The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE HEART OF THE MATTER

Episode Date: March 11, 2022

Censored by Twitter!; Walensky Confirms CDC is Inept; FOIA Exposes Media’s Covid Bias; Getting to the Heart of the Matter About Covid, Vaccines, and Kids; New Date Set for Defeat The Mandates RallyGuests: Dr. Peter A. McCulloughBecome 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 in this crazy world filled with crazy little people hurtling through space. It's time to step out into the High Wire. Well, we had an amazing show last week, and I think that the way you define that is when you get censored. And that's exactly what took place directly. Just seconds after we finished last week's show, Twitter locked the High Wire's account. This is it. They are asking us to delete the tweet by delete. We have to admit that we have made some sort of mistake policy on spreading misleading potentially harmful information related to COVID-19

We understand that during times of crisis and instability is difficult to know what to do to keep yourself and your loved one safe Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Just I think we're all reaching a point now where as soon as something censored it's like a badge of honor I start looking at like geez I wasn't going to pay attention to that but maybe I'll watch it now since I need know mainstream media is lying and I know that you know Twitter and Facebook and all of them seem to be in Lopsteck with the government of the United States wherever they're taking us and so you know I think that if you missed last week's show clearly that was one I think you should definitely check out who killed Ivermectin an incredible expose that took place there it was just it was astounding and

so I want you to go and check that out if you haven't seen it already now when we think about you know, censorship, and we're going to censor free speech. We're going to censor scientists, which is exactly what last week's show was about. You've got to imagine to yourself, if you reached a place where you're censoring and saying that's dangerous information, you better have it pretty locked down, right? I mean, if you're going to say that anyone that does not agree with us is wrong and we are right, that means that you are sort of stating that you were the pinnacle of truth, that here is where the truth lies and there is no gray area whatsoever. I mean, even under those circumstances, our Constitution still says, you know what, you still

got to allow the other opinion. But let's be clear, if you've reached a place where you are censoring in the United States of America, you better be rock solid with your facts, right? That's why this next video was, you know, one of those moments where it's never been more painful to be right, which is what we're all experiencing here at the last. the highwire and me personally. This is the head of the CDC, literally the most important scientific mind

that exists in the world during COVID. As we know it, the head of the CDC, the most powerful, you know, health regulatory agency in the United States of America and arguably the world. This is what she had to say on how well they had it locked down when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine. How could we have improved?

Well, you know, I've, think, I can tell you where I was when the CNN became that it was 95% effective on the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be helpful. So many of us wanted to say, okay, this is our ticket out, right? Now we're done. So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way. I really do. I think all of us wanted this to be done. Nobody said waning when, you know, oh, this vaccine's going to work. Oh, well, maybe it'll work. It'll wear off. Nobody said, well, what if the next variant doesn't, it doesn't, it's not as potent against the next variant. Nobody said, what if the vaccine doesn't cover the next variant.

Oh, really? Really, Michelle? Because I know we said it. You remember I did a whole football analogy, like over a year ago? Here's what that looked like. Everybody getting the vaccine. is destroying their innate immune system. Those immune antibodies that were non-specific that could have handled any of those thousands of variants we just saw you. They're designed for it by being vaccinated. You just assured yourself that there are no antibodies

inside of you to fight the variants. So if we have strayed far enough away from the vaccine-induced variant that we were looking at, the original spike protein, Everyone that is vaccinated is now in horrible, horrible trouble. They're going to be attacked by variants and their bodies will not mount a defense. What? What you mean that here at the high wire, we knew something that the head of the CDC hadn't even like comprehended.

No one even told us. Well, Rochelle, I thought you were the ones that were telling everybody else what you knew. Is there actually people you're waiting for to dictate information to you? I mean, this is so shocking. She said the vaccine, we're so excited about it that perhaps we should have been a little more cautious. We were a little overly optimistic. You think?

You think that was the case? But it doesn't end there, right? It's not bad enough that they flailed on the vaccine. The vaccine's nowhere near 95% effective. Israel onto its fourth booster that's not working. We're on number three. Everyone across the world caught COVID, whether you were vaccinated or not. The restrictions are now lifting.

being told now you're just going to have to live with it but look what else she said about how nailed they were on their facts and then maybe the other thing i'll say in this area of gray um i have frequently said um you know we're going to lead with the science science is going to be the foundation of everything you do that is entirely true i think public heard that is science is science is black and white. Science is immediate and we get the answer and then we, you know, make the decisions based on the answer and the truth of science is gray. And science is not always immediate and it sometimes it takes months and years to actually find out the answer, but you have to make, you know, decisions in a pandemic before you have that answer.

Bees, like, I mean, can you, can you believe it? I mean, here she's saying, right, well, I think the public misunderstood us when we said we were following the science, I think they thought that the science was black and white, when really the case it was gray. Really? Was it the public thought that or was that what you were saying? Like, how about Tony Fauci? Like, this doesn't sound very gray to me. As attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. Because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science. Fundamentally based on science. If you attack me, you attack me, you attack.

attack the science. I am the science. There must be no questions. This is so incredibly dangerous what took place in this country and around the world that science told the world we've got it figured out, trust us, it's safe, it's effective, the vaccine will work, lock yourselves down. All of it has come crumbling down and now Rochelle Walenski's admitting it, but how many people were censored? How many voices got it right? How about the Great Barrington Declaration? You remember that little thing, like world-renowned scientists that all got together and tried to make a difference in the world and said, you're making the wrong decision here. There's another perspective. While you're swimming in your soup of gray, we actually have a different perspective here.

So why don't we have a voice? Why don't we all get together and see we can't work our way out of the gray morass that you apparently were in, Rochelle? No, that can't be. No, there had to be an attack on the Great Barrington Declaration delivered by France. Francis Collins, who was caught in email saying exactly this, shut this down. We need the world to believe in us. Incredible. And here's where we're at.

This is Jay Batacharya talking about how dangerous what took place is and how it should never happen again. The lockdowns were an enormous catastrophic mistake that should never be repeated. I believe that lockdowns should be seen as a dirty word. That when we think about lockdowns, we should recoil with horror. because the policies we followed have violated not just medical ethics, but also it's crushed the ability for scientists to discuss openly with each other facts and evidence. It's taking a great amount of effort, willingness to face abuse in order for scientists to speak up,

and many have been silenced. And so I think the restoration of the freedom for scientists to discuss with one another openly, what the evidence actually says without this fear of repression that we've seen during the pandemic in order to support the lockdowns needs to end. It needs to end. This must never happen again. I mean, when we look at what took place here, J. Badacharya, and if you watch the highway, I mean, just go back and even just speed through every episode that we've done all through COVID,

we have done nothing but a feature here. World renowned scientists and doctors and mathematicians, whistleblowers, all coming out sharing a scientifically backed up perspective that disagreed with the CDC where Rachel is still waiting for someone to tell her that the variance might not be covered by the vaccine in the future. Really? Who are you waiting for? Pfizer that's making billions of dollars to tell you that?

I mean, this whole thing is so incredible and it's so outrageous. And I know that the history books will get this right. They're going to look back on this as though it was some sort of Salem witch trial. But how far away is that moment coming? Where is the finish line on this stupidity? If you look to Australia right now, they just sent out a memo basically to all the doctors to watch out.

You could lose your license if you decide to express a differing opinion. Take a look at this. This is outrageous. This is from the Medical Indemnity Protection Society in Australia. Twelve commandments to avoid AHPRA notifications, meaning sort of like here in America,

that would be like coming after your license, right? This is what this is about. Let's just cut to number nine. You can go through the list. Obviously you'll find this if you're on our newsletter. We'll give you the whole thing. Number nine, use social media with caution. Be very careful when using social media, even on your personal pages, when authoring papers,

or when appearing in interviews. Health practitioners are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with public health messaging. Look at this. This is particularly relevant in current times. Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging. Let me read that again. I mean, this is so mind-blowing. Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material, meaning facts, even though you have facts that doesn't matter, may not necessarily be consistent with our public health messaging, which is going to fly in the face of the facts, and we will take your license if you decide to bring facts to the facts to the.

this conversation. All right, number 10. Engage regularly with a GP and or psychiatrist slash psychologist. See being the doctor's doctor. As well as maintaining good mental health, this can assist you if concerns are ever raised that you may have a health impairment which is affecting your practice. Again, it can be the difference between sitting on the sidelines and continuing to practice. Can you believe this? Keep going to a psychologist. I imagine in Australia, those psychologists report to the government. Is that what we can expect? Go ahead and just share any concerns you might have about the vaccine program so we can nip you in the bud. Absolutely, absolutely deplorable. The fact that this is the state of science around the world. No wonder

Jay Bautichari is shouting from the rooftops. There's so many that have graced this beautiful stage have. But I think that there is hope on the horizon. There is a new breed of doctors. In fact, there may be even a new breed of Surgeon General, like the one in Florida, who had this to say. It's really been a tragedy that my colleagues, my physician colleagues, have decided that it's more important to stick with whatever the CDC or Dr. Fauci is saying than relying on their clinical wisdom, experience, and scientific expertise, which is what doctors usually do. So now doctors who practice medicine in the way that they think is most appropriate for their patients, when they receive pushback from hospitals, we have an avenue for them to file a complaint with our agency for health care administration that the hospital is interfering with their ability and their clinical judgment in terms of what's best for their patients. I don't know what Dr. Joseph Lodapo is thinking there.

I don't think Florida has enough landmass to handle the amount of Americans that want to move there right now, especially doctors who actually believe in the doctor-patient relationship and the ability to treat them as they see fit, given that that patient can move on to another doctor if they don't agree with the treatment they're getting. You see, this is the whole issue. We have got to be free to let our doctors treat us, not be dictated to by, you know, bureaucrats who are swimming in the gray, but telling you it's black and white. What an amazing statement. I see a huge future for Dr. Lodapo out there. I think so many of us dreaming that he becomes maybe head of health and human services of the future or something like that. Can you imagine what that world looks like? That's what we're

dreaming into here at the high wire. A science that is back to, as J. Badacharya put it, and Dr. Lepadopo is so well dictating there, you need to be able to stand up for science. The scientific method only works if we can be honest, if we can have conversations, if we can realize that every patient is different than the one that walks through the door before them. The scientific method absolutely demands, by its definition, demands challenge. That's how it works. You come up with a theory or you come up with a new product. Then science and all the best scientists in the world attack it with every concern they can think of. And if it makes it through that gauntlet of being attacked from every side possible, then and only then can you say, hey, it proved to be safe

and effective against the greatest minds who attacked it with everything they had in the world. You do not allow science to say, no one is allowed to touch my precious, my precious, stay away. Are you crazy? That is going to lead to something that could wipe out our species if we're not already on track for that. All right, let me go ahead and move on with a really huge show coming up for the first time ever live in studio dr peter mccullough is joining me we're going to get into the details on this vaccine um and obviously the myocarditis and issues like that and maybe a little sense of where he's at looking at this entire process that he has been thrown in the middle of but first it's time for it the jackson report all right geoffrey jackson it just keeps getting

better and better. I mean, it's just like the, I told you so is they're flowing like free beer here in the high wire. Free beer or free advertising. This is an exclusive from the blaze. A lot of companies, a lot of media companies now are starting to push FOIA requests, Freedom Information Act requests. So check out this headline. This is huge. Exclusive, the federal government paid hundreds of media companies to advertise the COVID-19 vaccine while those same outlets provided positive coverage of the vaccines. Gigantic that says here in the article in response to a FOIA request filed by the Blaze HHS revealed that it purchased advertising for major news networks including get your notebooks out and put a check by this if you're watching these organizations, ABC, CBS, NBC, as well as cable TV

news, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations goes on to say these outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety. Problem is they didn't put a disclaimer on any of that reporting that it was paid for by HHS. And here we are. We're literally in an inverse universe here, Del, like you mentioned. HHS, as we know, the 1986 Act tasked HHS. with vaccine safety.

