The Highwire with Del Bigtree - WHY DEL WANTS TO HAVE A BEER WITH NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON

Episode Date: January 19, 2023

Celebrity Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently debated popular podcast host Patrick Bet-David over Covid vaccines, science & misinformation. In the process, deGrasse Tyson shared surprising misinformation of his own. Del breaks it down, and explains why he wants to have a beer with Neil deGrasse Tyson.#NeilDeGrasseTyson #Misinformation #PatrickBetDavid #DelBigtreeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

It's been said by a lot of people, you should never meet your heroes because you're bound to be disappointed. I kind of had that moment happen this week because of a podcast that went out. There's a podcast with Patrick Bet David. It's gone viral because it has one of the world's favorite scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, being interviewed. And he got into his opinion on vaccinations and mandated vaccinations and forced vaccinations. and apparently our social responsibility, it looks something like this. If you want to get an abortion, get an abortion. If I want to get the vaccine, I get to choose.

So you can't force, if I can't force you to get an abortion, you shouldn't be able to force you to get the... Because it's not about you. It's about people you interact with. And that's the social contract of public health. We don't even know if the vaccine worked or not at the time. Yes, that's what the trials are. Dude, that's why these trials are you missing data out there? But let me ask you question.

Are we saying only one thing? type of scientists are right? No, we're saying that the system in place. The 16,000 that's signed that. No, no, no, the system in place to test vaccines, there's an entire system that's in place that with review boards and all of this. That's in place. Now, you can say, what you can say is, I have a better idea than all these review boards and all these agencies and the CDC. I have a better idea. Here's what you should do. And that would have made everything better. Okay, you can put forth that idea. But what I'm saying is, in a case where you can contaminate someone else, it's not about you.

It's about the collective health. You're assuming. You're assuming because somebody can take the vaccine won't get COVID, which, by the way, I don't need to play the clips for you to see it where everybody said, hey, if you get it, if you take the vaccine, you're not going to get a Rachel Mata, Joe Biden, I can give you Fauci, I can give you fit. And you've seen these clips before. It's not like you've never seen it before. Yeah, what happened was... They were wrong. Hold on.

So, so, um, the strain evolved, okay? So that the vaccine that prevented you from catching COVID was tuned to the variant of COVID at the time the vaccine was denied, what was designed. Okay? Over time, there were variants that arose. The vaccine provided partial protection against the new variants enough to keep you from dying, statistically, and to basically keep you out of the hospital. All right. Well, first of all, I want to say I thought Patrick did a pretty good job in his interview. If you watch the whole thing, he's a great interviewer.

I have been on his show, Valuatainment, and he does a great job. But this isn't his wheelhouse. It's not a specialty. It doesn't focus on it almost every week the way I do. And so I just wanted to throw in a couple thoughts. And first of all, I got to say, Neil, come on, Neil, Neil, Neil, Neil, Neil, Neil, Neil. We're talking about science here. And some of the statements you're making, I'm shocked.

I mean, if I was watching this having been an interview that took place, you know, back in like early, you know, 20, 20, 21, maybe. But it's amazing you're making these statements now. It really makes me wonder. But let's just deal with a couple of points you're making. Number one, he says, what the wind was tested? That is exactly because, I mean, Patrick makes the point like it doesn't stop transmissions. Of course it does. Of course it does.

And so I want to point out, Neil, I think the most important thing is, no matter what your belief is on what it is doing, the FDA got an emergency use authorization bailed out of the trials early, just as Patrick pointed out, should have been five to ten years long. Instead, they just truncated that and, you know, unleashed this on the population. But this is what the FDA said when it was, was it effective? Well, when we were asked, you know, was it effective? If we knew this before anyone outside the trials got it, data are limited.

This is vaccine effectiveness against transmission. Unknown benefits and data gaps. This is the FDA saying it themselves. Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination. They were incapable of having the trial. It did in that short period of time. This nine months you seem really confident about was not long enough to determine,

first of all, whether it's safe. And second of all, whether or not even does the job of vaccine is supposed to do. Okay, now also, Patrick makes a good point. You're saying, well, look, I mean, this is what the body of science is saying. If we have a social contract, we're supposed to just hand our lives over to the body of science that understands this. But Patrick's pointing out, you have like 16,000 doctors that disagreed around the world, world-renowned scientists. And I'm talking about the Great Barrington Declaration. They were screaming from the mountaintops. Everybody stopped. Stop listening to Fauci. Stop the lockdowns. You're going to have suicides, alcoholism, all the different issues. Look at the amount of signatures. 953,000 total concerned citizens, 871,000 medical practitioners now 47, 37,379, jumping on and saying, whoa, everybody slow your role. And so this other idea that now you want to make an excuse. Now it's clear, I guess, to you that the vaccine isn't stopping transmission, but it was when they released it. You're wrong, you said. You're telling Patrick as though, you know, you don't understand.

