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 nonprofit, the Inform Consent Action Network.
So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, if you want
hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to ikandeside.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 is time for us all to step out onto the high wire.
You know, when I say us all, we're one of the few news programs that is broadcast all around the world.
And so much of what we're reporting on affects the world.
Also, we report on what's happening when it's not just in the United States of America.
And every once in a while, there's a nation that gets out ahead of America, believe it or not,
and does the right thing and maybe affects the entire world.
I was just up in Vancouver, Canada, visiting up with some sponsors and donors up there
that have made the high wire possible.
And we're talking about one of the biggest news stories that affected COVID.
And there was a huge ruling right around the corner.
But before we get into that, what was the big event in Canada?
Do you remember the Canadian truckers?
We are in the middle of Trans-Canada Highway.
And as you can see, the long, epic convoy is passing by.
A lot of you don't realize the magnitude of this convoy and what we are actually standing for.
As of yesterday, we were well over 60,000 trucks strong and growing every day.
It's time to stand up.
Don't let our freedoms go because we'll never get them back.
And on the way to Ottawa, every overpass is packed with Canadians.
Look at this right here. This is not a fridge.
People believe that the government has overstepped with mandates
and they are here to exercise their democratic right.
We want all mandates for all Canadians to quickly abolish.
We've done what we've been told to do, and enough is enough.
And we're here to make sure that the world knows that we're behind people.
We want to get back to the way it was, not the new normal.
What we've seen in the last year with demonization of people,
the hatred that has been spewed from the highest levels,
is completely unacceptable and the people have had enough.
I would argue that the Canadian truckers was probably the single most successful
and effective act of rebellion in COVID,
the greatest protest anywhere in the world.
And we had some big ones here.
We had defeat the mandates here in America, which were great events.
About 40,000 in Washington, D.C.
and nearly 30,000 in Los Angeles.
And we saw some protests in England and all around the world.
But this one seemed to grab the hearts and minds of everybody.
It didn't matter what country you were in.
The heart felt energy behind these truckers risking their careers.
And of course, it was all about the fact that they wanted to force
vaccinate them in order to do their job, sitting in their trucks all by themselves.
What difference would it make?
Well, it shut down public spaces and they were there.
And eventually it was declared that it was, I think, a national emergency.
And they tried to bring in some of the war powers acts,
I guess, if you will, those emergency acts that were used all around the world
to lock down, you know, free citizens, to bring in authoritarianism,
which seemed at the heart of it to be the whole underlying goal of this.
And this is, you know, the leader at the time, Justin Trudeau,
talking about doing exactly that.
We're going to turn this into an authoritarian regime
because we have an emergency.
The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act
to supplement provincial and territorial capacity
to address the blockades and occupations.
The scope of these measures will be time limited,
geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate
to the threats they are meant to address.
Of course, it ended up being anything but reasonable
as people started seeing that the, you know, the GoFundMe account.
Here is Freedom Convoy.
GoFundMe seizes funds of Canada occupation.
And then they went after the bank accounts.
Canadian authorities freeze financial assets
for those involved in ongoing protests in Ottawa.
That was not just the truckers having their accounts frozen,
but people that were donating to the convoy.
We've really never seen anything quite like that.
Certainly that went further than we saw
what was taking place here in the United States of America.
Well, there has been a court case ongoing.
And now the appellate courts just ruled this is what has just happened in Canada.
Just a few days ago, this is January 16th.
The federal government loses Emergencies Act appeal.
Court says use during convoy protest was unreasonable.
It goes on to say as disturbing and disruptive the blockades
in the convoy protests in Ottawa could be they fell well short of a threat
to national security, wrote the three judges on the appeals courts.
This was the appeals court.
They'd already won in a regular court.
There was no evidence that the lives, health or safety of the people living
in Ottawa were endangered as annoying, stressful and concerning as the protests
were raised the courts decision.
This is a massive decision.
I would imagine the government's going to try to take it all the way to the Supreme
Court and see if they can find one court that would agree with the decision
to become an authoritarian nation.
