The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE VANDEN BOSSCHE INTERVIEW

Episode Date: November 19, 2021

FDA to Disclose Pfizer Data…in 56 years?!; Biden’s Mandate On Hold; CDC Whiffs On Natural Immunity; Vaccine Expert’s Dire Mass Covid Vaccination WarningGuests: Aaron Siri, Esq., Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVMBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time we all step out onto the high wire. Now, we do a lot of great shows here, and I'm always excited to be sitting at this desk, but this is one of those days where we have such a brilliant show ahead. I've actually got like butterflies, just hoping that it all goes exactly as planned. I think this show is going to represent the best of what the high wire does, from our legal all the way to the brilliant team that helps put this show together. So let's just get it rolling, shall we?

When it comes to our legal front, we released a document last week that came through one of our FOIA requests to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This document has gone viral. This is essentially what it was. It was a letter from our legal team at Syrian Glimstad. Dear Sir or Madam, this firm represents the informed consent action network, I can. On behalf of I can, please provide the following records to FOIA at SiriLIP.com and Electron form. Here's what we asked for. Documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who, number one, never received a COVID-19 vaccine. Two, was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered,

and then later became infected again. And three, transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected. We sent this out. And of course, as usual, and, you know, this is because the work we've done for those of you are just joining us, we have won lawsuits against this very Department of the CDC. We've won lawsuits against the FDA, Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Health. It starts with issues like this, where we make a FOIA request. They refuse to answer us, and then eventually we take them into court to get the answers

that we believe the people the United States of America and the world need to know. So in this circumstance, they finally responded to our question, and this was their answer. In regards to all of the above, basically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. received your September 2nd, 2021 Freedom of Information Act FOIA request on September 02, 2021 seeking, as I just said, never received a COVID-19 vaccine a person, was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected, and then transmitted that to another person when reinfected. This is what they had to say.

A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. They went on to further explain the CDC Emergency Operations. Center EOC conveyed that this information is not collected. An incredible discovery there that though we are talking about vaccinated people and whether or not they should be allowed into certain places and we're making other people wear masks and all of that and trying to decide how we're all going to move amongst each other on this earth. The one thing the CDC is not tracking is what is happening with natural infection. The one thing we've known since the dawn of man is.

is how we've always had herd immunity. The idea of herd immunity comes from natural infection. You catch the illness. Once you've had it, you develop antibodies, and then you have this very long-lived immunity. In many cases, when it comes to measles and other childhood illnesses, you have lifelong immunity from coming contact with that virus. But in this case, with SARS-CoV-2,

when they're telling us they are so incredibly focused on this pandemic and how to stop it, they're not looking into or collecting any data on the one thing they know for a fact. Act would stop it, which would be natural infection. They have no data on that. Well, obviously, we weren't the only ones shocked and surprised. When we started putting this out to the different social media platforms that we were on, it took fire. Here's just some of the headlines that came out of that. This is what was sent out trial site news. Attorney elicits admission from CDC.

They crushed rights of the COVID-19 natural immune without any proof whatsoever. CDC is blazed media. CDC says it doesn't keep records on whether on vaccinated Americans with natural immunity spread COVID-19. Newsmax, CDC not collecting data on transmission of COVID from recovered individuals. And then epoch time, CDC, no record of naturally immune transmitting COVID-19. And then, of course, when we have people got onto the Twitter. This is Marty McCarrie, who's on Fox all the time. He's saying, at CDC director, please release the data on reinfections resulting in hospital and deaths, if any, amongst those with prior COVID serology by health. the comorbid Israel did.

CDC should be transparent with data on natural immunity. Instead, we get glimpses from FOIA requests like this one. They're talking about our FOIA request. Thomas Massey, representative. In response to FOIA requests, the CDC literally just admitted they haven't documented a single case of an unvaccinated individual with natural immunity spreading the virus. FWIW, the lawyer who has submitted this FOIA request,

is helping with our mask lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi. That's right. Erin, Siri is helping them with that. And then, you know, probably one of the things that even went more viral was Dan Bongino decided to cover this on his show. He's a blogger. He's got his own radio show. Of course, you've seen him on Fox multiple times. I think he even has his own show on Fox on Sundays. This is what he had to say about the informed consent action networks for your request. Take a look at this. I want you to remember the golden rule of evidence. That's this. Hat tip Nasim Talib from his book. The absence of evidence. does not mean the evidence of absence. Do you get what I'm saying here? The fact that the CDC does not have and is not collecting data on natural immunity preventing people from reinfection and passing it on to others does not mean it doesn't happen. The real scandal here is that the CDC quote is not collecting this information. You're not concerned at all about the

effects of natural immunity and that people who got a COVID-19 infection may be, maybe less likely to pass it on than people who were vaccinated? Why do I say maybe? Because the CDC doesn't know their emergency operation center conveyed that they're not collecting this information. All right. Joining me now is our lawyer for the informed consent action network, Aaron Ciri. and thanks for joining me today.

Great to be here now. Well, I mean, look, you filed this FOIA for us. It came back, you know, fairly shocking that they just had no evidence of any such case of a naturally infected person, catching the virus and then giving it to somebody else. Now, Dan Bongino, when he brings this up, he says, you know, he makes a good point. It doesn't prove that it's never happened. It just proves that they have no idea if it's never happened. And they don't seem, but what he says ultimately,

is the real shocking thing here, right? Is that they never cared to collect that data? Is that really the most shocking part of the CDC's response to our FOIA request? I think that it's the mini shocker. I think there's a bigger shocker, frankly. And it's this. Those who've been vaccinated,

the CDC has documented cases of them becoming infected and transmitting the virus. not just one documented case, many documented case. Right. But what does the CDC say for those folks? They can stay in school, right? They can keep their jobs. They don't have to be separated from the military.

They can enjoy the civil liberties that we think of when we think of liberty under the Constitution. Right. But what does the CDC say for those who've been infected previously, meaning they have natural immunity? It says, kick them out of school, throw them out of school, throw them out. of their jobs, separate them from the military, exclude them from civil society. And here's the shocker. It's doing that, even though it doesn't have a single documented case by its own admission of somebody with a natural immunity becoming reinfected and transmitting

of a virus. That's the shocker. And beyond that lack of proof, we can, we have as a part of our interactions with the CDC and the FDA, both through FOIA, and other letter writing instances, we have shown them that the body of science shows a far more robust immunity from a natural infection compared to vaccination. I mean, there's just, there's really quite a bit of science on this. So even though we can't say for sure that they, you know, because they simply lack the science to support their position, the science that we look at around the world actually says the opposite of what they're pointing out, which is, yes, vaccinated, can get re-infected, will infect other people, people, you're giving them rights and freedoms and taking rights and freedoms away from the one group. The one group we know on this planet that actually can neutralize this virus and no longer transmit

it, at least for long periods of time based on the science that we're looking at around the world. Yeah. The one page FOIA response that Don Van Gino was talking about shows the lack of evidence, as he pointed out. And in itself is shocking that the CDC would engage in the dispar policy between the vaccine, an unvaccinated, naturally immune based on that alone. But as you just pointed out, Del, on behalf of ICANN, we submitted a formal petition to the CDC, laying out over 50 studies showing that natural immunity

is more robust than vaccine immunity. And the request of the CDC was, hey, look, either you've got a body of science that shows that this isn't the case, right? That there's in fact, vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity, or, and if you don't, they need to lift the restrictions that you have on the naturally immune. The CDC responded in a multi-page letter and ICANNA sent a reply.

The CDC's response ignored all of the studies, as you know, and cited one study that the CDC itself conducted, which was never peer-reviewed. It was published from what's effectively their newsletter called the MMWR and involved a few hundred people. I understand. I think that the FOIA response, which is one, pages getting more traction because it's one page and it's easy for people to digest. Right. That exchange with the CDC was 51 pages long in its totality, but it is shocking and it's maybe even the far bigger shocker than the lack of evidence because that shows the evidence that natural immunity is more durable. It doesn't wane like vaccine immunity. It's more efficacious.

If you've had natural immunity, all the studies show you have far less than 1% chance of getting reinfected. That's greater than 99% efficacy versus vaccine. which is way lower than that. And it stops infection transmission, all the studies show, unlike the vaccine immunity. It's amazing. And for all the people that are watching right now, if you want to read the 51 pages or any of these documents that are going back and forth,

all you have to do is sign our newsletter at thehighwire.com, put your email in there. And even before you see it on this show, as is the case this week with this FOIA document that has gone viral, we make sure that those that are on our newsletter get it first. so that you really learn to use the tools that are being provided, not just from this show, but actually having the documents in your hands. Now, Aaron, you know, there's obviously a huge, huge issue going on right now with the Biden administration essentially wanting to force vaccinate

every employee in companies that have 100 employers or more, employees or more. And they are using OSHA to try and push that along. But we're now seeing these appellate courts, Fourth Circuit and Fifth Circuit, are these headlines we're seeing where it looks like courts are putting a stay on moving forward with these OSHA mandates, does that affect the whole country? And, you know, how is this going to play out? Yeah, so there's district courts where, you know, those were trials happen at the federal level. And then there are appellate courts. And there's a number of them. First Circuit is one of them. The second circuit is another and so forth. They're numerically numbered and some of them have names are not numerical.

And above all of those appellate courts, there's the U.S. Supreme Court. So the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of Biden's mandate that we promulgated through OSHA. That stay is nationwide. Great. So it's nationwide. That's going to affect everybody. That's stay right now.

There's no employer can stay to you because OSHA has mandated this. You have to go get your vaccine. You can say, go ahead and spin on it right now. Now, I know for a fact that there's a stay in the Fifth Circuit, and that affects the entire country. That's right. I mean, right after the Fifth Circuit issued that state, the Biden administration told incredibly, told employers continue to mandate the vaccine, which is, you know, we were saying for days, that's a constitutional crisis. When the judiciary tells the executive branch, you shouldn't do something, that's the check and balance and vision under the Constitution.

The executive has to listen to it. And for days, it was indicating it was not going to comply. Fortunately, we've averted that crisis, I think, and that OSHA has now come out and said they are not going to enforce the 100-employee rule nationwide for now. I try to think of former presidents, like President Trump or Bush or Obama, had they ever said, told citizens of this country, employers go against what was just decided.

in the courts, you know, in the district courts of America, just go against that, disregard that. I mean, you are literally now, I mean, that's the Constitution of Christ where you are now seeing two branches of government smashing up against each other. Well, well, at this point, I think we've averted that because OSHA itself has now said they will not be enforcing it. But it was attempted. It was attempted. There was an attempt.

That's what that's, I mean, as of two days ago, you know, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I said on national television, I believe this is a constitutional crisis, but it does appear we've now averted it, which is- Okay, very good. Lastly, you know, a lot of the work we do, we've been trying to get the data from these trials, Pfizer's data, Modernist trial,

and we know that, you know, so much work your law firm's been doing for us, I know we keep you really busy, demanding more and more release, and it's just like this white-knuckle grip from the FDA that has been saying that, oh, we're going to be totally transparent as we rush ourselves into this so that the people will see what's going on. You just published an article in Substact where the title blew my mind. Here's the title.

FDA asked federal judge to grant it until the year 2076 to fully release Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine data. I thought I was reading this on, you know, the onion or something. But is this legit? Are they legitimately someone's attempting to basically hide this data or at least, hold it back until 2076? Yeah, and that someone is the FDA.

