guideline was basically if you get test positive for COVID, COVID, go home, be afraid, isolate yourself, don't do anything until you're so sick. We'll send you the hospital, we'll give you a remdesivir, where we have 600 deaths so far, who'll put you on a vent and we'll watch you die. You guys bear a fairer

a fair amount of responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people not being treated and i would say probably dying that didn't have to die hope you're proud of yourselves i mean that's the most important conversation of all as you are i mean how is it these social media companies aren't sitting in going well look at we we bet on the wrong horse i mean we did listen to cdc we felt like it you know that was an important conversation but they were wrong they did get it wrong we have to where is that conversation We have to admit they got it wrong. The vaccine, all the people we were censoring saying the vaccine wasn't working, it wasn't effective, ended up being right. All the people were censoring had it right.

And the people we were listening to had it wrong. They were the ones spreading the misinformation. None of these guys, I mean, they would do themselves a huge favor, I would think, in front of that saying, yeah, you know what? It's a really good point. How do we decide who's right? Just because they're in authority, because they're the government of the United States and government health officials. You know, I love Ron Johnson. I love how he just doesn't.

He's not afraid to just take it all the way there. It's so rare and really beautiful to watch it. Right. And so there's been other actions we're going to report on. But right now, we have breaking news, and it's specific to this show and our audience. So as a result of legal demands from our attorneys at the informed consent action network, we have received numerous emails from the CDC. Now, if you were signed up for our legal updates, our newsletter at I Can Decide,

You would have received this email. It says here, emails reveal CDC employees circulating articles criticizing. That's you, Dell, Del Bigtree, and celebrating the platforming of the high wire. Let's look at these emails and show them to the world. And to be clear, like this is part of the thing. As you, as everyone knows, we lost our YouTube channel. We lost our Facebook channel. We've been using Freedom of Information Act request. We brought a lawsuit and the lawsuit said, well, you can't prove that you were specifically targeted by the government. right? You can't prove that they talk to Facebook about Del Beatrice or the CDC. So I think this is a FOIA based on just using buzzwords like the high wire and my name. And so these are just the beginning of some of the emails that we've seen come up here. So let's take a look at it. Absolutely. Yeah, and most of it has been broad. These are specific to the show and to you. So August 12th, 2020, we have Maureen Marshall. She's the health communication specialist at the CDC. And she writes here, the subject is actually Del Bigtree removed from YouTube.

That's the subject line in the email. And what they're doing is circulating what appears to be portions of news articles, kind of celebrating the high wires to platforming at that time. And this was something in episode 174 that was on YouTube. We had talked about it. We called it Cyber Attack on Truth. And this was YouTube took the actions to de-platform us at that point. But now let's go to some other emails.

So we have Melinda Wharton. She's the associate director of vaccine policy at the CDC. She forwards this email. She sends it over to Dr. Nancy Messier. She was the former director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. And she writes simply this, an exclamation mark. Now, looking at this, we got him.

Yeah, make of that what you will, I guess. So, you know, continuing on to that same email there. So the next email down in that thread, we have. Christine, Kristen Nordlund, she's a special assistant to the director of communications at the CDC. She forwards that email chain. She forwards it to Dr. Messonier and to Amanda Cohen. She's the former executive secretariat of ASIP. And she says basically just this, FYI. So this is circulating around the CDC higher up. People are really, really wanting to know about this apparently, are really wanting to share it. And you can see there at the bottom, it says,

It's just FYI right there highlighted. Now, perhaps the most telling email that we received to date came two months after the exchange you just saw. So let's take a look at that one. And this brings us to October 28th, 2020. And it's by an email by Carol Hayes. She's a member of the ASIP committee. And she sent an email to several of the CDC higher ups with the subject of simply Del Bigtree saying, as you can say there, Ah. Now, what the heck she's talking about?

What is she talking about? We did some date checks here. And that turns out to be actually the time where the advisory committee of the immunization practices what's happening. The ASIP committee was happening. And you had a comment at that time. And you were actually chosen to give public comment. So they're finding out, I guess you were commenting or perhaps after your comment.

But let's go back to that time, 2020. and listen to your comment. The comment that deserved an, ah, inside the CDC. All right, I'm looking forward to this. Our next speaker is Mr. Dell Bigtree. Mr. Bigtree. I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak. I want to say that, you know,

given that almost everything we talk about these days involves discussion of COVID-19, I want to say I found it shocking that in the discussion about the flu shots. There was a discussion about the risk of COVID-19 being increased by flu shots given the fact that there's so many studies that are showing this type of connection. Specifically, we have the Cleveland Clinic study that's entitled Safety of Influenza Vaccine during COVID-19. It found a highly statistically significant increased rate of mortality. ICU admission and hospitalization for COVID-19 among those that received a flu shot in 2019.

as compared to those that did not. In fact, it reflected that those receiving the flu shot in 2019 had a 175% increased rate of mortality and a 1905% increased rate of ICU admission. Additionally, there was a gigantic study that just came out looking at 39 countries called positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccine rates in elderly people worldwide.

Given that there are those studies, out of Japan that have shown 400% increased risk in other upper respiratory infections amongst those that got flu shots compared to those that didn't. All of this science around the world is pointing to there may be a real danger to giving flu shots during COVID-19, yet the CDC seems to plow forward with this idea of a twin demic and using it as a way to force the largest flu vaccine campaign in U.S. history. We're also watching the 59 deaths from flu shots and growing in South Korea, where they are involved in this mission. Yet none of this seems to matter to you at Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices, which is really shocking.

Given the lack in waning confidence that the American public now has in the CDC, it's said by many articles to be at the lowest point in history. how do you expect to be relevant or even be considered necessary in a process of protecting our population when you're not even having the most obvious conversations you should be having when it comes to vaccinations? This is your world. This is what you are supposed to be looking at. We are supposed to have confidence that when there are studies all around the world showing a risk of delivering a flu shot vaccine and the increased risk of death from COVID-19, that certainly it's a conversation. and you'll be able to bring up studies to discount or, you know, somehow refute this issue. Instead, you avoid it altogether, which is continuing to drive the competence and the work that you do down through the floor.

I would like to see you be a little more responsible with these conversations, given that they're so important and may include and involve the risk of death for hundreds of thousands, not millions of people in this country and around the world. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. You know, I want to take this moment to say that, you know, this isn't, though I will say, it's not about gloating or seeing my name in it. What it shows is we're having an effect, folks, that they are actually talking us.

We knew that they were. I have insiders inside the CDC that are reporting to me, that there's entire departments trying to refute what we're seeing here, what we're saying at the high wire. There's so much we want to know. A lot of these emails are redacted like crazy. Like what is it they're hiding from us in emails that are talking about us in the high wire? Why is that redacted? We're actually working at uncovering some of that.

But to make this point, do you see what is... There's something going on here at the highway that's different than anything else you're watching. I mean, I love Tucker Carlson, but you're not watching him talk to your, you know, go ahead and sit in on meetings and try and fight for the truth and fight for your safety at the ASIP meetings

or the Verbeck meetings. These are the types of things. We're going another step. This is news like it's never been done before. We're not just reporting on it. We're getting involved. We're bringing legal teams to bring law. lawsuits. I am in the face of the A-Sip every time I get a chance. And I'll admit, it was a lot more

fun when I used to go there in person and stand on a microphone. They don't do that anymore. I guess they're afraid of us. They love, I mean, they'll probably never go back to what COVID has done to protect them. Now we'll have to just speak into our cameras, you know, on a computer instead of standing a microphone and look them right in the eyes. But I love the fact that whether I was looking them in the eyes or not, they're talking to each other. And look at that comment. Ah, that's a comment. Ah, like, oh, I'm so frustrated. He's telling the world the truth. This is such a a bummer. How about he's got a great point? And if we're right, why is it we can't refute these things? It bothers me what he's talking about. Not, ah, I wish he would shut up, which is exactly my point.

The CDC wants just the science to disappear so they can just dictate these ridiculous programs and mandates upon us. Well, you know, when you think about what's happening here at the high wire, I just want to take this moment to say, we need your help. Look, I have international scientists. They're putting together all that material so I get to sound like a genius for three minutes at an ASIT meeting, but it's not just me. We are paying to make sure that we have the best science that you get, you're not getting it anywhere else. If you're not aware that if you're watching the show for the first time here in the high wire, every single piece of evidence that we have, every single study, every peer-reviewed study we talk about is going to be in your hands on

Monday. All you have to do is scroll to the bottom of the page on our website and just type your email into the slot right there. Where we're getting to it. Here it is. There it is right there. Brave Bold News right there. Subscribe. Put your email in there and then all the science and evidence that we are providing and all

the victories and the lawsuit wins and everything goes right in your hands so that you don't have to sit there and say, oh, this guy Del Bigtree just said. You say, no, no, no. Look what evidence I have. Look at the studies I have. Take a look at this, mom, dad, brother, sister, friend. This is how this works. But all of this is made possible through donations only.

We have no sponsors. We do not have Exxon helping us. We don't have any of the help that every other network that you're paying also, they're taking your money for your cable bill, and then they're taking money from Pfizer and Sinofi Aventus and Exxon and everybody else to lie to you every single day. Instead, we're bringing you the truth, and then we're fighting on your behalf. We're fighting lawsuits, and then we're standing in the face of these legislators

and standing in the face of these regulatory agencies and speaking the truth to the point where at least we're getting an, ah, well, why do you? Ah, help us. Please, donate, please. Become a recurring donor. You have no idea how good it feels to see those emails come in. Everybody that's a recurring donor right now, they just went to the top of the page, hit the donate button,

and said, you know what? I can give up a dollar a week or maybe $6 a month, or we're asking for $22 for $22. How many things are you putting your money and you're voting with your dollar every day? Are you voting for MSNBC? Are you voting for CNN? We're going to make this easy.

You can text us now, donate to 72022 right now on your phone. Become a recurring donor. Don't complain about the world. Actually fund the people that are helping change the world. That's what we're here to do. We are simply a vessel for you, a vessel for you to get in the face, to get into these courtrooms, to make a difference, to stand at ASIP meetings, and make a difference.

We are your vessel. Why don't you take use of it? Seriously, for a couple of dollars every single month, we can change the world. And we are literally not able to run lawsuits right now. I said it last week. I'm not going to go through the whole list. There are incredible lawsuits that will literally decide the future of your children in your life in the United States of America and even around the world.

