Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials?
I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline.
That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate
or what I can say.
Instead, you are our sponsors.
This is a production by our non-profit, the Inform Consent Action Network.
So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark needle-wins, if you
want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to ICanDecide.org and donate now.
All right, everyone, are we ready?
Yeah!
Let's do this.
Action.
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.
Wherever you are out there in the world, it's that time to step out onto the high wire.
You know, there's always these conversations.
We bat around phrases like misinformation, disinformation.
Of course, we were censored in the middle of COVID, which in many ways just gave us a
lot of free advertising.
But so many of you write in, so many people talk about the fact that it's like we're living
in two different worlds.
Sometimes, if you just try to listen to that other media station, you're listening,
thinking, how is it you're reporting on this?
This is the exact opposite of what I just experienced or what's happening.
Even if you go to an event, you're like, that is not what happened at this event.
But perhaps more egregious than any report I've seen in a very long time was a report
that came out this week.
And you want to talk about being on the opposite side of good, being on the opposite side
of what's right?
Check out what happened at CNN with Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper.
Take a look at this.
Hello, to our five CNN viewers, I'm Jake Tapper, First Order Fact Checker.
We begin tonight with a disturbing report out of the Yavin sector.
Intelligence officials are telling us that the terrorist group known as the Rebel
Alliance, a fringe coalition of religious extremists and smugglers, has launched a
cowardly, unprovoked attack on the peaceful Death Star.
Anonymous sources close to the Emperor tell CNN that this station was essentially a galactic
housing project designed to bring affordable energy to the outer rim.
Yet the radical rebel terrorists, led by the disgraced former senator and known white
supremacist princess Leia Organa, falsely claim it was a weapon.
We are now joined by our Chief Imperial Correspondent, Anderson Trooper.
Anderson, what are you hearing from the core worlds?
The mood here is one of shock and outrage.
Jake, I've spoken to several anonymous sources within the Imperial Senate who
confirmed that Lord Vader was actually on a diplomatic humanitarian mission when
his ship was aggressively boarded by these rebels.
There is a lot of disinformation spreading right now.
You have conspiracy theorists claiming the Empire destroyed Alderaan.
But our fact checkers have debunked this.
The official report clearly states Alderaan suffered a spontaneous
planetary mining accident caused by rebel negligence.
To suggest the Empire fired upon it is just baseless anti-government conspiracy theory.
Absolutely debased.
And we're seeing reports about the ringleader of this latest attack,
a radicalized white farm boy named Luke Skywalker.
What do we know about him?
It's a terrifying profile, Jake.
Skywalker appears to have been indoctrinated by a fanatical zealot named Obi-Wan Kenobi,
a member of the outlawed racist Jedi religious cult.
Experts say this force religion is extremely dangerous,
teaching young men to reject science in order in favor of ancient weapons and violence.
Skywalker was seen associating with Han Solo a convicted felon, smuggler and tax evader
who has been known to shoot first.
These are not freedom fighters, Jake.
They are violent deplorables who hate democracy.
Truly shameful.
And finally, Emperor Palpatine reassured the galaxy today
that absolute power is actually very freeing
and that any suggestion he's a Sith Lord is an outdated conspiracy theory pushed
by people who don't even live on Coruscant.
Up next, a panel of six imperial moths explains why tax increases in government overreach
is a good thing and will actually help you.
CNN is sponsored by CNR Fleet Systems.
Do your patriotic duty and help the Empire secure the galaxy?
That's all for now.
You're watching CNN, the most trusted name in Imperial Approved Truth.
I saw there's a TikTok by a guy named Brian Jacoby.
I think that's who made it.
I'm not exactly sure.
But whoever you are, wherever you are out there, that was pure genius.
And I wanted to share it with you just to remind you.
No matter what we're all going through here or how serious a day may be
or maybe a law or an initiative we're trying to change,
please remember to have a sense of humor.
It's what really makes us spectacular.
And if you can laugh, you can still hold it all together.
And I think it also inspires us to do more if we can stay happy about it.
So I just wanted to share that with you.
I woke up the other morning and saw that post and burst out laughing.
It made my day.
Actually, it's made my week and it's making my day right now.
But to get to the real news and what's really going on,
I actually have a great show coming up.
I have the opportunity to speak to Attorney General Ken Paxton,
the Attorney General of Texas.
This is a bucket list moment, actually.
I moved to Texas from California back in 2019.
This guy has just been spectacular fighting,
especially for issues that we talk a lot about medical freedom.
He's actually doing an investigation into, you know,
the incentivization, giving money to doctors to force people to take vaccines.
It does seem like that really pushes the envelope for what we should expect
as far as our freedom, especially medical freedom.
Can you really force something on me
just because you're being incentivized to do so?
So anyway, I'm going to ask him a lot
about that work that he's doing in that investigation.
But first, it's time for the Jackson Report.
I don't know what I'd do, Jeffrey.
If I watched a video that sort of made me look to be aligned with the Death Star,
but I swear that there was something about that video
that really captured it away when you were trying to explain
what it feels like to live in this world.
That is what it feels like, right?
Like the opposite story, the heroes are the enemies
and the enemies are our heroes.
Like, what is going on?
Anyway, coming from a journalist trying to detangle those things,
I found myself laughing, but then getting kind of sad
because how accurate that portrayal was with any overlay of information
you can put that on any window.
It's so accurate.
Yeah, I want to talk about really in our space here
in the health journalism, in the medical space, medical choice,
really the biggest story this week is a detransitioner
has won a court case against a doctor and their psychiatrist
for medical malpractice.
Here it is.
Jerry finds doctors liable for malpractice in gender surgery lawsuit.
Let's look at the facts here.
A jury on January 30th found a psychologist and surgeon liable
for malpractice after they supported and performed breast removal surgery
on a 16 year old girl who at the time identified as transgender.
Fox variant now 22 and no longer identifying as transgender
was awarded two million dollars in damages,
1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering
and another 400,000 for future medical expenses.
Del, this is the natural course of medical products and procedures
when they don't have liability protection like vaccines.
We're seeing how courts actually handle these things.
And so just to get into this court case a little bit,
the person in question that just won this award suffered from depression,
anxiety, was diagnosed with autism.
And this is one of the reasons they won was because their doctor,
their psychologist deviated from the standard of care
to go through this procedure and did not give full informed consent.
These are now this court case is sealed.
So we're going from the reporting reporters were there.
One of them, Benjamin Ryan, he's an independent journalist.
He put together a spreadsheet just to show you where this is going.
This is the first court case here.
But by his account, 28 more other cases nationwide.
This is where this is going.
And we can see I want to paint this picture here
because it really looks like this is the start of the end for the I want
to call it the cottage industry within hospitals and gender care at
university hospitals that are that are rushing these kids
through without informed consent, deviating from the standard of care.