Wow. You know, the work that we've done for ICANN in this arena leads others who have an interest in getting either data from federal health authorities or wants to litigate with federal health authorities. So,

you know, they often will come to us. In this instance, it was a group of over 30 scientists and professors from some of those prestigious universities across our country who came and said, hey, we would like to get all of the data Pfizer submitted to the FDA that the FDA then relied upon to license the Pfizer COVID vaccine. Seems reasonable enough. The FDA has been saying months. It certainly seems reasonable enough in the face of now booster shots that we were never talked about. Now we have Tony Fauci saying, oh, you need, it was always, well, now we realize you always needed three shots, not two shots.

Really, what else do you realize? Like, what is it now that's just coming to your realization that we would have had world-renowned scientists that are now working through you, had they seen this data, or could they get their hands on this data? Maybe we could avoid four, fifth, six, you know, shots or some of the terrifying news that Geert Band & Bosch is going to be sharing with our audience

just coming up a little bit later in the show. It's really important that this be transparent, given that there was no long-term safety trial. So since we're in the middle of a crisis, We're using a totally untested product, and we need every scientist all hands on deck. The FDA is saying, no, no hands on deck. No one's allowed on this ship until 2076. I mean, that seems diabolical.

Well, let's not forget that it's the FDA that's been saying all along assured the public. They're going to be transparent. They promise transparency. And so they were able to review Pfizer's data in 108 days, right? They say they thoroughly, carefully, you know, with meticulous detail, reviewed it. They did that in 1008 days, but they now want the public to wait more than 20,000 days until they fully release that data. And until it's fully released, these scientists can't properly evaluate or vet it. And that's what we want.

We want that to do it. So let me sum it up this way, if I may, Dale. Okay. The federal government has given immunity to Pfizer for any injuries caused by their product. Right. The federal government, right? The federal government is mandating you to take their product. And at the same time, the federal government is telling you, you can't see the data that

was allowed upon to license this product for, in totality, for at least another 55 years, or at least that's what they would like a federal judge to order. You gotta wonder sometimes, you know, who's real, the federal government working for? It's concerning. And I think that's the point you were making. And just so that we have the details exactly right for the audience that's going to go out there and tell their friends about this and hopefully get them to sign up to our newsletter so they get the actual article. We can read all the details. The details of this is that they're not going to hold up all of the data till 2076.

They wanted to just sort of time release it over the next 55 years. Is that one of them to understand? That's right. They want to release 500 pages a month. Okay. So there's 300. they're saying there's over 329 pages and they want to release 500 pages a month the the FDA has a budget that's in the tens of billions i believe yeah they've got tens of thousands

of employees they have said the fisa vaccine is the most important issue that they're going to deal with it is the thing they're focused on the most but apparently when it comes to uh giving transparency which they promised they only can muster reviewing 500 pages a month That's, I mean, it's, it's almost criminal and even more shocking that it's not Pfizer trying to hide it for all this time. It's the FDA, which leads to a lot of things that I've, you know, my feeling, my feeling about this is the big issue in this country is not necessarily these industries that are funding our government, but the government that's taking that money and then doing the bidding for those industries versus protecting the people. I mean, clearly, these scientists have failed. This vaccine is a failure. It is failing all over the world.

We're going to talk more about that. coming up and while it's failing we could really use the help of world-renowned scientists at private schools and universities and laboratories all around the world that may have an answer to the flaws in this vaccine and they're going to be kept from being able to help with this process by the leading government health agency in the u.s that is now protecting this data for fiser against the american public uh erin you know it's amazing having you out there discovering this shit, sorry. That's a first. I've never done that before, but that's what it is. You know, so, so, you know, what's going to happen over the next, you know, days, weeks, you know,

do you feel like, you know, is this, is this fight for a mandated vaccine, despite having any idea now what the data is that got it approved, how it got out there, all of this being hidden, we have, you know, circuit cords, district courts, pushing back. What is your sense? Is this going to the Supreme Court? Is this going to ultimately be a Supreme Court decision? And what do you think our odds are there? But with regards to the mandate for 100 employees or more, as you pointed out earlier, those cases are all going to be consolidated.

Our firm will also be one of the firms in the mix of those cases. And I do believe that that case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. I think it's inevitable. And I think that the likely outcome is that OSHA's, emergency mandate for 100, companies with 100 employees or more, will ultimately be struck down as illegal. All right. Well, we will obviously have you on the front lines, keeping us abreast.

We will be supporting in every way all those cases as they move towards the Supreme Court. That's what I can does. We are so lucky to have you, you know, working for our team, Aaron. And so give my best to your incredible team of lawyers that are helping you get all this work done and keep up the good work. all right thank you down all right i'll talk to you soon all right well look i have an amazing show we are about to do what may be the most important interview i've ever done in my life i have been spending an extensive amount of time talking to geert van derauch the world famous scientist

that is very very concerned about this mass vaccination program he's now being joined by other world-renowned scientists that are starting to really come around to his perspective on this, but I'm going to get into the details like you have never seen anywhere else the way the high wire does it. It's coming up just around the corner. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, we've got a lot to get to. So what's happening out there in the world of failing vaccines, immunity and craziness? Incredible stories. Incredible stories. Failing vaccines are the story right now. The green light has been given to report on this. And report on this people are doing. So let's start in the United States here. Vermont. Here's the headline. Vermont

leads nation in new COVID cases and vaccination rate. It's the state with the highest vaccination rate in the United States, 73%. No reason given why the cases are spiking in that article. But let's go to Colorado. Same situation, same headline. What is driving Colorado's COVID surge? Not even the experts are sure. Nationwide, it says coronavirus infections have declined from their peaks of earlier this fall, more recently leveling out. But in Colorado, one of the more heavily vaccinated states in the country infection that have risen, and no one is quite sure why. Quote, I don't have a great answer for that.

And believe me, I'm looking, Dr. Rachel Herahy, the state epidemiologist, said last week, hmm, well, it's not just happening in the United States. We're going to cover a bunch of headlines all over the world here. Let's go to Ireland. Ireland is one of the highest vaccinated countries as well. Ireland's County, Waterford, has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. So why our case is surging? Waterford has both the highest vaccination rate and the highest COVID incidence rate in Ireland.

It says a massive 99.5% of adults over the age of 18 in Waterford are double jab. That's thought to be one of the highest rates in any region anywhere in the world. In the article, they start to speculate. It says it's partly due to a change in people's behavior. The country's deputy PM went on CNN and said it's because of the 5% unvaccinated that are causing a lot of the problems. So here we go. Now, unfortunately, this next place, this is Gibraltar, this British territory off Spain's

coast. They don't have the luxury of blaming the unvaccinated because they're not there. So here's the headline. Gibraltar cancels Christmas celebrations amid COVID spike. Gibraltar has vaccinated 140% of their population. How is that possible? Because of booster vaccines and also because of workers going back and forth. But basically, you're walking around there with no one unvaccinated.

And that's the headline. That's one of the biggest headlines out of the last couple days. Belgium, now let's hear from a doctor in Belgium. This was taken off their news. It's subtitled, so you have to read it. But it's pretty interesting what's happening there as well. Check it out. For who, troughs would think that the intensive careg now

with not-geneered, that's not long. By us, at this moment, we see we're a great majority, so-gena, doerbara infections, that is different than a couple weeks of years ago, when we, indeed, a meerdite not-givated patients on intensive had, at this moment, is that

not more so. The patients that we, in GZA, now on the intensive have been, I've been asked us again again, they're actually allempsineate. Wow, all of the patients in the ICU were vaccinated. It's an incredible statement. I mean, I haven't seen the headlines

pandemic of the vaccinated yet, but I mean, are we there? This is the question we have to ask. India, we've covered India a lot. This is a state in India, Kerala. It's located on the southwest portion of India. And the headlines coming out of there read like this. Kerala breakthrough infections account for most COVID-19 cases. And it says in the article, Kerala has been leading India's COVID-19 outbreak for several months. The state accounts for over 50% of the nationwide active cases and comprises 60% of the daily cases. It continues, and it says, of the 1.19 lock, lock is basically a unit of measurement to, it means 100,000, reported between October 19th to November 2nd, nearly 68,000 cases or 58% involved cases where the

patient had received one vaccine dose, 23%, or both 35%. Shocking headline there. But now let's talk about a study out of India looking at some vaccines. Now, typically, we see a lot of study. we have covered them on natural immunity. But a lot of these studies never look at natural immunity compared to a vaccination in the same study. This one did. Immunity following COVID-19 vaccination and natural infection in India. Let's go right to that study. They looked at neutralizing antibody responses of 240 people in Kolkata. This is a city in India about 15 million people. And what they found, they found, they looked at AstraZeneca's vaccine. It's COVID-Shield and co-vaccin. This is India's indigenous vaccine. It's

made there uses a dead virus. So I guess that would be like old vaccine technology in the age of gene therapy at this point, MRI technology. And the researchers say both COVID shield and covaxin, however, are more effective towards the wild type. Remember, that's the original virus than the delta variant. Moreover, the overall immune response resulting from natural infection in and around Kolkata is not only to a certain degree better than that generated by vaccination, especially in the cases of the delta variant, but cell mediated immunity. is the SARS-COVID-2 also lasts for at least 10 months after the viral infection. Now, again, this is natural infection is superior to both the vaccines with producing cellular

immunity. Incredible results. Wow, that's incredible. And it's something, obviously, it's not a surprise to people watching the high wire, but we're getting so much validation now on what we have been talking about since this vaccine was released. We knew it wasn't going to stop infection. We knew it wasn't going to stop transmission. But this statement that it was going to reduce symptoms, even that appears to be falling apart when you start hearing 100% of the ICU in a hospital is filled with the vaccinated. That doesn't sound like people that are having reduced symptoms. You're not in ICU having no symptoms. And so clearly, this entire mythology built around this vaccine unicorn, as we called it very early on, is crumbling down around them.

And let's go back to just February of this year, 2021. The CDC appeared to be working to cover or hide the fact that natural immunity is working. This was uncovered by Cheryl Atkinson, investigative reporter on her show, Full Measure Nude. Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey found some very interesting discrepancies between what the CDC data was being published and what was actually in the data that was published to the public. Take a look. All right. On award-winning scientist himself, Massey quickly found that vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who've had coronavirus.

Vaccination didn't change their odds of getting reinfected. The controversy began when Massey noticed the CDC was claiming the exact opposite. CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had just issued a high-profile report authored by 15 scientists. It wrongly claimed Pfizer's study proved the vaccine as highly effective or showed consistent high efficacy for people who'd already had coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. It says the exact opposite of what the data says. They're giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life even, or, you know,

save you from suffering even if you've already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial. I mean, it's amazing just seeing this conversation on the heels. I mean, here we are with our FOIA request. We just talked about at the beginning of this show. So this is back in February. Clearly now, we're saying the same thing. Like, where is your evidence that, you know, someone vaccinated is doing better than the naturally infected because the naturally infected better be infecting somebody and you better have proof of that or start setting these people free and celebrating what natural infection is offering to this nation in the world? Right. And remember at that time, as it's still true, the debate around natural immunity was absolutely raging because people were starting to be, you know, coerced into these vaccines as it was rolling. And so he went up the chain. Congress and Massey went up the chain at the CDC. And you can watch the full episode at Full Measure News. But the people he talked to were saying, yes, you caught our error. We will change it. We will change it. It went two months, basically, before anything was really done. And it took a call to at the that time director and Shukat at the CDC for a difference to be made. So here's what that phone call sounded like in this recording. Some of the agency's response was summed up during Congressman Massey's final call with CDC this past week. It was with CDC principal deputy director and shook it. I feel like right now we have the tail wagging the dog that the folks who want to do the messaging,

the folks who want everybody to get the vaccine have pressured the folks who are doing the science, i.e. reviewing the phase three trial from Pfizer not to correct the document, but the document is false. So the CDC can do whatever messaging they want. That's the CDC's job, not my job, but they cannot propagate false and incorrect science. So that's my position. And I'm really disappointed. It's gone on a month without being fixed, like really disappointed. As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior detection, there's efficacy. So you're correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay.

