The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE FORBIDDEN DEBATE

Episode Date: July 8, 2022

At the ‘Better Way Conference’ in May, Del asked the forbidden question: “Do Vaccines Have a Role In the Better Way Forward?” Watch the full debate everyone has been asking for, then don’t miss Del’s candid follow-up interview with Geert.Guest: Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVMBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. How about we all step out onto the high wire? Well, we here in America just got through our Fourth of July celebrations, celebrating independence and freedom and liberty, which is always an amazing thing to celebrate, especially when most of that was taken away from you for the last two years. But I think people were really getting into it for that reason. And I don't know if you've been traveling, but I mean, it's just the airports are packed.

It feels like it's more than like back to normal. It's like, get on vacation before they're taking away from you again. But with all that being said, we decided just put a little bit of a different show together this week, mostly because so many of you've been writing in and I see online conversations about the debate between me and essentially here at Bend and Bosch, though Robert Malone was a part of it. and Brett Weinstein. I'm talking about what took place in Bath, England, just a few weeks ago,

where we were all together at the Better Way conference. And so most of that, you know, you had to sort of pay to be a part of that conference. I reached out to Tess Laurie, the person that really put that all together, said, can I just play this debate for my audience? But I want to say this. If you really appreciate this debate today,

will you go and support the Better Way conference by, you know, downloading a version. Go ahead, put a little money behind it. Give it to your friends. This was a spectacular conference that made this possible. There it is, betterwayconference.org. It's really simple.

Just go to the Better Way conference right there and sign up. It's three full days. It was spectacular. I'm one of the speakers there. Make sure that you support that great event. And I know that there's going to be more in the future all around the world.

I think she plans on doing it all over the world. the place. But today we're going to focus on that debate. I want, for those of you that haven't seen it, to have the opportunity to see a debate, frankly, that I have been wanting to have since, I don't know, somewhere mid-2015 when I was in the basement working on Vaxed. And then as I toured the country with Vax through 2016, and then I started my nonprofit, informed consent action network. I hired an attorney. We started winning law. Then I really had information. I wanted to debate. I've been to debates, one especially in Atlanta, where we had confirmation that there would be doctors there. And about 10 days before the event went

down in a giant auditorium, I think tickets were already just about sold out. And then those medical professionals were contacted by some heavyweights at CDC and things like that. And they backed out. They have never stood on the stage. They have never confronted. the questions that those of us on the vaccine hesitancy or if you want to call it anti-vaxide the questions we have if they're right why are they so afraid to have this debate if they have the science to back it up why won't they show it on a stage that has always been the question well during the better way conference i had the opportunity to enter into this debate but it wasn't planned it wasn't scheduled in fact it caught me by surprise

And it all happened during Hurt Bandon Bosch's presentation, where he ended up bringing up the childhood vaccine program. Many of us, I only really know his perspective on the COVID-19 vaccine. So when he decided to bring up his perspective on the childhood vaccine program, all of a sudden, I'm like, what? And then he had a debate, the way the thing was set up. I was the MC, but there were other hosts of each section. And so they would ask the initial questions.

And then I was supposed to bring up the questions that were happening, both from the audience in the room and the online audience, many of you that were out there. So that's what I was planning on doing until I heard him say this. There was, of course, the next word, please, a very active anti-vaccine lobbying. So against vaccines, et cetera. And health authorities were, of course, laughing about these people.

saying, this is just a bunch of idiots. Because look, we have been eradicating smallpox. We have almost controlled polio. We are saving millions of lives every year. Live-attinuated vaccines are critical to maintain herd immunity. So once you have hurt immunity established, it is indeed beneficial because the elderly people

or people with weak immunity, they will, of course, no longer contribute to herd immunity, so you have to replenish that reservoir. You can do this indeed by vaccinating young children as we do with the live-et-annuated vaccines. This is going to train their innate immunities, going to contribute to herd immunity, and will keep this balance where the virus is under control thanks to the herd immunity. It could be dramatic if we do no longer vaccinate our children against these childhood diseases. We know that the live-attainawaited vaccine will train the innate immune system and will

generate basically hurt immunity. And you can only do it by children, in children, because if you're going to vaccinate like elderly people who have a weakened immune system or people with underlying diseases, every physician, every doctor knows that it is dangerous to use a life-attinuated vaccine in elderly people or people who have a weak immune system. So you have to do this. And these vaccines have been very successful. Of course, I think there is even a room to do better because there are also side effects.

But we also have to bear in mind that the virus itself, the infection itself, also causes, to some extent, problems of autoimmunity, etc. And inflammatory disease, et cetera. Well, I was sitting just backstage. I was looking at an iPad that had the questions from the online audience and then some in the audience. And many of the audience were obviously asking, what is he talking about? He's pro-vaccine. And so there's a lot of questions about that, but other questions. And I'll be honest, as I was sitting there, here was the thinking.

Magid Nawaz had done a really great job up there. So I had Shabbanon Palaisa Muhammad. They were both sort of the hosts of that particular slot. But they didn't really challenge him on the statements he was making about the childhood vaccine program. And as I said opening up this show, this is the most important debate that's never really happened between the two different sides. And so as I was sitting there listening to this, I thought, you know, though I know I'm

supposed to be reading these questions that people have and as part of why many you paid to be a part of this conference. I just thought he just brought up the most important conversation there is. And if that's his perspective, I've never known someone that would sit on a stage or stand on stage. Now, granted, I realized I'd be blindsiding him. But here was the thought I had. You know, can I debate, can I have this conversation with here, Benin Bosch, you know, who has worked for the WHO, has such a deep understanding of viruses and bacteria and the release the vaccines. And so I thought, how am I going to have that conversation? And by the way, the debate part of it, the questions I was supposed to ask were going to be to the whole panel.

So it wasn't just going to be geared up there. And so I tried to imagine, you know, I don't want to just like waste their time. They're a part of this too. And then I realized, wait, Dr. Robert Malone's going to be up there. And so is Brett Weinstein and several other people that were, you know, zooming in. And I thought to myself, I doubt he's the only person up there that stood. believes in childhood vaccines on some level. And I thought to myself, wow, am I about to go up and debate here Fanden Bosch, you know, former, you know, expert for, you know, Ebola vaccine released for the WHO, or am I going to debate Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the MRI vaccine technology, or am I going to also Brett Weinstein, who I thought he's probably in on this? I mean,

these are brilliant people and it just gives you a sense you know and I sat there and I thought yes yes I am I am going to have this debate because I may never get this opportunity again and so I thought to myself how do I lead this out how do I start this conversation so that it's civil I know I'm going to catch them by surprise and then it hit me since I don't know what all of their perspective is I thought I'll lead out with the question because this entire conference The Better Way Conference was put together as a way to counteract the WHO, as a way to sort of create a new group of scientists that are looking for a better way forward instead of the one that's being propagandized and forced upon us through draconian measures around the world. And so the better way was a better way forward. And so I thought, you know what the best question should be?

How many of you still believe that vaccines play some role in moving forward in a better way? Well, that's how I lit the fuse. Take a look at what happened. I'll be honest with you, in some ways I feel like I want to toss these questions out. And this is test. I'm sorry. This is probably why I've never been an MC at an event like this, ever. You're about to find out why.

