The Highwire with Del Bigtree - WHAT IS KILLING MILLENNIALS?

Episode Date: March 28, 2022

Last year there was a sudden spike in deaths among 25 to 44 year olds. Biologist & data analyst, Dr. Jessica Rose joins The HighWire to discuss her latest investigation into this phenomena, and the overwhelming evidence she has uncovered on the possible culprit.#JessicaRose #MillennialDeaths #VaccineInjuryBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Last week was amazing. So many of you seeing Vaxed for the first time, the comments were incredible. And then some of you that really hadn't seen it for quite some time, it really does give you a different perspective of what we've been through. And the work that we have ahead to try and stop the ongoing travesty of vaccine injury to the innocent children and even the adults in this country and around the world. In many ways, COVID was just a hiccup for us. here at the Highwire, those have you have been following us from the beginning, we have been

working to try and get to that point where we are back in control of our bodies and the bodies of our children. We are not there yet, folks. As I've said, we've won a battle, and we have won it well, but the work has only begun, as I said, this was just a detour that helped us reign in and, you know, illuminate the truth to millions of new people, but now we have work to do. But just to get a sense, to remind ourselves what we've been through, One of the architects of this insanity is admitting everything I've been telling you. We've won, and we've won handily. Here it is from the horse's mouth.

This was an interesting trust, a case test of people's trust in their politicians or their health system. And, you know, statistically, we didn't do as well as I would have expected. You know, in fact, you know, I'm cited as some, you know, mastermind of some evil plot in many, many cases. So, no, I didn't expect any of that, you know, in some ways the politicization of, you know, taking vaccines and helping protect other people. You can almost say that's a step backwards. You know, I hope vaccine acceptance for other diseases like measles is not reduced by this. this. But, you know, a lot of people jumped in and took the vaccines, but a meaningful minority in most countries were led down a path of believing that not only, you know,

were there rare side effects, but that the vaccine wasn't properly tested or was part of some evil conspiracy. Led down the path of rare side effects to the idea that the vaccine wasn't tested properly. It's a fact the vaccine was not tested properly. A proper test, Bill, would have lasted two to five years, probably 10 years given that we're now starting to recognize the manipulation of DNA, which could affect our lives going to the future and perhaps future generations of our offspring. So you're right. And though I know he looks at it in a negative way, I don't think you can, you know, there's not a better video out there to explain what has happened. They have failed in the greatest possible way.

They took what was apparently about a 90% vaccine confidence in the United States of America and reduced it below 50%. Just to be clear, the CDC recommends that everybody that got a vaccine gets a booster shot. That's the CDC recommendation. And just five minutes ago, we looked up the CDC website and 97,000, 97 million people in America have received their booster shot. That is, you know, less than a third the total population of the United States of America, it's about 28% of our population. They boast that it's about 44% of the vaccinated, meaning 44% of those that were eligible, that once believed in vaccines. That means at the very best, there's a 60% group of people, even that are vaccinated that don't listen to the CDC any longer, have thrown in the towel and said,

we're done with this. And imagine if we are really looking at 28% of the nation that believes in the CDC any longer and trust the COVID three booster shot recommendation, then we clearly are no longer that meaningful minority that Bill Gates is referencing. We are the majority of the United States of America. And I think as we're the beacon of light and hope for the world, we are leading a majority around the world. But boy, do we have work to do. We're going to talk about a lot of that. But what did he say there? What he said is, well, you know, there were people led down this path of, you know, looking at, you know, rare side effects and believing that the vaccine wasn't properly tested.

Nothing is more alarming or showing us that we were on to something from the beginning than these discussions. We're starting to see headlines of young people, especially, you know, getting sick, almost dying. What happens if there's not a doctor around, and Haley Bieber confirms she suffered stroke-like symptoms due to a blood clot. When do you remember, I mean, this is happening everywhere, Nellie Court at home recovering from a blood clot in her arm.

blood clots happening in younger and younger people. This is the new normal folks. Let's get used to it. Italian rider, Sunny Colbrelli, stable after cardio respiratory arrest. I mean, a freaking bicyclist who's, you know, got the heart of a racehorse is collapsing. Autopsy performed on top aid. The St. Louis County Executive died unexpectedly at 37. All of these sudden human death stories.