CDC has now issued a correction. But Massey and other scientists, we ask, say the new wording still wrongly implies studies show vaccines work in people who've had corrupt. And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So at that point, right now, I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials for those who've already had the coronavirus. That's amazing. And it doesn't look like anything's changed. I mean, I think everyone watching this is saying, I never saw an announcement that natural infection, it seems to be strong and effective on CNN, MSNBC. Where's the CDC in stating this?

So all the way back from February, this report brilliantly done by Cheryl Atkinson, who's a great investigative reporter that has never stepped down or stepped out of the way of a controversial topic. So hopefully everyone will go and watch the depth of that, which also include many other phone calls, right? I mean, he worked his way up, so you get to hear phone calls from many other directors that are all promising him things and not the depth of that.

delivering. So what it's just incredible now looking back and seeing where we're at right now. Right. And speaking of looking back and seeing where we're at right now, Tony Fauci was interviewed by the New York Times recently. And it sounded like an episode of the high wire about five or six months ago. Take a listen to this. We're starting to see waning immunity against infection and waning immunity in the beginning aspect against hospitalization. And if you look at Israel, which has always been a month to a month and a half ahead of us in the dynamics of the outbreak, in their vaccine response, and in every other element of the outbreak, they are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection, but against hospitalization,

and to some extent, death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly. So if one looks back at this, one can say, do you know, it isn't as if a booster is a bonus, but a booster might actually be an essential part of the primary regimen that people should have. I am sitting here trying to take deep breaths so I don't scream as I think most of the people watch this show. How is this man still in charge? What an absolute failure.

What a disgrace of science. What a disgrace as a human being. There's nothing this man that has said has ever come true. He has been dead wrong and changing his perspective every single week through this pandemic. He's destroyed our lives. He promised us a vaccine, told us we could reach. hurt immunity, told us it would take two shots. Now, oh, I always meant three shots. Told us we didn't need a mask, shouldn't wear a mask. Now I got to be a mask. I mean, this, it is so insane.

If you ever, you know, one day we'll all have to, the history books, I hope, once we write the true history of what happened here, we'll just have an entire chapter of watching this, you know, series of lies that misled the world and ask ourselves how the greatest nation in the world kept following one of the biggest morons of all freaking times. That's right. And he's straight up lying there because we are not starting to see weighting immunity. We're not starting to see dropping antibodies. We started to see them the second the trials were done, and this EUA was,

we've been covering that on our show each week. The fact that he's saying that, we've been covering Israel as well. And so of many other people. So the fact that he's saying we're just starting to see now in Israel, no, no, no, no, no. It's because of the booster conversation. And that's what's happening right now. Boosters Worldwide is the title of this segment is really what's happening. So this is Britain headline Brits will need three jabs to be considered, quote, fully vaccinated,

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Now Forbes goes even further. They're not even putting a number on it, just like herd immunity. How long will the booster last? This is what they're saying. That's the headline. And it says here in the article, it may turn out that the term, quote, booster, unquote, is a bit of a misnomer and that the correct number of shots for maximum efficacy isn't yet known.

That's great. But I saved the best for last here. This is one of the biggest admissions we've probably reported on this show. A turnaround, a changing goalpost, whatever you want to call it. LA Times, this is the headline. Put it in a frame. This is historical. CDC shifts pandemic goals away from reaching herd immunity.

Oh, my God. Huh? I mean, the home, before you even go any further. The home of SB 277, the paper that supported Senator Richard Pan, who said over and over again, I'm going to take away your rights to decide what's injecting your children because of community immunity, because of herd immunity, community, herd, community, herd, community, herd. We heard it so much. This is an entire purpose of a vaccination program.

And now, L.A. Times itself is admitting, as it turns out, the CDC is giving up on the concept of herd immunity. I mean, it's incredible where we have come. I mean, and how many channels, how many YouTube, how many Facebook channels have we been kicked off of? We're telling the world this thing is never. going to reach in herd immunity. In fact, it's getting in the way of herd immunity. That's right. When am I getting my channels back? When is it, the high wire will be held up and the world is saying, you know what? There was one news network that had it right the whole damn time. Let's listen to the LA Times talk about this. And keep in mind, herd, kind of slightly,

it's a slightly insulting term. They didn't get that memo. It says here, since the earliest days of the pandemic, there has been one collective goal for bringing it to an end, achieving herd immunity. Many Americans embrace the novel farmyard phrase and with it the projection that only that wants 70% to 80% or 85% of the population was vaccinated against COVID-19. The virus would go away and the pandemic would be over. Now their herd is restless. And experts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have set aside herd immunity as a national goal. Well, isn't that interesting? Now it says here, this is what they're going to go towards.

Instead of specifying a vaccination target that promises an end to the pandemic, public health officials hope to redefine success. in terms of new infections and deaths. And they'll surmise that herd immunity has been achieved when both remain low for a sustained period of time. You see nothing in that sentence of dates, of concrete anything. It's just gobbly goop, you know, nebulous talk. And remember, so now for people keeping track at home, the CDC has changed the definition of herd immunity.

The CDC has changed the definition of a vaccine. And they're going to change or they're considering changing the definition of what it means to be vaccinated with these boosters coming out. So how many times can we change the goalposts without raising a red flag here? Apparently, I guess infinitely. I mean, infinite boosters in our future, as Forbes said, you know, we just don't know the number.

We don't know how many times we're going to change definitions. And you know, that idea that we're going to monitor, well, herd immunity will just be when the amount of deaths is low and the amount of serious infections, meaning after everybody's been killed by our mistakes and there's barely anyone left,

we've achieved. We're there. Oh, my God. States are moving on their own now for this booster, and it's because apparently they're frustrated reads the headline. So this is what's looking like right now. Some frustrated states don't want to wait for the FDA for FDA. Expand COVID-19 vaccine booster eligibility to all adults. That's Arkansas, California, Colorado, New Mexico, West Virginia, and New York City as the time are reporting right now. FDA is supposed to meet on this in the coming days. And the federal government, Biden administration, is also talking about doing a nation. wide booster push. But let's bring it back to a topic or a headline we cover from the New York Times just a couple months ago. And we're seeing all of these headlines fawn over the idea of a

booster. What a great idea. This is what the reporting look like just again a couple months ago. New study of COVID booster shots, fans debate over benefits. We have a debate. And it says what the Israel data show is that a booster can enhance protection for a few weeks in older adults, a result that that is unsurprising experts say and does not indicate long-term benefit. What I would predict will happen is that the immune response to that booster will go up and then it will contract again, says Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. But is that three to four month window what we're really trying to accomplish? It goes on. In younger people, officials must balance the limited benefit of a third dose with the risk of side effects like blood clots or heart problems, researchers said.

And repeatedly stimulating the body's defenses can also lead to a phenomenon called immune exhaustion, Dr. Pepper said. There's that word again. She goes on to say there's obviously some risk in continuously trying to ramp up an immune response. She said, if we get into this cycle of boosting every six months, it's possible that this could work against us. And that's apparently where we really are. I guess New York Times is right. Yeah, right into it. And now I guess some of the biggest news as well on top of this booster push is Austria.

Austria became the first country to lock down the vaccinated. This is officially locked down the vaccinated. I'm sorry, yes, the unvaccinated. There was a slip there. Austria locks down most of the unvaccinated, unleashes heated debates, discussions across Europe about how to tackle the latest COVID-19 surge. So we're looking at Austria, the UK is talking. about it. France is talking about it now. Same thing locking down the unvaccinated Italy. Czech Republic and Slovakia have announced they would be doing it. But let's look at a chart

from Austria just to give you an idea of how great their measures work. Now this was out of Twitter. And you can see here their cases on the far right are surging to the highest they've ever been. And that includes mask mandate, mask mandate for indoor locations, N95 mask mandate, and expanded mask requirements plus enforcements. So this is basically their vaccine, their mask mandate, their locksdowns, their heavy-handed enforcements. And now they're locking down the one population that is unvaccinated. And Dell, as we're going to air, some breaking news here just came in.

Austria has announced that they will also be locking down the vaccinated. So I think that's where my slip came from. I had that in my head. So now full lockdown in Austria. So all of these countries that were gleaming. and peacefully ready to follow Austria's lead to lockdown the unvaccinated. I am curious if they're going to change there too now. Are we looking at full lockdown across Europe at this point?

I'm not sure, but these are the headlines we're looking at right now as a breaking. And man, I mean, I hate to be a bearer of bad news. But as you talk about Vermont, all of these highly vaccinated states and countries around the world are seeing this happening with COVID. So then it really makes you wonder, we were sort of being lulled into this lullaby that we're coming to the end of this. The vaccine was working. And now as we look around the world, it appears that we may be, you know, sliding down into a really dark place. And the officials in charge are just going to use the same old rhetoric that hasn't worked until now. In fact,

it's put us in this position. So I think we should all prepare for some challenging times ahead. Great reporting, Jeffrey. All of that's so important to set up the interview that I'm about to have with Geert van and Bosch. So thank you for that work. And, you know, it's next week is Thanksgiving. So have a great Thanksgiving, would you? All right. Thank you, Del. You too. Take care, Jeffrey. Okay. Well, coming up is, as I've said, perhaps, you know, maybe one of the most important interviews I've ever done in my career. There's the moments in a career in, you know, reporting and in television where you know you know you've got a very special story and you just want to make sure you get it right Certainly when I came across the documentary which ended up becoming Vaxed

There was a that was a moment my life where I just thought I'm so glad I have the abilities that my life has brought me to this position that I can be a part of something that I think really may change this conversation around the world and indeed I think in many ways Vax did that now on the highway about eight months ago we have shown you we've interviewed many many world renowned scientists and not to take away from how brilliant they are or how great they are or the messages that they had to convey or how brave they were to bring those messages but we brought you the story of Geert van den Bosch eight months ago who was coming forward to really explain though he had made

vaccines his whole life was the vaccine knowledge and immunology really had this wide array of talents that brought him to a conclusion It was making this plea that we should all listen to him about the mass vaccination program and why it was not the right approach. I have broken down many of other people's interviews of Gerrit Vanne Bosch. And that whole time we were trying to reach out, trying to make contact. I think there was some reticence because of the high wire and some of the things we've covered. And, you know, other scientists, they have to warm up to the idea.

You've been called anti-vax. They look at our Wikipedia page. All of these different conversations are out there. But slowly as we share these things, we finally made contact with Geert Van and Bosch in person who said we are running out of time and I would appreciate anybody that will help me tell this story. Now, when we got together and said, how are we going to cover Geert Van and Bosch? Of course, we could do what we usually do, which is a live interview where I just ask the questions and you get to, you know, see the answers in real time. But the truth is, is Geert has already done that interview multiple, multiple times. We've shared those interviews.

