The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE LONG HAUL

Episode Date: October 17, 2022

CA Docs Sue Over Medical Misinformation Bill; Powerful Freedom Fest Doctors Panel; Modified Mosquitoes; Tylenol/Autism ConnectionGuests: Jeff Barke, MD, Freedom Fest Panel#AB2098 #TheLongHaul #GMOMosquitoes #TylenolAutismBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

I want to thank you all for joining us today. Our audience has just been growing exponentially every single week. So for all of you new eyeballs, maybe it was the V-safe data that drew you in and you started looking at that. What's the high wire all about? We're all about total transparency. But this is going to be a really great show for all of you that maybe just came in or maybe you want to invite. other into the truth that you found watching the High Wire later on in the show. We did an explosive panel at Freedom Fest, which was the Libertarian Conference in Las Vegas just a couple

of months ago. I had Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Corey, and Dr. Richard Erso all in a panel discussing the pandemic solutions to COVID and obviously the depth of the vaccine. Of course, Robert Malone being the inventor of the MRNA technology that's being used. But first, let's start the show out talking about, you know, there's been so many successes in victories that we've been celebrating here on the high wire. Many of you know that we went to Los Angeles. We had a giant rally that ICANN was a big supporter of and made happen. And out of that, there was like 10 really horrific bills around COVID and around the vaccines, having to do with our children and having to do with our doctors. And in many ways, we won so many of those were rolled back after.

making our presence known, but one of those laws that sort of broke loose and got through and got passed, maybe one of the most terrifying of all of them. And this is what you've been seeing in the news if you live in California. It's now illegal in California for doctors to tell patients certain information about COVID-19. Anything contradictory to the consensus is banned. The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as, quote, unprofessional conduct subject to punishment by the Medical Board of California. AB2 2098 action against doctors who promote information deemed misinformation and who does

their deeming. Yep, they do. It is an absolute Orwellian nightmare. AB2098 singles out COVID among every disease that's out there. Beyond just singling it out and having special rules to it, singles it out for misinformation and then doesn't actually list What is real information and misinformation, it basically gives an arbitrary definition, and that arbitrary definition is to be decided by people who are not physicians. And that's really the frightening part. One times disinformation misinformation is another times scientific consensus. So, of course, science is evolving.

There is no the science. What qualifies as misinformation, and so many things that have been deemed misinformation have now been changed on masks, on whether vaccines were preventing transmission. It is essentially saying if you divert from the standard of care, so-called, and you talk to your patient about that issue outside of the standard of care, they could literally destroy your practice just with complaints. It represents the largest threat we've ever seen against freedom of speech. In the United States, this basically puts a muzzle on doctor.

who are trying to help patients with COVID-19. It will be absolutely chilling on the practice of medicine. It'll become almost impossible to practice medicine the way we are trained to. It's unconstitutional. I think it's going to hurt COVID-19 care in California. Doctors are going to naturally recoil and not take risks. It truly is a terrifying bill.

We're talking about AB 2098, which Gavin Newsom just signed into law. Imagine you live in China and all of a sudden, you know, your doctor wants to be able to say to you, you know, there's a life-saving measure that I've just discovered. I've worked with it. I like it a lot. You should take a look at it. This would end that. And this is when the government says, but unfortunately, we live in China and the government dictates what I can do as a doctor. So despite any internal, you know, investigations or things that I've tried, and none of that matters here, a bureaucrat somewhere in Washington that has never, ever seen a patient will be deciding what your care is. This is literally the end of a need for a second opinion. There will only be

one opinion that judged and put out by bureaucrats, probably from the CDC. You really can't get more horrifying than this, but let's talk about the horror maker himself. Gavin Newsom didn't need to sign this in the law. He did, and what's weird is he almost gave him Mia Coppa while doing it somehow like an apology of source. Take a look at, I don't remember letters being written when he's signing something, but he felt this was necessary. I am signing this bill because it is narrowly tailored to apply only to those egregious instances in which a licensee is acting with malicious intent or clearly deviating from the required standard of care while interacting directly with a patient under their care. I would have loved for him to point out how it was

that narrowly focused. To be clear, this bill does not apply to any speech outside of discussion directly related to COVID-19 treatment within a direct physician-patient patient relationship. I'm concerned about the chilling effect other potential laws may have on physicians and surgeons who need to be able to effectively talk to their patients about the risks and benefits of treatments for disease that appeared in just the last few years. I mean, there he is saying he recognizes that it could be a problem in other issues. However, I am confident that discussing emerging ideas or treatments including the subsequent risks and benefits does not constitute misinformation or disinformation under this.

Bill's criteria. I mean, you can tell already he knows this is problematic. And he's trying to say, well, it's really narrow. Anybody in law, anyone in government should know, don't pass a law that is already so close to the highway you're worried about someone getting hit by a passing car or should this grow in any way it could be problematic. There's no law that doesn't end up expanding. There's nobody that doesn't end up taking advantage of this. And this law is not that clearly defined. It is not that specific. And this is just my opinion. When we talk about the misinformation they're discussing, most of that proved to be true. Deborah Burke's admitting, yeah, we overstated the effectiveness of the vaccine. You have, you know, Tony Fauci saying, yeah, we brought in

draconian measures and we knew that would probably destroy society. You know, what are we going to do about? That's how this goes. So many people backtracking on the facts. The 95% effectiveness never stood up. The ivermectin that was fought against is now still on the NIH. They have to admit that it appears to be a viable product. All of these things are issues. And those California doctors that are now under fire, we're talking about the best and the brightest amongst them are the ones that are now at risk because they were the ones that stood up and cared about you,

the patient, more than what Tony Foucho never saw a patient in his life was saying. And now they're the ones that are going to be under threat, the ones that got it right the whole time. Well, somebody should push back and thank God somebody is. And I'm talking about Jeffrey Barky, Dr. Jeffrey Barky, who's been on before. He joins me now. It's an honor to have you, Dr. Barky. This is crazy.

I mean, it really is, but, you know, I'm a journalist. I'm not a doctor. But I know I need to be able to trust when I'm coming to you as my physician, that you are looking at my personal situation, that you are looking at all the best. options you're seeing around the world and I don't give a crap what Tony Fauci thinks out in Washington this is me and you and I want to know what you think is the best idea is this going to get in the way of that well Del first of all thank you for having me on I appreciate it thank you oh absolutely it's going to get in the way of it you know the bottom line is physicians are

now going to be required to consider the state's narrative before making a therapeutic decision for a patient That's why I'm involved to protect patient care. You know, if you read the bill, and it's very interesting, and I'm going to quote you exactly from the bill, it says, misinformation means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus, contrary to the standard of care. There is no consensus unless you literally censor doctors that have a difference of opinion. And that's what's going on.

So, you know, remember just a few months ago, the CDC came out with guidelines about how to treat COVID and this, that, and the other. Well, about two or three weeks ago, they changed the guidelines. Now they tell us that we no longer need to test asymptomatic people. Well, asymptomatic testing was the entire premise upon which schools were closed down. We were told that kids would go to school, even though they had no symptoms. They would pass the illness on to their friends and their teachers, and then those kids would go home and kill Graham and grandpa. Now the CDC says, just kidding, asymptomatic spread is not a thing, and you don't have to test people that have no symptoms. So the so-called consensus is constantly changing.

And now they're coming after our children with this messenger RNA vaccine. You've reported Dell that in Denmark, they've stopped recommending boosters to anybody less than 50 that's healthy. But here in the United States, we're recommending boosters to six-month-olds and women that are pregnant. So if I speak out against that because it makes no sense to vaccinate a kid that is not at risk of a disease using an experimental product that has no long-term safety studies, if I speak out against that, I'm now going against the government census and the medical board may sanction me and want to take my license away. So let's be clear, if I'm a parent, if I'm a parent, I bring my child, let's just use that exactly. If I'm a parent, what you're saying is I bring my child in and said, you know, the CDC is recommending this vaccine for my 10-year-old child. You know, they've already had COVID. I mean, you know, they tested positive.

We were going to Mexico, so we got him tested. We didn't even know that he'd had it, but he did, which is going to be the story mostly for every kid in the country because it's been so ubiquitous and spread all over the place. Should I get this vaccine for my child? you're saying, you can't even reference, say, well, I mean, let's look around the world. Denmark is going against this. Even the UK looks like it's backing away from the childhood vaccines. There really aren't substantial studies looking at how it affects children. Is that the kind of languaging that you're going to be under review for just making those actually factual statements?

That's the problem, and especially if I say that publicly, if I say publicly, look at the CDC's own data that shows that a healthy child, has a 0% risk of dying of COVID-19, and the risk is greater than the benefit of vaccinating a young child and a healthy child. If I say that and I say it publicly, the medical board can come after me because I'm going against the government's consensus. And this consensus is nonsense.

Science isn't about consensus. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. It's challenging consensus. It's arguing and debating. That's what science is about. They're removing that, and in doing so, they're putting patients directly in harm's way. You have got a lawsuit that you're bringing against. Now, who's the lawsuit against?

What exactly, you know, give me some of the structure of the lawsuit and what your argument is? So we're being represented by Liberty Justice Center, specifically the lead attorney is Daniel Sur. Okay. And it's both Dr. Mark McDonald, who's a psychiatrist up in L.A. and myself. Yeah, we're the litigants. We have Mark McDonald on our show also. great. He's a psychologist that really put a lot of insight on what it was like to live in this crazy Los Angeles life where everyone was running around with masks. So brilliant, brilliant,

doctor. Great. And we're suing the Medical Board of California and the Attorney General of California. This is a federal lawsuit. And we're suing for constitutional grounds. And we're hoping we get an injunction to stop this law from coming into effect. It's supposed to go into effect January 1st, 2023. Wow. Now, what do you say, I mean, you know, I just read this letter that sort of uncharacteristically Newsom wrote discussing why he was signing this. He kind of says, well, I mean, I feel like he's recognizing that this is a slippery slope, but somehow he feels like there's enough handholds to protect medicine. What do you say to when he says this is so narrowly focus that it's really not going to be a problem for science and medicine in the future.

Well, listen, I appreciate him representing and accurately reflecting that there are some significant concerns with this, but a letter from the governor is irrelevant. The people that will adjudicate this and make this decision are the appointed members of the Medical Board of California, not the governor. And doctors have very limited rights when it comes to being investigated by the medical board. So that's the problem. It's the camel's nose in the tent. So, you know, what do they say? Nothing's more permanent than a temporary government program. This is a law that will expand, and this is a law that will be modeled by other states.