So if you're sitting there going, wow, that sounds great. And you are not helping us, then it's on you. It's on you how this all goes down. We can make a difference, as Daniel Watkins said. right here. He said, we have the power and it may seem insurmountable. It's only insurmountable if we are actionless. We are full of action. That's what the high wire is. It's why our non-profit is called the informed consent action network. That is you. Be the network. Get involved. We have so much to do right now. We are winning, but we have to win the whole thing. And that's going

to take your help right now. So please become a recurring donut. It makes a huge. difference. All right, Jeffrey, enough on that side note. It's hilarious to see, you know, the work that we're doing being bantered about the CDC. They better be scared. They better be scared. They better be nervous. And I hope we see a lot more ayes in their future. Right. And up until this point, we're talking about, you know, governments, government agencies, and individuals in government working, including with big tech to, you know, censor speech or at least shadow ban it or whatever they're doing behind closed doors. But there's a another point to this. And what we're seeing now is really a mainlining of this big tech

censorship conversation. It's been reported on for several years, but now everyone's involved and we're really seeing it hit breakaway speeds. So the other portion of this is states like Texas and Florida have passed bills. They've been signed. They've been put into effect that are saying that in that state, these big tech, like the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters cannot censor people's viewpoints, cannot censor people's discussions. And so those were taking. taken to court immediately. And Texas just had a win on that front. This is the attorney general there, Ken Paxton.

He brought this suit. And this is the headline here. Federal court rules Big Tech has no freewheeling First Amendment right to censor. Of course, they're talking about bill HB20. This is a bill that at Texas, big tech platforms can't censor the free speech of viewpoints or expressions.

There's been injunction since this thing was signed by Governor Abbott. Injunction is going back and forth in circuit court, in district courts. And finally, this is the latest ruling on this that's really showing that this thing can move forward. So this will be an interesting test case because it's only state in the United States that's having this done. So a lot of people are saying, well, they may have to just not have Facebook or meta in Texas anymore because the burden's too great. But we also see this in Florida.

The Florida so far legally has the opposite result. This was the headline here from this summer. Governor DeSantis signed their bill, the Stop Social Media Censorship Act into effect. and then judge blocks Florida social media censorship law after big tech sues. So obviously they don't want this thing. And this is all heading to what we're seeing in the Washington Post call, kind of like this monumental battle within the Supreme Court. This is what a lot of legal people are saying.

It looks like the future of this conversation. A landmark Supreme Court fight over social media now looks likely. And that's what the Washington Post is now reporting. And, you know, this is a conversation, obviously, that is really, really near and dear to our heart. in reporting the medical aspects, the health aspects, public health conversation here, because this is what we're doing. We're bringing experts to debate. And one of the conversations around vaccines is we've been unraveling and unfolding some of the alleged harms of these vaccines.

They went from alleged to actual harms. One of them, perhaps the biggest one is myocarditis. And we've been trying to get people within whether it's government or medicine to really pay attention here and to figure out solutions to this myocarditis issue, this heart inflammation. Well, it looks like New York Presbyterian Hospital is taking a little bit different approach to signaling people about this. Take a look. All right. I've been into fashion since I can remember. But one day, I had a stomach ache so bad, I didn't want to do anything. The team at New York Presbyterian said it was actually my heart. It was severely swollen. something called myocarditis but doctors gave me medicines and used machines to control

my heartbeat they saved me so now I can become the next great fashion designer moment like these where I'm like we may be the stupidest species on this planet I mean if we put up with this if we put up an issue that was never an issue and now they have commercials normalizing it for our children and don't look at the shot that you just sort of forced on everybody it's it's I just I just just I feel for all these people that are this gullible. And, you know, it's no longer blind in the media. So thank God for that.

There's actually reporting calling this out as it should be called out. Here's one of the headlines here. Hospital ad attempts to normalize myocarditis as common kids ailment. Here's another one. Hospital runs myocarditis in kids awareness commercial as if it's a common illness. And just to remind viewers, we never really even heard about myocarditis and this heart inflammation as associated with vaccination until these COVID shots began rolling out. And proof of that is the VAIR system.

That's the vaccine adverse event reporting system. And this has been shown to be underreporting. So these numbers that we're seeing are probably a fraction of what is reality. And let's look at the myocarditis issues, 2021 here. Almost 30,000. You can see before that not much of anything. There's just a slight hint of myocarditis with the other vaccines. COVID vaccines roll out 2021, almost 30,000.

This year, we're near 20. Look at it. Look at that. The other, all those other little tiny, you know, lines you can't see is approximately 16 vaccines given in 72 doses by the time you're 18. Those 16 vaccines created that much myocarditis. This one in these last two years is now up over 52,000 reported cases in a system that's virtually impossible to use. No doctor goes near it. It's totally underreported based on every investigation that's ever been done by at least 10%.

We're going to go by Harvard Medical School investigation of it by nearly 100%. It's 1%, fewer than 1% of the vaccine adverse events are being reported to theirs. If 52,000 myocarditis is only 1%, or even if it's 10%, half a million children are having their hearts injured by this product, and it's still being recommended by our government? And this is why watching those ads, it's insulting because the medical community knows it, the CDC admits it, people have had experiences with it, and we're going to watch an ad that doesn't breathe a word

of the vaccine in causing this. Basically, just take some meds, don't do anything for a year, no activity for a year, and maybe a, you know, maybe a pacemaker or something, and off you go, a little girl. So this is why people are so mad about this ad. It's went viral over the entire internet. But it's not just kids.

This is a headline out of Sky News talking about data from England and UK. More people have been dying this year due to irregular heartbeat, official figures suggest. It says in here, the total number of deaths due to an irregular heartbeat was 37.1% above average in March and 23.1% in April, a sharp jump from 13.7% in January and 9.9.4. The percentages remained high in May and June, 39% and 17.9%. And it's important to know here that the, what they're talking about is people of older age, but you're still having these heart issues. And why is that?

Well, we have some research for perhaps the first time. We're not saying like these are high numbers in comparison to that same group the years before, right? This isn't, you know, well, I mean, they're older. They were going to die anyway. Yeah, they were older and only going to die that way anyway. back when we were looking at the lower data. This is up and above the normal space where these people are having these issues. Right, right. And it's in the scientific literature now. So this is a really important landmark study we're about to show. And if anyone wants to look this up,

here's the title, Intramiocardoidal inflammation after COVID-19 vaccination, an endomiochardial biopsy proven case series. So they took tissues from heart cells. These are the cells responsible for generating the contractile force of the heart, the workhorses of this cell muscle. And this is what they had to say. In the present cohort, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was found to be expressed on cardiomyocytes. Those are heart tissue muscles. In nine of 15 patients, thus vaccine encoded spike protein seems to reach the heart where it might trigger an inflammatory response resulting in the development of myocarditis or DCMI. that's an inflammatory dilated cardiomyopathy. The researchers also go on to say this at the bottom,

although a causal relationship between vaccination and the occurrence of myocardial inflammation cannot be established based on the findings. The cardiac detection of spike protein, the CD4 plus T-cell-dominated inflammation, and the close temporal relationship argue for a vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction. In the heart, they're saying.

And let's look at some of the slides. So they actually have slides here from those. biopsies, those heart tissue biopsies. And you can see here, A and B, those are Pfizer's vaccine. You can see that stained area. It's a look like it's a little dark red. That's the spike protein from the vaccine. That third slide C is AstraZeneca's vaccine. And then we have a positive control of someone that just contracted SARS-CoV-2 naturally. And so this is a really, really big issue we're seeing here. So it's definitely not to be taken lightly, but we're finding this. Well, a little bit. Well, Let me be clear. I want to clarify, and I know we have a huge show, but folks, do you get this?

Where else are you getting news like this? Where do you actually get to hear what the scientists mean when they're saying it? Now, someone in the audience might be saying themselves, well, look, the disease itself, having the infection there in Group D, showed that they also can have this reaction in the heart, right? I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what it says. SARS-COVID-2 positive cardiac tissue served as a positive control. But here's the point. The makers of this vaccine are celebrating the fact that your body is producing more of the spike proteins than a natural infection does. That they are actually going, they're excited how much antibody production and how much spike proteins being produced in your body. They also made an mRNA adjustment. They actually adjusted the genetic code so the mRNA can last longer, that the spike protein lives longer in your body than the natural version you just inhaled.

So while they're excited about how much of this they're making, remember, it's a bio weapon. It's the worst part of the virus. Yes, the virus too can have this effect, but they're bragging about that. The effects that the spike protein has from the vaccine is even greater. So that's why this is an issue. You're injecting yourself and you're getting sick once with the natural virus, which is not as powerful as potent, but you're getting sick over and over again. Plus getting booster shots, four, five, every time you're doing it. Folks, come on. Please, please.

Wake up your friends. Wake up your family. You're killing yourselves. All right. Indel, there's a brand new side effect, if you will, the vaccine that's starting to get a lot of attention. And really for the first time I'm seeing, the media has not been caught flat-footed, at least local media. Take a listen to this. All right. Emerging new research shows a growing number of transplant recipients are suddenly rejecting their new organ. Scientists say the COVID vaccine could be to blame.

Joining us now to explain is WISH TV's medical reporter, Dr. Mary Gillis. Mary. Alexis, Phil, according to a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, acute corneal allographs are being rejected by immunized patients who've undergone the procedure. Researchers say the underlying cause could be tied to a systematic inflammatory response elicited by the shot. The cornea is the outermost layer of your eye. Corniographs are used to restore vision, reduce eye pain, and improve the appearance of a damaged cornea. The surgery is known to be one of the most successful transplant procedures with low rejection rates. Japanese researchers compiled data from 23 studies, a total of 23 eyes from 21 patients who had undergone corneal graft procedures were assessed.

Graph rejection occurred anywhere from one day to six weeks after vaccination in all patients, some who underwent the procedure as far back as 20 years ago. In the paper, study authors write, as the virus continues to spread, additional booster COVID-19 vaccines are expected, therefore proper follow-up. up of corneal allographed recipients and interventions to prevent cornea oligraph rejection after they received the COVID-19 vaccine may be crucial. Among the list of emerging complications linked to the vaccine are blood clots, heart inflammation, and Gian Barry syndrome. Boy, something you wouldn't have heard in the news two years ago. I mean, what, so what is this thing,

though? I mean, this is horrific. We're talking about people's eyeballs now. Yeah, absolutely. And let's really just jump right into the science that they were. quoting there. Let's look at the study, if anybody wants to look this up. These are the characteristics in clinical ocular manifestations and patients with acute corneal graph rejection after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. So they did a systemic review of the literature and about 13 studies because there's not a lot of literature on this as of yet over the last couple of years, but it's emerging now. So what the researchers wrote was this after looking at all the literature, they said greater than 95% of eyes, 22 of 23 eyes, had corneal allograft rejection within,

three weeks from vaccination. That's a mean of 10.4 days, median seven days. As the global society promotes additional booster schedules in consideration of emerging variance, it is empirical that the effects of these vaccines on corneal grafts be elucidated. So the question is- Let me just clarify, Jeffrey, because I don't want it to be misunderstood and overstated. When it's saying 95%, what it's saying is of the cases of this rejection, 95% of those happened within that three-week period. They're not saying 95% of the people that had this surgery have just had the vaccines cause rejection, correct? I mean, it's correct. Okay, all right. So it's 95% folks of those who had this rejection, it happened within three weeks of having had the vaccination.