We've shared those Zoom calls amongst multiple scientists, but you're not seeing the evidence when he's doing that. You're not getting to see the documents that he's talking about, that this isn't just his own idea. It's based in sciences being done around the world that nobody is looking at. And so we decided to take, you know, a little bit more time and care with this. And in fact, for me to do this, as you saw in the opening, we spent hours and hours in Zoom calls with Gert Bannon-Bos just so that me and my team could truly understand that, exactly the nuanced details of what he's talking about

so that we might help you understand it. We all have busy lives, folks. I get it. We all want to believe that the world is being taken care of for us. And there's no way that world-renowned scientists, the CDC and FDA, no matter how greedy or how much, you know, interaction with pharmaceutical companies is really going on, they're never going to make a mistake big enough to start wiping out large swaths of our species.

Certainly someone would jump in there. in there. Well, what I want you to do is I want you to put all of that chatter in your mind aside. I want you to sit down. And if you're driving your car right now, and you usually listen to this podcast while your kids are fighting in the backseat, maybe you should wait so that you can really give this interview the right attention. Because if we do not understand what is about to be said, if this understanding does not permeate the minds and souls of the world right now, we could truly be in a dire situation. So with all of the caveats in the world or whatever I have to say,

please bring your attention now to a work that has taken us a couple of weeks to put together with Gert Van den Bosch. I truly believe that his voice needs to be heard. We need to listen and we need to act accordingly. Here is our interview with Gertt Vanden Bosch. Hello, Geert. First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time today to, you know, really get into the details of your theories and issues with this vaccination program, with this pandemic and the SARS coronavirus. So thank you for taking the time. You're very welcome. Thanks for having me.

And for our audience that's watching, and as you know, you are in Brussels, Belgium. I am in Austin, Texas. But through the magic of filmmaking, we're sort of sitting in the same room virtually because I wanted to put out a video that really feels more intimate because we're going to get very intimate on this conversation. So to begin with, I have done several shows now on the different interviews you have done over the last almost half a year, last several months. You put out a video very early on from your own social media, Page, warning the WHO that there was a real problem with the approach towards the SARS coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2.

Dear colleagues at the WHO, my name is Heer Fland-Bosch. My background is veterinary medicine. I'm a certified expert in microbiology and infectious diseases. I have a PhD in virology, and I have a PhD in virology, and I have a PhD in virology, and I have a a long-standing career in human vaccinology. I'm urging you to immediately open the scientific debate on how human interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic are currently driving viral immune escape. I'm urging you to invite me for a scientific hearing open to the public, and to scientists all over the world on this very topic,

ignoring or denying the impact of stringent infection prevention measures combined with mass vaccination using prophylactic vaccines is a colossal blunder. Please do listen to my cry of distress. and let's first and foremost deliberate on a scientifically justified strategy to mitigate the tsunami of morbidity and letality that is now threatening us. And let's meanwhile devise a strategy to eradicate the steadily emerging highly infectious variants. on behalf of humanity, I sincerely thank you for considering my call. To begin with this time, I want to start out with sort of your background. What is it specifically about your experiences that is giving you a different perspective

than we're hearing from other world-renowned scientists? Well, I think it has, in fact, more to do. with what I decided back 10 years ago, 10 or 12 years ago, where I decided I would take a completely different approach to science. But it started all with my intention that I would start all of a sudden to look at the science not as, you know, an objective in its own right, but as a tool to solve problems.

Because I was really very very very, much bothered having worked in both academia and in industry, I started thinking more and more about these two different worlds that both start with P, the world of the publications, that's what counts in academia, and the world of products, that's what counts in industry. And in between, everybody talks about translational medicine, but it's very, very rare, in fact, that we find solutions that we use the science to really solve problems. And of course my background is veterinary medicine that's very broad, that's very diversified. And I had a chance during my career to touch upon several different fields.

I specialized in virology, in vaccinology. I learned my vaccineology, in industry. That's also the place where I learned immunology. I was teaching zoonosis, so infectious diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans at the university. I have a longstanding interest in evolutionary biology, and all this has to do with interactions between the pathogen and the host. So the host immune system and understanding these interactions is very, very important. And then what's also very important is to understand the evolutionary capacity that a pathogen has when it is put under widespread immune pressure. That is something you don't have in clinical studies, for example, right? This is the population effect.

And so they simply illustrates that you have to be able to draw from all these several different fields. I was so fed up that we put many products in the... pipeline in industry without even understanding how they interact how they work exactly and I was so fed up in academia that all what counts is is publication we need to connect both because otherwise we are in a situation right now where we put out products without understanding what's going on without understanding the pandemic and and you know my point I'm 200% convinced that this is going to lead to to a catastrophe to a disaster

Geert, you worked for Gavi on the Ebola vaccine program. You've worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now, obviously, you didn't start out by deciding to put your career in jeopardy as a world-renowned, you know, vaccine maker, as a scientist, as a, you know, a professor. You must have reached out to your peers at the WHO, who I know you've worked with before, at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, at, you know, Gavi. How did you reach out and what was the response? Well, Del, I've reached out at least three times to, I would say, all the global health authorities, a number of public health authorities, CDC, NIH, the Bill Emelinda Gates Foundation, WHO, of course. And I got maybe one or two anonymous responses.

Maybe I said this in an earlier interview, and I'm not going to disclose his name, but it is certainly one, if not the most famous vaccinologist on this globe who told me, here's you are right, these vaccines are basically just going to breed variants, but nobody is going to listen to you because you go against the mainstream. Right. I mean, imagine, imagine. It is just, I have no words for this. I have no words for this. Were you surprised when you got no response? Is this the first time you've reached out with an issue? No, I was not surprised.

No. The Ebola story, I mean, it was the same, but it was a small scale. That is, was small, it was just, just the countries in West Africa. What was your job on the Ebola vaccine? No, I was coordinating the Ebola program, and part of this was the vaccines. It was not just. just the vaccines was also about a number of measures that needed to be taken, you know, to control more or less the Ebola crisis in collaboration of course and met with WHO and

UNICEF and CDC and strengthening health measures, etc. So it was a collaboration between all these international health authorities. But of course, since I came from the vaccine field, I was very much interested in the vaccines that would be deployed and that would be used. And what was that issue when it came to evaluating the effectiveness of the vaccine and the safety of the vaccine? Basically, it came down to the naive interpretation of those who conducted the study, that the incubation time of Ebola was, well, I don't remember exactly 10 or 12 days, and that therefore they would not need to start the clinical observations before so many days after the vaccination, after having identified the index case, and then you have the contacts

that were all vaccinated. The end point was vaccine efficacy after, you know, so many days after the vaccination. But the vaccine that was used was a live vector that everybody knows, and I come from the adjuvant field as well, is very, very strong in inducing inflammatory cytokines. If you study the pathogenesis of Ebola, you will find out that people die of a cytokine storm, of a huge inflammatory cytokine storm. So what do you think happens? if people who are incubating this because you identified the index case and then you were immediately vaccinating the contacts who potentially were already in the incubation phase and would have been the ideal controls.

So these people are already incubating a disease that leads to inflammatory cytokine storm. And then you come with a vaccine that is very. well known to stimulate pro-inflammatory cytokines. So these people, those who were infected and were vaccinated, they simply didn't make it till day 10 before they started the observation. Wait a minute. So let me get this straight. They basically said we know the incubation to be of Ebola to be about 10 days.

Therefore, when we find the index case, the person we know that's infected, they went and vaccinated everybody that had come in contact with them. Yeah, ring vaccination. Ring around the index case. But they said, let's not collect any data for the first 10 days because we know that if anything's going to happen inside the 10 days, it shouldn't count. And what you're saying is you gave an inflammatory vaccine

to people that were potentially incubating a highly inflammatory disease. That's what we know, the hemorrhaging, all the issues. You are then creating a perfect storm. These two things coming together. where obviously if someone had a hemorrhagic disease of huge cytokine and was also driven by the vaccine, those people are going to die. So did you ask to see any data of those that obviously there were potentially deaths happening there that weren't making it into the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of this product?

Did you reach out to the WHO to say, can I see the data before the 10 days? The question was very, very simple. We just wanted to have the case fatality rate over the whole period, as of day zero from the vaccination. Compared in the vaccinase versus the placebo, just from the very beginning, and just compare the case fatality rates. So what is the case fatality rate in the vaccinase versus the placebo? Right from start. I was working with Garvey and asked that question to WHO. We never got an answer because it was confidential. And then I remember I was on vacation and my boss sent me this paper in The Lancet which revealed that it was 100% efficacy.

I immediately knew that there was something wrong. But of course this was, so to say small scale, was only West Africa. But just to tell you that this is not the first time that I'm not a first time that I'm not I'm taking a deep dive in such things because I cannot stand it, that first of all the science is violated and that people who cannot, how can laymen, how can laymen understand the science? It's very, very complex, right? For me, it's not even about, you know, freedom or about conspiracy theories or even about, yeah, side effects. Okay, the side effects are important. but this is about a global health drama that affects every single individual.

Let me ask you a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer, but you've done a lot of different interviews. Explain to me in your understanding what would have happened had we basically really just done nothing. Had we no one ever screamed, there's a deadly brand new pathogen sweeping the planet. No vaccine product is raced on the market. What would have happened if we just sort of let things go naturally? Well, we would have had a pandemic, a natural pandemic,

and a natural pandemic that would have primarily or almost exclusively affected, I call them vulnerable people. You know these people. These are typically elderly people who have an immunosensis immune system and an aging immune system or people with underlying diseases or people who are otherwise immune suppressed. The only way to calm down a pandemic is to cut the transmission and that is only possible through herd immunity. So we would have had a couple of waves. Some people indeed would have died depending on what would have been the possibilities for treatment of these elderly people and

and also people who are immune suppressed. And then of course you have the young people, typically I'm saying this is not a childhood disease, who have a very strong innate immunity and basically are not affected at all. They at most develop asymptomatic infection, right? Asymptomatic infection. And then of course you have in between people

who would not have sufficient innate immunity to be protected against the disease, those people would have gotten the disease, would then recover and would then have built a long-lived, acquired immunity. So that is typically how pandemics occur. And within one year, the virus would not have been eradicated, but it would have been under control. Under control due to hurt immunity, to a large extent, due to the innate immunity that all youngsters and people in good health have. Okay, now I hear two terms that I think I, that many of

us have been interchanging perhaps inappropriately. I hear you saying naturally acquired immunity and innate immunity. And I think many of us are confused that there's a difference between the two. So what is, first of all, is there a difference between innate immunity and natural acquired immunity? Yes, yes. And what we call innate immunity very often, and I'm very often talking about innate antibodies, in contrast to the naturally acquired antibodies, the innate antibodies, these are pre-existing antibodies, antibodies that are already, so to say, pre-primed, that you have at birth already, not as a result of antigen experience, right? A newborn all of a sudden gets confronted with a number of pathogens, yeah, he or she, you know,

the newborn cannot have all these antibodies read because it has never seen these pathogens. So there is, this is providing them with a good start. The innate antibodies were found in every vertebrate species, also to tell you how important they are from an evolutionary viewpoint that they are in the inner vertebrate species, that you find them in all vertebrate species. So this is something that we have been completely neglecting, and these are basically the antibodies that protect all these young children and people in good health

from a disease that is therefore, that is therefore not a childhood disease, right? SARS-CoV-2. So the cells that generate those innate antibodies, we call them B-BOR. cells it is a particular type of B cells which is different from the B cells that generate the naturally acquired antibodies the naturally acquired antibodies or antigen specific first of all they do have they do have a high affinity for

that particular antigen and they are long-lived and they are typically acquired when we talk for example about SARS and yes and and other infection diseases they are typically acquired once you have gotten the disease and you recovered from the disease and they have high longevity so they are almost and even even if they disappear they generate immunological memory and because they generate immunological memory they can be recalled very very rapidly so that is also some misunderstanding many people are worried because their antibodies have disappeared in their blood

they should know that as soon as their body sees the antigen again or is re-exposed to the virus, that within no time, because there are memory cells, these memory cells will again start to produce these naturally acquired antibodies that then will protect them. So just prior to explaining the difference between the innate immunity and the naturally acquired immunity, you were talking about in a natural infection situation where we didn't have a vaccine had we just let this thing run its course. I want to just sort of summarize now, make sure I understand this correctly, that you would have had those people that would get the infection, usually the elderly that have comorbidities, they have other health issues that are bringing down their immune system, their ability to really fight properly. They're going to be at a high risk situation.

