The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE DEADLY TOXIN LURKING IN YOUR WATER

Episode Date: March 9, 2023

Years of peer-reviewed studies on the dangers of human exposure to fluoride should be enough to prove it isn’t a conspiracy. Activist and investigative journalist, Derrick Broze, describes the nearly decade long legal battle between multiple watchdog groups and the EPA to release the National Toxicology Program’s review that could blow the lid off serious dangers of fluoride toxicity in U.S. drinking water.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The concept that we hear all the time, a pejorative, if you will, that is raised against anyone that seems to challenge the establishment. And that is this term. Conspiracy theory. This is Webster's definition, a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. Also, a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public. I really think I love the best definition I've ever heard was when I brought it up to Catherine Austin Fitz, talking about, you know, when people say it's a conspiracy theory in her case is about banking. She said, of course, it's a conspiracy.

In fact, if you're not in a conspiracy, you better get in one. It is what makes the world turn. And when you think about that, I mean, was it a conspiracy? Did Democrats sit and get together and think we were going to hire, you know, thousands of IRAs? agents to go after and get more funding for money we can spend? Is that a conspiracy? It is. Republicans weren't in it. There's a group that aren't in on it. They're powerful people. Are we in wars because of conspiracies? We are. You know, and by the way, what industry is in building some new technology or a pharmaceutical company bringing in lobbies to conspire to

create products that then we are either, you know, asked to use or forced to use if we look at the pandemic? So I'm with Catherine on this. Everything is consistent. It's a small group of people that have a larger idea, whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. But when we look into the topics we're going to cover today, they sit right smack on the bull's eye of what would be determined as conspiracy theories. And I mean the bad language version of that. To start off with is the concept of fluoridated water. Now there's an article that just came out that really sort of made me look at this. This is in the last American vagabond.

This is just recently February 20th. Florida law suit censored, reviewed on fluoride's toxicity will soon be made public. One of the opening paragraphs says this. Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the U.S. government have agreed to the release of a censored report, censored secret, on the toxicity of fluoride, the latest development in the ongoing fluoride lawsuit. After numerous delays and intervention by Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine, the U.S. National Toxicology Program's Review of Fluoride's toxicity will soon be released to the public. Sounds familiar in all the work we've done with our vaccine issue.

The move is the latest development in the nearly decade-long legal battle between the fluoride action network, food and water watch, organic consumers association. These are all groups that I really support personally, and the U.S. Environmental Protection. agency. So obviously what's bizarre right off at the beginning is, I mean, how many of us would, you know, support the organic consumers group? I mean, these are people, I'm into organic food. It's something we talk about all the time on this show, and they're fighting our own environmental protection agency. Isn't that weird? I mean, right there, you just get this sense that something's off, especially having grown up, I've said it so many times on this show. I'm from Boulder, Colorado. I still consider

myself in environmentalists in the way that I see it. I'm not into carbon credit scores and enslavement, but I want clean air, water, food, you know, all those things for my children. I love for my kids to be able to fish in any river in the United States of America and be able to eat it. I'd love for them to be able to fish in the ocean and be able to eat it. If they can't, I have a problem with that. So that's where I'm at. So why is it that these groups that would normally, it seem like the Environmental Protection Agency was the one fighting for the environment? why in this case are they fighting citizens that believe in organic food? That should set something off right there for you.

Okay? Well, we've been covering this for several years. So to bring you up to speed to what this article is really about, let's just take a look at how we've been covering the fluoridated water issue from the beginning. Take a look at this. A couple of weeks ago, we talked to you about a brand new study. Talking about brains. It was about fluoride in water and how it was affecting the brains of babies while mothers.

for pregnant on the fetus, association between maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ scores in offspring in Canada. Beyond the study, the publishers of JAMA got involved in a discussion to talk about what it was like to actually decide to print this study. The paper is about fluoride and maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy and its effects upon IQ scores of children at age is three and four, which in itself is like a shocking title, because I had never known that there's even any concern that maternal fluoride use might affect children's IQ. Right.

In fact, for me, before they were anti-vaxxers, there were sort of anti-fluoriders. Right. And like the traditional teaching, when I was going through residency and my early professional career, was that there was fluoride is completely safe. All these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It's the best thing that's ever happened for children's dental health, and we just need to push back and get it into every water system. We didn't talk about the biological plausibility, which there have been other observational studies that have shown this, and there have been animal models as well that have shown this idea that fluoride could be a neurotoxin, which, again, was totally news to me. In fact, I thought it was junk science.