Just want to clarify. Yeah, that's an important piece. Thank you. So one of the questions really is, well, how successful are these? And they kind of hinted at in the news segment that we just watch. But here's something out of Australia. This is a study looking at that. How successful is corneal transplantation, a report from the Australian Corneal Graph Register? And it says here, corneal graph outcome was assessed within a large prospectively collected database

of 4,49 records. Penetrating corneal graph survival was 91% at year, at one year, 72% at five years and 69% at seven years. Corneal transplants, Dell, are basically site-saving, surgery and they're performed almost 50,000 times per year in the US. So just give you an idea of what we're looking at here. And really, how successful are they? Well, we look at, this is actually from a book.

This was a book that premed students have to read. It's called Clinical Immunology Fifth Edition. And it says here, the eye is an immune privilege site. Basically that means that the immune system doesn't really have much of a sway on this area. this tissue, kind of like the brain, the nervous system, those are also other immune privilege sites. And it says in corneal graporeal transplants enjoy 91% one year survival as shown by Kaplan Meyer survival analysis. The most common cause of transplantation failure is immunologic rejection. Corneal allograft rejection rarely occurs within two weeks. And remember it was saying with the

rejection within three weeks after vaccination in those in those 22 eyes that they were studying. So before COVID, this was a rare occurrence. It rarely occurred within two weeks. And now it's not. And it goes on to say in that book, we don't have the quote here, but reading more into that, it says the CD4 plus T cells play a critical role in animal models that in the rejection response. But they don't really know the mechanisms in humans. So again, the CD4 plus T cells, you saw that with the myocarditis inflammation.

There's something going on with that mechanism there. It appears that is happening. after vaccination. I mean, even just when we look at that CD4, CD8, see, we keep hearing CD4, CD8 in all these different elements of the body, how this vaccine seems to be affecting the CD4 and CD8 cancers. Ryan Cole has talked about the importance of that. Now we're seeing in the eyes, we're seeing it in the heart, you know, we're messing with, as I said, in the very beginning, we are spielunking into places in the immune system. They've never gone before this MRNA vaccine. And you would have thought some form of a long-term safety trial would have been really good

before you went on this adventure into the bodies of a majority of the planet. Instead, they ran on a wing and a prayer, and it sounds like that prayer has not been answered. Right. Safety study by press release and safety study by media. I mean, each step of the way, we're here to report that, and this is what we do here. And I appreciate everyone watching this, and it's important if anybody has had these transplantations to really alert them if they're having eye problems, and say, show this study to them and say, you may want to get your doctor to look at this or be aware of this because this may be one of the causes.

Wow. Just another, you know, heartbreaking result of science rushing itself. Jeffrey, great reporting. Excellent. Thank you so much for your help. Thank you, Del. All right. Look, if you like Jeffrey Jackson's report here, definitely check out.

He gets into more detail in the written articles. He writes at the Jackson Report at the highwire.com. All right. Well, a moment. I've been holding my breath. Again, this is another bucket list moment here on the high wire. When we listen to Tony Fauci saying he brought the draconian measures, when he was choosing our drugs for us, what we could use, what we couldn't use,

when he was locking us down and destroying our careers, when he was masking our children and messing with their psyche and turning them into hypochondriacs that were afraid to breathe the air, all of these decisions being made from some little office so far away from a patient's bed, it's hard to describe. Perhaps we would want to listen to as the ICUs were being overrun, as he described, one of the world's greatest, most published ICU doctors in the world.

That's who I want to talk to. That's who I want to talk to. I'm talking about Dr. Paul Merrick. He was in the middle of it. We've heard from the legal team that's fighting for the patients that were unable to get the care that they wanted. How about the doctors that wanted to give the care that could save one? lives and they were thwarted by what, a government, by a mandate, by a money-grubbing, you know, hospital system? I'm going to ask all of those questions of maybe one of the most important

voices in the world who has had no fear. This is Dr. Paul Merrick in front of Senator Ron Johnson's second opinion hearing. I think it was the pinnacle and most powerful moment of that hearing. Take a look at this. What's happening now is completely unprecedented in the history of medicine and across the world. We have the federal government, we have state agencies and hospitals telling doctors how to practice medicine. They're interfering with the sacred patient physician relationship. They are telling doctors to be doctors. So I can tell you what happened to me.

So I was using our protocol to treat critically ill patients in the ICU with a whole host of repurposed drugs. I then, this is a memo, this is a memo sent to the entire healthcare system, but they targeted me personally. And what did this memo say? This said, I can use remdesivir, and then I will quote, there was an added section, do not endorse section which includes medications that may cause harm and efficacy is not supported in peer-reviewed published RCTs. These medications will not be verified

or dispense for the prevention or treatment of COVID. This list includes either mectin peculotomy, detoxicide, fluvoxamine, dutestoride and finesteride. And then just to stick it to me, they're at least. added acorbic acid. The healthcare system was effectively preventing me treating my patients according to my best clinical judgment. And then how did this progress? I objected.

So the first week I was in the ICU, I didn't know what to do. What was I to do? My hands were tied. As a clinician for the first time in my entire career, I could. could not be a doctor. I could not treat patients the way I had to be to treat patients. I had seven COVID patients, including a 31-year-old woman. I was not allowed to treat these people. I had to stand by idly. I had to stand by idly watching these people die. I then try to sue the system. And you know what they did? did something called peer sham review. It is a disgusting and evil concept. They then accused

me of seven most outrageous crimes that I had committed and that I was such a severe threat to the safety of patients. They immediately suspended my hospital privileges because I possessed I posed such an outright threat to these patients. Ignoring the fact that under my care, the mortality was 50% those of my colleagues. I then went on through the Sham peer review. I went to a kangaroo court where they continued this, and the end result was I lost my hospital privilege

and was reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. So here I was standing up for patients' rights, And this hospital, this evil hospital, ended my medical career. So that's what they do. It's an outright outrage. It's evil to the core. Powerful emotional testimony is my honor and pleasure to be joined now by Dr. Paul Merrick. Paul.

Thank you, Dale. It's good to be here. All right. It's good to have you here. All right. So you saw, we've got attorneys now. fighting hospitals, going up against hospitals for really wrongful death of patients. You're inside of that system.

And so I really want to try and understand for a doctor inside what the hell happened here. I mean, what happened? Yes, it's a good question. I think the whole system came apart that basically the ability of doctors to do what doctors do is practice bedside. Medicine at the bedside with their best clinical judgment, that was completely usurped. Basically, you were forced to be a follower.

You had to follow the narrative. You had to follow the NIH guidelines. You had to follow the hospital policy. And traditionally, doctors look at their patients, they interact with their patients, and they decide on what's the best medication for their patients. It's very specific and it's very personalized because no patient is the same.

They did not want that. They wanted standard cookie book NIH guidelines. And you touched on this this morning. So when you are hospitalized, the treatment is clear. It's absolutely clear and you will not deviate. You will get remdesivir, although we know remdesivir increases your risk of failure, renal failure 20-fold. But what did they didn't say, it increases your risk of death. You will get REMDivir and low-dose dexamethasone.

If you have the audacity, like I was trying to be a real doctor, using FDA-approved off-label drugs that have been proven, proven to be of benefit in COVID, basically what I was done is I was shut out. The hospital, this is Centauru-Norfec Hospital, had a hospital system-wide policy prohibiting me, prohibiting me from practicing medicine and from treating my patients the way I've thought best and forcing me to use remdesivir. And obviously I couldn't deal with it because that, that's, it led to murder. And that's not what doctors are there for. They're there to advocate for their patients, do what's best for their patients. And so unfortunately, that system

is completely broken that we have the NIH, the CDC, the federal government dictating how doctors practice medicine. We see this with a vaccine, we see this with remdesivir, we see this with banning early effective treatment. If we had, as you mentioned, if we had treated patient earlier with effective treatment, we would have prevented patients progressing, we would have preventing patients going to hospital, we would have prevented patients going to the ICU and we would prevent patients dying but that went against the narrative. The narrative was a shot in every arm and remdesivir. And because of this outrage, it's a moral and ethical and medical and humanitarian outrage,

hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patients have died in this country. And as you correct, this false was led by Thouchy. Archie has never treated a COVID patient in his entire life. He has become the world speaker on the treatment of COVID, yet he's never treated a patient himself. It's imagine if you had a flight instructor or a flight company or FIA who was instructing other pilots to fly that could not fly himself. That's what we were basically dealing with.

And, you know, we've led, it's led into this tyrannical situation and it's unfortunate because thousands of hundreds of thousands of patients that have done needlessly. And then obviously, as you know, the parallel worst part of this is anybody who has voiced any objection or any concern or raised the possibility that there may be alternative is considered a disseminated of misinformation and classified as a domestic terrorist. Yet indeed they are the ones. They are the ones promoting the misinformation. So essentially what has happened, science has been decapitated because science is based on the exchange of information. We have a discussion. We look at each other's data. We discuss the data.

We come up with some plan. But essentially what the federal government and the agencies have done, they have decapitated science. So the science is, as Fauci says it is, follow the science. It's his science. It's really his opinion of what the science is, not the true science. When, and so beautifully put and so horrific and terrifying, especially when it's the one thing, as I said earlier, is the one thing we've celebrated in the United States of America. We don't have a socialized medical system. We are not just a cookie cutter.

We do it how the government says. It is the practice of medicine and the fact that every, the greatest doctors in the world all have come here because this is where they can, you know, take their experiments further. This is where they can look and start working on new pathways to health. And by the way, we have freedom of choice here. If I'm choosing my doctors, then I get to go to the doctor

that's using ivermectin or whatever it is. I mean, I can say, look at your success record. And in this case, case, you had a 50% reduction in the death that was happening in your field. I see you. And I want to be clear about this too, you're not seeing those early patients. When we talk about Zelenko and these other guys, a lot of the success, the treatments they were using was early treatment, right? Early treatment was key. By the time you're getting them, they're moving into this severe space. And so how is it? I mean, I would have to imagine, given that you are, I think, the second most published ICU doctor in the history of medicine.

Okay, you're not just any ICU doctor. You're a world leader in your field. You are showing a 50% reduction in death, which you would think. This is, for all of us out there going, it just can't be true, Dell. How is it? The hospital isn't going, you who over here, send us money. Look at, we've got the biggest star. he's figured it out. He's reducing death in the ICU in the most serious, you know, in the most

serious cases. And you must be high up. I'm thinking you must know everybody in charge of your hospital. You're freaking Dr. Paul Merrick. What are we, am I just delusional? Am I living in a fairy tale of how medicine works, what the standing of someone in your stature has in a hospital system like the one you worked in? So you're right. We, we live in a system that is corrupt. The hospital system is corrupt. Hospitals have become dangerous places for sick people. And it's a terrible thing for me, for having practiced hospital medicine for over 35 years, for me to actually utter that statement that hospitals in this country have become dangerous

places for sick people. And what you say is right, the data I have and the data was supplied to me directly, directly from Centauru Norfolk Hospital. They're going to claim that it's false because they've lied, they've laid, they've laid lied and continued to lie. But the data I have from Norfolk General Hospital that when I was in charge and I was under control, the ICU mortality was 9.8%. Once they started screwing with me and messing with me and prohibiting me doing what I do as a doctor, the mortality in the ICU went up to 22%. It doubled. So we're talking in excess of three. hundred deaths that I'm aware of. And this is because why I was challenging the narrative.