There are great questions here and for everyone out there in the viewing public. I appreciate them. But I think there's a conversation that needs to happen right here and now if we're truly going to discuss a better way forward. That is been set off and some of it's a bit of a firestorm that Geard Vanden Bosch has created online. For those of you that have been asking those questions, it really comes down to vaccinations. I think that many in this audience and out there in the viewing world right now would think that after this COVID pandemic and the problems that we've seen with this vaccine, that an event like this would come to the conclusion that there isn't a place for vaccines moving

forward. So I want to ask a few questions of this panel. I'm going to put you on the spot. I haven't done it on my show. Maybe you'll never come on again. But if we are truly, truly going to have a scientific conversation, we can't be afraid to have this one. And so I'm going to sort of encapsulate some of these questions. Here's my first question to. everyone in the panel. How many of you, by raising your hands, believe that vaccination has a place in a better way moving forward? Okay? I appreciate that. All right. So, so roughly half of those that are up there. Okay. And that's great. And I'm going to drill down on a few other questions. So how many of you are aware that since the increase of vaccinations, when we were giving

10 vaccines, I'll use the United States of America's stats. We were giving 10 vaccines in the United States of America to, by the time you were 18, up until about 1986 when we took all liability way, that vaccine program increased to 54 vaccines. How many of you are aware that in that time we went from a, you know, a chronic illness rate in the United States of America of 12% to a chronic illness rate of now over 54% and that data has been stopped being given to us since 2012. How many are aware of that increase in chronic illness? Okay. Here, is that not something you're aware of?

Well, you know, I don't like this blunt statements, right? I mean, it's all more complex. You have to be careful with correlations. I agree. I'm just, just, and I'm stating. I like the nuance. I'm strictly stating correlation and I will admit that. But I think it's at the heart of the conversation.

So how many are aware that we have full liability protection in the United States of America, especially and it's sort of adhered to around the world when it comes to vaccination? You mean liability? Liability protection. Yeah, I mean, where the immunity from liability. Immunity from liability. So the manufacturer is not held liable. Okay.

How many of you believe that that is. a problem if we're going to get to, you know, issues of safety. Okay, great. Very good. Thank you. So let me get then more specifically to those that, you know, I think said they believe in vaccination as a way forward. And I think that one of the things that was surprising by the questions online is geared, you have talked about how dangerous it is vaccinating the youth, the children in this pandemic because of their natural and powerful innate immunity. And I think that the problem is that it's the children, when we think of vaccination, we always think of vaccinating the children.

So it goes to follow that the children would be who we would be vaccinating during this pandemic. So what is the difference? Why is it that you came here today and said, we must continue vaccinating children with all of the other vaccinations and not trusting innate immunity and that natural immune system when it comes to childhood illness. Well, the problem is that we are facing two completely different situations when we are again vaccinating the children during a pandemic. Very clearly, very clearly, we are not contributing, so the children are not contributing to herd immunity.

we prevent this reservoir. I mean, they have, first of all, they have the maternal antibodies, right? Six months approximately during that time, we would never vaccinate because there is no vaccine take. The vaccines get, so to say, in simple words, neutralized by the maternal antibodies. Then we have the innate immune system that gets trained. And by training this innate immune system, to some extent we do this with live-adenaated vaccines, they can contribute to herd immunity. When we do this during the pandemic, we are vaccinating them with antibodies that are basically useless against Omicron, because the Omicron is resistant to utilizing antibodies.

But it prevents the innate antibodies from coming into action. So we are preventing them. So it's a completely different situation compared to where you have already established herd immunity and where you're going to maintain this capacity because you will lose some people. that there are some elderly people, their immunosiniscence, so the immune system will weaken, and you have to replenish that reservoir. Of course you could say we let nature do the job. Well, some of the children, it will take till the age of three before they get exposed to the bug. Then the likelihood that they become more severely ill is higher than when you do it, for example, six months or so and also you you this is a very delicate equilibrium that is established after a

pandemic after a natural pandemic so a little bit of increase in the vulnerable population a little bit of a decrease in the herd immunity could all of a sudden give rise to an outbreak so you want to avoid this so you want to consistently replenish that that reservoir so it's that is what is obviously not understood by our public health authorities We are not vaccinating children in the midst of a pandemic. There is no herd immunity. They cannot contribute to this. So it's doing exactly the opposite.

It's preventing herd immunity. And because it's preventing herd immunity, it's not just useless for a child or even dangerous, but it's even preventing the vulnerable population from not getting exposed because we are just with all these vaccinations. The infection rate is increasing. I'm repeating. It's exactly the opposite from what her.

We understand. I think we have a clear idea. Dr. Robert Malone, you'd like to say something. Yeah, Del, I'd like to build a little nuance. It feels like you set up a very simple binary system. But you asked a very broad question, is there any role for vaccines going forward in a better way? In my raising my hand, I was not endorsing. in any way our current vaccine schedule.

I, for me as a vaccinologist who has often assumed, has integrated a belief system that I was brought up in about the efficacy and utility of childhood vaccines. I had a moment of epiphany when I sat down with Candace Owens. And we talked about what the temporal relationship has been with many of these classic pediatric diseases and their quenching in the population, which was more concurrent with implementation

of modern public health and water sanitation practices than it was with implementation of vaccines. And yet the industry has taught me and has taught many of us that there was a causal relationship when in fact it was correlation, which is one of the big flaws that we've seen again and again is conflating correlation with causation. However, you ask the broad question,

is there any role at all? I'm of the belief that there are some situations in which this prophylactic exposure to antigen, because I'm there with, we need no nomenclature. It's a mess. That's been part of the problem is this overly broad term of vaccine has been implemented, which is really nonspecific. But there are some cases, you know, I work with the DOD folks, protection of a warfighter or an interventional person going into an environment where there's a new outbreak. Well, if we can provide that person with some protection, often, however, that can be better provided with drugs or with antibodies.

So you hear me in my discussions often using the metaphor, if you give a three-year-old hammer, everything becomes a nail. And I'm kind of now need to modify that. If you give a public health bureaucrat, hammer, everything becomes a nail, and the hammer in that case is vaccine, and they seem to want to apply it to everything. So where I'm at is I'm of the opinion that there are some contexts, such as ring vaccination in the context of an outbreak

where there may be utility here. But I believe that this hammer has been grossly overused, and that's been amplified, as you've appropriately pointed out, by these perverse incentives that have been built into our public health system, including the indemnification clauses that have been built into it. So that's where I'm coming from is I absolutely, believe that we must revisit the data and I'm you know everybody calls Bobby an anti-vaxxer Bobby and I are aligned on this what Bobby has asked for that's

caused him to have all this backlash in pejorative labeling and defamation he's merely asked for the data he's asked for the data demonstrating safety and effectiveness correct and he's asked for the data comparing safety and effectiveness in the context of this multi-inoculation let's call it strategy which has never been developed and assessed adequately I'm with him I I I'm compelled that it is past time high past time to stop this high wire act and and and and we and we We need to revisit. And if the data aren't there, I think we have to be conservative in the sense of don't subject our children

to products that are, the safety and effectiveness has not been adequately demonstrated. Dr. Brett Weinstein. I will try to be, is this on? and it's not on. There we go. Oh, there it is. I'll try to be quick because I have a feeling those chairs are working for the enemy. What we have here is a problem where we've seen up close the malignant version of something, and it's been a very long time since we've seen the positive version. And so the tendency is to think the whole thing can't work. Vaccination in the hands of big pharma is obviously a very dangerous technology. However,

it to be rebuilt into a system that was capable of figuring out what the net impact was, right? What all-cause mortality looks like for these things and not just the immediate all-cause mortality but over a long period of time, then the question is, well, what are the right diseases to utilize this tool and which ones are we doing more harm than good? Is it true that a great many vaccinations is bad for you over a lifetime and that we should treat this technology very sparingly, right, that we should be choosing very carefully which few things it makes sense to use it for and what to hold it in reserve for rather than just imagining that if vaccines are good, then more vaccines are better. And I would point out my phrase for this is, you know,

in the case of television, is television a positive force? No, it's a terrible force, right? But it's not the box. It's the business model, right? You can put a nature documentary on TV, and it can be a wonderful, liberating thing. It can let you see stuff that you'll never get to see in person, right? There's nothing wrong with the box. It's the way we put content on it that makes it toxic. So let's not conflate the malignant version of vaccination with the technology in principle. Okay.

