The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE REAL GLOBAL COVID SUMMIT

Episode Date: May 13, 2022

Gates Admits Del Was Right!; FDA Limits J&J’s Shot Over Risk; Rand Roasts HHS Head Over ‘Disinfo’ Board; FDA Fails in New ICAN Legal UpdateGuests: Robert Malone, MD, Richard Urso, MD, Ryan Cole, MD#GlobalCovidSummit #GCSBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Well, it was a big week in the book world, one of the most anticipated books, maybe in our lifetime. I'm not talking about Harry Potter. I'm talking about Bill Gates' new book, How to Prevent the Next Pandemic. I know, I know you've been like waiting, you know, holding your breath. I don't know how my copy didn't get to me. I'm in on reserve for this for so long.

I'm about to press charges against Amazon. I don't know what's going on there. But no matter the fact, Bill Gates has his book out that apparently somebody on this planet wants to read. I don't know why. But he's doing his book tour, starting to talk about what we know now versus what we know then. You know, the genius inside of the mind who, like the computer guy that was a health guy or whatever the heck he is. He's out there. He's made some comments.

I want to talk a little bit about that. I want to talk about what do we know, what do we not know, and what? What does it mean to be intelligent on the planet Earth in the day and age that we now live in? Take a look at this. It wasn't until early February when I was in a meeting that experts at the foundation said, there's no way. There's been too much travel without diagnosis for us to contain this. And then at that point, we didn't really understand the fatality rate.

You know, we didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly kind of like fluids, although a bit different than that. Isn't it amazing when you end up hearing things said like that as though like here on May? He's in May, 2022 saying we had no idea that there was like this really low fatality rate as it turns out and it was really just a disease of the elderly. Really? We didn't know that because we looked back in our archives and I kind of remember. saying that while it was all going on. Let's just sequester or quarantine those that are most vulnerable, the seniors and the immune suppressed. This is really only a tragic situation for a small group of people

that are immune suppressed or elderly. Do you see how gigantic this would be? And to imagine that when we move into the future, how do we move forward? We all talked about it last week. It's hanging the balance. Do we continue to destroy the economy? of America right now? Or do we open it up? If you're under the age of 65 and you're relatively

healthy as, as, you know, was being described in that report, you're really going to have almost no symptoms or it'll be like a mild cold. That was misinformation then. That was complete misinformation. We were losing YouTube channels and Facebook channels for saying exactly what Bill Gates is now in 2022 after locking us down, destroying the world. admitting, yeah, I mean, as it turns out, it was a really low fatality rate. What did we know then, though? How did I know that? I mean, was I psychic? Or will we just read new things like this from the NIH? This is May 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, what we know. Here's what we knew. As of 11th of February, total of 1,715 medical workers had been infected, of which five had died,

with a crude case fatality rate of 0.3%. The case fatality, the current, the current, reported cases in China is less than 4%, which implies that so far this novel coronavirus does not seem to cause the high fatality rates previously observed for SARS-CoV and MERSCoV, 10% for the first and 30% respectively. There were other articles that went on to talk about, you know, the fact that, you know, those that are dying really aren't dying for the reasons that we think. In fact, this is the CDC all way back August of 2020. 94% of COVID-19 deaths had underlying medical conditions.

It went on to say they had more than two comorbidities. I've talked about this ad nauseum. This isn't new to anybody that's been watching the high wire, but if you're brand new to the high wire, maybe it's a bit shocking to think right at the back of this pandemic. We were telling you, these numbers aren't what you're being told. And then, of course, Johnny Yannidis, one of the great epidemiologists in the world,

looked at data from around the world. This is the article that he wrote about that. A fiasco in the making. As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. He goes on to say, a reasonable estimate for the case fatality ratio in the general US population vary from about 0.05% that's case fatality rates to 1%. That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.

0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. Why don't we figure out what's going on? Well, maybe the problem Bill Gates had was that he was reading his own press. Maybe he wasn't actually paying attention to what we actually knew, but he was lost in who he was investing in and who he was in funding to scare the hell out of us, like the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation boosts vital work in the University of Washington's Institute for Health metrics and evaluation.

he gave them $279 million back in 2017 to be able to use them to get really valuable information. So let's see how valuable the information Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was foistering upon the planet Earth. Early on, as he said, when we didn't know what the actual fatality rate was. Well, here's what he was projecting through the IHME. This is really interesting. This is April 4th of 2020. Now, here they're projecting that all beds, needed, that purple line that by April 4th, 164,745 beds will be needed. Of those ICU beds, there'll be

31,000 ICU beds needed on that day in America. And then for the invasive ventilators, we're going to need 24,848. This was Bill Gates' brain trust here. This is where he was living and breathing and eating popcorn and drinking coffee and trying to figure out how, you know, how to end the pandemic we were in. But what were the numbers when we really look at them? Here's the actual numbers of April 4th. Instead of 31,000 projected ICU beds, we actually only needed 5,200. He was only off by 596%. And then in the overall total, the 164,745 projected hospital beds needed, we actually only ended up using 22,158 actual beds. There, he's off by 743%. And then in the projected ventilators, the things that were used to kill people, nine out of ten people died while using them.

They projected they needed 24, nearly 25,000 of these death machines. They only ended up using 656 on April 4th. That was out by 3,800%. So perhaps the problem Bill Gates had was he was too involved with scaring us all to actually get a grip on the reality we were actually living in. Here's another video. And just brace yourself. for this statement.

There was a lot of uncertainty about, for example, school shutdowns. To this day, there's still arguments about how many cases that avoided. It's pretty clear because young people don't get sick from the disease very often, that we probably, if we knew everything we know today, we would have shut schools down a lot less than we did during this pandemic. I mean, yes, it's tricky for the elder adults. It's tricky in a lot of ways.

And you mean by that high school and under? Exactly. You know, for college, going virtual tends to work awfully well. The infection levels are a little higher should get up into that age group. But K through 12, we have a learning deficit that will take us a long time to erase that. And sadly, it's a deficit where the inner city

It's where it's almost two years. Suburban schools less, private schools in some cases, like my kids, almost no deficit at all. Really? Your kids no deficit at all. What a shocker. Oh, my God. You had a school where your kids did just fine, Bill. Meanwhile, the rest of us that were saying these lockdowns are racist.

We were all being called racist for coming out against the lockdown, saying this is going to destroy our children's lives, destroy their education, drive them to depression and suicide, all things that are happening in astronomical numbers. And now he's telling us, he finally figured out that as it turns out, with a group of children, the children, had almost no risk whatsoever to the disease. But we locked them down anyway. And, you know, surprise, surprise, they're behind by like two years, ready to slit their own wrists. But don't worry, my kids did just fine.

All right, well, let's just look at it. Does he really learn something? I mean, since he's reflecting back on what he didn't know, the Highwire knew it. And anybody with intelligence, you know, above about 40 IQ could figure out what's going on. But now he's written a book because he's looking at the future for his next pandemic. I mean, the next pandemic. And let's see what some of the statements are coming from this book. You right?

Choice quotes from Bill Gates' new book. Oh, I jumped the spot, didn't I? Let's go back. Let's go back to like where I missed the part where we were going to like sort of brag that, Highwire is right. Did we know the school should be shut down? Here's what we were saying back then. I mean, every scientist around the world has been saying this doesn't affect children. It's really the elderly. We know this for a fact. Wuhan China, they said people are dying everywhere, but none of the children are getting it. Remember all of those discussions? It's been circling

the world. We've had different explanations. Some because we know the virus attaches to ACE2, which children apparently have a very low level of age two. Maybe that's the or maybe they just have really bad ass interfere on. Let's protect those that are truly at risk over the age of 65, other comorbidities like heart disease or COPD, diabetes, perhaps even obesity. Let's look at those that have severe autoimmune issues. Let's protect them. Let's lock them down.

Let's keep them in mask. Let's make sure that they're safe while we send our children back to school, while the healthy get back to work so that we can reach. And yes, the words are now being. said in the capital of the United States of America, natural herd immunity. I mean, that was it, that we were looking at the science. We knew that children were at almost zero risk whatsoever, right in the heart of China. No kids were getting this thing or dying. It wasn't an issue. Why did we lock down the schools? It made no sense. It made you question what's really happening in D.C.

Who's in charge? I mean, is the president demanding that we lock everybody down? Or is that just Tony Fouchie Deborah Birx, all of which whom have been on the board for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Well, I remember something that the president said seemed to allude to the fact that he thought we should open up the schools. Hey, young kids have a very strong immune system. Nobody even knew it. Get your children back to school. Get them back to school. I don't care. This isn't a political show. I don't care what you think of Donald Trump or Joe Biden. That's not what this is actually about. The point is just simply, we knew we should have been open.

We knew the kids had amazing immune systems and that they should be in school. Yet Bill Gates and everybody kept promoting this idea of locking them down and now all of a sudden they're waking up. So let's get to his book. Let's get to the statements he's making. Has he learned something? Does he realize that, you know, many of those tactics didn't work? These are chose quotes from Bill Gates' new book. The human suffering caused by these separations is incalculable, literally.

No one to put a number on the pain of not being able to save. goodbye in person. But the policy saved so many lives that it will be worth adopting again if the circumstances call for it. Of course, I'm sure he's talking about not being able to visit people in the hospital that were dying, this incredibly inhuman thing that we did over the last couple of years and doctors were in on it, I guess like grinning to themselves that your mom's going to die and you're never going to get to see her again or your father or your uncle or your brother and the hospital's blocked because they didn't want you catching this cold or spreading this cold, even though I guess you could have taken a test there,

we get it. But now Bill Gates is saying as horrific as that is, and I feel for you, I do, and my kids that are still well-educated feel for you too. But the point being that we may have to do this again because it was so successful. Really, Bill? Really? Let me just show you the most recent article. We've played this on the show. We showed you this on the show. But how successful were lockdowns? This is John Hopkins University. I think they know what they're doing. A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality looking across the world. Here's what we learned. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to know public health effects, I don't know what Bill Gates is saying they're highly effective.

Every study is telling us this. They have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument. These costs of society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion. Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument, period, full stop. That's Johns Hopkins. I don't know where Bill Gates is at, but I guess if it doesn't affect your family, then it didn't affect anybody that bad.

Sorry about grandma. Sorry about your dad. I'm sure they would have loved to tell you. They love you. They knew that. They died. Just know that. Okay.

So look at this quote. Lockdowns are a great example. The evidence is clear that they reduce transmission. I don't know what he's talking about. And that stricter lockdowns reduce transmission more than looser ones do. But they're not equally effective everywhere because not everyone is able to comply by staying in one place. He goes on to say lockdowns may be necessary. He loves this in places where the disease burden is modest.

They're also more effective. in countries where residents have less of a voice in the country's affairs. We really like totalitarian dictatorships. That's where they are really putting my model into place. And the government is in a position to strictly enforce lockdowns and other mandates. That's where it really rocks. If only were actually true. The truth is, I could show you New Zealand that had a zero COVID policy.

We told you that wouldn't work. It didn't work. They had infections go through the roof. Australia, same thing. And these were islands, right? These were islands. I mean, if anyone was going to pull off zero. COVID, it would be them. But he's saying the stricter they were. I mean, how strict did you need to be?

How about Taiwan? Taiwan was insanely strict. Taiwan and Ireland, if you're ever going to try and pull off zero COVID, that would be the place to do it. How long will Taiwan stick to a zero COVID approach? This is amazing. Zero COVID they went for. In fact, I remember threats of fines if you weren't wearing a mask, like huge fines or not social distancing. I mean, they were crazy about this. They went for it. And they kind of had that type of, you know, government. where if you don't do what you're told, you know what's going to happen. Well, how is Taiwan doing? Well, a month ago, you know, they were having a little bit of an outbreak again. Now, their worst previous outbreak during their zero COVID policy happened between February and September of

2021. They had a little bit of spike there. They got up to 600 confirmed cases at the seven-day rolling average. Well, last month in the middle of April, they had gone back to that spot, which was really alarming because they were working so hard at zero COVID. Everybody was double and triple masking. Everyone was getting their vaccine, you know. But the thing is, it should have gone down, right? I mean, all of those measures work because as Bill Gates says, the stricter the lockdowns, the better.

Unfortunately, one month later, I want to show you where this is at. And I want you to just, before I change, just take note of between February and September. Remember that, blimp? Remember how big. That was like their biggest, but they had one back in January 28th, that little guy right there, then February, that was a doozy. February to September there, 2021. Let's look at where they're at right now. All right, take a moment to grasp this. We're not in

the hundreds anymore. They're up above 35,000 confirmed cases in the last seven days. And that giant blip they had between February and September, look at that thing. That's like a flat line compared to where they're at now. This is what serious lockdowns have done to Taiwan, put them at risk, and now there's infections freaking everywhere. Lockdowns don't work. Mask don't work. Bill Gates is an idiot and so is anyone who buys his book. All right.