Knoxville teacher and basketball coach with a wonderful smile dies suddenly. And then, of course, we've been talking about. this. And I said, you know, people who say, Del, they're going to try and hide it. Hide what? You might be able to hide COVID deaths. You might be able to sort of, you know, manipulate the COVID deaths and take people that are having heart attacks and put them in the COVID category. You might be able to hide the actual, you know, COVID vaccine rates and who was truly vaccinated. Were they fully vaccinated? Were they boosted? Did they only have one shot? Was there only 14 days after the second shot? They're manipulating all of that. But one thing you cannot manipulate is the all-cause

mortality, just meaning if there's a rise in just death across the board in every nation, that is going to be really hard to hide. And of course, we've reported on this insurance company. Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people age 18 to 64. Stories all over this country about a huge, huge numbers. Insurance groups see death rates up to 40% over pre-pandemic levels. Insurance executive says death rates among working age people up 40% and a rise in non-COVID 19 death hits life insurers.

And then we told you about the story out of Germany. In Germany, the biggest life insurance company in Germany decided to look at all the ICD codes. What were they paying for in hospitals amongst their insured? And what they found this alarming rate of paying for, you know, services dealing with vaccine injury. And we reported that story, more vaccine side effects than previously known. And this CEO put it out to the nation saying, we're being lied to by the government. government, Andrea Schofbeck, this is the guy. Well, guess what? Guess what happens when you tell the truth? When you decide you want to, you know, let people know what's going on. This is just this week.

German insurance company fire a CEO who released COVID vaccine injury data, then scrubs all of their data from the website. They don't leave the data up and say, oh, he got it wrong. Let us tell you how to read it. They said, you're not allowed to look at it. Obviously something's up. Here's a couple of quotes from this article, Schofbeck, and noticed an unexpected jump in vaccine-related health insurance claims in February. notified the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the German equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that BKK billing data indicated that PEI was underreporting adverse events to COVID vaccines. Look at this, according to Schofak's letter, data from 10.9 million people were analyzed. According to physician billing data, 21665 were treated for a vaccine adverse event during the first 2.5 quarters of 2021.

Figures extrapolated over an entire year for a population of 83 million people, meaning if this percentage lasts across our entire country that got vaccinated, this means that there's going to be 2.5 to 3 million people likely receiving treatment for an adverse event. 4 to 5% of vaccinated people receive treatment for an AE based on these numbers. Those are catastrophic and giant numbers, and amongst those numbers are going to be those that are dying, this rise in death rates. And it's not just one insurance company, it's multiple across this country. Here's the question.

And by the way, people like, well, what's how we're going to talk about now that COVID's over? We're just getting back to our original talking points. And by the way, we have a new mission. We are going to track down all of those that lied to us, all of those that destroyed our lives, all of that denied us care and hospitals and kept us from using life-saving treatments and then put us on ventilators knowing it was going to kill us. And remdesivir and using a vaccine and promoting a vaccine they knew didn't work and lying about it. We're going to put all of those people in jail. So stick with a high wire as we track and continue.

that investigation and show you how they're running for the hills, but don't worry, we're going to find them. But let's get back to this point. If we're seeing a giant rise in all-cause mortality, 40% rise in 18 to 64-year-olds, now just to put that perspective, that CEO said to give this perspective, when we tried to sort of calculate a rise in death from a catastrophic event, we normally say that a one in a 200-year catastrophic event like a flood would raise the death, amongst the population about 10%. And what we're seeing here is a 40% rise. Folks, Houston, we've got a problem.

But how would we be able to determine whether that rise in deaths is actually caused by the vaccine? I know we're all saying ourselves, well, some of that has definitely got to be suicides, drug overdoses, all these things we've been reporting on, the depression that happens when you lose your job, when you can't go to work, when your business that you spent your life dreaming about, you've built your own brick and mortar,

and then the government takes it away from you because it's lost all respect for your rights to the United States of America and around the world. What happens? Well, there's definitely deaths from that. But if there are deaths from the vaccine and they don't want to investigate it and they're telling you it's not happening, how will you be able to tell in that all-cause mortality or excess mortality line what was being caused by the vaccines? Well, I want to bring on a specialist. She's an immunology, computational, and molecular biologists, applied mathematics and biochemistry. Dr. Jessica Rose has been writing incredible articles on this, including what is killing the millennials.

Jessica Rose joins me now. Jessica, thank you for taking the time. You're so welcome. It's my pleasure. All right. So take me through this. I know that, you know, you've obviously, there's a lot of great doctors and scientists that we have had on the show, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone. These folks are quoting you.