It's important that we fight this law and we defeat it before it even becomes a bill, or it's going to do terrible things. And so we're fighting Liberty Justice Center. If you go on their website, you can contribute to the effort. They are a pro bono lawsuit. They are representing Mark and I for free. and we are we are out there no question about it I think it's the right thing to do we're doing this for patient rights and to protect patients from potentially being harmed as a result of the muzzling of California physicians it's amazing and it takes

heroes like you stepping up you are putting it at risk much like our founding fathers I always you know reflect on all those guys that they were signing you know the bottom of the Declaration of Independence up against a king that wanted them killed and I just think, you know, you're basically signing and saying, that's right, I'm standing up for my rights, you know where to find me, here I am. In essence, that's what you're doing here in a very, very troubled state, in a very dark state that has gone through a lot of turmoil throughout COVID. It was the hardest hit, even after some of the worst draconian measures, some of the highest rates of deaths we saw in the country. It was guys like you that were fighting on the other side,

giving other opportunities and other products and making, you know, survival a possibility and now you're under fire and now you're putting your name to it. Are you at all concerned? I mean, it must run through your head, which is that big question that I think everyone has, which is, you know, why put myself out in the public eye when I can try to stay under the radar here, you know, and do the best good, the greater good is just to keep my mouth shut, do my work here, because if I out myself and they end up coming after me because of it, what can I do after that?

I mean, how did you get through weighing that risk-reward benefit, which is in so many, I've interviewed so many heads of medical institutions that will say, Del, you're right, I want to speak out, but I do such important work, and they'll take that away from me. Obviously, you are looking at that risk, too. How did you come to the conclusion that I've got to stand up and fight? Well, it's a great question, Del. And, you know, listen, I took an oath to help patients first do no harm in this bill, directly harms patient care. And as the expression goes, if not me and if not Dr. Mark

McDonald, then who? Am I going to sit back and hope that somebody else fights for our rights? No, I'm not. So I'm going to be out there fighting on behalf of patients, on behalf of other doctors. I think it's the right thing to do. And, you know, I always try to do the right thing, even if it causes pain directly to me. And it's people like you, Dell, and others like Peter McCullough, Malone, and other doctors that have been out there on the front lines, pushing back against the narrative that's been false. And I think it's important for other physicians to step up. This is the first lawsuit, but it's not going to be the only.

There are plenty of doctors across California and across the country that also want to push back for medical freedom. If we lose medical freedom, patients are going to suffer. The whole practice and industry of medicine is going to suffer. And so I think it's important that doctors like myself, Dr. Mark McDonald and others take a stand in order to fight for patients and what's best for medicine. You know, when I look at this and I know you've got to run, I don't want to take up too much more of your time, but when I think about it's amazing to me that not every doctor in California isn't standing on your side,

and every doctor from across this country is flying in to stand with you. Because as far as I'm concerned, as I play this out in my mind, I think if we live in a world where a bureaucrat dictates what the standard of care is, is what you can give, what you can't. The need for a doctor is over. I believe it's over. Then you're just a kiosk. I might as well go to a kiosk, type in, you know,

having trouble breathing, think I might have COVID, and it's gonna pump out whatever I can do. Go home, take an aspirin, if that doesn't work, come to in the hospital when you can barely breathe and we'll stick you on a ventilator. I mean, essentially, if you're dictated what you have to say, then why do I need a doctor? There's no such thing as a second opinion.

If you're all forced to say the exact same thing, then the days of second opinions are over. And frankly, it's the end of medicine. I mean, in your case, when we look at ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or these drugs that were available, there was an off-label usage of those drugs during a trying time where, you know, I want a doctor, as Peter McCullough said to me,

you want your doctor to be trying everything that they hear about, to say, look, I'm having a lot of success with this product. It is an off-label usage. I'm going to give you total informed consent. But right next door, the doctor, you could go, to my friend and get a second opinion, they're going to go with the CDC, which is saying, don't do anything. There's nothing we can do except stick you on remdesivir, ventilator, and then hope you survive, you know, be one of the one out of ten that's going to survive this situation.

So, you know, all of medicine is, you know, jumping into, you know, off-label usages of drugs and looking at each other's studies around the world. You're going to erase that if we just become, like China, socialized medicine, the government dictates what the standard of care is. The standard of care, shouldn't that be decided by the doctors themselves? That's right. It should be decided by doctors, not by bureaucrats. And when physicians have to consider the state's narrative as to how to treat patients, then patients are being put directly in harm's way and are at risk of being hurt. And that's bad for patients. It's bad for doctors. It's bad for medicine. And that's why Mark and I are fighting against this.

I am so thankful you're out there. Dr. Bark, you've been a great contributor on the high wire. You were one of the first to stand up. You've been outspoken all the way through this. I still remember you ranting on the steps. I believe it was in front of a hospital right in the middle of COVID. You saw the writing on the wall. We were moving into scary times. There's been a lot of wins and successes. I hope that that continues to be the story as you move forward. But first and foremost, it takes a plaintiff to have the guts to step up and sign their name to it and says, here's where I stand. So to you and Dr. McDonnell, I want to just really thank

you guys for making that effort. You got it. Thank you, Del. I appreciate you giving us a few minutes on your show, and we'll keep you posted on our progress. All right, everybody, go to the website. Here it is. If you want to donate to this cause, again, these lawyers are reaching out to make a

difference. Let's help them out. Libertyjustice centred.org. You can donate to help with this very important case. You may not live in California, but as California, California goes, so goes the country. As they say, we certainly don't want to let this seed be planted and sprout anywhere. This may be the one time I'm down for using some glyphosate.

Let's burn the hell out of that seed and kill it dead. All right. Dr. Barkie, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you, I appreciate you. All right. Take care.

All right. Well, it's time to get on with the news. We've got a huge show coming up. But my buddy, my pal, my friend, my warrior. your Jeffrey Jackson. All right, Jeffrey Jackson. What do you have for us today? Del, I got a doozy for you today. There's two really parallel stories I'm going to tell here at the exact same time. So let's see if everyone can keep up. So to really put the basement here, the understanding of the story, we have to start back in 2018. And at that time, we had the Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation pairing up with a UK company called OxyTech. And they're not talking about clean and close, they're talking about genetically modified mosquitoes. And this was the headline out of that time, Gates Foundation and OxyTech fight malaria with genetically modified mosquitoes. And so you go to the Bill of Millenna Gates Foundation actual funding page just a couple years later. And you can see they put $1.6 million, over $1.6 million in funding to this company. And what did they do? Well, in 2020 and 2021, this is something we had reported on at the time. they release these genetically modified mosquitoes. Remember, UK-based company, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,

they released these mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. There's a headline here, 750 million genetically engineered mosquitoes to prove for release in Florida Keys. And that did happen. Obviously, at the time, there was a lot of environmental-minded people saying, look, you can't do this. We don't know the repercussion of this. And obviously, once you set these free, you can't get them back.

Right. So now we're fast forwarding to present day, and the EPA has expanded that pilot program from Florida. This is the headline coming out just now. Millions of genetically modified mosquitoes may soon be buzzing in Florida and California. Here's why. So the EPA has approved the release of over 2 billion of these mosquitoes in Florida and California, four counties in California. So again, this is an extension of the pilot program from the Florida Keys just a couple of years ago. So this thing is going obviously operational and expanding. We don't have malaria here.

So are these for like what, dengue or something like that or West Nile virus? Like what is, what are they being? Why in America? Yeah, it's exactly what those are for. Okay. Okay. Absolutely. And so now at the same time you mentioned malaria, there's a background here.

We're going to weave these two together. In 2020, actually over the last 30 years, there's been a malaria vaccine that's been worked on and again we say malaria because that is transmitted by mosquitoes as well the female mosquitoes that that bite people there's been studies trying to figure out a vaccine for children to halt malaria and so africa was really the hotbed of where these tests were happening and during 2020 the bmj put out this report while these tests were happening there's about 750 000 participants in these tests and it says here w hos malaria vaccine study represents quote a serious breach of international ethical standards. This was in the African regions of Malawi,

Ghana, and Kenya. And it says here in the BMJ article, Moskorex, that's the vaccine. It's a GSK vaccine. The world's first licensed malaria vaccine was positively reviewed by the European Medicines Agency, but its use is being limited to pilot implementation, in part to evaluate outstanding safety concerns that emerge from previous clinical trials. There was a rate of meningitis in those receiving mosclerics, 10 times that of those who did not, increase cerebral malaria cases, and a doubling in the risk of death from any cause in girls. And so, again, parents were not given informed consent about the trial, and the kids were being enrolled in this trial, in these arms of this WHO trial. This was Peter Doshi with his article saying, this is serious concerns here from the international

community of how this thing was done. Unfortunately, it continued, and it led to this headline just last year. Scientists hail historic malaria vaccine approval. This is WHO has approved its first vaccine, but point to challenges ahead. So again, they've been working on this since 1987 at a cost of about $750 million. They finally approved this vaccine. And it says here in the article, compared with other childhood vaccinations, RTSS, that's the vaccine, has only modest efficacy, preventing about 30% of severe malaria cases after a series of four injections in children under the age of five. I mean, one of the issues, I mean, first of all, you couldn't get four injections of the same vaccine. It'd be difficult to pull that off here in America.

But when you think about Africa, India, the third world where these malaria vaccines would be needed, one of the issues is always getting to these tribes, getting to these villages, wants to get a vaccine, forget about four times. So, I mean, it just seems like an absurd vaccine at the moment. Given what you said, four shots is almost impossible under those circumstances. think in, you know. Yeah, yeah. And you're right on point there, Del. And it, the next paragraph kind of starts to answer these questions here. It says this, quote, I respect the researchers involved with a massive effort. But the reality is that so much money has been poured into this

vaccine, even when the results from studies are disappointing, says Badar Assis, a malaria researcher at the Institute of Health, Research, Epidemiological Surveillance and Training in Dakar. She says, I don't think a 30% effective vaccine would be acceptable for Americans. So you're not going to get those in American arms. Way back in 2021 when that was the case, we just took a vaccine with COVID that was effective for nobody. Everyone caught COVID. And then I think about the flu. I mean, I get her point and she's right.

30% is ridiculous. But we live in this world where 30% unfortunately isn't ridiculous anymore. How many people are getting a flu shot with a 10% efficacy? But just correcting her there. But I hear her point and 30% is absurd. under the circumstances. Yeah, and we know sometimes the flu shot, they get to strain wrong, and it's 0% effective.

That happened in Canada, I believe, a couple of years ago. So we have a solution for this. Can't reach the kids? Well, simultaneously, shortly after this article is written, we have this article in present day, genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human. Well, interesting. And it goes here to say in NPR, they write, they kind of talk to the researchers in this study, because this study is a first of its kind.