And these lawsuits are probably going to start coming a lot faster
if it doesn't stop.
One of the big issues these lawsuits are running up against
is the statute of limitations.
So for medical malpractice is usually about one to three years
depending on which state you bring these lawsuits in.
But what states are doing now is they're extending it in special cases
for gender affirming care for those type of lawsuits.
So we have a list of states now that have expanded that.
You have Arkansas 15 years after they turn 18, Tennessee 30 years after
they turn 18, Missouri, Florida also extending it.
So you have this massive extension of the statute of limitations
for gender affirming care lawsuits and other states most likely are going to follow.
And this all started in 2023 really from the state level.
When you saw whistleblower go to Missouri, the Missouri AG, and basically
Missouri was one of the first states to outlaw gender affirming care for minors.
And you saw the officials there.
They're looking at these youth clinics since then to have been closed down.
One of the people that testified and gave an affidavit to the attorney
general in Missouri was Jamie Reed.
Jamie Reed has been kind of just tearing through at state houses
across across the United States, testifying she's a whistleblower.
Here's our most recent whistleblower testimony in Nebraska.
Take a listen. OK.
When I started working in the center, I would be what you would refer
to as a true believer.
I not only believed that such a thing as a trans child existed,
but I believed that the earlier we could intervene, the better
in the long term outcome.
This is kind of what we talk about in autism services or other services
with kids if we start an intervention early, perhaps we'll make it better
for their life.
It wasn't necessarily that my bias changed.
I'm still from the community.
I'm still a lesbian.
I was married to a trans identified adult at the time.
What changed was the actual evidence in front of me.
So what I started to see, first of all, is that these patients
were not getting better, so their mental health was not improving,
although that's what's promised in the intervention,
that their mental health will get better.
It wasn't happening.
But also what we saw, which we've seen internationally,
as there has been a complete, absolute social contagion element
that just tore through this industry.
When I started in 2018, we had four new patients per month,
and they were almost all pre-pubital boys who acted very feminine.
When I left, we had 60 new patients per month.
And almost every single one of them was a trans identified adolescent girl
who had multiple mental health comorbidities
who had been sucked into trans as an identity,
who had been sucked into it from social media,
from their COVID lockdowns, from their school.
This completely tore through this industry in an unprecedented way.
The reason why we talk about this at all
is because there was one of the largest social contagions
to ever happen in adolescent girls
ripped through this country over this.
17 systematic reviews of evidence have been done globally.
These are huge projects.
Every single one of those 17 systematic reviews of evidence
has come to the unequivocal conclusion
that there is no quality evidence
to support the medical transition of a child.
Period.
Those were reviews that the country of Finland did,
that the country of Sweden did, that Norway did, that the UK did.
We're not talking about one person at a hospital writing a paper.
We are talking about entire nations
reviewed all of the evidence you could find.
And there is not a single, single
paper of systematic review that supports doing this.
It's so powerful, Jeffrey.
And what I mean to see one case,
like the first case of its kind win on behalf of this poor young lady
who was, you know, manipulated into making a choice
that she would not be happy about in the future.
And but I wonder about all these doctors
that performed these things that were going along
with what seemed like, you know, the new standard of care
and moving forward.
They must be quaking in their boots right now,
you know, thinking about, you know,
how many of my patients could turn on me
and could come back on me, you know,
I was just doing what I thought was right.
And for those doctors, I just want to say you deserve it.
Frankly, this goes so far beyond common sense.
I mean, the idea that you were going to rob
someone of their puberty, that you were going to make this
you're going to make, I mean, such a permanent decision
for a child when we don't give them any,
we don't allow them any other permanent decisions
for their life. What rush was there?
Why couldn't they wait until after 18
and manipulating parents and do it?
All of it, you know, whether or not you were manipulated
or there was too many people around you,
we are supposed to be able to trust
that you were working on instinct
and really looking at the science there was none here.
So for every doctor that ends up losing their license
over this, good riddance in all honesty, good riddance.
Absolutely. And the doctors and the surgeons,
they were the engine that led this.
As Jamie Reed said, this social contagion,
they were the ones that drove this for minor children
that were just rushed through this process.
So the dominoes are really stacking up here.
You have lawsuits beginning to build
statute of limitations stretching
so more people can be included in these lawsuits.
You have at the state level, you have whistleblowers coming out.
But now the federal level is pushing their thumb on this.
So right before Christmas, you had HHS come out
and they put together their review.
This is over 400 pages, highly cited.
And this is their treatment for pediatric
gender dysphoria review of evidence and best practice.
And I want to go over the conclusion here and read this
because this is very important.
So the central theme of this review
is that many U.S. medical professionals and associations
have fallen short of their duty to prioritize
the health interests of young patients.
First, there was a rapid expansion and implementation
of a clinical protocol that lacks sufficient scientific
and ethical justification.
Second, when confronted with compelling evidence
that this protocol did not deliver the health benefits
it promised and that other countries were changing
their policies appropriately.
U.S. medical professionals and associations
failed to reconsider the gender affirming approach.
Third, conflicting evidence,
evidence that challenged the fundamental assumptions
of the protocol and the professional standing
of its advocates was mischaracterized
or insufficiently acknowledged.
Finally, dissenting perspectives were marginalized
and those who voiced them were disparaged.
Just like the pandemic.
And right after that document came out,
we had Secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Say this. Take a look.
This morning I signed a declaration.
Sex rejecting procedures are neither safe
nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.
These procedures fail to meet
professionally recognized standards of care.
Medical professionals or entities
providing sex rejecting procedures
to children are out of compliance
with these standards of healthcare.
This declaration is a clear directive
to providers to follow the science
and the overwhelming body of evidence
that these procedures hurt not help children.
Additionally, CMS is proposing two new rules.
The first rule are hospitals
that participate in Medicare and Medicaid,
which is almost every hospital
from performing these dangerous and harmful procedures.
The second rule prohibits the federal Medicaid dollars
from funding the sex rejecting procedures on minors.
Furthermore, HHS is also moving to reverse
the Biden, the Biden administration's attempt
to include gender dysphoria
within the definition of disability.
Just in this one space alone, imagine where we'd be had,
you know, the election gone a different direction.
I mean, thank God we've got this reasonable man in HHS
and someone that's, you know, allowing science to be done,
not afraid to question the science
and doesn't care who, you know, the interested parties are.
We're going to get to the bottom of it.
So thank God. I mean, it's really amazing.
And we're talking about children here,
and it's not hard to predict at this point
what direction things are going to start moving.
So you saw a headline here
just a couple of days ago out of Utah.
University of Utah suddenly ends,
suddenly ends all remaining health care for transgender youth
pointing to expected bans.
So they're anticipating a full scale state and federal ban.