Now, I also want to point out that, you know,
Justin Trudeau is no longer the prime minister, neither is the head of New
Zealand or England.
All of these people, Joe Biden, everybody that force mandates at this level
and brought this worldwide authoritarian regime so many of them aren't even in the
political sphere any longer because the people spoke out.
Now, it's really unfortunate what's happened in Canada and Canada may be
fairer, worse than most around the world.
So it's ironic that they had the greatest
protest, probably affected laws and, you know, and the energy all around the
world, but they themselves still find themselves, you know, under in many
ways, an authoritarian's perspective on vaccination.
So we're going to continue to talk about Canada.
I'm going to continue to go up there and support their right to freedom
because they are just too close a neighbor to America.
We just cannot stand for this.
We've got to, you know, stop authoritarianism everywhere that it breeds.
I guess you could go as far as calling
collectivism, communism, all these things that seem to be hot button issues
now all around the world.
And if anything affects our health, certainly the inability to control what
goes into our own bodies and the bodies of our children.
This isn't a national problem.
It's currently an international problem.
That's why the high wires proud to be broadcasting all around the world.
We've got a great show coming up.
Dr. Joel Gator Walsh joining me.
This is a pediatrician that started in the mainstream but slowly but surely
watched the foundations of medicine that he had been trained in,
started crumbling around him.
We're going to see where he's at now and is it possible to find?
Is there a is there a convenient middle that we can all land on in this debate
that is now, you know, gripping America and the world?
But first is time for the Jackson report.
It's really great to see, you know,
courts still working, right?
That there's a court system in what look like a nation that was lost in Canada.
I'm glad to see they can count on the court system.
Many of the ways that we do in the work that we're doing with Aaron Seary and
our lawsuits here in America.
Right. And it works.
Justice, human rights, it's in the books.
You just follow the letter of the law and things tend to work out.
I want to talk about something going back to that COVID response,
that hard, heavy handed COVID response.
As I'm seeing the joke go around online,
the idea of natural immunity has been known for thousands of years throughout
humanity, and it was somehow forgotten right around 2020 when COVID happened.
Yeah. And it wasn't maybe forgotten as it was suppressed.
So just to bring people back there, the Lancet,
scientific consensus, anytime you see these words, you have to,
your spidey sense has to go up, but they put this out in October of 2020.
Scientific consensus on COVID-19 pandemic, we need to act now.
It says any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural
infections for COVID-19 is flawed.
This was signed by top medical experts,
Rochelle Linsky, the director of the CDC goes on to say furthermore,
there's no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following
natural infection. This was before the COVID shot came out, October 2020.
COVID shot first goes into the arm in December of 2020 in the United States.
So they're saying, forget about it.
Don't even think about it.
In fact, remember to, as we know from Peter McCull and others,
forget about early treatment, forget about everything.
Just wait for that vaccine.
Well, now we have internal emails from Anthony Fauci.
This is the headline here, Daily Caller,
Exclusive Fauci Privately Called Natural
Immunity Data, Impressive Before Forcing Jabs on Americans.
Let's go right to these emails, August of 2021.
So the vaccine mandates were well into effect at this point.
They were being given out, they were starting to be pressed, heavy-handed.
Fauci writes an email to Francis Collins,
the CDC director, Rochelle Linsky.
And the subject of this email is post-infection protection versus vaccine immunity.
You can't get any more clearer than that.
And he says this, he's looking at Israeli data.
Remember Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel,
he basically was the first to jab his population with the Pfizer vaccine.
So there was a lot of interest in how this open-air experiment would work.
People were studying those people that took that jab.
And so Fauci gets some studies on the Israeli data on natural immunity.
He says this, the data as reported in the news article looks rather impressive
despite the caveat that it is a retrospective study and the testing was voluntary.
However, it is conceivable and possibly likely that those who have had a serious
systemic infection develop a high level of immunity that even surpasses that
of full vaccination. Wow. Wow.
Well, possibly likely.
I like it.
OK, possibly likely it's better.