Let's move on to the rest of this show. I got a big show coming up. I am going to have an amazing opportunity to have at this table with me, Dr. Robert Malone, Richard Erso, all these guys came together for the Global COVID Summit. I got Dr. Ryan Cole all here with me to talk about what would. is this all about the global COVID summit and what do they think of the vaccines and the rollout and the pandemic and all the questions we've ever want to ask them and especially the one that's on all of our minds? I'm going to ask them what they think of Geert van den Bosch's predictions,

the things that I know have kept you up at night since we did our show last week. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. Did you read the book yet? No, I didn't get around to it yet. I'm sorry. All right. Well, what's actually happening in the news this week versus what they dream is happening. Okay. Well, what we're going to look at here is a really big story coming out of the vaccine news, and that is the FDA has limited Johnson and Johnson's COVID vaccine. So here's the headline FDA limits use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine due to blood clot risk. Now, this is a constant theme in our reporting over the last several years on these issues.

The blood clot risk they're talking about is thrombosis with thrombosis. This is kind of like a new development and it's sometimes called vaccine thrombosis. But this is blood clinging disorder that can lead to a stroke or heart attacks, heart issues. So this is a big deal. And gee, I wonder it would have been nice if we would have had some more warning about this. Like maybe in April 2021, we did check out this headline. We went over at the time. We're going to bring it back up.

April 2021, US to temporarily halt use of Johnson Johnson vaccine over rare clotting issues. This was only two months after the company received its emergency use authorization. So they rolled out in the public. How many lives could have been saved? So they pulled back then. Go ahead. Yeah. And then here we are in December.

This is the CDC panel, the ASIP panel, had to make a determination on this December 15th. This is the headline CDC panel will meet on blood clot risks linked to J&J's vaccine. And lo and behold, you know, rare. The benefits outweigh the risk. It only happened in a subset of people. And we already gave it to like 8 million people. So all good here. So this is what we're looking at.

But why is this a big deal? We're talking about blood issues, blood clotting, heart attacks. And, you know, overall harms we're talking about this vaccine. I just want to make this point too really quickly, Jeffrey, before we move on at all. This is a vaccine. This is exactly the problem for all of the mainstream news out there that keeps screaming misinformation from the high wire, even though we've been showing you the data, showing you what the FDA is looking at. We're looking at it too.

our government, the United States of America, forced people to get vaccines that had not been properly safety tested. End of story. That is the story. That has always been the story. A story you were not allowed to say anywhere in mainstream media. I remember talking in New York Times and Washington Post and these reporters that would be grilling me. I was like, are you telling me you want to live in a world where the government can force a product

on you that had a couple of weeks safety testing that was killing animals in the animal trials? That's the world you want to live in. Well, this is the result of the world we now live in. The government forced people. They could not work. They could not go to their jobs. Some couldn't go to school if they didn't get a Johnson and Johnson vaccine. One of the choices.

And they said they're all safe. They're all effective. We looked at it. We scrutinized. And now we know that the United States government by action of forcing people to get a vaccine in order to be employed, murdered people. That's the case. People have died of these blood clots. caused by the United States government, so the government has murdered citizens.

I'm not going to say it any lighter than that. This is outrageous. I'm glad the FDA is finally learning something and pulling them back, and maybe it's all a cover-up so you don't question the other vaccines that are there. But think about this. This simply says the government made a tragic error. They recommended and then force people to get a vaccine that now they think is so dangerous and causes blood clots enough that they have to withdraw basically their recommendation

of this product. And this is only the beginning. How far will we go? Will we ever hear of them say all the vaccines were a problem? And then what will we do? A victory lap around all the dead bodies, our loved ones, our friends, our neighbors, our grandparents. It's an absolute disgrace. And we, you know, we saw this coming because we had researched and looked into deeply the safety issues before COVID vaccines came out of the other vaccines and the childhood schedule. And we saw that the lack in the studies, the lack in the length of the safety studies, all the work done by ICANN to get those documents out. And so this is why we had warned this.

This is why we were in such a great position to sound the alarm on this. And we're continuing to do it. But in Berlin, now this apparently goes beyond Johnson and Johnson shot. And this is why I want to show. So in Berlin, we have the Charity University Hospital. This is one of the largest university hospitals and research centers in Europe and all of Europe. And here's the headline. Now, this is translated.

So you take it a little bit of the grain of salt, but it says charity researchers call for ambulances for vaccine victims. So that's translated, but it's basically calling for help for vaccine victims. Now, that's a heck of a headline. We're calling them victims now. So it says here in the article, and this is like mainstream in Germany, it says the number of serious complications after vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously. recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. That's their version of the CDC over there. This is one of the results of a long-term observational study by the Berlin charity. And it says here, one result, eight out of 1,000 vaccinated people struggle with serious side effects. This is the lead author,

the researcher, he says, quote, the number is not surprising, explains Professor Dr. Harold Mathis. It corresponds to what is known from other countries such as Sweden, Israel, or Canada. Leave that up for one second. I just want people to sort of do a little math here. If this is true, and now this is, you know, we're, we are seeing this in Israel all around. Eight out of 1,000 folks, that is darn near one in 100, right? We're nearing one in a hundred or struggling with a serious side effect from the vaccine. And he says that is not surprising, surprising, I think, to anyone watching this right now. And this is about pattern recognition. This is about dot connecting. So let's go back. Let's stay in

Germany for a second. Let's just go back to a couple months ago. There was a health insurance agency, BKK, and they made headlines that look like this. This is the German insurance company. More vaccine side effects than previously known. This was a very important study because they looked, this insurance company looked at just the people that were insured under their umbrella. So it was like an in-house, a very valuable in-house research assignment. And this is the headline. This is what it found. Vaccination consequences, BKK health insurance company writes a letter to the Paul Ehrick Institute. There they are again. They're being alerted time and time again. Now, they looked at nearly 11 million insured people under this insurance

company. They found this, quote, this evaluation has shown, although we do not yet have the complete data for 2021 that based on the available figures, we are already assuming 216,695 treated cases of vaccine side effects after corona vaccination from this sample. It says, if these figures are extrapolated to the year as a whole and to the population in Germany, it is likely that 2.5 to 3 million people in Germany receive medical treatment because of side effects of vaccination after the coronavirus vaccination. Now, what they were looking at, how they found this, is they were looking at the data codes, because there actually is a data code that the doctors put in the computer for the billing of the insurance companies that is a vaccine reaction, vaccine side effect.

So this is what they looked at. They just triggered this straight from the data, and that's what they found it under their umbrella. Am I right? And if I remember correctly, because we did cover this story that I think the CEO of the insurance company or the guy behind releasing that information ultimately lost his job, didn't he? Yeah, he was a board member. And yeah, I believe he was asked to step down as a board member at that point. Yes. Wow. And so here we have another company basically mirroring those exact same results saying we're seeing the same thing over here when we, you know, look at ambulances and things like that. Right. And this is, This is, I believe Pfizer is the predominant vaccine in Germany.

And let's stick with Pfizer for a second. Let's go to Israel. Again, we're looking at pattern recognition here. This is a study that was just published in Nature, the journal Nature, increased emergency cardiovascular events among under 40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID wave. So this is what they found. The main finding of this study concerns with increases of over 25% in both the number of cardiac arrest calls an acute coronary syndrome. That's ACS calls of people in the 16 to 39 age

group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel. That's January to May 2021, compared with the same period of time in prior years. They look at 2019 and 2020 to reflect that data to see this. Which were in fact years, by the way, so you can't say COVID's doing it. This is the vaccine. The only difference is now the vaccine's being rolled out. Right. And check this out because a lot of people do say, Well, you know, COVID causes heart issues, the actual infection, so you can't really determine. They actually, this is what they said about that. Moreover, there is a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly

cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome call counts. These are calls to the ambulances and the rates of the first and second vaccine doses administered to this age group. At the same time, there is no observed statistically significant association between COVID-19 infection rates and the cardiac arrest. and acute coronary syndrome call counts. So they, they parse it those out. And that that's what they found. This is one of the first studies to really extrapolate that and say, we have not found a correlation between the infection. It's the shot. And that's the Pfizer shot in Israel. So I ask you,

I ask you this, Dell, outside of studies and data like this, how would we know that kids are experiencing these, I mean, cardiac arrest? This is a big deal. Acute coronary syndrome. This is stuff we see in older adults with several comorbidities. How do we know they're normalizing this? Would they even admit it was a shot? Or would they start to run ads that look like this? And the future breakthrough that could cure her is closer than ever. With our research, we can keep saving lives like hers.

Donate now to turn science fiction into reality. That's really science fiction, isn't it? The future cure for what we already did to you. I mean, this, you know, conveyor belt they're putting everyone on. I mean, it's just absolutely disgusting. It's beyond words with that commercial. And let's bring it over to the United States and what's happening over here. So we're looking at Peter Marks.

He was recently in a closed-door session. He's the head of the FDA at this point. He's the acting director. He was in a closed-door session with Representative Jim Clyburn. Jim Clyburn's the chairman of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis. That's the official title of this. And Representative Clyburn issued a statement after that briefing with Peter Marks. And he had these quotes to say in here.

Here's the actual briefing document. And he said this, FDA will not withhold authorization based exclusively on vaccine efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection. He says, Dr. Marks explained that FDA will, would not withhold authorization for a pediatric vaccine solely because it did not reach a 50% efficacy threshold at blocking symptomatic infection, a requirement that had been previously listed in FDA guidance. So we're skipping that apparently. He goes on to say, Dr. Marks confirmed, quote, if these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective

against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize. And these are extremely sweeping statements. You got to wonder if they did this behind closed doors because those soundbites would be would be really damning at this point. Not good. I mean, because everyone's looking at it. Everyone is catching Amacron. Even Tony Fauci said the vaccine is absolutely useless. So, I mean, here you have where you're ignoring the known side effects. You're having to make ads for all the kids that are dropping over on the soccer field,

you know, clutching their chests. And while you're putting them at that risk, we don't even care if the thing is totally ineffective. We're going to still approve it for them and recommend it to them. And let's look. is this a risk category these kids are they at high risk you know we've covered this before but if they're going to keep pushing it like this we have to keep pushing back with with the data here so let's look at the CDC's own MMWR report this is like their in-house science journal this is the serial prevalence of infection-induced SARS-CoVi two antibodies in the United States

from December 2021 to February 2022 and serial prevalence is just the amount of infection in the population as as tested by the antibodies now it says during December 2021 to February 2020 overall U.S. seroprevalence increased from 33.5% to 57.7%. That's everybody. Now let's look at the kids. Let's just people can see this is sort of the herd immunity number. Those that have been infected that are now carrying antibodies. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. And then it says here over the same period, serial prevalence increased from 44.2% to 75.2% among children age 0 to 11 and from 45.6% to 74.2% among person's age 12 to 17. So basically 75% of kids are now testing positive for having been previously infected. You've watched what Deer Van de Bois just said. Those are your vacuum cleaners. Those are the

ones that are going to create such a brilliant immunity. They're the only ones that can neutralize it. They're at 75%. That has hurt immunity folks. Every way sideways, natural immunity amongst your kids. If it was just a world of kids, we would just be fine, but it's not. But still, they want to vaccinate those kids. And erase that incredible. amount of immunity. All right. Continue on. And a side note, those kids from zero to 17 have never had a Moderna shot in their arm. Why is that important? We're going to talk about it in just a second. So keep that as a note. So let's look at the American Academy of Pediatrics. They keep data as well on state reporting, 46 states reporting COVID mortality, cases, hospitalizations. This is their

update on May 5th. So this is from the start of the pandemic, start of the recording to May 5th, the entire time here. This is what they have to say. cumulative mortality, 46 states reporting, among states reporting children were 0.00% to 0.27% of all COVID-19 deaths and three states reported zero child deaths. And here's the kicker. In states reporting, 0% to 0.02% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. I don't know what to say about that. I mean, where are we out with- rate is at the very highest 0.02% for a child that catches this. And in most times, it's just 0.00%. And yet these fools with a totally ineffective vaccine still want to vaccinate those kids. And amazing, think about this. They reached a 75% of this country, has already been infected

and they had zero deaths. I mean, you can't be clearer at how safe these children are. The The only thing that Marx is going to do is put them at risk. That's the only thing that the CDC and our government is planning on doing right now is putting our children in unnecessary risk and erasing their ability to help us get to herd immunity. Amazing. Right. And let's talk about natural immunity, herd immunities. A couple words here.

We're going to talk about Moderna's vaccine, but we understand seroprevalence. That's the amount of antibodies in the population that have been basically generated by exposure to the infection. And we have seroconversion. That's when an individual becomes infected. They mount this antibody response, which it could be picked up on a test. So talking about the test for a second, there's a test called an anti-N test. This is an antibody test.

