The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE DEATH OF MASK COMPLIANCE

Episode Date: May 8, 2022

The final attempts to mask America have failed as much of the population is over the mandatory face coverings with questionable benefits. Meanwhile, a new study looking at 35 European countries suggests that greater mask adherence correlates to greater mortality rates from Covid-19.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

There's some fallout that's further beyond that reckless COVID vaccine push that's happening here in the domestic legislation in the United States. And let's go right to Mississippi. This is good news for some people reading this headline. Governor Tate Reeves signs ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports. This was from the press release from the office. The legislative ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates extends to state agencies, public officials, state institutions of higher learning, community or junior colleges, county, municipality, and other political subdivisions. The law stops these entities from barring individuals from employment or discriminating against them in terms of compensation and other benefits. But it goes further. It says it will also be

illegal to require children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of attending a school kindergarten or similar type of facility intended for the instruction of children, whether public or private. Now, there's nine other U.S. states where COVID vaccination requirements have been banned by legislation. So this thing is running very quickly. Really, really good news for a lot of people out. I love not just banning it, but I love this idea of making the illegal to even attempt to mandate it for one of your establishments. I mean, that's really just taking it down the road. And Mississippi, a place I've traveled to so often, always fighting for the vaccine rights. I think this is a huge step in the right direction. Mississippi being one of the few states

like California now, that does not have a religious or personal. belief exemption against vaccinations. For you guys in Mississippi, great job. I think you've now opened the door. It's only a matter of time before we start seeing these rights being rolled back. And you have to know that the powers that be are going to try with all of their will to stop that. But boy, do we have, you know, a tailwind behind us right now. And of course, as this legislation rolls through these voting processes, there was also early on, as we've covered a lot of governors who just went executive order and went for the ban for the. that direction as well. So across the entire United States, we have a large subset now of states

that are really pushing back against this. Rhode Island, not so much one of them. So they're, they're seeking bills that are really coming out of something like 2020 or 2021 as if we were right in the middle of smack dab of the pandemic. Here's the headline, incredible headline. Yes, a Rhode Island bill aims to find tax eligible residents if they aren't vaccinated against COVID-19. imagine how this one went over. So it says here the proposed bill states any eligible Rhode Island resident would have to be vaccinated against COVID-19. And if they choose not to, they could face a $50 monthly fine and pay double the state income tax. And then it also goes a little further. Fines for unvaccinated children under the age of 16 would be imposed on their

parents or guardians. So of course, you can imagine. You know, I just want to put this into perspective. And I'm going to take a little bit of risk here. Can we bring that original headline up? because I just want to talk about what I think, you know, really is the conversation here. Bring that headline back up. Yes, a Rural Island bill aims to find tax eligible residents if they are African American. Or yes, a Rhode Island bill aims to find tax eligible residents if they are gay by transgender. Yes, a Rural Island bill aims to find tax eligible residents if they are Jewish. I mean, let's put this in perspective.

This is insanity. This goes against everything. I mean, this is isolating a group of people that whether you want to call it a religious decision, and many, I mean, I think it's a critical thinking decision, but whatever it is, you're going to isolate them and tax them more money. We wouldn't accept this on any other group of people, and so we really need to step up now because it's been so successful in all these other social groups to say, hey, you're not allowed to attack me and my belief system because of who I am or the color of my skin or my

sexual preference, you also should have no legal ability to personally isolate me or attack me for my medical decisions, which are my personal decisions that happen between me and my family and probably me and God. So it's incredible that we live in a time that a politician even thinks that this should happen in a free country. It shows you really how bad this disease is in our political system, that it exists at all. It really needs, we definitely need some chemo in there to burn this out. As you pointed out, how repugnant this thing is, it immediately drew pushback and protest. And days later, this headline was coming out. Lawmakers distanced themselves from bill that would require COVID-19 vaccination. It goes on to say in this article, Rhode Island

senators put their names on Bill S-2552, which would require every person at least 16 years old in the state to be immunized against COVID-19. NBC10 news learned that two remove their names from the bill. Some of the senators who introduced the bill on March 1st did not want to talk about it anymore. NBC10 reached state senators Jonathan Acosta and Tiara Mac by phone. Neither wanted to comment. Senator Sam Bell said he did not have the time for an interview. So again, here these people are so confident they put their names of this bill. They can't take one minute. for a comment to a newspaper article talking about how great this bill is. Surely they have some talking points to sell this bill, don't they?

