The Highwire with Del Bigtree - WHO KILLED IVERMECTIN?

Episode Date: March 4, 2022

The Truth About Vaccine Passports; mRNA Study Confirms Worst Fears; Pfizer Delivers 10k New Pages; Ex-WHO Consultant Exposes Ivermectin Scandal; Why Have Pro-Lockdown Politicians Changed Their Tune?Guests: Nick Corbishley, Tess Lawrie, MD, PhDBecome 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 to jump out onto the high wire. Well, over the last several weeks, we sort of keep gloating about the transitions, the changes, the winds that we're seeing all around us. It feels like the wheels are coming off of this crazy ship we've all been stuck on for some time. But as we watch the news, I wonder, should we be excited, should we be complacent, Should we be attentive? All of those things are running through my mind as I watch headlines like this. Denver plans to lift its vaccine mandate.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is pushing ahead with an end to almost all restrictions to contain the virus. In Alberta, people are waking up to a very new reality, one without vaccine passports. The mandates that help slow the spread are coming to an end in New York. Well, customers dining in Minneapolis and St. Paul will no longer need to show proof. of vaccination or negative COVID test. We are announcing today that we will remove the indoor mask mandate and the vaccine requirement for certain public locations. The Prime Minister has declared it's time for governments to step back out of people's lives

as he called for an end to vaccine mandates. Mayor Eric Adams said that he would end the city's indoor vaccine mandate on March 7th. The Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe saying that it created two classes of people and led to division so the passports are going. Ontario is dropping most of its pandemic rules. Proof of vaccination will no longer be required at most restaurants and gyms and movie theaters. Capacity limits for sports and concert venues dropped.

Let us learn to live with this virus and continue protecting ourselves and others without restricting our freedoms. You know, for many months now we've been talking to about the fact that maybe this wasn't just about trying to get everybody vaccinated around the planet, that perhaps the vaccine was just the tip of a spear of an agenda to create a reason to track all of us. We've discussed these vaccine passports. And as I was watching the news and hearing the sound of those vaccine passports being, you know, taken back that we're not going to do it. Withdrawn in New York and all around the world, I was getting kind of excited.

But then I saw a headline that struck me. This was the headline that I saw last week. A National Vaccine Pass has quietly rolled out, and red states are getting on board. This was on Forbes. Well, to get deeper into this question and see if there's answers, I want to bring on somebody that's been looking deeper into this than I have. Nick Corbushley is an author. He's a reporter.

He's written the book scanned that can be found at Amazon, and he joins me now. Nick, can we be relaxed? I mean, in some ways, I feel like we've won the... the battle, but this idea of tracking systems that seemed like, you know, the technocrats of the world had joined with pharma in this great decision to try and, you know, create technologies to see what we're all doing, what we're feeling, what's happening. Is that gone or is there something that we shouldn't need to be aware of? Well, Bell, thanks for having me on. You bet. It's a pleasure to be with you. I hate to be the bear of bad news, but I think we should,

We need to be more vigilant than ever right now because we are being told does not coincide with what is happening behind the scenes. We need to be watching what our politicians do rather than just listening to what they say. Okay. And what we are, what I reported in an article yesterday, Fugil Negate Capitalism, and the, The World Health Organization, an organization that basically decides the guidelines that inform health policy for 193 of its member countries around the world, it is beginning to, or it is considering shifting its policy regarding vaccine passports to embracing them and encouraging all its members to use them to govern. to control global travel. This is a huge shift for an organization that for about a year has not been doing this.

It has been resisting the pressure to accept vaccine passports on the grounds that it would be discriminatory, on the grounds that it would, that we still don't know what the vaccine passports, how effective the vaccines associated with passports are. So we're in a situation where we know by now that the vaccines themselves are extremely ineffective when it comes to controlling the transmission of this virus. Yet at the same time, the World Health Organization is strongly encouraging, or is considering

strongly encouraging. It's member countries to use vaccine passport systems to govern the entrance of people or the crossing of people of borders. This is a huge shift. Well, how are they going to be able to do that? I mean, let's just talk reasonably, you know, between us. We are watching, you know, state of the unions. We're watching these discussions where the mask mandates themselves are being lifted. So if you don't have a mask mandate, you're no longer afraid of the virus. Therefore, you can't really push the vaccine any longer. You've even got President Biden saying, we all need to put our differences aside and come back together in a kumbaya moment. That seems to be the sentiment in the UK. I think we've even seen the first airline in the

UK opening up and saying we're not going to have masks in our airline. So it looks like even travel is going to move away from that. How in the face of that climate does the WHO feel like they would have any success getting us, you know, to accept a vaccine passport when we are so far away from that terror that was needed, I think, for us to agree to something like that. Well, I mean, I think that if you look at many of the countries in Europe, for example, there was not that much resistance to the vaccine passports. There has been in, and certainly in Germany, there was enormous resistance to the idea of vaccine mandates. And then we saw in Austria quite a lot of resistance to, it now has a vaccine mandate.

But what the vaccine passports have done, in my view, they've allowed this kind of conditioning of the people to this idea of waving their mobile phone in front of the sensor in order to access the most basic of things. And the fact that we are now withdrawing it from domestic, application means that everybody is happy, they think that we are going back to some semblance of normality. But for international travel, that simply is not the case. So if you want to travel from Europe to the United States, you need to have a vaccine passport. You need to be up to date with your vaccines. And it goes the other way. If you're going from the US to Europe to the EU, then... And this is... still there it's maybe being kind of like pushed to the to the background but we are in a

situation where the European Union is also in desperate to extend the validity of the vaccine passport that it has the green pass for another year so I mean it's not going away it's not being used in the kind of like more overt sort of like applications that we've seen at a domestic level. And people are kind of like happy with that, which is good. Yeah. But this, the fact that the World Health Organization is talking about imposing it, but it's not imposing it.

This is very important to point out. The World Health Organization cannot impose any health policy on any country. All you can do is make recommendations. It can produce guidelines. and these inform what policies countries adopt. But that also can change. And this is something that really does scare me, because in the next year or two,

we are likely to see the creation of a global pandemic treaty. Yeah. And again, this is not being reported much. This will very much change the way health policy is carried out. We have that headline. Let me just show that again for people. Just bring that back up very quickly.

We reported on this last week. The World Health Assembly agrees to launch process to develop historic global accord on pandemic prevention preparedness and response. This is sort of a one world health government that will make treaties and statements that all the member nations, which you have to assume sort of every leading first world nation, the world will certainly have signed on and many others, will have to sort of agree that the WHO makes these decisions. I think the danger of this, of course, is we, and I've been saying we can no longer call it the World Health Organization. I believe it's the World Health Order

is the better way to describe the direction that they're heading. And these are globalist and global controls of unelected officials. That's the problem I think of what we've seen here is we have health departments making decisions that are affecting our economies, our jobs, our lives, our education, our schools, our health, you know, and all of that by people we are not electing, which I think is very problematic. Do you think that there's the potential, and I think some of the articles here talking about Texas, is that they're going to sort of use a bait and switch. They're going to make us feel that the vaccine passport has been taken away when actually maybe they're just rebranding it, changing the name to digital IDs or things like that.

Is there, you know, what do we need to be looking for as ways that they might try to slip this into our experience and sort of just take the languishing and shift it? Is that happening? Is that happening out there? I mean, it's happening in quite a few jurisdictions. So I mean, many countries, including my own United Kingdom. I live in Spain, but I'm from the UK. So the UK has, as it was kind of like beginning the withdrawal of the restrictions, it was also, it also very, very covertly launched this digital identity program.

And the way it was able to justify it was for the, to, to allow employers to check the identity of their workers or their new hires. So I mean, like that, there's always a possible justification that they can come up with. A more egregious example was in Canada recently. So you had the examples you mentioned in the preamble where you had Ontario saying that we are definitely moving out of the vaccine passports, the vaccine mandates are going. We are, the restrictions are being left behind. And I remember Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario saying that, you know, it doesn't matter if you've had one vaccine or two vaccines or three vaccines, you know, you can still carry this virus and spread it. And it all sounded

wonderful and everybody was delighted to hear it. The problem was at the same time as he was saying, his government was preparing a new program to launch digital identity that will include, and this is a dark part that will include your vaccine status. So, and the same goes for Alberta. We've got digital identity programs being rolled out in Australia, in New Zealand, New Zealand. So I mean, like throughout the world, the European Union is developing a very, very ambitious program to kind of like create this digital identity wallet that will essentially include everything as well as probably your vaccination status. So that'd be my question. As we're looking at this, and I know your book scanned gets into a lot of different things.

You know, you're deep into looking at cryptocurrencies, governments involvement, you know, the future of technologies, AI and where we're going. When we think about these, you know, digital IDs, whatever they do, is our biggest concern that it's going to have our medical records, or are there things that you're more worried about that these digital IDs, the technologies of what they can do? What should we, you know, what does the future look like for those people developing digital ID programs? I mean, the future looks bright for those people. It looks very beautiful. And they're very excited. There's going to be lots of money making opportunities. But for the future for the rest of us, if this takes root, if it becomes part of our normality, then yeah, it's not going to be a very nice future.

It's, I mean, what you say about the health records, that is an important element. Our health records are among the most important data about who we are and that are extremely valuable for companies and for governments. know but but I think it goes far beyond that I mean if you are looking at the possibility of biometric details for the moment most vaccine passports do not include that but if you look at what many of the developers of digital identity is saying we're likely to see the use of biometric identifiers one of the scariest aspects is this idea of central bank So this idea of linking up digital identity to financial system so that you can have a situation which we saw recently in Canada where the government can essentially turn off your access

to your money, your bank account. We've also seen something similar happening in Russia. And we saw in Canada just to point out to people that maybe didn't follow that, something is simply, you know, going to a GoFundMe page and saying, I believe in that. I want to see some truckers get fed while they're sort of standing up for their rights. Those people could have their bank accounts turned off for that. And then imagine you're in a court system fighting the government with what money? What lawyer can you afford to pay to represent you as you're trying to get your bank account opened up? I mean, it's really a terrifying prospect.

Absolutely. And that should be a warning to us all. And the problem is it was, it wasn't reported very widely outside Canada, especially here in Europe. Most people didn't even hear about it. But we saw a similar thing happen in Moscow, in Russia over the last couple of days, where Apple Pay and Google pay withdrew their services and you had hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russian people suddenly unable to pay for things. And this is the scary thing, is we move towards a kind of digital money system, which is what our central banks are certainly trying to do right now, then the idea of this being connected to our digital identity, that gives them an enormous amount of power. It's the power to cut us off from the economy.

And so, yeah, that is something that probably terrifies me the most. And, you know, it's something that is becoming more and more possible as technologies evolved. Since you're looking at this, how do we follow the work that you're doing? I mean, you know, you're writing about it, you're investigating. Obviously, we have your book, but what's the best way to follow your articles as you continue this investigation? Okay, well, I mean, the book, as you said, the book I've just written is called scanned why vaccine passports and digital identity will mean the end of privacy and personal

freedom and you can get that from Amazon, you can get that from Chelsea Green, you get that from any for the moment any self-respecting bookshop in the u.s and the uk i think it comes out on the 17th of march okay pre-order it and my work is published twice a week on the u.s financial economics blog naked capitalism.com okay and you can follow me on my uh on twitter and my handle is nick corbushly nick i want to thank you for taking the time uh to join us today but more especially to be taking the time to investigate where most of mainstream media is not looking. People like you out there are our hope. And, you know, in your last words and thoughts,

for people watching right now, what is your advice as we move, you know, closer and closer to these AI technologies, these tracking softwares, what can we do as citizens to maybe make sure that the world continues to be a free and open market and place where we can share our thoughts freely. Well, I'll say number one, don't allow yourself to be divided in the way they're wanting us to be divided. Try to avoid that as much as possible. It doesn't serve anybody's purpose. Apart from those with power, I think that cash is a very useful thing to be using as much as possible right now. It's the last thing that central banks and the banks and the governments and large, many large corporations and tech firms want us to be doing. And I think just share the word.