This is the organization, health and human services, should be looking after vaccine safety. That's one of the primary goals. They're supposed to be the skeptical ones in the room, not the pomp-pom cheerleaders, ad buying pushers of the next drug made by a pharmaceutical company.

Right, not literally selling it. So let's go to how much money did they have to deal with this. This is from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. I mean, all of these things were passed so fast. We probably forgot about this. This is HR 1319. And it says here in Section 2302, funding for vaccine confidence activities. This is where this money came from.

And it says here's the number, $1 billion with a B to goes on to carry out activities acting through the director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for, number one, to strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States, including its territories and possessions. Wow, one billion dollars, folks. That's what we're up against there. Rochelle Walensky is waiting for someone to tell her that vaccines may not stop variance and they're using a billion dollars to push everybody to get it. Meanwhile, we're telling the truth here.

Can I just take this moment, Jeffrey? Just excuse me a second. Folks, do you realize that your life and the reality and the truth around the science that's happening here is literally hanging like, I think, in our hands here at the highway? I mean, it's a scary thought. I get it. You know, how is it that some, you know, news agency on the internet is getting all of these things right when the CDC is getting it wrong and having to change the science on a constant basis because it's not black and white?

I mean, I just want to take this moment. Do you realize how important those of you that have been donating to us? Do you realize what we are achieving here? And believe me, it's not easy. We are not just, this isn't just a room full of news people. We have international scientists on our team all around the world. The best in the world. Some of them you know, some of them are remaining anonymous, but they are helping contribute to this along with the great reporting by Jeffrey Jackson and, you know, interworking

with these people. And using lawyers, not just ours here, Aaron, Siri in America, but speaking with lawyers all around the world to have lawsuits going. All of this is taking place. It's a huge network and it's getting bigger every day and that's only possible through your help. So please, if you're not one of those people that has become a recurring donor, then hopefully this moment when you realize you mean we are spending a billion dollars every news agency I'm watching is simply a propaganda machine yes even Fox folks even Fox propaganda machine for the government that's locking me down giving me a defunct product that doesn't work that's the case we want to continue this work and believe me we got big lawsuits ahead we are not going to just let this just

disappear they want to walk off in the sunset forget this ever happened we will never let that be so please If you haven't already, just go to the highwire.com, right where you're watching this, click on that donate to I can. It's really simple. In just two minutes, you'll have this all done, throw in your email, phone number. All of that is being kept confidential, and then just becoming recurring donor. We're asking for $22 for $22. If you only want to give a couple bucks a month, you know, then like a cup of coffee, fine. If you want a cable bill, then it's more. Or if you want to just pitch in maybe one dinner a week, say, you know what, instead of you, going after dinner, why don't we support those that are the only ones actually giving accurate

science that is holding up is standing through the test of time. Name another news agency that has the track record we have. You're making that possible. And thank you to all of you that are supporting the high wire through these incredible times. We are not going away. This has only just begun. All right, Jeffrey, back to you. Absolutely. So Health and Human Services was not shy about this campaign. In fact, they put it right on their website. This is what it looked like, and it's still up there. COVID-19 public education campaign is called, We Can Do This. That's what they labeled it. And it says here, in there, the campaign uses products for paid and earned traditional digital and social media platforms. It also says the campaign uses both paid advertising and media

interviews, presentations, radio TV tours, and other public events to educate people about the importance of vaccination. So remember all those times Dr. Fauci was on with those low information celebrities or those podcasters there's nobody heard about when when everyone was lining up to ask some hard questions he would dodge their shows never go on them and go on this media tour of all these people just to get some clicks and likes this is what was being paid this is how where the money was coming from to to give to those influencers to push this message to push the message of quote unquote science that he he claimed to uh to represent yeah remember that famous video where like everybody ends up saying the same script take a look at this

The Ux-S.-Sin-Antonios Jessica Headley. And I'm Ryan Wolf. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso-Luss-Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities. Mid-Michigan communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS4 News produces. But we are concerned about the trouble and trying to be responsible,

one-sided news stories, plaguing our country. Plagging our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some. media outlets publish the same fake stories without checking facts first. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets, publish the stories that we are true without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own

personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I mean, folks, that's how this whole thing works, right? I worked in television. There's a script being written. It's being written by your government health agencies. And you know who's writing it for them? Because actually, they're not that smart. Pfizer, Moderna.

They're writing the script. They're handing it to HHS and Tony Fauci and Wollensky, who's really good at waiting for someone to tell her what's actually going on. and then she hands it off to CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the rest. That is America, the beautiful and free speech and free media as we know it today. And speaking of CNN, check out this headline. We heard through the UK. We've reported on so many times that they use fear.

Well, this is the HHS vaccination ads, use a new tactic to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Fear. These are the headlines coming out when the HHS received all its money. So they were using the same tactics that the UK was using, that the people that actually, they're called SpyB, that they talked about using and they said they were worried that this is going to have a long-lasting effect on the population. We never should have did this. HHS is doing the same thing. So that's what's happening in the U.S. It was a coordinated response or a coordinated push to market these vaccines across the line and the COVID measures in general.

Right. I mean, on the one hand, you're advertised. The other hand, you're paying. God knows what to social media platforms to censor just like we were this week. censor great scientists like Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough. I mean, it was a multi-pronged effort. But let's remember that failed, failed miserably. Del, I want to switch gears here in a big way, not only for our conversation right now, but really for some of the direction of the high wire in general. As everyone knows, you know, we're not reporting in a vacuum here.

There is situations happening right now in Europe and Ukraine. probably some of the most serious since World War II. And there is ripple effects coming out from this. And we're going to report on some of that right now as we will continue our reporting going forward. So here's a headline of the New York Post, skyrocketing food prices it's talking about. Food prices reach record highs skyrocket by 20.7% across the globe.

Now, this was compiled by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. It tracks food staples. And they were blaming this rise on crop conditions, reduce export availability. Here's the kicker. This was put together before the war in Ukraine started. Let that sink in for a second. This was just really from the last couple of years of the lockdowns. So now we go to the next headline here. Remember, Ukraine is really called the breadbasket of Europe. So Putin's energy shock is broadening into a world food crisis. So brace for rationing. It says here roughly 33% of world exports of barley come from Russia and Ukraine combined,

29% of wheat, 19% of maize, as well as 80% of sunflower oil. It goes on to say, quote, everything is going up vertically. The whole production chain for food is under pressure from every side, says Abel-Dalaza Abbasan, the ex-head of agro-markets at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. He says, I've never seen anything like this in 30 years, and I fear that prices are going to go much higher in the 2022-2020 season. The situation is just awful, and at some point people are going to realize

what may be coming. So we're going through this, we're unpacking this, but it's really important for people to be realistic about what possibly might be happening here. So I pulled some more data points on this story as it's moving forward and developing. So this is out of Bloomberg talking about Russian fertilizer. So Russia joltz global fertilizer market

by seeking end to exports. So the Ministry of Industry and Trade in Russia is urged their Russian fertilized producers cut volumes to farmers due to the delivery issues because of what's happening there. And let's look at one of the images from this article here, just to give an idea. So here we have Russia is 9 million metric tons. Belarus is 8 million metric tons. Together, 17 metric tons of potash. It's the fertilizer that they are exporting. Interestingly enough, at the bottom there, Brazil is the world.

largest importer of fertilizer. And so they, they're one of the, they lead the globe and exports of soybeans, coffee, sugar. So that's, that's on the, the docket too. As they do not get these fertilizers coming in, the exports of soybeans, coffee, and sugar are, you know, people are keeping an eye on that as expected to go up as well, because this is all interconnected in this, in this food chain as we, as we, the global food chain, if you will. I mean, it's interesting at this point, that governments, especially the United States across Europe as well in Germany, they're not talking about victory gardens. They're not talking about maybe start planting gardens.

You may just in case there are some food shortages here. So it's spring's coming. This is something I really do think everyone should consider. But let's talk about what these food prices could do to countries that are a little poorer. In 2011, we had the Arab Spring uprising. That was because of wheat prices. And headlines are looking like this again. Soaring wheat prices leave these countries susceptible to uprisings.

And there's an image here just to really bang this home. We have Egypt at the top of the list as a wheat importer affected by Russia at 610.5 million Indonesia, 543.2 million in Bangladesh rounding out the top at 294.8 million as an importer of wheat. And these are susceptible if these wheat imports aren't coming in, there's a very fast burn rate. for unrest within the society. So this is what we're looking at here is a very serious, very serious times. And we're going to keep reporting on this

as these stories develop. Well, and it's shocking, because we've talked about even through COVID, you know, we're all seeing empty shelves in grocery stores. Someone said, you know, recently, you know, if you look up at Costco, where's the top shelves that used to be filled? And we always, I think we think in the United States of America

that we're just buffered against any sort of crisis like this. But I think, you know, it is time to think, I've got my gardens going, continue to talk about other ways as we move forward in our conversations of how we live post-COVID in this post-COVID world, if such a thing actually exists. And really, what I keep thinking about is the different bankers and people that have come on the show and telling us that Europe is already bankrupt, that all of this, that COVID and the great reset is just to try and hide the fact that you're all going to be renters because you're about to lose your homes, that the, you know, finances are going to go.

bust. I would imagine that under those circumstances, there's going to be huge food shortages and problems. And so I'm not going to venture into any sort of conspiracy theory space that anyone's like a wagging the dog are trying to make these things happen. But boy, they sure are convenient, right? It would be very convenient to be saying, well, the reason there's no food on the shelves is because Russia invaded the Ukraine. You know, the reason that, you know, gas prices are so high is COVID, you know, these types of excuses, you know, there's certainly opportunistic moments, if, especially, we're not being told about a crisis that already existed inside of the stability of our banking and our infrastructure that they were never honest about. So I think we should be

very concerned as we look at these headlines, whether or not they're actually tied to what the thing they're tied to. I think we know that there are some tough times ahead around the world. And, you know, God help all of us, that we get through. this and find our way through and how to take care of our families in these, you know, crazy times. Yeah, amen to that. And ahead of Peter McCullough, there's some policy changes that parents should really know about as it pertains to their schools, their student athletes at school. And we're seeing this here. Let's look first at Orange County Public Schools. This is their sports physicals page. And the sports physicals must be completed each year. So this is what they're

seeing now on these pages. And this is what they're seeing now on these pages. And this is what they're seeing from their schools. New, this again, new in capital letters for the 2021, 2020 school year. Electrocardiogram ECG screenings are required for high school students wishing to participate in athletic programs. ECG screenings help identify athletes

who are at risk of sudden cardiac arrest, which is the leading cause of death in athletes. Oh my God. I mean like what other, like again, folks, do you ever remember how, I mean, I got my physical, every year for all the sports that I played. And EKG, whoever heard that children have heart issues prior to this vaccination.