Amazing. And it's similar to what was happening in California with the bills that we were there with the defeat the mandates rally. You know, co-signers on these Senator Richard Pan bills started dropping off. And this is the power, again, people, this is what we do when we call our legislators, when we call in to our senators and say, if you go near this bill and try to treat people, that we know and take away their freedom of choice you will never be elected i mean we are bringing shame upon people now in legislature and this is you know in many ways you want to talk about cancel

culture we will cancel you politically if you decide to move against us we now have the power and we're wielding it in the correct uh peaceful way and i think that that's what's really got them nervous because how are they going to move these agendas when we are now standing up for our rights Yeah, I think what you're talking about is the original cancel culture that were given to us by our founding fathers, which is the legislative process. Well, it gets even better for some people looking for early access to medications, specifically ivermectin. If you're in Tennessee, this is now over the counter. This is the headline here. Tennessee Senate passes bill to allow over-the-counter sales of ivermectin. Now, they're joining New Hampshire that passed a bill earlier last month that allows pharmacists to dispense

Ivermectin. And over 20 states have either proposed or passed legislation to give access to this drug to patients, protecting doctors from any type of pushback from the medical boards for prescribing this. So this is a big win for early treatments. As we saw, you know, as Dr. Peter McCullough talked about early on, there was no plan for early treatment. And when the vaccine started to roll out where there was rumors about that coming, all of the early treatment ideas were just dropped on the floor. So this is a bit, you know, this is really a big, a piece of information here that's being plugged in. That's amazing. You know, hold on.

I think it's really important. I want to just take this moment, Jeffrey, because first of all, I want to congratulate you on the work that you've done shining a light on all of these issues. On the high wire, of course, we have our international team that was warning us of pandemics that were coming in issues that we were able to plan and prepare ourselves. Folks, they're going back to the drawing board. So are we. We are going through expansions here.

We want to be able to reach more people. We want to bring out even more shows that can, because, I think that not only is my voice, the only voice should be on this, you know, Jeffrey Jackson is there, we want to bring in more voices, all of that can only be possible. Can you imagine a network that is based on true free speech that is not being sponsored by anybody except the people so that no one can tell any one of our reporters what we can investigate, what we can do? We are dreaming into a new future and I want to say we need your help now. Look at what we've achieved. Can we imagine where this is all going? You know how hard they're going to push back.

We're going to be ahead of them every step of the way. You make that possible. So please, right now, when you think about your future, it would really be helpful if those of you that are out there decide to donate. Just go to the highwire.com, go to donate, and become a recurring donor. This is what allows us to look into our future and to take on new legal cases. We're asking for $22 a month for $22. But that's just a suggestion.

Obviously, this show is free to anybody we want to get it. far and wide. We don't ever want to charge you to have to watch the high wire, but those of you that donate make it possible. For those of you that are doing very well or have been very successful, you can make a difference in the world. All of you know that are donating right now, that all the achievements you've seen with the high wire, whether it's a rally, whether it's a legal win, whether it's the DC win where we definitely snuffed out the ability for children to be forced to, you know, vaccinated without their parents' consent, all of this. I mean, this is a one-stop shot, that's happening here through our informed consent action network, which is our nonprofit,

that funds the high wire and makes this show possible. But who has a legal team that is winning as much as we are on these fronts? Who is able to put together productions like the rally you just saw in Los Angeles and is able to bring you the news as clear and precisely as we are here. We need your help. We want to do more of this. And as we sort of are in this social media battle and we're seeing all of these changes, is we're going to be at the forefront.

Help us do that in a bigger and better and more powerful way. We want to keep winning. The war is still ahead of us. We want to sit with you one day and say, victory is ours. All right, Jeffrey, I'll let you get back to it. Thank you so much for your work. You're just one of the many great team members.

They see you and I, but they don't see all of those people around the world that are working for us right now to make sure that not only are we breaking this news and get the information out, but that we're getting it rights that no one can actually say what we're speaking about here is misinformation. Right. And everybody out there, you're only as good as your team. The days, what we're facing right now, the days of independence and the independent person facing the world like Hollywood tries to teach people to do, it's over. Listen, just get with, find your tribe. So, you know,

the Heidi Larson's of the world and the Bill Gates is of the world, they didn't want politicians involved in public health decisions or these myopic, you know, pushes to push pharmaceutical products, but politicians are stepping up at the county level, the state level. But I wonder how they felt about courts getting involved, because they've delivered a lot of losses and, you know, embarrassing blows. Let's listen to Tony Fauci. He addressed that just recently in an interview. Well, it's surprised and disappointed because those types of things really are the purview of the CDC. This is a public health issue. And for a court to come in, and if you look at the rationale for that, it really is not particularly firm. And we are concerned about.

that about courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public health decisions. I mean, this is a CDC issue, which should not have been a court issue. So we're hoping that the inevitable increase in cases which we're seeing are not going to be associated with an increase in hospitalizations. So all of these dynamic things going on at the same time, it was perfectly logical for the CDC to say, wait a minute, we were planning on ending this mandate on a certain date. Let's wait a period of time until May 3rd, which was a very sound public health decision. So for a court to come in and interfere in that is really unfortunate.