And there are a lot of people out there who are fully vaccinated who have had the virus in the last two or three months, who are beginning to see a slightly different way the world is. And they are open to, I think, new ideas. So I think share the word. Speak to people as much as possible. Fantastic. Nick Corbusley, you take care. Keep up the good work and hopefully we'll have you on the show soon. Thank you very much, though.

It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Well, I mean, just wise words. I think I want to celebrate. We want to be happy. We should certainly recognize, I think, what we've achieved here on the Highwire and you're sharing our show with everyone. You know, the growth of the audience that is now watching us here

and other platforms like this, we've overtaken mainstream media and they know it. But we also can't get complacent. We've got to recognize that just because, you know, we've made it through this, this battle, this moment, clearly these agendas are not going away. And that's a lot of, you know, a recalibrating as we focus our way out of this. Hopefully we're going to see this COVID pandemic really move into our rear view mirror. But what's ahead? So much of that is where we're focused right now.

you know, in our discussions here at the high wire. I have a huge show coming up. And perhaps when it comes to our investigation, we have been talking about these repurposed drugs from the beginning, the moment that we heard about Dediah Raiute and the hydroxychloroquine use and Vladimir Zelenko, we've been reporting it here. It seemed only obvious that in a face of a pandemic

that was, you know, taking innocent lives, even if it was, you know, grouped in specific demographics, it's still every life matters. And when we had drugs, it appeared to be working. And then we're in live field studies all over the world showing success. We felt like that that was something that should be reported on. But once that shutdown came, the clampdown on hydroxychloroquine. And then this drug ivermectin came along.

And we just had Pierre Corey joining us just two weeks ago talking about how he had gone before the Senate thinking, this is it. I've got the miracle cure. You're all going to understand this now. we're through this and then to watch that getting shut down. Well, obviously, I've been calling for crimes against humanity. I believe there are people that need to be, you know, put on trial. I can't say arrested. Let's put them on trial first and see if they're guilty. But you know who they are. I think Tony Fauci is a huge player in this, Bill Gates perhaps, and who he's

funding and what's going on. But when we've been trying to investigate, really, you know, follow the breadcrumbs, follow the money, where are the decisions being made coming up? We're going to be talking about exactly that. Who killed Ivermectin? We may have an inside scoop that all happened on a very important Zoom call coming up in just a few moments. It's going to blow your mind. Right now is the Jackson Report. Jeffrey, once again, let's just get it rolling here. It's so fascinating how the things are shifting and our conversations now and what we're having to look at. but as we've looked at this whole last week, we've had the State of the Union,

what's really at the top of the news that you think we should be looking at this week? Yeah, as things are shifting so fast, we're not letting people off the hook. We're going to continue our investigations here. And one of the big things that parents and teachers were concerned about, rightfully so over the last couple of years, is the masking of children and the effects of their developmental delay

on these kids with masks over their face. So the first clip here we're going to take a look at is Johns Hopkins, He's basically a surgeon and public policy researcher, Marty McCari. He was on Fox News recently to talk about some recent changes the CDC made to its developmental milestones for kids. Take a listen. All right. Is this the admission we've all wanted from the CDC?

Why don't they just come out and say, listen, we made a mistake. We've known for a long time that masks don't work with kids. It doesn't stop spreading the virus. And we've hurt kids and said they just love us. I wish they had that. Look, I agree with you. I wish they had that level of humility. People are hungry for honesty right now.

starting to see is data on just how catastrophic the entire two years of restrictions are on children who bore the highest burden of restrictions, even though they're the absolute lowest risk. And some of that data is now showing that kids are not able to hit a basic vocabulary milestone in speech development. That is a 50-word vocabulary by age two. So the CDC has quietly moved to say they have an extra half year to hit that speech milestone. It's ironic that they're acknowledging this quietly. At the same time, they insist that every kid, two years and above, continue to wear masks today in the United States, regardless of any other factor. So what are they talking about? What are the details of this sort of downgrade in sort of our

goals for children? Yeah. To understand really what he's talking about, it helps to go back to just understand how developmental delays were looked at and how this whole, I guess you want to call it a field has come about. So in 1967, there was a development of something called the Denver developmental screening test. This was a screening for evidence of slow development in infants, preschool children. They looked at motor skills, language, social interaction. But this was just for clinicians. This was just for specialists. This wasn't kind of a widespread thing that parents were doing with their kids. It's very specialized. But then they realized, they needed something more broad to bring out to parents,

to bring out to families and just family doctors as well. So in 1992, they updated this to what's called the Denver 2. And this was something that was a major revision, as it says here. But the tests had a greater focus on language, and 86% increase in the language items on this test. So we're looking at language being a big thing, and that's going to be important as we keep reporting here. So the CDC jumped onto this in 2004.

And this was the, looking at the web archive, this was the website snapshot there. Learn the Science Act Early was the campaign. And this was to catch developmental disabilities early from basically three months to five years. Now, what just happened, what Marty McCarrey was talking about was after almost 20 years, the CDC with the help of the American Academy of Pediatrics has finally updated this. It only took them that long. And this was the paper they used. They were trying to find evidence-based updates. So evidence-informed milestones for developmental surveillance tools.

So the CDC funded the American Academy of Pediatrics. They funded a working group to revise this, this surveillance checklist. And what it says here, you know, Marty McCarie, one of the big things here is the CDC and the fact-checkers are pointing to, well, this didn't have to do. This update did not have to do with the COVID restrictions or anything that had to do with the pandemic because exactly of this line right here in the study. It says, quote, a broad literature search was conducted on March 2019 using Medline, Site Info, and Eric databases. So right there, the researchers are not touching anything in 2020, 2021, 2022. They're saying 2019 and previously was their search. Now, what's interesting is the CDC chose the AAP to do this.

Here's a tweet during the basically the middle of COVID restriction. on how the AP was thinking during these restrictions. It says, babies and young children study faces, so you may worry that having mass caregivers would harm children's language development. There are no studies to support this concern. Young children will use other clues like gestures and tone of voice. If it wasn't so serious, this would be hilarious,

but it's ridiculous. This is the type of thing that just, I think, makes anybody with a few working brain cells want to tear your hair out. Can we be honest? There are certain things that I would love to have deep scientific research into and double blind studies. But the idea that covering the lips of people while children are developing and seeing faces for the first time, I don't need a study to tell me that that's going to inhibit

their ability to communicate and learn language. You ever try and teach a language to someone that is blind? It adds a level of difficulty what you cannot see. I mean, this is where don't waste the million dollars on that study. Can we all just agree that using common sense, covering faces, going to be a problem and stating as the a api that there are no studies that show that that's going to be a problem this is the type of thing and this is why i think they're losing all credibility all credibility the cdc w h o fda a ap you're losing our attention because you are acting like morons we're not

that stupid and we can't believe you are but there's no reason to listen to people that need a study to state the obvious right and so these updates come out and here's some of the headlines kind of off the back of Martin Bacari, the headlines look like this. Experts concerned after CDC changes developmental milestones for kids. Another one, literacy advocate highlights CDC's fishy changes to early childhood development section. Now let's look at what they did. So the CDC in March of 2021, their website for those developmental checkpoints look like this for a two-year-old child. Now we take two years old because that is a very important time period for children's development, especially language. And it says here under language and

communication. Again, this was March 2021 before the updates were in. It says a child should say sentences with two to four words, should repeat words overheard in conversation. So right there, we have some verbal acuity starting to really, really come about here. Now, let's look at that same page now after the AAP's evidence-based milestone changes. Same age group, two years old, and it looks like this under language and communication milestones, says at least two words together like more milk. Not two to four word sentences, no more repeating words overheard conversation. All that's gone. And you notice underneath that points to at least two body parts.

Now we got the kid pointing instead of talking. So a lot of literacy advocates were concerned about this. But it goes even deeper. They added for the first time, the CDC added for the first time, a 30-month category. And in that 30-month category under language communication milestones, they say the children should say about 50 words. Okay, well, just to inform the audience here, 50 words. Now, if we go to a website, we want to cross-reference the CDC's 50 words with another website. This is the American Speech Learning and Hearing Association.

Okay, the specialist on this conversation, obviously. They are absolutely. They make a lot of the citations, a lot of the studies. They also have credentialing that they do. They're almost 250,000 members. And they have early identification of speech, language, and hearing disorders. And it says here, under language disorders, again, not just this is how you should speak, language disorders at two years.

If your child is saying fewer than 50 words, this is considered a possible language disorder, may have trouble with one or more of these skills. And this would be a red flag to seek further help from a health. healthcare professional to figure out what's going on here. So the CDC is saying at 30 months, you should say about 50 words. And then ASHA is saying at two years, you should be saying fewer than 50 words. Something's up here. Wow. I mean, it's really, despite being completely horrifying, because what it tells us is they're looking at averages across the nation now and saying, look, we just have to normalize this. So we clearly are.

seeing an IQ drop, a language drop in our children, otherwise this wouldn't be happening. But really even more disturbing for those people that may have a child that needs, and always, is always the case that early treatment for anything, you know, early diagnosis is best. Can you imagine how hard it is going to be to diagnose true language disorders when you have just filled the entire swimming pool with millions of children that were once supposed to, you know, be considered normal. Now the normalcy is joining those that were once considered having a disorder. How are you going to get funding? How are you going to get, how are we going to determine those children that are truly delayed? How much longer is it going to take to find them, help them figure

out what's going on? I mean, it's truly going to set off, I think, a wave and a disaster that I'm, I doubt the CDC even contemplated when they did that. But now it's normal to have a language disorder. I mean, that's what they've normalized here. Yeah. And, you know, let's let's, let's talk about the fact checkers. So the fact checkers are saying this wasn't because of the pandemic. This wasn't because of the masking or the restrictions. However, you know, 2019 was their literature search. Why didn't they search after 2019? Well, if you remember, there were headlines in 2020, 2021 that looked like this. Here was an interim briefing in UK schools. Remember, UK was one of the first to lock down, perhaps one of the longer lockdowns. The impact of COVID-19

on school starts. This was an interim briefing April 2021 about the concerns of children and parents. So they looked at schools and the parents and they took a basically a survey. And it says this, according to schools, children are struggling particularly with three areas of development. Number one, communication and language. 96% of the schools pulled, reported being very concerned or quite concerned. Number two, personal, social and emotional development. 91% of schools were very concerned or quite concerned. And three, literacy, 89% were very concerned and quite concerned. And then there's more headlines. Here's Here's one out of the Guardian. COVID rules are blamed for 23% dive in young children's

development. Disturbing studies shows scores and three key cognitive tests slumping between 2018 and 2021 with face mask rules among possible culprits. And finally, opinion articles all over the news over the last couple of years looking like this, mass can be detrimental to baby speech and language development. So we take this. And if you're the studies authors for that AAP study, you're looking at an image search from 2019. And you're sitting on this thing during the pandemic, all looking at each other in room going, do you want to do a literature research right now on how bad things can be? Or do we want to keep this data set from 2019 and a little more pure and not corrupted by the pandemic responses? And take baby steps to know where we know

we're heading. We know we're heading to cognitive decline in children across the world whose head is going to be on the chopping block when they realize that our government agencies, we, the CDC, your child's life, your ability to develop properly, well, we better start, you know, slowly weaning you off the idea that you're going to have intelligent functioning children. Let's do that with the numbers from 2019. Can you imagine what the next calibration is going to look like? They're obviously hedging their bet here. They know where this is going. It's really alarming to try and imagine had they really done these numbers, what type of jump in sort of cognitive decline we would be seeing right now. Really, really disturbing and sad. Again, this is what our regulatory agencies

are doing. Instead of figuring out and making solutions and maybe changing the programs that are causing these things, just like the vaccination fails, instead of saying, you know what, we need a better vaccine. Let's just change the definition of a vaccine. You know what? Our masking is destroying the lives and intelligence and cognitive abilities of our children. Let's just change the definition of their milestones or where they need to be. This is so corrupt. And it is, again, a clear sign that our government health agencies are no longer working for us. They're working for those industries that are destroying us. And if this study, this AAP study was the only outlier, we could say, okay, well, maybe there might be something to this.