I mean, the timing is outrageous. I mean, they're obviously not saying it there, right? They're not telling you why. We just suddenly feel it's really important for all of our students to get an EKG before we decide to run across a lawn, which could be detrimental to your health. Right. And so there's more to this story here. So let's go to Virginia.

This is allegedly Jackson Riverpedia. pediatrics. And this was on Facebook, this was posted here. It says student athletes, sports physicals are done primarily to make sure you are not at high risk for sudden cardiac death on playing fields. COVID vaccination affects your risks. Notice that's highlighted in yellow. In response to worldwide experience in vaccine adverse event monitoring, we are adopting a more precautionary sports physical sign-off policy. And this is also highlighted in yellow. If you have received doses of any COVID shot, we will not. be able to clear you to compete in sports without performing lab work and possibly an

echocardiogram to rule out potential heart damage. That is outrageous. I mean, that is, it's almost hard to believe somebody would post that. I mean, it's phenomenal. If we're reaching that place where at least there, they're admitting it, right? Orange County is not. Here they're saying, we know why we are going to check the heart on your athlete. And we're really going to be focused on those that

received the vaccine. Welcome to the new normal. Well, you have to wonder if these doctor's offices are going to be liable if something does happen and then the parents come back and say, why didn't you do these ECGs on my child if you knew these were risks from the vaccine? So it's interesting to see individual doctor's offices stepping up. But something also just happened in Florida. This is the headline coming out of Florida. Florida recommends healthy kids do not get COVID-19 vaccines. This is, again, Dr. Joseph Lodapo, the Florida Interior General, he says the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children, Lodopo said shortly before the roundtable ended. He and Governor DeSantis did a round table. And it's interesting, right after that, White House Press Secretary Jen Saki was asked about it.

Listen to this. And then last, Florida Surgeon General says that healthy children shouldn't get the COVID vaccine. Is that a good policy? Absolutely not. Let me just note that we know the science. We know the data and what works and what is the most, what the most effective steps are in protecting people of a range of ages from hospitalization and even death. The FDA and CDC have already weighed in on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for those five and older. The recommendations are vetted transparently through a process with a purpose so that parents can have confidence

after consulting with their pediatricians or doctors if they would like about the safety. But we also know through the data that unvaccinated teenagers are three times as likely to be hospitalized if they get COVID than vaccinated teenagers. So it's deeply disturbing that there are politicians peddling conspiracy theories out there and casting doubt on vaccinations when it is our best tool against the virus and the best tool to prevent even teenagers from being hospitalized. And we didn't spend $1 billion on propaganda to push this product to walk away now. Wait a minute, did I just say that with my outside voice?

And the majority, so we're talking about a harm benefit analysis here. And unfortunately, as we've covered so much on this show, the majority of the studies are unable to find healthy children who have died of COVID. They're unable to confirm that. And the small minority of children who have died of COVID have several. comorbidities so this is this is really a science-based call by dr. Lodapo in Florida there I think the history will shine on him as it looks back at this and there'll be so much shame upon this administration upon our health agencies

and upon every doctor that pushed it and those that are even turning around now and saying after I recommended it now we're actually recommended an EKG because we might have hurt your heart Jeffrey brilliant reporting as always keep up the good work. Thank you for your part. Thank you, Del. All right. You bet. If you like what Jeffrey had to say, you definitely want to check out the Jackson report on the high wire where he gets into more details on the topics we cover here on the high wire. Just fantastic stuff and reporting by Jeffrey Jackson. All right, well, on that space of myocarditis, you know, the doctor's oath is to do no harm. Absolutely important that a doctor is only considering the patient right

in front of them. How many deaths is okay? How many deaths by a vaccination are acceptable? Well, there are a lot of doctors getting passionate about this conversation. None more maybe than my next guest, Dr. Peter McCullough. This is him in a Senate meeting with Ron Johnson just a few weeks ago. I'm telling you, as a specialist, myocarditis is not mild. There are papers by shower and now by Trong, University of Utah at Salt Lake. When they do, they do. do MRI on these individuals with suspected myocarditis, 100% are having heart damage. There is the father of a boy here in this room who's died of myocarditis. One death is too many.

One. One. We have 21,000 cases of myocarditis and climbing in the United States that the CDC is verified. One was too many. under no circumstances, under any circumstances, should a young person ever receive one of these vaccines, let alone ever be pressured to receive a vaccine, let alone ever be mandated to take a vaccine. Passionate and powerful testimony by Dr. Peter McCullough. That was at the Ron Johnson Senate hearing.

It is my honor and pleasure to be joined now by Dr. Peter McCullough. First of all, we have had you zoom in and Skype in and I've, of course, been with you out speaking on stages, but it is just so incredible to have you here inside the High Wire Studio, so I want to thank you for making the trip into talk with this. Well, it's an honor to be here. Thank you. I want to just start out with take me back to just from the beginning. What would your perspective before COVID, before any of this happened, what is your perspective of vaccines and, you know, and medicine, you know, around that topic? Yeah, I'm a practicing internist and cardiologist. I'm trained as an epidemiologist and spent about half my time in clinical practice, half as an author,

an editor, and clinical investigator. Vaccines were really never in my academic scope, and I never questioned them. And my parents never questioned. them. So as a child, I took the vaccines according to the schedule. When I was asked to take one, I took one. My wife and I went to India a few years ago. We took, we went to the public health department. We took additional vaccines. And, you know, I had the general understanding that they were safe and effective and take them as offered. And I had the general understanding that they worked to suppress the recurrence of a disease like polio. That they worked to suppress the frequency of a disease,

like getting tetanus if I had a wound infection, and that they offered some personal protection. I think of the vaccine in my life that came in as a new entry that was meaningful was hepatitis B. So I trained during an era where we were unprotected from hepatitis B. So if I would have gotten a needle stick from a patient who had active hepatitis B, I could have contracted it myself. So that was my general understanding. Okay.

And, you know, can I just ask you in all of your education, how much of that education just going through medicine and a heart specialty did you focus on vaccination? What would you say for someone that just doesn't know? We just have this assumption that doctors really have a deep understanding of vaccination because it's a foundation. because it's a foundational principle of modern medicine, is it not? So what was it? Just describe the education system around it that you had? Well, in undergraduate, we have some courses in immunology, a microbiology, general biology, pathophysiology.

And then in medical school, again, we have not only microbiology, but we can have certain units in virology, have specific courses on public health. But, you know, I don't recall a distinct section on vaccines. I don't recall anything more than a test question here or there on vaccines. I think they're generally accepted as safe and effective. There's Heidi Larson, sort of one of the sort of head figures of the WHO, especially when it comes to the psychology around the work that they do.

In a large meeting, she said to a group of doctors, let's face it, your average doctor or nurse in medical school are lucky if they get a half, a day education on vaccination. Most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums. I mean, in medical school, you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this. Do you think that's an accurate statement? I agree.

Okay. All right. So then COVID, this pandemic, what was your first response and thoughts? You know, I had enough connectivity to. what was going on and communications from New York and particularly from Milan and Tuscany where, while it wasn't certainly bad here in Texas, it was bad elsewhere. And I got very activated. In fact, with my division chief, we decided to embark on one of the first hydroxyquarkin

studies. We got a grant. We got the drug supply coming in. We organized my entire research team, which was focused on heart and kidney disease, to change their focus towards an infection. infectious disease, SARS, COVID-2, the virus, COVID-19, the illness. I got an investigation of a drug application with the FDA. Did that over a weekend.

And it was for the use of- What time period are we talking about? This is March. March. I think the I-N-D number was awarded my name March 30th. March 30th. So I got... Of 2020.

Of 2020. Okay. And so I got busy early. We embarked on this. And I remember being on some health system task force calls. In fact, I was on one call with the National Institute's Health. And the commentary was typically about the health care workers, about negative pressure rooms, personal protective equipment, hand sanitizer, use of masks. And I think on one of

these calls, I remember asking the question, are we going to start treating this illness? And it was dead silence. It just no one had an idea. And I went home that night and I thought about it. I said, this is the opportunity. No one is thinking about treating COVID. No one is thinking about it. So communicated with my colleagues in Italy and they said, well, you know, we think there are some drugs at work. I was watching what was going on in Marseille, France with Didier-R-R-Di-R-Lat. I wasn't aware of Vladimir's Lanko at the time. I wasn't aware of Pierre-Corri and Palmeric, but I embarked with largely at the Italian colleagues with Dr. Ledepo at UCLA, Dr. Rish at Yale, which we quickly bonded with some colleagues at Emory, and put together the very first paper

that says there is a rationale to treat COVID to prevent hospitalization and death. We worked on that in May and June of 2020. The paper was launched to American Journal of Medicine on July 1st, and then it actually went through the peer review process, fully accepted, and published August 7th of 2020. Now, I would have went to New England Journal. I had previously published in New England Journal in Lancet. I thought a breakthrough paper could be there, but there were two things that happened. There was a fraudulent paper published in Lancet on hydroxychloroquine, and there was a fraudulent paper published in New England Journal Medicine on ACE inhibitors, which is another topic of interest from a fake database, a Surge's Fear database.

I started to get a sense that, wait a minute, things aren't going right. And that's the paper that ultimately is retracted, just for the audience. Lancet had to retract it because Surgesphere could not provide any data when doctors. And I imagine you were one of them questioning, where's your data coming from? What's happening here? Yeah, I mean, how could a database exist back from December, January, February, March, having tens of thousands of people claiming that people in their 40s

were being hospitalized with the mean age in the tables was 40. We're hospitalized people in their 80s. Not in their 40s. So the whole thing looked like it was fraudulent, but the fraudulent claim was that there was an excess risk, a slight. It wasn't much, actually, in that paper,

excess risk with hydroxychloroquine, which turned out to be not to be proven correctly. But what was going on, as we were communicating early in 2020, Henry Ford did a big early treatment study in the hospital with hydroxychloroquine. Three thousand patients consented high-quality data showing hydroxychloroquine associated with the reduced risk of mortality when used early in the hospital. I previously was a program director at Henry Ford. I had colleagues there.