It's unfortunate because it's against public health principles, number one. And number two is because that's no place for the courts to do that. This is a CDC decision, and that's very bad precedent when you have court. making a decision and looking at what the basis of the decision was it was not sound. Wow, I mean, it reminded me of the Steven Seagall movie, you know, Tony Fauci is above the law. You know, it's sort of, it's incredible that what he's complaining about, as you said, is the original cancel culture. He hates the founding fathers and the fact that they created three branches of government to keep checks on each other, legislative, executive, you know, and the judicial branches. He doesn't like the judicial branch getting involved with his politics.

He should have unrestricted power, and the court should never be allowed to be involved. I talked about this last week, and we've got to keep talking about this. You have the WHO is attempting to sort of pass an international law that whatever they say in the middle of a crisis supersedes all governments. I talked about how Senator Pan was trying to take over law enforcement. The health care, the health department would have power over law enforcement. And clearly, the writing is on the wall. These health, you know, bureaucrats want unfettered power over humanity. And they're really annoyed by anyone else in government or a judicial branch getting in their way.

Really, truly, truly scary words. But, you know, that's what Fauci's good at. He's good at, you know, sounding at like a little tiny Hitler in the middle of the United States of America. Sad little man. He did say this. He is the science. So I don't know why we keep questioning him. It's clearly obvious.

So what he's talking about there is the TSA travel mandate. That was struck down by a Florida district court. And they appealed it. The CDC appealed it. So we're expecting some great science to come out to show, well, why do they appeal it? They had something in their back pocket to show these masks really effective. No, they didn't. This is Jen Saki.

She's the press secretary for the president. This is the headline here looking at, she was asked about this. She says, Saki admits appealing the CDC mandate ruling is all about preserving power. She basically said fighting the rules about preserving the CDC's authority to do something like this, a mass mandate in the future for a future pandemic. So nothing to do about the science, just a power, literally a power grab. But I thought what's interesting is we're seeing headlines all over the place of the CDC, the Department of Justice has appealed. They have appealed. They're fighting this 48 hours after it was struck down by this court.

But they filed a notice of appeal. basically just a one to two page document that they file with the district court saying we plan to appeal. The appeal itself is the legal argument that they're going to use to defend their appeal. They have not, from my understanding, filed that yet. So it's a notice of appeal. The media jumped on this thing like it was this grand decision here of a new, the greatest court case in the world. So it seems like they're just, CDC, the DOJ is simply in a holding pattern right now. And for what, we can talk about that. Well, I mean, rightfully so. And it's sort of what, you know, we talked about last week when we're discussing this. I think this potentially, if they decide to appeal, could be one of the

most important court cases in the history of the United States of America, because it's not about COVID. This is about whether the CDC has the power to inflict decisions that take away our jobs. We're seeing in China people taking, being their homes being taken away from them because of COVID. That's the level of power that Anthony Fauci wants to. to have and this appeal right now. And I would guess they're trying to figure out whether or not they really want to risk a case going to the Supreme Court and deciding this once and for all because though he says it's on shaky ground, if I remember correctly, this really isn't about how infectious or not.

The judge says, I don't care whether or not mass work or not. My point is you are pointing to, you know, a CDC power that basically said you can euthanize a cat or a dog or a chicken or you can take people. people's property away from them, but you can't do something to them was the argument. Like all it talks about is property in the middle of a pandemic. And they're trying to push that into, we have power over citizens. And that's where they lost this case. And so if they decide to take it up, and I realize why it's a placeholder because this could

really spell an end to the power that the WHO is dreaming the CDC will have because they will work in partnership to control us over future pandemics. people these are really really big decisions right now and frankly moments we should be on our phones and things to our legislators saying watch out for this this is an end to the legislative process which is all of this should have gone through the congress and the senate can we take people's businesses away can we lock them in their houses can we quarantine them these aren't executive orders by a health department that's not what they're there for that's what's really hanging in the balance here So it's interesting. It'll be interesting to see that they even dare to get into this.

And frankly, I hope they do. I think they're on very unstable ground. In a world of zeros and ones where power is attempting to be held, the world's health pandemic treaty is an obvious move at this point because there's so many losses domestically here and even internationally at the ground level and the state levels that it just has to happen. They have to try this one-size-fits-all approach. But a couple weeks ago, we reported on Shanghai locking down their 26-plus million citizens and it was you know looking over here we saw philadelphia was the first big major city here to reinstate mass mandates it was starting to look like oh my gosh is this a repeat this turned around

really quick so people that don't like masks on their face good news if you're a philadelphia resident here's the headline philly lifts mass mandate hours after mayor jim kennie defended it it says philadelphia's board of health rescinded its indoor mass mandate thursday night three days after it went to effect and hours after mayor jim kinney defended the controversial policy that made his city the outlier in the national COVID response. It goes on to say the city faced intense criticism from businesses and residents and raised the level of mandated COVID caution in the city almost precisely as the rest of the country seemed to move in the opposite direction. So again, we're hearing people are confused because of misinformation, but here's the mayor

literally talking to the public and defending this thing. And hours later, his Board of Health, which apparently there's no cross-communication there is ending this mass mandate. So, I mean, my gosh, that's got to be confusing there. As long as it all turns out in our favor, go ahead, be as confused as you want to be. Right, right. And so, you know, the pendulum has swung so fast. So before the people that weren't wearing a mask or did not want to wear a mask were obviously the outliers here. And they were looking around going, I can't believe all these people are wearing these masks.