So these antibody tests check to see if you've been ever infected. Those are different than the PCR or lateral flow test. Those tell if you're infected at the moment, at the time of the test. So looking at those, this anti-N test, looks for antibodies. This is the quote from this article kind of just describing this. This is going to set up our next study here. It's very important. Anti-N tests look for antibodies that recognize a molecule inside the virus called the nucleocapsid, the N. These are only produced if you have caught COVID-19 previously and show natural immunity. These antibody

tests are kind of like the gold standard because we've talked about the PCR test before. The false positives are off the charts, especially when these cycle thresholds get about really about 30 from when I'm understanding. So we look at the we look at the, we look at the this study now. This study looked at, this is a zero conversion study. They looked at Moderna's phase three vaccine efficacy trial data. And they looked at it like it was called a nested analysis. So within that data, there was a group of people they looked at who were all infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the blinding phase of the trial. So here's the title, anti-nucal capsid antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blinded phase of the MRNA 1273. That's

Moderna shot, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial. And let's just jump to the results. And then we can explain this a little bit. So this is what they found the results. We analyze data from 1,789 participants that included 1,298 placebo recipients and 4,000, I'm sorry, 491 vaccine recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase through March of 2021. Among participants with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 illness, serial conversion to anti-N antibody, at a medium follow-up of 53 days post-diagnosis occurred in 21 out of 52, which is 40% of the MRNA-1273 vaccine recipients versus basically 93% of the placebo recipients. So what we're saying here, what they're finding is even though the vaccinated were infected, only 40% showed that N

antibody. The other 60% didn't show it. They did not convert it. So it's suggesting they're not here, Jeffrey. Let me jump in here and just sort of take, take, I want my team to take this back to the definition of this anti-N antibody test, because I think there's something we really need to get across. Listen to what it's saying. Anti-N tests look for antibodies that recognize a molecule inside the virus called the nucleocapsid. These are only produced if you have caught COVID-19 previously and show natural immunity. Remember the question we have had for the last two years is what happens if you get infected after the vaccine? Are you, you Are you then naturally immune the way a naturally immune person would be? What this is clearly showing us, Jeffrey, is they are not. They are not getting antibodies to this nucleocapsid. Only 40% of them are. So they're not getting the full natural infection. Therefore, they don't have that full robust herd immunity that the naturally infected do.

90, was it? 95% of them are showing this nucleocapsid and only 40% of the vaccinated. So that's what this is showing us straight from Moderna's own data, right? Right, right, absolutely. And it has 93% in the placebo recipients are showing it. So, and as they document this, researchers, public health agencies, they say natural immunity from, you know, previous infection or vaccination. So they would lump up, put it into the same ball and just throw it out there and say it's all good. But this is, this study is suggesting that the vaccinated are not producing a broad antibody response here because they're not producing these antibodies. And also the accuracy of these tests in producing this in people, and the vaccinated especially was an end point, an endpoint for these trials. So this is, listen to what these authors have to say here. They say COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials use anti-end body, anti-n antibody seroconversion as a secondary or exploratory endpoint to assess vaccine efficacy against symptomatic, I'm sorry, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or as part of secondary endpoint to assess

vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity. As we found that infection in a placebo, arm are about twice as likely to manifest through anti-n antibody seroconversion as those in the vaccine arm. Our results suggest that caution is needed when interpreting vaccine estimates against such endpoints. Well, too late, I guess, because 60% are not showing, basically that they're saying 60% during this trial are not showing they had asymptomatic infection or symptomatic infection or symptomatic infection. So we never say, look how good the vaccinated did as far as being infected compared to the unvaccinated. They had been infected, but it wasn't being detected by the test that they were using in the trials.

Right. We're testing for the end, the Nucular caps is saying, well, they don't have it. So look, this vaccinated person didn't catch it either, only through PCR tests and looking at this closer to say, oh, no, there's a whole group. 60% of them were infected. You just didn't see it because you were using a test that was looking for the wrong thing amongst the vaccinated. That's so we so basically just burn any efficacy numbers that came out of these trials. It's a disaster.

It's suggesting that there were a lot of a lot more breakthrough infections in these trials that we know because they were immunologically silent essentially and so we're flying blind now. They were flying blind in the trials. Let's look at let's finish this up and just look at one of the tables from the trial just to show, give an idea here. So that top line going across is all of the data. from disease that's the days they had they they were found to have SARS cove to PDV that's the the patient visit that's when they are unblinded so 5 to

150 but if you look all the way to the right it breaks it down these are the vaccinated that we're not basically converting to this anti-n antibody so you have 40% was the total that's we talked about but from the 5 to 53 days so the first basically the first 53 days only 32% 32.1% were converting so you're talking almost 68% in the first 353 days weren't converting to this so if they have a PCR test that's positive and they go to do this kind of gold standard antibody test the antibody test is going to show no we don't we don't have anything here so this must not be you know a COVID infection this must be something else we're not going to count that absolutely incredible study and

you know we're going a little a little deeper on that in that science but it's just so important to understand for possibly the future here as as we're seeing these these variants and these these cases rise. But last week on the show, we covered that DHS Disinformation Governance Board. And during our show, actually, and right when our show was over, up until now, this is Nina Jankowitz. She's the head of it. This was just kind of thrown on the American public as like a side note, as a side breath during a testimony of Alejandro Mayorkas. He's the head of DHS. And he was recently, he was recently dressed down, I guess you want to say, by Rand Paul. in a congressional hearing. This is what it sounded like.

Take a look. All right. When the cartels spread disinformation with respect to our immigration policies to try to lure vulnerable migrants to our border illegally. I think you've got no idea what disinformation is, and I don't think the government's capable of it.

Do you know who the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world is? The U.S. government. Are you familiar with McNamara, the Pentagon Papers? Are you familiar with George W. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction? or you're familiar with Iran-Contra.

I mean, think of all the debates and disputes we've had over the last 50 years in our country. We work them out by debating them. We don't work them out by the government being the arbitrator. I don't want you to guard brails. I want you to have nothing to do with speech. You think we can't determine, you know, speech by traffickers is disinformation. You think the American people are so stupid they need you to tell them what the truth is. You can't even admit what the truth is with the steel dossier.

I don't trust government to figure out what the truth is. Government is largely disseminating disinformation. So I do have a question, and here's the question. So the Russians, maybe the Russians, maybe some cartels. What about COVID disinformation? Is that in your bailiwick for your disinformation? Senator, you would have to give me the details. Okay, here.

I have said a million times that cloth masks don't work. YouTube takes me down. They're a private company. I can have that beef with them. What about you? You're going to look at that? I often say that natural immunity from having had the infection is equal to the vaccine or better. You're going to take that down? Well, first of all, those are very specific. Senator, first of all, it's not for us to take it down. And second of all, are you going to put information out there saying that I'm spreading different information. Senator, we are not the public health experts to make those determinations. Health won't be part of the disinformation Governance Board. No COVID disinformation. Yes or no? Senator?

Yes or no? Is public health going to be part of your censorship group? Somebody, allow me, because you're presenting hypotheticals that are vague and... I just gave you a very specific one on cloth masks. I gave you a very specific one on immunity from previous

infection. I mean, even down to the definitions of vague, I mean, who's going to be the arbiter of deciding what vague means and, you know, what is specific. So he's pretty specific. I love Rand Paul. Thank God he's in there. I mean, just amazing.

Every time he decides to just let it rip, I couldn't agree with him more. Fantastic. If there's any homeschoolers out there, what he said at the beginning, research, Iran, Contra, research of weapons and mass destruction and the evidence behind that, Gulf of Tonkin and all of this stuff. This is really flies in the face, this disinformation governance board. But what also happened was amounting what appears to be a future legal threat if this thing is not disbanded. So 20 attorneys generals from states across America have joined to, here's the headline,

20 attorney generals call for the end of disinformation governance board, cite threat to free speech. And this is the letter out of the office of the attorney general, Jason Mioris. He's from Virginia. This is the letter they say here. Now you can read the whole letter. I'll read the beginning. says today we write you to insist that you immediately cease taking action that appears designed exclusively for the purpose of suppressing the exercise of constitutional rights they go into all the

evidence of why and then they finish with this sentence unless you turn back now and disband this orwellian disinformation governance board immediately the undersigned will have no choice but to consider judicial remedies to protect the rights of their citizens it doesn't get any clear than that you got to asked though, why weren't all the attorneys generals on board with this? But I guess we'll take 20 if we're going to protect some speech here in this country. So it's amazing. I mean, anytime you want to be depressed, just think of, you know, all these draconian measures, all this insanity, all the ministry of truth in these Orwellian style as they're putting it, dictates, it is waking up this country. And even politicians and attorney generals, who I normally

say we can't really put too much space to stock in them. Even they, it's just gone too far. So it is pretty spectacular to watch, you know, real conversations and important lines in the sand being drawn. And even commissioners like this one at the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, he was on Fox News recently to give his two cents. And, you know, it was really interesting because being, you know, part of a government apparatus, I know the FCC is like to say it's an independent part of it. But I wasn't expecting this. Take a look. Sometimes the threats to our liberty come dressed up in sheep's clothing, but this wolf comes as a wolf. This is Orwellian, it's un-American, it's unconstitutional. The very best time to shut this down was before the DHS ever announced it.

The second best time is right now. This type of board was always going to be a dumpster fire, but the particular director that they chose to run it is just throwing more gas on it. But the thing to remember, as much as a lightning rod as this board and the director herself are, there's a broader game of foot. If you look back just in February, DHS put out a terrorism bulletin that swept in free speech as among the things that they considered a threat

to the domestic homeland. You have Jen Saki from the White House podium saying they are coordinating with big tech to take down posts, flagging posts for them. So there's a broader effort of foot that we can't lose sight of either. I love it. Anytime it's called a dumpster fire. You've got to know it's a good thing.

Well, we're pushing back here pretty, we're starting to really mount push back against speech censorship. But in the European Union, we reported last week on an act that was passed. It's going to be coming to effect mid to end of summer to police free speech on big tech, Twitter, YouTube, things like that. But they just released a draft of something they want, kind of like the next phase of what they want. And it's very interesting. Here's the headline, if anybody wants to read about it. New EU rules would require chat apps to scan. private messages for what for child abuse it says here that they they'll do things called

detection orders detection orders would be issued by individual EU nations and the commission claims these would be quote targeted in specific to reduce privacy infringements however the regulation is not clear about how these orders would be targeted whether they would be limited to individuals or groups for example or applied to a much broader category and looking at this beyond the headline we have a professor at Johns Hopkins he teaches and researches a cryptography. His name's Matthew Green. And cryptography is basically techniques and concepts to secure information and communication in in this digital world we live in. And here's the tweet. He looked at this thing and here's what he had to say about it. He said, this document is the most terrifying

thing I've ever seen. It is proposing a new mass surveillance system that would read private messages not to detect CSAM, but to detect, quote, grooming. Read for yourself. He also called this thing the most sophisticated mass surveillance machinery ever deployed outside of China and the USSR. And understand once this thing, if it ever gets up and running in the EU, it will allow all governments kind of a plug-in-place system, even from the political level and the messaging level, to get this thing in every country. So this is a really what they would call beachhead. The whole world has to fight this in the EU because it cannot metastasize throughout the rest of the world. This thing is terrifying.

It's basically using AI to scan everyone's messages in search for context of how people talk. So if the AI searches and finds some take something out of context or images out of context, memes out of context, what happens then? Well, we know we're going to probably, as we, as suggested here in the United States, there was people would be possibly a domestic terrorist. People would possibly be brought up for child abuse or grooming or God knows what would happen. And so this is very interesting time in our world of communication that we're living in right now. And let's not get caught off guard here. This is how you do it. When you want to take away people's rights, you don't say we want to monitor you for questioning whether COVID is real or not

or whether it came from a laboratory. They're going to tell you something that they want everyone, that everyone could agree on. We simply want to look at text that are trying to stop, you know, to try and root out child abuse. Well, who wants to see child abuse? Nobody does. But this is what they do. They pick a topic where we all just, mine our lives away. Well, I'm not abusing my children. I don't believe in human trafficking.

Sure, just go ahead and monitor my text because you won't find them here, but that's it. Then you've opened the door. Now what's the next thing? It always is that slippery slope and then we slide down to where we're at now, where, you know, deciding whether or not you can wear them, breed the air that is on your face is legal or not, or should you be turning in your neighbors? All of this is their dream. So don't fall for the extreme example they use to get you to sign up. In the end, once you're signed up, there's no signing out. And we have to be so aware of every single decision we're making right now, what we're agreeing to. Jeffrey, great reporting. Amazing stuff.

And some of it, I know it seems, it's like you could just sort of glance past it. What I love about the work you're doing is you're getting inside the headline and you're actually looking to see things. Like there's a lot to that story that they were, the end protein, you know, is not, we're not developing antipides if we get the vaccine. I mean, there's so much, it's almost like they don't even know what they just said there in that article, which is meaning you're not having a real infection. You're not getting to immunity and that has all these repercussions. But super fascinating.