We were communicating. And I got a call from Peter Navarro in the White House in the spring of 2020 saying, listen, we are stuck that there was an emergency use authorization. put on hydroxychloroquine, effectively restricting it. In fact, if there was no emergency use authorization, it didn't need one. It was already a fully FDA-approved drug. Let me understand this. So are you saying that had they just left hydroxychloroquine alone and just never dealt with it, that it could have been used because it was already approved?

A lot of us initially thought emergency use authorization, oh, it's authorizing us to use it. But then we realized, wait a minute, no, it's not. In fact, this is making it difficult to use as an outpatient potentially. And sure enough, then the FDA in the summer of 2020 let the hammer down. They said, no, we're not going to expand the emergency use authorization. In fact, hydroxychloroquine should not be used to treat COVID-19. Should not. That statement came out in the summer of 2020.

It was never revisited. There were now, since that time, hundreds of hydroxychloroquine studies that came in. It was never revisited. So I learned something. I learned something that our regulatory agencies were not going to commit to a regular review of new products. And actually, since this has happened, we have not had regular review on any products in COVID-19. Do you feel like the EUA that was put on hydroxyglorogloryngum was on purpose restricted, or do you think it was just an accidental byproduct of perhaps just bad thinking?

I think it's accidental. Yeah, okay. So at what point? So hydroxychloroquine, you're involved in that. You watch this terrible study come out. Now the media fairly early on is against it. Tony Fauci, the first time I hear, you know, we were actually reporting on hydroxychloroquine. We were looking at D.D.R. Raute in France and talking about that.

But the second Donald Trump says it, Fauci seems already bent on saying, I don't trust it. It hasn't been through double-blind placebo studies. and the media just always seem to have a bend against it. When you were one of the first, you're one of the first doing the studies with it. You're recognizing that you're being told out of Italy. There seems to be some success with this. Did something seem off with the media's sort of reporting on this? Yeah, it seemed clear that, of course, it's natural to be critical of smaller studies.

But I distinctly remember a question was directed to Fauci and said, if you had a patient right in front of you now with acute COVID-19, would you treat them with hydroxychloroquine? The historical newsreels will pull this one. Answer, yes. If you're a doctor listening to me right now and a patient with coronavirus feels like maybe they want to try that, and you're their doctor. You're not Anthony Fauci, the guy running the coronavirus task force right now. Would you say, all right, we'll give it a whirl? Yeah, of course.

I mean, particularly if people have no other option. You want to give them a hope. In fact, physicians in this country, these drugs are approved drugs for other reasons. They're anti-malaria drugs and their drugs against certain autoimmune diseases like lupus. Physicians throughout the country can prescribe that in an off-label way, which means they can write it for something that it was not originally approved for. And those words were uttered. Now, quickly, there was bad. backpedaling and you're right, it became political. But the interesting thing is it became political all over the world at once. You know, early in April and Australia got on the books

may not use hydroxychloroquine if one uses hydroxychloroquine punishable by imprisonment or fine. In Marseille, France, was over the counter, becomes prescription. Now it's not so readily available. Then there's more activity. A hydroxychloroquine plant. outside of Taipei burns to the ground. Stockpiles were created, Australia, United States, and then the hydroxychloroquine's never released. United States Association of American Physician Surgeons sues to release the stockpile.

Don't hog the stockpile. And to this day, now it turns out hydroxychloric, when I published the meta-analysis with LaDAPO on this, it's still in the pre-printed service system. It has about a 25% effect size. About a 25% benefit. It's not a mega benefit. But it's modestly beneficial.

Over 300 supportive studies now. There's actually a 28,000 patient study out of Iran, observational study, but very well done observant. You know, demonstrating a large enough population, there is a meaningful reduction in hospitalization and death when applied in high-risk patients, when applied early. And it's safe. Right.

But it's interesting how hydroxychloroquine, which is now in over 30 countries, in the official government recommendations to use, it in probably about 50 to 60 NGOs that officially endorse hydroxychloroquine, how in the first few months and of so of hydroxychloricone use, all we heard was hydroxychloroquine was dangerous for the heart. Right. And now, two years later, we don't hear a word about hydroxychloroquine and dangerous

for the heart. But how I characterize it is the first year of the pandemic was largely the year of hydroxychloroquine. The second year of the pandemic was largely the year of. of Ivermectin. And the third year the pandemic will probably be the year, if we continue to have cases of the new EUA oral drugs, the Pfizer and Merck drugs, but this is natural in medicine. We use what's available to us at the time.

Now this whole time, there's attack on hydroxychloroquine. What we were reporting here is we thought it was interesting that too, we're being told this vaccine, that the vaccine, I mean, Fauci is saying, the vaccine is gonna be the only way to end this pandemic. We're hearing the same thing, from Bill Gates and Trudeau and people all over the world repeating this statement,

our only way out of the pandemic is going to be a vaccine. When was the first time you heard that and what were your thoughts about that idea? You are obviously doing investigation into a repurposed drug, you know? So this idea that there's gonna be no drug that will work, vaccine is our only way out. The landmark that I recall is I was a regular contributor in the Hill, which is,

a political journal, and I was asked by someone there to contribute. And I started contributing early on in the pandemic and making the case that we actually do need access for hydroxyquivorequin. In fact, multiple drugs. But it was in the summer of 2020. I published an op-ed in the Hill, and I said the great gamble of the COVID-19 vaccine development program. So I put a stake in the ground before the clinical trials were ever done. Okay. And what I said is, I said, listen, this is rushing through development. We don't have a great track record for vaccines against respiratory

illnesses. And the chances are it's not going to be safe enough or it's going to be effective enough. And I think I was more levered on efficacy than safety. But the reason why I published this op-ed is because

we had technology coming forward for the first time that was genetic. That was not just an antigen-based vaccine. It wasn't a whole virus vaccine, it wasn't a live attenuated or an inactivated virus, that it was genetic and that the mechanism was going to load genetic material on lipid nanoparticles, which were known to go everywhere in the body. This was published beforehand and it was known that they were going to go to the adrenal glands, the ovaries, the reproductive organs, the brain,

lipid nanoparticles cross the blood by and barrier. For the first time we're going to have vaccines go in the human brain. This was known ahead of time and that there was going to be a genetic payload. And the payload, this was the messenger RNA. It was interesting. It doesn't need the nucleus. The messenger RNA is going to come into the cells. It's going to go into the cytoplasm, the rough endoplasmic reticulum, and it's simply going to use the ribosomes that are there. The ribosomes are there. They're going to pick up this messenger RNA as the next piece, and they were going to transcribe and produce the spike protein. the bud on the surface of the virus.

So once we started to realize that the pathogenicity of the virus is coming from the spike protein, the organ system damage, the cellular damage, the endothelial damage, the worst part of the virus. The worst part. Because I always say, I mean, mostly vaccines, as we look at them, sort of takes a weaker part of the virus. Should it spread, it wouldn't be, it's not like the body, it's not the weapon of the virus. This was the weapon of the virus being recreated. And actually, as the learning came out in 2020, and certainly in 2020 went, actually, this was the lethal part of the virus. Right.

So the analogy could be tetanus, the tetanus toxoid, the toxin. Well, if you gave a tiny bit of it in a controlled setting, you could form immunity to it, but not overwhelm the body with tetanus toxoid. That's how the tetanus shot works. With a hepatitis B, it's really nice. You pick, in a sense, the surface antigen. It's not going to cause any type of hepatitis surface energy. It's just going to give you immunity. That's it.

But this was the spike protein, which we were learning, was going to be, in a sense, the loaded weapon. And the genetic mechanism means that we could not control where it was going to be produced in the body, the quantity that was going to be produced, or the duration that was going to be produced. That's the gamble. Think about that.

Where it's going to be produced, quantity and duration. Because we are not, just to be clear for the audience, that we're not injecting the amount we want in the body, we're sending a message and letting the body produce as much of this as you see, how many cells do you just start producing it, no idea what cells are going to produce it, where in the body, you know,

and then how long it'll be producing until it stops. So total unknowns, complete total unknowns. Think about the intellectual gamble. Think about explaining that to somebody a few years. years later. Right. That we were going to give this a spin. Yeah. And we're not just going to do it in a small number of people and carefully control this and observe this. We were going to do this wide open. When it was finally starting to release and you're watching these trials, what was the first place you really felt like there was a red flag as far as safety? First thing was

when the regulatory standards changed. So vaccines, the conventional. So, live-attenuated, inactivated, and protein-based vaccines, two years of observational safety data. Anything related to genetics, so a small interfering messenger RNA, gene therapy, which we've tried in my field before, five years. Okay. Five years. So truncated to a two-month clinical trial, you know, two months is not going to be enough to see safety. Now we have, there's a preclinical paper that just came out, and first author I believe is Roltkin, that has demonstrated the messenger RNA is physically in the human body in lymph nodes for months,

for months. So to have safety observed for two months in a registrational trial, but have the product physically be in the body, the foreign product, which is the nucleosite analog caps, and the RNA for beyond the duration of safety, is extraordinarily consistent. And then the data broke with Bruce Patterson, who leads in-cell DX, where Bruce showed in the respiratory infection, the spike protein, the S1 segment, is in human CD-16 positive monocytes for up to 15 months after the respiratory infection. Then Banzl publishes that the spike protein after vaccination is traveling in the body in what's called exosomes or small phospholipid packets.

Now we know the spike protein's on the move in the body. independently. And then I have Bruce come on the McCullough report for America Al-Law Talk Radio. I said, Bruce, I need to know because he has a registry of people who've taken the vaccine and he has the ability to detect the spike protein. And I asked Bruce the question and it's in the recording. Bruce, what are you seeing? He's saying I'm seeing the S-1 and the S-2 segment in vaccinated people for as long as I can observe them. Months. And I asked and Bruce, how long is this spike protein going to stay in the body? His best estimate is certainly more than a year.

Now, why is that a problem? Because I think your average person is listening right now thinking, well, I want my antibodies to last forever. We're not talking about the antibodies. So why is it? We're talking about the dangerous spike protein. And the question is, where is it in the body? So when the autopsy studies broke,

of vaccinated people who had taken the vaccine and they short died a few months afterwards, They came from Vienna and they came from Germany. The answer was, it's everywhere. The spike protein is in the brain. It's in the heart. It's critical organ. We're not talking the antibodies to the spike protein.

We are talking about the weapon of the virus, the dangerous, inflammatory cytokine-inspiring, you know. Blood clot promoting is the most... It's all over the body. Right. So, I mean, you could take... Everyone understands this. Blood clots in the body are a bad thing.