They don't like that. They don't like doctors who speak out. They don't like doctors who look for the truth. They don't like doctors who find fault with the system. And they have a system to get rid of those doctors and they have a system to destroy those doctors and they have a system to prevent them practicing medicine ever again. It's called shamperiore. review and that's what they did to me to destroy my career and from preventing me from practicing medicine it is evil in its most fundamental basic concept and this what what hospitals do I don't think the people in this country recognize the power that hospitals have over doctors they can end their careers they can ruin their careers

if they interfere with the hospital's ability to make Even though I work for a nonprofit hospital, there's no such thing as nonprofit. Their goal, their goal is to make as much money as they can. And we know that. We just saw the data on how much money they get if you intubated, if you put on a ventilator, if you've given remdesivir. It's absurd. The federal...

So can you, do you verify that to you from your experience? We just heard from the attorneys earlier in the show that upwards of $500,000 has been and compensated the hospital. If you move into the system, if you don't send them home, bring them to the hospital, get them into an ICU, get them on a ventilator, put them on remdesivir. All those things have bonuses, including this last one that slapped on.

It's not even amount. It's literally like an increase of 20% to the overall bill if you use remdesivir. Was that an experience you saw happening in the hospital? So I think those doctors are clueless. They don't understand what's going on. honest I think they just lemmings they follow blindly they have no integrity and they just do what they told to do clearly the hospital administrators are acutely

aware of the reimbursement and it's absolutely true if you prescribe remdesivir which let us reiterate again is a toxic drug which increases the risk of dying why would any doctor prescribe such a drug I mean it doesn't make any sense It's a drug which increases your risk of dying and increases your risk of renal failure. Why would any reasonable, compassionate, caring doctor ever prescribe it? But it's on the hospital protocol. Doctors are forced to do it. And hospitals know they get a 20% bonus on top of the whole hospital bill if you prescribe

ribdesivir. That's absolutely true. Wow. Do you think about it, I mean, when you've looked at it, you've used the words like murder, that the hospitals are the last places you want to go now. Does any part of you think this is on purpose, that they're killing people on purpose? Or is it just greed completely out of control? Yeah, so you know, you get to such a fundamental question about humanity and what we are,

our role as humans on this planet, which is to help others and be good. good, to be good, honest, sincere, helpful people. So I don't think doctors per se are acutely aware of what's going on. The hospital administrators are. They are complicit and implicitly involved in this. I don't know what to call it. It's a program to kill people, not help people. So they should be held accountable.

And obviously they may be pressurized by state agencies. and by federal government and by reimbursement. But basically, you know, when you go to a hospital, you assume the hospital has your best interests at heart. That's, you know, you have a patient full of rights. You imagine, but as we heard, you become a prisoner. You become a prisoner. You lose your rights and they will do to you

whatever they want to do. And that's why my advice is if you ever get admitted or hospital, make absolutely sure you have a patient advocate with you all the time to speak for you when you can't speak because they will do the most outrageous things to you. So, you know, when we look at this and, you know, we've talked about the protocols you've been involved with FLCCC and other groups outspoken about many of the drugs that have been denied the use, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, flucovovoxamine, and

all these things that vitamin D and yeah we talk about vitamin me now you know the list of there's a there's a site called early COVID-19 there must be 20 or 25 pharmaceutical or nutraceutical compounds that have been proven yeah proven to be beneficial in the early phase of COVID including vitamin D so that Foucher character apparently he takes vitamin D but he doesn't want to admit it vitamin D is such a simple thing to do. Why doesn't the federal government say, hey guys, just take your vitamin D. Check your vitamin D levels. They don't want to do that because they want you to get COVID, they want you to get sick, they want you to be scared, they want you to get the jab, and

they want you to get remdesivir. We are, this is, this is a, you know, Pira and I say the world's gone mad because none of this makes any sense to any sensible, caring, compassionate human being. You know, one of the things I previously was a producer on the CBS talk show The Doctors, which is sort of how I got in the middle of all this. And the beauty of that job was I got to look for the greatest doctors and scientists in the world. In many ways, someone would write in with a condition. No one can figure out what's wrong with me. And then I would do an investigation around the world, find somebody that's what they're treating. They found a way. And then I got to be like Santa Claus and put these two people together and I'd say to the doctor, look, I can

and show the world what you're doing if you'll give it for free to this patient and we'd put it together. It was an amazing experience. A lot of people ask me, what did you learn from the doctors? And I'll tell you, because some of the, I would say, the doctors that I think,

if I were to describe what I watched when I went in with my cameras and when we did their stories, one healed a girl of a brain tumor in the middle of her brain and had developed a way to get all the way in using endoscopic tools without touching the brain, it was a miracle before my eyes and others like that using all their own tools, having amazing success. What I discovered was every time I found myself saying this is like a Jedi in medicine. This is somebody that is off the charts. If I ever have an issue, this is who I'd go to,

almost every single time that particular doctor was under threat for his license. And not because any patient was against them, but his own peers were writing in and saying, I won't work in the same you know, E-O-R that that doctor's using. I want him out of the hospital. I don't like how he's doing his medicine. It was crazy. I was like, what the heck does it matter what other doctors? I mean, when did they get to be a part of the process? His patients are being healed and her. And so I found that where we think, and this is the thing that I think you're really bringing to light, I would say to people, you know what I learned from the doctors? Is that we think, we think, that the best ideas, we think of medicine and sciences like this movie, where the greatest,

most talented ones that rise to the top and push the envelope that everyone's like going into their OR to watch what they're doing and please teach me, help me, NIH is bringing them in. The opposite is the case. Anyone pushing the envelope, anyone really truly doing things that are miraculous and having success find themselves under threat by the establishment that doesn't want to change the way they've been doing this all along. That was my experience across the board. I would say across the board, you are lucky if you're getting that advanced science. We're lucky if we get Dr. Paul Merrick treating us. In the end, mostly you are getting the most based, the same system that's been used for 60 years, and anyone that's doing something

spectacular is under threat for their license. So, you know, what you say is absolutely true. In fact, there's data to prove it. The Institute of Medicine has shown that a major scientific breakthrough that changes lives. It takes 18 years, 18 years before it becomes established as standard medical. Wow, 18 years. That is, and if you are patient, you die. Right. The system is inflexible. It doesn't like people who want to challenge the system. It doesn't like innovators. They're seen as troublemakers and they need to be dismissed. And so, you know, for patients, you have to be. You have to do research.

You have to be empowered. You have to take your health into your own account. You cannot trust the medical system. Unfortunately, the healthcare system we function under now, you cannot trust it. You have to empower yourselves. You have to do research. You have to figure out what's best for you because the health system will give you false information. I mean, it's amazing as I listen to you to think, you know, how many years in the

ICU have you spent? That he has? years you know obviously there was a time when you really believed in the system you're working in right when did that belief really shift for you was it just COVID so you ask a really good question so i always knew that there was corruption and a big farmer dominated the um curriculum and maybe i was very late for my eyes to be opened but clearly covid has shone a bright light a bright light on the absolute corruption in medicine. And to be honest, it's probably goes back 20 or 30 years.

And, you know, I've realized now that almost everything I've been taught in medical school is wrong. Wow. I have to unlearn everything I've been taught because it's dominated by pharma and it's completely an athlete false and it's a fraud. I mean, most recently I've been really interested in the statin cholesterol fraud. How many people in this country take statins because there's this mistaken belief and it's a fraud Yeah that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease that is a

Fraud yeah and it's perpetrated by big pharma because they want to sell you drugs that you take for the rest of your life They're not interested in curing your disease They're interested in prolonging your disease and your symptoms We can say the same thing for SSRs eyes. We can say the same thing for diabetic medication, the same thing for proton pump inhibitors. So I have had to unlearn everything I taught was taught at medical school because it's false and we have been corrupted. And unfortunately most doctors just don't want to see this. I don't think they, and it's a really interesting question, why don't they see the corruption?

Why don't they see the false medicine that they're practicing? Maybe it's because they're too scared to admit what they've been doing for the last 20 years is wrong. And they just follow. Maybe they're just not interested. Maybe they're just too believing in the medical system. I used to believe in what I read in the medical journals. I used to believe the New England Journal of medicine. I thought it came from heaven.

It was the absolute truth. I now know that it's false. It's fabricated. It's fraudulent. I mean, you even look at the Remdesivir study, published in New England Journal. We know that they committed scientific misconduct. In that Remdesivir study, you may not know this. No.

They changed the endpoint. What they did, Tony Fauci didn't say this in the White House. They unblinded the study halfway. It was not going to reach the predetermined endpoints. The endpoints were death and intubation and being on a ventilator. They realized the study would fail. So what did they do? They changed the endpoint to some nebulous endpoint of time to recovery.

And since they knew which patients were unblinded, they discharged them early. It's a fabricated, fraudulent study. And based on this, and the New England Journal knew this, the FDA. So just to be clear, so that I understand this, they essentially had a study where they were going to show, we have a reduction in death and ventiating. like in extreme results. They were not having that result. They weren't showing it was doing that. So they went in, unblinded everybody. And so we did the placebo group, they got to see everything, and then started moving people in and out of the study to get the result. And they couldn't say

we reduced death, we reduced severe results. Instead they just said, we shorten the time you're in the hospital. They came up with some different arbitrary. That's exactly what they show. Wow. If you go back and look at their fraudulent study, that's what they showed. That was a manipulated endpoint. By Tony Fauci, who is in a regulatory agency that is supposed to be unbiased and simply calling it like he sees it, calling it like they see it, he is personally at the NIH involved in this study and manipulating it. And by the way, we were seeing similarly bad results in every other study being done around the world. The exact opposite of Ivermectin

hydroxychloroquine where you just have this massive ocean of brilliant stuff. studies showing between 50%, 75% reductions when it comes to Ivermectin in death and severe COVID. And yet the NIH finally gets involved in studies in the, and we see the opposite. Their studies are the only ones that show there's a deleterious effect. In this case, they're the only studies that show that Remdesivir works. Now, I want to get to the point because this isn't your first rodeo. You, you know, found yourself in the middle of this COVID thing, and perhaps it was the final straw on your career at the hospital. But there is, I think, almost a bigger issue,

which is, my understanding is the leading cause of death in hospitals in America, or, you know, one or two is sepsis, dying of sepsis. And so many, many people find their loved ones. This is how they've died in the hospital. Tell me about what you discovered as a potential cure for one of the leading causes of death, as we know in hospitals. So this was my introduction to the corruption. You know, I thought if you made it an observation which saved people's lives, that would be important. But as we'll see, people didn't like that.