Right. Anyone would ever say something. Yeah, you'd be like the anti-vaxers are saying fluoride is bad for your brain, so let's not do it. You know, that same kind of a thing. And one of the things we struggled with as an editorial staff was, as you alluded to, we certainly would not want to be the publishers of the Wakefield study and be the article that pulled fluoride out of water and led to decreased dentition. But, you know, the eponym of GM of pediatrics is the science of child and adolescent health.

And science is an iterative process. It's not perfect. We had a very tendentious discussion amongst the editors because there was concern about what the public health impact would be. I'm certain if we didn't take the paper, somebody else will have. And I didn't want to shy away from the decision to publish it just because of the potential. But I did say my editor's note that science is iterative, and this is not the first nor the last paper to look at the potential ill effects of fluorine.

So if mothers now come into their doctor's offices and ask the pediatrician what to do, what are you going to say? I think I would advise them to drink bottled water or filtered water because it's not a particularly odious thing to do. and potentially does reduce the risk. They're basically having this epiphany. We get to go through, we get to walk through with them because they had an open discussion about what they didn't know and what they were taught.

And oh my gosh, this study really upends what their beliefs were. So it's a teachable moment for the viewers. And I don't think this is the last time that science is really going to look in on itself and speak like this. Grassroots organizations took the Environmental Protection Agency to court. So basically the background is citizens have the right

to petition the EPA under what's called the toxic substances control act. An organization called Fluoride Action Network and others did that in 2016, trying to get them to take fluoridation out of water, fluoride chemicals out of water, which are pesticides. And what happened was the EPA denied it. So this was the first time that a denied petition went to court. It was a fascinating trial. So the plaintiffs in the case had four experts that had consulted

and worked with the EPA setting standards in the past. So one of them, his name was Philip Grandeen. And in his expert declaration, he submitted to the court, he says, quote, the evidence of fluoride neurotoxicity in the general population is fairly recent and unlikely to represent the full toxicological perspective, including adverse events that may occur at longer delays. As has been seen on numerous occasions, the evidence available today may well underestimate the true extent of fluoride toxicity. With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty,

I therefore consider the elevated levels of fluoride exposure in the U.S. population a serious public health concern. Wow. Well, that was back reports from 2019, 2020. It was really fascinating, isn't it, listening to that JAMA report and the editors talking about it saying things like there was anti-fluiders before there was anti-vaxxers and discussing that they didn't want to,

to be like Andy Wakefield putting out a paper that then would have to be retracted. But obviously around, I'd be curious to know where they're at after this whole COVID experience. But all that put aside, when you see an article that came out in JAMA showing clearly this toxicity, especially in pregnant women, and then you ask yourself, what is it we're still having to sue for? Well, this has been in court the whole time. And to get to the bottom of that, my honor and pleasure to be joined by the journalist that has been following this for the last American vagabond. Brose, Derek, thanks for coming in. Thanks for having me, of course, we spoke to you recently.

You also are the head of the Greater Reset or one of the founders of the Greater Reset, which is an event I was at in Mexico. But we were talking about this issue. Now, that JAMA report comes out, 2019, it's pretty damning, right? And so you would think that this would be enough evidence to at least put a hold or start moving in a direction. But what happened inside of the court? Because the court case starts in 2016, right? So when JAMA comes out, obviously that was brought in the courtroom. What happened with that?

Yeah, so as Jeffrey was pointing out, the initial case started in 2016 through this petition. The EPA denies the petition, a bunch of back and forth in the court for about four years. And in that time, the JAMA study did come out. Yeah. So summer of 2020, the trial actually began in a federal trial, federal court for the first time. The government agents, EPA, and Michael Connett representing Fluorite Action Network and others, were able to present their evidence. You know, the government brought in their scientists,

claim it's safe, nothing wrong. Michael Connett brought in the scientists from the JAMA study, the scientist from another Spain study, from a Canadian study, a Mexican study. I mean, we had a lot of expert witnesses. And that was really, you know, powerful in itself, but ultimately at the end of the summer of 2020, Judge Edward Chen decided to put it on hold,

what's called abeyance, until another study came out, which is the study from the National Toxicology Program. It's a branch of the U.S. government. Okay. And they tend to do these big reviews, what are called monographs. And we were waiting. The government said, hey, judge, let's not make a decision yet.