They're out of the business at this point.
They're done.
And you're probably going to see a lot of other headlines
suddenly changing course.
What's interesting here,
because there's another side of this conversation,
there's still people fighting here.
And it's interesting because anytime we find a conversation
where there's some ambiguity or some lack of science,
you find the American Academy of Pediatrics
on the other end of that.
And they're no different on this one.
Remember, the American Academy of Pediatrics
argued the opposite of this point
that's happening right now.
This is their policy paper.
They were trying to change nationwide policy.
They did a pretty good job of it for a couple of years.
This was in 2023, prohibition of gender affirming care
as a form of child maltreatment.
They wanted to reframe the discussion.
There are two main points in reframing the discussion.
First, they wanted to refute the idea
that gender affirming care is child mistreatment.
And secondly, and most importantly,
they wanted to demonstrate how withholding gender affirming care
is harmful to children and amounts to state,
sanction, medical neglect, and emotional abuse.
If they had their way, the lawsuits would be going
a lot different right now.
They'd actually be going against doctors
that didn't do it fast enough.
And so the remaining states that are still allowing this,
they're pushing back.
In fact, here's California, Attorney General,
Sue's Rady Children's Hospital
for Caretailing Gender Affirming Care.
And then the next one here in New York,
this is all kind of in the same basket,
New York and other states,
Sue Fez to protect 300 billion
threatened by gender policy rules.
So 300 billion dollars states
collectively receiving government funding
to basically, it's a contingent now,
upon these new rules that Kennedy is putting in.
So they're gonna lose that funding.
So they have gone to the courts
to sue the Trump administration to try to keep that funding.
And these are now a minority of states.
So we look at this map here
and you can see the states that are shaded
have laws against gender affirming care
and transitioning of minors.
The ones that don't are also part of this lawsuit.
So Oregon, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois,
Michigan, Nevada, Minnesota,
you have New York, obviously,
Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island.
They're all part of this lawsuit.
I'm assuming they're all in most of the same states
that are deciding to go along with the AAP
on double-vaccinating the children
over the new vaccine program that's available
to the rest of the country
through the change made by Robert Kennedy Jr.
I mean, it's like the stupid states,
maybe that's what we call them from here on out,
the stupid states are now requiring that you
cut the genitals off of your children
and double-vaccinate them,
even though that is not even acceptable in Denmark
or Germany or the other countries that we're now following.
Yeah, most of them are.
And I hate to use the word anti-science
because it was leveraged so hard
against people like you and I
when we were referring facts during the pandemic,
but it really seems like it's the anti-science
dark ages of medicine group.
And you can see here in the headlines,
just like Jamie Reed said,
this social contagion swept across America
and it's starting to slow down now.
Here's a headline from just a handful of months ago.
We have a number of young adults
identifying as transgender plunges
by nearly half in two years.
So it almost seems like the wave has crested
and we're seeing a different conversation here.
And isn't it funny, it's tied to these hospitals
and these surgeons that are fearing for their licenses
and fearing for lawsuits against them.
That seems to be slowing the social contagion down.
Well, that and taking the groomers outside
of the public schools, like removing that attack
on your children's psyche
as you were making kindergarteners question
their own genders.
I mean, boy, we're coming out of some real insanity.
It's brought at the first year.
And you can see, look how quickly it changes, right?
It was totally socialized
as was so well stated in that testimony.
Yeah, and as you're talking about change,
changes in the air were upon an anniversary
just came and went 20 years of an inconvenient lie.
I guess you want to talk about it
when it comes to Al Gore's inconvenient truth.
His documentary won an Oscar for it.
It was all over the place.
And at this point, we look back on it now
and here are the headlines.
Two decades of inconvenient inaccuracies
and why are we always beating this drum here?
Because this painted, it's about narratives.
I mean, we lived through COVID,
we saw how narratives allowed lockdowns, forced vaccination.
I mean, all of it, I don't have to go through it.
The narrative of climate change really Al Gore
was the jet fuel.
The inconvenient truth was the jet fuel
that drove this home into the minds of children
and into the minds, I mean,
he's a documentary filmmaker, he made this documentary.
And so a lot of people didn't know,
but he was sued by the high court in the UK and lost
because there were so many inaccuracies.
In 2009, here's the headline here,
an inconvenient verdict for Al Gore.
So he lost there because in the UK,
you can't put this forward, especially the school children,
and be biased and basically lie to them.
So of course, schools, this is the headline,
must warn of Gore climate film bias.
So they had to, when they played these films in school,
if you were in the UK,
you had to get a list of all of the bias inaccuracies
of this film because this court ruling,
here's a list of them.
I mean, there's over 10 of them,
but we can go through a couple.
The first one, the film claims that melting snow
on Mount Kilimanjaro, evidence global warming,
government's expert was forced to concede
that that is not correct.
Number five, the film claims that the studies show
that polar bears had drowned
due to disappearing Arctic ice had turned out
that Mr. Gore had misread the study.
In fact, four polar bears drowned.
And this was because of a particularly violent storm.
You go to the bottom, the film suggests
that the Antarctic ice covering, melting,
the evidence was that it is fact increasing.
So you go through, the kids now have to sit down
and basically get fact checked
because of a court order,
because this guy can't do a proper documentary.
I mean, it takes five seconds to fact check this stuff.
But let's keep going on these fact checks,
because this is another narrative
that it's really starting to turn fast.
Well, again, I'm gonna do the same caveat I do every time,
Jeffrey, I want clean air, I want clean water,
I want to clean food supply, all of those things.
I consider myself environmentalist,
but I do not agree when these things start being used
as trigger points for authoritarian control,
which is what this is with all the carbon credit stores,
the WEF and the WHO.
So when we're reporting on this,
I wanna make it clear to everyone out there,
let's try to clean up our environment,
it's good for all of us,
but we should do it in ways that make sense.
And certainly not by destroying our economies
and our ability to walk amongst each other or have jobs.
Right, and I think we can all agree conservation
is a big thing, especially stopping environmental toxins,
which we know are leading to this chronic disease epidemic.
This is a main contributor to this.
And so I wanna go into the conversation about polar bears
because a new study just came out,
they're looking at this polar bear conversation.
And for all the people that were sad and crying
that the polar bears were drowning and dying
and were losing them in this earth,
where they could become extinct,
here's the headline, polar bears getting fatter
and healthier amid ice loss.
Researchers weighed and measured 770 adults
in Svalbard between 1992 and 2019
and found that bears had become significantly fatter,
which means healthier.
They think that Svalbard bears have adapted
to recent ice loss by eating more land-based prey,
including reindeer and walruses.
So there you go.
Now, over the past couple of weeks here in the United States,
we've received a huge Arctic blast.
Some say it's the biggest one in 40 years
and the conversation about an ice age has come about.