That goes against the narrative. So you're right. Oh, don't get to the ending this story first. No. Let's let's start at the beginning. You're right. You know, sepsis, which is an infection. Basically, people don't know what sepsis is.

And when you have an infection, which then spreads the risk. the body we call that sepsis. Sepsis involves about 40 million people along this planet every year, 40 million, of which about 10 million die. So we're talking about one of the most important diseases of humanity. And the standard treatment is to give antibiotics, and that's it. So what happened, this goes back to 2016, I had a patient in the ICU who was dying. And so you know, as a physician, you want to do whatever you can to have to have.

help that patient. That's what we meant to do. That's what we trained to do. That's what my South African training has led me to do. You can't just say, okay, she's going to die. You say, well, what can I do to help this patient? So I had previously read a paper by Dr. Fowler on the use of vitamin C for sepsis. And I thought, you know what? I'm going to try it. What do I have to lose? Right. What do I have to lose? This is a safe medication. It's vitamin C. I mean, she's going to die. Let me give it to her. So I read up, ready I contacted the pharmacy we gave this patient intravenous vitamin C my expectation is she wouldn't survive when I came back the next morning I was completely dumbstruck

because she was in multi-organ failure she was on a ventilator in renal failure the next morning she was off drugs that supported blood pressure we got her off the ventilator her kidney function had improved and this lady who would certainly would have died there's no question walked out of the ICU three days later. No way. So I said to you like what you just said, no way. How's that possible? So you know when you have an experience like that you say wow that's pretty cool, I'm going to do it again. You know, I did it again and I did it again and I did it again and I did it again and we saw the same effect. And then you know what our nurses noticed, hey you know what and you know the nurses are the patient's advocates.

They're there to do the best for the patient. If the nurse knows something is true, they're going to tell you. And the nurses were telling me, hey, what's going on here? These patients are getting out of presses early. So they were so used to seeing these people dying, they just became obvious, like, what's going on? All of a sudden people aren't dying of sepsis anymore. Something that we're having to carry their bodies out of here. We're not carrying their bodies out anymore.

What's going on? Yeah, so the nurses were my strongest advocates because they were looking after the patient. they could see this dramatic change. Our use of renal replacement therapy for people in renal failure decreased. So the nurses thought this was astonishing. So what I was actually going to do is a randomized study in which I would randomize some patients to vitamin C and some to placebo. The nurses said, no, we object.

You can't do that. How can you give a patient a placebo when you actually have a treatment that can save their life? They literally were like, it would be unethical. for us to basically kill people to prove that this is working because we're so sure that it's working now to be clear was it just vitamin c by itself or was there a protocol that's that's a good question so what i did is i combined the vitamin c with thiamine i chose thiamine for various reasons which may not have been valid then but actually seems just by coincidence to be a big

good choice because you need fiamine for energy metabolism Thamine is involved in your mitochondria and making energy. And many patients are thiamine deficient. I had added the thiamine for another reason, but it was just fortuitous that it was a good choice. And I added corticosteroids because there's synergistic action between corticosteroids and vitamin C. In fact, subsequently after we did the study, which I'll tell you about, we actually went to the lab at ODU and we actually proved in the lab in a lab model that vitamin C and

corticosteroids were synergistic in protecting cells against bacterial toxins. Wow. All right. So in this situation, you're not attacked by the hospital. The hospital is pretty excited about it. We have a video discussing this massive success and your discovery. Folks, look at how this was treated in the immediate moment where the hospital recognizes, oh my God, we have a hero here. This is incredible. Take a look at this. Her daughter found her in the bed unresponsive, and she called it ambulance, and that's when she went in. We had a young woman who was dying from overwhelming sepsis. She just had all kind of machines and tubes going. Max's done on several pressers. This was a woman who was certainly going to die.

So what Dr. Merrick has done has taken three readily available agents, steroid, glucocorticoid, vitamin C, and thiamine, and put them together in a special combination. A very simple yet elegant research protocol. We gave it to the patient and it worked. We thought it had to be a fluke. But then we started having patient after patient after patient that just had these remarkable results. They would be at death store and 12 hours later they would be like, 50, you know, they would be like

50% better. We literally have seen patients walk out of here we did not think would leave. Sepsis is a devastating disease and over 250,000 patients a year dying in the United States and it's estimated over 8 million worldwide. The incidence is increasing. So obviously it's an important disease. This combination of therapy appears to cure severe sepsis and septic shock. My lab, my team and I were delighted to confirm his findings. We tried, vitamin C alone, nothing happened. We tried hydrochortisone alone and nothing happened. And we put them together and it completely restored the barrier function of the cell.

I have been working in the field of endothelial cell biology for 30 years and this is the first time that we see a treatment that works both in the clinic and in the lab. Obviously, his sepsis is under control. The accomplishments were quite inspiring, significant decrease in the length of stay, significant improvement in reducing the mortality of those patients. Well, this data is preliminary data,

has not been subject to a randomized controlled study. And yet here at Norfolk General, it was deemed to be so effective with such little side effect that it was unethical not to offer this to patients here. We think it's extremely safe with really no adverse effects and it has the potential to save thousands of lives. Whatever you did, it worked. Because my baby's still here. Well, we're looking at right here, folks, is such an important story. This isn't even COVID. This is the leading cause of death in the world. And the idea

that you potentially have the cure, a way to keep this from happening for tens of millions of people across the planet. The leading cause of death in hospitals here, America, but Africa, India, it's incredible how many innocent people are dying here. You have a cure, and it's simple, it's cheap, it's available, and once again, I mean, we're, in some ways that we're getting too used to this story, but I want you to listen to this one. You know, tear back that leather that is around your heart right now and think about how messed up this system is as we get deeper into this conversation. So, Paul, when we talk about it, this protocol. There's a lot of people, as we know, one of the leading cause, if not the leading

cause of death in hospitals. So for people who have a loved one that maybe are being rushed in the hospital, they find out that it is sepsis and they want to recommend to the doctor, what is the actual protocol that they need to know? Yeah. So it's actually not complicated. I think the most important concept is early treatment. Okay. Because as we said, sepsis is very time sensitive and you don't want to delay. So what we recommend is that you start in immediately in the ED, emergency department. So if you think a patient is septic and you're going to give them antibiotics, then I would start them on the protocol.

And if it turns out that they don't have sepsis, well, you've lost nothing, but if you've missed it, you've missed that window of opportunity. And I think that's really the message for doctors is that this is time sensitive. You don't need to do a whole host of special tests. So what you need to do is treat them early. vitamin C is very simple to give. The pharmacy can prepare it very simply. So what are the doses? Yeah. So what you want to do is the vitamin C is the most important out of the whole

cocktail and you want to start this early. So the dose is 1.5 grams of vitamin C has to be given intravenously in a little money bag, you know, infused over 20 minutes. And so that they can start that in the emergency department or they can start that immediately in IAC. Is that something every hospital has in its, like is that around? Like if I ask for vitamin C, the hospital has that? There's no reason that a hospital shouldn't have intravenous vitamin C. It used to be used for intravenous nutrition, but now it's quite commonly used,

and there's no reason a hospital can't get hold of intravenous vitamin C and have it on their formulary. And so they should have it available. They should have it in the emergency department. So it's timely administration is really important. One of the unanswered questions is that if treatment is delayed, do you need a higher dose? And that question I really can't answer. We need to do more studies.

But what I can tell you is that if patients come in early and they treat it early when they come to the emergency department, 1.5 grams every six hours is what works. And then we combine that with thiamine, 200 milligrams intravenously every 12 hours. And the thiamine, I originally added it because I thought it would limit so-called toxicity of vitamin C. That was somewhat erroneous. And thiamine is very good for sepsis. And then the third piece is hydrochortosone. This is a corticosteroid, which is often used for sepsis.

It downregulates the inflammation. It works very well with vitamin C. And so the dose is 50 milligrams every six hours. So this is not a complicated protocol. So, you know, together with antibiotics. So, you know, you give early antibiotics, which is the key to treatment, together with early institution of this protocol. And, you know, I think it's not complicated, it's very safe, it's easy to administer, and, you know, it should become more widely available. Because, you know, as we said, sepsis is a deadly disease.

And you want to do what you can as quickly as you can. And why wait for the disease to progress? You know, rather treat it early before it's progress. You have a hospital. They're excited. Hey, Paul, let's make a video about this. Let's get it out there, right? Really exciting stuff.

You think the world's going to, you know, jump in. And I know we're going to, you know, we've talked about Pierre Corrie. He has a similar discussion about going to the Senate with Ivermectin and just thinking the world is going to open up their arms. Oh my God. We've got a cure for one of the leasing causes of death in the world. The world doesn't open its arms to you. So, you know, as with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D and phlovoxamine, the world does not like cheap repurpose drugs.

This goes against the agenda. You know, it's dominated by big pharma that requires expensive drugs that are used maybe in the U.S. So there was enormous pushback. Enormous pushback. So probably the first was the vitamin study. So, you know, it seems unthinkable that people would design a clinical study which is designed to fail. It seems obtuse. It seems immoral.

It seems illegal. But we've seen that with COVID. There's no question with COVID. There were studies that were designed. specifically to fail. And so the same thing has happened with vitamin C. Well, clearly in the Solidarity trial, they used lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine in that study, whereas everyone that having success using 400 milligrams a day, 600 milligrams a day, they use 2,400 milligrams a day. And in that situation, didn't call Vladimir Zelenko,

didn't call you, didn't call D.D.A. Rayut, who really, I think, sort of brought this hydroxychloroquine discussion to the forefront. They just go with their own numbers and clearly set out to destroy the success of this product for whatever unknown agenda. And similarly, you're having these amazing results. And they decide to have a study. They call you on how to do it. So no. So the first one was the vitamin study, which was done in Australia. I was hopeful that it would be, I mean, I was convinced it would be positive because Australians are generally good doctors and so what actually happened as they did the study and it was being presented in Belfast in 2020 and what they the organizers did is they invited

me to give the editorial response to them presenting the paper it was going to be published in JAMA but what they did is they would not give me access to the paper they would not give me the paper to analyze so I had to give you an editorial response to a study, but they would not give me the study. This is JAMMA and the organizers. I mean, this is called a scientific ambush. I mean, I didn't realize what was coming. This I was going to ask you. So you're invited. Hey, Paul, we've got this great study we've done out of Australia, the vitamin study looking at the vitamin C protocol. We'd love for you to be there so you can make some comments about it. And you're thinking, great, this is finally getting

traction, right? The world is going to see what I know to be true. Yeah, so I mean I was convinced it would be positive firstly why would they invite me and if they did the study properly Which I thought they would have done, you know, it was going to be positive So you know it's at this time that I you know Pier and I got together. You know I had never met Pierre before here Corey we're talking about you know, you know so this is how our history in dealing with this corruption goes back So Pierre had been using vitamin C he had communicated with me and he had great success with vitamin C. So he was excited that vitamins was being presented. Yeah. So he actually came with me to Belfast as the first time I actually met here. Wow.