You're in discussions on some of these topics. But you started looking at this sort of excess death, these numbers that we've been talking about. And are we able to determine that the vaccine may be contributing to this and how? We can certainly provide evidence to support that the injections are causing the adverse events that we're seeing at enormous rates in just a, about every adverse event collection data system. I'm actually delving into the VERS system,

which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the United States. I had no idea what this was a little more than a year ago. So I'm not, I didn't go in biased, and I didn't go in with questions. I was just trying to teach myself how to use R actually. But this data set, which has been on the go for 30 years, has never revealed safety signals in the way that it's been revealing in the context of these COVID-19 products.

We're looking at the right now. Let me just read this to our audience. You are looking at the current VERS data as of March 11th. There are 25,641-41-40-reported deaths from the COVID vaccine. 141,000 hospitalizations, 123,000 urgent care, 181,000 office visits, nearly 10,000 cases of anaphylaxis, 14,000 Bells, palsy, that's really just sort of, there's so many more details in there, but that's the broad look at where we're at right now as we're speaking about it. Okay, continue on. That's right. So, and this is a very important point. There are over 10,000 different types of adverse events,

as written down as Medra codes, we call them, instead of the ICD codes that you mentioned. And this has also never happened before. So besides the obviousness of the atypical, of what we're seeing. There are ways that you can provide evidence that there is causation, that there's a causal effect here. And you use something called the Bradford Hill criteria. This is how you provide evidence of causation with epidemiological or biological data. It's a set of nine or ten criteria depending on whether or not you want to include reversibility.

And this isn't important if you ask me. According to the WHO's guidelines, because they use these criteria to assess causation, it's very important job for them. You only have to satisfy five, according to them, to get a diagnosis of very likely to be a causal link between, say, a vaccine and a particular adverse event. Okay, so the WHO says if you get five out of these 10, any five out of these 10, then it's very likely that, you know, there's a causal relationship between. the vaccine, okay, and the issue. Okay. An actual assessment form that you fill out. There are people whose jobs it is to assess causality. And like I said, this, you can imagine. Of course, you know this. It's very important for them to do this. They successfully used VERS to show causation in the context

of the rhodovirus vaccine back in 1999 in the context of interception and get this people. They were there were only 15 cases of interception that they called a safety signal that was worthy of determining whether or not there was a link between the rhodovirus vaccine and this interception that was occurring. Just for people who know interception is a bit like the intestines can kind of turn on themselves and cause blockages and have real issues, they saw that the vaccine was causing that and they pulled it back, right? And because of 15 cases, we're looking at. it 25,000 reports of death in the very same system.

And we're being told, as you were, continue on. This is just a great vaccine. Keep taking it, booster number four on the way. Right. Safe and effective, right. Right. So one of the things that's remarkable that I have published two papers on the subject of various data, just descriptive analysis,

something that's remarkable, which is one of the criteria that you should satisfy. according to Bradford Hill is something called temporality. So if there is a temporal relationship, of course, you know, one thing has to proceed the other. Right. And that time distance between those two things, for example, an injection and an adverse event,

if that time very short, then it provides very strong evidence that there is a temporal link. So what you're looking at here, those two slides are real data. And in the case of death and all the severe adverse events, as a matter of fact, about 50% of the reports are made within 48 hours. So we're talking about a very short time frame between the injection and the onset of a severe adverse event. Okay.

So that includes disability, a life-threatening condition, and hospitalization, emergency room visit, this kind of thing. So it's, to me, there's no doubt in my mind, although this is what I'm doing now. I'm looking at this data every day all day, but there's no doubt in my mind. Here we go. The peak arises in the 25 to 44 years whose entries are within 30 days of injection, past 30 days of injection, within 30 of injection. Okay. And so what you see here is the one line is the VERS data. And you can see that there's this growth going up at the same time that we're.

seeing the rise and deaths being listed by the CDC. You can see they're virtually coterminous. They seem to work in line together, where you see a rise in one, you see a rise in the other. And so what you're saying is you're basically laying those two timelines on top of each other. And when they sort of go coterminously work together, it's certainly a signal that there's something going on here. The other months you're kind of flat. And then at the same time you see a rise, you also see a rise in deaths on bears or reports

of these deaths, amongst the excess deaths is the CDC, and then the rise in deaths on the VAR's system are happening at the same time. That gives you a sense there's this temporal relationship. Yes, and it's kind of, I didn't expect to find that. This was all, this article that I wrote was an investigation because I want to know the answer. What's killing the millennials? I mean, because an 84% rise and Edward Dowd was right. There is an 84% rise, which is, that's something that we need to answer. So what exact age group? So just when we say millennials, there's an 84% rise in deaths.