It's now been published of using. using mosquitoes as the vaccinators, as the literal flying vaccine. So let's go to NPR and check this out. It says a box of 200 mosquitoes did the vaccinating in this malaria trial. That's not a joke. And it talks to the researchers here that put on this study. It says he and his colleagues went this route, the mosquito route, because it is costly and time consuming to develop a formulation of a parasite that can be delivered with a needle. The parasites mature inside mosquitoes. So at this proof of concept stage, as early stage trials are called, it makes sense to use them for delivery. Well, what do they find? They said, out of 14 participants who were exposed to malaria,

seven of them, including Reed, came down with the disease, meaning the vaccine was only 50% effective. For the other seven, protection didn't last more than a few months. And so they go back, now they go back to the researcher here at the end of the article, and he says this, really contradicting himself, we think we can obviously do better, says Stefan Kapp, an author of the study and parasitologist at University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children's Research Institute. He and Murphy hope to improve the efficacy of their team's vaccine by putting it into syringes instead of using mosquitoes so they can get the dosage right. Wow.

What you don't say. I mean, that was my question, right? How are you going to, how does it dose depend? I mean, like, if you have dosages, what if somebody like is, you know, down in the bayou or something where they just get 100 mosquito bites, where someone else is, you know, I don't know where, New York City getting one. I mean, like, you just see already the problems with this. Someone could get overdosed.

But beyond all of that, this just seems like the world's stupidest idea. You want to talk about playing God and messing with nature and doing what nature does very well in many ways. I mean, this is what I've talked about this before. We're going to live in a world where now I have to worry about diseases being released by, you know, some nerd in a laboratory somewhere going, trust me. This is going to work great. It's going to block, you know, polio or whatever it is. I mean, I'm so terrified of a future that exists like this where we have no control over what's happening in our world, to our physical body.

Right. And that's why we have to be vigilant on these stories, because maybe five years ago, this would have been a story of people would kind of just sweep under the rug and say, that's never going to happen. But we just sat through two years of rush vaccine trials, some without even human trials in these emergency use authorization. So kind of every card's on the table at this point. The 30 years for malaria vaccine, those days are over. We're talking MRNA. And now we're, MRNA might be over. We're talking DNA of a mosquito. I mean, these are really strange times we're in, but people have to be on their regulators

and on their state boards. People can still block this mosquito release in California if they really make a fuss at their state boards at the local counties. But let's talk about the United States. So a couple weeks ago, we did a report. and we showed that United States, as far as their entry by air into the country, was aligned with China when it comes to the restrictions in their vaccine policy, meaning you can't get in this country by air unless you have a two-dose vaccine series.

So let's look at the actual CDC webpage and take a look at what they say about that. So two-dose vaccine series, great, but do they even look at natural immunity yet with all the studies? It says here, what if I have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies or have recently recovered from COVID-19, do I still need proof of vaccination? CDC says, yes, at this time, all non-citizen, non-immigrant air passengers traveling to the United States, regardless of antibody status, are required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Now, remember, Canada, one of the most restrictive countries over the last two years during the pandemic response was blocking people coming in and out of their country because of vaccine status. They just

dropped that on October 1st, just a couple of weeks ago now. And let's look at what their air website is having to say about this. So this is the air Canada welcomes government of Canada decision to lift mask, testing, and arrive cam requirements. Now, that was an app that proved your vaccine status. And it says here, Air Canada welcomes the removal of these restrictions, acknowledging that air travel is safe and that the measures were not justified by science. Whoa. Really? Now, this is an airline. I mean, you know, here in America, I was like, we're just glad this has been lifted. They actually took a jab at their government, pointing out that it was scientifically unjustified. Did they get any trouble for that? That's, I mean,

that's outrageous. Good on them, you know, call it out as it as you see it. Right. And the airlines at that. So let's look at the science. So remember what America's doing, what Canada just said, or at least the airline, let's look at some of the science they're talking about and what's justified and what's not justified. So let's first look at Canadian healthcare workers on the front lines, the health care heroes. This is protection against amacron B.A2 reinfection, conferred by primary Amacron B.A.1 or pre-Omacron SARS-CoV2 infection among health care workers with or R&A vaccinations. They're basically looking to see if, if you've had prior infections with an amicron strain or a pre-Omacron strain, is this going to help with future

amacron strains? And this is what the researchers had to say. In short, natural immunity, right? Like at one- If you caught it, we're talking about looking at the effectiveness of natural immunity, depending on what strain you caught. Okay, all right, got it. Absolutely. Remember that natural immunity that the U.S. CDC does not recognize for air travelers. And the researchers write, previous Amicron BA1 infection alone was the single most protective

factor against B.A2 reinfection, risk reduction of 72 percent, and was associated with higher protection than pre-Omacron primary infection alone, 38 percent, or even than three doses of M RNA vaccine and people with no previous infection, 46%. So here we're seeing natural immunity, better than three RNA doses. That's two primaries and a booster. So now we're seeing this play out country and country and country. So UK, let's go over there. Now at the beginning, just as a caveat, at the beginning of the pandemic, we were covering

studies and it was showing these small sample amounts. We're talking like 10 people, 20 healthcare workers, because obviously it was just the beginning of the pandemic and we didn't have much to work with. but now we have these sweeping population-wide studies, highly powered, just like this one out of the UK. They were looking, they use over 9 million participants in England looking at their medical records. And it says, your association of BMINS body mass index with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine effectiveness, and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after vaccination in England. And they say here, the researchers, surprisingly, you got to wonder when you start seeing researchers say,

surprisingly, you got to pay attention. We observed a higher risk of test positivity after vaccination with one or two doses across all BMI groups, which is contrary to evidence reported by the U.K. Office of National Statistics. So they're saying we have more cases after vaccination with one or two across all BMI groups. Remember, the BMI groups, people with higher BMI were supposed to be more at risk, but they're showing they're more at risk after the vaccination. Sweden, same thing. over 9 million people in Sweden.

They use multiple registries, and they looked at this. This was the study there. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over 13 months covering the period of emergence of the Amicron variant in the Swedish population. Remember, we're being told that we're in the middle of this Amicron variant right now. And they used multiple national registries

over 9 million people, 12 and over. And they said this. Our results were similar to the UK study, albeit with even more rapidly waning effectiveness, somewhat implausibly, again, surprisingly, implausibly, we even observed a negative vaccine efficacy against Amicron infection from week 14, indicating that vaccinated individuals

experienced a higher risk of infection than those unvaccinated. I mean, we have talked about this so much the vaccine is helping you get infected is what negative efficacy means you're doing worse than had you not had anything in at all, which means somehow it's affecting your immune system to be more vulnerable.

exact opposite of what a product like this is supposed to be doing for you. Right. And again, natural immunity reigns supreme. Let's look at one of the images from that study. And it says here on the left side, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection after Amacron. And you see in the bottom, this is weeks after two doses, that red line in the middle. You want to stay above that red line as much as possible, because when you go below that, you have more risk of infection. And you can see by a little after 50 weeks, you're looking at almost 100% negative 100 times or 100% vaccine-affected. More likely to get infected. Wow. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, we keep reporting on this, but it's staggering. First of all, in a world where we never saw science looking negatively

at vaccines at all, just to see how the world is so completely shifted here and the focus on this vaccine and how terribly this vaccine has been working. I mean, not, I mean, you could say, well, I mean, it's not very effective. No, it's worse than that. It's causing your infection. Right. And there is a stream here. People are starting to see this in the science that there is a big turning point happening

here against the vaccine. It's not even against the vaccine. It's just telling the truth of what they're finding. Yeah. And these boosters, as these boosters are coming out, these new variations of boosters, it's almost like, oh, sigh, we have a new booster with loaded with an Omicron variant. Now we can talk badly about these other ones, or we can actually show the science that is actually happening. Let's look at kids now. There's a study out of Scotland looking at kids 12 to 17.

Some of the data even goes beyond that. But this is the Pfizer vaccine, COVID-19 vaccination, uptake, safety effectiveness, and waning in children and young people age 12 to 17 years in Scotland. And here's a chart from that study. Now, this goes beyond 12 to 17. You look on the left side. You have the first vaccine and the second vaccine and then the age groups. And highlighted there right across, this is the Omicron period underneath. It's highlighted. Vaccine efficacy percentage. What's that first thing?

Negative. There's a couple lines down. Negative. There's four negative efficacies there. Some of them in the 20%. And the rest of them aren't really that impressive. We're talking 22%, 11%. If you look all the way down at the bottom, a second dose 14 and older,

1.2% vaccine effectiveness. I mean, imagine that. Folks, while you're looking at this, I want to point out when you're looking at science like this, We're looking at the bottom line there. You see 1.2% effectiveness. But look at the numbers. It straddles between a negative efficacy of 49.3

and a positive efficacy of 34.6. I was always taught that scientifically, when you're doing statistics like this, that when it goes across the zero, when you have a negative into a positive, you might as well throw it in the garbage because you cannot cross that zero line and say that you're getting any useful information. That this is essentially not effective at all. And so look how many of it,

these, you know, that are even saying that they might have positive. Looked up there on the first dose, what is that, is it 6 to 9, where it says 11.9% effective, which would be terrible, but really, you're crossing the line. You're at negative 16.1, all the way to positive 33.1. Anyone that's a doctor or a statistician knows what we're talking about here. That's garbage. It's total and complete garbage as far as deciding that something's effective at all. Right. And the researchers, you know, somewhat probably puzzled by these results are looking for ways to really explain them. And they write this. At this stage of the pandemic, it is plausible that there were more CYP, that's children and young people, who acquired natural immunity among the unvaccinated group

than among the vaccinated. Natural immunity may be either more robust, more durable, or both in comparison to vaccine-induced immunity against the Omicron variant, leading to negative vaccine efficacy over time. So that's what the researchers, again, they're hands. hanging their hats on this natural immunity. No, they're scratching their heads. They're doing more than that. They're blaming natural immunity. This is like blaming the placebo for being too strong.

Well, perhaps it's because natural immunity was so effective that it's making our vaccine look even worse. But I want to challenge what they just said there because if we're talking about just the natural world, right? What they're saying is the unvaccinated probably developed natural immunity that got infected. So therefore, it's making them look a lot better than those that had the vaccine. But if the vaccine is still underperforming against the unvaccinated, you have to assume they're all catching the illness, right? If what we know to be true, this vaccine doesn't stop the illness, it's supposed to reduce your, you know, symptoms supposedly, which we really sort of destroyed that.