In Belfast and then the bottom fell out of the tank. Okay, so hold on one second because we have a video of this event I want to play. At what point do you know by the time you get there and you're gonna be up on the stage prior to being up on the stage there did it become clear to you that this is a this is a hit piece that this this study. So they'd handed to you what 24 hours ahead of time? So the day before, which is like 16 hours before I was actually made to present, they gave me a copy of the paper to present it in JAMA. I mean in terms about being unprofessional,

being, it basically was a scientific and academic ambush. I mean you just don't treat people that way. And obviously the paper was negative and it was clear why it was negative and it was clear why they wanted to hide it from me but they didn't give me you know enough time to prepare a response so obviously I was angry and Pierre was angry all right and I think that's what consolidated our great friendship okay we'll get into that in a second folks what you're about to watch I want to just put this into some context you have again we have we have told this story before here and if this is your first time watching the highwire

go back and watch other interviews with Pierre Corey and Robert Malone and and multiple other geared band and Bosch. You're going to see a recurring theme here, but I want you to step into your humanity here because this is an amazing story. You have Dr. Paul Merrick has found this brilliant cure for sepsis. So effective, no nurse will even allow him to do a randomized control trial inside of their hospital

because they're not gonna be witnessed to unethical murder. That is the success level. You just saw one of the lab technicians saying, I'd never seen anything like this. We were seeing it right before, our eyes. This isn't a miracle. It's happening. It's real. It's science. Okay. This, you know, he's trying to, Paul's trying to get the word out to the world. We can save millions and

millions of people. He gets a call. Come on down, Paul. We got another study, a big study, the randomized control study that your nurses were afraid to do because of their ethical issue. And you get there 24 hours ahead of time. You finally see that you have been set up. All the programs have your name on it. You're going to be on the stage. And you're, you now know that I am going to be filleted, my, you know, greatest discovery. And forget about the personal side of this. Imagine how many lives are about to be lost. You remember the Andrew Hill, you know, meeting that we saw with Teslori.

This is one of those moments. You can see the body language when we just saw you. This is just a few of the excerpts from this meeting. Watch Dr. Merrick. Imagine yourself in this position as you're sitting on the stage knowing what's about to happen. Take a look at this. Welcome to the next session of critical care reviews, where we're going to again live stream across the world the results of the vitamins trial. We're honoured to have the results.

We're also honoured to have Paul Marik here. With that, I will hand over to Tomoko Fouji, who's going to give us the results for the first time of the vitamins trial. The report zone was administered within nine hours and vitamin C was administered within 12 hours after meeting the eligibility criteria of septic shop. So primary outcome. In the control group, time alive and free of bus suppressor after day seven

was 124.6 hours. In the intervention group, it was 122.1 hours. hours. The median of all pair differences was minus 0.6 hours and there was no statistically significant difference. When we adjusted for site and baseline imbalance which was navigated by P-value listing 0.2 again there was no difference in the two groups. If we're to wait further trials to perhaps support Dr. Marik's theory about this combination therapy what do we do in the meantime? Do we

use the trio as a just-in-case measure as a measure of last resort given that we haven't shown it has any survival benefit. Maybe as we usually do we will wait for the results for many ongoing trials examining the effect of combination therapy and also there are many trials are ongoing to examine the effect of more high-dose vitamin C therapy so I I think we should wait until seeing the... And Paul, you can sit there as well. My question is to you. If your daughter was in the ICU dying of septic shock,

would you deny her a therapy that we know, we know absolutely for a fact is safe, and that may potentially save her life? That's the question you need to ask. There are no downsides. There are absolutely no downside. The only downside is you may save the patient's life. to deny it, I think is

unacceptable. And then that's just the way it is. The problem with the ongoing trials, and I have severe reservations about these trials, I was never consulted on any of them because I was told I would telepathically, let me say that,

telepathically alter the outcome of the study. So I was never consulted on any of these studies. And I am fearful that the problems with this study are going to be replicated. If you're going to do randomized study, you better be sure it's well designed and it replicates world, real life, world experience. So when it's your daughter dying in the ICU, think about it. So I'm going to take

a couple of the suggested people who have used it. Dr. Merrick referred to my work, which is about to be published next month. And just on this timing issue, so I think it's important because you clarified time from eligibility which means that you met all the criteria which even required a few hours of pressers if I recall I think I heard that you know what we found in our data because Paul referred to it is that we saw no benefit after about 12 hours from presentation so all of the benefit was early administration and we measured it from ED triage time so as soon as that patient came with some complaint that led to septic shock that's where our

clock started and when I designed my trial It never even occurred to me to include someone who would be as much as 24 hours. Those are medians that you're presenting. So again, I don't want to hop on the bandwagon here, but the timing is just, I'm a little confused. And so Dr. Merrick presented that table showing all these other trials. And I want to commend this meeting. This is a great meeting, listening to trialists and hearing the conduct of clinical trials and the challenges and some of the nuances. And some of the achievements, I mean, those trials that were presented yesterday, when you see how quickly they've got,

to the intervention, it's remarkable. In African children, hundreds of patients, they're all treated within six hours, can maybe the trialist speak as to why this trial diverged from all the other trial? This is critical care, right? So critical illness, multi-organist function, that's the pathway to death.

The delays seem a little bit odd in the design. And so I just want to say, because our data that's going to be presented really shows that the time thing is just a major variable. I mean, after 12 hours from presentation, We don't see it altering outcomes. So who thinks we need more trials of vitamin C to answer the question if it changes outcome? Okay, that's good.

Next question. Who would treat their nearest and dearest if they were dying of sepsis with the MARIC intervention? So interesting. Boy, is that interesting? And I have to say I'm losing more and more faith every day in doctors. And when you see that result, I don't know, quarter to one-third of the audience, we'd rather let their loved one die because we don't have any other treatment than to take the risk, Paul Merrick is talking about the only risk being you might have some success

because vitamin C is inert. So folks, for all of you married or living with a doctor, and that's how they're going to vote, I'm sorry, watch out for yourself. Obviously, we've got to figure out how we're training these doctors. but an amazing moment and instead of sort of, you know, dragging Paul through it, I actually wanted to invite Pierre Corey

into this conversation. We reached out last minute. I understand he was a few minutes. He's going to join us now via satellite. Here we go. And, you know, Pierre, I've obviously had moments to see you speak and be around you. That's about the most measured I've ever

seen you. I mean, that was incredible. That's incredible how you laid that out. But what was it like to have to sit in that audience when you know you're a passionate guy you also were doing your own studies you saw merrick's work you're doing your own studies with vitamin c they're amazing right and then you go with him to say man let me support you let me be there where again this you've i mean you keep being in these moments you've been at the senate hearings you did ivermectin but this is this is even before that you go to this meeting thinking this is it we can save millions of people to sit and watch him

going through this hit job with this study. What was that like in your experience and what, you know, watching it? Well, I would start to deal with what it's like now. I just had to watch that. And I, it's like PTSD. I was literally fidgeting in my chair. I wanted to scream because it's, it was really tragic what happened. And, you know, when, when, when Paul and I plan to go, I mean, it was really to go, I wouldn't say celebrate, but we were so optimistic and so looking forward to changing the trajectory of sepsis. I mean, really, Paul had discovered and identified a profoundly life-saving therapy. And I know that. Many other people know that, but that's not what happened. You know, when you talk about how maybe measured I was in my comments, there was a warning

before the session started, the discussion by the moderator saying that he knows that this is an emotionally charged issue, and he asked everyone for calm and no vitriol. And so, you know, I adopted a rather inquisitive approach. Like, why did you do this when I knew exactly, actually, at the time, Del, I made the same mistake I made again in early COVID is I thought, I thought the trialists were ignorant and stupid. Let's just use the word ignorant. I thought that they designed the trial because they didn't understand the time sensitivity of an intervention in a medical emergency and and to give them the benefit of ignorance rather than malevolence I made that mistake again you know when I made that mistake again it was in March of 2020 when I heard that the FDA was restricting

hydroxychloroquine to the hospital I said to myself gee that seems awfully ignorant why would you give a potential antiviral you know 10 days into the disease and so every time you know my neat naivete thinks that an action done by either trialists or journals or agencies is ignorant. I've been constantly disproven that it's not. It's quite malevolent. And I don't know who designed that trial, but I got to tell you, if you look back at the history of vitamin D, and now the history of vitamin C since that meeting, you see a medical literature polluted with absurdly designed trials, which are designed to fail, designed to show no benefit. Pharma attacks vitamins, any natural supplements, any non-obscene profit-producing intervention,

it gets destroyed in the medical literature. And it's like Paul said. I mean, science is it's just been rotten, rotted to the core by these influences. I think there are great scientists. There are great doctors. The problem that you mentioned also on this show is that, unfortunately, there are so many doctors practicing in a rotten system who have no awareness that it was rotten.

And that was me. That was me up until I would say it started at Belfin. My awakening started in Belfast and then COVID was like a master class in the corruption. Paul, so how was this study designed? I mean, I know that, you know, we see in that video, Dr. Corey gets up and talks about like the sort of timing issue. I know one of the big hydroxychloroquine studies that Anthony Fauci pointed to was in veterans. And when we looked at that study, they were like on their deathbed. It was like the last measure being used when everyone was saying early treatment is obviously with hydroxychloroquine especially.

If you're going to have success, the earlier you treated upon diagnosis, let's get this in there. We also knew that the disease within five days we started learning had done all of his damage, and now you're just dealing with sequela. So in this situation, is it similar? Was the timing of the use of this? Was that the issue that you had with the study? So out of all diseases we know, out of every single disease we know, sepsis is the most time-sensitive disease. It's absolutely time-sensitive. So imagine if you went to a hospital in septic shock with a bacterial pneumonia

and a risk of dying, and the doctor said, you know what, we're not going to give you antibiotics now. We're going to wait until tomorrow. Right. We're going to wait until tomorrow because it's not important to treat you. That's exactly what they did. in this study they haven't they never told us the time delay we know that it was at least from the time they were admitted to hospital to the time they got the first dose of vitamin C at least

18 hours wow we don't really know the date the dose the the the duration because they won't share it with us because they know they made a mistake wow we know they waited at least 22 hours before sorry they waited at least 18 hours before they got the time the first dose. And, you know, Pierre has done some really good data showing that it's a very time-sensitive disease. And if you look at the successful vitamin C studies, they're all given within 10 hours, preferably six hours. So as Pierre said, whether this was just stupidity and bad thinking or was done on design, the study was destined to fail. When I thought about this, and I've always thought of sepsis like blood poisoning, like

it's running throughout my body. I thought this would be the case of imagine your child is bit by a rattlesnake or a cobra, depending on where you live. You rush them to the hospital, and they say, you know what, we're doing a trial right now, and in our trial, we are not going to give the antidote for the toxic venom running through their veins right now that's infecting your blood, moving through your body for 18 hours. Like, no one would do that.