And by the way, Jeffrey, we were reporting on this.
I know we're going to talk about all the way through.
But the vaccine program has forever been
attempting to achieve the incredible, robust nature of natural infection.
It has never, ever achieved.
We said this during COVID. I will still say it.
We have never seen a vaccine that performs better than surviving
natural infection. We can argue how dangerous that natural infection was and
all the other things. But what you cannot argue is the fact that it always has
provided more robust protection, longer lasting, deeper, more thorough
rejection of the infection.
And so this would have been an anomaly.
This COVID-19 vaccine rushed on the market would have been the first time
in history of vaccine performed better.
And we know there was no way they had taken the time to do the science to prove
that this was an anomaly, the one of a kind that is finally doing better
than natural infection. And now we're finally being proved right that
they weren't as stupid as we thought they knew better.
Exactly. Fauci saying rather impressive behind closed doors publicly,
not even giving any credence to natural immunity.
It's the shot. It's the shot. It's the shot.
So in that same email string, you have John Brooks.
He's the CDC's chief medical officer of the COVID-19 response.
And he puts together kind of like a meta-analysis of all the data to that
point of natural immunity.
What do we know? Because this looks rather impressive.
He says, let me put this together.
This is what he says. OK.
So it seems now for at least three very different analysis of different data
that at least mRNA vaccine effectiveness is about as good as infection induced
immunity, but the immune induced immunity wanes over time,
especially that induced by Pfizer's vaccine, whereas infection induced may be
more durable up to at least the four to six month mark.
So remember at the time, that's early on,
they really only had data up to the six month mark.
So he's basically saying this vaccine, this Pfizer vaccine wanes,
but maxing out what we know right now, natural immunity is going to go
in the distance. So what conclusion does he makes?
Does he say we should study this more?
We should maybe balance this?
Maybe we should test people that have natural immunity, so we have to force
the vaccine, the spirit, mental vaccine on them?
No, this is the conclusion that Mr.
Brooks makes, Dr. Brooks makes.
He says this, the good news here is that boosters look like a solution.
Maybe this will be a three dose vaccine.
After all, basically he says we should offer boosters because the vaccine's
not working, natural immunity looks really good.
Let's just get people more vaccines.
I mean, I think it's the heart of it, Jeffrey.
People are seeing what my beep has been all along.
Doctors and the scientific establishment is so into fighting nature,
to doing better than nature already does.
Or if you are a religious person to do better than God created you so that
even when it's clear, your natural body, your natural immune system
performs far better than under this vaccine regime, their answer isn't,
well, let's just back off and let people have natural immunity.
No, let's try three boosters or four or five or seven or nine.
And now we're at 10.
This is how crazy establishment medicine and science is.
They will never give up.
They will never admit they're lost.
You know, and that's it's really, really unfortunate and quite scary.
And I don't know how people are going to ever get back to a place of trust.
And as remember, as they kicked off the mandates,
they had data showing natural immunity was better.
So whether it's conflicts of interest or just religious dogma at this point,
you really don't want these people running your public health leads when a
once in a lifetime pandemic comes in because they make those decisions.
In fact, here's Paul Offit in retrospect, having a moment of clarity on this
very topic, take a listen.
In February of 2022, I was asked with three other immunology
virology types to participate in a conference call about whether or not
natural infection should count as a vaccine.
In other words, for those areas that were still mandating vaccine,
which was many in early 2022, whether they should be able to say, look here,
I was naturally affected here, this should serve as my vaccine card.
And that meeting was held with
Rochelle Lensky, Tony Fauci, Vivek
Murthy, Murthy from Surgeon General's Office and Francis Collins.
And then me and three other immunology virology types.
We voted on it and it was sort of two to two, basically.
I mean, I was one of the, I think, natural infection should count for obvious reasons.
I mean, actually, you're making immune response to all four viral proteins.
In many ways, make a broader set of types of T cell response.
I think you're better off in many ways.
So I saw Dr. Fauci at a meeting maybe a year ago or so,
because I was already getting out there saying,
I think we should target high risk groups where I was getting a lot of pushback
from from public health people who felt that I had gotten off the bus.