It's come back around full circle.
You see headlines like this,
this was just over a month ago,
right before it happened, global warming could trigger
the next ice age, it's a silent science daily.
But we have a conversation from a professor,
his name is Andreas Born.
He was basically asked about this in an article,
when will the next ice age come?
And he's at the University of Bergen Department
of Earth Science and he studies past climates.
And he says this,
next ice age will probably not begin
for another 50,000 years, says Born.
Researchers have arrived at slightly different estimates.
If we disregard human influence,
the current interglacial period is estimated
to last between 10,000 and 50,000 more years.
We are therefore living in an interglacial period
that is unusually long.
That's basically the warm phase
between the ice ages.
So we're in this warm phase sandwiched
between these two ice ages.
But this ice age he's saying is it's very long,
10s of thousands of years long.
So he goes on to even talk about more
of what the earth's doing in this elliptical orbit.
He says the reason the interglacial period
is especially long is because of natural fluctuations
in something called the Maklanovich Cycles, says Born.
These are changes in the earth's orbit
from circular to elliptical,
as well as changes in the earth's tilt and wobble,
which affects solar radiation.
These cycles have periods of 100,000, 41,000,
17,000, 21,000 years.
They control the timing of the ice ages
and interglacial periods
along with feedback mechanisms in the climate system.
So that's a pretty big...
Well, man, just gigantic enormous elements
that human beings have no control over, right?
The change in how our orbit is working,
the wobbling of the earth's sun.
I mean, these are things when we get so egocentric
that human beings are these just giant power sources
really enough to overcome changes in our orbit,
in our wobbling, in our distance to the sun and its power.
I mean, it puts it all into a little bit of perspective
in those numbers, right?
Hundreds of thousands of years, tens of thousands of years.
It's humbling in all the right ways.
Yeah, and we're talking about galactic prime movers here.
And so what about people?
Well, he goes on to say this.
He says, an important factor for when the next ice age
will come is greenhouse gas emissions.
The CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased
and the planet has become warmer.
He says, these estimates that with the emissions
we have already had, the next ice age will be delayed
by at least 120,000 years from today,
perhaps as much as 200,000 years, he says.
So depending on your perspective,
he's saying global warming in this case is actually good
when it comes to saving off an ice age
that's gonna bury us under thousands of feet of ice.
It's time for, I think, a message in a bottle
to our kin out there 200,000 years from now.
You're welcome.
We did our best.
So, well, when it comes to this climate conversation
because it's existential, it's eaten every topic we know.
Also, pandemics, they're not sacred here.
And so we have the Lancet, remember Lancet,
the journal Nature, these are the people
that said natural immunity wasn't a big deal during COVID.
These people that said natural origins
is where this pandemic came from, from bats.
Well, they also say climate change and pandemics,
a call for action.
So they're saying climate change is gonna exacerbate
and make so many more pandemics
just like we saw with COVID.
And so that conversation now is interesting
because as everyone is taught to look at the horizon
for climate change caused pandemics,
there's actually researchers from private companies
that are doing way more dangerous work
than what's happening with the climate right now
when it comes to pandemics.
Take a look at this headline,
this is out of the Daily Mail.
It says, lab-grown life takes a major step forward
as scientists use AI to create virus never before seen.
They talked to one of the researchers
at this private company doing this,
Dr. Wolfson told the Daily Mail
for at least four billion years all life on earth
has evolved by the trial and error process
of Darwinian evolution by natural selection,
which lacks any foresight or intention.
He then goes on to say,
natural evolution now has a co-author
and it's people, it's humans,
they're jumping into this space
with artificial intelligence.
So let's replace the lack of natural intention
and foresight with something we have no foresight on
and it's not natural at all, AI.
Let's just put, I mean, honestly,
Jeffrey, that might be the most terrifying headline I've seen.
Let's just put AI and nature together.
Let's just let the chips fall where they may
what could possibly go wrong.
You're right, I hate to, I mean, all of this.
It's assuming that there's no creator.
Okay, that's fine, but it's also assuming
that trial and error process that nature has,
there's no kind of wisdom in that
that keeps superbugs from just being made every week.
There's a lot of questions here
and again, you have states, you have countries,
they're falling way behind
on trying to regulate these things
and it's not just states and countries that are doing this.
These are private organizations.
These are the organizations that are willing
to sit down with the Daily Mail and have a conversation.
What about the Wuhan labs out there
that are outside the purview of our journalists
and of our governments?
What are they doing with artificial intelligence
when it comes to virus creation?
These are huge, huge questions.
This is first 22nd century stuff here,
but it needs to be answered now.
Yeah, immediately.
I mean, this is really terrifying.
Imagine just putting AI in a lab and saying,
grow whatever virus you can, any bacteria you can,
and by the way, see if you like humanity at all
and don't let that affect any of the work that you're doing,
at least not without telling us first.
Amazing reporting, Jeffrey, as always.
I'm glad we started out with some humor
because some of this stuff is not so funny
when you look at it,
but obviously we have our work to do.
We've got to stay vigilant.
It's sort of what I'm gonna be talking about
with my guests coming up here,
but Jeffrey, I'm gonna be traveling all over Europe
coming up and talking about that at the end of the show.
You're gonna be sitting in the seat
and running the show next week.
So next week's The Highwire are hosted by you,
Jeffrey Jackson.
I love it when you do that.
I know the audience does.
We get all sorts of great reviews.
So take care of this seat, would ya?
All right, we'll do.
All right, all right.
Thanks so much.
I'll see you in a couple of weeks.
Great.
All right, safe travels.
All right, well, look, we keep talking about
where else are you getting this information?
I mean, when I look at social media,
sure there's people that are covering these things,
but you never really get the details, right?
You see the headline go by,
you hear that there was a lawsuit one,
but you don't really understand what it's about.
You don't really get that all these states
are extending, you know, the amount of time
that you can file a lawsuit.
All this, Jeffrey Jackson and this amazing team
of scientists we have around the world
are looking through everything that's happening
in your world and deciding
what are the most shale and important points
that you should know about
and then get into the details around it.
There's no one else doing a show like this
and there's no one that then takes that information
and decides, hey, wait a minute,
we might actually be able to involve ourselves.
We might actually be able to bring a lawsuit
to stop this craziness.
This is an experiment that's going on here
and it's done very well because of those of you
that are sponsoring this work,
but we are, as you can tell,
you can see we are this divide that's being fueled
by the liars of mainstream media.
You saw what they said about the Death Star.
It's not a nice place
despite what they want to tell you,
but that's really what we're up against.
You're up against a system of propaganda
that is so pervasive and so effective.
How many of you are thinking like,
what happened to my loved ones?
How are they not asking any questions?
How are they sticking to space
where you're not allowed to ask questions?