We've got this NTP study coming out. Maybe next year is what they were saying, so 2021. So the EPA was saying, let's wait for this study because obviously fluoride action network thinks we've got all you should need to see here. We've got multiple countries, huge studies. But the judge is like, no, let's let the government do what they do. The judge played it safe. And he said, okay, we'll wait. And, you know, that was late 2020.

So here we are, going into 2023. There wasn't any movement until, at least besides legal filings, until October of this past year, 2022. And that's when the attorneys with Florida Action Network were saying, hey, it's been two, almost three years now, asking the judge, can we just restart the trial, present new evidence and get a ruling? Because this could last forever. The EPA continues to argue, let's wait, let's wait. Let's wait for this toxicology report. And that report, which the court records have already shown, this national toxicology program study, it's already been reviewed. five different times by different committees, including outside experts.

It's the first study to ever have that process, so it's already, in the words of Michael Connett, an unusually long process. And the government's asking for more and more time. And thankfully, the judge, he's not giving them full amount of time. The most recent thing, he delayed it till April is going to be the next hearing. And so why that's been going on, we've been getting court filings, and that's when some big information has come out. Okay, so there's been some FOIA requests, which is a big thing of what we do here on,

the informed consent action network, which is just our nonprofit that makes the high wire possible. So I'm really aware of, you know, getting FOIA requests, trying to get internal emails for people that don't understand that. Essentially, we are, the government works for us, right? They are our employees. So we're able to ask for information.

So in this case, what's the damning evidence? So Michael Connett was specifically trying to get any internal communications between the National Toxicology Program, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, pretty much anything. I think they probably filed, said giving us give us the records that contain discussions on fluoride etc and i'm sure there was a lot of records but there was at least a couple of key emails in there and those emails which they show two

things they show that the national toxicology program scientists in their own words say that the study was ready it was done completed ready for release in may 2002 really here we are February 2023 and it still hasn't been made so the scientists in charge of doing that study for the government said we're ready to go we don't know so they're not the ones holding it up you write a paragraph in your article, let's just read this and then I'll let you sort of comment on it. The discussion around the comments related to the NTPs, that's the, how, what was that? National Taxicality Program. National Taxicality Program's unreleased monographs stem from revelations contained within

internal CDC emails which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act request by Connett. The emails indicate the NTP report was not made public due to interference from Dr. Rachel Levine. That's right. Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and National Inchevine. Institute of Health Director Lawrence A. Tabach. One email from the CDC dated June 3rd, 2022, specifically stated the Assistant Health Secretary Levine has put the report on hold until further notice. I mean, that's outrageous. You're in the middle of a case. Everyone's waiting for it.

And then your own government, again, is blocking something. Now, I'm going to just assume if it's being blocked, this report is not going to be in the favor of the EPA and the decision to put the stuff in our water. I would say based on the evidence that's already been presented in the previous 2020 hearings from the experts, numerous experts involved in that JAMA study and others, which show IQ affecting prenatal and postnatal fluoride because like you mentioned earlier, people are drinking it, but the biggest exposure we have, the showers. If you don't got a shower filter, your skin's the biggest organ you got, it's absorbed that fluoride through your skin when you make your coffee. So millions of people are being exposed. And that's why the flight action

network is trying to get the judge to not delay it. The government wants to keep delaying it. But this shows that while we've been sitting around waiting for some progress on it, behind the scenes, the CDC officials, and there were more emails where they were talking to themselves saying, hey, this can't come out. Like we're pretty sure this is not going to come out. May 2022 passes. Of course, this is all going behind the scenes. We learned about this till recently. But the public has no idea that more. More than likely, this NTP study says conclusively, fluoride is a toxin that can lead to IQ problems.

We just had a new study released a week ago from NYU saying thyroid problems, and they're concerned about how that can affect childhood disorders. I mean, there's so much here that should be getting to the public, and now we know, at least based on these emails, that these two officials are named in being the ones to prevent it from coming public. Are they making them? What is the EPA's argument, do they argue why it needs to be there? What I've never understood about this issue is,

I mean, is this really about cavities that you would be blocking studies, clearly showing toxicity? Because, oh, my God, we can't have cavities. And we're just saying offstage, someone's like, but, you know, someone said, one of our producers, my mom said that, you know, cavities stopped after fluorides. Like, really? Every kid I know gets cavities. No, they have. I haven't seen any issue stopped. In fact, one of the side effects of what's called fluorosis, which is a high exposure, is yellowing of the teeth.