How long? 25 to 44? Okay. All right. That's shocking and horrible. Meaning, so we're talking compared to what, pre-COVID, pre-COVID years, the death rates, is that where we're at? Compared to there, we're now at an 84% rise in deaths amongst 25 to 44-year-olds.

All right, here's the headline. and CDC data millennials experienced a Vietnam war in second half of 2021. 61,000 excess deaths in that age group. Really, really shocking. Yep, and it happened in the fall. And that was the graph that we just showed was the superimposition of that peak of deaths in fall in that grade group with a subsequent peak in reports of death in VERS. in that exact same age.

So it's not proof, but it's more evidence that these injections are playing their role. So the question now is what percentage of the deaths are actually caused by these injections? What percentage of these injections are causing these 10,000 different types of adverse events? Because as I have said repeatedly in many interviews, there are worse things than death. These things are causing a lot of neurological disabilities. They're causing blood clots, as you know. They're causing myocarditis in children. That is not mild nor like something that passes.

This is damage to a vital organ. Cain damage at a young age, at a prepubescent age in some cases, that's going to be long-lasting and that's going to come back to haunt you. Yeah. Okay. so let's get back to proving this out so we've got one we've got a temporal association when you look at it what's the next association that falls into this you know proofs well a very important one on the subject of myocarditis since i just mentioned it which by the way

for people who don't know is the inflammation of the myocardium which is the middle layer of heart that allows it to beat uh we see something that one of the broadford hill criteria is dose response. So the question that you ask does more of a result in more of B. So that to translate that into the VA's data you would say would a second shot cause an increase in reports of adverse events. So it actually causes a fourfold increase in reports in 15-year-olds and most of those 15-year-olds are boys. The data isn't, oh good, my slide is up. So the data doesn't reflect the gender stratification here, but most of these are young boys. They're 15-year-olds what black line indicates. So

this confirms a dose response and my my idea is that this is because there's some kind of cumulative damage done by whatever is in these products, whether it be the spike impregnating the the epithelial cells in the heart. I don't know, but this is another very important. It's a really interesting point. And as I think about it, you know, we'll say, you know, you would say that the vaccine's having no effect on myocarditis, then if you give one shot and there's barely an effect, if it doesn't have an effect, that second shot should be exactly the same. It should be no effect. But across the board, we see that second shot. They keep saying, let's spread out that second shot. Let's do other things to see what we can do because we're

clearly having this rise in this issue after the second dose. And so it does make sense. If you want to prove that this product is directly connected to an issue, you should see no response to the different doses. If it's safe, it's safe. What do you get 20 of these things? One of them, five of them. But we're seeing that second shot, you know, across the board in every nation in the world. You really can't get better proof, at least in that category, that this is a dose dependent response. Okay, interesting. Another really important one is plausibility.

And I gave a presentation to show everyone these 10 criteria being satisfied. And the question you ask, is it biologically plausible that A can cause B, or by A is the injection and B is the adverse event? So I think there's a dual mechanism of action here. I think the spike proteins are causing damage, and I think also the lipid nanoparticles

are causing quite a bit of damage, which most people aren't speaking about. So the lipid nanoparticles are a mixture, a melange of four different fats, basically, and one of them is called a cationic lipid, which is a very toxic lipid. It disrupts membranes, and that's kind of why it's one of these four fats.

because the goal of wrapping this MRNA payload in these fat bubbles is to optimize deliverability. So they're this beautiful mix of four different fats and one of them is highly toxic and so is Peg. Peg is another one of the fats which is attached to the outside of... Polygol, correct? Yeah. Right. Yep. Which is a toxin.