Some of us felt like we were in those conversations
and started waking up, COVID woke us up.
Well, we have a lot of work to do
because you can see the pushback now.
You can see the states that are gonna try
to keep gender-affirming care going
or going to keep a full vaccine program
and they're gonna try and take away
religious exemptions that exist.
There's a lot of work to do here
and we don't just sit on our heels
and report on it and say, see, here's the problem.
We actually do something about it
and if you can tell, I said last week,
it's like that Newton law of physics,
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
So much success right now is being met by the opposition.
They realize the line has been drawn in the sand.
Do you wanna push over that line and take the land
and take the opportunity and win this once and for all?
Well, if you do, then we need you this year.
We need you supporting the work
that we're doing over 90 law students going right now.
All you have to do to be a supporter
since GlaxoSmithKline, obviously,
isn't helping us out at all,
go to the top of the page,
it donate to ICANN, become a recurring donor.
I try to wonder how many of you watch me
say this every week, $26 a month,
and think, yeah, I'm glad someone's doing that.
Why not you?
Why not make this that moment where you can just say,
you know what, they really do good work
and though it seems like a little bit amount of money,
I can imagine that if those of us
all watching got involved,
we're not taking on every case that we could.
We're not fighting every battle that we could.
There's issues I wanna get into
that frankly, you know,
we're gonna stick out this vaccine thing to the end,
but I want the right to slaughter
to be something that we can actually get into.
This is for these small farms.
You know, when you go to the farmer's market,
wouldn't you love it if it didn't cost
like two to three times as much
for that organic grass-fed ribeye that grew up the road?
But they're having to spend so much money
in processing to get through all the rules.
Wouldn't you love it if they were allowed
to just slaughter that animal there
and bring it straight to you?
They'd make more money, you'd spend less money,
we would all get better food,
maybe even help connect them with our schools.
These are all things that could happen
and things that we wanna get involved in
if you decide to become a recurring donor today.
If you really wanna change your world,
then we think this is the best investment
you can make if you're listening to this on a podcast.
Grab your phone, you can text us 72022
and just type in the word donate
and I will respond with a text message back
and a bunch of information about how you can donate.
It's super easy.
You will be a part of the Inform Consent Action Network
within under five minutes is all that's gonna take
and then every time we win,
every time you see a story break
that everyone else was covering up,
every time you see us get it right,
you can say, I actually had something to do with that.
So I wanna thank all of you
that make the high wire possible.
We have overcome the dark forces of Pfizer, of Moderna
that tried to own our government.
Look who's in government now.
Those of you that have been supporting us
have made these great moments in history possible.
I want you to be able to say to your grandkids
and have them tell stories about you
to their grandkids and their great grandkids
about a great generation of people
that really did save freedom for America again.
Speaking of saving freedom, attorney generals,
I mean, I really, the rule of law in America
and the ability to have these attorneys general,
the general over all the attorneys of the state
is what a concept, right?
Like the biggest badass attorney in the state,
well, we have one here in Texas
and he's actually investigating the incentives
that are going to doctors to force vaccine,
especially a state like this.
You have a right to opt out
but what if your doctor isn't allowing you that right?
What right do they have?
And if they're doing it just to make more money,
does that seem ethical?
Well, it doesn't to attorney general Ken Paxton here in Texas.
Take a look at this.
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton
is launching a statewide investigation
into alleged financial incentives
linked to childhood vaccine recommendations.
A new investigation targeting what he calls
a multi-level multi-industry scheme
by big pharma and big insurance
to financially pressure doctors
into pushing childhood vaccines.
Paxton's office issued more than 20 civil investigative
demands to large providers,
including United Health Care and Pfizer.
According to Paxton's office,
the current framework has Texas kids
receiving more than 70 shots from birth to age 18
as a condition to continue receiving medical care
from many pediatric practices.
His office also alleges that some families
are being expelled from clinics
or even denied treatment based on vaccination status
while doctors pay and even employment
may depend on how many vaccines they administer.
The AG says this is all to protect Texas children
and bring transparency to the medical care system.
Here's the actual announcement came out
from attorney general Ken Paxton's office.
Attorney general Ken Paxton launches
a wide sweeping investigation
into unlawful financial incentives
related to childhood vaccine recommendations.
Just a couple of excerpts.
Attorney general Ken Paxton opened a landmark investigation
into the multi-level multi-industry scheme
that has illegally incentivized medical providers
to recommend childhood vaccines
that are not proven to be safe or necessary.
The wide sweeping investigation
will analyze an incentivization framework
that has historically forced Texas kids
to receive over 70 shots from birth to age 18
in order to continue receiving medical care.
He goes on to say,
I will ensure that big pharma
and big insurance don't bribe medical providers
to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines
they feel aren't safe or necessary,
said attorney general Paxton.
I will not tolerate a carrot and stick approach
to health care recommendations.
Any provider or entity whose medical guidance
is fueled by financial incentives
from an insurance company, big pharma,
or otherwise will be exposed.
I'll bet you're all dreaming
that this was your attorney general.
It happens to be my attorney general
here in the state of Texas.
It is my honor and pleasure to be joined by him now.
Attorney general Ken Paxton,
thank you for taking the time today.
Yeah, thanks for having me out.
I really appreciate it.
So, you know, what is this about?
Are you anti-vaccine?
I'm sure that's what they say.
This is an anti-vaccine attack.
What really is motivating this investigation?
No, I had vaccines.
My children had some vaccines.
This is about choice.
One of the things that we all get to see during COVID
is this idea that we don't have a choice.
The government's going to make us lose our job
or our business.
It's going to remove our job.
There's social pressure.
This should ultimately be a decision by an individual
or a parent for those children
to make the best decision
that they believe is right for their children or for them.
Not some government entity that doesn't have
the right incentives or some business
deciding what's going into your body
that can permanently affect you.
So that's what this is about.
This is about individual choice.
I don't care if people get vaccines.
If they should, they should, but it should be up to them.
I completely agree.
It's the heart of what our non-profits
call the informed consent action network,
meaning informed consent is the rule,
it should be the rule of law all across a free country
like the United States of America.
What inspires you to get involved
in something like this?
Is it that parents come out directly to you?
Do you hear stories?
Obviously, I've been reporting a lot.
Pediatricians saying, I get incentivized by insurance
and we're being told AAP, others tell pediatricians,
kick people out of your office
if they won't get all the vaccines.
Are you hearing similar stories
and where are those stories coming from?
Yeah, I have a lot of stories.
One is I have children, I have four children,
my own have six grandchildren.
And I also hear these stories
and that's why we're investigating
these 20 different companies
because the decisions shouldn't be forced on us
for profit motives.
We ought to be given all the information and a choice
and not be forced by getting kicked out of plans
or have something else negative happen to you
or your kids.