So it actually does the exact opposite. And there's more and more studies coming out that showing that claim we've been hearing since the 1940s when this started that it's good for your teeth and cavities isn't even accurate. And the other thing is like, well, drinking this full of fluoride, it's going to get everywhere, not just the teeth. Well, and that's the idea, right? It hardens the teeth and sort of calcifies the teeth. What is it doing? Do I want to be calcified throughout my whole body? Do I want, you know, to be hardening?

It affects pineal gland, kidney, liver, thyroid, you know, obviously IQ now we're learning bone structure. There's been, as we've seen, there's observational studies. Now we've got random controlled trials. There's more than enough evidence. The only reason I can think that the government would not want to let this information out is I believe that if this case does go forward and it's found to be toxic, because that's what the TSC is about. We can petition as people say, hey, I think this substance is toxic.

Can you regulate it? Can you ban it? If they conclude in this court that fluoride is a toxin, then the EPA would have to ban it or regulate or just get rid of it. And then you've got to think, well, who's been recommending Floyd for the last seven years? The ADA, the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, every government agency might open themselves up for class action lawsuits. There's people around the country could say, well, my kid, maybe he's got a low IQ because I've been freaking fluoride every day and showering it. And I think that's the big worry.

They are terrified that there could be massive lawsuits after this. The, you know, the conspiracy theorists out there are probably have a lot of reasons why the government's actually doing this. One of the things I like about your reporting is you're a lot like me. You sort of stick to the facts. When you look at this story, is it just as unreasonable as the COVID vaccine would just watch rushed? What is it they, why do they need this in our water?

Do you, I mean. Yeah, I mean, like you said, there's theories out there, things like affecting the the pineal gland, you know, deadening people's, dumbing people down, that kind of thing. I can't prove that that's the case. I also think I would say this too, because I'm sure someone's going to comment it. There are claims out there about the communists and the Nazis using it. I've followed those threads. There's nothing that shows hard evidence. Maybe it used to be there and it's been erased from history, but I don't think those arguments really help us. I would say that in the best case scenario, maybe in the beginning, someone thought this was good.

But really, I would recommend everybody check out a book called The Fluide Deception. It is one of most well-researched books, and it's been around for 20-plus years now, showing that in the 1940s there was aluminum phosphate mining industry. The biggest company these days called Mosaic Co. They're based out of Florida. These companies are mining aluminum, and byproducts of that are essentially waste, toxins, and they colluded with the American Dental Association to promote it as something that would be beneficial for you. And the craziest thing about this is these companies that are mining aluminum, they typically would have to spend their own money to dispose of this waste properly. You know, there's government regulations about how you can store

things and all that. Instead, they've sold the public on it being good for you and they go to places like Houston where I'm from and the city of Houston contracts for $4 million to put this toxic substance in the water. So instead of them having to pay to take care of it, they get paid to put it in the water. That's amazing. Okay, so now we have got these foias that are coming in. Obviously, those were taken for the judge, I assume. Yeah, the judge has seen them. You know, I would say this about Judge Edward Chen, he seems to be based on all the court hearings I've been watching and following along with everyone, he does seem to be kind of neutral as much as you could see. Like, you know, for me, I was like, oh my God, this is a bomb show.

As soon as the judge sees this, the case is over. Instead, when Michael Connett brought it up, the judge said something like, I know, I know you have a theory on the narrative. Like, he was kind of resistant to going there. But at the same time, he's also pushing back against the EPA wanting to delay this forever. So he is now, the point we're at now is the records have been brought in. The judges seen them, and we're moving towards a second trial, basically is where it's at now. Okay.

The last thing he did was he set a hearing for April 10th, and that was supposed to be, we'll set a date then. And in between then, we now have a new update, which is that the two parties met, the government, EPA attorneys, and the attorneys for the Florida Action Network, they met last week, and they agreed to release the NTP study. So that's coming. It is going to come. They said they will publish it publicly on their website by March 10th or March 15th or sooner. So within the next couple weeks, we should have a public version.