But we know that the CDC as an agency, the signs they have put out has been subpar. Last week we covered this article by Venei Prasad. And he wrote, it's been, it's now circulated basically all over the world. the CDC abandoned science. And in that article, he writes this, and he talks about their research during the pandemic. This research is plagued with classical errors and biases and does not support the press release conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives.

As such, these papers appear more as propaganda than a science. So against that backdrop, things get a little more murky with the fact checkers here because there's some real life moving and shaking going. on that really need to be contemplated here. Indeed. Yeah. So talking about fact checkers, we have these type of articles we've seen over the last two years of the vaccine rollout. Fact check, this is out of our friends at the Pointer Institute. Will a COVID-19 vaccine alter your DNA? Well, we've been told throughout this pandemic, throughout this vaccine rollout, that will not. However, the new study has just come to light, and we're going to cover that right now. Here's the

title of this, intercellular reverse transcription of Pfizer Biointech COVID-19 MRI vaccine. It's BNT162B2 in vitro in human liver cell line. So what these authors wrote, and this, you know, I hope everyone's paying attention here. We're going to get some science, but it's very important. These authors wrote, our results indicate a fast uptake of BNT 162 in human liver cell line HUH7, leading to changes in line one expression and distribution. They go on to write, we also show that BNT 162B2MRNA is reverse transcribed intercellularly into DNA in as fast as six hours upon BNT 162 B2 exposure. Now, the reverse transcription is basically that MRNA writing the genetic material into the DNA of the human

genome forevermore. And this is what they're finding in here. There's a, there's an image that we're going to show here. I mean basically just very simply put, and I was looking at some graphs on this and we'll get details, you know, in the weeks to come as we described this. But MRNA, what they're saying is it's not DNA. It doesn't interfere with DNA. But they know for a fact that MRNA is absorbed through the lining of the cell that it can do this transition to become DNA, write itself as a single strand DNA, ultimately become a double strand, and then insert itself into the genomic sequence and then start producing that new mutation. I mean, and so this is basically what they're saying can happen with the vaccine in these liver cells.

Right, right. And how did they find this? Well, they did a test. And so they had a PCR test was performed to figure this out. And it was, they used RNA extracted from the cells. And here's a picture of this from the study. So they set the primers on this PCR. The primers are kind of like the target of what you're looking for. And they targeted the BN, the Pfizer's vaccine, the sequence and the BNT 162, and we can see here. across there at the top it says six H that's six hours across 24 hours and then the bottom square rectangle there is 48 hours you can see bnt is is there's line dashes there this PCR test towards picking up the bands corresponding with those with those extracted cells and that that is that's the proof that these researchers say like that they are finding this in here however this is one of the first studies of its kind when it showing this. It has been pretty explosive. A lot of people are quoting it, but this is just early research. Sadly, it's coming almost two years after the entire world's been, you know, injected with a

lot of these vaccines. But they used a cell model. The cell model they used was a carcinoma cell line. So this is a cancer cell line. It was that H-U-H-7. It was originally taken from a liver tumor cell. It's very common for research. It's an immortal cell line. So this may act differently than regular liver cells. This is something that can be questioned in further research. And this was what they call a tabletop exercise. So this was in a petri dish, a test tube. This wasn't in a rat or a human being, so to speak. So these were actual cells being looked at by researchers. So just a quick caveat there on that. And once again, for people watching the show, maybe for the first time, we take our science very seriously here. We're not just trying to give you some explosive headline

and go running with your hair on fire. We are showing what the conversations are and really how we need to look at this. What we need to see this as right now. now is a signal. This is a signal that more studies need to be done in this area and that these caveat statements across the nation by the propagandists in our mainstream media, that there's no way this affects your DNA. That's being challenged right now, as it should be. The scientific method demands that science challenge a theory. We've got to get away from censorship of anyone that challenges the idea. Of course, Beyond Tech, the Pfizer and Moderna are going to say no because they're making tens of billions of dollars off of these products.

Our government agencies like CDC and FDA are probably going to say it doesn't exist because they're promoting and selling these products to us and forcing them upon us. So we need independent science. And so what we're presenting to you here is brand new science that we should be skeptical, just as skeptical of that science as we are of what we've been being told by the media. But we're presenting it here. So just to make that clear. So continue on.

Right, right. And yes, as we're seeing this study, hopefully a lot of people are asking, why has it just been done now? And why weren't people asking questions before? Well, people were asking questions before. This gentleman here, he's a Croatian geneticist. He was specializing, he is specializing in evolutionary genetics. And he wrote a paper in July 2021 titled MRNA vaccines. Why is the biology of retroposition ignored?

Retroposition is just the integration of a sequence derived from the RNA that goes into the DNA. genome. So that's basically what we're talking about with a cell line we just covered. And he writes here, here I discuss the pervasive claim that mRNA-based vaccines cannot alter genomes. Surprisingly, this notion is widely stated in the mRNA vaccine literature, but never supported by referencing any primary scientific papers that would specifically address this question. He goes on, and he states all of the papers that he basically said there's 40 years of research that fly in the face of those comments and he concludes it remains puzzling why and how the RNA vaccinology field neglected the retroposition biology of L1 retro elements and is theoretical links to possible vaccine MRI

retroposition if one considers the volume visibility and significance of the L1 and retroposition research and L1 being that line one that was referenced in this study that we're talking about right this is exactly where he's saying we would have seen this this transcription taking place Correct, correct. And this is someone who's been studying evolutionary genetics and how these things incorporate into the genome. And he's saying an mRNA vaccine technology or the MRNA technology has been around for about 30 years being tinkered with in the background. At the same time that we know that these things can integrate into the genome through cell therapy and gene therapy, that's also a decades old, several decades old research. And there's tons of science to support this. Why was there not any cross talk between the vaccine makers and this cell therapy that's known to integrate in the genome? And what's the concern here, Jeffrey? I mean, for those of us, they're like mRNA, DNA, genomic. I mean, what is the concern if it actually is somehow inserting itself in the genomic sequence?

What does that lead to? Number one, really, one of the red flag things is genotoxicity. So you have a toxic nature of this genetic material getting to the, the cell and then as it replicates you're talking you know poor replication cancers things like that so those would be some of the major issues there obviously one of the number one issues but that leads us to our next story so we do have some breaking news here and this is going to be from erin syri the lawyer at i can we've covered this quite a quite a bit in the past couple months this has been an ongoing story and just remind just remind the viewers before we set up this story this is a Bloomberg

article he wrote, Aaron Siri wrote, why a judge ordered FDA to release COVID-19 vaccine data pronto. He's been involved in a case to try to get the FDA to release its vaccine data that it's had from Pfizer. All the information Pfizer has given them. We've covered this in the show before. Here's another article. This is out of Reuters. Wait, what FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA requests over vaccine data. So they drug their feet. We covered this as well. We want 55 years to make all this stuff public. And then all of the sudden they lost this case. And this is what the headline looked like from Reuters. Paramount Importance. Judge orders FDA to hasten release of Pfizer vaccine docs. They wanted, FDA wanted 500 pages a month, which was about 76 years. They would have

done this. The judge said, we want this out in 55,000 pages a month. And that's where we're at right now. The first dump just happened March 1st. So to set this up, it's kind of interesting because It piggybacks off this study. So just last summer, there was some information that came out, and this is, Pfizer submitted this to Japan's pharmaceuticals and medical device agency. And this was a common, it's called a common technical document. Pharmaceutical companies are required to provide this to regulatory bodies. This is the pharmacinetics of any new novel materials or excipients that are in these drugs or

these vaccines. So let's jump right to this table. There's two, they're called lipid nanoparticles. They're ALC in top right corner. They're ALC 0315, ALC 0159. These are fat particles that encompass the genetic material, the MRNA of these shots. And if you look down here at the highlighted spot, we'll keep with the liver. The liver has at 0.25.

So we're talking 15 minutes, 0.25 hours, says that column. And across, it goes by the hour, one hours, two hours, four hours. you're already getting these lipid nanoparticles and subsequently the MRNA accumulating in the liver. And if you notice many other organs as well, the eyes, the brain, the heart, obviously the injection site. And if you go across on that first box there, we're talking one hour, two hour, four hours, eight hours. It's just increasing, increasing all the way to 48 hours. You have 24.3. And if you keep following it across, goes by percentage, all the way to the end, 16.2 at 48.

hours, 16.2% of the administered dose is in the liver, second only to the injection site. So the liver is uptaking this thing like crazy. So what we want to do now is go over to ICANN's website. I can's website has posted all of these documents from the Pfizer dump. And it will continue to do so. You can go to I can decide right there, Pfizer documents from the FDA. You click on that. You can go to the Pfizer documents box. And right there, you have six pages so far. all the Pfizer documents you can download. You can go through those. You can post. Please do. This is for the citizen journalists out there that want to look at all of these documents and do whatever they want with those. And by the way, just to everyone out there, you know,

we're talking about thousands of documents, pages of documents in here. More and more coming. We want to make sure that you had immediate access to that. So it's going to be on our website. Every new dump, it will go there. But, you know, we're a small crew here. I know everything looks flashy and beautiful and you're amazed at the quality of the high wire. But the truth is, is we could always use your help. So if you're out there and you've been wanting to dig in this data, go ahead, digging that data. And if you find something you think is interesting, don't just assume we've seen it. Please go ahead and grab that. Give us a nice subject line discussing the Pfizer document dump and send it to info at I can decide.org. You may find

that something you've discovered becomes a major talking point here on the highwire. That's just one way you can help out there. And for those of you that want to be able to say I'm the first one receiving it, I'm getting the documents at the same time that Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, who brought this lawsuit essentially are. Just as Aaron's series getting it for them, he's handing it over so that we can put it on our website here for everybody. So you'll be the first to receive it as long as you are signed up to our newsletter. We'll let you know when it's coming out. Also, you can just go to Icandecide.org. You go to the highwire.com. All these lead to the very same place.

Excellent, excellent. And so in this new document dump, we have the American version of the common technical document. So we had Japan's version. Yeah. We have Americans, the Pfizer's confidential version now out to the public. So let's look at one of the charts from this here. Again, we're looking at ALC 0315, ALC 0159. These are lipid nanoparticles.

And this chart here, again, we're sticking with the liver on the right side. It shows at zero to 300 hours is the timeline at the bottom there. And you're showing that this zero, the black line is almost going straight across the whole time, that ALC 0315, that lipid nanoparticle is accumulating in the liver. The other one, ALC 0159, not so much, but we are showing that there's high concentrations of this nanoparticle, this new nanoparticle that's really never been studied accumulating in the human liver. And this is to the point you made earlier, there's a quote in this biodistribution study, and it says this under genotoxicity. You know, we were asking about that. What's the worst that can happen?

They're not studying it, Del. No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162B2 as the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have genotoxic potential. I'm glad. So we're just going to the faith-based religion that will make us tend to. of billions of dollars versus study what every decent gene sequencing scientist knows is true. Isn't this exact technology we've been using to try and insert into DNA? I mean, it's madness.

It's madness out there. And I feel, again, you know, my heart goes out to all those people, those of you that are watching that, you know, have probably received this vaccine. We embrace you. You're here. We've all done things that have been toxic out there. We will continue to try and bring information to perhaps find doctors. that are figuring out how to clear the issues that are happening because of these vaccines.

But we really don't know, Jeffrey. We don't. I mean, when we're talking about manipulation the genome, it could be months, years, even skip a generation, right? We could see the offspring of people, if it's in their genome, being affected by this in ways that we never predicted. Yeah, absolutely right. Absolutely right. And there's another part of this Pfizer document.