So when you explain this, I mean, that is what sepsis. sepsis is moving so quickly, it's as though you are, you know, you're poisoned, right? You're dying of toxic poisoning systemically through the body. The idea that they're saying like 12 hours after, they're only going to begin looking at 12 hours, I think, after they've sort of diagnosed it. Who knows how long it took the diagnosis? All of those things are the hours you're talking about. You're saying it looks like at least 18 hours that they waited. And once again, just like this solidarity trial, I would say this, not only are the,

they inept? Not only are they inept, not only is this study a fraud and a disaster, I believe these people clearly murdered people to make a point. These studies are being done in a way. You would never make someone in septic shock wait that long for anything, except they're going to make them wait that long for vitamin C. You can't tell me that's accidental. Pierre, there's no way that's accidental. There's no way. And, Del, let me make that point. So, you know, you just showed what, you know, that initial debate discussion where we critiqued. the fatal flaw of that trial. That was well publicized. A lot of intensivists around the world saw that meeting. A lot of the, you know, the world's eyes were on that meeting, at least in our

specialty. Now, I've also written editorials, which have been published in high-impact journals, you know, really emphasizing the time sensitivity and the need for early treatment. Guess what, Dell, since that Vitamins trial was published, we have now, I don't know, maybe five or six large, double-blind, multi-center, rigorous prospective control trials, of of IV vitamin C and the Merrick Protocol, which all continue to give it late. So, you know, I would have given a pass on the first thing for not understanding the therapy, but when you see the entire medical system and the research infrastructure, continue to crank out trials where they're not giving it early.

It's absurd. And that's why I'm calling foul here. Again, don't make me be naive again, though, because I've learned a lot. Yeah. All right. When we're talking about, you know, this, what is the mechanism? And why is vitamin, when you've looked at, why is vitamin C working? For those of us that have brains recognized that should one of our loved ones find themselves in this situation,

we're going to say, I want the Merrick Protocol. Why does it work? Yeah. So it's a fascinating question you answer. What people may not know is that all organisms on this planet, all plants, all animals, all animals, your dog, your cat, your goat, your cow, make vitamin C. except for anthropoid primates and guinea pigs. They are the only two species on this planet that do not make vitamin C. And vitamin C actually is an essential stress hormone.

So when your little doggy or cat gets stressed, apart from making cortisol, it increases secretion of vitamin C. It's an essential stress hormone. So humans have lost, the evolutionally lost the ability to, make vitamin C when they stressed. So the inference is whenever the human being is severely stressed you need to get them vitamin C because it detenuates the cortisol response. But vitamin C is very important. It's not by accident. So it's not by accident that most other species make vitamin C. It's the most potent antioxidant. It's

antioxidant in the cell, in the mitochondria, in the nucleus. It's it's an antioxidant in the nucleus. It's a very potent anti-inflammatory drug working at many different places in the inflammatory cascade. It improves the microcirculation. It has antiviral and antibacterial properties. So it's very important for collagen synthesis, which is what makes tissue. So it has a whole host of very important biological properties. And that's why animals make it when they stress that's why you know sepsis is less of a problem in in animals because they make vitamin C we've genetically lost the ability we we are mutants we are vitamin C mutants that have lost the ability and the obvious inference is that when you

stress take vitamin C it's safe it's effective and that's what every other species that does particularly the stress of septic shock it has so many biological properties. I mean, you know, Dr. Katravis showed it in the lab. I mean, he showed in there, but there are multiple studies showing the protective effect of vitamin C. So it's not like this was some arbitrary thing that we invented that had no biological basis. This is a profound biological basis going back, you know, decades. So, and it's cheap. It's cheap. That's why they don't like it. Right. I mean, this is what's so. so tragic about our medical system. Even when you watch, you know, Ivermectin, there are

other versions of Ivermectin coming out right now with new names and you realize the only reason the company that made it trashed it was we're not going to make any money on that. We would rather reproduce something else. We are in a tragic, tragic space where there's going to be no, if the cure for cancer, the cure for all of these ailments don't end up being a $30,000 a treatment drug, you're never going to find out about it. If some old drug or some old vitamin ends up being what can actually cure us, no one in medicine is ever going to promote that to us. I mean, and even drugs outside of my drugs that work, like we said, Ivermectin, hydroxychloric

with these drugs that work, once they're off patent, you know, off this, you know, getting the big funds, they literally just, they're burying their own drugs. Like we're, you know, it's like we're starting brand new in every disease now. I mean, it's insane, you know, Pierre, I want, what are we to go from here? I mean, vitamin C, because you brought this up to me, you know, you said you've got to have Paul on what do we do here? I mean, we're talking about the ability to save millions and millions of people's lives. Are there any hospitals working with you to do the proper trials? Can you do the proper trials? What's got to happen here? Do we need funding? What's the answer? Yeah.

So there has been at least a good faith attempt to study vitamin C properly. In fact, what Paul talked about about wanting to be consulted, he was consulted by a group in Belgium, a very leading intensivist. And they tried to do a trial where they assured that patients who arrived to the room got the therapy within six hours. But here's the trick about that. When you enroll people rapidly, what you find is that many of them were not sick enough. And so you need to study large numbers.

And so they enrolled a whole bunch of people. But unfortunately, with critical care, there's kind of three categories of patients. Those that are going to do well anyway, those who are going to do well anyway, those who are are going to probably die anyway no matter what you do. And then there's this middle where you can really affect a trajectory. And in that trial, they unfortunately enrolled a lot of people with mild disease. And so it didn't show as large impacts as we would have wanted. I think they're continuing to a role. So that's one pathway is that a good study is done, which kind of validates what we've been saying. I don't know when and how that's going to happen. I think the other route

is unfortunately maybe similar to the, I wouldn't say we had a playbook with us. All we did is we identified a positive drug. We had good rationale, tons of great data, and we advocated and disseminated our knowledge. And I think, you know, we're going to want to do that same thing with vitamin C. I mean, we do have tons of supportive data. You know, you just showed a slide of what it called met analyses. I think because of the weakness of the design of those trials, the impact that is measured. And it is shown to be impactful in sepsis. If you collect all the trials, I just think it's an underestimate of its true impact. And I think we're going to take the data we have, the rationale we have, our expertise, experience.

And I would also say, at least in some measure of society, the credibility that Paul and our group has gained with what we got right in COVID. And I think hopefully we can take that credibility and start, you know, the awareness of the critical importance of IV vitamin C. The problem, Dell, is the last thing I'm going to say is, you know, when people and, you know, try to advocate to get treated with, you know, repurposed drugs in COVID and went to the hospitals, I mean, it was a war. You know, there's a lot of negative relationships between the care providers and the patients and their families. And we don't want it. We don't want to stir up negative feelings or destroy therapeutic relationships. But I do think it's going to be patients advocating for their care and families advocating for their loved ones and they're going to be facing just like in

COVID they're going to be facing a system doctor who's being taught that vitamin C is nonsense and that it doesn't work they're going to be made ignorant on it and and I again I don't want these wars I just want people to listen to people who have expertise experience and and and to be willing to be teachable and we're not finding that in the system but we're going to keep trying all right here I want to thank you for taking time I know you're rushed around got a lot going on. We're going to have you on very soon to talk about your new books. I'm looking forward to that. And I'm going to finish up here with Dr. Merrick talking about the incredible work FLCCCC is doing on treatments of long COVID and all that. I'm going to wrap that up here.

But I know you've got to run. So thank you for taking the time. Thanks, Del. Bye, Paul. Hey, there is a new vitamin C twist to the story. Yeah. Which you may not know. So I think you saw from the video clip the positive response from the nurses, the CEO of the hospital, the dean. So obviously things have changed with time. You know, I was forced to quit because I, they wouldn't let me practice medicine. So now those very people who were supporting me, those very people who saw the great success, those very people accusing me of fabricating the data.

Oh my God. Wow, so they're going to go against the own success they saw in the hospital. So they don't want to admit that I was right. They don't want to embrace that I was right. They see me as the enemy and they will do whatever they can. They will do whatever they can to take me down. That is the vicious evil system that we function under. I mean the nurses spoke for themselves. Nurses don't lie.

And so what they're now saying is that those nurses were misleading, they were mistaken, that I was harming patients, because that's essentially what they're claiming, is that my claim that vitamin C improves the outcome of patients was false and fabricated. All right, well, you know, obviously we have a lot of work to do to fix this system, but one of the things I wanna just talk about, you know, now, you know,

people that are watching this show, they know they can request, you know, IV vitamin C, the information's out there. We'll make sure if you are on our newsletter, you're gonna get exactly, you know, what those would be in the papers that have been written all that. That's one of the beauties of what we're doing here. But lastly, you haven't stopped.

You haven't given up. You may have left that hospital, but you and Pierre Corey and a team of great scientists and doctors have really been working on this repurpose in this repurpose medicine space. So I want to ask you because it's the biggest question we get. And one of the things that, you know, is we keep talking about all the problems with this vaccination, you know, these long term effects, all the problems long COVID is an issue for people.

people that got it, whether they're vaccinated or not. You've been looking at these issues. So are there ways through? Are you finding some combinations of drugs and vitamins that are effective in these spaces? Yeah, absolutely. So one of the greatest humanitarian crises, apart from sepsis, facing this planet is vaccine injury.

So although the CDC and the NIH cannot find no signal of harm, you know, minimally we anticipate there may be 10 million, 10 million vaccine injured people in this country. And we've spoken to many people. They are profoundly injured. Many of these have severe neurological injuries. So what we've been focusing on is we've been focused on how can we help these folks. Because the medical system has abandoned them.

They're considered a disease that doesn't exist. They won't research it and they will not certainly do studies on how to treat it. So Pierre, myself and our group have put together protocols protocols to treat the vaccine injured and those with long COVID. And it is a treatable disease. Let me say this. There's no disease known to man that you can't treat. You can treat it as best you can.

Now there's no, we're not saying we cure every patient, but we can certainly make them better. We can certainly make an attempt to cure them and to help them. So there are a whole host of therapy. So we have put together a post-vaccine treatment protocol. called I recover and it has a number of components and the most interesting and it's somewhat fortuitous we came across this is something called intermittent fasting. So intermittent fasting stimulates a process called autophagy or as I like to say autophagy. So the spike protein as you saw previously gets into the cell.