The science isn't quite there. It switched so fast now. Now we're looking around and there's only a few people wearing masks. And so we, as a part of our team, went out on the street and we asked people, why are you still wearing these masks? And the answers may shock you. Check this out. What is kind of your gauge for when you feel comfortable without a mask and when you feel

like you should definitely be wearing? I think we should be wearing masks all the time. For me, it's just like, oh, it's better to be safe than sorry. so I'm just always wearing my mask. Typically, I wear it inside and outside all times. I feel like whenever I'm in public, I should always be wearing masks, especially around other people.

Because the vaccinations rollouts have been largely to more privileged communities, I think there's a lot of people that aren't able to receive the vaccinations, and I still want to wear my masks to ensure I'm being socially conscious for them. If I had a friend that was like that, they wouldn't do my friend very long.

So, you know, not everyone's gonna get vaccinated. That's kind of a, an unfortunate statistic. About getting the vaccine? I was not. I was ready to go. I was like, just put it in me. We're not going to trust everyone to be vaccinated.

So we're keeping our masks on. Where do you usually get your information on, just social media sites, the news. Honestly, a lot of it comes through social media. So like just following sources such as, you know, CNN or MSN and, and, you know, no, all that. I'm so used to wearing a mask.

I don't really remember just not wearing it out in public anymore. I'm so used to the mask now that even if they say like, oh, you don't really have to wear a mask, I might just wear it just in case. Well, I mean, in some ways we laugh. I feel bad for, you know, these people. They've been honestly, when you think about their sources, CNN and MSNBC, if you do watch if that's your source of information, then you must be terrified. I think they're still telling people.

I remember Sanjay Gupta, even after the mask, mandate was pulled from the plane saying, I'm still going to wear my mask. He wants everybody to continue to be afraid of the air and keep wearing masks. That is the monstrum coming from mainstream media, and this is the result that you see. Luckily, you know, the minority, but still it's sad. Yeah, and people saying,

I can't remember the time when we didn't wear masks. That, to me, is a really sad statement. Well, we've seen some. some of the politics and the social responses to these confusing mass situations, but let's talk about some of the science here. There's some new science that was just published. This was in a medical journal of Curis. This was a peer-reviewed study, and it's titled, Correlation between mask compliance and COVID-19 outcomes in Europe. So they took 35 countries in Europe, and they looked at it for six months during October 2020 to March 2021. So that was the entire continent. As it was undergoing

like a severe outburst of COVID-19 at the time this study was being analyzed. They looked at the daily case numbers, the deaths, and mask usage. And this is what they wrote. This is what the authors found. The lack of negative correlation between mask usage in COVID-19 cases and deaths suggested that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e. during the strong 2020, 2020, 2021 autumn winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission.

They went on to say this in their conclusion. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences. Huge findings here in this study. Let's look at the table from this study because this really tells the story. So they have here a statistically significant. numbers. These are highlighted in the right there. And what statistically significant means is basically means it's unlikely to be explained by some simple chance or random facts. So there is some type of

correlation they're finding there. And what they're finding, if you take that column and go across in all of Europe, top column, masks and deaths. So they found a correlation between the percentage of time people wore those masks and the mortality rate from COVID-19. They also found it in Western Europe. That was places like Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy. These are places that lock down hard, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland. So this is what the chart look like when you bring it kind of on a plotted out. Each one of those dots is a country. And to the right, the further you go to the right is a higher percentage of mask wearing. So you can see most of those countries are over 50% of mask wearing, some outliers to the far right, almost like 95 there. And as this,

this chart goes up, that blue line in the middle is called a regression line. And you see that is trending upwards. You don't want upwards here, people, because that means deaths per million from COVID-19. So there is a correlation, according to this study. It is the higher the amount, the use of mass, the higher the rate of, and are we talking all-cause mortality? We're not saying how they died. We just know that deaths rose at the same time that mask usage rose in the countries. Yeah, these are actually COVID-19 deaths. So- Oh, COVID-19. Just COVID-19.

Okay, very good. The actual thing we're trying to wear the mask to prevent is apparently something that's correlating.