I mean, everybody has heard about... the anaphylaxic reactions that occur in some people who, you know, have been prior exposure to PEG. And the spike protein itself is being called out as being cytotoxic. I mean, this is why we're thinking that we're seeing a lot of the clotting action that we're seeing because of the impregnation of epithelial cells because the spike protein finds its receptor ACE2. And so there's this toxicity associated with the spike. So it's, it is in fact plausible that these dual mechanisms of action are causing these adverse events. And to talk about

I mean, I love, what I love about this, Jessica, is that we kind of, it science seems daunting. But I even remember in school in a science class, you recognize how incredibly reasonable it is, right? It's actually quite logical in the way that it slowly just breaks down. If A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. I mean, it's pretty obvious what we're looking at here. And when you look at plausibility, it's a very simple question, which is, would this product on its own be dangerous? The spike protein is the worst part of the virus. It is what is causing the blood clots, the thrombocytopinia. It's what we're terrified of. It's what's getting into the cells. I mean, this thing on its own, is dangerous and the vaccine sets out to make billions of these things inside of your body.

So is it plausible that that could be problematic? You're damn right it is. It's literally like the bio weapon of the virus itself. That's what it's attacking you with. That's what you need to be afraid of. And this injection is injecting it and making your cells create it. And then you look at this fatty lipid package as you're pointing out that is polyethylene glycol that some people are deathly allergic to, have anaphylaxic reactions. And then you have proteins that are known to be toxic. And in fact, are there to be toxic to try and cut through your cells and things to get in there and make sure it lands in the right place? So we have plausibility. It makes perfect sense. And two more items. The spike protein that is delivered in the fat bubble that is translated

from the MRNA is different from the spike protein on the coronavirus. And it's different by design. So it makes it less tasty, let's call it, to the innate immune system, which makes it harder to clear, which makes it last longer. Right. We now have a paper that's recently been published that shows the presence of the MRNA in germinal centers of lymph nodes after 60 days. So A, it sticks around and it wasn't meant to. Spike protein, same story, sticks around, wasn't meant to. But more disturbing is what came out in Pfizer's data dump recently about the biodistribution of these things. They weren't meant to travel far away from the injection site and the draining lymph node that is proximal.

They found these things and they knew this when they did their clinical trial, that these were accumulating in the liver, the spleen, the ovaries, the brain, the testes. And look at what we're seeing in the adverse event data. So they actually, they took this spike protein, which is sort of like the deadly monster, and made it more invincible so that it could last longer and do its job. For those of you that are gamers out there, what I'm imagining is my mind is, you know those like sword games where there's that one bad guy and you hit him four times and he disappears and you've killed him and knocked him dead? They basically took that and said, no, now you're going to have to hit it eight times in order to kill it.

And by the way, it's spreading to every part of your body. They literally made an army of more powerful and stronger, long-lasting, deadly spike proteins. I mean, it's hard to wrap your head around how stupid that actually is. That's precisely the word I would use. I mean, it was either stupid or designed this way because the spike protein, it was a very bad protein to use to test out this tech. And this is new tech, by the way, guys. Yeah.

You know, people are still coming. It's a vaccine. It ain't a vaccine. It's a new tag, a new delivery method, which has been shown. It has been shown to be toxic. Yeah. This lipid net vertical delivery system. So another, let's see, we have specificity.

Okay. This is an important one. Let me go to my data. So is a causing. be in specific populations because if you can think of a population where it's really unlikely to see this cause-effect relationship pick that population and see if it's happening so you wouldn't expect massive heart attacks in healthy young athletes right and you wouldn't expect them in children i would i would assume everybody would agree with that statement so we are seeing that and it's

statistically significant in both of these groups. So everybody is hearing, well, I don't know if everybody is, but there are stories about athletes dropping debt. We have a video that we've put out a video with the high wire that I think we have now over 100 cases of athletes falling, you know, crashing in many times face first, not even protecting themselves from immediate arrest, grabbing their chests, some of them ending up dying. And, you know, I've been attacked by fact checkers and news agencies saying you have no proof that the vaccine caused that. And I said, but I am not saying that it did what I'm saying.

And I'm asking my audience, do you ever remember a time where we saw hundreds of athletes around the world all suffering a similar cardiac event while playing? I mean, that's just, you know, here we are. We have a product that was not properly safety tested. It did not remain in a controlled environment where it should have under, you know, close scrutiny of good doctors. They gave it to the world and said, we'll have to see if there's any events. Well, if we can't question this, if we can't say, I don't ever remember a time, then who is going to respond if we have made a tragic error? And as you've said, we now have specific knowledge that this spike protein does cause heart swelling, does cause blood clots.