Yes. So the question is how do you get rid of the spike? Yeah. So there's no magical detox or some magical formula. The only way you can get rid of this protein in the cell is for the cell to break it down itself. Okay. It's pretty obvious physiology. You have this foreign protein in the cell. So what has to happen is the cell has to break down this folded, misguided protein. And it does it through a process called autophagy. This has evolved over millions of years. Every organ. on this planet does autophagy to get rid of bad protein and there are a number of ways of stimulating autophagy the most important is intermittent fasting really we it's fascinating wow so we recommend that but there are a number of other drugs which stimulate autophagy including resveratrol which is a plant flavonoid a product called spermodyne which is a polyamine

Ivermectin stimulates autophagy. The other benefit of ivermectin is it actually binds to the spike protein, so it helps the host, it helps the process of autophagy get rid of spike. So what we've developed is a protocol to help the cell or help the body heal itself by getting rid of the spike. Wow. And it's a truly fascinating concept. So the treatment protocol protocol is really two pronged. The first is a method to get rid of spike and the second is to add therapies which minimize the toxicity of the spike because spikes a bad piece of it does some really bad stuff. It does clotting, it does inflammation, it causes bad stuff to the brain. So the two pronged approach is get rid of spike and minimize the impact

the spike has on the body. So the caveat to that is not everyone who has been vaccinated is vaccine injured. We get this question a lot, okay, you know, I took the vaccine, I shouldn't have done it, I have vaccine remorse, what can I do? So I say, well, if you're not symptomatic and you have no direct complications from the vaccine, just take a healthy diet, adopt a healthy lifestyle, exercise, take a good diet and just count your are just being lucky. Played Russian roulette and you won. So most people are okay. If you vaccine injured, I think it's very important to look at these protocols and you proactively

do whatever you can to minimize the impact of spike. Spike is probably the most toxic protein we know. Wow. And you need to do whatever you can to help your body get rid of spike. When, so in the treatment of long COVID from a natural infection versus vaccinated, is it the same protocol? So it's similar. So we know that people who have long COVID continue to have spike. So there's some very good studies done by Dr. Patterson. They looked at white cells and they found that people with long COVID up to 16 months after long COVID still have spike protein in their white cells. The same thing happens with the vaccine is that for some reason, and the spike is very devious because the way it does is the host can't get rid of spike.

So the spike circulates in your cells and continues to do all its badness. So what you have to do is get rid of the spike. So there are some overlaps between long COVID and vaccine injured because it's due to spike. But we find that neurological injuries are a major problem with vaccine. vaccine injured patients, much greater preponderance of neuro injuries with vaccine injured as opposed to long COVID. Now both of these protocols are on your website? Yes.

So both are on the website. It's called I recover vaccine. I recover long COVID. Okay. Here you are. You're looking at it folks. So many of you've been asking here it is if you want something you can do whether you've been vaccinated or maybe you're suffering from long COVID.

Obviously, you know, these are going to be very very. results we're not here you know saying there's some miracle cure but I would say under the circumstances you know you should really step into this you guys are really thoughtful in looking at ways to handle this yeah so what I need patients need to empower themselves yes because they're not going to get this information from their doctor right because the doctors don't believe this they think most of these patients are just faking it well I don't understand it but we do have a glimmer of hope and well I'm really excited because FLCCC is

putting on an educational conference in Florida next month. Great. It's a medical conference to teach physicians and healthcare providers how to deal with spike-related disease. It's unique in its kind because it's a topic that the medical community wants to ignore. Yes. They do not want to tell doctors how to treat the disease because they don't think it exists. So we've put together a host of experts and we have, you know, 10 lectures, 11 lectures, and we're actually now offering continuing medical education credits. So, you know, we're really excited about this

because I think, you know, we need clinicians in this country and across the world to understand that this is a real disease. These people are really suffering. They need to be helped, and they need the resources and the support to treat them. It's fantastic. I mean, so many people could just, just be crushed and left sitting in a rocking chair in their house somewhere after all you've been through multiple times,

you know, through the gauntlet, a leader in your field and still leading. Obviously, there's so many things we could talk about today, but I want to just thank you for taking this time and helping us realize that there are brilliant people in medicine. And hopefully many of them watch this show. So many scientists and doctors write in and say, I love how scientific you get because regular news does do anything for me. But I see the papers I need to read. I see the work that I need to do. And hopefully your message will get out. And I see a brighter future.

I think that there is actually, even politics, if we could get the right president elected that could shift in new heads of NIH, you know, health and human services, CDC. Maybe, you know, let me ask you that just lastly. Someone said to you, Dr. Paul Merrick, we'd like you to run the National Institute of Health. Is that something you would do? I would do it. Because, you know, Piers' goal and my goal is to help as many patients as men. We have no financial interest. None.

We have no stock in any pharmaceutical company. We don't sell anything. We have no conflict of interest. And our goal, I mean, we landed, this was not our intention. We just bedside doctors. We were kind of pushed into the situation of helping patients. And, you know, we will do whatever we can. And we will continue to do whatever we can to help patients

because that's what doctors are meant to do. And, you know, I thank you so kindly because you're a pioneer out there who's willing to challenge the status quo and speak the truth. And, you know, what we're doing is we're just speaking the truth. We're speaking the science and we're speaking from the heart, you know. What's important, we have no vested interest. We're not selling anything. We're just trying to help people.

Well, I mean, look, it takes one to know one. You are a pioneer. It's an honor to know you. And, you know, any way we can help, any way that we can help as you move forward, there's a huge shift taking place. I believe that there's a brighter day from medicine ahead, a more transparent space that isn't afraid to look into all the different places where healing can take place,

that isn't driven by doing. driven by dogma and certainly isn't driven by bureaucrats. Yes. Bureaucratic medicine will be the death of all of us. And I think you represent that. No, I agree with you. I think there's an alternative system emerging. I think there's now a body of people who are become enlightened.

And there are many of us similar-minded people who are coming together and that's what we need to do because they are losing and they are going to lose because the truth is on our side and they are going to lose. So people need to decide which side you want to be on the losing side or the winning side. Amen to that. Dr. Paul Berrick, thank you so much for joining us today. It's such a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, look, if you're brand new or maybe you're thinking, God, I have so many friends that should have heard that today, that have long COVID or had a relative die of sepsis and all this information is being shared in the high You know, or for those of you who may be just seen the show for the first time, you want to know how many scientists like this have

Dot, they'll talk to. Well, we've got a great little promotional video that you can share with your friends and it looks just like this. The informed consent action network. You know them as I can. The Highwire and I can fighting on your behalf. The High Wire, you know, Del Big Trick. Thank you to all the individuals who are watching on a high wire across the world. Without further ado from the Highwire, friend of mine, a friend of yours, Mr. Del Bigtree. We did it! Here we are. Present and accounted for. You were at The Doctor's Show.

You were being forbidden to talk about what you were seeing and what you knew needed to be talked about. So you went out and created the High Wire. Wherever you are out there in the world. How about we all step out onto the High Wire? When the whole pandemic stopped, this was really where I got my knowledge from. I saw all the scientists, all the doctors. Religiously, every Thursday, we need that encouragement from each other. You allowed a lot of us to take that dive into the science and really get immersed in it.

So thank you. This is why I love watching your show. This is why I love watching you. It's a comprehensive overview, but it's also built and supported with detail and with evidence. CNN and Anderson Cooper has been reaching out to us and all the other mainstream guys. I need to share my side of the story and I know that there's only one person who's going to do it right and that's Del Big Tree. You guys are the mainstream media now. They're done and dead. It's over. The media like the Highwire in Del Big Tree not only reporting the truth every week, but also fighting in court for justice.

I think what we have in common is the passion for the truth, right? I see you as somebody who's investigating, you know, what are the real facts and data. You are one of the beacons for all of us. When things get really dark, I turn on the eye wear. Lifts me back up every time. Delle, your confidence is so inspiring. Thank you for doing all that you do, fighting the good fight. Delle, I really appreciate your hard work and you team.

Thank you for giving us a voice. I appreciate you so much. It's an honor to be here, thank you. What can we create when we connect together? Good to be with you, Dill. You too, brother. Thank you for your continued support and your friendship, Della. We're just grateful for the chance to talk to you

and for your support and interest in our latest declaration. declaration. It's great to be on your show and thank you for everything you've been doing in terms of providing the truth to people regarding COVID and the vaccines. You've been in a war zone of your own. It's a really lethal war zone, right? When you get into the realm of big farmer and all that money that is at stake there, all the power players. This is a war for survival. Survival of the soul of humanity. Ultimately, it's going to have to take people ready to sacrifice everything in order to bring the truth to the world. I've been one of the silent people with injured children. who have hidden behind you, rooting you on for years,

and it's time that I stand beside you. We're standing up, and we're fighting for you. We're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. That is what the truth is all about. That is what being alive is all about, and that's what the High Wire is about. I'll see you next week. Make sure you grab your friends, get that video out to them,

and get them watching the High Wire. Together, we are building a community, a worldwide community. to change the world, to make the world a better place. COVID has been harsh, it's been brutal. I've said it time and time again, but out of that darkness, and in many ways, maybe these are just the birth pangs, for that evolution that every society and every generation

has ever dreamed about, what are we really capable of when we rise to be the best of ourselves? We are seeing the worst of ourselves being played out in hospitals and in, you know, administrations and regulatory agencies around us, but we should not be disempowered by that. We should be empowered by what we have seen our places in this world. We are winning. It has got to be clear to you.

And if you're having trouble understanding that, then start talking more to the people that are your side. Start talking about the benefits. Stop talking about the they that you don't control. All the people that aren't listening, the doctors that are poisoning us. Start talking about all of these great doctors. That whole trailer, I mean, we could have gone on. It could be an hour long with all the amazing world-renowned scientists,

the absolute best of the best, have been here on the high wire, bringing to you the truth. They have hoped. They're standing up. They weren't here five years ago, 10 years ago. It had to get this bad that suddenly we all find ourselves in the same room, scratching our head saying, hey, are we going to do something about this, or are we going to just be rolled over?

We are standing together now. The Highwire is a meeting place for all of us. This is a discussion forum. It's everything that we've dreamed about in media, and now it's coming together with what we've dreamed about in medicine. Great scientists finding each other. And now we are more and more going to start bringing you the protocols and the efforts that are being made to help you, to help your loved ones.

This is not a time where we should spend all of our energy poo-pooing the problems of our world. have always been there. They've been difficult. Yes, they're all coming to a head now. But if you're focused on the problem, you're not focused on the victory. Pull your head out of whatever's, but you've got it into, whether it's your own or somebody else's, and look up to the light, look to what is possible. Look at what we are capable of. Instead of being brought down by those around you, lift them up. Stand for something. Be dynamic. Be exceptional. Make this lifetime I'm the greatest that ever was and ever will be.

You should be proud every day when you go to bed to say, you know what? I'm living my life. My kids are watching me live my life and speak my truth. And I'm showing no fear. And my kids are watching me show no fear. I'm representing what it means to be a human being. I'm making a difference in this world, even if it's just one conversation or one person, or one element, or one truth, or one piece of change that I'm a part of.

Maybe all I'm doing is giving a little bit to the high wire so they can fund these great scientists and give them a platform that we can help change the world. But please do something, do something, and then celebrate it and get your attention off of what's wrong with us and focus on how magnificent we are, how brilliant we are, and how good we're doing, and how afraid of us they are. They're screaming, ah! in their emails because they know their days are numbered and our time has come. This is the High Wire. Join us. Be brave. Be strong. Be loud. Be joyful. Follow the light. And I'll see you there. I'll see you next week. I'm High Wire.