But think about this. What they're saying is they didn't catch it. No, they caught it just as much. If we're in the same natural world, they were also catching Omicron. But what might be scary is they're not getting the benefits of natural immunity from it. So I think you can read that paragraph. They're making the wrong conclusion. The conclusion might actually be this vaccine is blocking you from getting to that full natural immunity. Somehow, when you're catching it, you're not getting all the benefits. That's what I think could possibly be showing there too.

Absolutely. And yeah, that was in a discussion. So they're trying to discuss and figure out what the heck's going on. But you see this theme going through of natural immunity, whether it's helping or helping people or hurting the vaccine program. But it's still something that's really, it should at least, at least be looked at as part of an entry procedure to the United States for instead of a two-dose vaccination looking at this data. But now, you know, we have a new version of headlines again coming out. This is at Reuters. And they're talking about this new Omicron variant.

The uptake has been dismal and it looks like it's not going to get any better. It says here two-thirds of U.S. adults don't plan on getting COVID boosters soon. That's a poll that was run. And so this is where we are, the state of the United States. The people are really just not trusting this. They're really understanding what perhaps natural immunity really entails. They're reading the science. They're seeing the health officials that had made promises of these 95 plus percent efficacy rates.

They're just plummeting down to negatives. But perhaps one of the people that really called it out best was Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. And he had this to say at a recent symposium. Take a listen. All right. We rejected the elites, and we were right. They're now trying to rewrite history acting like they wanted kids in school all along, and we shouldn't let them get away with that, but we should also point out, not only were they wrong about schools, the elites were wrong about lockdowns, they were wrong about epidemiological models and the hospitalization models, they were wrong about forced masking. They were wrong when they rejected the existence of natural immunity. They were wrong. about the efficacy of the MRNA vaccines, and they were wrong when I said this that COVID was seasonal. Now they admit it, but they didn't when it was obvious that that was the case.

So in almost every major significant issue, these elites who would show up on cable news or be wherever, you know, they were wrong, and they got it wrong time and time again. And so we also served in Florida as a roadblock to what I think. would have taken hold in this country if it weren't for our leadership, and that's a biomedical security state. If you look at what they were trying to do with forcing a VACs and passports and all these different things, this country would look a lot different right now if people like me hadn't stood up and said, not on my watch. You're not doing that here. Can't help, but you know, love hearing from a politician that really sort of has been ahead

of everyone else and frankly we could you would want to say ahead of the sciences though the science we're looking at today is brand new but this science has been there the whole time that's what we've been delivering here on the high wire but it is amazing to see it and and watch the scientific world now reeling in one of the biggest catastrophic disasters brought on by science we've ever seen amazing reporting Jeffrey thank you so much though all right thank you I'll see you next week all right look if you like the stories that Jeffrey Jackson is telling definitely make sure you check out the Jackson report where he writes articles on the things that we cover here that's at the highwire.com the jackson report get into more details

if you want to read more about it great resource there look I just want to say you know as you hear Ron Johnson I mean I mean Ron DeSantis too by the way two really awesome politicians when it comes to the issues we've been discussing here but you know as he said you know and I I think I kind of wanted to just follow in that shadow of humility that he's putting out there. If it wasn't for us, you know, standing up for science, where would we be? Where would we be? I want to say that about the two. You know, he's saying that about Florida.

We can say the same thing about the Highwire. What news agency have you been watching that had this right the whole time? You know if you've been watching since the beginning of COVID, what they're now admitting about the power of natural immunity? Where did you hear first? You heard it here. You heard it here because we've been. been showing you this science all the way from really Israel is having amazing data

all the way through this proving our point and so when you think about you know as we move forward who brought us out as how is it we don't have these tracking systems I mean you know Ron DeSantis is talking about you would have had a dystopian world on your hands had I not been here well where would we have been if the high wire hadn't been here would Ron DeSantis even know what he knows if we weren't bringing the scientists from around the world they were sharing the truth making sure that it became visible. We don't even know that the Santhus family wasn't watching the high wire, but we know we were the only ones there talking about this stuff. I say all this

because it is so important as we move forward. If you think this is all over, we should all just relax because we've won this battle. Clearly, there's more on the horizon that's coming. These scientists aren't going to stop. Mosquitoes, are you kidding me? You really want mosquitoes flying around whatever disease they want to be inoculating us for? Who's going to stop that? What media is going to make sure that millions of people around the world stand up together, you're looking at it right here. And so for all of you've been supporting this work, I want to thank you. If you're not, we could really use your help.

I mean, I want to tell you right now, we have been leading the news on a budget that is basically the salary of one news anchor at any of the global or cable stations that you've been funding. And so you really want to fund the guys that are leading or you don't want to fund the followers at a hundred times the amount. We need your help. If you're paying a cable bill and you are not helping us at the Highwire, you really ought to ask yourself

if you're allowed to be upset about the world you're looking at because you're voting with your dollars and your votes are going to the wrong team. So if you want to get to voting for the right team, go to thehighwire.com, go up, donate to ICAN. We're only asking for a couple months a month. I think you can handle it.

For 2022, we've been saying, how about $22 for 2022? But $5 makes a huge difference. Maybe pass up on that Starbucks milkshake thing. You're calling a coffee in the morning. You lose some weight and you'll be able to save the world. Also, you can text Donate to 72022 to donate and become a world changer instead of a world complainer. All right.

I want to move on here. We're very excited to be sharing really a panel that I did back in July 14th. We were at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. And it was an amazing experience, and I had an incredible panel put together with Dr. Robert Malone, Pierre, Corey, and Richard Urs. It was called the Long Hall. It was just under an hour long. We were on the main stage, and we were discussing all the issues around the COVID vaccine and, you know, long haul student of COVID itself. But I will say, and I do a lot of panels, I'm usually in them, not necessarily hosting them like I was in this case. But, you know, there's those moments where it's awkward, everyone wants to talk and they're on top of each other,

or they can't quite get in a groove. And that's always your worry when you're going up on a stage like this. I will tell you personally, I think this is one of the best panels I have ever been a part of and that I've ever seen. You were about to see one hour of information laid out by some of the greatest scientific minds of our time, eloquently, concisely, and wait till you see the arch of this.

And remember, as you're watching this, this audience, when I asked the question, how many of you got the COVID vaccine? More than half of them raised their hands. Guess what? No one walked out of this, even though it was all about the dangers of that vaccine. It's why we're sharing it with you. We think that this is going to be a great tool that, by the way, it'll be a version after the show that you can share with everyone you know. Anyone that you're trying to wake up to what's going on with this COVID vaccine. I'm starting to have questions.

Or you just want to have a natural discussion. This is going to be the perfect tool for you. I want to thank Freedom Fest for inviting us, allowing this to happen, allowing us to share this with you. Grab some popcorn. Sit down, grab your neighbor, grab your friend, grab a relative, because this short little panel of these amazing doctors is about to blow your mind. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Richard Urso,

Dr. Pierre Corey, and Del Bigtree. Fantastic. It's really an honor to be here at Freedom Fest. I want to say that I think it's bold for Freedom Fest to have this panel here today. I imagine some of you are going to be challenged by what we're going to discuss. So just to begin with, my name is Dell Bigtree. I'm the host of the internet talk show, The High Wire. Thank you.

I have a nonprofit called the Inform Consent Action Network. I started out as a producer for the CBS Talk Show, The Doctors. I spent nearly a decade celebrating science and medicine on television. I won an Emmy Award in that process. But then I stumbled upon the issue of vaccines and safety around a whistleblower at the CDC. I made a documentary about Dr. William Thompson, who came forward and said they were committing scientific fraud on the vaccine safety studies. That changed my life forever, and I made a documentary called Vaxed.

For those of you that don't know, Dr. Robert Malone, sitting to my left right here. Dr. Malone is a scientist in physician, one of the inventors of the MRNA and DNA vaccines. Having worked with many of the world's largest vaccine makers and biotech companies during the COVID pandemic, he has been among the most articulate, outspoken, scientifically sound voices in the medical and scientific community, earning enough trust to spur of substack presence with more than 10,000 paying them to subscribers and millions of views, thanks to his blockbuster appearance on the Joe Rogan show. If you didn't see that, I think that was a game changer. There's a lot more here, but we'll move on.

on Dr. Robert Malone, a true hero for those of you in the audience that got the vaccine. We're going to have some discussions about what that thing really is. Over here to his left, Dr. Pierre Corey. Dr. Corey is a critical care physician who burst in the public debate about medical treatments during the pandemic by advocating for the widespread use of Ivermectin and other drugs for COVID treatments. One of the founders of America's frontline doctors, Dr. Corey, has twice testified in front of the US Senate to promote Ivermectin and other alternative drugs in the treatment of COVID.

And then finally at the far end over here, Dr. Richard Erso. Dr. Erso is another member of America's frontline doctors, a highly regarded ophthalmologist who's worked at Houston Eye Association for nearly three decades. He was an early proponent for use of hydroxychloroquineous treatment for COVID, and in July 2020 met with Vice President Mike Pence and his chief of staff, Mark Short, to promote the prospective, the prescriptive, use of hydroxychloroquine. Just because, you know, we've all been through a really wild experience together.

And history will, you know, slowly figure out what happened here and who was where. But as we sit here into conferences, all about truth and about transparency and getting back to having control of our own lives, I would just, just a sense of the audience for all of us. So, did anyone the audience use hydroxychloroquine during this pandemic? Okay, very interesting, right? So something that was sort of vilified by the media, but yet you went out and made that happen. How about ivermectin? Did anyone use ivermectin?

Look at that. Pierre Corrie, your job, well done. And then for those of you out there, how many got the COVID vaccine? Okay. All right. All right, great. So now we have a sense of who's in the audience. this is the world we live in.

The majority of, you know, of the first world nations all got this vaccine. So to start out with, what I think is interesting, Dr. Robert Malone, since you are credited with being an inventor of this COVID vaccine, actually not specifically COVID, but the mRNA technology, right? And I'll sort of say that, you know, I've interviewed you many times that, you know, originally it was going to be used as gene therapy. That's what you got involved in, right? was inserting, you know, we've all been looking for some way to change health problems

by inserting an MRNA or something that delivers a shift in the DNA. The idea was to treat these poor children that have inborn errors of metabolism birth defects, genetic birth effects. Is there some way that you can help a child that's born with the birth effect? That was the genesis of all this. Okay. And the idea of using MRNA was a way to avoid the toxic. of a classic gene therapy that would forever alter their genome.