Some of them will potentially die. because they just won't handle the virus well. Then you have this other group, middle-aged people, you know, they can be different ages, but also that also represent sort of a different immune system strength and ability. Now, they're going to get the infection, become symptomatic, and in that process, their body will create these antibodies, the naturally acquired antibodies that have long-term memory. And that's really the immune, that's the only immunity we all really have ever talked.

about. For the most part, that's what we understand. My body sees this virus or a bacteria. It creates antibodies that are supposed if I have a natural immune system, it lasts forever. If they're induced by vaccines, maybe not quite forever, but for a long period of time is the goal of the vaccine. And then you reference the children as though they have a little bit of a different system. They have an innate immune system, as I understand it. And when they come in contact with the virus, they may not actually ever get to that place where they're body is making these naturally acquired antibodies because their innate immune antibodies are so strong and capable that they end up just attacking the virus very well and killing it before

there's a need to go in and I'm guessing all of that talk of asymptomatic that we've heard about those asymptomatic cases would have been those where their innate immune system reaction was so strong, they never went into a symptomatic reaction, which would have driven more of the production of those nationally acquired memory antibodies. Is that, am I getting that right? Yeah. Andell, that is why we call it the first line of immune defense. The innate. Right? The innate antibodies. What we are talking about, just like in the field of acquired immunity, as you just explained, You explained and you have naturally acquired antibodies. And as some people will know, you also have the cellular immunity, right?

Like T cells, for example, acquired immunity. Well, you have exactly the same compartments in the innate immune system. The innate immune system is, of course, more than all this, but you have, first of all, the antibodies, which we call the innate antibodies, and you have also the innate or the natural cellular, component which are the NK cells, for example, the natural killer cells. So it's not like you have no other components in these systems, but if we talk about the guys who are doing the job,

who are cleaning up stuff, either neutralizing the virus or killing virus-infected cells, we call about effectors, and that effectors could be antibodies or cells, of course, that cytolytic cells, also in K cells can kill, like T cells, can kill. Is cytotidetic means... That means kill, like the ability to kill. Scytotoxic, cytotidic, killer cells, it's all. Okay.

And so one of the confusions that's been happening is that not all antibodies and not all cells are cytolytic or cytotoxic. Some just bind. Some just do other things, but they don't actually kill the virus and sterilize it and get rid of it. Is that correct? Yeah. That is one thing.

The other thing, Del, that is also important. important to understand and I think it adds value to this discussion is that if you have antibodies and now I'm talking both whether these are naturally acquired antibodies or innate antibodies sometimes they are not strong enough to really do their job to neutralize for example the virus but they can still bind to the virus by doing that by doing that they facilitate the entry of that virus in antigen presenting cells that then cut the virus in bits and pieces so that the different pieces can be properly presented to the T cells, for example, or to the NK cells, right?

And that is how each of these compartments, the innate and the acquired, do have an antibody part, but also a cellular part, that both can either neutralize free-floating virus or virus that is inside the cell. That is what the killer cells do. The killer cells, they kill virus-infected cells, right? I see. I see what you're saying. So you have viruses that are just floating between the cells, still trying to get to the

cell, and then you have the viruses that are already in the cells. Those need different functions to neutralize. That makes perfect sense. Okay. And that is the difference between prevention of infection and prevention of disease. Once the virus is in the cell, I mean, it's already destroying the cell, right? That is what predisposes you to disease. So if you then have killer cells that can kill those virus-infected cells,

they will make sure you recover from the disease. Whereas if you have functional antibodies that can, that can readily neutralize the virus when it comes in, you can prevent the infection of the cell in the first place and you're not going to get a disease. So now we've talked about the natural immune system in a natural world with no vaccines involved, what would have happened?

You predict essentially somewhere around a year in, we would have seen a real just decline into a stasis, not necessarily having eradicated the virus from the planet, but have found a balance with it where we have enough immunity and enough people that keep it in check our immune systems that it really can't turn it you know it's stopping a pandemic what would have been a one year clear we're past one year we are still having issues with this virus that appear and we hear about variants and mutations

in these things what was it about the vaccine that appears to have elongated maybe or how does the vaccine change that experience or that outcome Well, as I mentioned right from the beginning, and I'm just going to repeat this because this is literally what I said at the very, very beginning and what will lead to the explanation to your question, never ever, never ever use vaccines that do not induce sterilizing immunity. So to your point, that cannot prevent infection, never ever use this type of vaccines to do mass vaccination, mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic. If you get infected normally, we're not talking about a pandemic, you get infected. There is a viral load, of course, due to the infection, right? and then almost after you have transmitted the virus, very often it's like this, the antibodies start to mount.

So the antibodies, the peak is reached after the bulk of the viral replication has already taken place. So that means these antibodies that you generate can no longer put this virus under pressure. It's already gone almost by the time this antibodies mount. If you are now vaccinating people during a pandemic, that means that the antibodies are mounting while they can be confronted with the virus. There you start to put immune pressure on the virus.

So these combinations of doing massively, putting massively, having a population that massively, because you do mass vaccination, put pressure on the virus, combined with vaccination programs that are conducted in the midst of a pandemic, this can only lead to natural selection of the fittest, and because many people are in a similar situation, this will be this variant that then can overcome the pressure, will, of course, be enriched in the population, and it will ultimately become the dominant variant. And you can see many studies have been on,

a study here from Canada where they introduced mass vaccination and in August they had 50% of the Delta variant circulating. One month later they had 100% was Delta. So we have never ever been saying that these more infectious variants were generated by the vaccines or by mass vaccination. No, they were already circulating. They existed already. But what mass vaccination is has done, it has within a short time frame generated an excellent breeding ground for these more infectious variants so that now their propagation has exploded as a result of the mass vaccination. I have an analogy for this. I've been thinking about a lot. I want to run it by you. Let's say in terms of sort of the vaccine, like this idea of, you know, it's not that it's mutating.

It's not like it's like growing arms and legs and things like that, is that you're just selecting a variant that's already there, but it wasn't the popular one. It wasn't the dominant variant. The dominant was the more mild form of the illness. So in my analogy, imagine you're a scuba diver, and you're going swimming, and you're swimming in the ocean, and there's killer whales in the ocean.

Now, the killer whales, we know, rarely attack human beings, but on a rare occasion, they've been known to be hungry and decide to attack a human being. There's also sharks in the ocean. Sharks, we know, love to attack human beings and do it all the time. They're much more dangerous to human beings. But killer whales out-dampete sharks in the situation with killer whales, they can eat a shark, so you don't usually find sharks and killer whales in the same water.

But if the swimmer, the scuba diver, decides I'm afraid of the killer whales and that rare risk that I could be killed by them, so the swimmer kills the killer whales, wipes them out, what you do is you take away that environment where they're out competing the sharks. Now the sharks come in because there's no killer whales around and now the sharks become dangerous to the scuba diver, much, much more dangerous. They're the more dangerous variant. Now all we have left is sharks and now all of us are in danger getting to the water. Is that sort of?

Yeah, the analogy would even be better if you, if one would say the scuba diver is using using a weapon that can only kill, you know, the killer wills. Okay. So the weapon, the immune system, so it doesn't work for the sharks. Got it. It only works for the killer will. So he's firing with a weapon under the water, but that weapon doesn't work for the sharks. It only works for the killer whales.

And that weapon is the immune system, of course. The sharks can resist. The killer wills cannot resist, right? Yeah. And so your concern is that the more we vaccinate, the more we're wiping out a virus, our bodies could really handle fairly easily, except for a small few, and now selecting for a much more dangerous virus. And this process keeps going. Now, I want to play a clip by a guy named Z-Dog does an internet talk show, and he interviewed a very famous, doctor here, Dr. Paul Offen, I guess he's a biologist. He's invented vaccines or made vaccines. I'm not sure if you've ever come in contact with Paul Offen. No, he's very well known because he wrote to this. He's one of the editors of the most famous vaccine book together with St. Plotkin and Walt Ornstein.

Right. Yeah, you cannot know him. Okay. So he's a big deal. So, I mean, this would be an equal peer. He's asked about your theory on pressuring the virus and making it deadly and this whole thing that you've been very worried about. This is what he had to say in this interview. There's a guy, Gert von Dembosha. Have you heard about this guy?

Yeah. So apparently a virologist in Europe has his premise, and you can maybe explain it better than me, is that, oh, you know, by vaccinating during a pandemic, we're putting pressure. on the virus to emerge vaccine escape variants and that we've primed our immune system, therefore follow-up vaccines won't be very effective. Something along those lines to paraphrase. Am I paraphrasing that right? And what do you think about this? Because it has a grip on the public, this idea. I just, with what evidence? I mean, you have, for example, what can I say? So you have measles, for example. We've had a measles vaccine since the early 1960s. Measles is like, like this virus, a single-stranded RNA virus, measles like this virus does mutate. Nonetheless,

despite 60 years of measles vaccine, we have not seen strains generated that resist immunity from vaccination. I mean, flu is different. Flu mutates on a daily basis. I mean, that virus is a moving target. This virus also mutates, but much slower than, say, influenza does. We'll see. I mean, it's like, I mean, the notion that we're, that, you know, you're creating a, you're, you've created a population, either from natural infection and immunization that is likely to have several years of protection. That's a good thing. And although this virus may mutate to the point that it escapes recognition by current immunity from vaccination or immunization, then you come up with a second generation vaccine. That's what you do. I don't think that's going to happen, actually. I think that the virus is, there's probably been already about 12,000. mutations on this virus already. I mean, it's, and I think you, you may get to the point if they're resisting all immunity, or meaning, meaning that you're, it's as if you never got a vaccine, you've never got naturally affected. I think that's probably a lethal mutation. Yeah. So in other words, you're kind of running the runway out on the virus's ability to change

itself. Relethal to the virus, not lethal to us. That's right. Lethal to the virus, right. And so within that parameter, then I think, again, it's another compelling reason to just go and get vaccinated now. So he says you're wrong. He, as we just heard, said that, that just like measles, this is a, you know, single strand virus, that we will achieve immunity the same way we did with measles. He says the flu is obviously does have more, like it mutates faster every day, he said, but coronavirus not as fast. I find it sort of ironic. At the end, he says it's already, you know, mutated 12,000 times, or there's 12,000 variants or something, at least to a lay person, that sounds like a lot, but I don't know. But what about it? I mean, in the end, he says,

you're going to have immunity for several years, and should there be another variant, all we'll have to do is make a new vaccine to deal with that variant, and we're good to go. Why is, why, I mean, that seems to be the thinking of almost every, you know, scientists working for governments around the world. Why do you, where do you differ with that perspective? Well, I mean, the conditions, remember the sentence that I just repeated, which was really my concern and which was already in my first, the first call that I made, conditions are not fulfilled.