This ought to be about individuals again,
making their own choices in the best interest.
And they're also, I mean, we have all the right incentives
to make the best decision for ourselves.
These companies don't have that incentive.
They have one incentive, which is to make money.
Right.
You know, I had a chance to meet with you
in the middle of COVID.
We brought in some of our information
on the COVID vaccine.
It was a great meeting.
One of the things that I found interesting
was sort of the attorney general's position
and whether you have, I don't know if the term is standing,
but could you actually bring a case?
Like what is the, you know,
there's only certain parameters
with which an attorney general can work.
Can you explain some of the difficulty of your position?
You can't just bring any willy nilly lawsuit
you want on behalf of Texas.
What are the elements that have to be in place
for it to be of the interest
that sits within your scope of reach?
Well, this is a really challenging area
because the federal preemption for vaccines.
So if, as long as it gets called a vaccine, supposedly,
you know, there's no liability.
So you can produce any kind of vaccine
with any kind of result, good, bad, you know,
destructive, and you're protected by federal law.
Well, I don't buy that for state law.
We have our own state laws
that should stop any business from lying to consumers.
And then when consumers rely on those lies,
they end up hurting themselves and their damages.
So in our case, we thought Pfizer lied to my constituents
that the vaccine was not 95% effective.
We believe it's less than 1% effective.
So we sued them and there was an argument,
and we're still fighting this,
that we don't have standing
because we were preempted by the federal law
over vaccines.
We are making the argument,
yeah, that law may apply to federal lawsuits,
but it should not preempt states
from protecting their citizens
from deceptive trade practices,
which I believe some of these manufacturers
and insurance companies are promoting.
So your position is, no matter what the federal law says,
is the federal government is not allowed
to poison Texas citizens.
Is that essentially, you know,
to put you in harm's way simply
because they have some overarching perspective of the law?
Yeah, you can't, you still can't,
yeah, they can be protected federally from any lawsuit,
but we have state courts to protect
and we have state laws that are different.
I mean, the federal government,
the state government are different.
States were created and they formed the federal government.
We retained the powers
that we didn't explicitly give the federal government.
And this is one of them.
If you come and lie to our consumers
about the benefits of something
that is actually not beneficial and maybe harmful,
then you should be held liable.
That's the only way we're gonna be able
to protect our citizens.
Otherwise, they can get away with,
literally get away with murder,
killing our kids and harming our kids,
and there's nothing that can be done.
That doesn't seem right.
And I don't think it's the law.
I agree with you.
It's gonna be really fascinating to watch you go through this.
And there's a lot of attorney generals across the country
that seem to be speaking up now.
COVID really seemed to awaken the beast,
at least on the conservative side of politics.
I never really thought of an attorney general
as being politically oriented, necessarily.
But where did, for you personally,
was COVID the first time you started bringing cases on,
or thinking about vaccines in a different way?
Did that affect you in how you saw that roll out,
or is this something that's always been on your radar?
No, I mean, I always wondered about it,
because it seems like there was an increasing number
of vaccines that were required.
And I've always wondered about their effectiveness
and it seemed like it was hard to know
what the right thing to do was.
So I always struggled with this as a parent,
and so we made individual decisions about that.
But I think it was COVID that really
sort of heightened my interest,
because it made no sense to me
that we were being threatened.
I mean, why should you care if I get the vaccine?
If you're protected, if the vaccine is so effective,
to protect you, why should you care if I get it?
And that really created suspicion on my part.
When, what is the relationship between
an attorney general and the governor?
Do you have to, do you work on your own,
or does everything sort of get run up the ladder?
Are you cool with me bringing this case?
What is, is that, are there rules to that
and how you have to work?
It depends on the state.
There are a few states, I think six or seven,
that the governor appoints the attorney general.
So the attorney general answers to the governor
is not independent.
In Texas, I'm elected by the voters.
I certainly work with the governor.
I work with a lot of statewide officials
and it's important to me what they think.
But in the end, I answer to the voters first
and to other people's second.
And so I obviously have clients
that I have to, I have to listen to.
But a lot of these cases are Texas cases
and I'm the lawyer and I'm the client.
And so that involves me listening to the voters
and paying attention to what they want,
first and foremost.
Do you also have a case on something
we've talked a lot about on this show
which I think is super important.
These hospitals that won't, for instance,
give an organ donation or go through the organ donor process
and let someone get the vaccine.
Here's the headline on that.
Attorney General Ken Paxson warns
Houston Methodist Hospital
over alleged COVID-19 vaccine mandates
for organ transplant patients.
Tell me a little bit about how you got into this case
and where that's at here in the state of Texas.
Yeah, so we are still looking at that.
We're still looking at other hospitals.
We were, again, I was informed by,
just commonly get informed by constituents
that just are experiencing some problem like this.
And so we're trying to understand,
are they really preventing people
from having life-saving treatment
because they won't get a vaccine that's unproven
and potentially risky.
So that's what we're trying to find out
because we think that is unconscionable and wrong.
And if we discovered that that is true,
we are gonna do our best to stop it.
There's another topic we've covered earlier in the show
which is the idea of transgender care.
Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump,
HHS has really come out now and discussed
that they are no longer supporting any use
of sex reassignment or gender transitioning care for minors.
I think everyone would say, as an adult,
this is a free country, but when it comes to children,
you've gotten involved and weighed in on that.
Here's that headline.
Attorney General Ken Paxson sues
Dr. for illegally providing harmful gender transition
treatments to nearly two dozen Texas children.
I'm curious because this seems to dance
a bit of a fine line, Ken.
I know that you are a huge advocate for parental rights.
Our right to choose is a huge part of this.
This seems to turn that on its head a little bit.
If a parent wants to go in and get gender affirming care
in the state of Texas,
there's laws of impasse that's not allowed.
How do you look at that?
How do you navigate that sort of fine line?
Well, first of all, I applaud the president,
Robert Kennedy, for doing this.
We'd see the Biden administration several times
over issues like this where they were trying to force this
down the state of Texas throat and other states as well.
So we've been involved in this fight.
So the difficulty with this and why I think it's different
is when you transition a child,
first of all, they're not mentally able
to make the right decisions
because their brains are not fully developed.
And to do something this permanent,
we don't let minors do certain things.
We don't let them sign contracts.
We don't let them go into the military.
We don't let them do a lot of different things
until they're of age, which we consider 18 in most states.
And there's a reason.
They're not fully able to make good decisions
because their brains aren't fully developed.
And these are decisions.
Once you've made these alterations,
whether it's chemically or through some type
of physical surgery,
you've effected somebody's life forever
and there's no going back.
It seems like this is one of those things
where a parent should not be allowed to do this
until the child can make his own decision
when he's more developed mentally.