Jeffrey, keep up the good work and we'll see you next week. All right. Likewise. Thanks, Elle. All right. If you like the Jackson Report, you should definitely check out his article at the Jackson Report at the highwire.com where he writes articles. a lot of times even beating us to the story here in the breaking news.

It's a great resource. You should definitely check it out. Well, look, I have a lot of hope. I mean, you have to understand before COVID we were here. Before COVID, there was vaxed, before vaxed, you know, there was trace amounts, and before that, there was NVIC and all of these great people and the parents out there that had been warning about vaccine injury, but they were all alone. There was one Andrew Wakefield or maybe one Janney McCarthy and then they would just attack them and tear them to smithereens, scaring every other doctor and scientists around, scaring every politician. Well, now we have attorney generals that are all getting together and fighting for things like my body, my choice. You don't get to inject me with a product that I don't approve of.

Of course, they were fighting Joe Biden and won, at least in the employment across America being determined whether you were vaccinated or not. but we're just seeing this shift, this, this, this, what used to be called the consensus, right? You know, all scientists agree that vaccines are safe and effective. You're going to go against all science. Well, COVID changed and everything. And one of the most incredible things is how many world-renowned scientists it forced into a conversation that every doctor had been avoiding because they didn't want to be attacked. Of course, I'm talking about the pandemic. I'm talking about this rushed vaccine that scared some of the biggest doctors in the world,

including Dr. Robert Malone. Well, yesterday, the inventor of the MRNA vaccine platform technology. If he's a little nervous about how the vaccine is being used, we should all be nervous. Well, they just had yesterday a press conference for the global COVID summit. And now this has grown. This started all the way back in October of last year. They've put out, I think, three previous declarations. This was their fourth declaration.

And now they have risen to be more than 17,000 scientists and doctors around the world. Of course, these are not Pfizer doctors and Merck doctors or, you know, health department workers that are, you know, under the, you know, the control of Tony Fauci. These are technicians. These are specialists in their field. They came together and decided that they needed a new declaration to stop this pandemic, to get to a point. to get to a place where scientific integrity would be restored. It was an incredible moment. I hope you caught it.

We will definitely have links to it from here on our website. It should be shared with everyone in the world. And at the same time, by the way, ironically, this morning, as of this morning, the Biden administration put together something called the Global COVID Summit. They literally tried to steal the name, the Global COVID-19 Summit. This morning, my understanding was it was about a, six minute press conference in which as surprise, surprise, he said the word vaccine eight times. So more than once per minute.

Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines are how we get out. It's more testing vaccines. Vaccines, more testing, testing vaccines. We can't get enough vaccines. If you haven't gotten your vaccine, get your vaccine. If you haven't got your vaccine, you should be guilty of that you haven't gotten your vaccine. Vaccine. Vaccines are a way forward.

It isn't over. Vaccines, we got to get it. The only way out, vaccines. Vaccines, just like I said, forget that they're failing. Vaccines, vaccines, COVID testing, vaccines. COVID testing. Did I say vaccines? There. That was about it. I summed it up for you. And I think that's pretty much the definition of insanity. We have a government now that is completely insane. And about three or four people in this planet reading a book by Bill Gates

that are completely insane. The rest of us are awake. The rest of us want transparency. And the rest of us should be sharing the incredible global COVID summit declaration to restore scientific integrity. This is what that press conference looked like. Welcome to the May 11th, 2022 press conference of the Global COVID Summit. We're a group of physicians and medical scientists from around the world that stand for truth and integrity in science. The mission of global COVID summit is to end this orchestrated crisis and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.

We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end. We believe, and we've observed, that these products do not prevent infection, replication, and transmission of Omicron. The vast majority of COVID infections are in those who've been vaccinated. We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving treatment. Had early treatment not been blocked, millions would be alive today. This is an established fact. There's no question about this. Whether FDA agrees with it or not, it doesn't matter.

They can lie about the science. They can agree with the science. It doesn't change the science. Never have I seen a policy to say, let's hedge on the side of doing nothing compared to doing something with safe and effective drugs. We declare the state of a national emergency which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic should be immediately terminated. The emergency phase of the pandemic is over. We declare the emergency has ended and only doctors can declare that. We declare that medical privacy should never again

be violated. All travel and social restrictions must cease. All personal data must be expunged from non-HIPAA compliant databases. We declare that masks are not and never have been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting. The CDC, NOROHA, recognizes these facial coverings as PPE. We declare that funding and research must be established for vaccination, damage, death, end suffering. Public health officials have ignored the early warnings of negative efficacy that were evident even over a year ago. We declare no opportunity should be denied in our society, including educational, military service, medical careers, especially including medical treatment, over the unwillingness to take an injection. Vaccination status has become a new way.

form of discrimination and it needs to stop. We declare the end of the First Amendment violations, medical censorship. I hope that we will reach these important ethical standards in allowing physicians, healthcare providers, across various platforms to speak and to share their knowledge, their research, openly, without censorship. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, Bio-Ntech, Jansen and AstraZeneca and their enablers willfully withheld and emitted crucial safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians and should be immediately indicted for fraud. Mechanistically, the design of these products was knowingly deficient. We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

Each of these agencies and these companies should be independently scrutinized and held accountable for the damage that they have caused to humanity. We all ask that you help us demand change, demand accountability, demand integrity, demand respect, and try to rebuild our country. community. Just yesterday morning, a declaration signed by over 17,000 scientists and medical doctors across the world was released. That is the Global COVID Summit. And I am joined. It's my honor to be joined right now by some of the representatives of that Global COVID Summit. Dr. Robert Malone, thank you for joining us. Dr. Ryan Cole. Thank you. Richard Urso. First of all, I just got to say this desk right has never had so much heavy you know fire power added one time it's truly an honor to have you guys uh joining me today so let me start with you dr malone um what is the global

COVID summit what is it what you know how did it start what's the goal here so we started as a small group of docs that had come together that all shared a common belief system that what was happening was wrong. The data weren't consistent with what we were being told through the various public health channels. And this was a group that was really at the forefront of using existing drugs and multi-drug therapy to treat patients. So this is really one of the key groups that launched early treatment in the United States. And we came together as a group really catalyzed through this outbreak. many of us didn't really know each other before but we found ourselves because we've been online or in other ways speaking out against what we were seeing objecting to what was going on recommending

that there be early treatment found each other and then built this declaration the initial declaration and then came together in the summit in rome the first international COVID summit The declaration was read there. And then it went online and we asked for signatures from other physicians and medical scientists all over the world. And one thing led to another. First, we were a few hundred, then we were a few thousand. And now we're over 17,000 that have signed off on the various declarations. And we've just continued at it.

This is the group that's been touring all over the country. and speaking to church groups and rallies and doing education, continuing medical education for physicians. We're all a little bit punch drunk and exhausted because we've just been going nonstop, but the mission is there. It's an important one. And so that's really what you have here is part of the core group. It's been touring all over the United States and sharing the data. the observations. We're just grateful for the chance to talk to you and for your support and

interest in our latest declaration. Well, it's absolutely it's an honor to have you here. This is a conversation that's been here at the Highwire for, you know, many years, but specifically around COVID, just to have these great voices like yours stepping up and really putting it all in the line. And Dr. Ryan Cole, you know, this declaration, this is the fourth declaration now by this group. You keep sort of updating and, you know, sort of stating where we're at. Really now we have this sort of retrospective look at, you know, mistakes made. So this is really an assessment of the mistakes that were made and sort of thoughts about how we move forward. What, why now? What's important about this declaration in the time that we find ourselves in now? Thank you, Del. I think

the important aspect is there are large governmental groups and agencies. and other interests trying to prolong something that is done. And in my medical opinion and some of my medical colleagues, we're at a point where we know COVID is with us. It's endemic, but we don't need to be going forward with draconian policies that don't make scientific sense. We have a shot that is expired that doesn't cover the variant that's here. Not that it was really that effective ever anyway against the earlier ones,

but the point being, there's more harm than good being caused if we carry forward with what we've been doing heretofore. So it's really a call to action for the people, not only of the United States, but of the world to declare their independence and freedom from something that is gone. And it behooves us to come together as a people in unity at this time in history to say,

game over, no more draconian measures, no more interventions, no more restrictions of anybody's liberty anywhere in the world. It's time to let science be science, Let those experts with the scientific expertise have their voice again, non-censorship, and get back to normality. Dr. Urso, when we think about letting science be science, one of the things I found really powerful about this declaration is it really calls out the pharmaceutical industry, modern, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson, and Johnson for, you know, really a desire to indict them on fraud charges for misrepresenting the science. Tell me about, you know, because this has been a big thing.

This is representing the science around vaccines and also the science around treatments that were working. Well, the pharmaceutical industry has become so powerful, Del. It's very, they're very much in control of medicine. Their control, it starts at the education level. It goes into hospitals, and it goes into advertising to the public itself. And so at every single level, it's controlled on that level. And then you've got the control of the regulatory agencies where they're the main fund. of our agencies, the NIH, CDC, and the FDA, and they have relationships in there where they

are able to partner with those people that are working there and create patentable products that they benefit from equally, and then they go and vote on. So the process itself is creating the problem. So we have to restrict some of that. The pharmaceutical companies have basically taken control, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we're seeing that. We have to find a way to sort of decentralize that process, separate the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to influence so strongly onto the agencies, and then take away their power at the medical school levels in education because they basically sponsor every major event. And when I was early in my practice, that wasn't true. And they have taken over medicine in every single way.

There's sort of this push for almost like a ministry of truth now here in the United States of America, you know, they're talking about disinformation and, you know, panels and boards and things to sort of decide what and what is and what is not truth. Throughout this entire COVID experience, it seems to me that the CDC and the FDA have had to change a lot of their statements. And now we've got Dr. Rochelle Walenski saying things like, well, when we were telling people, we were following the science, people thought that was black and white, but they just didn't realize it's gray. If it was gray, why weren't you being invited to the table? My thought.

Why were, you know, why did they manhandle the sort of statements that were going out? You know, were you attempting to having a debate? Why was there no debate? Should there be debate? I mean, what are your thoughts on where we're at when you see an administration that did not allow, you know, a free conversation around this now saying that they're going to be, you know, judging truth and what can and cannot be said, especially on social media? So I've never seen any evidence that the government and those agencies and those leaders that you're speaking of had any interest in having an open dialogue and encouraging dissenting voices and listening to dissenting voices.

I've seen no evidence of that all the way through. We do have this remarkable recent string of disclosures, starting with the New York Times on President's Day, stating that the CDC has been withholding information. And their justification for withholding information from physicians, medical scientists, and public health officers all across the United States was that they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy. So they basically admitted to withholding information for political purposes and also because they felt that we weren't able to handle that information. Furthermore, in the New York Times, there's multiple quotes stating, and we now have the GAO report. reinforcing that, that these agencies have become politicized. The CDC is no longer the independent entity, arbiter of truth, that many of us once thought it was. And we're now in an environment where one of the things that I think in our journey in the COVID Global COVID Summit group has been the frustration of knowing truth, of knowing the data, of sharing.

the data with each other and with our colleagues and being roundly criticized for it, demeaned, attacked, had multiple attempts in many successful in pulling people's licenses, medical licenses, or otherwise compromising their business for saying things that we now know we're true. And for instance, just not to make it about myself, but I, you know, I started off with these attacks from people, quote, fact checkers who didn't have any background in biology asserting things like spike is not a toxin and that there was no basis for the mass formation hypothesis of Matthias Desmond, etc., it goes on and on and on. And you can look back in time at all of these attacks that I've experienced and Ryan's

experienced and that we've all experienced. Peter McCullough is a notable example. And as you look back at what we've said, our sin is really that we were prescient, that we were aware in speaking out about information that wasn't yet official, and yet within a few months would become so. Our sin is that we were able to basically better interpret the emerging data. And this is something that I often mention. One of the things about Ryan and I is trained in pathology.

This is what pathologists do. is we look for signals, we look for patterns, and report that, you know, usually as an early warning sign. And that's what we've been doing all the way through. And the response of the FDA and the CDC and the NIH and the press that they've controlled has been to attack us and attack Harvey Reich and attack the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, all of whom have turned out to be right. So you ask the question, do you see any signs that they suddenly have had some kind of come

to Jesus moment where they've decided, oh no, we did wrong, and now we need to come clean. I see absolutely no sign of that. In fact, what I see is doubling down. You mentioned this new ministry of truth. There is no doubt in my mind that they are going to continue to censor. If you think it through, how could the U.S. government ever admit to the sins and harms that have been caused? How could they ever admit to their obvious role in funding the Wuhan Laboratory?