Okay. And the MRNA was an easy application for vaccines. It didn't work very well. But it turns out for making a vaccine response, you just need a little bit of protein. And so the original idea was that this little bit of protein would be made very briefly because the RNA would be degraded very rapidly. Now, that's all gone sideways with the current situation. quickly the gene therapy wasn't working very well as I understand it because the immune

system was attacking the MRI as it was trying to deliver the coded message to try and help these kids in their you know and sort of redesign how their body was dividing cells and everything else so you said you know what it doesn't work here it would be great for a vaccine because it doesn't need to be around a long time doesn't really if the immune system is attacking in some way it's good right let's just touch the immune system for a second it'll react start creating antibodies and therefore and then get out of there because if it stays around too long you have autoimmune disease right you have other

sorts of this is a classic make lemonade out of lemons okay and so that's what you did that was the idea of let's use mrna technology for a vaccine and so just to sort of sum all this up to get us to where we're out with this vaccine it seems to me and you said this recently and it really stuck with me that the entire genius that you had around using m RNA as a vaccine is because it wouldn't linger it wouldn't hang around it'd be there for a moment it would start an antibody production our bodies start ramping up in immune system and then it gets out of the way. We've got immunity and we're all moving on.

But the one thing they did, at least the major change, when we now look at the vaccine, when we're looking at Pfizer and Moderna and we're looking at these vaccines, they didn't just deliver the MRNA as it stood, or in this case, of the spike protein. They made a change that spike protein. Explain what they did that changed sort of what I think was the brilliance of a short-lived MRNA into Frankenstein, as you will? Well, that's kind that you use that term. And I want to give a shout out to a German company called Kureback, which is still true to my

original idea. Now, what happened was that Moderna and Biointech employed the technology developed at the University of Pennsylvania by Katie Carrico, former Hungarian intelligence person, and Drew Weissman, former Tony Fauci postdoc. which is the random assertion all the way through the RNA of a modified molecule called pseudo-uridine.

And this is a molecule that is present in natural RNA at very specific points, highly controlled, which alters the immune response, the inflammatory response associated with the RNA and it also controls how long the RNA stays around.

And when they made their discoveries trying to address the problems that caused me to abandon the technology in the mid-90s and later, really up to about 2000s when they did it. And they inserted pseudo-uridine all the way through the RNA. This is not a natural RNA. This is a new synthetic thing. To call it MRNA is false.

It has characteristics of RNA. It also has characteristics of more like a single-stranded DNA. And we now know this is stuff that should have been done. done before it was injected into all of us. Right. But a fantastic. You're not included, right? Your talking about a product that you have.

I knew I had to travel and I knew I had long COVID. And it was hypothesized that it would help with the long COVID. And absolutely, if I hadn't taken it, I couldn't have been able to serve the world in the way that I have by traveling to Europe, et cetera. In any case, the logic was that if you put this pseudo-uridine all over in the RNA, it would make it less inflammatory and it would help it stay around longer. And they should have characterized that. Was that actually a good thing? Like a lot of things, just because it may sound good in some ways, there's often an unintended

consequence of flowback. And they didn't do the non-clinical testing. That is now clearly documented to characterize where this goes, how long it sticks around, how much protein it makes. Fortunately, finally, a group at Stanford did this. and published it in a journal called Cell, one of the top journals in the world in academic publishing, and they didn't just do it in a test tuber in mice.

They did it in humans that had been injected in their shoulder, just like you or me, that received the vaccine, and then they did what's called fine needle aspiration. They pulled cells out of their lymph nodes, and they tested as the RNA is still there, and is it still making protein, and how much protein is being made in the blood? And they found some amazing things.

They only tested for 60 days, so kind of two months. And what they found was the RNA is still there at 60 days. It's still producing protein. And during that 60-day period, the amount of spike protein being produced is considerably higher than the amount that's produced when you're naturally infected by the natural route of your naso or oropharynx. And so what we have here is something that is very, very different from what was intended. from what was natural.

And frankly, this is another case where the pharmaceutical industry lied to physicians again and again, telling them that this RNA just sticks around for a short period of time. They lied to your physicians, they lied to you, and the FDA covered it up and didn't make them do the studies that would have shown it,

but now the data is out. Cats out of the bag. And so ultimately, this lingering in the body is leading to real concerns of cancers, of autoimmune disease and things because it's in places it shouldn't be. It's settling in organs, and we're going to have trouble hearing this out of the body. Every single component of this turns out to have problems. The payload is the slang we use. That's the thing that's made. That's the spike protein. Some of you may recall if you were awake at the time when I was on the Brett Weinstein podcast, I said spike is a toxin. And that was another one of those third rail triggers that caused the press all over the world to say,

oh, no, no, no, no, it's not a toxin. It's unequivocally clear now. Many, many references spike is a toxin. It has all kinds of toxicities. The catatinic lipids have toxicities. And the RNAs have toxicity. So to imagine that it's toxic, what you're saying is we basically have a payload that they're bragging about the fact that you're getting more of this toxin than you would have gotten from the natural virus. and it's a Frankenstein version that doesn't die inside of you, keeps going on and on.

Dr. Erso, you've done, you know, you're one of the guys up here that's actually designed drugs, you've brought a drug all the way to market, you've worked through that process. Tell me about the fatty lipid, because I think this is something really important. This is a part of a technology you've understood, the delivery system wrapped around this MRNA. What are your concerns about the fatty lipid? What did we know and where were we not told the truth about that? So the lipid nanoparticle, this is the first time in history that a vaccine goes everywhere. It's going to your brain.

It's going to your bone marrow. It's going to your ovaries, your adrenals. It's going places that vaccines normally don't go. And the majority of it is not staying in the arm. And so that was one of the first times in history that we've had a product that's actually designed to go everywhere. And this is well known. It was not something when we were working with chemotherapy. at a major oncology hospital about 15, 20 years ago,

we found we were trying to carry chemo to the brain, and we actually ended up wiping out the bone marrow and other tissues. And so we said lipid nanoparticles are too hard to control, so we kind of abandon that approach. Because normally if the tumor is in the brain, you want to bring chemotherapy there. You have to do spinal tap to do it.

You know, you can do radiation and other treatments. But it's very hard to get through the tumor. tight junctions and get medicine to the brain. And this is the first time in history. We have a vaccine that's going to the brain. So the distribution is a big deal. As Dr. Malone just said, the payload is unpredictable. And for several reasons.

The payload is unpredictable because, one, the production is the first time in history. We're making this big cake of fat and other things and mixing it all together. And so you're not even, you know, the first time that anyone's ever made this in large batches. This makes it very difficult to have a consistent product. Some of the batches are going to work better than others. But more importantly, you're also going to see that the production, the payload, we don't know. Normally if we give you a vaccine, we know what we give you, and that's going to stay there. And then as you talked about, you have all the other things that are unique to this spike protein.

But the main thing I really want everybody to know is a lipid nanoparticle, messenger RNA platform is uncontrollable right now. It is a terrible technology for the vaccine industry to go down. And that's the thing that you need to get in your mind because they're going to use this for RSV. They're going to use this for everything. And basically they've made us sort of get use of that vernacular. Hey, this is safe and effective. That's safe and effective.

It's not safe and effective. It's clearly not safe because the lipid nanoparticle has toxicity itself. This is well documented. The lipid nanoparticle causes inflammation that, for instance, can, and lead to things like MS and other things in the brain because of autoimmunity issues. So it's very inflammatory and it's not safe right now. I just want to sort of follow that up with, you know,

when I started diving into this conversation about vaccines, which made me leave the doctors television show to make the documentary, the comment that's always made is there's no way the vaccine causes autism, which is one of these debates that's always been out there, especially for parents that have gone through this with their children. There's no way it would cause autism. that's a brain disorder. The vaccine does not cross the blood brain barrier. It never gets to the brain. And that's always been the argument against any idea that vaccines cause the harms that many people say they do.

But in this instance, and I'm not going to get into that conversation, but in this instance, they said the same thing. This vaccine is staying located in the arm. It's perfectly safe because of that. And what you're saying is in chemotherapy, they were using these, you know, lipid nanoparticles. The very task was to figure out how to deliver the. drug to the brain to get it past the blood brain barrier so that you could get chemo there. And so when they took this product and wrapped it around a vaccination and told us all, it's going to stay where it's located, you just use a delivery system that was designed to get to the brain.

I mean, that's what's so phenomenal about the lie that took place here. Now I want to take a step back because while that's in laboratories, Donald Trump is promising us we're going to warp speed this out because it's our only way forward. Tony Fauci is out there. One of the things that I've talked a lot about on the high wires, you had an emergency use authorization. The only way, if you were going to rush this process of getting the vaccine out to market, yeah, you can rush the process of developing something, throw a lot of money at it, but you can't rush a safety trial that should be two years. You can't see in three weeks

what we would know two years down the road. And the only way you can legally do that was an emergency use authorization. At that point, the FDA has this emergency use authorization, you know, distinction. And in it, it says you can only use it. You can only rush a product out to people without proper safety testing if and only if there's no other available product to take care of the individual, to protect the individual. In this case, and it sort of started out with Donald Trump said, you know, I like hydroxychloroquine. I'm hearing a lot about this. And Tony Fauci pushes him out of the way, grabs the microphone, said, don't listen to him.

It's dangerous. We know nothing about it. You know, went on this tirade. We all sat there going, you know, what's going on there? But hydroxychloroquine is out there. It gets attacked. It moves on its way. Along comes Ivermectin, which is where you really, I think, come into this story. So they're trying to rush this vaccine.

They're not going to get the vaccine in the market if there's a drug that works. And then you step before the Senate and give one of the most impassioned testimonies I've ever seen. What had you seen in Ivermectin and what brings you into this story? So, you know, I want to say so as an ICU doctor, we had to be avermectin and what brings you into this story. You know, I want to say, so as an ICU doctor, we had spent the early part of the pandemic really focusing on how to treat the critically ill. We hadn't focused too much on therapeutics and early treatment. My colleague here, Richard Urso, recognized very early on, like Fauci knew, hydroxychloroquine was effective. What I learned is something that Richard lived through, which said in 2020, there was a global disinformation campaign attacking hydroxychloroquine.

It's a generic repurposed drug, and the pharmaceutical industry has long had that as a business model. They cannot have generic drugs in the marketplace because it absolutely robs them of the profit potential for novel pharmaceutical products. And what they did to hydroxychloroquine was far more sinister than Ivermectin, because they were able to design trials using toxic doses which actually caused increases in deaths. They couldn't do that with Ivermectin because the most of the most of the drugton, more you give, the better it is. So that was the one non-sinister thing they did. But after I came out with that testimony, and that testimony was the result of months of me

and my partners in the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, where we studied therapeutics. We looked at every trial on anything, pre-print server published, and we started to see the signal build up around Ivermectin. It was just so reproducible, large magnitude effects in reducing hospitalizations and deaths. and time to clinical recovery, time to viral clearance. We hadn't seen anything like that. All the studies on a lot of stuff were uneven, a little bit conflicting. Hydroxyl chloroquine, the vast majority, were positive, but you had to treat early.