Yeah. The spike protein... It's incontrovertible. It causes blood clotting. Every single study shows that. It damages endothelial cells. I published papers with Zhang and colleagues demonstrating the spike protein

damages endothelial cells. People have the hardest time figuring out. Is it the virus with the spike protein or the spike protein alone can it damage things? And once we started getting the preclinical papers saying forget the nucleocapsid, just the spike protein alone. When we give that in models,

does it damage cells? Does it cause blood clotting? Does it damage the heart? The answer is yes. Independently, the spike protein is pathogenic. And they brag, essentially, that the vaccine causes more spike protein throughout the body and thus to create ramp up the antibody production than a natural infection, right? I mean, it's sort of the load is much higher.

It would be okay if the spike protein was benign. So it is true that the antibodies in the natural infection, infection have a blunted curve against the spike protein, the nucleocapsid. And then after the vaccines, the antibodies are, you know, five to ten times higher. So it is true. So what we'd infer, if the antibody response is so much higher after the vaccine, the human body systemically must have been exposed to so much more spike protein. That's concerning.

Because in the respiratory infection, if we're able to battle off the virus in the sinuses and the upper respiratory tract, we don't get much spike protein exposure. Right. Whether you get the respiratory infection or the vaccine, there is some degree of an installation of something foreign in the human body. So to your average person is trying to decide between those two things. Well, it sounds like natural infection lasts a long time. The vaccine seems to have, are they, is it the same? Am I just, I mean, you know, like how do we make this decision? We're trying to fight something. I don't want to have it forever. People are getting the vaccine to try and avoid that, yet it's filled with the S1, the spike protein.

That's the bad guy and lasting forever. The first thing that comes into my mind is dose. Dose. Dose. It'd be best to not get any of this stuff, right? So it'd be wonderful if you never got the virus. You never got exposed to the spike protein through the vaccine. And that, you know, it was like before COVID.

That would be great. I had a patient recently, took the vaccines because she had to for her job. She's in her 50s, thin, active. And around December or so, she gets COVID-19. and she languishes and she languishes and she languishes. So she's had the vaccine, she's fully vaccinated, she gets COVID, which is now understood to be common. She gets COVID.

And I want to say between the second or third week, blood clot, she gets a pulmonary embolice, and now she's committed to blood thinners. The thought came into my mind. She's already been preloaded with spike protein with shot one and shot two. Now she's got the third dose with the respiratory infection. Wow.

And she ends up with a blood clot. It does make me wonder, in all these cases of complications after the vaccine, how many people have been pre-installed with the respiratory infection and they get additional spike protein with the vaccine? The thought has come into my mind. It's frustrating because I filled out these various forms clinically. And there's no checkbox to say the patient previously had COVID.

Right. So the CDC will never know. So it may be accumulating in some way. We can look at an infection as a dose and you're just sort of adding this accumulation of this dangerous spike protein, no matter how you're approaching it naturally or through an injection, you are stockpiling something that's really bad for your body. I mean, everything we've just talked about, honestly, has become known within the last few months. Wow.

All right, because we could probably sit here all day, let me go ahead and dive really into what's got to you on the talk circuit, speaking to news agencies all over myocarditis, periocarditis. First of all, just briefly, prior to the vaccine, How much interaction did you have with this concept of myocarditis? It came up rarely. Okay. In the last three decades, I can think of a handful of cases. I can think of one fatal case that was in my circles.

It happened to a dean at a medical school. So it can happen. Myocarditis can happen. There are some viruses that can cause it. It's very much what we consider a very rare condition. Okay. So there's a paper from Finland that's useful. published recently before COVID, but recently, looking at myocarditis, which tends to be a problem

of young people. You'd never hear somebody in nursing. I'm getting myocarditis. It's a young person's disease. But they looked at people, I want to say, below age 20 in Finland, the whole country. They have very good national registry before COVID. How much myocarditis was out there? And they showed almost none in children before puberty. And then after puberty, there's a rise. About 90% of it was in boys, 10% in girls. So there must be something with puberty and androgens related. Again, before COVID. Right. And the rate, though, was four cases per million. Four cases per million. Okay. So you can think of this in the United States if we have, what's the number of children? 70 million? I would say 75 million. Okay. So let's say 70. Yeah. So that means 280 cases.

of myocarditis could pop up. It could be a powerful virus, adenovirus. Rare cases of what's called giant cell myocarditis, that's the bad one. That one's fatal. I had one of those in my circles. That's fatal. It's completely idiopathic. But people still ask the question what happens when you get it. And there is a paper, a recent paper by Toshope and colleagues in circulation research that suggests, in these cases of myocarditis, again, before COVID, that about a third took substantial damage to the heart and didn't completely recover. You know, there was a hit and it didn't come back completely. And then 13% were really damaged, in fact, could get worse.

Okay. So the point is it wasn't one of these things you get in and out of before COVID. Right. Okay. So we knew that by from prognosis. Now, fast forward to COVID. And as the story broke in June of 2021, the CDC had a universe of cases of, of several hundred cases, let's say less than a thousand, but several hundred cases,

but didn't have much data, ultimately got down to around about 200 cases that they could adjudicate and they looked at this and said, listen, that 90% of these people who got, they were young people, that they were hospitalized. So, you know, that's by definition, by regulatory definition, and that's a serious adverse event. You're hospitalized. S-A-E. Hospitalized or died, that's serious. that about a quarter had abnormal echocardiograms

inferring that they had reduced left ventricular function. They had AKG changes, positive components. They met a clinical definition. And I was asked to go on national TV around about that time, and the story broke. And the CDC and FDA, which they had actually a joint meeting, they used the terms rare and they used the terms mild. And I immediately bristled at that.

said, listen, it can't be mild because they're hospitalized. So by definition, it's serious. We cannot say something that's serious is mild. Anything that lands your child in the hospital is serious. Right. The second point was that it was rare. I said, listen, I can't say it's rare. They had tried to divide among this giant population of adults who took the vaccine.

I said, this is just becoming known, and the children were just starting to be vaccinated. So basically, it was affecting the children. We had millions and millions of adults who had all received the vaccine, And as soon as we started seeing this myocarditis issue, they put it in context of the entire body of people that had been vaccinated instead of focusing on the group that it was affecting. So they watered down the numbers essentially by the distributor amongst people that we're not having weren't at risk for myocarditis.

If you just focus on the kids, you're like barely any kids have gotten this and we're seeing huge signals you can't say it's rare. Right. And that was actually in the CDC slides. I was on one of the calls. And it just, it was obvious. There were attempts to make. Minimize it. And so I use two words.

I said, it's serious. And in data safety work, of which I've chaired over two dozen data safety monitoring boards for randomized trials, big ones, for the National Institutes of Health, big pharma. Yeah. And I'm on DSMBs right now. I am a chair of DSMBs right now. I do this work. In safety research, we use the term tip of the iceberg, meaning this first signal, because it's just been detected. now could be the tip of the iceberg.

Right. And fast forward, oh my Lord, now we have over 200 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system or in the National Library of Medicine PubMed on vaccine-induced myocarditis. And we're going to go through this, and I want to get in those in just a second, but just this idea you said, you know, they were trying to minimize what they were seeing there. That should be so shocking because the CDC, you know, the FDA, you know, the FDA, NIH in the United States America, you know, every country sort of has their regulatory agencies.

But this idea, the scientific method, is what I understand it is, you're supposed to challenge the hypothesis or challenge the product with all the skepticism you can muster up. The best scientists in the world are supposed to take every pot shot at it you can. If it stands up against that scrutiny, then you know it's safe. It's why we keep these things in a small controlled study, allow people to really, let's see the paper, let's see the peer review on it, let's talk about it. it, this is a product that's being released to everybody, as you said, a brand new technology, spielunking the immune system, messing with DNA, RNA, things we've never done before, is going

out to a gigantic population, hundreds of millions of people in America, maybe a billion around the world, and you're telling me the regulatory agency that should be incredibly sensitive to any little movement is quelling what looks like could be a very large signal. Because they're in the wrong position. This use is really important for the audience to understand. The named sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC. They should never be the sponsor of a program. The FDA's role is not to be a sponsor.

It is actually supposed to be a safety watchdog agency. The CDC is supposed to be an investigational outbreak organization. The NIH is supposed to be a government research organization. We should have had a separate vaccine. administration committee come together. It should have had an independent data safety monitoring board type of stuff I do. Yep. A clinical event committee to adjudicate these critical events and we should have had a human ethics board assigned to the whole case. Actually, Office of Human Research Protection's in Washington would have been fine for that. That should

have been the setup. So anytime there was a safety signal, the FDA would say, listen, we're the safety watchdogs, show us these cases. Right. We're skeptical. We're not going to buy this hook line instinct of fruit. Yeah, the FDA has pulled 100 drugs off the market. They have no problem pulling drugs off the market. The FDA usually has a conversation with the sponsor and says, listen, things aren't going good so you can voluntarily recall it or we're going to tell you to recall it. And the FDA is good on it.

The FDA is charged with protecting the safety of America. But now they are the sponsor. They're going to say to themselves, you got a choice here, you pull it or you, you know. They're not going to. They've been told they've gotten their marching orders, execute this program. It's a needle in every arm. The president of the United States has barked a command saying get vaccinated. Do you think the FDA is going to say, wait a minute, we got a safety problem?

Let's talk about the safety problem now. We reported just a couple of weeks ago. You've been on before, so we've covered myocarditis. I think most of our audience recognizes you're a specialist here on this issue. You've been very outspoken at the risk. But there's a couple of studies that have just come out recently, and we covered them. I just want to sort of go over it to get your perspective. First of all, we have a study here.

This is the JAMA Network. Myocarditis case is reported after MRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. from December 2020 to August 2021. As a passive system, Vares data are subject to reporting. Now, that's VARES vaccine adverse events reporting system. This is the CDC's capture system for vaccine injury. Data are subjected to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible, given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis,

to VERS after MRA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated. And it has some numbers. So we look at background rate in 12 to 15, we were supposed to be a background rate of 0.53% per million. This is like a half of one person per million might come away with myocarditis. But when vaccinate with a second dose, 70 cases per million.

And then, you know, goes up 1.34 in the 16 to 17. We saw 105 cases. I mean, these are astronomical jumps in, you know, the rate of myocarditis. What are we supposed to learn from this? Well, let's just take this in context. This is from the vaccine event reporting system, right? Right. So that means that in a paper by Meisner and colleagues, before COVID, in the pediatric literature,

Meisner asked the question, who reports to VERS? Where does the data come from? Answer, 86% of the time, it's a doctor, it's a nurse, coroner, health care personnel, or the pharmaceutical company itself reports to VERS. 14% of the time it's the patient or the patient's family. So VERS right now should already tell you it's a serious form of reporting. It's not willy-nilly. Now, there is a self-reporting system that our CDC has for COVID.