You know, when we asked for help from other people, I was spending the last 24 hours or so going through all these documents until my eyeballs fell out. But there's another part of this Pfizer document that is really important. And we'll keep reporting on this as well. This is a cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports. And this is received through 28th of February to 2021. This is Pfizer's internal reporting. They took this and they gave it to the FDA. And so there's a quote here. It says that adverse events of special interest, that's AESI. This is the stuff that they were looking for, adverse offense, are incorporated into the TME list and includes events of interest due to their association with COVID with severe COVID-19 and events of interest for vaccines in general, all vaccines in general.

So before we show this B-roll, basically what they're saying is we have a list of some events here that we're going to keep an eye out for. And these are these are a list that we've made over all of our studies about vaccines and what we know now. And again, this was just basically in February 2021. So kind of early into the pandemic, if you will, from the vaccine development standpoint. This is what we know about severe COVID. So I ask what list would probably be longer? Just a new severe COVID list of a handful of things or something that Pfizer has been studying with vaccine adverse reactions for, I don't know how many decades.

And remember all the time telling us they're safe, they're effective. They don't injure anybody. that's who we just trust us, just take it. So under those circumstances, under those circumstances, here's the list in the Pfizer confidential documents of the special interest adverse events that they were looking for during these trials, during they're putting through tens of thousands of people through these trials. This is what they were keeping their eye out for. These are events of interest for vaccines in general that have been accumulated over the years that people have reported. So when they say safe and effective, sore arm, sore throat,

a little bit of chills here and there, that's what they're telling you on the front end. And this is what their Pfizer confidential documents are looking for on the back end. It just keeps going and going. Wow. Wow. And surely, I guess they were able to figure all that out in a matter of a couple of weeks after the third shot and say we're good to go. to give it to everybody in the world. Right, right. And if you remember, just last week we had on the former BlackRock employee, Edward Dowd, and he was mentioning that Pfizer was telling its investors that there may be some information

that's coming out, that, you know, safety studies that are coming out that may impact Q4 results, their quarter four results, their bottom line. Perhaps some more information in this document dump may come to fruition. that makes that come true. Well, I look forward to seeing what else you dig out of here. Obviously, this is the truth, right? These are just the facts. I'm glad they're looking for these things. I'm glad that they say they're looking, the idea that they wanted to keep it away from us for 75 years as well. I'm sure we're going to get documents telling us what they actually found. And when I thought about this, when I thought about what we're talking about,

how this vaccine was rushed out to the public. And, you know, when we look historically at how we've handled things like this, remember the swine flu? I pulled up this headline, Jeffrey, and you'll probably remember this. When the swine flu program came out, remember, that was, again, a coronavirus, a flu. We were worried about it. The swine flu was out. They made a vaccine rushed it onto the market, and this was sort of what the headlines were about and what they were saying at that time. Federal officials suspended the troubled nationwide swine flu immunization program yesterday because of concern that the shots were possibly linked to recently reported cases of paralysis. The Federal Center for Disease control in Atlanta, which runs the nationwide immunization program, has been investigating reports from at least 14 states of 94 total cases, four of them fatal, of a form of paralysis called the Guillaume Barre syndrome. Dr. Theodore Cooper, Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and welfare said that he was acting in the interests of safety of the public, in the interest of credibility, and in the interest of the practice of good medicine.

That's where we're at with swine flu, 94 cases, I think four deaths. Let's just take a look at VERS, shall we, as we're looking at Pfizer finally releasing what they know about this. We have from VERS right now, the vaccine adverse events reporting system, 24,402 deaths being reported from this vaccine alone. Not all of the vaccines put together. In fact, if you took all the vaccines ever made and used in the United States, of America and every report of death that's ever happened, this is more than all of them over

the last 30 years, yet no one at the CDC seems to care. No one there is saying, we better stop this and pull it back due to credibility. 133,000 hospitalizations, 14,000 cases of Bell's palsy, antithalaxus, 10,000, 120,000 urgent care. Now, of course, these are all just reports, but these are the exact reports that 94 of them back during swine flu mattered and today don't matter at all right and so where is this generation's theodore cooper sounding that alarm like the person you just read from where's the spirit of that gentleman or anybody else we've those were gionbrae paralysis we went through myocarditis we went through thrombocitopinia we went through facial paralysis we're going through these things any of these things

should have stopped this program they have not so hopefully by shutting light on this by everybody shutting light on this, we'll get some people in the regulatory agencies to maybe make some moves that have conscious behind them. Jeffrey, thank you for that great reporting. Just getting deep into it, and I know you're working hard, tireless hours reading through a lot of science, tens of thousands of documents. We've got a word cut out for us this year. So thank you for being a part of the team. All right, Del. Thank you. Right. See you next week. If you want to get deeper into all of the things that Jeffrey Jackson is talking about, he has a great blog, if you will, on the high wire. He writes about these things in greater detail. The Jackson Report, definitely go and check it out. You know,

all of this is made possible by you. We are not funded when you pay your cable bill. We are not funded when you pay for your HBO. When you're funding Hollywood, none of that is coming our way and you get lied due on a constant basis. That's what you're paying for. So for those of you out there that have been going out of your way to take that extra step and donating to the high wire, you are not only making it possible for us to bring this beautiful show to you and do this research. We're not just reporting on the news. We are making the news.

We are bringing lawsuits. I don't know any other news agency that you're looking at is doing that. Some of those lawsuits leading to document dumps, Fauci emails, and then building websites where you can find. Look at these are all the lawsuits we've won so far against government health agencies and the rest. So all of that's made possible by you. We have got our work cut out for us. We cannot get complacent now and feel like, oh, we won.

We haven't won until these people are in prison. We're only going to put them in prison if we continue to drill down and get deeper in these investigations and put these people's feet to the fire. And by the way, now that the wheels are coming off, someone is going to start blaming somebody. We want them all blaming each other. That's how we get to the bottom of this. So now, more than ever, we need your help. This is very expensive.

We are spending millions of dollars on legal cases and foyer. request every single year. You make that possible. So please, if you can help us out, go to the highwire.com right now. Just click on that donate button. And we're asking to become a recurring donor. It helps us know what lawsuits we can launch, how many people we can hire around the world to help us with the investigation. $22 for $22 would be great. If you can only afford a dollar a month, not only does that help us, but honestly, when you get involved like that, it helps You feel like you were a part of this change that's going on. Everyone that has been donating to ICANN and the high wire throughout this pandemic right now are feeling really good about what we've achieved.

And they get to say they were a part of making that happen. Don't you want to feel like that as we bring about the next round and we start seeing and pressuring these people so that we can bring cases of crimes against humanity upon those that have blocked and restricted products from our use, gotten people killed in a hospital, and all the rest. You are making that possible when you help us do this work. So please become a recurring donor. It literally is helping us change the world. Speaking of changing the world, I do a lot of traveling. I like to go out around this country and as soon as we can travel, maybe around the world would be great. But I was just in Oregon last week. Really in many ways, another belly of the beast where they still have like an indefinite masking law going on with indoors, even though everyone else on the planet is opening up. And I'll be honest,

I forgot when I went to fly there. It'd been a couple of weeks. I walked into the airport, and I thought, oh my God, I forgot a mask. They're still doing this here. I mean, I live in Texas, and I have to say, for those of you that don't, it's hard to understand what it's like. We just aren't seeing it. I'm not feeling it. It's not affecting our lives. I'm reporting on it. But I walked to the airport. It's like, oh, you know, luckily they have like some giveaways there. And then I got to Oregon, and I walked into the hotel there. just to drop my bags off before I, you know, checked in. And the guy at the desk says, sir, do you have a mask?

And I was like, yeah, he's like, you have to put it on. And I said, oh, you guys are still doing that here? He's like, yes, we are. I said, you do realize, like, you're the last place on Earth still doing that, right? And he's like, well, but those are the rules. Well, given that those are the rules in Oregon, it's clear that that's why we needed to be there. It was a beautiful rally and here's just a feeling of what that was like. I'm here in Oregon at the Unite for Freedom Rally.

It's a beautiful blue sky day, a little bit chilly. But what's really warm is the bodies and the people that believe in freedom coming together where there's just been these incredible draconian measures. So we're going to speak into that and try and make some changes here in Oregon. We are here to Free Oregon. Portland will never be the same after today. All of you should be marching down these streets. You guys are awake.

You're liberated. You can just literally feel the freedom in this audience. How many of you believe we should live free like we were born? Looks like I came to the right place, eh? There is a global movement happening in every part of this world. It's not just a few people, is it? That's why they won't cover it on the news. You can only see it on the high wire.

During the lockdowns, we had a lot of people who were out marching. related to what they felt was oppression. What could be more oppressive than forcing you to take an injection? As a pediatrician, what I'm seeing is a lot of anxiety and depression. Kids are coming in masked in our state here. I ask them to pull off their masks. They're afraid to take their masks off when given permission. For all the hypocrites in office here in Oregon and in Colorado and in California

that talk about being environmentalists, I have a question for you. Why will our children ever fight for our environment if they never got to breathe the air? And when will they ever stand for freedom if all they were taught by their teachers was how to comply? Every one of you politicians that is masking our children, you are the disease. I was injured by the Moderna COVID vaccine on March 11th. My injury consists of severe autonomic dysfunction, pots. On January 20th, Maddie received her second dose in the Pfizer COVID vaccine trial at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. She had seizures, drastic changes in vision, her urinary retention.

She's still in a wheelchair. Healthy kids, just like Maddie, are dying and suffering from similar injuries every day. I have too many new parents that have injured kids who are considered dead. This means to stop. At Fizer and Moderna in all those places, they hide behind the protections of civil immunity. How many do you know that you can't sue them? Yes.

Does that seem right or wrong? Wrong. You can't sue them unless you can prove willful misconduct. And we're going to prove it. Can I get an amen? All of the high. The hospital systems have been organized and are towing the line. Money.

Everybody's in it for the money. This is corrupt. Education Department received in the state of Oregon $1.1 billion. You had to mask your students to get this money. You had to social distance your students to get this money. I want you to go to your school board and tell them, stop sacrificing the lives of our children for people. for money.

Speaking, I hear some drums in the background. When we say we're afraid to go to a rally because of Antifa, we're afraid we might get arrested for standing for freedom in the United States of America. Our children are listening to us. Can you see them? Come on, let's get closer. The big batty, the big scary moment. It looks like six or seven... seven foot stomping babies wearing masks, afraid to breathe the air, afraid of the sunshine.

Everyone, if this is what you're afraid of, come on out, start standing up for your rights because these foot stomping babies are not the future of this world. Against us, I said those are the drums that we're going to use to claim our freedom. We shall defend our children, our lives, our lives. Our lives, we shall never, ever surrender. Somebody's going to come out of the sky and rescue you. You have to rescue yourself. You have to do the work.

We are not followers. We asked to run the best of ourselves. Our challenge and for this. It was a beautiful day there in Oregon, and I just want to just talk to all of you for a moment and be honest with you. And it's something that I said on the stage at the end there, you know, I was a beautiful day there. pointed out, I don't know if that's Antifa. It's like the black hats and the masks and whatever, but there was so much conversation as we were arriving at that rally from many of the hosts saying, you know, a lot of the Facebook conversations that Antifa might be here. They're everywhere in

Oregon, so there's people afraid of that. And, you know, we are hurting ourselves. I am trying to point out there that these are just teenagers. We know them. Usually they're stuck in coffee shops, smoking cigarettes, and trying to wonder what to do with their lives. And now they can go out and try and disrupt something and maybe get some attention. But when we give them attention, when we talk about it, not only do we, you know, give them the attention looking for, we also are scaring ourselves. I am really tired from all of you, you know, talking about Intiva. We're so addicted to drama that, oh, let's talk about the drama. Let's talk about the doctors that maybe have disappeared. None of that matters. There is no movement that will work if that becomes our

conversation. Our conversation has to be about standing in our strength, standing in our power, realizing how safe we are in numbers. So please, stop talking about controlled opposition and Antifa and doctors disappearing. We're not Kim Kardashian. We are the future of the world. So please, act like it. Your children are watching. They're counting on you. And I assure you, a couple of teenagers pounding on some, you know, statue nearby is not your concern, being tracked and controlled and having absolutely no future and bank accounts that can be shut down, then you got a problem. So be afraid of that and get your butts out. We are going to be doing more of this. We need to be present and accounting for. We are the majority of this nation, but we can only let them know

when we grow a pair. So please join me at every one of these rallies when we're out there and stop with the ridiculous drama. All right. That's my diatribe about rallies. It was a beautiful event. There's hundreds and hundreds of people there, but we can do even bigger and better things. So let's stick together. All right. Coming up, we've been on this investigation of hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin. I believe that, you know, if you're going to have crimes against humanity, it would be very hard to accuse these people that rushed out of vaccine, saying there was an emergency. They did the best they could.