Dr. Tess Lowry. Yes. Well, my opinion is that our children are not suffering from infected. They're suffering from chronic diseases, autoimmune diseases, autism and depression. So it seems like we need to reevaluate health and we need to look at those things that potentially could be affecting our children's health. And so this is why I've come to think with regard to childhood vaccination the precautionary principle should apply until we know more. And I think we need to do those studies where we have the normal vaccination program and we have the kids that don't get the normal vaccination program.

And we need to see who does better, who gets autism, who gets the chronic diseases. And then we will have the answers. But these studies haven't been done. And, you know, we need to do them. I agree. And I mean, for those of you, for four, full transparency for anyone out there, my work has been specific to that for the years before COVID, the high wire was developed to demand those, that those studies be done. And it's why I've

worked with Robert Kennedy Jr. so closely. We did have a meeting. And to be clear for everyone up here, whether you know it or not, I'm not sure. Robert Kennedy Jr. was offered a meeting at the National Institute of Health at the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017. I was invited by Robert Kennedy Jr. along with we brought in scientists and lawyers and put together our questions and problems with the vaccine program. Two major questions that we asked to Tony Fauci, who was sitting right across from me, Frances Collins, right across from Robert Kennedy Jr. and the whole host of the leading virologists and immunologists that do make our national policy were there. Our number one question is, was, why is it that we cannot find a single double-blind, placebo, study using inert placebo of any of the childhood vaccines that are given to our children based

on the CDC schedule. There was someone that chimed in and said they're doing them in earlier phase trials. And then Robert Kennedy Jr. said, great, we're at the National Institute of Health. That's why we're here. Please bring them to us and we'll show them to the public and we'll never ask this question again. Silence. I'm talking a very uncomfortably long period of science. on silence before Tony Fauci finally said, we don't do placebo studies because it would be unethical. That was the answer. And the idea being, and this is the problem we have with this science,

and I'm going to ask you a question how we get around it, the problem being that this belief, as you, I think, have geared in the vaccine program, is so powerful that the idea that any new vaccine that comes along, Gardasil is a perfect example, But all those that came before them, we cannot have a placebo group that is not receiving this life-saving measure because it would be unethical for that group to have to live like that. It's the excuse they used once they had emergency use authorization to then vaccinate the entire placebo group, thereby erasing the safety trials of the COVID vaccine. Well, now that anyone can get it, how can you keep this great life-saving measure away from the placebo group? So that's the problem.

And, you know, I'll ask a question about how to get around that. The second question then, oh, go ahead. How do we get around that? Dr. Robert Malone. Yeah, so we've, this, you are dead on. This is a core paradox in the whole vaccine enterprise. This ethical conundrum. I mean, it's kind of like the trolley problem.

And we faced it also with the Ebola outbreak. One of the things that the media doesn't ever talk about was my role. at the tip of the spear with bringing forward what's now the Merk Ebola vaccine. And we can use the same kind of strategy. We face that problem there. How could we ethically test an Ebola vaccine in the context of the West African initial West African major outbreak? And what was done was a strategy where we would deploy the vaccine because we didn't have unlimited vaccine.

We didn't have an unlimited vaccination capabilities. This is always an option at the front edge of deployment of an individual. product. What we did was vaccinate villages or regions and compare the data to unvaccinated regions that we hadn't yet been able to get to. That's the conundrum. And when you do that, you can look for correlations, shifting of profiles of adverse events. And you can also, with modern data mining, the other way to approach this is good old-fashioned epidemiology coupled with the kind of detailed data analysis that Jessica and her colleagues do. We have a lot more power now with non-parametric analysis than we ever had before with these statistical tools, and we can pull

these data out. What, for instance, people don't realize is that there was a lot of denial about the cardiac risk early on, and it was basically a pirate group outside of the review branch at the FDA, working together with an interesting character from a very, very large data analysis firm called Oracle, who is their leading biostatistician that used modern non-parametric analysis a approach that the FDA would not fund them to do in a pilot project that allowed him to detect what was an obvious signal of pediatric cardiotoxicity in the background of virtually no cardiotoxicity. There's some fundamental statistical problems in doing these kinds of analyses, having to do with the technical terms, multiple imputation.

I don't want to go there, but there are ways to solve that now. And so this, we are presented with, you know, Tony Laike, to have it both ways by the way as you know and I can tell you as somebody who's had to deal with him my whole career this little trick of suddenly breaking the blind like he's done and intervening in trials he has done that for decades the stuff that he does if I did I would no longer be allowed to be a clinical researcher I would be reprimanded I would probably lose my license I would never be allowed to do clinical research again, yet he does it again and again and again. So in sum, there are solutions.

There are good statistical tools now. There are great data analysts. Jessica's there nodding and shout out to her, but many, many others. She represents a solid discipline that can pull this data out. And so I think that what we're given is a false dichotomy. and they use it repeatedly, oh, you can't do that because of the ethical implications, but that is not a valid argument in my opinion. Brett, I know you want to speak, but let me forward this a little bit,

because to bring people back to that meeting, which is the only time we've ever gotten to sit face-to-face with the individuals that are making the decisions throughout this pandemic, the next question we had beyond why do we not see a placebo group, and they explain because they don't do them, then we presented and Robert Kennedy Jr. did a brilliant job. Then let's take the ethical problem out of this. Let's get rid of the prospective study.

Why don't we go with a retrospective study? The CDC is sitting on a database called the VSD, the Vaccine Safety Data Link, that has over 10 million people in it, all of their medical records, scrubbed with all of their identification. It's how we do most of our studies looking how products are working. We said to them, Why will you not do a vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated retrospective study using the vaccine safety data link and ask simple questions? We are, by the way, we are the home of Apple in the United States of America, of Microsoft, of Oracle, of these incredible computer learning tools.

This could be done so quickly. It's ridiculous. Just section out these two groups. And by the way, have partially vaccinated so we can get around healthy, user bias problems. But why don't you, why will you not do, or, you know, are you going to do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study and ask these simple questions? Who has more ADD, ADHD? Who has more flu? Who has more asthma? Who has more cancer? Who has more lupus? All of these things that we want to say are just correlation, you know, not causation. This study would end

this conversation forever. I would not be standing here, neither would Robert Kennedy Jr. Someone explained to me why the answer by the CDC was and by the NIH, we will never do that study. Can I just speak to that briefly? I'm going to use the language of my friend Ed Dowd, formerly of BlackRock, who's able to point these things out because he's a stock analyst, not a scientist. This is presumptive evidence of fraud. the unwillingness to ask these questions, the withholding of these kinds of data in the world of stock market analysis and analysts,

they conclude when they see these things that this is presumptive evidence of fraud. And I think that what you know in your heart, what this means, this unwillingness to do the hard science and ask these, obvious questions, is that they are afraid of the answer. Brett?

Two things. Again, oh. One, the answer to your question, Robert is exactly right. It is presumptive evidence of fraud, but it doesn't tell you about the underlying technology. What you have is an entity that doesn't want the answer to the question, because what it wants to do is deliver PR in lieu of information, right? We know that that's what it's doing. It has every reason to do that.

But that doesn't mean it's not an indictment of vaccination in and of itself. And so what we want is exactly that evidence. We want to be able to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated. But this raises a question. We had a discussion here a second ago about this question of unblinding. And I've been puzzling over this for a long time. We talk about it. We know what we're getting at.

how many people in the audience understand what the game is, what the unblinding trick is? Show of hands. Oh, that's pretty good. What's that about a third? Yeah, that's pretty good. So for the rest of you, the trick is that there's an ethical... Hopefully you will in a second. If you don't understand it in a second, ask me again.

The trick is there is an ethical provision that says if you have a vaccine, you have a vaccine, or a treatment that is so spectacularly great that you know it works like gangbusters and it's safe, then it would, of course, be unethical to deny people who participated in your trial the benefit of that thing, right? They're participating in your trial. They're entitled to the benefit. So the point is, if you can trip that lever, then you can get rid of your control group. And then if it turns out it was good early and bad late, you won't know, because there's no control group to follow, right? So the point is the pharmaceutical industry, is looking to trip that lever

because it removes a hazard to its narrative, right? It's a game, and it's happening each time here. But it doesn't tell us what the underlying reality of these things is. They don't want the information to exist. Maybe they don't even know it themselves. Can I jump in on this thread? So I've spent my whole career dealing with government in the pharmaceutical industry.