It's called V-Safe. and you can do it on your phone. This isn't be safe. This is VERS. Right. Now, VERS is multiple forms filled out online or in a PDF. Right. And I can tell you the average submission takes about half an hour.

If falsified reports are done punishable by imprisonment or federal fine. Really? So it is the most serious thing as a doctor that I do. They want my name all over this. Who are you? Where's your office? Because we are told that VERS is just this system. Anyone can report to it.

You can't trust. It's not reviewed. It's not verified. It's trustable with what's in there, and this type of research is done with those with a permanent VAERS number. So everything gets submitted to VAERS, and it gets a temporary VAERS number. Then the CDC starts to look at it, and when it looks legit, they convert it over to a permanent VAERS number. Okay. So all the queries that we do in the open VAERS data system and the direct queries we do is on those with permanent VAERS numbers.

Okay. So if it's 0.5 per million, and they come up with a rate of 70 per million after the vaccine. The CDC originally had 63 per million. Tracy Hogue from UC Davis using VERS and V-Safe. She came up with a number of roughly 90 per million, and now we have the sharp paper. Let's bring up. All right. Risk of myoporacoditis following COVID-19 MRNA vaccination, a large, integrated health system,

comparison of completeness and timeliness of two methods. Okay. And in this, conclusions, we identified additional valid cases of myoparricoditis following an MRA vaccination that would be missed by the BSD's search algorithm, which depends on select hospital discharge diagnosis codes. The true incidence of myoporotitis is markedly higher than the incidents reported to U.S. advisory committees. This matters, and here's the numbers, right? Here's where they show, and you can see that age group, you know, right here, the five

137, 537 cases per million in 18 to 24 years old. We were just talking about 70. Now we're talking about 534 cases per million. Okay, so this is very important. So the age range, 18 to 24, 90% of these are boys or men. Okay. So interesting, that's actually consenting age. So the highest risk are people who give their own consent. This isn't a parental, protection of child issue anymore, assent, or whatever, legally authorized representative. These are consulting, sentencing adults, males age 18 to 24, rate 537 per million. And when we add in a paper that Rose and myself published in current problems of cardiology, we showed the age range extends all the way up to age 50 in VERS.

Now it's skewed. It peaks it around 18 to 24, but it goes all the way up to age 50. Now there's two reports that just hit the, um, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, literature and there they actually have two men in their 60s with pretty significant myocarditis. So it certainly can occur later. The point is of using all these different capture methods is use of ICD codes and automated codes versus self-report and then clinical ascertainment. For someone who takes a vaccine, let's say a young person, we would expect they go to a

vaccine center. There's no ICD codes generated. They should take the vaccine, go home, go to work. and they're fine. They should never generate any clinical ICD codes. So describe what an ICD code is for your labor. Is the international classification of diseases when someone comes in to a ER or a hospital, there is coding that's applied. Right. And that coding generates bills for the, generates the hospital bill basically. And so if there is...

Every single ailment you can possibly have has a code to it. Right. So it's sensitive. So right. So it's sensitive. So it's, So if there's chest pain, that's a code. If it's myocarditis, now that's a more specific code. And then in elevation and tropon in myocardial infarction, it goes on and on. All have their own codes. Right. So there's ways to use codes to identify diseases.

So in a situation where someone takes the vaccine and they're expected to generate no codes because they won't go into the ER, using the methods that Sharf used are legitimate because these people are going to a health care provider with a problem and the codes. look like it's myocarditis. Right. Okay. Yeah. Now, in the VERS system, there's no ICD codes.

There, largely the doctors, the nurses, the pharmaceutical companies, somebody thinks the vaccine caused it. And in fact, they actually say it's myocarditis. Yeah. Okay. And the CDC is calling to verify its myocarditis. So what we have in V-Safe looks pretty solid. Yeah.

What we have in papers that are clinical papers that have actually looked at vaccine myocarditis, where they actually have the patient's records. They have the EKG, the Chaponin, the Echo or MRI in the clinical course. That would be the shower paper as an example is a good one. Trong. All these other places to collect the data that VERS isn't looking at. Yeah, where they actually have the clinical encounters. What we've learned from the clinical papers, not from the ICD code papers and not from

VERS, is that in the clinical papers, A, it looks very serious. It looks like the symptoms are deceptive. So some of these younger people, maybe they just have a little fever. They haven't had much chest pain. They have anything else. And they come into clinical recognition. And then very importantly, the vast majority, far more than 95%, have major heart damage by MRI. That's the big shocker.

That's the big shocker. So the clinical papers are worrisome. What they're finding, very high cardiac troponins, heart damage by MRI. And because of the enthusiasm for vaccines, which is universal among doctors, we really have to discount their conclusions. You've been talking about codes, and I think it's important because there's a study that, you know, the pro-vaccine side of this, those that are really excited about it, are pointing to this study that basically says the infection itself, having natural COVID is, you know, worse than the vaccine when it comes to myocarditis. Before you show this, let's establish the context. Okay. Again, if you get COVID-19 the respiratory infection, you go get a community.

You get a natural infection. Yeah, natural infection. You go to a community testing center. You get a swab. You're COVID-positive. You're told to go home. You do that. Yeah.

And you get through COVID. You will never generate anything of interest in terms of ICD because you're at home. You can't generate them. You only get generated when you go generate a hospital bill. Okay. Now the question is, what if you're sick enough to be in the hospital? Right. Now, in order to get hospitalized with COVID,

And some of your listeners have been hospitalized, they know that you've got to be really sick. When you're sick enough to be hospitalized with COVID or with pneumococcal pneumonia or gram-negative pneumonia or any other types of serious pneumonia, the blood test for heart injury called troponin is commonly positive. In fact, it's known in my field that it's roughly positive above the upper limit of detection about 50% of the time. Because it's so stressful to be in the hospital. There is a release of troponin. It's typically not associated with EKG changes, with MRI or echocardiographic changes. There's an elevation and cardioponin. What happened is this elevation and chopin was tripping off ICD codes because they are generating

lots of codes in the hospital. And the codes in the algorithm that positions codes for positive chopin was able to use ICD codes in these studies to declare myocarditis, even though it wasn't clinically validated myocarditis. It was basically chopin elevation. So they're looking at these codes and sort of. of triangulated and saying this could have been myocarditis. Got it. Right. Okay. So it's an invalid use of ICD codes in hospice because if they would do the same exercise with non-COVID pneumonia, they'd come up with

the same conclusion. Okay. So that's going to generate millions of billions of people who have these constellations of codes and that's led to the incorrect conclusion that there's way more myocarditis with the respiratory infection than there is with the vaccines. Let's show that study just so people know what we're talking about. This is the study that's being. used to say risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection people under age 20 population-based analysis. Here's basically what it said. For the 12 to 17-year-old male cohort, 0.09% patients developed myocarditis overall with an adjusted rate per million of 876 cases. Obviously, higher than the 537 we were just talking about with the vaccine. For the 12 and 15 and 19 male age groups,

the adjusted rate per million were 601, and 5161. So obviously these are here. numbers and they're saying this is happening amongst the naturally infected but what you're pointing out is you were looking at the worst case scenario of those that were naturally infected with COVID that ended up being hospitalized and that these aren't even confirmed it wasn't that a doctor says you have myocarditis they used all these different codes to say well if we group these codes together there's a chance that was myocarditis let's just consider it myocarditis and they have this explosive you know percentage rate that if

in per million if we had millions of these people this is how many per million there would be, but it's a very specific concentrated group of very sick people, sick enough to be in a hospital, and then a use of codes that isn't really inaccurate. Right. The point is it's contrived, and I think it's contrived to try to make the case that this is normal, that this is acceptable. And my point is, listen, if you get hospitalized with COVID-19, the respiratory illness, that's a bad thing. If you take a vaccine, you should never be hospitalized due to the vaccine. Right. No. No. No. No. a perfectly healthy person. It's supposed to make you healthy ears. Yeah, it's supposed to make

you healthy ears. No, the vaccine is not supposed to put you in the hospital. Right. You sent over a study. They've done an autopsy now of two young men who died after myocarditis or, you know, and so let's just take a look at this and maybe you can help me through it. Autopsy, histopathologic cardiac findings and two adolescents following the second COVID-19 vaccine dose. We suspect that the acute cardiac change is seen in these two boys are the result of Epinephrine mediated effects on cardiomyocytes. These occurrences generally have a favorable prognosis. However, some patients may die from the underlying non-cardiac cause of myocardial findings,

such as with subarachnoid hemorrhage. On the epinephrine mediated effects on cardiomyotocytes, what does that mean? There are some conditions in human medicine where there's a surge of adrenaline and noradrenaline in the body. There's a kind of three, in a sense, chemicals the body makes that really are, save the body in a fight or flight situation. And there are dopamine, noraphyne, and epinephrine. There are natural chemicals that we make. In fact, when we give somebody epinephrine, we're actually giving the mimic of the human.

The human body does make some drugs in a sense. Those are drugs. And there are conditions. So, for instance, a suberectoid hemorrhage, a massive hemorrhage in the brain can cause such an outpouring of these catecholamines where they're toxic to the heart and the heart can actually have QT prolongation and have a cardiac arrest. There is a condition where there's incredible stress, emotional stress, and there's an outpouring of catecholamines and the heart responds abnormally is called tachasubo cardiomopathy. Right. And stress cardiomopathy. It's also called

the broken heart syndrome where there can be a cardiac arrest or a picture that looks like a heart attack. In these cases, what happened is boys, they're teenage boys, they took shot number one, they took shot number two, and on days three and four, clockwork, exactly what Tracy Hogue showed in UC Davis, the boys are found dead at home. They're found dead. Parents are obviously devastated. The coroner gets involved, and they have University of Michigan pathologists get involved, University of Minnesota pathologists get involved, and they do a thorough autopsy. They don't find Takasubo, they don't find subaractoine hemorrhage, they find myocarditis in the heart, and they show inflammatory cells in the heart. Interestingly, in the case number two

that's in the figures, there's actually inflammation of what's called the cells around the capillaries called perisites. So that matches exactly what Avolio and colleagues shown in the preclinical paper, that the spike protein in the human heart affects the perisites, the support cells around capillaries and cardiomyocytes. So there's clearly inflammation. And, you And there's this superimposed catacolamine effect, which I'm not surprised. When these boys at home who had cardiac arrests, and these are healthy boys, there must have been a massive surge of catacolomines. There must have been a struggle. Maybe they sought help.

Maybe they were struggling to get on the phone or a cell phone. They knew something was going down. And then finally they just went down and they died. There was no one there. So the important point is there was no opportunity for CPR. There was no opportunity to call 911. It was cardiac death. Now, we don't know if the boys were previously that day playing basketball.

We know in the setting of myocarditis that physical activity is out. And this triggering of cardiac death with exertion is well known in myocarditis. It's so well known that our guidelines say don't trigger it. But these autopsies are conclusive. They died of myocarditis. They died exactly when we thought it would after the vaccine. Now, it follows on a paper by Choi that showed that in a 22-year-old Korean man who died after visor. Now, he had chest pain for five days before he went into the hospital.