They didn't know it was going to, in fact, or, you know, transcribe into your genomic sequence. all of that would be very hard to, you know, get on them about. I think the biggest smoking gun you have is the possibility that they denied life-saving treatments to those people that needed them. That is going to be the most important case that comes out of this entire pandemic. It was a worldwide shutdown of products that thousands of studies showed worked. And so that is why the focus of the high wire in our investigation has been right there, right in the heart of hydrogen. Roxychloroquine, Ivermectin, where are the studies, and who did the fraudulent studies? Who funded them?

And why was that what Tony Fauci was talking about? Who was behind it? Well, today, we have a really unique opportunity that another brilliant scientist, I think you could call her a whistleblower, if you will, test Lori, who is deeply involved in, you know, her work is stands for itself. She has consulted the WHO for years. Her specialty is bioethics, scientific ethics, making sure that the scientific method was in place, looking at studies to see if there were anomalies. She looks at things to say the WHO, you can trust this study. I have run it through my team, and we've looked at all the potential inconsistencies and can verify that this was appropriate science. This is who the WHO goes to.

So when she decided to get involved with Ivermectin, it was simply because she thought, I want to make a difference in the world, just like Pierre-Corey. just like Dr. Peter McCullough, just like Dr. Robert Malone. But what she has that we have not seen yet is perhaps an inside scoop. In her work, she had a Zoom call with somebody that may be standing right in front of that smoking gun, that group or that person or that thing that killed Ivermectin. I had the opportunity to sit down with her this week and have what may be one of the most important conversations. We have had so far in our investigation of Ivermectin, this is Tess Lurie.

I'm joined right now by Tess Lorry, who is the CEO of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and EBMC Squared. Tess, due to the magic of technology, you are in England. I am here in Texas, but the technology is putting us in the same room to have this conversation. So it's almost like we're right there together. First of all, thank you for joining me today. Thank you, Dale. It's wonderful to be speaking with you today. To begin with, for people that don't know who you are or the work that you do,

and what sort of puts you in the middle of this ivermectin conversation, what would you say to people to understand your background? Well, I'm a medical doctor and a research consultant, and I have a company, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Limited, that I've been running for the better part of the last 10 years. What we do at EBMC Limited is that we provide evidence synthesis and help develop clinical practice guidelines. And we do this for organizations like the World Health Organization. We have no conflicts of interest.

So this is why our work is really valued. And, you know, no shares in pharmaceutical companies or anything like that. And we've been helping the World Health Organization develop these guidelines for 10 years. So very quickly, the WHO trusts you. trust your objectivity knows that when you're delivering information or looking at things for them and doing an analysis on the evidence and the science they can trust that you have no outside influences which is why you've

developed a very strong relationship with the WHL correct correct okay yes so when uh... so i'm also uh... ebmc squared you mentioned now this is a non-profit company that i started in march last year in response to the unmet needs really to safeguard the public and empower them to take more control of their own health during the COVID crisis.

And so through that company, we have an initiative called the British Ivermectin recommendation development initiative, which is now called Bird International. And through that, we've been doing research and advocacy work to promote Ibermectin as a safe and effective treatment for COVID. Now, in your work, do you often investigate drugs and vaccines? and things like that, is that sort of your wheelhouse? When you say, you know, you do evidence, you work with the WHO, what are the types of things that you tend to look at

and focus your investigations on? So what I do is, well, we'll get, you know, a list of interventions that need to be evaluated for a condition. For example, I've worked on the antinatal care guideline for a positive pregnancy experience. These are documents like this. In these documents, there's 40 or so interventions that may be assessed for effectiveness and safety. Not only effectiveness and safety, actually, we look at the acceptability and feasibility,

the cost effectiveness and equity implications and also what people's values and preferences are related to interventions. So there's a whole lot of different sorts of evidence that we integrate into what's called an evidence to disqual. decision framework and we prepare these documents and then usually I would go to Geneva for example and present the evidence in front of a panel of stakeholders that would range from you know doctors to country representatives I would assist in guiding them to make a recommendation on whether to recommend an intervention in certain context for example research whether to to recommend outright or not to recommend because there is insufficient evidence on

on effectiveness or concerns around harms. All right, great. So now let's get into ibermectin. What got you into ivermectin? Did WHO reach out to you, or was this something that you sort of decided to investigate on your own? No. It was not a commissioned piece of work.

When COVID broke out, I wanted to do something useful and I didn't really have the opportunity. I wasn't working with the COVID team at WHO, but I kept an eye on what was happening. I was concerned about the lack of evidence base, of an evidence base to support most of the strategies that the authorities were recommending. And then I saw Pierre Corey's testimony. Somebody sent it to me actually on the 26th of December. So it was quite, it was a few weeks after he'd actually done it.

And I thought, well, I know everyone at WHO is going to be on holiday at this time. Let me just quickly do a rapid review. on the evidence based on the studies that Pierre Corey and his team had included in the review. All right, so very quickly, very quickly test. Let me go ahead and play that video because we saw it too here on the high wire. This is Pierre Corey in the Senate speaking about ivermectin, really announcing that he believed there was a treatment. Take a look at this.

We have evidence that ivermectin is effective, not only in prophylaxis, in the prevention. If you take it, you will not get sick. We just came across a trial last night from Argentina by the lead investigator of Ivan Benton in Argentina, Dr. Hector Carvillow. They prophylaxed 800 healthcare workers. Not one got sick. In the 400 that they didn't prophylax with Ivermectin, 58% got sick. 237 of those 400 got sick. If you take it, you will not get sick.

It has immense and potent antiviral activity. We know that from the first study in Monash, it has made the bench to the bedside. Prophylaxis, we now have four large randomized controlled trials totaling over 1,500 patients, each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent, it is immensely effective. You will not get sick. You will be protected from getting ill if you take it. In early outpatient treatment, we have three randomized control trials and multiple observation as well as case series. showing that if you take ivermectin, the need for hospitalization and death will decrease. The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients. We have four randomized controlled trials there, multiple observation trials all showing the same thing.

You will not die or you will die at much, much, much, much lower rates. Statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug. It has already won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2015 for its impacts on global health in the eradication of parasitic diseases. It is proving to be an immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent. It is critical for its use in this disease. So he obviously made very strong statements for a doctor. He's reticent about, but he said, I am saying it's a miracle cure. Obviously, very big statements. He talks about a body of scientists that he's been working with. So you decided to try and evaluate the information that he was

referencing the studies that they were pointing to. And so what did you see there? I must just point out, it was very strange to me to see a doctor having to stand and beg before politicians to use a safe old medicine. So my curiosity was piqued. And so I looked at, I included the randomized controlled trials and I also included the observational controlled studies that I assessed as being of higher quality. And when I pulled the data, it was clear to me that Ivermectin was most likely a game changer for us and that it should be used for both prevention and treatment. And in actual fact that it really made placebo-controlled trials unethical because you couldn't

give a placebo to somebody after looking at that body of evidence, it was clear you had to at least give them a chance with ibemectin. And you're talking about a drug that is, you know, when we think about that, you know, when we think about emergency use authorizations or things like that this was not a brand new drug we it wasn't one that we didn't know the safety profile on it's being used all over the world millions of people have been using it so you know what were the benefits of ivermectin you know you know it's on it's actually on the world health organization's list of essential medicines and and to be on that list it's got to be

incredibly safe and you know it is actually available over the counter and many countries to treat worms and scabies. It's only during the COVID time, suddenly all these restrictions have been placed on its use and supply. So, yeah, at the time, I thought, well, this is going to be easy. You know, all I have to do is share this information with my colleagues at WHO, share it with the UK authorities, the US authorities and others, and then I can just get back to work. You know, that was my holiday. my holiday work. And I shared it with the UK authorities in WHA,

and there was no response. And at that time, they were, you know, certainly on the news, it seemed like tens of thousands of people were dying every day. And so a few days went past. A couple of days, I reached out to Dr. Andrew Hill, and it was Pierre Corey who put me in touch with him.

Okay. Pierre let me know that in fact, WHO had a consultant already working on Ivermectin. So I emailed Andrew Hill and I said, let's work together. I can give you all my data. How can I help you? How can I support the work that you're doing? And so to be clear, Andrew Hill is at the WHO. He's a consultant for them.

He is sort of working on COVID, looking at Ivermectin. Pierre Corey has already been interacting with him. So you said, let me jump in and help. Those are the players. Who else are you talking to on Pierre-Corri's side? Well, in actual fact, that wasn't really how it works. Andrew Hill was, he's at the University of Liverpool. And so he's not actually at the WHO,

and he was employed by Unitate, it seems, who collaborates with WHO a lot. But he certainly was the appointed WHO consultant to do the review. They were presenting at the NIH on, I think, the 6th or 7th of January. And I still have... Day being who? Who's the day that's going to be presenting at NIH? Pierre Corey.

Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick, doctors from the Frontline Critical Care Alliance, and Andrew Hill. So the three of them were presenting to the NIH. And I still had no news from the UK authorities. So I made a video appeal to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson just to say, look, I'm a WHO consultant. I've done this evidence synthesis. It looks like we've got safe established old medicine that works for prevention and treatment of COVID.

I've reached out to your Minister of Health. He's got my details. Please, can you contact me? All right, so we have that video. So let me just play that very quickly so that we see, you know, what you sent to as a sort of plea to Boris Johnson. Here it is. Dear Prime Minister, my name is Dr. Tess Laurie and I'm the director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy in Bath. My business conducts industry independent medical evidence synthesis to support international clinical practice guidelines.

My biggest clients are the National Health Service and the World Health Organization. I have recently authored a report called Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19, a rapid review to validate the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance's conclusions. In connection with its findings, I sent an urgent correspondence to Mr Hancock and other members of Parliament on Monday the 3rd of January. Unfortunately, I have not yet had a reply, and due to the urgent implications of the report, I'm trying to reach you via this video. The good news is that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19.

It is called Ivermectin. Ivermectin is a very safe and effective anti-paracetic medication widely used in lower middle income countries to treat worms, lice and scabies in both adults and children. It has been around for decades and not only is it on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines. It is a Nobel Prize winning medicine due to its increasing usefulness across a range of different illnesses.

Between Christmas and New Year, I independently reviewed 27 studies presented by the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance as evidence of albumectin's effectiveness. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal. Ivermectin works well, both in preventing COVID infections

and in preventing deaths, at the same doses used to treat lice and other parasitic infections. I'm very pleased to inform you that this evidence solidly substantiates the FLCC's recommendation that ivermectin should be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Because I know there is a lot of fake news going about,

I would like to assure you that you can trust the integrity of my report, because I'm an experienced independent medical research consultant whose work is routinely used to underpin international clinical practice guidelines. In addition, I have no conflict of interest and have received no funding for this report. But most of all, you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor,

first and foremost, with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start. start saving lives now. Thank you very much for your help. Mr. Hancock's office should have my details. All right, so you make this appeal to Boris Johnson, you have Pierre Corey, Merrick, and Hill are all going

to the NIH to have a conversation. And I'm assuming at this point, everyone must be very excited. Like we have a cure. We can, this pandemic, essentially, we've got something that can really make a difference. So you must have been excited at that moment. Yeah, I was really excited, but also I was getting a little bit worried that nothing had happened, you know, that there'd be no response because on the emails I'd put urgent, you know,

and I'm available to talk any time. And nothing really happened. And I know that Dr. Corey and Marik were really disappointed with their meeting at the NIH. And so I reached out again to... Why were they disappointed if you don't mind my asking? I mean, what was the sense of what had happened at NIH? Well, it was that they had been very underwhelmed by the evidence. They hadn't said, wow, you know, thanks very much.