Do you feel like, I mean,
as being attorney general in the middle of COVID,
I mean, in this, we live in what seems
like one of the most outrageous times,
certainly in my experience of being alive in this country
where you had gender-affirming care,
you have men and women's sports,
you have forced vaccination of children,
but it all seems to have pharma in the background of it
in some way.
We have issues of SSRIs and school shootings
and all of this.
What has it been like to be an attorney general
in the middle of that?
And do you feel like you are fighting
or somehow involved with a battle against pharma
more than you imagined you would when you started this job?
Oh, absolutely, because I'm very pro-business.
I have no problem with profit motive
as long as it isn't deceptive and harmful to people.
In this case, I mean, it's shocking to me
that COVID, the way it was managed was so just insane
and so sort of controlling and maybe almost totalitarian
from both a federal level, a state level
and a local level, and I'm not just talking about Texas,
I'm talking about the whole country,
decisions were being made by government
that were affecting our everyday lives
in all kinds of ways.
And there were all these unanswered questions
that I had to deal with that had never been,
there's no precedent.
So we were having to adjust every single day
to try to figure out how to protect people
from mostly the government
who is supposed to protect us.
And now in many of these decisions,
whether it's COVID or transitioning
or other issues like that,
it feels like the government is doing harm to us
and I'm in a position of kind of being in between
trying to protect people from the government.
When you look forward at the future of Texas,
when you look at the future of the United States of America
that's being challenged by these issues,
do you look beyond our borders?
I mean, you're just inside a state.
Are you looking at the World Economic Forum, the WHO?
Are you aware of this sort of more global push
for a lot of these things
that seem to be affecting our government,
especially under the previous administration?
Is that in your mindset
as you look at how you govern or work
through laws here in Texas?
Oh, absolutely.
I'm looking at the origin of some of this stuff
and it is kind of a globalist mentality
that doesn't seek to benefit the people of this country.
It's a more of a collectivist type thing
where we don't want you in America to be prospering
when nobody else is prospering
or when other people are not prospering is not enough,
we're gonna make this all fair,
we're gonna take from you
because it's not fair that you have more.
Well, I don't buy into that mentality.
We have our own country, we have our own laws,
we have our own freedoms
and we need to protect our constitution.
I don't care about the globalist mentality of control.
What I care about is the constitution,
the freedom that has been granted to us
by that document, which really is from God,
not from the government,
is really important for this country
because it's such a great experiment
that has worked so well.
And even if you hate the country,
it's hard to dispute the results,
which are really remarkable
and it has created the greatest free country
in the history of the world
that provides more opportunity
than any place in the history of the world.
Do you think as citizens,
we should be concerned right now
that we could lose that freedom?
I mean, I tend to talk a lot about it on my show.
Do you think we're just overreacting
that for those of us that are like,
it really felt like we were about to lose free speech.
We did in the middle of COVID.
Where do you think we are at in America?
Is our constitution sound enough
to just hold off that sort of global push
or do citizens need to get more involved right now?
What is your sort of statement to people in this country
and especially in states like Texas
that are really standing,
have always stood for sovereignty
and let your, live and let live, if you will.
Well, I don't remember who the quote was from,
but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And I think that's true today,
just as it was 100 years ago or 200 years ago.
If we don't watch out,
they will, there are people that want to control us.
They want to control the wealth.
They want to control your life, your healthcare.
They're just people, look at China, Xi Jinping.
He wants to control everything.
He thinks that he is deserving of this power.
And that's not uncommon.
People that are in power tend to view themselves
as deserving that power.
And the rest of us are just not as worthy.
And so that's not the view of our country.
It's a bottom-up approach where everyone's worthy,
everyone has a vote, but you better pay attention.
Most power has to be taken away by force,
whether it's with a rock back in the old days,
a bow and arrow, or a bazooka or a tank,
but with our country, you don't have to do that.
You just go vote, you stay involved,
you stay engaged, you stay educated,
and you get to control the power by voting
and by being educated about what the truth is.
But you have to work at that.
And the great thing is it's nothing like
what every other country in the world
used to have to go through from the beginning of time,
which is you had to go to war to take people out.
We don't have to do that.
And so there is a responsibility behind that,
and people need to pay attention,
or we will be back to that same type of force mentality,
which is what you have in countries like China
and Russia and others.
You seem to still have faith in our voting system,
in our political system.
A lot of people have given up,
they're like, oh, it's rigged, everything's rigged.
What do you say to those people?
I say they're partly right.
I think it is rigged in many states.
I think, you know, I have fought voter fraud
in this state regularly, and it does happen.
Other states that don't have any real protections,
there's no photo ID.
They have mail-in ballot fraud every day,
and they cheat.
And I think that's something that's, you know,
I'm running for U.S. Senate.
One of the things I care about very greatly
is requiring that we have photo ID
and that we have protections on mail-in ballots
so that people can't cheat.
Because if you can cheat in California,
you're affecting my elections, you're affecting my freedom,
you shouldn't be able to cheat in any state,
at least at the federal level.
And so it's very important that we protect those elections
because nothing else matters if our vote doesn't matter
because they're cheating in these states
or they're cheating in my state,
we are in trouble because we don't actually control
any of these issues.
Lastly, you said you have children,
you've got grandchildren.
Children, congratulations on that.
For your beautiful, healthy family.
When you think about them,
are you hopeful for the future?
Look, I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't hopeful.
I still believe that we are the greatest country
that has ever been created,
and we have a responsibility.
Yeah, there's a salt from outside and inside,
from global leaders all over the world
want to take us down and they want to control us.
And there are people inside this country
that don't believe in that.
They think that they're elitists
and they think they can better tell us.
It's like this whole mandate on vaccines.
Those are elitists that think that they can tell us
when the reality is it has been assumed
from the beginning of this country
that it's the individual that has that responsibility
and that they have their best interests in mind
rather than some government leader
telling me what I need to do.
And I understand we have to have laws and all of that
and I believe in the rule of law,
but in the end it should be based on voting,
not a few members of an oligarchy in Washington, DC
or in a foreign country like Brussels
that tell us what to do.
You know, I know I said it was my last question,
but you triggered something when you said that it be legal
as an attorney general in a state like Texas,
should we ever have an experience
like we had during COVID, being forced to wear masks,
being forced to lock down,
turning our neighbors in these things.
What do you recommend to a citizen?
We know some of our founding fathers said
you should reject laws that go against your rights.
How do we determine that?
How do we know when there's a moment
where we just say, oh hell no,
I do not believe that is a just law.
What is our position as citizens
in complicated situations like that?
Is there a way to inspire
how you should think about your place in those moments?
Yeah, you know what I've always done
is I go back to the Constitution first.
It's such a genius document.
And these fundamental rights,
what I love about the Declaration of Independence
is that it sets out the standard
which is these are inalienable rights
given to us not by any government leader.