I'm highly trained in this. I get it. I've worked for them. I've worked for big pharma. I've worked for Gates companies, blah, blah, blah. The rule is you never ask a question you don't want an answer to. Just as Brett is pointing out, the bias is to never do that study, to never have that data available because it creates risk and it's inconvenient.

It's a threat to your business model. That is the problem with relying on pharma and the pharma business model to do our medical research and to make assessments about safety and effectiveness. And I think most people don't understand that's the process. In the United States of America, when I talk to people, they think the FDA is doing the safety trials and the efficacy trials. They think the CDC is doing the safety trials and the efficacy trials. They do not understand that the safety trials being done by the same company

that's going to make billions of dollars off of it. I'll get to you in a second test. Lori even wanted to speak. It just seems to me we're just going around in circles, digging too deep into all the things we can't solve. all they care about is money. All farmer wants to do is make money. It's a profit-driven industry.

So we need to just say, we need to hit them where it hurts. It hurts them to lose money. So let's just not buy their products. Let's say no more injections until they've done everything that we want them to do. And in fact, if you think about the injections that they are offering us,

they are preventive injections. So we don't need. They need them. They're not treating us. They are for prevention and we're not certain whether they're causing disease. So we need to apply the precautionary principle and say no more injections, get your act together and we're not going to buy your products. And if our regulatory agencies are...

Let me wrap what you've just said into a question that I'm pondering to then. Because what you're saying is then we just need to reject. purchasing these products. Several people raised their hands. They believe there was a future in vaccination. If there is a future in vaccination, if we do all of these studies and it proves that the vaccinated group truly are healthier than the unvaccinated, which would go against all the independent studies, they're showing us the exact opposite, but they're very small studies. But let's say we get to that point where we have finally done those studies, and we realize that vaccination appears to be a good tool, as Geert van and Bosch has promoted, and I'm I know just because you've sparked this conversation. Is there any way to have a vaccine program that depends on everyone using it to achieve herd immunity that doesn't take away people's freedom by mandating it upon them? So, in my opinion, these mandates, we had an anecdotal example. Historically, there are multiple nations where compulsion and enticement are not employed.

The crime, I'm sorry, I said it. The crime here is forcing human beings to accept an imposed medical procedure, which we all agreed after World War II was not something. were going to do anymore. And people are reasonable. The easy solution is if the data are clear and compelling that product X will save your child's life and will not and will reduce their risk of death and significant disease. Let's take a stocking horse in the news. If there is clear and compelling evidence that monkeypox is in fact a threat to your child, and that there is a vaccine that is truly safe and effective for your child to take to reduce that threat,

every parent in the world will clamor to have that product for their child. Let's take that right in the nose then, right here. You can jump in if you want. Monkeypox. We have what, I don't, six or seven cases now somewhere in a no, but let's because, and I want to ask a couple specific questions, but let's just take the scenario. No one's going to get that, get that vaccine until monkeypox is spreading everywhere, at which point the vaccine will be rushed on the market.

It will not take the 10 years we need to develop it. And then we will be back to Geert's problem, which is you're about to start vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic. So, you know, where is the place in which any of this system works? Well, I'm having a tremendous problem here. Please. Please tell me why. because, guys, this is way more complex than you are discussing.

If you are discussing about the safety issues, for example, I mean, you are not considering the impact of losing herd immunity. If you have diseases where you have no asymptomatic transmission, you can do a lot because you can isolate people, you can have a major impact by infection prevention measures on the spread of the disease. if you have diseases like flu, like rona, like even measles that can spread asymptomatically, how do you think that without vaccination you are going to maintain your herd immunity?

Please tell me. It's by having the next epidemic, of course. Do you want to have this? Can you calculate what the damage will be of that? You cannot. You know, this is simply based on, you know, knowledge of immunology, herd immune. You cannot compare like, you know, monkey pox, for example, where you have a really protective immune response, cytolytic T cells, for example.

I would say this. With other things. So I'm having a huge problem with taking these shortcuts, right? And we're saying no injections. Okay, guys, then we are not going to vaccinate these diseases that we have kept under control for many years. I have two points. Lose that herd immunity and have your epidemics to reestablish it every single time.

I think we have one great doctor in the United States of America. His name is Dr. Paul. And he did a study. I mean, it's not a study. He more or less did a report because he is a pediatrician and he is a big prexis. So he compared over, I think it was 10 years. 10, I think over 10,000 patients. over 10,000 children, patients, like vaccinated, partly vaccinated and unvaccinated kids.

So, and he could see after 10 years, who were the kids with the allergies, who were the kids with other health issues, and so on. So I think this is not a peer-reviewed study or whatever, but this is something we have to look at. And the second thing that I want to bring into this discussion, if we now have the five-year-olds, like the Austrian parliament, let's better say the National Imph Committee, the National Infcremium, the National Vaccine Committee, just recommended for all the five-year-olds in Austria to get a booster.

And even recovered five-year-olds should get a booster after time. So now, if we think of these kids immunocompromised by the COVID-19 jabs, What if they get their vaccines that we have already on the market? So what is then going on with their immune systems? We don't know this. And we should, you know, give more sight on doctors like Dr. Paul to see what he has done and then, you know, repeat what he has done and do it over years and years and years. And then we have data for this discussion.

All right. Go ahead. Yeah. I know. So, unfortunately, I hate to be this guy, but the problem is really that we all feel entitled to have a simple solution, and we waited far too long for there to be one, right? The problem is like two layers up, right? And when you say, Dell, that people don't realize it's the companies themselves that do these trials.

It's not the companies themselves. They hire contractors. And you know what that means? There's competition between contractors to deliver results that the companies like. And a company that does an honest trial isn't going to survive. very long. So it's a system that is built to fail, right? You, Tess, you say that we shouldn't, we shouldn't take these vaccines until they give us what we want, that they give us vaccines that are safe and that they tell us what's in them. And I agree, but the market is not going to

deliver you that, right? This is, vaccination is too important to be in the hands of a private corporation. Well, what are you going to do? Are you going to hand it to government? Our governments, have you seen how they behave? That wouldn't be safe now. would it? So at some level, this is not an indictment of vaccination. It's an indictment of the system in which it is embedded. We're going to have to solve that problem. And if you think that's going to be simple, then you haven't been paying attention. We have a serious problem in Western civilization. Every institution has been captured. We have to solve that problem. Then we can talk about vaccination. Over your shoulder, yes, very good. Over Brett Weinstein's shoulder,

Jessica Rose has been wanting to weigh in. Sorry, Jessica. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I have a few powerful thoughts, but they're philosophical. I mean, I'm a biologist among, you know, above everything else. Okay, I do some math and everything, but like, I really believe in, I believe in the human body, first of all. I believe in this beautiful, you know, system. I believe, wait, I'm finished. I believe the idea of what I call piggybacking, this gorgeous system using inoculation is a beautiful concept. Because I'm a scientist, I love this idea because it's like a mimicking of a biological system that's evolved for so long.