We'll move on this. So, you know, they were hopeful, but I still got a sense that they were disappointed and it hadn't quite gone as they had hoped. And so I said to Andrew Hill, let's work together and do a Cochrane review, a Cochrane style review because I know from my work with WHO that this is the style of evidence that gets, you know, that they like. It's a very methodological approach and he agreed to come on board to do with our team to do a rapid review. And I put together quite a strong team. Between us, we'd done more than 120 Cochrane reviews supported other authors to do Cochrane reviews. So we were a really

strong team. So just so that we're clear, you're working with Andrew Hill. I just want to give people a sense of where he was at. You thought emotionally as you were working with him. Here's a couple of tweets he had put out excited about, you know, he's working with Pierre Corey, Dr. Merrick. And so here's a couple of tweets just so we have a sense of who Andrew Hill is. Ivermectin is showing effects on viral clearance, hospitalization, and survival across a wide range of randomized trials in different countries. Difficult to see how bias assessment could change such consistent treatment effects excluding studies with any bias is too extreme. Ivermectin treatment is leading to faster viral clearance in several randomized trials. Could this lower the risk of SARS-CoV-2

transmission? Treatment as prevention works for HIV. Ivermectin meta-analysis reported in the financial times. The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming. Get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it, Dr. Hill said, we need to be ready. So obviously he was really pro the work that you were doing. He was as excited as you were, but then you get this document that is the one that it's like a preprint of what he's planning on going forward with. After you're all working together, you're supplying it with the evidence, you're supplying it with details, have a team of people giving it to him, but the paper is not what you expected. Is that my sort of stating that clearly?

Yes. When I read it for the first time, I was, I emailed him and I said, I emailed Andrew Hilden, I said, please retract this because it's going to cause immeasurable harm. What was it that stood out? From the work that you'd handed over, what was it that stood out? Was the evidence in the paper? Was there evidence that the ivermectin was working? Yeah, well, in actual fact, you know, in the paper, it says, I mean, I can read it for you if you like. In the results, it says that ivermectin is associated with reduced inflammatory markers.

It causes less, reduces inflammation. faster viral clearance, so it gets rid of the virus quickly, and it's dose-dependent, which is good, means the more you live, the more likely it's going to work. It says it shows significantly shorter duration of hospitalization. So the people in the Ivermectin arm were in hospital for a shorter time than those in the control arm. It says in the studies of severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality. So 75% fewer deaths.

the Ivermectin arm. And then it says, and there was favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. So they had to fewer people actually being hospitalized. So that all sounded great. You know, and then it says many studies that were included were not yet published or peer reviewed, and meta-analysis are prone to confounding issues. So the fact that they're not yet published or peer-reviewed, not published, the pre-print servers were established. during the Ebola health crisis because in a health emergency, researchers need to get their evidence out really quickly. And so, you know, to say, well, this is a problem is bizarre.

And then it says all peer reviewed. Now, the process of systematic reviewing is, in essence, reviewing papers. And you're in the unique position to be able to ask the authors for clarification and more information or data or whatever. So it's really strange to me that they've undermined their own findings. And then it says a wide variation in standards of care across trials, and ivermectin dose and duration of treatment was heterogeneous, which means different. So the fact that there were wide variation and standards of care is also a strength in this context

because many of these studies actually compared ivermectin to an active treatment. So, you know, so an actual fact it would have reduced, if Ivermectin was still showing benefits, it would have actually, you know, it underestimates the effect rather than overestimates it. And then, most shockingly to me, was that he says, Ivory Macon should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled, randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities. So he's saying the authorities can't even look at this evidence until larger randomized controlled trials are done. So it was very disappointing because we know how long, normally how long, long,

randomized controlled trials take to do and how expensive they are, although this hasn't happened in the context of other drugs that have been rushed through the studies during COVID and approved by emergencies authorization. Remdesivir, other things like that, or even the vaccine itself. So essentially, you had the body of what you had, the work you sent over, it was all there, showing 75% reductions. He's amazing. As Pierre Corrie put them, like almost miracle cure results in studies all around the world.

Yet at the end, he's put this paragraph that essentially says, but, you know, it wasn't fully peer-reviewed. We can't totally trust it because the studies were, you know, different in nature and used different approaches, which you says makes it a strength because it survived every way that it was used in the different variations. And then lastly, the nail in the coffin really is basically saying, and this is from the WHO perspective that he's representing this, he's saying, we cannot recommend this to anyone in the world until we do a full randomized control study. We need more investigation. It's positive, but let's put a hold on this. Is that essentially what that last paragraph does it?

It takes it out of use, out of recommendation by the WHO at a time where thousands and thousands of people are dying. every day. Yeah. So what was the first thought you had when you read that sort of conclusion? What was running through your mind? I said to Andrew, we have to meet. Let's meet. I said, you've got to retract this paper.

I can help you revise it. And he said he would meet with me the next day. Were you concerned at all that maybe there was an outside influence? that had come in? I was concerned that there was some influences. Yeah, I was. When I saw that, I thought, you know, what is going on here? Because he's been saying he's going to work with us to get Ivermect and approved, and then

there's this. So that was the thing, is, you know, what is actually going on. So now we have this representative. this representative, a consultant for the WHO that you've been collaborating with, Pierre Corey, Dr. Merrick have all been working with him, very excited about, you know, we are going to sort of bring this information in the world and perhaps really start saving lives. The paper comes out, it has this conclusion, you reach out, so set up for me what you wanted to get across to Andrew Hill in your meeting, the Zoom call that was about to happen.

Yeah, I wanted to just, I wanted to find out who was influencing him to make those conclusions. And I was hopeful that I'd be able to persuade him just to retract that paper and go ahead with us and do the Cochrane review, which then would be definitive. Can I speculate that you felt like the Andrew Hill you had been working with was so positive that by reading this, you just assume there must be somebody else. that stepped in because it was out of character. Was it out of character from what you'd known about it? It was out of character because even after our meeting, even after his paper had been published, that financial times clip that you posted just now

was from the 19th of January. So he published the paper saying that he needed, you know, that it couldn't be assessed, it couldn't be evaluated or recommended by the, or reviewed by the regulatory authorities. And then he was saying in the newspaper the next day, well, get ready, get supplies and all. of that. And in actual fact, there was also another, I think on the 19th or 20th, he was, he presented in a panel in South Africa where he was asked about Ivermectin and what would he do

if his brother got sick or a family member got sick with COVID. Would he use Ivermectin? And he said, yes, he would want his brother to get Ivermectin. So even after publishing that it can't be used by the regulatory authorities or recommended, he was saying, well, I'd like my brother to get it. So there was this kind of. It was like, you know, these inconsistencies that were really hard to understand. Okay, so you obviously, you reach out to this person who is at the very least conflicted. We have some of the excerpts from your Zoom call, which I think are very telling. At least we try to get a sense of what happened to Ibermectin.

Why would the WHO not be promoting something that seemed to be showing such success around the world? this first clip essentially you're asking him, you know, who's involved? What's happening here? Let's take a look at this. I think I'm in a very sensitive position here. What I'm trying to do. People are in sensitive positions. They're in hospital and ICU's dying and they need this medicine.

Well. This is what I don't get, you know. You're clearly not a clinician. You're not at the cold days. You're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine, preventing. deaths by 80%. So 80% of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ivernecton. There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this.

As I said, some people... We're looking at the data. It doesn't matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with the... and we have the experience to look at the data and reassure everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It's clear. You don't have to say, well, so-and-so says this and so-and-so says that. It's absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today if we can get the government to buy ibupmectin. So here, you're, you know, he's saying things like, well, I mean, there's not a consensus. There's other people that have different points of view. And you're like, they haven't researched this at the same level that we have. What was the

energy that you were sensing from him? Well, he wasn't making eye contact. He was being very, you know, he was trying to avoid making eye contact. He was kind of, it just felt like he was making excuses and just not coming up front and just saying what was actually going on. And there was so many people's lives hanging the balance

and it seems like in this call, you really tried to wake him up. Like, what are we talking about? Here's an excerpt where you try to really get him to admit, you do realize that people are dying in huge numbers. We could make a difference. It's, I guess, you know, an attempt to reach out and poke him through the Zoom call.

Let's take a look at this. Rest assured, I'm not going to let this last for a long time. I don't, I'm not saying we keep going for another year. But the fact that you're saying you're not going to let it last for long time makes you realize the impact of your work. So how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily? Up to you. What is the timeline that you've allowed for this then?

Well, what I hope is that this stalemate that we're in doesn't last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for a short amount of time as possible. So how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think your... Well, okay. Okay, just going to allow us to know. From my side, okay, from my side, every single new trial that comes through,

we're going to be aggressively adding it on. And I think end of February will be that, six weeks. How many good a guy every day? Well, there is a whole group of people who think that Ivermectin is complete rubbish. Not talking about them. I'm not talking about them. I'm saying we know the evidence. How many people die today?

Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day. 15,000 people a day times six weeks. Yeah, sure. No, I get it. I mean, it's really shocking. You can tell this is a man who, it's like he's got a million voices in his head. He's trying to talk about these people that are saying they don't believe in

Ivermectin. We don't know who those people are. But it's really amazing. the point, six weeks. And frankly, the statement in his paper's conclusion is that we're going to have to wait for randomized control studies

to be done. So it doesn't matter if he wants to keep, you already had a pile of great studies. What is it, you know, adding new studies going to do? How is that going to remedy this situation within six weeks? Was that sort of what you were thinking? That's not going to get the job done. Yeah, and it just felt like

it was sort of delaying tactics. I could see, you know, it's unlikely to be six weeks, but I was hoping, you know, at the end, well, okay, if it's just six weeks, then, you know, but I didn't really have any reason to believe him. So as you're sitting in this call, I mean, I think it's pretty harsh. You go right at him, right? I mean, you are really saying there's thousands of people, as he admits to dying, you know, every single day. did you feel like if I can't get this shifted right now? I mean, the way the weight of the world is on your shoulders.

If this paper goes forward, millions of people are going to die because they're not going to get a drug that you clearly have looked at and you said is saving lives. Did you feel like if I can't convince him here, all is lost? I did feel that it was a kind of make or break. You know, I didn't know really where we would go. go from there because we're talking months now for new trials and how are we going to get the message across because this is the WHO consultant. This is the WHO paper and they were basically

dictating international health policy. So you decide to get from him who's behind this? What is going on? You know, who's affecting you? Here's you sort of really drilling him to him. on that question. So who helped to, whose conclusions are those on the review that you've done? It's not listed as an author who's actually contributed. Well, I mean, I don't really want to get into, I mean, the unit- I think it needs to be clear. I would like to know who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged.

not acknowledged. Does Unitate have a say? Do they influence what you write? Unitate has a say in the conclusions of the paper, yeah. Okay. So who is it in Unitate then, who is sharing the, who is giving you opinion on your evidence? Well, it's just the people there. I don't know. I thought Unitate is just a charity? Is it not a charity? So they have a say in your conclusions? Yeah. Yeah.

So in many ways, I feel like there you have it. You have the smoking gun. You're asking who is it? And he says Unitate has a part of this conclusion, of writing this conclusion. Can you give us a sense of who Unitate is? It's a non-governmental organization that really does a lot of collaboration with the World Health Organization. And Bill Gates is on the board. and also is highly influential in the World Health Organization.