How could they ever do that? The financial burden of coming to grips with what has been done here would be huge. would shake the entire government. And that's where we're at. I think they are going to double down and continue to deny and obfuscate and attack and demean because it is their only option. It's a really interesting point. And Dr. Ersson, we talked about a lot of things we've been talking about with the treatments,

you know, how do they ever admit at this point? Are we ever going to hear the government say, you were right, hydroxychloroquine works, or you were right, ivermectin works because it's seems to me, and I've said this, that if Fauci admits that, he literally may be tried for crimes against humanity because of that denial, because we now see a connection, were those drugs denied because that got due to emergency use authorization? We see the motivation. There's truly motivation now as some of these things. And so are we ever going to get to the point where treatments to save people's lives, our government says, yes, these were? No, we're not. And let me explain

that. If you look, first of all, we had no outpatient protocols. Now you're starting to see the NIH come out with outpatient protocols. What do you see on them? Paxilovit, Molnapirivir, remdesivir. You're seeing the drugs that they promoted the whole time. You're not seeing, you're not seeing even steroid. You're not seeing all the things that can treat the inflammation, the blood clotting, the things we've talked about for. Information blood clot, Ruffalo. Well, just just because one of the things that find really interesting about talking to you is that we do, we've heard on this show, we've talked a lot about the, you know off-label usages of approved and safe drugs you talk about the

approved use like there are drugs that we would normally use for these very symptoms that were really not being used you know tell me a little specifically what are you talking about with air exactly what I was saying it's like blood colliding there is a host of drugs aspirin eloquist ralto lovinox we use them already we know this disease causes blood clotting we use them in this case we know that we have lots of inflammatory drugs you know with prednisone, of course, being at the top of that list. So we can treat every single mitigating thing that might damage the patient, the inflammation,

the blood clotting. And we don't even have to win against the virus. So over and over, we see, hey, those are simple things to do, and they completely ignore them. There was no reason for Adele. And now we are seeing them come up with protocols, but what are they showing? They're showing the drugs they already have in the toolbox. As I said to you before, and I think I'll let you know, the first two hours I looked at this, I looked at drugs that could work, nukocyte, antinolone, protease inhibitors.

hydroxychloric and quarkin, ivermectin, phenylphibrate, cyclosporin, al-cultucine. A lot of these drugs, now you found they've repackaged colitra and tepaxlovak. Monepyrrhyra and remdesvir two nucleoside analyts. There's plenty of others out there including Valtrex as one. So there are lots of options they could have used and tried and they decided not to use them. They wanted to repackage. It's all about profit and I think they're never going to admit that they're wrong and they're not going to ever address the early treatment protocols that we that we use so

successfully. In our case, as you heard, Brian Tyson, over 99% success rate. So those are things that I don't think are going to change. And the thing that bugs me the most, though, there's a hidden message in this whole pandemic. The messenger RNA lipid nanoparticle is the nuclear bomb, right? They have slipped that into the, into what the public's consciousness of the next vaccine platforms. So you're going to see lipid nanoparticle, message your RNA over and over and over again. they've established legitimacy of that dangerous platform. It's going to go everywhere, brain, bone, marrow, et cetera, and they just slipped it under the radar, nobody noticed.

Dr. Cole, as a pathologist, this lipid nanoparticle, he calls it a nuclear bomb. What are you looking at? What types of things, you know, are the concern when we make a statement like that? I think Dr. Erso is right. And to Dr. Malone's point, as a pathologist, we are the red flag warning. we're the quality control of medicine. We're the first ones to see that change in pattern. That lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is inflammatory.

It does go everywhere. It was originally designed to take MRNA and or chemotherapy agents to organs that are hard to get to, like the brain. If you look at the qualifications on the lipid nanoparticles, they're not for human use. They're for research use only. And yet they've broadly pushed these onto society. We see inflammation from the lipid nanoparticles alone.

But we also see that they carry that MRNA particle with them to wherever they land. We're seeing mitochondrial damage in neural tissues. Studies out of Poland showed that, Dr. Clough at all. We are seeing suppression of the immune system. This lipid nanoparticle, this MRN, making a spike protein, is getting into the immune cells, damaging DNA repair mechanisms. What does that look like under the microscope? A decrease of the kind of inflammatory cells you want eating away at a cancer.

Now we don't have enough of those cells there. To the point I brought up over a year ago, are we seeing an uptick in cancers? Yes. Why? The lipid nanoparticle, the MRI, and the spike that it makes is suppressing our immune system. And now we're seeing turbo cancers, wildfire cancers, that would otherwise be kept in check by a competent immune system. These, to Dr. Erso's point, have been slipped under the radar of the zeitgeist and the consciousness of the people. These are dangerous platforms.

You cannot control where that lipid goes, and thereby you can't control where that little nucleotide sequence it's carrying goes. It is a bad idea from here until forever until proven otherwise. I mean, the entire argument for it, I mean, there's been a lot of parents that I've interviewed years, before COVID that would say, you know, when they complained that they believe the child's brain swelled. And the argument was always vaccines don't cross the blood brain barrier. And that I think that's always been something that we want to maintain with vaccines, whether it's true or not. But the idea was, and the statement was always, vaccines don't cross the blood brain barrier. You're telling me that the very vehicle with which they're wrapping this technology and the MRNA technology is designed

to cross the blood brain barrier. Absolutely correct. So how is it, did they ever make the statement that they believed this thing was stay localized at the space that was shot, which is exactly what they told us. It will be right here, the antibodies, everything will happen in your arm where it's delivered.

It's not going to the other organs. Certainly not your brain. Was that just a lie from the beginning? Scientific malfeasance. They knew from previous studies. Dr. Erso, in his drug development researches, has worked with nanoparticles before, he stated many times,

and we've known, look, lipid nanoparticles, they're a fat. Your cell membranes are made of fat, and they have a positive charge. Your cell surface has a negative charge. They want to fuse wherever they can. They go everywhere. They're like Dr. Ersel, I'll quote them again. They're like garlic. They go everywhere.

Scientists knew they would not stay in the arm to have told the people of the world otherwise was a straight-up scientific lie. Yeah, that was a lie and the other key lie that was told to physicians. I've heard it directly from many docs is that the MRNA only sticks around for a couple of hours. But now we know, based on this key cell paper from last January, that the RNA doesn't just stick around for a few hours. This is not normal RNA. This is something different. To call it MRNA is really misrepresenting what it is as a molecule.

It's a novel polynucleotide, but this insertion of pseudidid, uridine all the way through the RNA in order to make it so these aren't inflammatory they don't cause abscess formation when you inject it which is the problem I had for years and years working with these particles reason why I moved away from them and moved to post electrical fields I could never overcome the inflammation but but Carico and Weissmann asserted that they were able to do that by putting all of these pseudouridine molecules in and the pharmaceutical companies that they worked for in part, Carico works for Biointech, asserted that the RNA

would only stick around for a couple of hours, which is the normal RNA half-life. But now we know from this cell paper that these RNAs stick around for 60 days or more. And that means that we have to recalculate everything that we thought we knew about the adverse event profile because the assertions were, well the RNA only sticks around for a couple of hours. Therefore, any adverse events due to the vaccine, must only happen in the first couple of weeks. But now we need to go back and look at all that data. Now that we know that the pharmacokinetics, how long the molecule lasts, is 60 days or longer. That's not in cell culture. That's from putting fine needles into people's arms in sampling lymph nodes.

So this is real. This is in humans. It sticks around. The levels of spike protein that are produced are higher than you produce if you're infected. And this is not a normal RNA. This is something different. This is a synthetic product that's immunosuppressive that is able to produce protein. We have no idea what it takes to degrade. People ask me all the time, Robert,

what can I do to get rid of the RNA? And I have to say, I have no idea what to do. It's not known. And the thing of Dell that really aggravates, I think, a lot of us, certainly me, is that there are rules about what you're supposed to do in pre-clinical development and clinical development of these kinds of products. There are rules that I've been taught, we've been taught, we've had to be reinforced in our teaching on a regular basis, just part of continual medical education, if you're going to be a clinical researcher, that say you have to

characterize where it goes and for how long it sticks around and how much protein it makes, or what the active drug product is, none of that stuff was done very well. It wasn't done rigorously. And there was a series of misrepresentations about what the data were and they didn't actually have the data. And the thing is, the FDA let them get away with it. They did not perform their function. They're supposed to be independent gatekeepers. And in a way, you know, having worked with pharma, one of the core actions,

axioms and pharmaceutical development is you never do a study that you don't have to do because you may not like the results. If you get results that aren't consistent with what you're hoping for, the FDA in a normal situation is going to come back to you and say, hey, you've got to follow up on this. This is raising red flags. Now we have to be concerned. So you don't do those studies unless the FDA forces you to in the classical pharmaceutical world, okay? And what happened here is the pharmaceutical, I'm sorry, the regulatory bodies gave the

pharmaceutical industry a pass. They didn't have to do the work that we, if I did these studies and submitted a dossier like this to the FDA, I would expect it to be kicked back right away. For some reason, they gave a pass on all this stuff. And furthermore, they misrepresented. It's the kindest word I can come up with these key parameters of how much protein, where do the complexes go, and how long does the RNA stick around? And on the basis of that, average docs assumed that this was something that it wasn't. They assumed that this was a relatively benign product that didn't stick around in the body. All of that is false. And I'm sorry, it is a crime that this was not known. Yeah, I want to tag on to what these two have said because, I mean, it just what you heard is that the biodistribution is everywhere.

The pharmacokinetics now we're discovering are very dangerous and very different from what we first thought. And the other thing we're seeing, you know, the uptick in cancers, Ryan's covered a lot. What I'm seeing clinically is massive uptick and viral reactivation. So all these people that I'm finding that are saying have long COVID, a lot of them have Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. and they're seeing herpesy simplex and herpesoster reactivation. I'm seeing it in my clinic two and three and four times a week. They know that I'm involved in the COVID movement, and they're coming to me, even in my clinic.

And I'm seeing a huge uptake. And these are things that we didn't know before. And so as we go down the list, biodistribution, the pharmacokinetics, uptick and DNA damage repair mechanisms that Ryan talked about, P53, Broca gene and then the uptick in microRNA 27A, which basically creates more GI cancers. You're seeing now this uptick and viral reactivation. You're seeing bad, you've been seeing bad signs all over and they ignoring these signs.

And I don't, you know, I think Robert just summarized that really well. But we have to do it ourselves. Richard, I have to object about one thing you said. Yeah, go ahead. They didn't know. Okay. They knew about the biodistribution button. They knew about the viral reactivation.

You recall that there was a period of time when I was very actively engaged with senior personnel at the FDA and the office of the commissioner. We were talking by Zoom on a weekly or twice a week basis. We were discussing the early drugs, Ivermectin, what the data were and what the risks were associated with the vaccine. This is the group that first picked out the signal of the cardio toxicity, working together with Bill Dumaschet. they also knew at that time, and one of them actually had the adverse event early on of

shingles. They knew that the viral reactivation signal, which the CDC has never acknowledged, was one of the major known adverse events. So what I'm objecting to is you saying in good faith that you're assuming because the CDC and the FDA never said anything about viral reactivation as an adverse event, you're assuming they didn't know. What I'm sharing with you is they absolutely did know and they did not acknowledge it. It's another one of those things that is inexplicable. It's the only way, you know, many of us have been racking our brains as you have to understand how this could possibly happen, why it's

possibly happening. And why is our regulatory apparatus that as physicians, we had all come to assume had a function that actually did the job that we could believe and trust in. And what we find out now is the whole house of cards is, I don't know how else to say it, it's rotten to the core. It has not performed its intended function. Yeah, this is a very reluctant observation. It's not, it's easy to be, you know, have your head in the sand. It's very difficult to come out and reluctantly tell the world that the agencies you so trusted and I believed in. I came up through the system.

I'm not outside the box person. Came up through the system and found that this has happened. It's very, I have to see here and reluctantly agree with it. I mean, I have to say, you know, because the high wire has been covering this and we've been putting this issue, sometimes I have to stop myself and remind myself that, you know, your average person out there must think I'm crazy. When I talk to people, you know, when I think of the message that we're trying to get across is, you know, they want to say, your.

telling me that the world-renowned scientists at the NIH, like the greatest, you know, investigative medical body in the world, and the CDC and the FDA, or the WHO, for that matter, that they are all lying to me, that they've got it wrong and, you know, and you Del Batree or in this case, Ryan Cole or Dr. Rodman. So I'm supposed to listen to you and not the authorities that literally are supposed to be writing legislation around, you know, the U.S. medical products, regulatory agencies are supposed to be protecting us. I mean, how do you, how do you come to terms with someone that's questioning you on that level? I come to it saying you can question me all you want at any time as long as you bring better data than I have.