It was variance. It was variance that was, you know, that changed everything, that it was purses. perfectly effective when it was for the Wuhan virus, but it, you know, had variance and now it doesn't work as good. But the truth is that, and you pointed this out very early on, that this isn't your specialty, so let's talk about someone whose specialty is that looks at variance. And I'm talking about Gert Vanne Bosch, who's been on the show multiple times. He started screaming from the rooftops, and maybe you should have sat down with him saying that if we deliver this vaccine, a leaky vaccine that will not stop transmission in the middle of this epidemic, we will cause variants we can't stop and make it impossible to get to herd immunity. It would be great if he was wrong. It'd be great if he could say, see, it didn't

happen, but everything he said did. We can't get to herd immunity. We're not getting there. And Rachel Wollenski is admitting that in a recent tweet. This is what she said about the current state of the vaccine program and these variants. We can't. Let me make this clear. We can't stop the spread of COVID-19. But departure testing the requirement to show a negative test result when flying from China to the U.S. can help slow the spread as we work to identify and understand any potential new variants. They can't stop it. The technology didn't work and none of the booster. She's not saying but the booster's going to save us. She can't even say that because this entire thing is such a disaster. And now we have mainstream media starting to look into what the high wire covered

with Geert Bann & Boch years ago. We are now starting to see headlines. like this, Neil. Are vaccines fueling new COVID variance? The virus appears to be evolving in ways that evade immunity. We have never seen a virus mutate this fast and evolve this fast. And certainly, Neil, you must understand the concept of evolution and how pressure upon anything in nature can cause an evolution, especially when you have everyone under attack everywhere.

When we're all catching the virus and you have a vaccine that even if it's, did work, doesn't have time to ramp itself up, so you're only getting half of maybe the protection it was even capable of doing. And so now you have all of these mutations being caused by the vaccine program. And by the way, you're going to say my social contract is to not put you in danger. How about your social contract? Your vaccine may very well be the reason that we all keep catching coronavirus because it has been a disaster and is driving variance if you look at the history and the science around this. And so all of that. And to say, you know, wow, well, the CDC and the FDA, we should hand our lives over to them.

You mean a group of people that don't fix a problem when they see it, but actually just change the definition? Because by the way, your whole concept of vaccination, the rug has been pulled right out from under you. What am I talking about? They changed the definition. Once the vaccine didn't do what it was supposed to do, they ended up changing it. This is what it used to be. We all grew up with this concept.

A vaccination is the act of introducing a vaccine near the body to produce immunity to a specific disease. This is the world you were living in, Neil, a long time ago, but it doesn't exist in more. Because now all the vaccine can do is the act of introducing a vaccine in the body to produce protection from a specific disease. That's a big difference. That means you can carry this virus, you can catch it, you can give it to everyone you know, but at least you'll be protected. Forget about the naturally immune person whose body went and destroyed this virus, had a couple of days, they probably weren't out walking around because they felt the virus, at least if it's as dangerous as you said it was. Let's forget about the idea that so many people were handling this

well. In fact, it was such a mild virus for the larger part of the population that we were complaining about how many asymptomatic carriers that were out there. So when you want to say, well, it reduces hospitalizations, really? You mean because most people didn't feel it. And by the way, I didn't sign on to your social contract. I don't believe being born in the freest, nation the world means that I'm supposed to be injected like a farm animal as though I live under someone in China. So I didn't get it and I had a very mild experience and most of the people around me did. So there we have it. And when it comes to what this vaccine could and couldn't do, Deborah Berks, who worked for the government much closer to all the trials that were being done,

this is what she's now saying about her knowledge, much different than your knowledge. Before there was ever variants, this is what Deborah Burke's thought of the vaccine. knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. Oh, so I was supposed to sign a social contact contract with people that were lying to me. Is that it, Neil? Is that what we're supposed to be at? And by the way, in case there's any question left to whether or not it was variance and what they approved in this nine-month trial, which was okay for you, not okay for me. And I'm going to hold on to my right to chief.

while products are being rushed onto the market. But let's go ahead and look at what Pfizer finally admitted when being asked by a decent group of politicians that are asking the right questions in Europe. This is what they finally admitted about all the trials that you trusted so dearly that somehow this vaccine was going to make sure that I didn't contaminate you.