Not only that, more importantly, what Michael Connett and the plaintiffs were arguing for was the interagency comments. We want to see, well, what are these people telling you why it shouldn't come out? What is their reasoning? So we're going to get interagency comments. We're going to get the NTP study. And this should reveal a lot. My guess is that they are concerned that, you know, now these emails are coming out, that it's making certain people look bad. In fact, we have another government agent named Dr. Richard Wojcheck, who is head of the NTP,

and several other organizations. He took the fall. He came out after those emails came out and claimed it was his, that he's the one who made the decision. He might just be covering for his bosses. But he covered the bomb. He took the fall and said,

I'm the one who did this. I took forward. He published a declaration with the court. But whoever did it, the point is somebody has been blocking the release of this for almost the year. Now it was supposed to come out in May 2020. The scientists say it's ready.

Right. That's what's so fascinating. And probably why the writing was on the wall for the EPA, you know, Levine, all these players, which is the NTP, the ones, the scientists that did the study, now the government's saying, well, we want to have more review, and they're like, we don't need any more review. We've done all the review. We stand by what this now says.

We work for the government, too. And it seems like they were not going to let this be hidden. Like, we've done this work. I feel like at a certain point, you know, the train's already left the station. There seems to be some principled scientists in the NTP, I would say. And a couple of them are named in those emails, too. So my plan had been, and maybe this will happen eventually, is to reach out to them. Maybe they don't want to speak publicly yet.

But I was kind of thinking, well, if they don't put it out, then clearly these scientists want it out. Maybe one of them would speak off the record or on background or something. So I do think there's going to be more to come from this. And I'm hoping with the release of this NTP study, not only will average people, everybody listening at home, have more evidence to use to talk to your family and friends about why we should be avoiding fluoride and why it shouldn't be in the water. but then that's going to hopefully lead the judge to make a right decision. And the next move is more than likely April 10th at the next hearing, he'll review the latest updates and then set a trial date for the summer. And at that point, Floyd Action Network would come back, present more evidence based on what

they presented before. I'm sure the government would argue their way. And, I mean, I would expect this is probably going to go into 2024, these court things. It's already been since 2016 when it first started. But thankfully, Florida Action Network and Michael Conner, he's been amazing work. I mean, they've been really trying to make it clear, though, to the judge, the reason they're upset and the reason they're trying not to delay this is because while the delays are happening and the judge is figuring things out, millions of kids, families and people are drinking fluoride, gowering in fluoride, and being told, only crazy people think there's something wrong with this. So that's the disturbing part to me.

Yeah, it really is. All right, so if we want to follow, I know you're going to keep writing about this. So where do we follow the work that you're doing? So I published all my articles at The Last American Vagabond, Ryan Christian, he's a great investigative journalist as well. So I've been, people can go there. There's a tab for the fluoride trial. You can see everything I've written since 2020. I've got a dozen articles or so.

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty about the details, there's a lot of bombshells that thankfully again, I appreciate you giving more light on this Dell, because unfortunately, I think the independent media hasn't been following this as much as maybe they should. To me, this is like, hey, Florida, you know, this is some headline news, or it should be in a different world. We got proof of government officials covering up a study that is more than likely going to conclude that this substance in our water is toxic. So I want to invite anybody else out there, independent media, to pick it up as well. But I'll continue writing about it at The Last American Vagabond. And then I do video reports on theconsciousresistance.com as well. Amazing.

And as I sit and going through this again and reading your article and then watching our past, you know, reporting on it, I often say to audiences that this vaccine issue is like no other issue. I mean, we can get in the corruption around banking, in, you know, the military industrial complex, all those things. But in the end, it doesn't include everybody in it, right? We're going to really clean this, you know, drain the swamp, if you will, or try to fix the government. Then everyone has to agree it needs to be fixed. And I always felt like the vaccine issue is that one thing that everyone was lied to about until I'm sitting here. And I was like, you know, this fluoride conversation is exactly what you said, has all the same teeth.

It has government collusion with industry, which is our big problem with these regulatory agencies. Frankly, it owns the televisions. The news is never reporting on this. It's not coming out. And it's something that we are all being poisoned. If we find out all the long, you've been holding back all the studies and data that could have protected us, that's a gnashing of teeth moment, as I say, in Armageddon. I will say, too, just one other thing on that is that I have, I guess, a personal stake in this. We all do.