I am open to the dialogue and conversation. This is what's been missing in science and medicine for this last couple of years and probably preceding that for many years. to have dialogue and conversation with honest, open, complete data, then let the truth win, whatever the science may be. I'm always willing to be wrong. I did trust these agencies at a younger period in my career. The more we see and the more we've learned, the more open-minded we are to the unfortunate aspect of how corrupt the system is.

As a physician, I always reserve the right to be wrong. And if I am on behalf of humanity and a patient, let me learn so I can do better. I wish the rest of our profession were still in that state of being. Yeah, I'm going to answer it this way. A couple things. One, Cox 2 inhibitors in the 80s. It was very clear that there was a pathway to clotting. Very clear. It was obvious. The pathway was right there. Most of the people who spoke up about it said, well, it's not showing up in clinical trials, which is not true. Later on, most of those Cox 2 inhibitors got taken off the market. They went through those clinical trials, likely in the same way that they went through this process, hit a lot of data, and they got through. Then you look at the cholesterol data.

Women with higher cholesterol, out live women with lower cholesterol. Women with higher cholesterol out with women with lower cholesterol. What that means is all the cholesterol drugs, when you look at all-cause mortality, most of the time there's no signal of benefit. So this is not the first time that these things have happened. There's other thalidomide, of course, people know about. So historically speaking, I always look with a critical eye. And what are we seeing them come out with?

We're seeing them to come out with well-packaged another new nucleoside analog, another new package packaged up Paxloid protease inhibitor. They are not putting out genius drugs. The ingenuity is gone. It's all about profit. They put out more and more drugs of the same type over and over again. So I hate to say it, but there's more H2 inhibitors, there's angiotensin receptor blockers, data blockers.

Everybody puts out one in the same. They go from twice a day to once a day. repackaged, 90% of the drugs are of that ilk. When we look beyond the drugs, when we look at this vaccine, what I find shocking is, you know, it wasn't one shot, it's not two shots, and, you know, within the same year, three shots, even four shots, I believe Israel's moving towards a fifth shot. There's discussions of the immune suppressed moving into their fifth shot here in the United States of America.

So my question is when you look at this vaccine now and, you know, it's a question. especially people that are just going to keep injecting this into their body. What is your greatest concern? I want to eat from each one of you actually. So let me start with you, Dr. Cole. What is what you're seeing? What is your biggest concern with this vaccine right now if you're going to pick one? That it's going to lead to severe chronic disease of the immune suppressed type,

obviously in a set percentage of the cancers. I'm highly concerned that we are greatly altering detrimentally, permanently the immune system of individuals that keep getting these shots. And it doesn't cover the virus. Omicron doesn't cover it. It makes your risk of disease worse, as you know, makes your outcomes worse. And to give a chronic lipid nanoparticle and a chronic spike-making factory in your body, in your cells, and we know that spike is talking.

toxic. We are messing up permanently the immune systems of people and who knows what disease they're going to die from them from that secondarily. Dr. Russell, what's your biggest concern? I would tag on to what he said. The immune suppression is a big problem. I also think the immune dysregulation and in some sense it's not really a dysregulation. If you think of the immune system, I think of like first gear, second gear, third gear, fourth gear. So what we're seeing is, you know, the innate system, maybe first gear, second gear, the antibody response. And what I would say is once you get that second shot and then you get basically

another injection, on that third shot, the immune system starts to say, you know, we're not doing a good job with antibody neutralization. This product keeps showing up. Keep showing up. So why don't we step it up? Let's go to third gear, bring in cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. Why don't we go to fourth gear and bring in, you know, the complement system? Why don't we get... So our immune system is what's doing this, it's sort of just rings up, it's because it's like, I'm still under attack, whatever I've done before clearly didn't work, let me try something else, basically. No idea that the body's being injected purposely, even though the body's attempted to fight or create it into bodies and do what it thought it was supposed to do. Yep, so immune suppression, immune dysregulation.

Okay, Dr. Malone. The two things that we haven't touched on that I have in Dr. McCullough shares in particular Peter on the cardio toxicity risk concerns so it's now clear not only that these shots are clearly associated with cardiotoxicity and myocarditis and pericarditis um there has been an attempt to minimize the nature and duration of that damage but it's becoming more and more clear as the data are rolling in remember we're still just what, a year and a half have to roll out of these vaccines, okay? Normally it's, you know, three years after finishing the phase three before we go to licensure. We've rushed all this stuff out, and the data are coming in stronger and stronger

that these are causing subclinical myocarditis may be occurring in the majority of vaccine recipients if you test the right enzymes, okay? Wow. That's a big one. Yeah. clinical myocarditis in boys in the Hong Kong study is a huge number it's something like one in two thousand one and three thousand boys have to go to the hospital after that typically their second dose then we have these data coming in that the myocarditis signal is cumulative so if you take one dose you have a lower risk two dose it's higher, three doses, it's still higher. So you have cumulative cardiotoxys.

I mean, dose dependency tends to be, isn't it one of the major? Hallmarks of pharmacology and toxicology? Like if there's a red flag, it's the fact that this dose dependence should be firing that off. It's usually considered to be proof. If you see a dose dependent relationship of a toxic event, it's usually considered to be, you know, for people to understand, it means it's not random anymore.

It's not just like, oh, like, it was just, it was a coincidence and happened. It's not coincidental. If you add a little bit more, it gets worse and a little bit more it gets worse. Clearly, it's having an effect. And there's this bizarre attempt in, I don't know how else to label it. It's the combination of censorship and propaganda to somehow convince the public that clinical myocarditis, it can be mild. And that this is something that children recover from. What I'm hearing from frontline cardiologists, and for the announcement that we made yesterday,

for instance, you saw Kirk Milhound, who's an MD PhD, pediatric cardiologist with a PhD in cardiac and vascular inflammation. Okay, so incredibly knowledgeable. Peter McCullough is talking about this all the time now. We're seeing that the event horizon of death and damage from this. is not going away. It's behaving more like the classic profile of myocarditis, which has a five-year mortality of what, something like 15 to 20 percent, okay? I mean, I don't want to really get people wound up about this. My intent is not to scare people, but we got to be realistic about what the data are showing and the data are indicating that this myocarditis that's being observed,

the clinical myocarditis persists, we're seeing all kinds of evidence of sudden death in high-performance athletes. We're seeing, I'm told this is anecdotal, that the bodybuilder community and a lot of the high-performance athlete community that have very high levels of testosterone are having very unusual levels of mortality from cardiac events associated with the vaccination. So the myocarditis and the cardiotoxicity and the cumulative cardiotoxicity is one of the big ones. Now there's another one, Dell, that's sitting out there

and the reports are starting to come in again and again and what I hear that really bothers me from nurses and primary care obstetricians is that there are strong disincentives for them to report what's being observed in the pregnancy suite, in the delivery suite.

But what I'm hearing is anecdotal data that has to be followed up, but is something that we've been concerned about from the get-go because we knew about the biodistribution, particularly homing into the ovaries. We knew that women were reporting dysmenorrhea, irregular menstrual cycles, skips in their menstrual cycle, elderly women that are suddenly having mencies. All of these are, the menstruation is driven by the ovaries. And we know these lipid nanoparticles. go to the ovaries from the data from Pfizer. And we're seeing these data.

At first it was discounted that these were hysterical women that were having these problems with their mencies, which is so mid-century and so offensive to most women. And now we're hearing reports from obstetricians again and again of spontaneous abortions, birth effects, sudden infant death shortly after earth, all kinds of irregularities and there is this, again, this same pattern of denial, rather than the normal situation would be that the pharmacovigilance network associated with these drugs

and these pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory bodies would be kicking into high gear right now. They would be saying, okay, this is sounding like it's a problem. It's a reproductive problem. I mean, that's not a trivial thing. You know, when I, first learned about the FDA, and I was first taught about it in a detailed way when I was working for a Dynport vaccine company right after the anthrax attacks. We had people come in and lecture us about the history of the FDA, and what they tell is the history of thalidomide, and how that totally transformed the FDA, that the sensitivity... So the Rheledomide, a morning sickness drug that ultimately created babies that were missing limbs and things like that.

And it was only because an intrepid FDA officer really went to the mat to say that this wasn't right and something had to be done about it. And she's considered a hero in the legacy of the FDA and really the whole federal government and HHS bureaucracy. And yet now we're in this situation in which there's so many disincentives for federal bureaucrats working in these agencies to say anything that might compromise. their employment opportunities after they leave with the pharmaceutical industry, that they do nothing. And here we have a growing signal of reproductive compromise. And again, you know, we're talking about all the way through pregnancy, they're being encouraged, women are being encouraged to take the shot without substantial data about safety. This is in the case all the way through.

It's nonsensical. and so you ask me what are the things that I'm worried about? Absolutely cancer, viral reactivation, immunosuppression, cardiotoxicity, all kinds of blood clotting problems. You know, blood clots in the brain cause a little problem. The brain just like the heart does not heal. Okay, it's scars. And then as if that isn't bad enough,

we have these reproductive toxicology problems, and it goes right back to the original dossier because the FDA treated this as if it was a normal vaccine, quote, whatever normal vaccine happens to be, and not like a gene therapy product, which is what it was, and they didn't do reproductive toxicology rigorously, they didn't do genotoxicity, they didn't do biodistribution, they didn't do pharmacokinetics. It goes on and on. Why didn't they do their job?

And, you know, there's, this is something that the public ought to be pretty darn mad. There's a lot of what the declaration is, right, to sort of bring attention to what should have been a part of the discussion where the focus should have been what regulatory agencies, you know, should have done what doctors and hospitals should have done. You know, we're talking, though, right now about, you know, adverse events, whether, you know, most of these are now, I think we would put them in the category of long term, although the heart issues and some of the blood clotting into children. and the loss for pregnancy is fairly immediate, but cancers and things like that, long-term adverse events, which you were never going to see in safety trials that lasted merely a few weeks in phase three

after the second dose was delivered. I want to change the gears, though, a little bit and get into something, you know, maybe in the realm that we talked about, one of the biggest concerns the high-wire had antibody-dependent enhancement, or this idea that somehow you would affect the interaction with the virus. I just recently last week, actually, at the same time where Tony Fauci's, you know, sort of signaling we maybe at the end of this pandemic or certainly in a pandemic phase here in America, I sat down with Geert Van den Bosch last week in an interview that was horrifying and terrified.

Let me just show you a quick clip of just one of the things that he said. So we are hearing this term learning to live with it, which is a little different than having eradicated a disease, which is what we're promising. with this vaccine. It's the only way to eradicate it. In fact, I'm hearing something I've never heard before. This virus isn't going away. In some ways, what I'm hearing is we are unable to reach herd immunity. We are unable to neutralize this virus.

We are going to be infected with it. We're just going to have to learn to live and manage those infections. But he talks about control. And so I bring it to you. Last week, Tony Fauci, went as far as to say the pandemic is essentially over here in America. There seems to be some infection around the world. He's vacillating on whether he really meant the pandemic is over.

So let me just ask you very clearly, is the pandemic over? Are we in control of this SARS-CoV-2 virus currently being called the variant Omicron? What is your belief? Are we in the clear? Well, Del, unfortunately, the pandemic is anything, anything but over. And if you hear Tony Fauci telling these stories, I can only conclude that really, with all respect,

but he has no clue, he has no understanding of the immunology. The rules they have not changed, and the rules are very, very easy. You can only control a pandemic if you generate herd immunity. And herd immunity means that you have to dramatically diminish the level of transmission. We know that these vaccines are not doing this. On the contrary, I mean, now we have, as well in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated,

many cases of mild disease or moderate disease where people don't even go to the hospital, don't even go to the doctor, et cetera. So the number of cases that we are seeing right now is tremendously, tremendously underestimated. And as you can see from the curves in the highly vaccinated countries, we see one wave after the other. We never see that these lines join the baseline. So the infectious pressure is higher than ever before. So I cannot understand that within that context,

context, you dare to say, you dare to say that the pandemic is over. Nevertheless, we are pretending that these vaccines are a blessing because they are preventing severe disease. I ask you, and I ask Fauci, and I ask every single expert, have you ever heard about a vaccine that does not protect against mild or moderate disease, but that does protect against severe disease, have you ever heard about a vaccine that enhances, for God's sake, that enhances the susceptibility of the vaccinees to infection, but decreases the shedding?

So I'm just telling you this to make you and many others suspicious of what's going on. This is not a normal situation. Nobody understands, you know, this this ummikron is not causing severe disease it's predominantly causing mild disease okay so you're all aware of gear ben and bosh i believe you've all spoken and been on panels and things so i want to really sort of drill down here a little bit just to sort of flesh it out from a lay position what he shared with us is that because you know normally we know that we know that we're coming to an end of a pandemic because we see, you know, we get back to a baseline.