So is it, you know, is it plausible, I guess is the word, is it plausible that a athlete who's the top of their health grabs their chest and collapses over or is getting blood clots that is being caused by the vaccine? Well, it has an element in it that is designed to do exactly that. Yeah. And you make such a beautiful point, and it goes back to the simplicity of science. A really good question everybody needs to ask themselves if they're still having doubt about whether there's a connection here is what was happening before and what's unique to 2021, because that's really what's standing out in all the data that we're looking at, not just the adverse event data. It's also something that we're seeing in publications. And so the specificity also applies to, and I already showed you the myocarditis slide.

I mean, even the CDC has this in one of their presentations. Yeah. It's off the charts. We've shown this before, folks. Here you can see in males. The expected natural background rate one year before they were getting vaccines would have been one to five in the amount of males they were looking at. After vaccination, 116 of them ended up having myelocarditis. I mean, just multiple times you go down that list, it kind of just gets worse and worse.

But you're right. Even the CDC has admitted there is a direct relationship and it's across age groups, it's dose dependent, all of these things. Yet they seem to feel fine putting children at this risk when they literally have 0% chance of dying. You know, there's a number and there's like 0.00. You'll eventually get to a number, but it's, you know, in the zero category of risk in children yet they're putting it in a much higher risk of heart injury.

Not only that, but they're promoting the mildness of myocarditis in the context of your little people. I'm Canadian and I have some connections with Canadian people and groups and I was told that they're passing out flyers at some some person's child school. It's like a flyer telling the parents, Don't worry if your child gets mild carditis from the injections. It's not, it won't hurt them. It's mild. It'll pass. I told her, listen, you have to keep those flyers.

Because in 30 years, if we get past this, you got to frame it and show it to your great grandchildren and say, look at how crazy we were. It'll be right up there in the museum next to the pregnant woman smoking cigarettes saying, you know, nine out of ten doctors recommend this while pregnant, you know. So that's where we're at. So as you look at the data, as we sort of wrapped this up, it's so brilliantly laid out. And of course, if we want to get into more details, there's so much more that you've written about. I don't want to rush everyone through it.

You have a substack. But what's the best place to track and read the stuff you're putting out there? I guess this is it, jessikar. Dot substack.com? That's right. Okay, everybody. Go ahead. My substack is a new thing.

to me. I love it. It's like it's a great way to, I write scientific papers as well. So I started doing this as a way to write notes for myself as I'm writing a paper. So I'm writing another paper on pathonomonic markers in myocarditis right now with Peter McCullough, I hope. And so it turned into this wonderful way to get how I explain things to say the layman about what's happening in bears, what's happening in this new paper that came out in the Lancet and why is it not true? How does the immune system work? I mean, you know, there's so many things on there that I've written that I think have value for just about anybody. So, and I also have a website which I've, it's more geared toward bears. I have some, here it is, jessicasuniverse.com. It has absolute numbers,

some analysis, every single interview I've done presentations, my papers, so it has a lot of things on there that you can check out. And I wish you would. All right. Just my last question to you, you know, I think there's a lot of relief being felt, certainly here in the United States of America. If you're in New York in California, maybe like Della, I know what we're talking about. And we are an international show where Australia is still, you know, locked down, lots of issues there. But a lot of people feel like, you know, the clouds have parted. We're through this. This is behind us.

Is it behind us? And what do you think is important right now? Why are you doing this investigation? Is there something that we need to be looking at and something we need to do and be focused on right now as a society that's just gone through this experience? So we're going through an experience. We're not through this by any stretch of imagination. From the point of becoming leaders in helping the people who are still going to be injured from this, we need to band together as a species.

I know that sounds dramatic, but I really think that we do. I equate what's happened here to the housing market crash back in 2000. back in 2007 and eight, where instead of the regulatory bodies for the financiers turning a blind eye, the ratings agencies, and basically resulting in this world economic crash, we have our health regulatory bodies turning a blind eye. And we need to either shake them up enough so that they start doing their job

properly or we need to reconstruct them from the bottom up because they're the people that protect us from the pharma companies that don't they're not incentivized to heal they're incentivized by profit that's their business model so we we need our regulatory we need to shake them up we need to change that part of this equation very quickly i don't know how to but talking about it, I think certainly helps because if we can get a larger proportion of the population, just in questions, then we have a much better chance of turning the situation around. Amen. Jessica Rose, thank you for your work. Thank you for joining us today and laying it out so clearly and reasonably. Obviously, there's a connection and you're proving that. Everyone

check out her substack, jessicasuniverse.com. Awesome. work, we'll continue to follow you, and I look forward to having you on again soon. I love it. All right. And later. Sounds good. Take care.