And there was a lot of industry influence, I would say, because I don't really see Bill Gates as a philanthropist. I see him as a businessman. So, you know, I was concerned when I realized that an actual fact, the people at Unitaid were influencing the conclusions of a scientific manuscript. and in fact, you know, it really smacks of interference because the names, you know, usually if you contribute to a paper, you're named either as an author or you're acknowledged in the acknowledgement section, and that was not the case. So we had a whole lot of authors listed

of the primary papers, which was also another irregularity because usually the people who are involved in the papers don't go as an author on the review. And then we had people. So just be clear, let me just, for people that aren't used to like this conversation, this is a review. It's a meta-analysis review taking in all the papers that have been looking at Ivermectin from around the world. And then the review tends to list those scientists and doctors were part of the review.

You're saying that this giant list of names included those authors of the original papers that were being reviewed. So they put them in as though they were authors on this review, which is not the standard way this is normally done. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Yeah, it's not standard. Have you reached out to any of the people that were on those original studies or papers to see, did you agree? Or what did you feel about how your paper was used in this meta-analysis that basically said these studies aren't enough to sort of warrant recommending ivermectin?

Yes, I reached out to Professor Femi Babelola, who did a very good study, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in Nigeria. And, you know, he said the whole process had been rather peculiar because, you know, he'd been considered part of this team on that preprint. And he had thought it was strange the way of the conclusions have been, you know, kind of against ivermectin, the use of ivermectin. And then he was surprised that his name, you know, that had been taken off the subsequent, the final publication, which, because that preprint only got published in July,

despite it having an enormous impact on health practice and policy before then. Just on that point, when I contacted our UK authorities to say what's happening, And here is the evidence pack on Ivermectin. They responded to say, well, you know, Andrew Hill's review says that more studies are needed. So even that wasn't published or peer-reviewed, it had an enormous impact. And actually, that's quite a good point. If you go back to his conclusions in his paper, he says these studies were not peer-reviewed or published. Well, his review wasn't peer-reviewed or published until July, and it had a huge impact on health policy.

Okay, we're all talking about we've been talking about on the highway so much about where's the funding coming from? Follow the money. Like what's going on? Why would anyone change their tune? Well, we see a huge investment into the university. Here's the headlines I want to bring to your attention. This is Unitate. Funding sees launch of World's First Long Acting Medicine Center at University of Liverpool.

University of Liverpool is where Andrew Hill works. This is the university with which he's coming from. Unitate is funding. you know, 40, it says established as part of a 40 million international research consortium. That's January 12th, this funding comes into the university, and by January 16th, there's an early print, and then January 18th, a preprint that you're looking at, where suddenly there's this huge caveat shutting down the recommendation of Ivermectin for the WHO. Were you aware of that, that Unitate investment into his university at that moment?

No, I wasn't. I only found out afterwards. And also I'm aware that Unitaid has some investment in long-acting ivermectin. So, you know, that's injectable ibermectin. So, you know, which also subsequently, I've realized, would have, may have had an influence. And so in this last clip that we have, where you're really trying to say, what are you doing? What I've got to do, my responsibility is to get as much support as I can to get this job approved as quickly. Well, you're not going to get it approved the way you've written that conclusion. You've actually shot yourself in the foot and you've shot us all in the foot.

All of everybody trying to do something good, you have actually completely destroyed it. okay well that's where i guess we'll have to agree to differ yeah well i don't know how you sleep it's amazing to hear him say there that he obviously still believes in it he's saying it's just a matter of time yet we are now a year out from this conversation and ivermectin is almost illegal i mean it's almost illegal to use it california here in america is looking to pass the law that any doctor that prescribes things like ivermectin can have their license taken away this has become this you know this flashpoint in in people's lives hang in the balance and as you predict in that moment and he wants you to agree to differ you're saying you're going to destroy ivermectin essentially that is

what happened here isn't it i think for me what's really important about ivomectin is that The Ivermectin is actually the key to unlocking all the secrets of this pandemic, because, you know, it turns out hydroxychloroquine was squashed as well. And if Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine had been approved, there would have been no lockdowns. There would have been no masking or any of that necessary because they're really good at reducing transmission, ivermectin especially, so it works for prevention as well as treatment. So there would have been no emergency use authorization of experimental novel treatments, and that includes the new gene-based vaccines.

So if you want to understand what COVID is all about, then you've got to start with ibupectin, and that really unlocks the whole mystery. And I think really, as we say here, we're going to need an investigation into what, to me, could lead to crimes against humanity. If there was a known solution, a miracle drug, if you will, that could have saved millions of lives, and it was purposely stopped by some group of people or health departments, then we've really got a question the motive is there. I just want to go through a couple of beats. We've talked about a little bit. But to be clear, Andrew Hill is on.

your side. He is tweeting out how excited he is about the product. He's going to the NIH with Merrick and Corey. And then we have an investment. Let's see this again. Investment into his university, $40 million by Unitate. Unitate fundings. He's launched a world's first long-acting medicine center at University of Liverpool. These are the way they do things. We're going to give you a lot of money. So he says, in the end, he admits to you, yes, Unitate is a part of the conclusion. Who's funding Unitate? You mentioned Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We looked that up, and so obviously Bill and Millinda Gates Foundation are investing a big part of Unitate. We also know that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation are really one of the primary funders of the WHO.

And so when we start seeing this, you know, collaborative effort, it appears to stop Ivermectin, what do you think needs to happen? I mean, this is a drug that you are convinced has a 75% reduction. Pierre Corey calls it a miracle drug. When you look at the lives that are lost, they're still being lost today. How do we hold accountable? How far should this go? How important is this conversation in the world today?

Well, as I say, I think it's really important because it's the key to understanding everything that's been going on, and you know, how emergency drugs. drugs get approved so quickly, you know, the vaccines, how quickly they were rolled out. And it also highlights that the people need to actually educate themselves and take responsibility for their own health. You cannot rely on the authorities. We have been really trying, we've had so much correspondence with authorities around the world, including the FDA and the NIH, just to say, here's the evidence and please approve it. And, and we've had so much correspondence. And they've just said, thanks for your opinion or thanks for your views.

You know, they never acknowledge that we've provided them with the evidence. And so it really is up to each and every individual to start being more aware of what they put into their bodies, both, you know, what they put into their minds, be it the TV or programming and all of that sort of thing, and also what they put into their bodies in terms of medical interventions. Are you at all concerned that since there's been such a heavy hand, it appears, involved? I don't think Andrew Hill is really the person that we're looking at is the cause, even though I think what we're looking at is the death of Ivermectin and who killed Ivermectin. But it's not Andrew Hill.

It's someone behind him, someone influencing him. Are you concerned that these entities may, they're just, WHO is involved in and maybe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that they have doubled down, you know, on this and put so much energy behind it that they can never allow the truth to come out about ivermectin. Do you think that there's going to be a concerted effort in the world to make sure that Ivermectin just stays on this list of drugs that were perhaps dangerous and we're never going to be useful?

Yeah, the forces have definitely doubled down on it. you know, the media, BBC and all of that, the trusted news initiative, you know, big on Ivermectin being a horse dewormer and all the, you know, the serious disinformation out there on Ivermectin. One has to wonder why. And I have a theory on that, and that's actually and it's becoming more and more apparent that Ivermectin is not only useful for COVID, acute COVID, it's useful for long COVID, and it's also useful for people who are suffering from side effects from the vaccines, the new COVID vaccines. So it's the first go-to now amongst doctors who are actually helping people with the side effects of vaccines, particularly

neurological side effects, but ivermectin is top of the list there. So the story of ivermectin doesn't end with acute COVID. We really need ivirmexin. We really need ivirmexia. to be available and we need to be doing studies, but more population-based studies than these randomized controlled trials. We need to be using it for individualized treatment of people who are suffering, you know, either from the long-term consequences of COVID or from the vaccines. Tomorrow you are releasing a short documentary about a letter that you have written to Andrew Hill. Do you want to tell me about that?

What is it that you are trying to achieve in your interactions still with Andrew Hill? I wrote a letter to Andrew Hill in January this year. Really just saying, you know, it's a year on now. So much has happened. You know, so many doctors have been discredited for using IverM. and members of the public and celebrities and so on. You know, aviagnans being more than ever denigrated as being a horse medicine, and we are now vaccinating children with experimental vaccines.

And so please can you consider coming out and revealing the corruption of science? You know, he is in a unique position, really, and this is a rare opportunity for him to actually reveal what, we know now has been going on for for years and decades, you know, just given the, you know, the fact that the drug companies are the biggest, you know, they've paid the biggest fines for fraud and corruption over the years. You know, he's in a unique position to actually reveal this in the context of ivermectin. So I'm hoping that, you know, I didn't get a response to the letter.

which is why we have now this short documentary. And I'm hoping that this might evoke the memory of what actually happened in that January last year. That has actually led to the increasing denigration of a very useful award-winning Nobel Prize-winning medicine. So if you want to see this video, the moment it releases tomorrow, then all you have to do is text. I can, I see A-N, text 72022, and we will send you a link to that video the moment it's available. This is her plea to Andrew Hill to do what's right, to speak out about what's happened, to reverse the misstatements that are made, people's lives are hanging the balance, we need the truth on Ivermectin.

It's going to be a very powerful documentary, and we're excited to be a part of launching that so that the world can see the truth. First of all, I just want to say you're amongst these unsung heroes out there. Clearly, you're putting your reputation on the line. Your work with the WHO has been impeccable. Is this the first time you found yourself in sort of a conflict position in the work that you do? It seems like you've been celebrated by the WHO until you stumbled upon Ivermectin. Yes, yeah.

It's the first time I've ever been, I'm really a behind the scenes person. I've never really been, you know, on media at all. And now I've had to really rely on media and small media groups to help raise awareness. And yeah, so it is a very strange position to find myself now. I have to say, though, that I think a lot of positive will come out of this because, you know, what we do see now is that massive change is needed, huge change. And COVID and this I have a mectin story is providing the vehicle for change. So we have, you may be aware, have established a World Council for Health, which is, is a completely transparent nonprofit initiative,

and it's pretty much manned by volunteer scientists and doctors and legal experts from around the world. And we are really trying to provide the best, most clear and independent evidence information for the public so they can empower themselves, take responsibility for the health, take control of their health, and not be so dependent on, you know, what they're fed via the TV and mainstream media and the, you know, so-called health authorities.

Well, you continue to do amazing work. You're obviously a champion of the people. I want to thank you for helping us in the high wire with our investigations. We continue to try and get to the bottom of what has happened here in this world. So many anomalies that don't make sense. literally hanging in the balance. So much of the work you do has to do with evidence-based medicine, evidence-based review.

We are looking at a time where we may see the end of evidence-based anything when it comes to science. So for championing science and being there, I want to thank you for taking the time today to join us. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Del. I do think that, you know, we are, we add a completely new stage because we are, you know, we've got a whole lot of new emerging diseases appearing and we're not going to have time to do randomised control trials on them. So I think it's a whole new stage of medicine and science. We've also been let down hugely by so-called allopathic or, you know, normal, the conventional approaches to medicine. So I think we really, you know, you

you know, we're at a phase where we're going to be having to look at new ways of managing our health and moving forward and making sure, exposing the corruption, making sure that this never, ever happens again. I agree with you completely, and that will be, and it is sort of a rallying cry and a mission for the work that we do. We will be standing with you into the future as we try to make sure that we don't live in a world where we're only testing new drugs, when there are drugs that could be repurposed and just because they don't make any money for anybody they could be saving lives they need to be a part of the discussion and as people like you dr robert malone pierre core so many of you are now standing up for this moment in science at such a critical time uh you're a hero i want to honor you today for your work and just know that

we are supporting you our prayers are with you thank you for representing us Thank you, Dale, for everything you do for listening to. Take care. I want to thank Tess, Lori, obviously, for really putting it on the line. I also want to thank Oracle Films for teaming up with us to make this interview happen across the ocean. And my amazing team that works out the technologies and makes all of this possible, works through the night as we decided and could sort of talk to Tess and she decided to bring these zooms forward. So it takes a lot of people involved to make this happen. There was a few things that when we were doing this investigation that really stood out to us.