But for me, when I started to question the world about 13, 14 years ago and started getting to journalism, fluoride was one of the first things I found and read that book, Fluide Deception. And it was, I had that kind of revelatory moment like, why is nobody seeing this? And when I talk to people about it, they say things like, you sound like Dr. Strange lover, something that they've already heard. You sound like a crazy person. Of course, fluoride's okay. They would never put it in there, all those same questions with vaccines and everything else.

But it is one of these topics that once you dive in and you look, there are mountains, mountains and mountains of studies proving that this is not something we should be exposing ourselves, our kids to, and I really hope that we're moving with this case into an era where people can be honest and really talk about the facts without being dismissed

as some kind of crazy. Yeah, we've got to stop all the censorship. You know, speaking of that, you also, you do your own podcast? What do we find, you're doing lots of great reports, so where do we check that out? My main website for my documentaries, my podcast is always going to be at theconsciousresistance.com. You know, I try to do what you do here as well. I bring in a little bit of, like, spiritual element, try to explore some of that.

But for the most part, it's my investigative journalism. As I said, I write for The Last American Vagabond, and I tend to do the video reports at the conscious resistance and go a little deeper and break it down for people and hopefully give some solutions and some hope as well. This is kind of what I'm awesome. And you got a book. Let's check out this book. I published this actually in 2020, January 30th. How to opt out of the technocratic state. How to opt out.

So I was writing this in 2019. I'm an investigative journalist. I've been following digital technology since 2012. I'm based in Houston. I found out the Houston Police Department had me under surveillance and some activists I work with. That began my, well, I need to learn about surveillance equipment. I didn't know anything about that.

I learned about stingray cell phone surveillance tools. I learned about internet, just all that whole thing. I've been diving and focusing on digital surveillance for years for over a decade now. And in 2018, 2019, there were plenty of people, no one was paying attention, but credentialed people warning about the dangers of rising. AI, facial recognition, social credit scores in China, India, digital identities,

all these things pre-COVID. Now everybody's paying attention, but I was writing about that then, and I started to think, how are we going to stay free in this world we're moving into, what I call this technocratic state, you know, which is coming from the philosophy of technocracy. It's this idea that we've seen through COVID. Trust the experts. The technologists, the experts, they know what's best, let them micromanage society. You don't worry about anything. And I wanted to write a book that was, for one, solutions focused. So there's some history in there about the problems, but for the most part, it's what can we do? How am I going to stay free for my family and my community if I need a vaccine passport to get in the grocery store?

Or if they're going to check my carbon credits or whatever it might get to now that we're talking about climate lockdowns and things like that. So I published the book January 31st, 2020, which is either a great or a horrible time to publish the book. In this case, it kind of worked in my favor because I don't like to say like I predicted things. I just was anticipating the moment. If you were reading the tea leaves, it was there. That's it. A lot of people is like, it's like you were psychic on the high wire. No, we just knew how James played.

And when I published that, though, it has become my most popular book over the last two and a half years because it's been very relevant to everything we dealt with COVID. And I'm very grateful for that. I've been able to tour the U.S. and Mexico spreading this book and people adopting the ideas and using them. And I decided this past year, 2022, to write an update. Well, because not only did I write it right before COVID, when I wrote this, we hadn't heard the word, reset. We didn't most people didn't know about technocracy or digital IDs and we

hadn't seen vaccine passports and travel restrictions and all that stuff right in my view we've seen these people play their hand now. Yeah we have we they're gonna use lockdowns they're gonna try to coerce you fire you from your job restrict travel and so I wanted to take all the lessons that I personally learned as well as lessons that I've kind of crowdsourced from our community the freedom cell network which people can find at freedom cells.org it's just a website that helped people meet people locally we talked about it before yeah and And that network became, we went from 2,000 people before COVID to now 37,000 people on the website

who use it to find each other locally. And then they meet in the real world. They decide, hey, I want to focus on food or homeschooling or whatever their interests are. We just kind of help create the container. That exploded because of COVID. It's been our best friend, I think, in that way. People got motivated. And many people told me, like, what they had to do.