Well, did they know that? Did they even look for that? Here is the honest truth. The Pfizer-COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission. of the virus before it entered the market. If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it.

Thank you very much. Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanisation before it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of some of the speed of the market. at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. All right, well, there you have. That's Janine Small. That was the person I'm supposed to put my hands, my body and my life in her hands

while she's not even looking at the thing you thought she was looking for. So, Neil, we're in really shaky territory here. But you went on, so let's listen to what else you had to say on the topic. I'm trying to make a statistical pointer, okay? If you say, I don't want to take the virus because it hasn't been tested for five years, and there could be some long-term side effect that worries me, okay? In that same moment, there's the risk factor of you getting COVID. Sure.

Okay? Unvaccinated. At one point, 87% of everyone dying in the hospital of, COVID was unvaccinated. Okay. So your risk choice is I'm not going to take it because maybe somewhere down the line something will happen and we don't know what that is

or I will risk getting COVID and if I get COVID depending on your age and other thing there's a 3% chance of me dying in the hospital. That's your choice. I mean it's really disappointing when a scientist that knows what he's going to be interviewed on doesn't come in with the right stats or the right understanding of what's going on. He condescendingly says to Patrick, you know, if you have some long-term concern,

that shouldn't affect how we do this. I mean, that is what it is, but that's not actually science, because you have some bizarre concern about the long-term potential safety issues. But here's the point, Neil. It's not Patrick that had the concern. It's not Del Bigfee that was the only one with the concern. The manufacturers themselves were concerned, so concerned that they demanded and said,

we will not even put this vaccine out unless you protect us from liability. Look at what AstraZeneca admitted when they were trying to, when Belgium was saying, we're not going to give you liability protection. AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. In an article, it went on to say this. This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in four years the vaccine is showing side effects. Rudd-Dobber, a member of Astros's senior executive team told Reuters,

they were so sure that they did not want to be responsible for this product if they weren't protected from what it could do long-term that they wouldn't even give it to a country that didn't give them liability protection. So you want my social contract to be with a company that is going to make tens of billions of dollars off a product, but will take on none of the liability because they're too concerned about the long-term safety issues and can't be held responsible. Why?

Because the trials were too short. That's the honest truth, Neil. The manufacturers knew the trials were too short, but not you, and apparently not whatever planet you're focused on that seems to think we have a social contract to take rushed vaccines. And lastly, you're talking about hospitalizations and, you know, that the unvaccinated were hospitalized, and you could die. You had a 3% chance of dying.

It's just simply not true. John Ian Ead, he's one of the world's leading epidemiologist, has done multiple studies on this through the years. And what does he determine? It wasn't a 3% death rate. It was about 0.27% across all demographics. Or if you break it down for everybody not above the age of 70, 0 to 19, you had a 0.0027% chance of getting, of dying from this virus after you caught it. 20 to 29 0.014%, 339.013.013.013.40, 49.082%. In fact, the only people that meet that 3% concern are the elderly over the age of 70. And so, okay, and many people, even Malone,

you mean, for what it's worth, said if we were going to tell anyone they could get it or should get it, maybe it was the elderly. I don't know if I agree with that. I don't believe in having any products out there that have been properly safety tested, but again, it's the United States of America and I believe in choice. And if you want to take a risk with a product that we have no understanding of its long-term effects, go right ahead. It's your choice. And you should actually consider yourself a part of this important trial, which is all that really did happen. We all became guinea pigs of this trial. And so when we break all of this down, why do I not believe I have a social contract because science has failed us so many time. Neil, do you really want to live in a world

where the manufacturers of the product that are the only ones actually doing the safety studies that will only tell you years later, oh, we never tested to see if the damn thing even worked? You want them to be, you want to trust, I'm supposed to trust my life in their hands that they're doing the best work possible. Well, these are the same industries that created products like thalidomide. Can you imagine if everybody had to get something like thalidomide? And then we end up having all of our babies be destroyed and looking like this. It's possible, Neil, it's possible. And there's no returning once the social contract says,

I have no way to opt out, even if 17,000 doctors in the world are warning me, we don't agree with Tony Fauci. There's also biocs made by Merck. It caused so many heart attacks. They lost over a $3 billion settlement. And in the end, we knew that behind the scenes, lo and behold, they didn't tell us the truth about safety. they knew that the product could cause heart attacks.