And as we look around the world, we are seeing the way of sort of staying up at a relatively moderate to high infectious rate, infection rate. And to his point, you can't learn to live with that. That virus is still seeking that nature is going to seek equilibrium there. And therefore, that this virus still may be on the birds of mutating again. And the idea being that it is broken free of the neutralizing antibodies that the vaccine first established. Now only non-neutralizing antibodies are binding. They're not binding the receptor binding domain, which is leaving that open to connect. And therefore, the vaccines actually, as we've all agreed, is increasing infection rates

compared to those that are unvaccinated. But he's been talking about the fact that these non-neutralizing antibodies in the upper respiratory area that are increasing infection are actually getting in the way in the lower respiratory area where trans infection would have to happen. That gives us the severe disease and all those. He believes it's just a matter of time. In fact, within the next month or two that this virus will find a mutation, maybe using glycans like the sugars on the outside to become more virulent and then therefore more severe disease and death like we may have never seen it. I know you know his vision is fairly stark.

Dr. Malone, what are your initial thoughts on this perspective, which he's had from the beginning, but it's getting more detailed as we go along. So I spent a week with Gert in D'Eldousia, Spain, shooting a documentary and talking about these things and talking about his theories. In my mind, Gert is trying to alert the world about a valid risk.

and that risk may or may not manifest, but that doesn't mean we should not take his warning seriously and we should not prepare and try to mitigate against that risk. One of his key points all the way through is that vaccinating with a mismatched vaccine that is not eliciting a robustly protective immune response is that you will naturally select for, escape mutants. It is like the perfect storm. If you couldn't design an experiment in virology,

more perfect to elicit a escape mutant, a more highly infectious pathogen that would be able to evade, even in many cases pre-existing immune responses, then by doing this strategy of trying to implement universal vaccination. You'll remember that what he said for many months now is we absolutely should not be vaccinating the children. And it's a complex argument. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around it. But basically the children have very active, robust immune systems. They're very good at clearing viruses and viral infections. And they elicit an immune response against all of the proteins in the virus. What this means is that it makes it much harder for the virus to drift, to

evolve to escape the specific antibodies that are being generated against the spike protein by all of these different vaccines because they're only against the spike almost universally. A couple of minor... One of the proteins on the surface of this virus versus the entire

virus itself, which is what the natural immune system is fighting. The key protein that kind of sticks up like a knob or a fist or I like to say a treble fish hook off the surface of the virus that hooks on to cell. That's what it does. And it kind of sticks out there and it's like a red flag for the immune system.

And hey, attack here, which is why they get coated with sugars, for example. And that's a classic way that viruses use to evade immune responses against those key binding proteins. So that's what spike is. Yeah. And this, you know, strategy of only using a spike-based vaccine, again, is perfectly designed to elicit the type of thing that Gert is, been warning us about for at least a year now. So the way I see it is that I hope that Gertz's dark vision does not come to pass. He is absolutely a high-quality seasoned virologist and vaccinologists with the deep understanding

of immunology, particularly B-cell immunology, particularly these antibody interactions. and to discount his insights and warnings to us, and not at a minimum, we ought to be taking them seriously, we ought to be actively investigating, we ought to be doing follow-up research to detect whether or not these trends he's warning us about are occurring. So that falls into risk mitigation.

So the way I see Gert in his hypotheses, is as somebody who's very seasoned, very nuanced in their interpretation of risk, that has been warning us about a risk now for almost a year, has been completely ignored except by the top tier in virology and vaccineology, and basically none of them want to speak up and say anything about it. And now he's frustrated and really strongly warning us about the potential consequences. If we carry on with this really mindless, I don't know how to describe it, insistence on vaccinating the world with a mismatched vaccine that has all these toxicities. and whether or not his concerns come to pass,

it doesn't negate the underlying logic that giving these vaccines, which are not protective, are toxic, and trying to deploy them across the world, which is what the White House is meeting that they're calling the Global COVID Summit. They've taken our name. Yeah. Okay.

And now they're having their second Global COVID Summit. And one of their key objectives is how to get a shot in every arm with these ineffective vaccines. And that's what flies right in the face of Gert's warnings, is that that is precisely the wrong thing to be doing. What we need is for healthy people to be allowed to generate a robust, diverse immune response. And his concern is that we've set up a situation now where we have, as he put it, such high viral pressure. that we may be seeing things happen, that we're in a domain here,

an intellectual landscape that we've never been in before. And who knows what's going to happen. So just to sort of summarizing, to be clear, you're not saying that what, you know, he's predicting is impossible. You're saying that it has a probability. You might just, I mean, he's saying there's no doubt. doubt it's going to happen. He's said things like, throw me in jail,

if I'm wrong, I would say you'd say that's a little aggressive, that there are other possible outcomes. Nobody puts Gert in jail. He's a great guy. He's a great scientist. And he is really alarmed at the risk.

And as we all should be. And I think we discount that and overlook it at our risk. Okay. How about for you, Dr. Cole. Well, I think the chief immunologist of Israel, Cyril Cohen,

who helped on their vaccine program, was correct several months ago when he said, we made mistakes, it's time to stop, no more boosters, no more passports, and then he went silent. To Geert's point, this is not a virus that can be eradicated. There are intermediate hosts. So to see China

locking down all of Shanghai, you can't stop the spread of this virus. Cats. What's in your intermediate host? So animals. Animals, cats, bats, dogs, white-tailed deer, etc. It will always go back and forth between species. So the virus is here with us forever. Now, hopefully it mutates into even a milder form.

Is it spreading quickly now? Absolutely. Have we messed up the immune system of a good deal of the world's population with these shots? Yes. To his point, where does it go down to baseline? Look at the countries with the lowest vaccination rate. That's where it's going back down to baseline

because they let the children get it. And they used early treatments. and people have broad natural immunity. And one point that he's brought up in earlier lectures, and many of my colleagues in immunology have done the same, and I did PhD research in immunology, you have a broad immune natural response that's nonspecific. And we have put blinders on the horse

to where now the horse can only recognize spike protein to the detriment of your broad natural non-specific immune response. And this is a bad thing. And this is where I think Gert is right. We have messed up our ability to broadly respond to things in our environment, be it not only the coronavirus, but other coronaviruses that may come along, but a lot of other pathogens that may come along. We have altered our immune system.

I hope he's wrong in terms of how bad this could get. But I think his scientific theory is very sound. I hope it's not as drastic. but it's on sound immunologic principle. I'm concerned. Dr. Herschel, what is your perspective? I think we both covered it really well. We've got an ineffective vaccine

that's being given to multiple people that are ill with the disease that's created so many things that we now know. Disease is not effective to stop being the disease nor effective stopping the transmission. We are now seeing the vaccinated diet higher rates. Why? because not only they're getting disease at higher rates,

but they're actually have immune suppression, immune dysregulation. So I think at the end of the day, what we're doing is, I think what he says has a very potential, could happen because the best countries are actually doing what Dr. Cole said. They're actually allowing natural immunity happen. They have a more broad response. And we are basically, I'd sometimes say it as,

you are creating a kind of a left-handed response to the immune system. you're using the weaker side of the immune system to fight this pathogen. And in a sense, your natural right-handed side of the immune system, the T-cells and other things that actually help you kill things are sort of being weakened in some way. And this regulation itself overall is creating, like we saw in England and Scotland, 90% of the deaths are in the triple vaccinate. So I think they both summarize it really well.

I don't think I can do better than that, but I will have one little caveat. I think the host makes a difference, It's not just about the path, and it's about the host, too. And I think that's one reason why I would recommend not to get more shots because you are setting your immune system up to fail. It's mismatched, as you just heard. Get your vitamin D levels up to really high levels.

We've seen the effectiveness of that. You know, if you have diabetes, get everything in your metabolic system under control. You can have a better response. We know that the disease does not affect everyone equally. I think at the end of the day, the light at the end of tunnel is we can do something to avoid the consequence that geared has mentioned. And to be, you know, clearly, I think you've all stated it very clearly. One of the things, Gere van der Boch has been saying from the beginning is stop this mass vaccination campaign immediately. It happens to be one of the 10 statements you make in your declaration, which is stop this COVID vaccination immediately.

So let me read through the 10 very quickly for people out there that. maybe missed the release of it. All they have to do is go to a global co-COVID summit.org to download the document, see the videos, all, you know, the work that you've been doing, but I just want to go through this very quickly. Number one, we declare, and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end. It's the number one statement you've made, just as we've just said. Number two, we declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment, all of the proven remedies that are on label and off label are all discussed there. Number three, we declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic,

should be immediately terminated. Number four, medical privacy should never again be violated. All travel and social restrictions must cease. Number five, we declare that masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting. Number six, we declare that funding and research must be established for the vaccination, damage, death, and suffering. Number seven, we declare no opportunities should be denied, including education, military service, or medical careers, including treatment over unwillingness to take any injection. Number eight, we declare that the First Amendment violations of medical censorship by government, technology, and media companies should cease and the Bill of Rights be restored. Number nine, we declare that Pfizer, Moderna, Biontac, Jansen, AstraZeneca, and their enablers,

withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians and should be immediately indicted for fraud. And number 10, we declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable. Those are powerful statements. There is going to be huge pushback. Our government, as you said, is trying to copy a global summit to get out in almost, reverse message pointing to the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset. I think they've even stated we've got to, you know, try to end this pandemic, build back better. Are you ready for the

pushback that you're about to get from this incredible work that you've done? One of the things, having been in the crucible with these folks, men and women, brave men women, is that I'm sure there's more they can do to hurt us and damage us, but we've kind of become a little bit immune ourselves to the various tactics that the press uses to defame us, that the government uses to shut us down, that social media uses to control any of the information that we try to put out. We've been subjected to this for a long time now. And I I think you get to the point where you stop self-censoring, at least I have, and I think many of us have, where you pass through this window where you're saying to yourself all the time,

well, I really shouldn't say that, I shouldn't go that far because they're going to hurt me in some way, and you just say, you know what, they're going to be nasty no matter what, and you might as well just get over it and speak the truth. And I have to have faith that we have to have faith that we will get back to a world where integrity matters, where people's dignity is respected, including ours, and where we have a community of people that emerges from all of this that can see through. And we think about it, Del, Del, what's happened over the last nine months in particular is the large fraction of the population can now see through all of these manipulations and censorship. Whereas before, they were fairly clueless.

I mean, many of us were. Many of us, you know, Paul Merrick talks about, I used to sit down and read the New York Times every day and I was perfectly happy. We had a subscription to the New York Times and the Washington Post. I cannot remember the last time I looked at either the New York Times of the Washington Post. My faith in the legacy media has been completely destroyed. And I see that in a lot of people, not all. Maybe it's only 10%.

Maybe it's 30%. But for us, we're kind of past that threshold where we kind of don't care anymore about what they say. And we're in, like I know you've been through that journey too, and so many of us have, of coming to grips with the censorship, defamation, information control, attempts at thought control, the mass formation process, the mass formation psychosis.

We've seen it so clearly now. You can't unsee it. And once you're in that space, and if you have integrity, which I think that is one of the things that this Global COVID Summit group really has brought to four is that what I hear again and again is people saying, how could the medical community betray us so profoundly? How come all doctors are corrupt?

And I say to them they aren't. Here we are. We're willing to take the shots. We're taking the arrows. We're saying the truth as we've... And to be honest, it's not just the three of you sitting up here. I mean, you know, when I got into this conversation on vaccines, looking at the risks that were already out there prior to COVID,

you know, one of the dangers is one doctor would come up at a time and just it would take them out. You're now not only standing as the, you know, the group that was reporting yesterday on, you know, your COVID summit, but you're representing 17,000 other physicians and none of whom are being funded by pharma or funded by the government. These are the people that are actually on the ground,

doing the work, doing the investigations, doing the studies. and that's probably not even the entire group that are on your side, right? Those are just the people who are braving them. I mean, I think about this, when I think about now, when I look back at the Declaration of Independence, and I think, you know, these guys signed their names and said, you know where to find me. I mean, I didn't really realize that until I got in the middle of this,

how bold that was, you know, in the time where you're being attacked, you know, the pressure's on. You have 17,000 physicians across the world saying, yes, here's my name, and I believe so strong. I'm willing to stand in front of the slings and arrows of this, you know, outrageous fortune of the moment. Like those founding fathers said, our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor, and that's what they pledged. And to Dr. Malone's point, integrity is the distance between your lips and your actions. These are men and in our group men and women of integrity.

We stand on scientific principle. We have nothing to gain by doing this other than the benefit. of our fellow human beings. Let the arrows fly. We're used to it. Let the mudslinging come. We're used to it. But I will put my head on my pillow at night,

and my grandchildren's grandchildren will say, he did the right thing. And that's why we do this as a team. We know the science. We are here because we care about our fellow human being and still take that oath between the doctor, and the patient as sacred. Well, the other thing, now we have benefited time.