Have you ever seen mass vaccination? vaccination across all age groups against measles? No, not that I know because what I think about measles. We vaccinate children. We vaccinate children against measles. And why do we do this? Because measles is a childhood disease. And basically, remember, remember about the innate antibodies.

If the infectious pressure, you probably know that measles is very, very infectious. It's amongst one of the infectious viruses we know. So it breaks immediately through the innate immunity. So if you don't come with a vaccine, you cannot stop this thing. Second, what I also said is never ever vaccinate with vaccines that do not block transmission during a pandemic of a highly mutable virus. I mean, measles is not a high. highly mutable virus, can be an RNA virus, but it's not a highly mutable virus.

Influenza is. And I bet you, if you would do exactly the same with influenza, so conditions need to be fulfilled, you have a pandemic, you start to do mass, mass vaccination, with vaccines that cannot block transmission, you will end up with exactly the same situation. So people are comparing things that are not just comparable. I hear people saying all the time, why don't we have this with flu, et cetera, et cetera. We have heard immunity with flu. And so from time to time, immunity weakens and then you have a breakthrough. But guess what?

I mean, as soon as the flu starts to spread, it encounters either young people who have very good innate immunity, who will block the virus and who will even eliminate the virus, or you have people who have previously been ill and have mounted long-lived antibodies against the flu that or even that even have broad spectrum very often, right? So this is a completely, a completely different situation. We have never been doing mass vaccination of measles. I mean, across all age groups. Okay, so you're saying that essentially measles, we never,

and this is shocking, I think, to a lot of people, because we don't really think about this. And I've watched you speak so many times that it's now sinking in that measles, as an example, had already gone through a very big spike. It was very deadly early on, right? And it was already sort of our natural immune systems had brought it down. The death rate was way, way down by, I think, 1960 in America, one in 500,000 people in America died of the measles every year.

So very, very low death rate. I think that of the infected, it was something like one in 10,000, if I'm right, or something like that, of people that caught it. Now, then we started the vaccine program. We started the vaccine after really all the elderly, all of our parents, all of the, you know, even the youth, had already had immunity. So all you needed to do was to vaccinate the new entries, the children, before they got it. And they said, look, it works. We have herd immunity. But they were really relying on that nationally acquired herd immunity that was being cared by the entire planet prior to vaccination, correct?

Exactly. So you vaccinate in such a situation. The rule is very simple. You only vaccinate to vulnerable people. So in some cases, the vulnerable people are the children. In other cases, like SARS-CoV-2, the vulnerable people are rather the elderly. So in other words, the answer to your question is, I do not rule a. out than if in case we would have done this, as you were just explaining, with measles,

really mass vaccination across all age groups, when measles came in as a new virus, that we might have seen the same problem occurring. You understand what I'm explaining. Yes, I understand that. Now, my last question on the measles comparison by Paul Offutt, you said that this vaccine we're using for Saurus COV2 is only prophylactic. It really only protects the person from severe disease. It does not neutralize the virus. Does the measles vaccine neutralize measles or is it similar in that it only reduces symptoms? Well, it will, the measles vaccine, because this is of course the other, the other difference. We have not even been been talking about this. People talk about vaccines as if they were all based on the same principle. Right.

We need to distinguish between live vaccines and subunit or killed or whatever. But live vaccines, that is, of course, very, very important because what will happen with a live vaccine is that you will have also strong stimulation of your innate immunity that can induce indeed sterilizing, sterilizing immunity, right? So innate immunity can be, can indeed be. be sterilizing. But that does not mean that you will eradicate measles, for example. Same, same, we had the same with polio. Remember, polio was a life-attinuated vaccine. Did we eradicate polio? We didn't. We came close to it, but we didn't.

Because you can still have transmission by asymptomatic people, for example. So you will control it much more easily. Why? Why will you control it much more easily with a live vaccine because you will have a lot of innate immune stimulation that sterilizes. We were just talking about innate immunity, how effective it is. Because in contrast right now with the vaccines and with the antibodies that cannot control the infection and the transmission, innate immunity can. That is why this innate immunity is so super efficient. So if you now have a virus, a live virus that can do this, it will be much more efficient.

Okay, so in Paul Offutt's comparison, he's really, these are really apples and oranges. You have what we believe to be a, you know, a highly mutable disease in the SARS-CoV-2 and a less mutable disease in measles. At least we believe. We won't know because we're looking at two totally different environments, one very pressure, one-not. But that's the general assumption. And the vaccine is different. A live vaccine.

A live vaccine that induces a stronger. innate immune response, which really does, you know, neutralize this virus, maybe not eliminate completely, but it does a much better job than the vaccine that we're talking about now for SARS-CoV-2, correct? And so those two things. Now, no, no, three things. And we didn't do mass vaccination. We didn't do mass vaccination for the measles. It's a very important one, because that is where the immune pressure comes from. Okay. Now, the last part of this, though, is Paul Office says it doesn't matter if you're right, geared, it doesn't matter because even if we have selected for a variant

and at some point that variant ends up becoming the dominant strain, at that point we'll just make a new vaccine that handles that variant and end of the problem. Why is that an issue? Because that seems to be what the FDA and everybody are sort of counting on. You're seeing studies, they're talking about, well, this Delta is getting problematic. We may need a new vaccine in the future. Why are you worried that that's not going to happen?

That's clearly what's going to happen. So why won't that save us? Well, what Paul Offit is alluding to is the influenza strategy. And again, I'm always repeating my only sentence, my only call, do not vaccinate with non-sterellizing vaccines during a pandemic. You know, I mean, I'm always giving the example. you are loading your gun while you are already on the battlefield, while you get already attacked, right?

If you do this, before you get attacked, there is no problem. That's what I was saying, normally when you get infected, a natural infection, virus comes in to this transmission, and it's only afterwards that the antibodies speak. So the antibodies cannot really put this virus under pressure. But if you now vaccinate, And you vaccinate these people. I mean, you don't give them quarantine until they have full-fledged antibodies.

You don't tell them stay at home for at least six weeks because you need your first shot, you need your second shot, and it's all going to take at least six weeks till you have full-fledged antibodies. These people go out and the next day or the next week they can get attacked by the virus. Why, first of all, it's a pandemic. Second, we are now dealing with a new pandemic. This is a pandemic of highly infectious variant. This is a pandemic of the Delta variant, right? So it's a completely different.

Again, again, the conditions are not fulfilled comparing apples with oranges or whatever. Let me, and I have another, I mean, just because I try to help my audience and I think simply, but when you're talking about the antibodies is needing that time to develop. I imagine a war.

If we're in the middle of a war, the best way to handle a war is you send your cadets through basic training. They get boot camp. They get fully trained. They get all their gun training. They're working out. And then they're strong soldiers.

So that the moment that they, we send them off to attack, they're the best capability of winning that war. But if in the middle of the war, the war, we decide, you know what? We don't have time or for whatever reason, we just skip. Or in the middle of boot camp, we just send these children that haven't worked out. They barely know how to work their gun. Now they're in the middle of the

fight. They're coming in the enemy. That enemy is just going to overrun them and come plowing through and wreak havoc and win that war. Is that sort of a, you know, when you talk about it. Yeah, of course. Okay. When it comes to fighting pathogens by the immune system, we always compare this to war situations or soldiers. It's an analogy that works out pretty well. You'd like to see a stop this mass vaccination because it's causing the pressure you're talking about. And Paul Offutt's approach with mass vaccination is going to create a variant that each time we then vaccinate, we're going to create a more and more infectious and potentially create a problem.

Is the fear that one day there'll be a pathogen that we just can't, there's no vaccine can stop it? Is that basically the concern? When I read peer review journals from molecular biologist, molecular epidemiologists, right? Right. I mean, they are simply predicting this. And I cannot understand. It's like, I'm telling these things, but if you don't mind, I can simply, you know,

citations, peer review journal by, you know, this is like Harvard Medical School, the Donna Farber Cancer Institute, MIT, etc. Right? And there are statements like, and this is published early. But this year, when neutralizing antibodies are broadly present in the population, broadly present in the population is when you do, for example, mass vaccination, population level selection for antibody evading infection-competent viral mutants may result in rapid resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

So that is one thing that we see right now, the resurgence of the infections, right? I mean, this is a very strange situation where we all of a sudden, see in all these countries where we have this mass vaccination, we see an increase in infectivity. But to your point to the resistance. So what this paper says as well is evidence from multiple experimental studies suggest that specific single mutants may be able to evade spike targeting vaccine immunity in many individuals

and rapidly lead to the spread of vaccine resistant COVID-2. One variant that can escape convalescent plasma neutralization is already in South Africa, this was beginning of this year, and could experience greater positive selection pressure once vaccines are deployed widely. Finally, the overall size of the pandemic, in terms of number of active infections will play a significant role in whether the virus can be brought under control with vaccines. The speed at which neutralizing antibody resistance develops in the population increases substantially

as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, for example, antiviral prophylopor prophylaxies and that do not exert a specific selection pressure on the virus are key to reducing the risk of immune escape. In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity and therefore continue to permit transmission will lead to the build-up of large standing populations of virus greatly increasing the risk of immune escape. And I mean there are other publications I don't want to take too much of your time where it is very very clear I'm not the only one I'm probably the only one who dares to speak out but

I mean this world-class molecular epidemiologists are very very well aware and have been warning at the beginning of this year I must read this one that the emergent and the rapid rise in prevalence and this was of the alpha-beta gamma has prompted renewed concerns about the evolutionary capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to adapt to both the rising population immunity and public health intervention, such as vaccines and social distancing. As a consequence, the epidemiological and immunological properties will likely complicate the control of COVID-19. So, I mean, this is not new. People know, people have seen already that before we even started the mass vaccination, the virus was already under tremendous pressure,

most likely because of high infectious pressure in areas that were very densely populated, like in South Africa, the Mandela Bay or in Brazil, in the favelas, etc. and because of that there was a high local immune pressure, but this pressure was directed against the spike protein. And it has already shown, they have shown that the many mutations in the S protein were really driven by immune selection pressure exerted by the population. Now guess what?

We are now coming with a vaccine, the target of which, is the spike protein and the spike protein is the target of the infectiousness. So now if I'm saying I'm exerting immune pressure on top of the pressure that got existed already before the mass vaccination, I'm exerting pressure on the effectiveness of the virus because that is what S is doing, making the virus infectious. So then if that is the case, I would expect an explosion of more infectious virus. And that is exactly what we are seeing. Why doesn't Paul Offett, if you say everyone knows this, if you're in immunology, you should know this. Why doesn't Paul Offit know this?

I don't know. Sometimes, sometimes, I mean, this is my personal opinion. I'm not saying that this is the case. Sometimes I'm under the impression that the establishment, you have always an establishment. You have this in vaccinology, in immunology, in all branches, in all disciplines. that the establishment thinks, well, you know, we have made it. I've made my reputation, my name, my career, and just based on my knowledge, I'm going to draw conclusions. If you are tackling a very complex problem like a pandemic and you intervene with infection prevention and with vaccines,

and you think you can afford yourself to leave stones unturned. I mean then for sure this is a recipe to make big, big mistakes. So, with all my respect for these people and what they have been doing, but even world-renowned professors are making right now big, big, big mistakes because they are not doing their homework or because they cannot draw from all these different fields, and immunology, and they can't draw from all these different fields, and virology and vaccinology and

Vaccinology and evolutionary biology etc. And if you don't do this, if there is one field that is missing because you think you are a virologist and not an immunologist and you think I can explain this from the viewpoint of virology, then you have no right to speak. You have to familiarize yourself with those disciplines if you want to say your word in the analysis of the pandemic and certainly, certainly how to tackle it.