They don't control us in this country.
It's one of the, there's no other document like that.
And if our government oversteps its balance
according to the Declaration of Independence,
we have a right to overthrow that government.
The government needs to answer to us.
And so whenever you start thinking
about the government telling you what to do,
you need to balance it between what the Constitution
allows them to do versus what they're actually doing.
And if they are overstepping their constitutional role
and they're exerting too much power
at the executive branch or in Congress or a judiciary,
then we need to change that.
We need to fight back or we will lose our freedoms.
We will be controlled by other people
and we will lose the ability to make our own decisions.
And that's not the place I want to live.
Well, Ken, you are making Texas a great place to live.
You are a critical part of it.
I am so thankful for the work that you do here.
It's one of the reasons I left California
and moved to Texas.
Godspeed to your continued efforts and your journey.
Thank you for watching out for the children of this state.
And really thank you for representing
being a beacon of light and hope,
for sovereignty, for the right to choose,
for the right to free speech.
You truly are a spectacular light in this country,
which I agree with you is the greatest country
in the world.
So I want to thank you for taking the time today
to share your thoughts on these
really important subjects right now.
Well, thank you for having me on
and thank you for enlightening people
because this is the type of information that's crucial
to making the right kinds of decisions
for our families and for our future.
Absolutely.
Take care.
I look forward to having you on the show in the future.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
All right, well, I mean, it just feels,
it just seems so reasonable, right?
But it's only reasonable
because we grew up in America.
Those are the thoughts of America
that our government doesn't control us.
It doesn't own us.
We are given our rights by God
and we are really dancing on a fine line
when you watch mainstream news
and you see how they're telling this story
as though our rights are being given to us
by the government.
This is something we really need to check in with.
And if you feel like things are happening to you,
that the government's doing to you,
forcing you to do outside of that inalienable right,
then I think that's a moment to speak up.
One of the ways that you can speak up
is to sort of leave your place
to make your statement in an indelible way.
And that is one of the ways that we're raising funds.
There's only two weeks left to our terrorist project.
You can write something literally in stone
that will stand the test of time.
And we have people visiting every single week this campus
that come and watch the show
and to watch them just stroll the walkway
and ultimately they'll be sitting on the terrace
maybe reading your words or your affirmation
about this world, the world that we live in
or something you wanna see for the future
or maybe since Valentine's is coming up
just a statement to your loved one.
Whatever it is, I hope you'll take part in this.
Don't miss this opportunity.
So many of you reached out after we did our walkway
and now we have the terrorists.
It's only two weeks left.
Take this opportunity to get a brick.
This is my favorite brick of the week.
Well, my favorite brick of the week
and it's so perfect since I got to talk to Ken Paxton
today, but it's keep taxes free.
Keep America free.
How we ever going to make America healthy
again if we're not free to do it.
So remember, get involved.
Get involved in politics.
Run for office.
Make a difference in this world.
That's what that means to me.
Do what you can because being vigilant
is the only way we stay free.
All right.
Well, I hope you'll take the opportunity.
Only two weeks left as we said.
Valentine's Day is the last day to get a brick.
Please do that now.
I don't wanna get your calls after I've been saying it.
That time is gonna disappear
and I'm always like, when you think of it,
do it right then.
So pick up your phone right now
and go ahead and order yourself a brick right away.
Another thing you can do is if you wanna sort of give
but also get something back is go to our merch store.
It's always got great new merch
and I wanna point out the fact
that we have a big football game going on this weekend.
Those are the types of events you could go to
or even if you're sitting on the couch with your friends.
You know what team they're going for,
but isn't the best team to be rooting for team humanity?
Think about it at all your sports events.
This is new from our shop.
The big game is coming up
and everyone's repping a team,
but the question is, who are you playing for?
When you are a high wire merch,
you're not just wearing a shirt or a hat,
you're telling the world where you stand.
You're backing truth,
you're supporting the work we do it, I can.
And most importantly, you're on the winning team.
Team High Wire.
No gimmicks, no corporate sponsors,
just courage, integrity, and a whole lot of heart.
This is how we High Wire.
So suit up, stand proud,
let the world know exactly who side you're on.
Go to thehighwire.shop now.
All right, look, I am just about to head out
to Europe imminent.
My trip is imminent here.
In fact, in just two days on Saturday,
we're gonna be screening an inconvenient study in Guernsey.
That's an island off of England.
If you're anywhere near there, please,
I hope you'll come out and check it out.
I'm coming out there for all of you
that are finding yourself in the middle of this issue.
We're gonna talk about what it's like to be in the UK
and in Europe around this.
And then on the eighth,
also in Guernsey there's gonna be speeches and panels,
some really great world-renowned scientists and doctors
that share this space are gonna be sitting with me there.
And then on February 9th and 10th,
I'm heading off to Amsterdam.
It's a two-day event where global experts discuss key issues
in science, medicine, public health.
All those QR codes, you can click on those right now.
If you wanna get tickets or find out what's going on there.
Truth is, I could be traveling like crazy right now.
Australia, there's some people out there to want me.
Iceland, I hope I can squeeze that in.
And Spain, Italy, and I might even have the opportunity
to speak in front of the European Union soon in Brussels.
I'm looking forward to all of that.
The world is changing, folks.
We are living in a different world now.
All of the momentum is on our side,
but that means all of the dark forces
that had controlled us up until our awakening during COVID,
they have all the money still.
They raised a lot of money during COVID
while they locked us in our homes.
We need to take that money back.
We need to take this back.
And we gotta make sure we win.
They're trying to figure out how to get back in control,
guaranteed.
And we're watching it around the world.
We're watching the globe slip.
You're watching things like Los Angeles
deciding to align with WHO.
You know, the United States of America
might not be funding you, but we will.
You're watching these states push back.
We finally are getting a lighter vaccine schedule.
Maybe some lives will be saved by that.
It's not perfect.
I don't like personally any of the vaccines for my kids,
but imagine dropping that schedule
and half getting rid of that vaccine
on the first day of life.
Give that beautiful baby a chance to breathe for God's sakes,
but they're not gonna allow it in certain states.
We have our work to do right now.
And so I hope you will double down with us
and recognize this fight isn't over.
In fact, it's just where we want it.
But now, you know, just like any boxing match
or MMA fighter, frankly, any sporting match,
you ever just let down your guard and think,
oh, we're far enough ahead now,
that never turns out well.
Well, we're not gonna take our eye off the prize,
and I hope you won't take our eye off us.
Let everyone you know you're watching the High Wire
and let them be a part of this great experience.
Go out there, celebrate.
Show everybody you work for Team High Wire.
And I'll see you next week.
Well, Jeffrey's gonna see you next week.
I'll see you in two weeks on the High Wire.
For everyone else, I'll see you in Europe.
I'm on my way.