What I think, like I completely agree with what Brett just said. This bastardization of the whole thing is the problem. I think that the non-disclosure of ingredients is appalling, of course, but it's the systems that are broken. And just to back up one step, this Vax-on-Back study issue is so important. And going back and coming back and, collecting data that we know that exists and analyzing that will give us an opportunity to do studies that compare or

determine maybe it can help us determine conflicts between different kinds of vaccines, although I'm sure that a lot of people would have a problem with that, because if we, let's just say, we found out that there was a correlation between people who had the flu vaccine and the NMR vaccine, and, and asthma. You know what I'm getting at here, so it could become problematic for certain combinations. But I don't care about that, because I'm not profit-driven. I actually care about the health of people. And so I think these studies are so, it's so essential for us to do these studies

and to retroanalyze data and to do studies not only vax and unvaxed, but Vax with different combinations because we know that they're combining, like the MMR is a triple and they're adding the flu vaccine to that too and etc. So to go back to the original question about whether or not I believe vaccination plays a role, I really want to, but it has to be done perhaps the way that it was designed to do in the beginning. and I don't know. Maybe it was always doomed to fail. I don't know. I don't know if it's because the population is so large. I don't know if who knows, right? It's so complex. It's more complex than the immune system, which is pretty complex. I know we've pushed the time here. We're going to try and wrap this up here in the next few minutes, but I think this may be the most important conversation to be had on the planet Earth right now. I don't mind if you walk out the door.

I'm perfectly okay with that. Tess. I'm just going to say one sentence and then I'm done. The onus of proving safety shouldn't be on us. We don't have the resources. We don't necessarily have the time and all of that. The onus should be on the pharmaceutical manufacturers to prove unequivocally the safety and it should be verified by us.

So we should have access to the data. So we shouldn't have to keep running after the farm company saying, hang on, hang on, is this safe? It should be absolutely clear that these things are safe before they are unleashed on the public. All right. I want to throw one question to Kim that I think is important from here. Kim, the question was, and this is a big topic of the United States of America,

do you believe that SRIs are playing a role in the gun violence, especially large school shootings in things like that when you saw what happened with your husband and that level of depression taking over that quickly, what are your thoughts on that subject? So thank you for that question. It's one of my favorite. I have long thought that we need to, when there's a school shooting, we need to start investigating what drugs all we hear is they have mental health issues. And from the beginning, that we know that almost every one of these drugs, the antidepressants, have violence.

and suicide warnings on from governments all over the world. And we need to start demanding that we invest. But what happens is immediately like fixers go in, shut the topic down. They go after the free, you know, the low hanging fruit, which is the guns, which obviously is a mechanism that is used. However, when I know that some of the documents, one of the documents that came out from under five out of the lawsuit was a prosecutor manual that Pfizer helped right back in the 90s so in my mind we should absolutely be looking at the possible link between and not just go after the

antidepressants or the guns sorry all right it's a great point another important question I don't want to leave it behind this MRI technology that you've obviously are part of inventing Dr. Robert Malone, the question, and maybe it's not yours to answer, do you believe there's anything that can be done for those who have received the vaccine, whether it's one shot, two shots, or three shots to undo the damage

that has been done, to get that technology out of the cells and get you back to a normal position that would have been prior to having the vaccine? Okay. All the way through

this outbreak, and the word pandemic really is inappropriate. All the way through this global outbreak, physicians, frontline physicians have taken the position

that what we need to do is treat the symptoms. The same is true with vaccine damage. You're asking a question that has, I'm going to split it into two big lumps. One lump is the clinical syndromes that people have experienced post-vaccination.

Many of those syndromes can be imperfectly often but partially treated with existing strategies. These include phoresis, in a body injections for some of the autoimmune things, treat the autoimmune disease as autoimmune

disease, treat the cardiac disease as cardiac disease, etc., etc. Okay? So symptomatic treatment seems to be helping many patients. There are specific drugs, and this is not the place to argue this drug versus that drug. But there's a variety of treatment strategies that seems to be providing at, it's currently an anecdotal level, relief to patients. So that in our declaration, Declaration 4 that we recorded in your studio, thank you so much.

You'll recall that we specifically stated as one of our 10 points that there must be adequate investment in objective research to mitigate the effects, these chronic, you know, the term rare is used, rare is in the eye of the beholder. It's not rare if it's you or your child that are experiencing it. To mitigate those effects, to comprehend those effects, to quantify them, and to comprehend their pathophysiology. How did that happen? Then there's the other big part of your question.

I had assumed early on, as had many, because this was the party line being discussed and promoted by Pfizer and the government, that these RNAs behaved like natural RNA, which typically is rapidly degraded in your body, typically has a half-life measured in a single-digit number of hours or less. And this was told repeatedly to physicians that this was the case. These products only stick around in your body, and then they're degraded and naturally cleared. The actual science, the studies, to demonstrate, that whether that was a true or false assumption were not done by pharma FDA did not require them even though that is the standard policy for every regulatory dossier I've

ever had to deal with they were given a pass on that and it was recently done as you know because we've discussed it last January it was published cell was the magazine Stanford was the University and the data not from cell culture but from human beings receiving fine needle aspirations into draining lymph nodes from their deltoid muscle injections. These RNAs persist for 60 days or longer. They didn't test longer. These are not natural RNAs. These are something very different. They are able to be produced into DNA. We have no idea how long they persist. We have, apparently they're bypassing normal cellular degradation pathways, Why is that? Because they have all the way through this RNA a molecule which normally is only present in very precise places in very carefully modulated fashion, that being pseudo-uridine.

This is the basis of the patent, which Penn holds, that's why Penn is such an advocate, which is held by Carrico and Weissman. That is the basis for their claim that they are the ones that came up with this technology is they did a modification. which is this incorporation of pseudo-uridine. This is an artificial molecule. I am not aware of any science that addresses how that artificial molecule can be degraded. And I'm sorry to say that. And I get all kinds of grief from Stu and so many other people. Robert, you've killed the world.

It's your fault. And that's why I feel so much empathy for Oppenheimer. But this is not what I'm. envisioned okay and this this has only recently come out the beginning of this year this truth and there is no science that I'm aware of to address how this long-lived molecule can be cleared from people's bodies and it is technically possible that it's actually as because the cells that are producing the protein are gonna get attacked by the T cells and kill

and they're going to be release of these long-lived bio molecules, sort of, synthetic molecules, they may be being taken up by monocytes, white blood cells, that come in to clear that up. And that may be part of why the monocytes are being observed in people's bodies behaving very oddly. We don't know. So I'm sorry, Dell.

The first part, treat the symptoms. Yeah, we got all kinds of cool stuff for that. And physicians, if you let physicians be physicians, They can really help patients. But can we get the RNA out of people's bodies? I have no way of knowing it. Okay, I have one last question, and I appreciate everybody's patience here.

And because you've, and I want to thank you, Gert, for coming here today and stating your perspective so clearly as you have throughout this pandemic. My question to you, and I will continue, have much more of this debate, we'll have at dinner.

For everyone here, I have one last question. there have been small studies, Paul Thomas being one of them, a study out of the University of Mississippi. They are very similar. I've seen private studies done by large institutions that are now afraid to put them out. But they're all very, very similar. They're showing that amongst the vaccinated, somewhere between a four to five point six times rate of neurological disorders amongst the vaccinated children compared to the unvaccinated. They show nearly in some 40 times to 60 times rate of asthma amongst the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. I could go, you know, list all the allergic rhinitis through the roof amongst the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

If we were able to get these vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies done in satellites all around the world by our major institutions, our health departments. And they showed that autism is definitely connected to the vaccine. Neurological disorders are definitely connected at a rate maybe six times that of those are not receiving these. If the Harvard Medical School study of the VERS system that we talk so much about said that VERS is only capturing 1% of the total amount of actual injuries that are taking place. Every year, our normal vaccine program has about 400 to 5%. reported deaths from vaccinations. If it was true that upon study and deeper analysis, that

that is 1% and nearly 40,000 people are being killed by, or children specifically killed by the vaccine program, if that was proved out and we removed it from correlation and moved towards causation, would you reconsider your perspective that vaccination is still our best way forward? You mean all the vaccines together? Yes. Because we would only be looking at large studies of vaccinated. I can only say, I can only say, you know, we have been dealing with these stakeholders that have organized a major, a major experiment with COVID, right?

We all agree. Are you willing to do a similar, not a similar, but also an experiment, no longer vaccinating against diseases, infections. where we know that herd immunity is protecting the population. Are you willing to do that experiment? Do you have any scientific rational? Yes. The one I just stated. Wait a minute.