Okay. I want to get into, you know, where I was setting this up is you're in two camps. It's clear you've laid out a very clear issue with mass vaccination and the pressure of it. But there are people on, you know, that watch my show that reach out and say, he's saying that natural immunity is flawed too. That there's a failure in natural immunity because you, you know, that there's, you know, that, the innate immune system has these sort of temporary or short-lived antibodies that just like the vaccine induces specific antibodies that get in the way of the innate immune system's fight. I've heard you say that there are people who have already come in contact with the virus have had their innate immune response that are getting reinfected. You're saying that's happening with the kids now that we're seeing, even though, and I want to.

want to say this, even though on my show, I'm presenting all sorts of science coming out of Israel that shows that there's long-lived, robust protection from natural immunity. It is far better than the vaccinated immunity. Every study is showing us that. Studies out of Israel show that the, I think the reinfection rate is less than 1%. Yet you've been pretty vocal about your concern about reinfection. So what are you saying that's different? than what we're seeing in these studies in Israel saying that it's less than 1% virtually virtually non-existent, this reinfection problem. Are they the same problem? Explain it to me.

If that would have been the understanding of your audience, I absolutely need to correct is I'm certainly not at all against naturally acquired immunity. But there is two things. First of all, the reason why many people get re-infected, so to say, so to say, is because after asymptomatic infection, you develop short-lived antibodies. Remember, this was, do you remember the story in Manos in Brazil, where they got a huge wave at the beginning of the pandemic,

and then they started measuring antibodies. And they said, we have heard immunity. Almost everyone was positive. Guess what? A few months thereafter, they had the second huge wave, right? But the problem is that many people must have developed simply asymptomatic infection. Of course, their antibodies will last for about six to eight weeks. But those who had really gotten the disease and acquired the long-standing antigen-specific,

the long-lived antigen-specific antibodies, they were, of course, protected. I want to be clear. You're really differentiating between an asymptomatic infection and a simple, infection. Once we're into a symptomatic infection, that cues us that you've now getting that B-cell created antibody, memory antibodies that will remember that experience and fight the virus should you come in contact in the future. That's, so once we're symptomatic, we're having a much stronger reaction and we develop long-lived antibodies that have memory. Whereas you're saying if you're asymptomatic, your innate immune system did such a

good job that you have these antibodies that don't have memory and they're short-lived. They only last for six to eight weeks to do their job and then they're out of there and they're gone. So what you're differentiating between is an asymptomatic and a symptomatic infection. Very different in how our immune systems deal with it. As asymptomatic infection, you only see the antigen a few days, right? The virus is rapidly eliminated. So your immune system is not really primed. It has seen it. There is some activation. They have a little. They have not be long-lasting, no memory, etc., etc. So the immune system had seen it, but then it wanes very rapidly. Now it's interesting when I was looking at this geared because at first

when I heard you say this several times, it seemed like a flaw in the immune system, that it makes these short-lived antibodies, but it occurred to me whether or not you believe in God or perhaps just in evolution. You can come to the same realization that it appears to me that there's something brilliant about this innate immune system that it is so short-lived because maybe, maybe I'm just going to run this body, this is just me sort of thinking it through, perhaps with something like measles where you just, the innate immune response is never strong enough. It's always going to roll over into that more robust, long-lived immunity because it's not highly mutable. And that makes sense that if we want to survive, I only need to catch that

once. And so I want to have a specific response. I want to have a specific antibodies built that will always recognize measles because it's not going to change that much. And that will last me my whole life. But when it comes to upper respiratory illnesses that we've had a real difficulty making vaccines for, the major reason is they are mutable. They change a lot. And so whereas you would want long-term immunity for a virus that's stable and going to stay the same, you don't want a long-term immunity for a virus that's changing all the time and producing variants because at some point it's not going to recognize it and now having those specific antibodies is going to be a problem for you because you won't recognize the virus coming in and then are really vulnerable.

So our immune system has this brilliant function where in viruses, especially upper respiratory, that mutate very quickly, it only wants a quick reaction. It grabs on. We have NK killer cells hit it. our innate immune antibodies hit it. And then there's these, you know, to mop it up, these short-lived antibodies. And it's great because they clear out of the way and they're gone. And it's like the whole thing never happened.

And so in many ways, that innate response is the best response. And so my question would be now, as we look at the environment that we're seeing for the natural immunity versus innate immunity versus vaccinated immunity, we understand, I think, all the problems with vaccination immunity. It doesn't stop the infection. It doesn't stop the transmission. It doesn't neutralize the virus. And therefore, just creates pressure and allowing it to be a breeding ground. And so in some circumstances, as this vaccine is pressuring and we've created this unnatural world,

we really want as many people to not have come in contact with this, right? Or to have least been asymptomatic, so they still have this innate immunity in place. and not naturally acquired. Are we in a situation where there may be a preference just as a scientist looking at this bigger picture that the innate immunity may be the more important immunity right now compared to the naturally acquired immunity for these reasons?

Yeah, well certainly for certainly for this type of disease, because as I was saying, it's not a childhood disease. And typically the innate immunity is more than sufficient. And in fact, the acquired immunity, as you were saying, is only very important if you have a situation where the innate immunity is not really sufficient. I wanted to make a small correction to what you say. The vaccinal antibodies, they can also, of course,

and neutralize. The problem is that the neutralizing capacity is of course not so good because the vaccine that we are using is pretty different, the S protein, from the S protein in the circulating strain. The big advantage of the natural infection, you get immediately the update. You get infected by the most relevant variant that is circulating. So you get immediately that update. And secondarily, it primes in a much more efficient way so that the diversity of variants that it will recognize, that your immune response will recognize, is larger than the one that got induced by the vaccines. So that are the two major advantages, right? Okay.

I don't want to make things complicated, but it is somewhere a kind of innate response that is between the purely preexisting that has no memory. broadly protective and cross protective and the one that is the acquired that is very specific and has memory you have something in between and all this is documented these are kind of like innate antibodies that have already some kind of maturation not really memory that are a little bit more narrow in what they recognize and these people who keep in good shape etc they do have this kind of innate trained, trained immunity. And you will see, and I tell you, and everybody can write this down,

the immunity will become of the unvaccinated will become better and better, thanks to training, they are continuously confronted with the virus. And so what you will see, and you can already see this in the graphs that are published by the Public Health England, in the vaccinase, the efficacy, or the numbers, the numbers, the number of the infected and disease people remains more or less the same. But what you see is that in the non-vaccinated, the number of infected people becomes lower and lower. And because the infection diminishes, because what I'm saying,

innate immunity, whether it is strained or pre-existing, is sterilizing immunity. So because it gets strained, you get less and fewer and fewer infections in the unvaccinated. If you get fewer and fewer infectious, you get, of course, fewer and fewer disease cases. And you see the number of disease cases in your unvaccinated going down. And what will happen is that, and that of course also applies to children. What you will see with the children is that even though we continue the mass vaccination, you will see that their trained immunity, their innate immunity is going to be more and more better and better trained.

So guess what? These experts who don't understand anything about the evolutionary dynamics of the pandemics are saying, yes, we have low cases, disease cases for the kids, but we need to vaccinate them because, look, we have a tremendous impact on transmission, right? Of course, as these young people get the innate immunity more and more trained, these antibodies now can be less well out-competed by the short-lived antibodies and you simply go to the publication of Public Health England. You can see, Del, on the left panel, the vaccine is or the black columns. And the non-vaccinated are the grey columns. Great. Okay, the first three columns, it's under 39.

You see an effect of the vaccine on infection, Del. Okay? Yep. The vaccinese, there are fewer vaccinase infected than non-vaccinated. Right. People under the age of 30 or 40 even, the vaccine has a dramatic effect on the reduction of transmission.

Then I would say, wait a minute. If I'm going to wait for like one month, then these people, their innate immunity, must have gotten trained a lot better because the virus is circulating all the time. And then you look at the graph at the right panel. What happened? So now in the age group 30 to 39, it's already the unvaccinated that got less infected.

And in the other group, 18 to 29 is more or less the same. There is a little still advantage of the vaccine is. And still in those who are very unexperienced, in terms of antigen encounter and maturation of their innate immune system. So the youngest children, there is still a major advantage of being vaccinated. But I tell you, if you're going to look at this column under the age of 18, you will see in one or two months from now that also there it will dramatically decrease and it will maybe even be at the favor or at the advantage of the unvaccinated

because even those young children or young people will now get trained more and more and will be capable thanks to their trained innate immunity to have sterilizing immunity and eliminate the virus. If we are now going to vaccinate these people, what we are going to do is that we will take away this capacity of sterilizing immunity. Then we leave a population that nobody can sterilize it. Yeah, we can completely forget about herd immunity.

Can you imagine what this means if you are now going to suppress this innate immunity on a permanent basis? Because that is exactly what you will do if you immunize them, if you prime them, right? Secondly, they are a breathing ground for the most of the most of the most of the most of the most of you are, you will do, if you immunize them, right? Secondly, they are a breathing ground for the most of the most, most more infectious. So this is just going to speed up, to speed up the resistance. And third, when the resistance comes, I mean, these people will have their innate antibodies completely suppressed and their acquired antibodies through vaccination are completely worthless. Can you imagine what that means for individual health and for a population health? This is just going to be a

major disaster. And Del, nobody can explain this. I'm explaining you what is happening there. And, you know, nobody cares. Nobody interprets this. This is just, you know, for me, this is unbelievable, unbelievable. Well, this is probably, when we watched this FDA meeting, to me, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist or even a virologist to say, that just seems very simplistic and perhaps stupid when I think this comment was the one that really went wild on social media and I think really ends up being the grounds for why the FDA appears to have you know agreed to authorize the use of this vaccine and children take a look at this we're never going to learn about how safe vaccine is unless we start giving it you know that's just the way it goes

there it is we're never going to learn what the vaccine does till we start giving it to all the kids Del, let me put it that way. You can talk about many, many things you can talk about, of course, all the side effects, and that is important. I'm not saying that is not important. And that is, so to say, the safety, already the fact that they are saying, yeah, well, you know, we use human beings and even children as, you know, experimental animals, but basically to see...

But one thing that we do know, and the safety impact, because he's talking about, safety the safety impact will be tremendous and will be of an order of magnitude that is not even comparable to the side effects we are talking about is driving this virus into resistance depriving the children from both their innate immunity and their vaccinal protection and preventing in an irrevocable way the population from ever generating herd immunity. So what we are going to do is instead of the population exerting selection pressure on the virus, we are going to allow this virus to exert selection pressure on innate immunity of the host. So that means only people

who will still have their innate immunity intact have a chance have a chance to survive. What is the worst case scenario if you sort of game this out? What type of damage in numbers on a population level are we talking about? Because you've seen very stressed in the videos that I've seen. I can tell right now you're very passionate about this. What is sort of your worst case scenario concern? I cannot talk about figures, but what is clear?

clear is that the order of magnitude will be something completely completely unprecedented because again what I'm saying is and this is the logic of the science what we will obtain if we do this if we continue the mass vaccination we continue the boost we don't do anything about the infectious pressure we immunize all the children I mean if that is not going to be a catastrophe you can put me in jail I'm very serious I about this. Is there any expert who would dare to say this? If I'm wrong with the vaccination of the children, you can put me in jail? Nobody. I do this because I'm convinced I've done my homework.