He died within seven hours in the hospital. And it follows on a paper by Verma from St. Louis that was in the Munungan Journal of Medicine last summer with a fatal case. And they showed the histopathology. And I was on national TV recently asked to comment on this. And I can tell you, my point is, where are the FDA warnings now that upgrade myoconial? that it could be fatal. Shouldn't parents and young adults consenting for their vaccines know that they could get myocarditis? The FDA already says this with Pfizer and Moderna that, in fact, the vaccines cause myocarditis. There's no controversy here. They're saying it caused my,

they need to say that it can cause myocarditis and it can take your life. This study was interesting in reading it because it basically said, though, this isn't like the myocarditis we usually see. This seems to be induced by cytokine storm, you know, or cytokine. and, you know, do you know what it's referencing there? It's each different myocarditis is going to have their own signature. The most lethal is called giant cell myocarditis. They didn't find giant cells there. You know, it's adenovirus or parvovirus is going to be a bit different.

This is lipid nanoparticles delivering the genetics for the spike protein. The spike protein shown expressed in periscites causing inflammation, which is exactly what was shown there. And then it shows the superimposed calicomene effect. It's worrisome for many reasons, because if the authors are right, and there's a superimposed effect of catecholamines, boy, does this make this the setup for these sports cardiac arrests that we're seeing. All of those athletes we see, we're getting attacked for having a video that we keep putting out. There's over 100 athletes now plunging face first into the turf. This is what the pathologists are basically saying.

Wow. This looks unique that this could be. the setup for a stress induced with catecholamines triggering a cardiac arrest. That's what they're pointing out. When we're seeing these numbers of 500, you know, cases per million, is your thought that we're not, I mean, do you think it's larger than that? Are there a lot of cases that are just going undetected? Do you think that, do you feel like that's going to be pretty accurate?

Boy, it's hard to tell. The VERS system, I think I quoted at the U.S. Senate, was over 20,000 cases that they know about. and there's an under-reporting factors. So under-reporting in VERS for mortality, based on CMS data that came through the whistleblower lawsuit to the FDA, came out at about five as an under-reporting factor. For all-cause mortality extended out to 20 weeks, the paper by Pantazakos and Seliming from Columbia, that under-reporting factor came out to 20. So let's for easy math say that we have an underreporting factor of 10 for myocarditis.

Then if we have 20,000 cases in VAERS, that means the real number in the United States is 200,000 kids who have had myocarditis enough to become to clinical attention. We must be starting to see large hospitalization numbers. Now, the University of Toronto recently had a paper come out and say, listen, we've got, you know, they've got 100 cases. University of Utah at Salt Lake put together a case series, 140 cases. Can you imagine if we have 5,600 hospitals in the United States, 2,200 acute care hospitals. Can you imagine if each hospital can generate 100 cases? Wow. This is all tractable.

We may have that many cases of myocarditis. So we need a ton of research on vaccine-induced myocarditis. Who's at risk for it? Does previously having COVID set someone up? Is it actually the dose of the spike protein? What are the determinants? How to diagnose it? Obviously, we need treatment.

We haven't talked about that. But I try to just empirically use a combination of colchicine and prednisone. And then if there's any signs or symptoms of heart failure by clinical exam, by echocardi, and there's three important biomarkers to measure. Not only cardiac troponin, but BNP, ST2, and Galactin 3. That gives us kind of this idea of, is the heart under strain?

And I've had some late cases of myocarditis where, in fact, wow, the markers really show it. And I have one right now who's about nine months into it, his heart has finally recovered in terms of ejection fraction. But I really wonder, even though I got the heart pumping function back to normal, He doesn't feel normal. I really wonder long term, is this going to be okay?

There's great uncertainty. The human heart is a precious asset. We would want no damage. We need this heart to carry us our entire lifetime and to put the kids behind with an unnecessary insult to the heart is unthinkable. That's the reason why I say one case is too many. And so what I've said is that we need,

this is a crisis of compassion. We need people to recognize. These are brand new vaccines. They weren't safety tested. Now we're seen in the peer-reviewed literature. We have a thousand papers overall, about half in the preprinted service system, half that are fully published. 200 on myocarditis is incontrovertible that vaccine injuries are happening. They are described.

Myocarditis is officially recognized. Vaccine-induced thromacidopinic papyria is officially recognized. Partial venous thrombosis of portal thrombosis with messenger RNA officially recognized. Guillain-Barray syndrome, officially. recognized Bell's palsy, cervical myelitis, it goes on and on. As the medical literature evolves, this idea is going to have to get into the minds of doctors to be ready to receive these cases. They cannot deny these cases. Patients are furious. Are you at all concerned? You're really out warning signals saying certainly when it comes to the youth,

do not vaccinate the children now. Obviously, everything in medicine, you know, it's a bet in some way. You're betting on what you're seeing as the outcome here. You're crunching the numbers. This is right in your wheelhouse. Is it accurate to say you're the most published heart doctor in the world? I've heard that statement made. I am in this area of heart-kidney interaction.

So to give you an idea, an average professor of medicine would have. of 25 peer-reviewed publications in the National Library of Medicine PubMed. That would be pretty solid. That used to be a standard. I have 660 plus peer-reviewed publications in the National Library of Medicine. I'm the editor of reviews in cardiovascular medicine.

For decades, I've published a chapter in Braunwald's textbook cardiology in Harvard considered the Bible of cardiology. And so I've shared data safety monitoring boards. I've presented before the FDA and the US Congressional Oversight Panel. I have given lectures all over the world, New York Academy of Sciences. I was the endowed lecture at Harvard two years ago for both cardiology and nephrology division. And in COVID-19 now I have over 50 peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 or have been the author block or contributor to including the two seminal papers on early treatment.

I am telling you, DEL, I am not shy about telling you. I am in a position of authority when I tell the world I am concerned about this and I have legitimate concerns and they so far have not been handled. As this seems to be a growing issue, or you do have a concern because you're really putting your butt on the line here that the powers that be, we're global interests, who knows, as you said, we don't know really what's behind all this, that they'll be somehow able to sort of cover up all of these children that are being injured and all the various things and just say it never happened. Do you have a concern with that or do you just feel like it's just inevitable?

It is going to be obvious to the world and there's just no way they're going to be able to hide it. It's going to be obvious. You know, Robert Malone said it really good on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. You and I both presented there too. It was terrific experience. But Malone said something is stuck in my mind. He said the truth is like a lion. Don't worry about it.

Let it out. The lion can defend it. itself and it's true. The truth can defend itself. This is so big. This problem is so big. Think about it. We didn't start vaccinating the kids until midpoint of last year just about. 200 peer-reviewed papers smoking in the medical literature within six months. This is going to be a torrent. There's going to be thousands of papers. Thousands. There will be thousands of papers. There's papers of all the different permutations. Myocarditis conduction system destroyed needs a pacemaker. When I was on Joe Rogan, I was describing myocarditis. And Joe goes, oh, we've already reviewed a case of myocarditis

of a young girl who had it. And it took her all the way to the point of transplant. And then she died with an infection after the transplant. There's already Fabian Trump, the Olympic marathoner from Switzerland who told the Swiss news agencies, yeah, I took the vaccines and I took the booster. Now I've got myocarditis and I can't run. Yeah. It will come out. All the athletes who are having these sudden death episodes,

it's been calculated what's the rate of sudden death before COVID and afterwards? And obviously there's been a big explosion. But sooner or later, people are people going to put this together and figure out who took the vaccines and when? With myocarditis, it looks like it is temporally related. I think that's the agreement is. and I don't want to scare people out there. You know, if someone took a vaccine,

let's say a young man who's 30, took the vaccine, they took it a year ago. Are they going to explosively develop myocarditis nine months or no? I doubt it. Now, could they have had some clinical myocarditis and have a problem later on? You know, I do have people report this to me. Say, listen, I took the vaccine in March,

but I still don't feel right now. I have some effort in tolerance. I can't work out the way I used to. What do I think of as a cardiologist? I think, oh, my gosh, did they take some heart damage? they're young and they're otherwise compensating. And I think there's going to be a lot of cardiac evaluations

for either acute myocarditis, subclinical myocarditis, and then something happens, or actually missed myocarditis, and then they have a cardiomyopathy later on. Do you recommend people that have been vaccinated going and getting that checked? I think it has to be symptom-driven. I think people took the vaccine,

and they're perfectly fine. I don't think we should conjure up. That's a lot of people. You know, in the United States... 200 million people go pouring into the... Yeah, we have 200 million people. And we could raise a lot of it. And people in my family took the vaccines

and people in my social circles have taken the vaccines. The last thing we want to do is we don't want to, COVID-19 was enough of a fear storm in the United States. We don't want to conjure up more large numbers of fearful people. But at the same time, we want to protect people against what we think is going to be a scourge of vaccine-induced. injury syndromes. These look legitimate. The pathophysiology is there. We know the spike protein is dangerous, and it makes sense for some people. Maybe it's the distribution of lipid

nanoparticles. Maybe their import mechanisms are vigorous, and they take out more genetic material. It explains why younger people may have more. That where the spike protein is expressed, how the body responds to it. Maybe they've been previously primed with COVID-19 respiratory illness. then they get the vaccines. Or maybe like the case I described, maybe she was primed with the vaccines and then she gets the respiratory illness. I have a feeling that repeated doses,

respiratory illness and vaccines and boosters, may play a role. That one I think is going to be tractable. So we've covered myocarditis, I think, very thoroughly here, but a lot of myocarditis, people are going to live with it, it's going to be fine.

It seems like the ultimate outcome that we have to be concerned about is death. We're seeing, you know, all cosmonautitis. mortality on the climb all over for many different reasons, these heart issues. But, you know, do you believe these vaccines are causing death? Now, I say that the CDC says there's no evidence that the vaccines are causing death.

What is your feeling on that? Well, we have two cases right here that Gill and colleagues clearly say the vaccines cause death in these two young boys and it's myocarditis. And Choi said that in myocarditis and Verma said it. So there is a published literature that says that these cases they're describing. Now the question is, are these large numbers of deaths are related to the vaccines? And we mentioned over 20,000 cases of myo-paracarditis in the open VAERS data overlay. And in the same overlay, over 20,000 deaths in the CDC VAIR system,

when death is not only a checkbox, but actually death or mortality is anywhere in the, in the vignette or anywhere on the form. That's how Open VERS works. I did a query two days ago directly on the checkbox of death. That's typically the first submission to VERS. Did the doctor, nurse, or pharmaceutical company, which is 86% of the time,

or in 14% of time the family member, did they actually check off death? Now, that's a hard one. You check that box. They died. That number, as of a few days ago, Dell was 12,670. So let's take that as a number. That's in the VAERS system. Question is, question on the table, did the vaccines cause those deaths? The first thing I'd say is, listen,

the person who filled out the form thinks they did. Okay, let's just take that at face value. So then we look epidemiologically. I'm an epidemiologist. I trained in epidemiology. I use this every day. We have what's called the Bradford Hill Tenets of Causality. This is a criteria assessment we use. In the absence of autopsy, what do we really have to determine an exposure and death? The first thing is, do we have a large signal? Is it something, we have two people die? Or did we have 12,000-66?