What you are talking about all the time, what I'm hearing here, of course, of concern is the children and health issues in the children. But if we talk about herd immunity, for God's sake, it's about the vulnerable people, the elderly, people with underlying diseases, diseases, etc. Are you willing to sacrifice those? I mean, but I just ask you the question. Are you willing to sacrifice? And this is not for all the vaccines, of course. I'm just talking. I'm just talking about vaccines. I understand, but you're not answering my question, which is if there is a casualty by a vaccination in America in the tens of thousands every single year,

and that is being caused by the vaccination, does that not erase the value of vaccination? Does that not erase the value of vaccine created herd immunity because it does for me. I would. I would be honest with you. I would be willing to have the environment of not vaccinating if I knew tens of thousands of people were being killed by the vaccine. I hate to use this term a risk benefit ratio, right? What? Risk benefit. Correct. But yeah, what is what is if there is only risk and there is no benefit acknowledged, then of course. And I mean, you're talking about vaccinations. I'm talking about a limited number of vaccinations because there is very little things that we can do with vaccine. I I mentioned the shortcomings, a tremendous shortcomings.

That is one thing. Second, you don't hear me saying that we cannot improve on vaccines. Ideally, ideally, we would use vaccines in children that can stimulate and train their innate immunity without having to use live vaccines. We don't have that technology yet. It doesn't make sense to do this for diseases where you have no asymptomatic carriers. That's where we have the problem. You have the asymptomatic carriers.

There is an equilibrium. There is herd immunity. you will not prevent that all of a sudden the infectious pressure will mount because, you know, there is asymptomatic transmission. And then the equilibrium is vulnerable when you have passed over this threshold, then you are going to ignite an epidemic, right? And so you look only at one side of this thing, which is the damage, you know, provoked possibly in children. I'm telling, as a vaccinologist, we must strive to do a better job. I think we can do a better job, but just looking at the damage without looking at the benefit

and the tremendous consequences of losing hurt immunity, not just for the children, the children are relatively better protected than the vulnerable people, underlying diseases, elderly, etc., etc. Okay, so let me then just follow up then with this, because I think this is part of the better way forward. Would you at least sign on to a document amongst all the scientists here and the 17,000 that are lying behind Dr. Robert Malone to demand that proper vaxed versus unvaxed versus partially vaccinated studies be done of all the major databases collecting health data around the world. Would you stand behind that without stopping any vaccine program? We can have answers to these questions and truly evaluate risk benefit, which has never happened. And I think this entire system is built on way too many assumptions. You can't answer the

question. Neither can I from either perspective. We should be able to because that's what science is. Would you sign on to the demand for vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies? I mean, we're done. I know. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I think, Del, you know me well enough that I'm, you know, I would never, ever be opposed, you know, to gathering more data.

What I'm saying and what I'm really getting sick of is if you want to really to calculate the benefit, right, the benefits of herd immunity, what are people going to do? They're going to come with their bloody modeling, right? which I don't trust. And so I think it's incredibly difficult. It's incredibly difficult to do this risk-benefit analysis. And there has been an experiment going on. You know, we have been the first guys who were vaccinating,

Yenner, et cetera. This was an experiment, right? This was an experiment. So it is an experiment. If now all of a sudden we think, because we do have this herd immunity, don't forget this, so we are having the luxury of still benefiting of this.

But you know that there is a threat, like for measles in some places which is highly infectious. Yes, but geared, it had a death rate of one in 500,000 in the United States of America before the vaccine ever came along. I think we can reevaluate the risk benefit. We'll continue on. I want to thank everybody for the time here. Obviously, I think rigorous debate here is very important.

I want to thank our panelists for their honesty. I told you this would not be an easy moment. So I want to thank all of you for this conversation. Well, it was, I think, somewhat surprising for the panel, but I wanted to just say that, you know, I decided to have this debate because it's an important conversation. And there's been so many thoughts, who's where, where is Dr. Malone? Where is, where is Geert Van derogh on this conversation? And as we were drilling down and getting into those details, what I want to say is that is a debate that obviously needs so much more time. we could go hours and hours and hours into all the details and all of the different perspectives

from both sides. While I was up there, I want you to know that the sort of circumstances of this panel was that we were already an hour and a half behind on the first day, you know, that had sort of laid all this out. For about 45 minutes, I had people doing this. And so I took this debate at that moment as far as it could go. The panelists retired. But just so you know, obviously it's sort of.

leaves us short. This is the beginning of a conversation. But so many people have asked, well, what happened to your relationship with Heart Van den Bosch after this debate? You know, where's Robert Malone and all these things? Since this was really, you know, strictly, I think the power of this was between me and Heart Van der Boch. I just wanted to invite him to come on the show and talk about where we're at so that you're not going to have to take my word for it. So it's my honor and my pleasure to be joined right now by Hirt Vanne Bosch from Belgium. Hirt, how are you doing today? Yeah, I'm doing fine. I'm just so busy, DEL, but nevertheless, it's always my pleasure, too, to talk to you. You know that very well. Okay, well, you know, we just watched the sort of spontaneous debate that

happened in Bath at the Better Way conference. First of all, it was amazing to have you there. It was It's fantastic to get you to meet you in person and so many of the other great scientists. But just so that people, there's always questions, was it staged? Did you know this is where it was going to go? Were you aware that we were going to have a debate on vaccines when you were, you know, sitting on that panel? No, I was not. I wasn't even aware that we still would have a discussion with, you know, all of the panel because it was getting late.

And yeah, I had already turned in my microphone. So, yeah, and I definitely, but when that discussion took place, I thought it would have been very much focused, of course, on the COVID vaccination. Because that in its own right, I mean, I think there is still plenty of things to discuss about that kind of madness. So I was not expecting you to discuss the sense or the nonsense of the nonsense of the.

the childhood vaccinations. All right. And I realize in some ways I had blindsided you a little bit, but it's a conversation I think that's very important because it's the conversation that's now being had all over the world. No matter what side of this conversation we're on, there's a real concern that the erosion in competence in the COVID vaccine may be moving to erosions in the childhood vaccine program, which we are seeing data that's showing that. I'm not, we're not going to have this debate now. I mean, but I wanted to say, just to bring you on and just really to recognize some things that, you know, when we've been talking about your information, there's a large part of my audience that I think are extremely adverse, have adverse reactions or thoughts about, you know,

the COVID vaccine for sure. Then there's those who have family members that have been injured by the vaccine program. But I just want you to state, you know, officially, I just, don't know that you've ever stated that you were in anti-vaxxer, as that quote goes, that you are pro-vaccine still, correct, right? Well, you know, I don't like this black and white things, your pro-vax or anti-vaccs. You know, I'm, well, first of all, I'm always saying just like with drugs, you know, it's not about being pro or contra drugs. It's about, you know,

using them under the right conditions. And I am the first to say that there is many conditions under which we should not be using vaccines. I mean, you know about my claim, don't ever use the type of vaccines we have that cannot induce sterilizing immunity. For God's sake, don't use them during a period. pandemic for example. On the other hand, I'm also against the use of vaccines against what we call

acute self-limiting diseases that are seasonal, for example, because people, you know, the population gets basically a boost like every year, right, or every season. There is no need. I've never been, you know, an advocate for influenza vaccinations, for example. So there is many, many conditions for which the use of the current type of vaccines that we are using is inappropriate and inadequate. And the result of cases where I do think vaccines are still important, and for me, these are essentially the type of infections that can occur asymptomatically, like for example you know also of course influenza and corona can be asymptomatic but as I was saying they tend to be seasonal once there is herd immunity in the population there

is other diseases like measles like mums rebella etc that are not seasonal and we nevertheless we we need herd immunity because there is asymptomatic transmission that is possible we don't need to go into the detail as you were saying yeah but I would like to to highlight already that even there, because as you know very well, for these indications, we are even using live-attinuated vaccines. And that is not for nothing because, you know, we are in an era where we can make very modern vaccines, even if we don't talk about

the MRNA or gene-based vaccines, but even protein-based subunits, for example, VLPs, VALP, viral-like particles, etc., etc. So why are we using still life-attinuated vaccines according to this old fashioned, very complex procedures. That's for a good reason. That is because they are alive and they stimulate innate immunity. And you know, I'm working on a paper, right, where I'm talking about herd immunity, the importance of innate immunity, et cetera, et cetera.