And I finished my paper, and I submitted it to a journal, because I heard of a journal, a high-impact journal, where somebody suggested a special issue on the use of repurposed drugs in COVID. And that person who suggested that issue, and the editor to whom I met and submitted it to was the guy sitting next to me. Right? So, and that's credit to Robert, you know, who has been involved in vaccine development and pandemic responses for most of his career. He knew to fight this disease.

We needed to use what was available and now. People were dying. The ICs were filling. And as we tried to get that information out, and Richard and the America's frontline doctors tried to do it with hydroxychloroquine, I discovered that I launched myself into the middle of that war and I became an enemy. And the world went sideways. I thought we were doing the right thing, putting forth knowledge of a drug that could help millions. And I started getting personally attacked. Paul Marrick, my colleague and mentor and the founder of our organization, our organization

was under attack. And suddenly we saw censorship like we never could believe on all social media channels, we couldn't receive donations because PayPal cut us off, our press release wires. I mean, if you don't, if you're not being censored, you can't see it. And so I saw this amazing global apparatus of trying to censor us and neutralize us. And we're still fighting that war today. And then the later phase of that Ivermectin war was when they started pulling the stuff they did with hydroxychicoric, which was trials designed to fail or trials. that were fraudulently designed and conducted,

at massive frauds that were landing on the front pages of the highest impact medical journals in the world, which would then launch front page headlines. And I've had to watch this atrocity every day for now 15 months. And I will tell you, they've won to a certain degree. Nobody talks about Iver Mac. And those who know, no, but those who've been convinced that it doesn't work, which is most of the advanced health economies around the world,

They've gotten it removed from any consideration and any guideline. But I will tell you, there's a lot of frontline conditions around the world who understood the data, has seen the efficacy firsthand, and are using these repurpose drugs to great effect and they're saving lives. And so we're doing what we can to make sure that message gets heard. I just want to say, you know, as coming from media and having left CBS, if you do not know this, the television that you are watching and the news anchors that you are listening to are owned by the pharmaceutical industry. 70% of our advertising is coming from the pharmaceutical industry.

If you want to truly wake up this week, when you go back to your hotel room when you watch any news program or any television show you like to watch, start counting how many pharmaceutical ads you see, and then say, oh my God, that's who's paying for the information I'm getting. So if there's a problem with this vaccine, do you think they're going to say it?

Do you think they're going to tell you? They can't. Because their boss is pharma. I came from that. why I run my show as a nonprofit online. We now find ourselves as we look at the potential, you know, 75% reduction in many of the studies that you brought forward of Ivermecta, 75% reduction in deaths and serious illness. I mean, this would have been massively beneficial because currently we're looking at this

29,273 reports of death on the VERS capture system here in the United States of America. beyond that, I mean, that could be multiple things, potentially vaccine injury, but we're over a million. We're, you know, well past a million deaths from COVID. And when you see that and say, we had a product that could have reduced 75% of those, you know, you worked for the Department of Defense. You have been involved in government. Did they, did they deny life-saving drugs when it comes to hydroxy, chloroquine, Ivermectin, and others? Did they deny those drugs, you know, in order to get an emergency use authorization for this vaccine? So I'm absolutely convinced that they did.

And here's why. I asked the FDA directly to comment to me about this hypothesis that they were blocking availability of early treatment and repurpose drugs in order to justify the emergency use authorization. They denied that is the case. I was lied to. you can find if you dig into the documents, the emergency use authorizations, including this latest one that they just signed off for, you will find that there's a line in there that Peter Marks, head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research within the FDA, personally certifies that there is no alternative treatment for COVID-19. He has to make that personal certification in order for the emergency use.

authorization to be granted. It is clear, unequivocal fraud, in my opinion, and it is absolute documentation that they have, it's written into the law, that they have to document, somebody has to sign off within the administrative state leadership, that there is no other alternative, otherwise this whole House of Cards falls down. Am I to understand that the emergency use authorization that they keep having to call this emergency, even though in every other aspect of this, we're now driving, we're flying, they've given up on it, but they're holding on the emergency so they can keep avoiding safety tests, right? And so avoiding proper safety trials of booster shots and of vaccines for children.

So there's two key, and I tore this apart in substack. You can find the Code of Federal Regulations, the specific sightings if you want to go there. There's two key determinations that have to be made and have to be renewed. There's the emergency use authorization that we just talked about, and there's the declaration of medical emergency. I think that we can all see. Our hospitals are not full. We are not, the only people that are really suffering from the latest Omicron strain, frankly, are the highly vaccinated. The symptoms of Omicron are those of a cold, sore throat, runny nose, these kinds of.

of things, there is no medical emergency. They're having to recertify that there's a medical emergency again and again and again and again because if they don't, the entire thing collapses. The emergency U.S. authorization for the antibodies, for the drugs, for the vaccines, their authority to implement mask restrictions, which by the way is clear overreach, the Constitution, this is super important for this community. to understand. The way it works, as you all know, if it is not a power specifically vested to the federal government in the Constitution, it belongs to the states, and I can tell you as somebody that has specialized in public health and biodefense for decades, the feds have always walked on tiptoes into states because states have the authority to regulate the practice of medicine. The CDC does not. The NIH does not. They have no authority.

They have basically imposed all of these different strategies through the media, through all of this intimidation tactics, etc. And not the least of which is the exploitation of CMS and basically threatening the states. If you don't go along with what we tell you to do, we're going to pull your money. Right. Pierre, your license is now under review.

As Dr. McCullough and several other doctors, Dr. Merrick that have all spoken out, have exemplary records on bringing people through COVID successfully, using the drugs that you have been very vocal about. When we look at this now, over a million, is it safe to say that, you know, by order of a mission or taking away the use, of products that could have worked, that our government is responsible for murdering at least a half a million people? There's absolutely no question.

I mean, if you look at the science, had those repurposed drugs been deployed when we knew they were effective, many hundreds of thousands, probably at least 80 to 95 percent of those deaths could have been avoided, hospitals would have been avoided, you wouldn't have the calamity of these hospitals overfilling in ICU. I mean, there is a term that I heard the financial expert Ed Dowd use, and He says it's time to start calling this a democide, which is death by government. And I never thought I would say something so alarming. But when you look at the way our government has behaved, and I don't want to really call it our government,

because like we mentioned, we talked about this earlier, those agencies are fully controlled by industry. We are the victims of really profiteering. They did everything, every manipulation they could in order to preserve profit, to sell the most vaccines, to get the most arms. When they started going into the childhood ages, I found that terrifying. We already knew that these were the most toxic and ineffective vaccines ever. Yet they went after the 12 to 17-year-olds, the 5 to 11-year-olds, and then they got unanimous votes for toddlers, for whom this disease is barely anything,

with a very toxic vaccine. We're seeing unrelenting death. All as an outgrowth of repeated policies. And what I've been saying since the beginning, any policy or decision you see coming out of the agencies, you need to do the following simple exercise. You need to read the policy and ask yourself, what would a pharmaceutical company want this policy to say? And then read it again. They are literally written by pharmaceutical and vaccination manufacturers. That everything is in order for them to gain as much of market share and to sell as much as their product.

And they're doing this with a trail of bodies. And I have to tell you this latest with the toddlers and with all of the evidence we have now. I mean, we, I don't know that the history books are going to get this right because I know who writes the history books. However, this is a humanitarian catastrophe that has resulted that will never be equaled. These vaccines are now showing up in life insurance data. Can I ask the audience a question? Sure. How many in this room are aware of the unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality in working-age

American adults starting in 2021 at the onset of the vaccine campaign? And that's what I'm talking about. You can't hide it. How many of you are reading regularly newspaper articles about this new disease called SADS, sudden adult death syndrome? How many of you are aware that now they're starting to get shook up in the hospitals because the doctors, the nurses, and the ER physicians are starting to see strokes in 18-year-olds, brainbleeds that cause death in healthy 32-year-olds.

There are young people dying across the country and world. And these articles are showing up in many countries. We are literally sitting in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe, and that information, again, going back to censorship, has been suppressed. All you will see for a year, and this is where I have to forgive my colleagues in the healthcare system, is they are victims. of unrelenting propaganda and censorship. They do believe that these vaccines are safe and effective.

They do believe that the best thing for you is to get vaccinated. The trick that I will never forgive that they pulled off is convincing the entire health system that natural immunity is no longer a thing. Let's see, I mean, that's... That you need a vaccine after... And that's the one that is unforgivable. That you need to vaccinate against the disease

that you just recovered from. And that is the most obscene and absurd trick that they pulled with that. It shows you how powerful that propaganda is. Dr. Urso, to drill down on something that he just said, and I think for those people in the audience that, you know, went out and did their duty, got the vaccine, it's going to protect everyone around me, all of that, you know, you can understand how that sort of started. That seed was planted.

It's a seed that's planted in our understanding of all vaccinations. But the CDC ended up changing the definition of a vaccine because of this failure. They started recognizing it doesn't stop infection. It doesn't stop transmission. And so, I don't know if you know this, the CDC changed the definition from a product that basically creates immunity so you can't catch a disease. Now the definition of vaccination by the CDC is simply a product that protects you from serious illness. So they've changed the definition. So no longer can anyone say that a vaccine creates herd immunity.

But here's my point. When we think about people that we're listening to our doctors and everywhere we go, everyone says, Del, are you telling me that my doctor is, you know, I shouldn't trust them as the authority? I mean, who am I? My doctor looks at all the studies, looks at all the trials, obviously wants to do what's best for me, you know, so are they, you know, are they evil people? How did this happen?

How did so many doctors go forward? Deny hydroxychloroquine. Denyremyctin. Watch people die. Put them on ventilators where, you know, one in 10 of them survived the ventilator. Use remdesivir, a product that is clearly failing, causing kidney failure, and then ultimately a vaccine that doesn't stop infection,

and then one booster, two boosters, four boosters. At a certain point, I've lost the ability to defend medicine. What the hell is going on with doctors in American around the world? The power of what you just said, the powerful forces, are what the doctors are feeling. I remember back in March 2020, one of the things I started talking about was prednisone. Pierre actually went to the senator of Congress and talked about it and promoted it in a big way.