I could go on and on with Johnson's baby powder and everything else. But the point is, Neil, if we have some sort of social contracts simply by being born into the United States of America to allow companies that are now the number one lobby in Washington seem to have a revolving door in and out of our regulatory agencies are spending billions of dollars funding campaigns to presidents like Trump and Biden who maybe go to their cronies and say, hey, you know what? Even though it looks like this is only a death rate

of about 0.27%. We think if the government made it an emergency, we could mandate this product on everybody even though it was never properly safety tested. And we looked at the history of this product prior to this really short human test. It was a disaster in animal trials. All the attempts that a coronavirus vaccine

was written about, and the immunopathology and the headlines were everywhere. Coronavirus vaccines, immunization with SARS-Coronavirus vaccine leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with SARS virus, meaning it looked like the vaccine was helping the virus infect the host. And there was nothing in the EUA by the FDA that figured out and said we got around this issue. In fact, they admitted when it comes to enhanced disease, we don't know if the vaccine is going to do that. This is what science is all about, Neil.

It's about a conversation. And when you have censorship by a very small group of well-funded scientists against tens of thousands around the world saying, we should have a voice. When they're censoring the body of science, I don't feel comfortable. And I believe that people are intelligent enough to make their own decisions, and we should never have a product that is forced on anybody. And that's exactly what we learned from the Nuremberg Code.

After Nazi Germany, we said never again is a government going to force any medical procedure or product onto free citizens, certainly not in the United States of America. So I don't know what social contract you signed on to. I did not. And lastly, you make a really good point, and this is what I want to talk about. Are you for scientific debate? So in a scientific debate, here's how that unfolds. I'm in conversation with you.

Let's call it a debate. We know, you and I know, walking into that room, either I'm right and you're wrong, you're right and I'm wrong, or we're both wrong. We know that in advance. So we start having the conversation. Well, what about these data? What about these data? I think those data are flawed, and here's why.

Well, how about this? Yes, that's a debate. But you know how that debate ends? It depends where, you know, we need this new. data set to resolve this difference. Now let's go have a beer. I have never seen that happen in a political debate. All right, Neil, I mean, here's the point. Should we have a debate? I want to have a debate. I know that you think you're right and I think I'm right based on things like what exactly

the FDA said when they released this on everybody. You said that and I must, they did do, they did prove that it worked. Really on who? On who? On everybody? On everyone in the world? Because This is what the EUA said, Neil. We did check the source. We did take the primary source, which was Pfizer's experimental vaccine data that was submitted to the FDA for their emergency use authorization. And what did it say under Section 8.4 unknown risks, data safety gaps in certain subpopulations. There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine and subpopulations, such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals and immunocompromptial. individuals. So there you have it. These trials didn't include anybody with any issues. I think it's

said that nearly 50% of Americans have some form of an immunodeficiency issue or an immune problem. So you're going to take a total experimental immune product that was never tested in people that have problems with their immune system and then just say, hey, it was safe for the Justice League, the healthiest people who could find that weren't allowed to drink, weren't allowed to have intercourse, to ask ourselves why weren't they allowed to have intercourse and all those things? But because the healthiest little group that we looked at, now everybody can get it. Those that are obese, have diabetes, all those other issues. Neil, that is so dangerous, man.

We are talking about the most reckless way science could possibly act. And what would happen? Can you imagine? Maybe not this time or next time. But if we keep this social contract where the most powerful lobby in Washington that seems to be controlling government. all around the world and the WHO keeps putting products out that have been properly safety tested. Can you imagine if one day we're all given a vaccine that causes, you know, I don't know,

like sudden death, things like blood clots and thrombocytopinia and and myocarditis and periocarditis and over years they start getting cancers from these things. Can you imagine if that happened? What would the world look like? Yes, doctors are baffled. huge rise in all-cause mortality. So lastly, Neil, I want to say this. I've had debates before with great individuals.

And even Alan Dershowitz, you know, I've debated this topic with him. We were friends afterwards, and so I want to say this. Neil, I'm all about getting a beer. Let's do it. But first, I'm asking you to come onto the high wire. And by the way, I just showed you a bunch of my cards. You get to study many of the things that I've said, and you can even go back and watch my shows. So come and prepared and let's have a real debate. And by the way,

don't go off half-cocked again. You are really started to make me concerned about the state of all science. I used to believe in you. I trusted you. If you will just take people's word for it, I mean, is all science just reading the cliff notes of what scientists before them actually said? It's time to do your due diligence. And then come on the high wire. I'm looking forward to it.