Unitate, as Andrew Hill is saying, yes, they are part of the conclusion. You know, obviously his hands are tied. When we looked at the original preprint, Unitate was mentioned. This is what the original preprint said. It said funding for this research is by Unitate. And it said conflicts of interest, none of the authors has declared a conflict of interest. That is not what was published to the world. Ultimately, when they published, this is what it said about the financial support.

This work was supported by the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. No mention of Unitate, who clearly were the ones tying Andrew Hill's hands behind his back. This is such a clear, I think, depiction of Unitaid, what has become a narrative, a narrative being driven by government agencies, by NGOs that we do not elect and billionaires with agendas of their own. If it has been lost on you before, please let it be known that the Highwire does not believe in this narrative. That is what we have been investigating.

Yes, we've been kicked off of YouTube, kicked off of Facebook, censored everywhere they can censor us, but still you have stayed with us because we refuse to go along with false, fake narratives and pushing agendas that have led to the death, I would say, the murder of hundreds of thousands of American citizens and millions around the world. We will hold those people accountable. We will not stop our investigations, and from these investigations, we will be bringing lawsuits. I hope we will continue to support us. To close this out, to show you the proof, that what we are dealing with is not a health crisis, is not an actual pandemic, it's an agenda probably driven by a group of globalists that see a different future

for us in America and the rest of you around the world. That proof, I think, is in a democratic memo that went out prior to the state of the Union. Let's look at it. Now, I'm not, by the way, I bring it back to me just for a second, I want to make this clear. I am not involved in the politics of this any longer. I consider myself politically marooned. I have been a card-carrying Democrat my entire life. That means nothing to me now. I keep that card next to my toilet paper in the bathroom should I ever need that.

But the point being is I'm not reading this because I have anything against Democrats, as I'm still listed as one. I'm reading this because this is how they think, and this is what they think about you. Now, let's look at this. This is the memo impact research sent out to many in the political party. It starts out, it says, it's time for Democrats to take credit for ending the COVID crisis phase of the COVID war, point to important victories like vaccine distribution, providing economic stability to Americans, and fully enter the rebuilding phase that comes after any war. This is the bullet points that they say that the Democrats need to focus on.

We need to declare the crisis phase of COVID over and push for feeling and acting more normal. Recognize that people are worn out and feeling real harm from the years-long restrictions and take their side. We also need to acknowledge COVID still exists and likely will for a long time. Don't set COVID-0 as the victory condition, because that'll be problematic. And let's stop talking about restrictions and the unknown future ahead. It goes on to say most Americans have personally moved out of crisis mode, Twice as many voters are now more concerned about COVID's effect on the economy, 49% than about someone in their family or someone they know becoming infected with the coronavirus, 24%. Two-thirds of parents and 80% of teachers say the pandemic caused learning loss, which we talked about today.

And voters are overwhelmingly more worried about learning loss than kids getting COVID. Six and 10 Americans describe themselves as worn out by the pandemic. the more we talk about the threat of COVID and onerously restrict people's lives because of it, remember they're saying we're restricting people's lives. The more we turn to them against us, the more we do this, we turn them against us and show them we're out of touch with their daily realities. That's the state of the Democratic Party here in the United States of America. Do you think it affected the state of a union?

Well, here's how he talked about COVID. My fellow Americans, last year, COVID-19 kept us apart. This year, we're finally together again because of your resilience and the tools that we have been provided by this Congress. Tonight, I can say we're moving forward safely back to a more normal routines, where severe cases are down to a level not seen since July of last year. If you're vaccinated and boosted, you have a new normal, more normal routines. the highest degree of protection, we'll never give up on vaccinating more Americans. If necessary, we'll be able to develop new vaccines than 100 days instead of maybe months or years. 75% of adult Americans fully vaccinated and hospitalizations down by 77%. Most Americans can remove

their masks and stay in the classroom and move forward safely. The vast majority of federal workers will once again work in person. Our schools are open. You know, we've lost so much in COVID-19. Let's use this moment to reset. So stop looking at COVID as a partisan dividing line. See it for what it is. A god-awful disease. Let's stop seeing each other as enemies

and start seeing each other for who we are, fellow Americans. Well, I'm happy that he's finally deciding to bring us together after being so divisive through the first year of his presidency. I also want to point out that he states from the very beginning that COVID kept us apart. Now we are back together. Mr. President, COVID did not keep us apart. You did. Your administration separated us, shut down our schools, shut down our businesses, and thought that was the best way to go, even though all the science that exists, all the science that existed then was showing that that was a foolhardy move and was going to destroy lives.

So let's be clear, the enemy is not COVID. The enemy is how we dealt with it. Now, I could rip apart many of the statements that he said there. This has already been a very long and impactful show. So let me just take my sights on one statement he made to try and show you what complete and total bull this whole thing is. Here was the line. We've reached a new moment in the fight against COVID-19, where severe cases are down

on a level not seen since July of last year. Severe cases are down lower than they were in July of last year. obviously being in his mind some arbitrary point where we were in the throes of this virus and now we are finally out of it back then vaccinated like crazy moving towards mandates masks you get it we were right about to all go back to school and wrap our kids faces in diapers this is the actual reality let's just get to the fact shall we because that's what we do here on the high wire so here we're looking at ICU that would be the serious cases if we're going to look at ICU cases this is the world's data this is This is what the CDC and everybody is using. No, this is coming from Johns Hopkins. Sorry, thank you. John Hopkins University, this is the data as it turns out. Now, let's look at where were we in July of last year when it comes to ICU?

July 1st, 2021, ICU. We had 3,614 people per day going into ICU. This is, you know, the whole, as we look at it, look at these bumps. Now remember, vaccinations are all happening in here. We shouldn't be seeing these rises if the things actually work. But that's besides the point. Back July, when he said we were doing much worse then, we were at 3,614 ICUs cases per day. Now let's look at where we're at today. This is just last week, February 28th, 7,538 ICU patients per day. That is nearly double where we were back in July, Mr. President. That doesn't make sense to me. How about let's look at another parameter, shall we? And look at here's the line where it should be, what's the difference? Here's a difference. Here's a difference.

109% increase in ICU admissions since July of last year, comparing them now to back in July. All right, another parameter. Here we go. Weekly new hospital admissions. This is people going to the hospital, sick enough to be going into the hospital for COVID-19. Where were we at? And that magical moment back in July? July 1st, 13,876 hospitalizations per day.

Where are we at today? 34,772 hospitalizations per day as of last week. 13,000 to 34,000. Once again, what is the difference there? Here's the line of where we were. We're supposed to be below where we were. We're not. We're above it.

We're above it. By how much? By 150% higher than we were back in July, Mr. President. And lastly, probably the most important stat, as you all know, is how many people are still dying from COVID. Shall we look at this? Okay, COVID deaths. Where were we, July of last year?

222 deaths per day in July. Now, where are we at now? Hold on. 1,830 deaths being reported as of March 1st per day in the United States of America. When we look at that discrepancy, what is that line difference between this moment? where the president just told us we're doing much better.

We're actually 721% higher in COVID deaths right now on the State of the Union Day than we were back in July. Now, I'm not saying this to try and make you afraid. That is not my point here. I've never believed we should be afraid. These still essentially are small numbers when we put them in the face of cancer and heart disease and diabetes and COPD and those things that kill us,

that kill us, especially when we're elderly, every single day of every single year of our lives. I think that these numbers should be put into context. But what I am pointing out is that they are lying to you. The president is lying to you. We are not doing better than we were in July. We are doing worse. And yet, in this moment, because politically it makes no more sense for them, this entire experiment with our lives has failed miserably. They've decided it's time to move. move on. Maybe let's focus on a war between the Ukraine and Russia. Let's get off of this because we will never be elected again. We thought we would be elected forever when we started this entire campaign. We thought everybody would get the vaccine and they did not. They have failed

and they know they failed and instead of showing you science, instead of being honest about it, they've decided to lie to the world. Those are the facts. Fact check that. Now, you want to know when you're winning. You want to know when they realize they've lied and the jig is up. I've said it before when the musicians start strumming their guitars and singing about these issues. And when the comedians start cracking jokes about it, there's no more proof than they know that this is over and we have won the day than when from the belly of Hollywood, the propagandist machine that pushed all of this baloney on us.

When they start making jokes, you know it's over. Check out what happened on Saturday Night Live. The Belly of the Beast, the comedians that have been virtue signaling to us through this entire experience. This is what they finally admitted through comedy. I'm so glad we're doing this. My favorite restaurant with my favorite people. Honey, I agree 100%. You know what?

This is so fun. Dinner is on us. Oh, wow. But, Keith, you know you can take your mask off at the table. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know I'm wearing it half the time. Well, I heard the CDC is going to lift all mask mandates soon. Oh, yeah, I know.

It's so weird. It's like COVID's not over, but it's just gonna stop. I don't know how I feel about that. Oh, you know, that reminds me of this article I read. Oh, honey, no one wants to hear about that. Well, it was in Bloomberg, and I thought it was interesting. What article? What article?

Well... It was just saying how mask mandates had, I don't know, little to no effect on COVID. I just sometimes wonder if any of the things we did actually help. Gina. No, no, no. We can talk about this incredibly complicated and emotional topic. Yes, yes, of course. I will start because, um, for instance, while I am so personally relieved that I'm vaccinated.

Careful. I sometimes wonder if, um, if other people who are hesitant... Careful. Might not have, like, a valid... What? ...valid, but understandable. Not tonight. Help me.

I think what she means is, maybe sometimes we are a little overzealous when we condemn... Oh, no. I just think that if people are actually losing their jobs... Oh, no. Careful, girl. Look, vaccines save lives. Fact. Okay, they stop the hospitals from being overrun.

Fact. Well... But did I have to dump my oldest friend just because he didn't get... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. A booster? This is supposed to be fun. Isn't there something happy we can talk about?

No, no. We started this and we need to finish it. Go, make sense of this, please. Oh, okay. Well, I think the biggest mistake the administration made was not providing more testing. But the UK had done tons of testing and had even more COVID.

Good. Well, at least Biden finally sent out all those tests over Christmas. You mean the two tests for a family of eight that froze in the mail? Okay, well, at least we have the CDC. I mean, they haven't always been perfect, but the science changed. How does science change?

When I make a mistake at work, I don't get to say the science changed. At least we had outdoor dining. Oh, you mean when they built a smaller restaurant in the street? How is that outdoors? Oh, my God. I went to a child's birthday party, self-careful, and they did gymnastics in masks. Don't.

And then they went into another room and took off their masks to eat pizza. the end of me. So did they really need the mask? Oh no. Did any of us ever need? No. I said that out loud. Of course we needed the mask. We need it. We may not know for years the full extent of what we've been through, but we did our best and we're going to get through this. Amen. When an anti-vaxxer gets it, I feel happy. No, no. We don't have to wash our hands anymore, do we? I never did.

There you have it. Do you think we would be here? Do you think that they would be joking about this? Had the high wire not been here, had you not been sharing the high wire and other people bringing the truth, not mainstream media, no one in Hollywood, but those of us that cared about the truth,

clearly we have turned a corner. There is no doubt that we have won this battle. I've said it over and over again. And I know some of you out there like me are probably having mixed emotions about this. seeing that they are definitely going to transition and act like they never really believed in masks. They always kind of knew that the vaccine really wouldn't stop transmission or infection, even though they sold us the exact opposite from the very beginning. And now they're joking

about it. We want to be upset about it. We've got to give them room for this, folks. Let them laugh. Let them laugh at themselves because that's what's happening here. Let's be clear. Saturday Night Live did not just attempt to put lipstick on a pig. They said, said this was a pig. That's huge. We have achieved. Let's not drop the ball now. Shall we take this to the finish line? You bet we will. This is the high wire. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for caring. Thank you for standing for truth. Thank you for speaking out. Thank you for not being afraid. And I will see you next week.