So it's a large signal. We know with all the vaccines combined in the United States, I think the number I know is roughly 278 million shots a year, all the vaccines combined in VERS each year, that number of deaths is round about 150. Typically, no more than 50 per product. So in a single year to hit 12, 670, of somebody checking the box and then over 20,000 anywhere on the form, those numbers are here. So big signal, we meet that criteria. Second criteria, is it conceivably possible?

Is there a dangerous mechanism of action? Of course there is. We're installing the genetic code for the human body to produce a lethal protein. Got that one. That one's indisputable. Okay. The next criteria, is it temporally related? Do you take the vaccine and is it just stochastically die 30 days later? No. Two analyses, one by Rose, one by McLachlan, says that 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours, 80% of deaths occur within a week. These two boys died within four days of the shot. I mean, so it's very tightly, temporally related. You got that. Is it internally consistent? with other non-fatal syndromes that could have been fatal. Heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, myocarditis, Guillambray syndrome, which can be fatal, right? The answer is yes, we're loaded with non-fatal syndromes

internally in these databases that could have been fatal. They could have been non-misses, but the doctors saved them. Well, it's always amazing to me that they were expressed, like to that point, very early on, we know there's cases of anphylaxis is why we're now taking 15 minutes with every patient, you know, in the waiting room. You're not allowed to go home yet. Right. Yet, then they would say there's no deaths.

I was like, how can there be no deaths when you are saying there's an allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, what is known to lead to death all the time? And some people on Twitter have, you know, videos are doing CPR in the vaccine center. So, so, yeah, anaphylaxis, serious allergic reactions of which I think together those two numbers are over 50,000. Just of those. Right. But none of them could possibly end up in any other. So the next question is, is it externally consistent? Is it just us?

Is it just our database is quirky? We see the exact same pattern in the yellow card system in the UK, the exact same pattern in the UDRA system in Europe. Exact same pattern. So it's externally consistent. The last criterion would be, okay, listen, this is just all observational. Do we have any randomized trial data? Yes, we do.

The full Pfizer data set in randomized trial data. trials, the count that I know is 21 deaths with Pfizer, 17 deaths with placebo. There's an excess in deaths in Pfizer. We have clearly fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill Tenants of Causality. If this was a court of law, we would say clearly on a more probable than not basis, which would be a 51% probability that the, indeed, the vaccine for any giving. case caused the death. And then we may actually have clear and convincing, which would be an 80% probability. And then in some cases where we have autopsies, like in the Gill study, that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. So it's clear now. The vaccines are causing death. The question on the

table is, is it worth it? And can anybody really be mandated or forced to take a shot that will take their lives. Incredible point. I think we should end it there because I think you've really laid it out. We are so honored to have you here, but also have you in the world right now at a time where there's just so many moneyed interest, so much bias, a desire to push this vaccine, have this vaccine work. I get it.

We all want the miracle cure, but we can't let it cloud our judgment when it comes to the health of people, especially when you're jumping outside of clinical. trial space and now rushing it out to the public at large. I know you are one of the busiest human beings I've ever met. When you're out of the field, you seem to answer every phone call. You are there for every news program that wants you. And for your work, we are all truly indebted. And I really pray that you are heard sooner than later by the vast majority of scientists and

media that seem to really be ignoring what is just glaring and blatant and just shining in our face right now. My phone is always open. My email is always open. We need dialogue. We need constructive dialogue. And I think doctors and scientists and government officials and agencies and countries that have dug in on this, I think it's going to be the hardest thing to come to some recognition that Listen, the vaccines haven't worked out for everybody to at least say that. And, you know, it's been said. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Thank you so much, Dr. Peter McCullough.

What a pleasure. All right. Well, obviously, we get really in depth. We get here, we get into the weeds on the high wire. But a lot of you have friends and family out there that maybe have those short attention spans or don't like to take the whole thing in. And that is why we created get vaccinated. Take a look at this.

Folks, it's time for you to get vaccinated. The Highwire is launching a brand new campaign to arm you with the facts. In short videos you can share anywhere, featuring the world's leading experts on COVID-19, vaccines and everything in between. Natural immunity appears to be robust, complete, and durable. These are the drop-the-mic, fully cited facts to help you, the super spreaders of truth in this real war of misinformation. Share the link, download the short video, and post to your favorite social media platform. All you have to do is go do the highwire.com slash debt vaccinated for all of the latest short videos.

And make sure to grab your Get Vaccinated merch at thehighwire.com. Click shop for the latest in Highwire gear. We want you armed with the facts online and on the front lines. Get the facts. here at the highwire.com. All right, folks, well, I've got, you know, we keep, you know, breaking new ground and new territory, and I'm about to break some new ground right here in front of you. I personally, Del Baintree, am going to sue the United States of America.

This should be good. Here's what it says. Who am I suing? The United States of America. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Javier Bacera, and his official capacity of Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Health. Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle P. Walensky in her official capacity as Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

and Sherry A. Berger, in her official capacity as Chief of Staff of Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Plaintiff Del Brinktree brings this action against defendants. I just read them all. The plaintiff seeks a declaration and injunction against defendants' mandate requiring individuals to wear masks while on commercial airlines, conveyances, and at transportation hubs is provided in the requirement for persons to wear masks while on conveyances and at transport hubs. Two, it is an affront to all Americans that the federal government requires Americans to wear masks while not imposing the same requirement on themselves. Folks, I've had it.

I am flying probably between 75 and 100 flights per year, and I am tired of wearing this mask to come see you. And I'm tired of watching all of you have to go through the charade while I see photos of this country club filled with people, not masking themselves at all. As George Carlin said, it's a giant club and you are not in it. Well, guess what?

I'm going to sue that club. That's what we're doing. I've had it. I think that it is time that we put our foot down and all the science now shows that we've been right all along on masks. They're ineffective, haven't done anything to stop COVID

and are only causing harm to us and our children and our mental stability as a nation and it's got to stop. And we've also got to set a precedent. that this never happens again, so I'm putting my name on the line, and I'm going to work with Aaron Siri as my attorney, and we're bringing this lawsuit. For me, yes, and for all of you, may God guide us through this experience. All right, so the moment you've all been waiting for for weeks. Many weeks ago, we announced that we wanted to take the defeat the mandates rally

that was such a gigantic success in Washington, D.C., and move it to California. And then we were going to line with the truckers, but then the truckers. because decided to leave early and we thought, well, there's no point in doing this out in the middle of a desert if we don't have to make room for, you know, thousands of truckers. And so we said about moving the location. Now, I'll be honest with you. And really, I say we're just one of the sponsors among many. There's a very impressive team of specialists that have been working on this and has been very difficult. As it turns out, it is really hard to go into the belly of the beast where they're masking and social distancing and forcing vaccines on everybody that has blood pumping through their veins.

It's hard to go into that space and get a permit, as it turns out, to tell them they're all wrong. So it's been very difficult. We seem to have made our way through the gauntlet, and it's going to happen. It's going to happen in Grant Park on April the 10th, on a Sunday, specifically because I wanted to make sure, and those of us were talking about it, that the Hasidic Jewish community that is such a big part of this, could join us also. So there it is. It's going to be in the heart and the belly of the beast, downtown Los Angeles in Grant Park on April the 10th. I'm telling you, we need to make this the biggest event of all times. We may think we can relax and we're all at the end of COVID and this is going

away, but you know there are other COVIDs and flus and whatever on the horizon and desires to control us and have vaccine mandates. This is to defeat the mandate, defeat all mandates, defeat past vaccine passports, defeat childhood mandates. If you believe in all of that and want to stand for something, how about we go ahead and show what we can do here in the United States of America? Let's stop watching Germany, line it up in Austria and Australia and Australia and France and all of these other nations that are rising for the cause. It's time for us to show the world we mean business.

So I want every one of you, every supporter of the highwire, every supporter of every nonprofit that has ever had this conversation. I'm telling you, if you miss this one, you will be kicking yourself forever. This is the big one. This is the example of what you get when you choose to attack all members of the human family. This is what you get when you decide to go after a person's child. And I have to make it very clear that they really didn't expect all of this. from across the country rallied today in Washington, D.C.

For a rally against COVID-19 mandates. The message for many on Sunday was not anti-vaccines, but the right to choose. Thank all of you for coming out today to stand up for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. The determination to preserve medical freedom is in your hands.

We're fighting for ourselves, our patients, and all of you. We are fighting against big pharma. They have always put profits before patients. You know, here in the United States, really, it's going to be black people who really should get it first. To my African American brothers and sisters, the vaccine that you're going to take was developed by an African American woman. As an African American, I come here as one of the most vaccine hesitant group. If you choose to take the vaccination, do you take it? We should have a choice. The vaccine passports and the vaccine mandates take us back to the days of secondary.

It's back to the slave passports. Are you free or you're not free? You can't go here if you're not free or you're clean or you're clean or you're clean. I'm tired of these people that sit in the White House that stimulate race wars. We're going to come together and we're going to fight these mandates together. Tired that we are being experimented on. We have all been deceived. I'm tired that we are being manipulated.

They used our artists. They used our athletes, our singers, our rappers. Celebrities are under a tremendous amount of pressure because they use celebrities. to use celebrities to control the black community. Shout out to we the people. Oh yeah, I forgot. They made that phrase, racist too. But as you see in the audience,

those who are Muslims, Christians, those in the Jewish community, Democrats, Republicans, white, black, everyone all in between. This is the example that they do not want to see, but they have no choice. This wall is so beautiful. Look at all of you. Look at you.

The world sees us. We are 17,000 doctors. We are the last vegan of hope. We will not stop fighting for truth and for life. I believe in you. Are we ready to reclaim the dream? Now the people rise up. Let's reclaim our country.

The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself. The truth is so important in these times. And I just want to say that the rally in D.C., though so many were afraid there would be. you know instigators it was peaceful it was beautiful just as this is going to be we're

going to bring our love we're going to bring our passion but peacefully we're going to stand there together side by side with our children with our grandparents listening to brilliant speakers and brilliant musicians who now know the truth that known the truth from the beginning the world will know it we are going to stand in solidarity together in california april 10th in the heart of los angeles in grant park i look forward to seeing you there and until that moment comes we will continue to do this work here so that we are all filled with the truth that we are finding all around the world we haven't been wrong we have been on top of this we didn't receive

any funding from the government to try and lie to you we're getting our funding from you thank you all I love you I'll see you next week