And we got viciously attacked. It's very unnerving to get viciously attacked when you're talking about science. And so I think for physicians, they saw those things happening to those of us that were speaking out. They were very vicious attacks. I know Dr. Malone felt it. rewrote his history of his work on messenger RNA technology. You'll have a hard time finding it through a Google search that he had anything to do with it.

But what I'm saying is the power of that, we even were told that if we wore a mask, we were wasting personal protective equipment. Only the people in emergency were in pre-waring. So the power of that on the physicians very early on scared the bejesus out of most of the docks. and then they stopped looking. And let me add to that.

When I was first in practice, most physicians were independently working. And now 75% of physicians work for another entity, either academic or a big Kaiser or something that is going to basically control their ability to pay their mortgage, to pay their kids schooling and things like that. So physicians didn't do the data search. They didn't do it.

They stopped doing it because, they were scared and didn't want to look. So what happened was that? The power of the orchestrated attack was felt, I can't tell you, I wanted to crawl under a rock. And then I talked to my wife, I prayed about it, and I basically came to the conclusion that I had to speak out because medical freedom is our right. I mean, we're really talking about the death of the doctor-patient relationship. Do no harm, which meant, it doesn't matter the greater good, the person in front of me is who I'm treating and I have to make sure that they survive and it seems that our government are regulatory agencies as you said with the hooks to farm into them said throw all

of that out none of that matters now it doesn't matter that there may be risk this product we don't even know what the risks are because we've jumped out the safety trials everybody has to take this risk for the greater good and so all of medicine now no longer is the doctrine by the way you guys represent those doctors that did what we think they're doing you read the studies you looked at the trials you said this is a sham these things aren't working and now you have licenses under review. You've got the boards, the medical boards, now all writing dictates saying that any doctor that speaks out against the statements by the CDC is what is the protocols we're supposed to be used are going to find themselves under review. We are now,

you know, and think about this, folks, in America, we've been fighting socialized medicine for exactly this reason. We don't want to have some big conglomerate deciding our health. We want to have this interaction with our doctors. And now the CDC, the NIH, Tony Fauci, and all this, they're taking that away. And the funding from pharma into your medical boards, into all of these peer-reviewed journals, is taking away your ability to do your job, which is to take care of your patient.

Am I missing something here? The state of California is putting a law in place, trying really hard right now, that if any of us who happen to be practicing in California, say anything contrary to the approved narrative, our licenses will be automatic. pulled by state law. I think to put that in perspective, I want to put that in perspective because this is why your license are up because you challenge this

vaccine. You said I don't think it's effective. I don't know if you've seen this, but I have a video of Deborah Birx who foisted this whole abomination upon this country. She was one of the players. Look at what she just said when she was pushed on this issue of were you lying? Was this wishful thinking, dreaming? Can we play the video with Deborah Berks please? You're an expert. You were on the task board. You were part of this effort when you were in the previous administration, and you're saying in this administration that you can't rule out the fact that our government was lying to us when they told us the vaccinated could not get the virus. I don't know about their discussions that they had in the task force.

So I can't tell you that. I can tell you as a family member who had individuals that were susceptible. Of course, we got everybody vaccinated. But we still use layered protection during surges because I knew potentially the vaccine immunity would weigh in, like natural immunity waned. And there was evidence that every four months, reinfection was occurring in South Africa. Wow. When the government told us that the vaccine it couldn't transmit it, was that a lie or was that a guess? Or is it the same answer? I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way. And that's why I think scientists and public health leaders always have to be at the table,

being very clear what we know and what we don't know. This is important for the country to know. So when I asked the question, when the government told us that the vaccinated couldn't get it. And I ask you if it was a guess or a lie, you said you don't know. You said you think it was hope. So what we do know is it wasn't the truth. So they were either guessing, lying, or hoping, and communicating that information to the, to the, to the citizens of this country. I think they were hoping, but you should know in those original phase three trials that were done in this country, that we only measured for symptomatic disease. So But we weren't proactively testing everybody in those trials to see if they got infected with mild or asymptomatic disease.

And so people had to present within the clinical trial. I've just— So we never had the data that it was going to protect against asymptomatic infection. I'm just struck with the irony. We got government agencies guessing, hoping, or lying with the information they're presenting to the American people. And this is the same administration that wants to set out. the disinformation governance board and wants to talk about misinformation and they're the biggest purveyors of misinformation false information hopeful information but not accurate and true information

which is again the frustration i think so many of the folks i get the privilege of representing have shared uh have shared with me by the way those are the types of politicians you should be thinking about voting in that are actually stepping up and asking the right questions but i want to point out i want to point out we have just a little bit of time here how did dangerous and precarious the moment we now find ourselves in. It is now known that everything that these guys was saying about vaccines was true. It is now known that they didn't stop infection, didn't stop transmission. We're seeing rises in all-cause mortality, a 40% rise in deaths in 18 to 64-year-olds across the insurance companies in the United States of America. Unexplained. There is a

serious health problem now in this country. And the only thing that you can really point to is the vaccinations. Yet the medical boards right now are writing laws based on. on, you know, pharmaceutical pressure that will say that it doesn't matter that Deborah Burks was lying to us, that they were in wishful thinking. Now, she wants to sound innocent about saying, well, it was wishful thinking we wanted to work. That would be fine if that was true when you were transparent with us as the community watching your news programs, but not only did you come out and say that this was going to stop infection, stop transmission, get us out of this pandemic.

You were denying us drugs that could actually protect us and were getting us killed. And then on top of that, you started silencing every doctor that actually did have the science, even invented this damn thing, and said, no, you're lying. And you were not allowing them to appear on CNN, them to speak their truth. Instead, you're trying to take away their licenses. You're going to hear a lot. A lot of important things here at Freedom Fest, but I will tell you, this is the issue of your time. You have lost control of your own body.

I don't care about your gun rights, your banking rights, your land rights. If you don't control your own body, this is over. And if we don't stand up for the doctors that are telling the truth, what is the future for any of us? So, you know, when you bring up the boards, and we look at that piece and what you just talked about, I mean, I can't rank all of the terrifying and trouble of things that's happened in society. But in a country-led United States that has a First Amendment,

when I started seeing this push to go after the misinformationists, they wouldn't debate us, they wouldn't give us a public forum. And all of the complaints in my medical board, not one is from a patient. It's all from doctors who say that I should be delicensed because I spread misinformation. And then you saw the Department of Homeland Security come out with a new policy, saying that those spreading misinformation of COVID have the capacity to incite violence around COVID. And then they said that that might meet the definition of a domestic terrorist. So one night I went to bed as a position, and then I woke up with my government,

essentially accusing me of becoming a domestic terrorist. And then the boards now send me letters of documented statements and things that I've written and said in interviews, all backed up with data and evidence, and they're asking me to defend myself. And so there's this huge push, like Robert just mentioned about California, We're literally ignoring all of history or we're ignoring the message in 1984. We're literally having ministries of truth. And they have to do it because when they're not peddling in truth and they're peddling in propaganda, they have to go after those speaking truth.

And so I thought I was just doing the right thing, trying to become expert. I wanted to figure out this disease. This is how it started. I was like, we got to figure this thing out and figure out how to treat it. And everything I've discovered and tried to disseminate has not been well. by those in power and we have to stand up against that. We just have a couple minutes left and there's so much to talk about in this topic. And by the way, these guys have videos all over the internet,

including the work you're all doing together through the global COVID summit. Look that up, look at that website. So much important information. But for just a couple minutes here, what is the way forward? What is the way out? We have a leaky vaccine, not stopping infection, not stopping transmission. We're moving into the fifth booster. It looks like that is really destroying the way out.

really destroying the immune systems of lots of people. We still have products like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine out there, if they could be utilized. If you're head of health and human services tomorrow, Dr. Robert Malone, and maybe you guys, CDC and NIH, how should we move forward right now with all the knowledge we now have in this nation and around the world? How do we get out of this? So first off, I want to recommend to you the book of my friend Matthias Desmit, the psychological basis of authoritarianism, of totalitarianism. And you can find a great video on the Highwire website with a fantastic interview there. Second, these vaccines are driving something called immune imprinting.

This is creating a form of immune bias. It is the reason why the flu vaccines don't work very well, the same exact mechanism. And they are proposing to give all of us, they've already bought three, $3.2 billion worth of a triolet valent vaccine that has not been manufactured, will not be clinically tested, and will be, for some reason, deployed right before the election. Okay? And it is, it is, it couldn't have been designed better to damage your ability to resist further Omicron infection.

Okay. The vaccination must stop. Do not vaccinate your children. These vaccines need to be withdrawn. They are not effective. and they are not safe. This is unequivocal. The vaccines are not effective.

They're not safe. Continued administration only makes the situation worse. So what are you going to do because the data from all over the world. And Pierre just pulled up another article moments ago. The data from all over the world are showing that the ones that are getting into the hospital

almost exclusively now, well over 90%, the ones that are going to be able to 90%, go into the hospital and dying with Omicron are the highly vaccinated. Okay, what are we going to do for them? They're already damaged. Number one, the first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging. Okay, someone needs to teach this to Tony Fauci. Number two, we have multiple early treatments. They save lives. We have to make them widely

available. We have to make it clear to our population. who the government has a responsibility to protect us, why we're paying them. Yep, okay? We're paying them to protect us, not to generate pharmaceutical industry profits. Okay, these guys and their peers, and to some extent our group, has also demonstrated multiple different early treatment options. They keep you out of the hospital. They keep you alive.

The mortality rate from early treatment is negligible. And by the way, you don't see this kind of refurbation. recidivism, this re-infection that you see with pavloxid, strangely enough. And that is how we have to get out of this, is we have to make these drugs, these treatments, available to all of you and your children and your older relatives. What is this audience, Pierre, you know, Richard, what can they do to help that? So I want to answer your question, though. I'll answer both questions.

If I were ever put in charge of the response to this, first thing I would have done, national public service campaign telling all the doctors to check the vitamin D levels of all their patients and put them on a replenishment protocol, getting those levels above 50. If you had just done that simple thing, the government knows, and they've known for decades, that in some estimates, 90% of our population is vitamin D deficient. And that's deficient even according to their very low levels of vitamin D. Had we done a national vitamin D replenishment campaign that would have changed the face of this. And then I'll just piggyback on Robert.

Our protocols work. We have dozens of compounds. Many of them are over the counter. Doing povodone iodine, nasal drops, and mouthwashes will drastically reduce your need for hospitalization. There are simple solutions, especially when used in combination. We have just one of the protocols. Many of them work, but you can go to FLCCCCC.net. And that's how to give you agency in order to protect your health and protect your life and those of your loved ones.