I've turned this thing upside down from all sides. It is like pieces of a puzzle of a very complex puzzle that can only match in one single way. If it scientifically makes sense and then you see all the data. And you know, the data, you know, the data, go exactly none of my predictions of course I cannot say January or February or when is this going to explode in Israel I know it's going to explode I know it's going to be very fast I think before the end of the year even but I don't know for sure but this is really we are giving the virus an opportunity to do a natural selection amongst the human race those who have innate immunity versus those

who have none right non left because of of what I explained. I know this is very strong. You know me in the meantime. I'm not into sensation. I'm not into day. But you know, I mean, it cannot be, it cannot be that we vaccinate the children.

It's impossible. That is our last hope. It's our last hope. Well, Geert, we have put a lot of time in here and it has been very enlightening. And I really feel that I have a great understanding now of your concern. It seems like a very well thought out concern.

You've backed it up with evidence, which we've shown here today. And so to me, you appear genuine. The question will be, I suppose, you know, is Garrett right? Are his theory is correct? And I think we're in an unfortunate position where we're either going, we're going to have to choose a side. We're either going to have to choose a Paul Opit or are we going to listen to Gert Van Bosh.

and I would say under those circumstances that it's an easy decision for me. There is no risk to our children. We already know in the FDA meetings they're concerned about, you know, myocarditis and periocarditis issues that we know are problems with the children. Right there, there's a risk already. But I do think when you speak of it, that risk would pale in its impact on our children and perhaps on our species, if what you're concerned about ends up coming to fruition because of, as you've described it, a colossal mistake in science that could lead to a tsunami

of morbidity and mortality. And so, Geert, I want to say that whether or not you've nailed every part of this, you've clearly thought about all of it, I will say that I don't see the risk in listening to you right now. great risk in not listening because should you have that moment of I told you so when I hear the passion in your voice I'm horrified at what this world looks like the moment all that is left is your I told you so. Hmm. Yeah and thanks to you, Adele for you know giving me the opportunity to speak on platform and frankly speaking my biggest anger is indeed the refusal for discussion and an open

debate that is I'm I'm beyond angry because this is where we could have clarified in the meantime it's it has gone process so far progressed that far that it seems to me like this is something we can completely forget about a dialogue an open scientific dialogue even open to the public. I don't know what the courts will do because there you have case against case. And as I told you, if you have, you take a snapshot here and you take a snapshot there,

you know, who's going to win? And so my choice has been to do at least an effort, to explain as good as we can, and with help of some people who can make the message easier to understand, to reach out to the people themselves, because at the end of the day, they are the ones who are really concerned, very much concerned by this. It's their health, it's the health of their children,

and they need to make decisions, or sometimes even worse, to make decisions, that they have no clue what the impact is going to be, not only at the short term, but also at the longer term. So to the extent that you can help us reach these people, I'm really very, very grateful to you and your team. Thanks. Well, what you have just taken part in by spending this time with this on the high wire, I think is essentially a master class in a virology, immunology,

and the idea of a mass vaccination program in the face of a pandemic, something that apparently no one working at the FDA, the CDC, the WHO have ever considered. I recognize that we are really deep in here. And for some of us, it may sound repetitive. but if you go back and watch it, as I've had to do, I want to be clear with you. This did not just sink in in one sitting with here at Vandenbosch. I had to hear many of these things over and over again, which we use graphs to try and help you along. But I would definitely recommend going back and trying to really take time with this to let it settle in.

If you understand what he is talking about, so much of what we are seeing in the world starts to make a lot more sense. When we're seeing these headlines coming out of Austria, coming out of Israel, coming out of Ireland, So much of this was predicted by Geert Bend and Bosch. Now, to make this impossible, I want to thank the Oracle film team that managed to figure out a way to get from England up into Belgium to shoot Geert Van and Bosch and set up this incredible interview that we were able to do. I want to thank all of you in our audience that are donating and supporting the Highwire so that we can bring you these fairly extravagant events and bring together some of you. of the great scientists from around the world in a way that you just saw it, that you will not find anywhere else. If it was not a Zoom call, there's not just two squares in a box.

We really wanted to make sure that you had a package, this master class that first you could understand it, and then hopefully we'll decide to share this with everyone you know. As we sit here, I want to say this, that, again, I'm just a journalist. The only thing that we can do is try to find, you know, the best scientists and the best scientists, the world speaking on a topic. Is it possible that Gert van den Bosch is wrong, that the outcome will not be as dire as he is predicting that it might be? Of course, all science must recognize the science has never settled. I've said it over and over and over again. But there is an arrogance taking place in the science on the other side that believes we're just going,

it doesn't matter that the first two shots didn't work. A third shot will probably do it, and maybe a fourth or a fifth. Not considering this. pressure that you keep wiping out the viruses that were easy to handle selecting for a more and more dangerous variant. They are not stopping what they're doing and they're not listening or having a conversation with Gerrit Van and Bosch. They're not admitting to us that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity. In fact, they're hiding that from us. And now we find out that all the details that world-renowned scientists need to look at from the trials at Pfizer are being hidden and hopefully if the FDA gets its way for 55 freaking years, we can no longer

trust the health agencies of the United States of America. We can no longer just sit back and think, you know what, they've got it covered. I want to get on with the rest of my day. It is unfortunate that we all have to sit here together and take a master class in biology. I'm telling you, when I was in the middle of this working with gear, I thought, oh my God, I'm in biology, hell here. This was not my number one topic in school, I assure you. But my passion for understanding what was happening in my world has led me to this point. And now we must all get passionate about it.

So here is why I am so serious and why I am sticking with Geert Van and Bosch, with all the scientists we've interviewed, and why I think it's so important that you share this video. I said it at the end there in the interview, that what do we have to lose by sharing his story? If he ends up being wrong, all we did was not vaccinated our kids that never needed the damn vaccine anyway. In fact, we only know that it causes injury. We prove that in so many other shows.

So that's the big loss if we get this wrong. On the other hand, if he's right and we vaccinate our children and we let our relatives and our sisters and our brothers and all of our extended friendships, vaccinate their kids because we just didn't want to have that uncomfortable conversation, we could be looking at a situation that we don't get to sit back and just say, oh, well, look what happened to them. It's all of us. We are talking about a partial extinction event, watching large parts of our species disappear.

And then what are we going to do with all those bodies? What does this look like? I get it. None of us have been through, you know, any sort of, those of us living in America and most of the world now haven't been through some sort of world war where we saw catastrophe and disease and dying all around us. We don't even know what this looks like.

So do we just compartmentalize it and send it off? Because, well, it sounds like a science fiction movie. Therefore, I'm going to treat it just like the science fiction movie. I saw it at the movie theater. Go home and forget about it. Here's what I know. I know that eight months ago, Gert Van & Bosch expressed many of his concerns.

Back when the alpha variant was the dominant strain, a variant that was killing very few people, only those that had multiple comorbidities over the age of, say, 70 or 80 years old. And he said, if you don't listen to me, how you'll know I'm right, and it's heading the direction I'm talking about, is you will see a variant you cannot stop. And lo of behold, came the delta variant. He said the vaccine is going to fail to stop infection. It's going to fail to stop transmission.

In fact, almost every headline we've delivered to you on the high wire over the last six months have been laying out exactly what Geert Bannon Bosch said was going to happen. So did he only get it all right up until now? the only thing that's wrong is his ending to this story, I pray that that is the case. But do our prayers mean that we just sit back and let whatever's going to happen, happen and hope God takes care of us, or Paul Offit, ends up coming up with another vaccine, and he's right that somehow the virus just kills itself since we didn't do it? I don't want to wait for that. I want you, those that are watching the highway, that feel the people,

passion with which, Geert van and Bosch, that understood enough of that interview to say, you know what? There is something about what he is saying that is ringing so true. And as terrifying as it may be, he is saying we can do something about it. Now, the part we didn't really get into in the depth of that interview is all he is saying is we need to release the pressure on this virus immediately. We need to stop the mass vaccination campaign, leave the children alone, let their innate immune systems continue to just beat this thing. every time they come in contact with it.

And instead of vaccines, start using the drugs that are available. He didn't name any, but we know what they are. We have treatments. And by using treatments, even some of the prophylactic treatments and drugs, they don't create the immune pressure that vaccines do. Let's stop letting people tell us that Ivermectin doesn't work and hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and forget about vitamin D

and Quercetin and all these other things. All of those are measures that are going to slowly bring down pressure while protecting those that are using it. Sure, there will be those that get infected and will give them treatments when they do. But all of that releases the pressure so the virus goes back to a natural state that doesn't become more and more and more and more infectious. We have a way forward, but we cannot wait for those that have already lied to get us into it, that have already probably covering their own butts because they know they're going to jail

once we recognize what happened here. they're not going to protect us because if they do, if they finally admitted it's over for them. Their entire legacy and their dream of being in history books is going to be over. Clear all of those egos out of the way and recognize right now, it is truly up to us. You now understand something. If you wrap your head around what Gerrit Van and Bosch, you understand science in a way that many of the professionals of the world do not understand at all. So here's what I would like you to do. We have a Thanksgiving week coming up.

Maybe don't go and do it on Thanksgiving, but as you're driving to meet with your families, why don't you just say, you know what? I saw a video that I think is very important for us all to understand. It's a bit like a science class, but let's get some cheese, let's cut up some apples, and let's sit down. It's about an hour and 10 minutes long. And it's something that if we all understand this, we can make a better world and perhaps avoid one of the greatest scientific accidents in the history of mankind.

Each one of us should take on a goal to say, can I get 10 people to watch this video? Is there a way that those 10 people I know who they know and I can convince them to take it further so that I personally am responsible for getting 100 people to stop this insanity by watching a video that will help them understand it? And there's enough information as you know,

those things that maybe did go over your head or felt like it was too deep, guess what, your doctor friends should understand it, your virology friends should understand it, your friend that's a scientist or is a computer expert, they're going to understand it. And then they can start asking questions and doing their own research. Please, we didn't do all this work just so we could sit there and go, man, was that a terrifying interview?

If that is our reality, we are the only ones that can change this course now. Like no other demand I've ever made on the high wire, I don't care how much you want to donate or how much you want to take care of it, will all be meaningless. All of this will have been meaningless if we sit and look at a wreckage and a rubble of our society and people dying all around us to say, oh, geez, as it turns out, Gert van der Bosch was right. We can't afford that I told you so. So let's come together now. Let's do what we do powerfully and share this video with every single person you know. And then, hopefully, God will intervene.

People's hearts and minds will open up, and we will come to our senses and admit we've made a tragic error. We have a terrible vaccine. We should stop rewriting language, stop redefining herd immunity, redefining a vaccination, redefining what, cut it out. Stop rewriting our encyclopedias and our dictionaries.

Let's get back to science. Let's get back to the truth. Let's get back to transparency. We can force that to happen. And the high wire will lead the way. Have a happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy your time with your family. But remember, part of enjoying your family is having moments to have educated and important discussions.

That is what makes us who we are. That is what makes great republics and free nations great. It's because we share our thoughts with each other. Let's celebrate what we've achieved. Let's celebrate who we are. Let's celebrate the power that we have to decide how we are going to move forward. I'll see you next week. I'm a high wire.