It comes down really to the fact that for this type of diseases, we need to maintain a good innate immunity. Now the question is, and that is, I think, And you know, I hate this pro-faxor and antifaxor because you will see how close we come together. If we start talking about innate immunity, we start talking about natural immunity, we start talking about good health, good nutrition, a number of things. We start about being exposed to the diseases so that you can train your innate immunity. But if the season doesn't do that, and if you have like a birth cohort that is growing and that doesn't come in contact with the disease, but these are vulnerable people.

Their innate immunity is not stimulated. Now, the question is, and that is an important question for you and also for me and for all vaccinologists and all people who bother about vaccines. Do we really need live-attinuated vaccines with the emphasis on life to stimulate that innate immunity? Or can we do this through other ways that we can stimulate this innate immunity without having, having to use life vaccines, right? I think for the time being, but you know, and I'm the first to say,

I've been since 10, 15 years, I'm always the first one, you know, to give presentations at this verbal vaccine Congress, to say, guides, and whether you call it a vaccine or even something completely different, I don't care. But we need to improve on this. We need to have a dramatic improvement in the safety efficacy,

you know, balance. And personally, I think there is better ways, better approaches to stimulate innate immunity without having the potential detrimental consequences of using a live vaccine. On the other hand, I must say that for the time being, it's possibly the best option we have. And of course, you also have to realize if you do have for example infections with the wild virus you know the kind of consequences that you see with the life-adenauated vaccines well you could see those as well but i know of course your point and therefore it's complex because you're going to say well you know we have one one one infection in that many uh thousand people but that is also that is also under the assumption uh that we do have um her immune

that it is endemic, so that that is also, you know, very important because to a large extent, the population is protected. And then secondarily, it all very much depends on behavioral and environmental conditions. Yeah, we have water sanitation, we have, you know, good nutrition. We, both of the people don't live in overcrowded areas like in slums or favel. All these factors, let's do this. All these factors come into the place. when you take these things in consideration, right?

They do. And I promise you would make it short. I want to have this conversation. We're going to go deeper in this. In many ways, this is round one of a very important debate. What I want to say to the public to the audience is that it's spectacular that we are sitting here, that we are open and having this conversation. This is what science is. Let me just ask you this question.

You are, it is so rare that someone like yourself that is, you, you know, you know, obviously believes in certain elements of the vaccine program. You're passionate about it. It's your life's work. You see, you know, you want to modernize it. You want to move it forward. Why is it that it is so rare for people in your space to be open to having this conversation? Why has this been such a close-minded and secluded conversation?

I think that what's happened here in many ways, because so much of the population, of those people that have had injured, you know, injuries that do happen, but the scientific motto has been there not happening. Science is safe and effective, no matter what, there's been no ability to have this conversation. And I think that's been to the detriment of the science. And I think it's why there is such a huge backlash. Now it's backfired. It's backfired that science hasn't allowed the obvious conversation to happen.

Most human beings driving down the road, know for sure. they saw a billboard that said drugs are safe and effective, they'd be like, what are you talking about? Like every drug for every person, that's an absurd statement. Yes, it's the one that science has sat on with vaccinations and it defies all reason. Why has science been so unreasonable when and how have you avoided being unreasonable? Why is everyone so different on this? Why can't they have an open conversation? Well, I think they'll Well, obviously the people who really understand the vaccines and the vaccine business or the people who are working in the vaccine business. I tell you, I've almost never met an academic or somebody from this public or global health organization that really understands, you know, vaccine.

That is where I learned my job. That is where I, you know, learned immunology and vaccinology, et cetera. So now once you are in these organizations, you know, I mean, it's all carved in stone, right? I mean, I've been moving within these organizations from one department to another because, you know, I was voicing my opinion. It didn't always please my my boss, but they know I was probably, you know, was still contributing and a good element in it. So they put me in another department. So I never stayed for more than like two, three years in the safe department. And then I even left the vaccine industry.

I think it has all to do with not only having a critical mind. I'm always talking about the brains and balls, right? Brains is not sufficient. Balls is not sufficient either. You need to have both. And in order to be very, you know, consequent. And when you find that something is not working well or that there is ways to improve, it is difficult in an established vaccine industrial environment where everything is like carved in stone

to go against the mainstream. We are seeing this now in a more global environment. How difficult with this. And now it is even much more obvious because what is happening right now, It's like, you know, how is it possible? This is this, this is a much more, a much more dramatic situation than what we are talking right now about, right? About could we improve innate immunity with using vaccines or call it something different other than the live-attinuated vaccines, for example. That is, you know, could be a very interesting scientific discussion. But right now, chewing this mass, and. and the mass vaccination, you know,

we see all the detrimental effects. It's so obvious. But having that discussion within those environments is very, very difficult. It's very difficult against mainstream. And I'm always telling you, I mean, I'm not a genius. There is other people who have the brains and who understand this.

And I can tell you this because when I give these presentations and I challenge people, vaccinologists, how could we do better and how do we explain this? And this doesn't really make sense. doesn't it, you know, they would tend to agree with me. Nobody tells me, again, you are stupid. Look, you're violating principles of virology, of immunology, et cetera. But then it takes really the balls to, okay, guys, what do we do about this?

And I couldn't do it within the environment of the industrial environment either. Now I'm, you know, at my age with my experience, you know, I can voice my opinion. I'm also convinced of it. I'm completely independent, as you know, but there is very, very few people that dare to do this and that are in a position where they are not like, you know, killed right away. I think it's the only explanation.

It's not that people don't perceive that, you know, but imagine if now we would say, we replace all the childhood vaccines by another kind of vaccine. I mean, that business is so established. You very well remember the discussion about aluminium, right? Yes. Many years ago. This is the first, we were very close to removing aluminum from the vaccines, I can tell you.

Really? This is the first time that I've seen all the big vaccine companies sitting around the very same table. Because they had the same interest to defend. Imagine that they would have banned aluminum from the vaccines. I mean, all these, all these. all these vaccine companies would have been in deep, deep trouble, right? I mean, it's completely changing the manufacturing, completely changing everything, all the clinical studies,

all, and of course, what they were saying was, come on, guys, if we need to do this, there is going to be a tremendous deficiency in supply of the vaccine. So all the kids in Africa are going to die, et cetera, and of course, WHA was very much involved in that as well. So, you know, if, yeah, well, I had no idea. So look, now that, that, I, I already want to just jump right in because aluminum's been a big conversation.

I had no idea we were ever close to having that or discussions were happening on WHO level to have that removed. There's so much more to talk about. I just want to thank you. I want to thank you because you give me hope for science. You and so many of the scientists that appeared in Bath, it was spectacular. So many of you are world-renowned experts in your fields. you're not afraid to point out a problem when you see that one exists.

I want to promise, you know, and you and I afterwards, you know, you said you really want to talk to me about herd immunity. I know now you're writing a paper. Maybe that we inspired you a little bit to try and say, hey, these people are out of their minds. I've got to get it clear. I will read that paper. I will also have future discussions.