And we made a lot of statements over time. You can reflect on that. And as I look back, we called a lot of stuff right. And that gives a certain amount of courage to say, to stick your neck out. You want to bet on the winners? We want to bet on losers. Because we watched a lot of losers that have had to keep changing this statement, changing what this vaccine would do,

changing what's happening with the pandemic, changing where we're at, you know, what is the power of this group coming together, the global COVID summit? You know, the power, Dell, is that, you know, originally we were loners, and we were lone rangers, and we were having to face all those things in arrows and everything by ourselves. And so one of the reasons to form the group was to create a way to move forward in the pandemic that could challenge the powers that be in a way that they wouldn't be able to than I. We have more docs in the NIH, CDC, and the FDA, but more of those doctors and scientists than they did. They're all many illustrious academicians and scientists. So the

purpose of the group, the original purpose of the group, was that we were getting hit and taking hits to the point where it was very difficult to sort of stand on your own two feet and challenge anyone. So that's what brought us together. And you heard that we all kind of knew the system was broken and I at my moment of in March of 2020 when I was getting attacked pretty viciously I just turned to my wife and I said you know I need to speak up I go many people don't know these things that I know I did 11 years in the lab they're not willing to come forward I don't know why but somebody's got to do it and I said if I hide I might as go fishing what kind of person am I how can I hope to get to heaven and be able to sit there and say I was afraid of man and I'm

here and I'm sorry I didn't say anything but can you please let me in and I literally had come to Jesus moment where I felt like I needed to speak up and I think what ended up happening what was very interesting to me is as I met people along the way there was of people of integrity over and over again many of whom said to me at the end stuff like God bless you thank you for helping I heard it over and over and I felt to this group here a special connection we gathered as he said in in Puerto Rico and there was a bond right away

and we you could feel the integrity of the group and I think at the end of the day that's what drove us forward that we had people that willing to speak truth that were incredibly talented and together we were able to challenge the powers that because it has to happen and it's not going to end

I'd like to say two things in reaction to that one of the things that's been a huge pleasure is is walking alongside Dr. Richarderson. He's very modest. He's very low-key. He's always trying to get, you know,

smooth things over and help us all get along because there's some rough spots. There's a lot of conflict from time to time. We've been put under a lot of pressure. In the opening statement, you asked me about what is this group, and I talked about how it had coalesced, the part that I should have said,

and I didn't. It was what kicked it off was Richard Erso. Richard Erso was the colonel that caused this thing to grow. The other thing I wanted to say was, as we've gone along this journey of traveling all over the world, literally, giving these talks, you know, most recently it was in Paris, but also in Houston and in L.A., and we just go and go and go.

We have docs come out of the woodwork saying, the thing that touches my heart the most is they say, I felt alone until I heard you speak, and then I knew I wasn't alone, and I wasn't crazy. And I think that's perhaps the biggest thing that we've done is we've given hope for a big cadre of their primarily frontline doctors who are out there dealing with patients, seeing things that didn't make sense to them,

And in our speaking out, and, you know, Richard played a key role in his courage in making that decision, our speaking out has really created a snowball effect where a lot of docs that have debt or for whatever reason can't come out and be as vocal as we are. And if you notice a lot of the group, they're the old gray hairs. We don't have a bunch of student loans. But that I think for me is one of the most touching things is that there are good docs out there that are trying to take care of their patients who still believe in Hippocratic Ove and they come to us when we do our meetings and teachings

and say thank you for doing this. Thank you for having the courage to stand up. And when I heard you, I realized I wasn't alone. That's deep, profound stuff. It really is. And I mean, just, you know, you guys are heroes. And again, I just want to thank you for taking the time to join. Let's share at the highway.

I want to thank you for the time outside of here. You have been on, of all of you, hitting every podcast. You never sleep. I mean, your dedication to getting the truth out there has been phenomenal. So I have to say that as I shake your hand, I know I'm shaking the hands of those 17,000 people you represent, and those voices that still maybe are afraid to speak out, but are standing in your way.

and the power of what you're doing. It's the global COVID summit.org. That is the website. Definitely. Here's what we have to do. These doctors are putting it all in the line. They are coming together, but we've got to get this to everyone we know.

We have to make sure that this is the document and the declaration, not just of the United States of America, but of the world. Because as we know, the powers are great. They're going to try and say that this consensus over the lockdowns that didn't work, the mass that didn't work. You've got to get your fifth and sixth boost.

and then we may lose everything. It is time to get back to the national immunity, those that can achieve it. It's time to get our heads screwed back on. This is such an important and powerful document. We need to do our job now and share it with everyone that we know. And so you know what to do.

This is what is so awesome about this audience. Let's get out there. Let's make sure that these voices don't go unheard, but become the dynamic and powerful, you know, voices of the majority in this world as we pull ourselves out of this insanity. For those of you out there, you've heard a lot about this vaccine just right here at this table, whether it's the adverse events, all the things that can take place. And so if you're trying to understand how to deal with your own injury, maybe it's the legal issues or needing some guidance on where to go medically,

we've built a website to do just that. Take a look at this. If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial. Go to Injured by COVID-vaccine.com. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support, including connecting with medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury. We can provide assistance completing our report to the CDC's vaccine adverse events reporting system. So if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a COVID-19 vaccine, go to injured by COVID vaccine.com now. Well, I just want to take one more

opportunity to just thank my esteemed guest today, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Richard Ersoe. I'm still pinching myself. I can't believe that just happened. I can't believe they were here. But I want to point out that there's actually for you, for those of you out there, there's a way for you to get involved and actually be a part of this conversation and it's going to go deeper. If you thought this was exciting, one week from tomorrow, a week from Friday, I will be in England and I'm going to be emceeing the Better Way conference. This is a three-day conference of the world-renowned scientists from all over the world having these very important discussions. The very first panel is going to have Dr. Robert Malone and Geert van der Bosch is going to be in there, along with other scientists and doctors, Dr. Ryan Cole is going to be out there. So they're actually going to have this conversation in person, have this debate,

and at the end of their panels, I'm going to be asking questions that you'll be able to provide. So this is a totally sold out event in person, but it's not sold out online. I would highly recommend being a part of this. So it's one week from tomorrow the 20th through the 22nd of May. I'm really excited about it. But can you imagine? I can't wait to hear with Geert Vannebosch and Robert Malone in the same panel, Dr. Ryan Cole, with these guys, you know, what's going to happen there?

The entire idea is, you know, a way forward, which is obviously what this global COVID summit is about. But again, you know, more and more scientists are gathering together joining arms to make a difference. You know, we cover so many things here at the highwire. There's a lot that we do. If someone of you are brand new, you think, wow, this is not like any other news program I've ever watched. We go way beyond that. For those of you, most of you know, we have a legal team that dives in. Remember, this complete liability protection.

They're always, you know, since 1986, you can't sue a vaccine. You can't get near it. No one was able to penetrate this sort of, you know, Fort Knox that's been built around the proprietary information around vaccinations and the truth. That's where we've used our legal team to infiltrate. We've won against the CDC. We've won cases against Health and Human Services, the FDA, National Institutes of Health. If you've been watching the Highwire, then you're aware of all those milestones and those events, all driven by our amazing lawyer, Aaron Siri, and his fantastic team,

which is just such a crucial part of the work that we do here and what you do when you donate and help us make a difference here. I want to talk about just very briefly to sum this up. We've had several weeks, very intense, but you see the power. We can't get depressed. We've never had scientists of this level on our side. But when I asked the question, basically is Geret Bend and Boss, when he's predicting the potential that this variant could be driven,

this mutant, this mutant escape, as Dr. Robert Malone put it, being driven by a leaky vaccine that is not neutralizing. When I asked, is this a crazy thought? None of these doctors stood out against it. They are all saying, look, we're not sure that that's the only, route it takes. Geert is very specific. That's what he thinks. But for those of you last week, I think this is what I get from it. There is a possibility. There's this terrifying possibility that we could see massive increases in serious illness and death amongst those that are vaccinated

and there's multiple reasons given here why that would be the case. But as we're worried about these variants being driven, look at, I mean, just when you see this chart of how many variants They're, I mean, all, every one of those dots, and we've shown this before, the path and the variance that have happened so far, this is just an incredibly, you know, strong and capable virus that can mutate and change almost at will, especially under this massive pressure that Gere Bandon Bosch has been talking about. Well, in the middle of all this, we said, well, look, what is the CDC saying about this? clearly, Gert van and Bosch cannot be the only, you know, biologist, immunologist on the planet that sees this. As Dr. Robert Malone put it, he described it exactly like Gert did in his interview last week, saying if I was going to develop some sort of scientific experiment that would pressure

a viral variant, this is what I would have done, massively vaccinate everybody, including the children. So when we went to the CDC website to see, are they aware of this issue, there's this page. It says myths and facts about COVID-Divism. 19 vaccines. And then when you drill down on it, you know, myth COVID-19 vaccines cause variance. They call it a myth. COVID-19 vaccines cause variance. And here it is. Fact. COVID-19 vaccines do not create or cause variance of the virus that causes COVID-19. Instead, COVID-19 vaccines

can help prevent new variants from emerging. Look at that. Fact. COVID-vaccines do not create or cause variance. All right. So they put it on their website. I want to show you this is the world we live in. The very same government that has a disinformation board right now that Rand Paul is rightly grilling on this idea. They're the arbiters of truth. They're saying we know a fact when we see it and the rest of this is misinformation. So we said, okay, it's a fact. Prove it to us. We put in a FOIA request demanding to see the evidence that these vaccines do not cause viral variance. This was it. It was March 8th, 2022. Dear sir or madame, this firm represents the infirm consent action network.

On behalf of ICAN, please provide the following records to FOIA at SiriLLP.com in electronic form. Here's what we asked for. All documents sufficient to support that the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines does not contribute to virus evolution and the emergence of variance. They have a fact. They're the scientists. They're the arbiters of truth. Lay it on us.

How do you know this? Well, we just got our response finally back from the CDC themselves. Can we get a drum roll, please? Are you ready for it? What do you think they said? What do you think they said? Let's lay it on you. Here's what they said.

They wrote back, dear Mr. Siri, this letter is in response to your Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Freedom of Information Act request of March 8, 2022. For all documents sufficient to support that the immunity conferred by COVID-19, vaccines does not contribute to virus evolution and the emergence of variants. A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. We don't have a single document on this planet or in this place that can explain why we put this

on our website. The CDC's Emergency Operations Center and the National Center for Immunization and respiratory diseases conducted searches and found no records responsive to your request. We've never even had a conversation we can send you. We don't have an email we can send you. We have no evidence that this vaccine doesn't cause variance, yet we will put it on our website. If that's what a fact is, which was simple, wishable thinking by a bunch of nerds inside of our government man, are we in trouble? The definition of fact is clearly under attack, and we are going to do something about it.

That's what we're doing here. If you want to be a part of pressing this government, demanding transparency the way we are and showing you where we're getting it, please become a recurring donor. It's making all of this possible so that we can help drive this movement, help these doctors, help these scientists, get the truth, get the legal backing. Just donate, please become a recurring donor. We're asking for $22 for $22 for $22. You give more to Netflix, you give more to CNN and Fox, whether you know it or not, and they're lying to you every single day. They're supporting all the things that you hate. Why don't you support and vote with your dollars for the things that you agree with?

This is what it's all about. And, you know, we have laid some pretty heavy stuff out to the last few weeks. But I have hope. I have hope because we are here through every single crazy moment, every moment everybody thought the world was going to be destroyed. You know what makes a difference? Humanity makes a difference. When humanity comes together, when there's no good. government that can stop us, when the people still gather in the streets, when the science and the

intelligentsia that's not owned by pharma still get together, and they have a symposium, and they put their names, and 17,000 of them sign their names to that document. You know what they just did? They did what our founding fathers did. They said, you know where to find me, come and get me, because I will not live on my knees. We will stand in truth. We will stand in scientific integrity. and if you try to destroy it, we're going to write our names the document that says, you're not coming for us, we're coming for you. You're the government. Get back on your leash. Because that's where you belong.

This is a government for the people, by the people, and we are the beacon of light and hope. And by God, if you try to do anything about it, you will discover that all together, we are indestructible. I'll see you next week. You tried to blame me, tried to shame me, brought the fight to my door, now you're running scared, bet you never thought that I'd come and pull up at yours. All the things that you've tried to cast away, you're now washing up on your shores. All the high water and hell I've been through prepared me for this war.

I'm not afraid I won't back down, glaring the horns outside of your ivory tower, till the walls come down from the mighty sound, marking your final at this hour. You'll never win. Your time has come. My strength comes from a higher power that shines the light on your darkness. And all the things that you tried to hide and opens up every cloud. Raised up and purified. We stand to, smiling back at that violent, but we got up and stood up taller, tried

to demonize our pride, but all they did was make us proud. Tried to lock our churches, cuffed our preachers, now our prayers are even louder. They created more believers. Tried to block and censor us and bury us in lies, but that made us better judges. All they did was make us watch.