Dr. Urso, some final thoughts. These are great points, and I want to say one of the things. We're here at Freedom Fest. We need to fight for our medical freedom first. All right, first. These vaccines, all right, they go everywhere. They produce toxin for who knows how long. They uptick viruses, dormant viruses in your body.

We're now seeing almost the doubling of Bell's palsy, the doubling of the Epstein Bar. You're seeing these things happen. The data's out. We're also seeing an increase in fertility issues. We saw a 30% decrease in the Israeli study of men in their sperm. It quote unquote recovers. How about five shots later? Okay.

So you're starting to see that in Germany and other places. You're starting to see the effects of this vaccine. 92% of the deaths in England were in the triple vaccinated. Don't get more shots, do not do it. We're seeing an upticking cancers. We're seeing that it actually destroys something that's very important, our DNA repair mechanisms, a P53, the guardian of the genome. These are things that are very hard to fix.

If you keep putting this toxic product in your body, it's only going to be a very good. going to get worse. But they're going to come at us with every single platform, messenger RNA, they're going to come with the lipid nanoparticles, they're going to go all over your body, and they're going to keep coming over and over and you need to stand up and fight, especially for our kids. And here's the thing. In England, the data is there's at least a 52 times higher incidence of death in the children from 10 to 14 in the vaccine. We need to stop the vaccine program. I want to thank my guests. I want to thank Freedom Fest. If you want more information on this, go to FLCC.com. Check out Robert Malone's substack. He's writing every single day. It's brilliant global COVID summit. These guys are all a part of that globalcovid summit.com. And if you want to avoid being lied to ever again, make sure you're watching the highwire.com where we tell the truth and nothing about the truth. Thank you very much. Great job, yeah. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you.

I mean, wasn't that amazing? I was pinching myself after that, just thinking, I think that may have been like the best panel I've ever seen. I said at the top, watching again, I definitely feel that. I also want to point out that, you know, to those of you that donate to the high wire and to I can, you're making panels like that possible. We had to bring out, in order to sort of make all of this happen,

we brought our entire studio, a mobile studio out there with desks and everything, all the cameras, all the lights, all of the sound equipment and the ability to edit in between so that we could do the show the morning up with those three guys and then went on stage. And I just, you know, I'm not gonna get the numbers, but try to imagine what that actually cost for us to make an impact on a brand new audience.

I mean, a lot of times we worry about like preaching to the choir. That's something that I'd never wanted to happen on the high wire. That's why I'm so excited when I see just this constant exponential rise in the viewers from around the world that are tuning in every week to the high wire. It's growing all the time. But when we want to reach out and on this mission to wake up as many people as we can, it's moments like these going to a Freedom Fest or basically which is a libertarian convention where half of the audience had gotten the vaccine, trust me, that's not our audience. And to get to sort of present to them. And by the way, right afterwards, what do we see an uptick in those people

that are watching the high wire? Now, it's not. just about, you know, growing, you know, this business or this news show. It's about growing the army of people that have the truth. That's how we win this. That's how we change. These are boating blocks. These are purchasing blocks. This is what establishes the strength of our communities. And you are making that possible when you donate to us. All of this is very expensive. We are not, you're not sitting me up here, you know, sitting with a pair of earphones and a microphone in one camera on me. We could have done that. But we did. decided that we thought we'd be more effective if we deliver a state of the art news show

exactly like you're seeing on CNN and MSNBC and then we're taking it out into the public and things like Freedom Fest so they can see it too. You make that possible, but we need your help. I mean, you talk about the legal side, but this show does too. There's so much we're doing for you and I really want you to step up, not just because we could use your help. And frankly, if we don't continue to grow exponentially, we may not win this entire thing when it all comes down to it but we will see the end results in our lifetime what do you want to be telling yourself we won because I supported everything or we lost because I knew we would and I never put any money in anything because there was just no point don't be a Debbie

downer get up get happy get excited be a participating member just give us $22 a month that's all we're asking for you get better get on it before we hit 23 because that might be a whole dollar more we're asking for next year but you really do make a difference in this world when you do it. Also, we've made it easy. Right now, pick up your phone. Type, you know, the number, 72022, write, donate, and we'll give you a link right there. Would really great if you become a recurring donor because that says to us, not only can we file new lawsuits, not only can we go to a new event where we open, you know, more eyes and expand our audience, but it says to us that we have more people waking up to the level that they're becoming committed,

passionate, involved people in this world. Why does that matter? Because we do make changes. Because we are having an effect. When I made Vaxed, you know, that movie exploded all around the world.

People would say, I think a lot of people believe that that's what ignited this sort of movement against pharmaceutical tyranny. It's not that it was the only movie of its kind or the first movie of its kind,

but it just most effectively got a story across that the world had been hiding. We used some things like getting attacked in the press, which was part of my plan that weren't getting kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival, was really effective. But all of a sudden, the world was back to a very important question. Is it possible that vaccines could be causing or contributing to autism? Why was there a fraud at the CDC?

Why did they cover up the data when they were seeing what looked to them about a causal relationship? And let me be perfectly clear about what vaxed is. When people come up there, you say, Vax proved that they, that vaccines cause autism, It did not. What Vax, that film proved, was that our, you know, our heads of science inside the CDC believed that what they were seeing was such a strong connection between the vaccine and autism that they committed scientific fraud. That's what the film proves that they were so worried about what they were looking at,

they risked their careers to commit scientific fraud. That's what Vax proves. But out of that, it started this conversation that now, you know, had to be quelled. And so how did they say, how they say, how they were doing? And we've won lawsuits, obviously, against the FDA and CDC on these issues. We've shown you that they've been unable to provide evidence that the first six vaccines, the first six months of life don't cause autism. No studies have been done.

Yet they tell you all vaccines don't cause autism. But at the heart of it, we cornered them, right? We cornered them. We forced them into a corner. And what was their corner? Where do they stand their ground and say, you're not going to beat this argument? That argument was, it is genetic. that has nothing to do with environmental toxicity, no injections, none of that.

Autism is a genetic disease. If you happen to have a child with autism, then you know that this is what you were told by your doctor. It's genetic. There's a great book called Denial that gets into this because what do they end up saying? If you're going to say it's genetic, and then the next line they say is autism has always been here. It's not getting any worse. This increase from 1 in 10,000 to now in 1 in 40 is only because, we are diagnosing it better.

You see how bad, and what I loved about this, I was like, oh my God, we have forced them into the worst argument they could possibly have. Now all we have to do is take it down. Well, sometimes when you are winning in chess and you've got that, you know, king cornered in the corner and there's nowhere to go, maybe you aren't the one that gives the death blow.

I just heard a death blow on the radio the other day that has nothing to do with anything we've researched. But listen to this. This is a paid advertisement for legal services sponsored by Ferrer-Pirorororo and Wansborough. Do not stop taking a prescribed medication without first consulting a physician. Attention, parents of children with autism. A new study suggests a strong link between Tylenol used during pregnancy and an increased risk of autism. If you use Tylenol or any of these acetaminopin products while pregnant and now your child has autism, call right now.

Your family may be entitled to significant compensation. Call 1-800-483-1200. That's 1-800-483-12. lawyers believe that they have a big enough case based on metadata, looking at science and polls and information and studies all around the world, collating it together, it really does appear that people, women who took Tylenol while pregnant, had a higher risk of autism. Now the reason I want to bring this up is because I've heard several people say, this is just how they're trying to hide the vaccine issue, the vaccines are causing it. And I want to just caution you for a second and say, wait a minute, there's a different way to look at this, okay?

Now, number one, you couldn't run this ad for vaccines. There's no legal group that could say if you had a vaccine that you believed, you know, while you were pregnant or gave a vaccine to your child that you think caused their autism, call us because they're totally protected from liability. See, what's interesting here is Tylenol is not. Drugs are not protected from liability. So this is one of the only spaces you could actually sue in. I think that's kind of cool. Now think about this because this is the big point. Their argument, the CDC, the FDA, the WHO all around the world is that autism is genetic.

It has always been here. There's no cause for it. So this Tylenol accusation, as it goes forward, represents a brand new thought in science or an old view. If you talk to all of the parents of autism, they've been talking about this and really upset about this, what this says is that science is showing that environmental toxicity, that takes. Taking a Tylenol while pregnant does appear to have affected the rates of autism. Well, guess what, folks? The floodgates just opened.

This is game over for the only argument that our establishment had, which is it's genetic. If it's genetic, what the heck does a Tylenol have to do with it? Now, this isn't the first time we've pointed out anomalies like this, but this is the biggest time in the public that you are seeing their cathedral of lies crashing down. This is only the beginning. What's the next question? I think the next question should be, did you give your child Tylenol when they were a little baby, when they were an infant? Like did your doctors say, if they're a little bit fussy after vaccination, give them a Tylenol?

Because shouldn't we also be looking if it's toxic in utero? Isn't it toxic to a developing brain and an infant? Look what that opens up. And then the other question, well, there's also a confounding issue. Is it possible that everybody that gives Tylenol tends to also believe in vaccines too? Do you see where this goes, folks? do you see that as this crack is now opening up, the CDC is screwed, the FDA is screwed, just like they've been on our argument about aluminum. We just showed you a couple of weeks ago.

Now they've had to do their own study on aluminum because we have so many world-renowned scientists like Christopher X-Lexley talking about it. Then now study tries to see whether child vaccines and asthma are linked. The research has found a possible link between aluminum and vaccines and asthma. But experts caution that more work is needed to confirm the findings. Look what that opens up. Well, if aluminum and vaccines is leading to asthma, what about other autoimmune issues? What about neurological issues? What about if it's asthma? What about ADD, ADHD?

What about cancer? What about lupins? What about multiple sclerosis? What about diabetes? That's an autoimmune issue. Are there increases there? The can of worms is already opened. Or as they say, the Pandora's box has been open.

Not on purpose by the CDC, by us here at the high wire. By you every time you dared to question it when you should, and by you sharing all the science that we've shared, we have punctured a hole through this prison wall. Doesn't matter, you know, how thick it is. There is light. There's daylight coming through now, folks. I say this for everyone out there that might think, well, I'm not sure we're really having a success. Believe me you, the world is changing. That light is shining.

And on that bright golden hill is our future, a future of a better world, better science, better medicine, more transparency, where the people are back in charge of their bodies, where the doctor-patient relationship is restored, where guys like Malone and Erso and Corey aren't looking at threatening their licenses, they're running the CDC, they're running the FDA in the National Institutes of Health. That is what we're fighting for. That's what we're dreaming for. That's what we believe in. That's what you're funding when you donate to us, that future. And to that future, let's all say, amen. I'll see you there, and I'll see you next week.