And maybe we'll bring a debate when it's correct in front of the people and we'll lay out our different perspectives. But what I know is we can reach across aisles. We can reach across our differences. It is possible to remain cordial, to remain friends, as we work through some of the most important conversations in our lifetime. I'm so thankful that you were not afraid, that you had the balls to step out with the information

that you have brought to the world. We are seeing, we are reporting over the last couple weeks, rises in hospitalizations, rise in all-cause mortality. We're seeing real health issues all over the planet right now, some of which may sit in your wheelhouse or in the other wheelhouses of adverse events. But it does appear as we watch the FDA pushing vaccines on children

with, I mean, literally not only not good evidence, but negative evidence, negative efficacies. I mean, it's really reached an outrageous point. And so I just want to, you know, I want to thank you for taking the time. I know you're in the middle of that paper. I'll let you get back to it. But there is hope for science because you and I

can have this conversation. And I want to thank you for being that passionate about the scientific method, that you would come here, that you would sit on that stage, and that we would always be open to having a very important debate. Yeah, well, thanks, I think what we have in common is the passion for the truth, right? And I still believe in science in the sense.

I've chosen to go for the science because in contrast to many other disciplines, I always taught and I still believe that if I'm saying something or you're saying something that relates to the science, we should be able more or less to prove it, right? Yes. To prove it. And there is a truth. There is the real science still. And if you are interested in learning about the real science and the truth, that is also my passion

and my objectives. In that regard, I think there is no reason to think upfront. And so please don't call me a pro-vaxxer. I don't see you as an anti-vaxxer. You may be an anti-vaccor, but I see you as somebody who is investigating, you know, what are the real facts and data and how we need, you know, to think about this. And if there are ways to improve this, right? And that is how I think we get a large audience of people who are going to be very, very interested, right? It's not about a fight. It's about, you know, looking for better solutions together.

That's my opinion. I totally agree. Geert Van and Bosch from your lips to God's ears. Thank you for taking the time. I look forward to reading your paper, and we will continue this conversation to the future. Take care. Okay.

Welcome. Thanks, Del. Take care. Bye-bye. All right. Bye. Well, I mean, I don't know what else to say. seen, there have been articles written on both sides. There's been pro-vaxxers that have used

this debate between Geert and I. Obviously, they found it online to reprimand Geert. Look at the trouble you got yourself into. There are people on the anti-vaccine space attacking Geert saying, see, I told you so. I know that there are people out there that think he's controlled opposition. I know there's people out there to think that I'm controlled opposition and every other, you know, level of conversation in between. Guess what? I've no problem with that. You deserve to be allowed to have whatever thoughts you have, whatever critical thinking space you go to. But what I want to represent to you here on the high wire is I don't have a closed mind. And I love surrounding myself with people that don't have closed minds either. That is how we have these conversations. If Geert looks at me as a person that has

absolutely no ability to absorb information and that I'm so steadfast in my position, essentially, and this is what I've said before, my science is not settled. That is an unscientific statement. So for those of you out there waiting for me to say, I am anti-vaccine, I won't say it. And let me be perfectly clear why. Now, and let me say this up front. My kids have had none of the vaccines. I was not vaccinated my entire life. I haven't had any vaccines. So far, I have never seen a vaccine that was properly safety tested, and I haven't seen a virus or bacteria that I'm so afraid of that I'm willing to take the risk anyway. And so all of that being said, currently, I guess I could say this, I am anti all the vaccines

that I've seen so far. Now, I know Geert wants to lay some science on me, and I will sit down and I will listen to him completely and totally. And by the way, if you're wondering why your conversations about this, you know, when you want to talk to your loved one, maybe it's your child going to come. or it's your spouse or your parents, whatever it is. If you are not listening to them, then how do you expect them to listen to you? But I will say this and back to my point.

I don't say that I'm anti-vaccine because my entire argument with every politician I talk to, every doctor that I talk to, is that to say that the science is settled is one of the least scientific statements you can make. Now, how can I lead out with that and say, But my science is settled. I'm just expecting you to change yours. And so whatever you expect on this show, whatever you expect to be happening here, I want to tell you that I'm always going to be having the ominous conversation.

I'm going to let the Gere Banded Baches speak their truth. I'm not going to shut him down so you don't hear what he has to say about vaccines and how great he thinks they are. I'm not trying to protect you. You don't need protection. We should all be allowed to have this conversation like adults. You know, a lot of the issues with, and I saw. this when I made the film Vaxed as I was touring the country with Vax.

There were hospitals that were saying to their staff having meetings saying, do not go see Vaxed. Whatever you do, do not see that film. That says to me you are terrified that somehow if you walk into a dark room and watch this information on the screen that you could be somehow brainwashed. This is this idea that we have no control over our own minds. It happens to be the problem with our political system now. They think we're stupid.

They think we're incapable. And they think that we just get brainwashed so easily. So we cannot see any information that goes against the status quo. The truth is, is I believe the truth is always powerful. And if they're afraid of something, if you're afraid of looking at it, maybe you've already changed your mind. Maybe deep down, you are already questioning vaccines. Because if you truly believe in the position that you're in, like I do, you in the positions that I have and that I've developed, I'll walk into any conversation.

I will sit with Paul Offit right now. Paul, if you're out there, maybe you're watching this because you're wondering why Geert and I are having this debate. I am curious about you. I'm curious about how you think. You know, I want to know what brings you to your conclusions. Why? Because I think you're an intelligent person. Geert's an intelligent person. These are intelligent people. How is it you've come to such a steadfast conclusion? How is it you can turn off? all the VERS numbers, all the headlines of athletes dropping like flies all over this world. How is it you can wear blindness with that? I'm really curious. How is it you make it acceptable to yourself? And I'll tell you how I make acceptable. The big question that here at Ben and Bosch asked me,

which is, are you willing to take on the risks of all of the casualties that will happen should people stop vaccinating? This is a larger debate, but this is what it's all about. We need to be curious. I am immensely curious. That is what the high wire is all about. You are watching me go into a space into COVID, which has been this last couple of years, to ask the questions that nobody else is asking. Not because I feel like I have to, because I want to, because I'm incredibly curious what the hell is going on here. And so if you're curious, this is the place you should be. Stop attacking the people I bring on. It's very similar, by the way, when I'm speaking at events. I know I'm getting a lot off my chest right now because there is some things going on out there that drive me crazy. When the

media shows up to an event we're at and you go over and start screaming at them and saying that you're liars and you're spreading misinformation, how do you see that that serves this conversation? Why are you not walking over to the New York Times and the Washington Post and saying, thank you for coming to our rally today. It's really great that you're giving us coverage. Isn't this a beautiful? day. Aren't these beautiful people? Can you believe how diverse this audience is? Isn't it spectacular? That's how you should be having that conversation, not ridiculing them and attacking them. And when you have a pro-vaxxer that comes over to your side, maybe it's just on one vaccine. Don't seek to tear them down because they believe in every other vaccine. Thank them for being

honest enough to recognize there's a problem where they found it. And then we will all enter in a conversation the next steps beyond this. Did you know this about the Hepha? a Tetis B vaccine. In fact, I just learned just a few seconds ago that aluminum, one of the biggest arguments we've had on this show for all of you that only joined us during COVID, I've got hours and hours and hours on the dangers of aluminum. I had no idea that there was actually a world health organization, probably CDC FDA geared up there in the top rooms, the cathedrals we're never in to discuss, yeah, we probably should get rid of aluminum. I didn't. I didn't even know it was that close. In fact, I think Christopher Exley, you know, the leading scientist on

aluminum might be surprised to think that though he lost his job in the university for speaking the truth, that it may have gotten far to almost having made a change. This is the world we live in. This is fantastic. We are teetering on the edge of change in everything we know, partly because they have been so dramatic. They've been so over the top. Partly because they've been so over the top. Partly because because we're listening, mostly because many, many more are listening. So do me a favor, would you, we need your help. We are the ones that have been exposing all of this insanity. When everyone else was lying, the Highwire was there making it possible.

So just go to the highwire.com, click on the donate button. We're asking you to become a recurring donor because it really helps us know what we can invest in, where we're putting our funds to make sure that we get the truth out there, that we file the right lawsuits. all of this is a part of making a difference. The high wire, which is not just us here in the studio, it's you out there in the audience. We're all in this together.

Your support is what makes the difference. This is a conversation. This is the time to question. This is the high wire, and this is what we do best. And I'll see you next week.