Like, hey, I picked up my whole family, sold our house in Canada, drove all the way to Mexico or Texas because we thought it was going to be better. Yeah, at the greater resets, so many people, ex-passed. from Canada America living in Mexico is just had Nacapoko very similar there's people making real moves and I wanted to take like the knowledge I gained from the community things they shared tips and ideas as well as my own and update it so this latest version it was just published about a month ago right has five new chapters for post-COVID I kept the book in its original

form and just added a new section so people can read it as it was originally written and see like hey we were kind of ahead of the game a little but more importantly get to the solutions and start thinking practically like it's not necessarily to say you need to live my lifestyle or it's just to say here's some ideas I have use what works for you adapt you know I think that's the biggest thing is being adaptable being flexible because the world we're moving into is going to be very different in the coming years and each of us as individuals and as families are going to have to ask what am I willing to do what am I not willing to do right I mean there's big questions like if all of our money is in

the bank what do we do when they turn that into CBDCs or do I want to wait till then or what happens if again like my local businesses want to start requiring digital identities we That's all coming into fruition now. So there's a lot of questions that I think we need to be asking. And ultimately, that's what the book is about asking people to reconsider and reflect on our relationship with technology. Just like you, I mean, I love technology. I use it every day for work. But obviously, there are some downsides and there are things that we are giving up.

And I feel like the era we're moving into is really going to be a battle of convenience or entertainment, et cetera, versus our principles. Because it's not going to be easy to stay with your principles and to stay free. It's not going to always be convenient. and it might not always be entertaining. But the world they're selling us of smart cities, you owe nothing to be happy, they'll tell you it's convenient, good for the planet, et cetera,

but we all know that there's something more to that. So I'm ultimately just trying to ask people to, let's not wait till 2030. Let's not wait till things are too late, right? And the book can be done. And we just saw how quickly things can happen now. Things can change rapidly. And again,

we've seen the cards they have to play. Right. Why wait till, oh, no, it's happening again. What am I going to do? trying to play catch up, which is what I think a lot of people felt like in 2020. And I want to mention the book is downloadable for free. Okay. People can order it wherever, all the usual places, but they can download it for free

at theconsciousresistance.com slash how to pick it up, use it, adopt it. It's in Spanish and French. I just signed a deal for Japanese and Koreans, so it's going worldwide, and we're hoping to just inspire people to have these important conversations and think about what can we do. Because, again, if we don't do anything, whenever those digital IDs, and CBDCs and all that stuff pop up, we shouldn't act surprised.

And we see the plan, they're telling us the plan, maybe we should be proactive as sort of the approach. I want to do with that. And final thing I'll say on that, to the point that anybody who knows me and knows my work, I'm a journalist, I'm an activist, I'm not a politician, but I feel strongly enough about this

that I actually this morning filed a campaign to run for mayor of Houston to talk about these things because I feel like we're in such a crucial time. Totally. I know I can speak eloquently and intelligently enough. you put me on a table next to politicians. People see the difference between an authentic person and somebody else.

So I'm trying to take whatever platform I can. So if it's running for office or writing books or doing journalism, to me it's just about trying to get people thinking, paying attention, and more importantly, being proactive. So I would love for anybody who is in Houston area who wants to connect, meet me, like let's work together. People can reach out through theconsciousresistance.com or derrickbrose.com. And yeah, I mean, I'm just excited to see where it goes.

Love it, brother. Man, you're in action, which is what it's all about. It's why, you know, I've really dug the times we've gotten to hang out. I love the work you're doing. I really do like your reporting. You know, so far I haven't seen you overreach on a conversation, which is okay. Those people are out there, plant red flags and everything you see, but, you know, I really dig that, you know, we should really be able to prove our points, especially because there's such sensitive times. We get it wrong. They tear us apart.

They lie to us all the time. They're getting away with it. It's just the way the car just back on. We've got to hold ourselves to a certain level, even if they're not. Absolutely. All right. It's good having you out there. Thanks for joining us today and keep us posted. Any changes in this fluoride story or anything else you want to talk about? You're always welcome here. Thank you, brother. All right, the book, How to Opt Out of the Technocratic State.

Anywhere you can find a book, free download at the websites that we've been discussing here. You know, look it. It takes a lot of work to write a book. You've seen how clearly Derek's thinking about these things, so at least make this a part of your information that you are making decisions from. Look, I'm going to say it, said it so many times. Here in the high wire, we are not trying to tell you what to think. We're trying to show you how to think. Where you find your information. How red flags should be set off for you when you hear certain buzzwords.

That's what this is all about. And so it's about educating ourselves so that we're as prepared as we can be for all of the, you know, I would guess, you know, corruption and censorship that lies in our future.