Because see, that was the whole feeling in this, you know,
you're either on the bus or off the bus and there was no in between.
So I got, yeah, I said, I said, Tony, am I wrong?
Am I wrong in making?
He said, no, you're right.
We should target high risk groups.
The problem is, many of you say that it becomes a nuance message.
And a nuance message is a garbled message.
If you really want to make sure those groups get vaccinated,
then you recommend it for everybody.
I mean, he is literally admitting we will lie to you.
We will lie. We'll do whatever it takes to get you to vaccinate.
We don't want the complications of having to say, well, if you've
if you've already had the infection, you know, you're immune because then
we'd have to test. I mean, what's unbelievable about this and so infuriating
is they were literally testing us like two, three times a day.
If you worked in Hollywood preschoolers couldn't go to school without being
tested, but God forbid you say, I don't want the vaccine.
Can you test me to see if I'm telling you I'm infected?
But go ahead and test me.
I'll prove it so I can opt out of the vaccine.
No, we can't do that.
We will test you for every other reason that makes your life a complete and
totally, you know, inconvenience.
But God forbid we test to see if you're naturally immune.
And Jeffrey, I want to point out that Paul off at The Liar and all the
people, Walensky, and not only to say they will lie, they will get the
Lancet to publish a lying journal article.
They will lie through peer reviewed science.
This is why we can never, ever let these people off the hook.
And lastly, by the time he is discovering this, by the time
Biden is mandating this product so that you can go to work, odds are this
virus has already swept the entire world.
We were all already naturally immune.
If anything, there was no science on what the risk would be taking this
after you, you know, had developed immunity.
Good chance it maybe took away your your broad based immunity that we've
gotten into many, many times and then narrowed it down to just what
they're vaccinating you for.
This is such a disaster and it is so, you know, incredibly infuriating.
We knew it, but now to see it right before our eyes and they're
admitting it, maybe even chuckling about it.
Jeffrey and then to think that idiots like Gavin Newsom in California is going
to break away from the CDC's recommendation and not give this to children.
No, no, no, we're giving it to kids.
It looks like Hawaii wants to follow suit right now.
And of course, Connecticut, you've got this West Coast contingent,
East Coast contingent, because we plan on staying stupid and being dangerous
to our population, despite any science.
We will lie. We're sticking with a lie.
We're sticking to it.
And it's really an anti science danger to their populations with those
governors that are pushing these these COVID shots on children at this point.
But I want to stick on Fauci for a second,
because Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul was recently on Joe Rogan and
the conversation came up of why is Fauci still a free man?
Why is he walking around?
And this is what Rand Paul had to say.
Take a listen. Good question.
Under the Biden administration, I sent
criminal referrals for Anthony Fauci to Merrick Garland twice.
And I sent them evidence that he had lied to Congress, which was a felony.
They just ignored me.
I've been working with Bobby Kennedy and he's been very helpful on this.
I have good relationship with him.
He's given us a lot of information and we've looked at the communications.
And in Anthony Fauci's communications, we now have evidence that he was
telling people like Francis Collins, read this and destroy it.
Well, you can't do that.
The executive branch, when they communicate, they're required to keep their
communications and they're required to do it on government devices.
So we have this evidence and I've summarized it again in a criminal referral
to Trump's attorney general and I still haven't gotten action.
But there's a couple of reasons we should do it.
One, that he shouldn't get away with lying.
He shouldn't get away with destroying records.
But two, we should check the pardon.
Is an auto pen pardon valid and is a pardon, a retrospective pardon back
10 years that doesn't mention a crime.
Can you can you give people a pardon for everything they did in 10 year period?
I can't imagine and I think the court might narrow that.
But it doesn't happen unless the the Trump Justice Department will do something.
And I've been sending them referrals and I can't get them to do anything.
I can't guarantee they'll win.
They might lose, but they ought to go to court, take this, take it to court.
You know, it's interesting, too, because just right in the back of what we
said, one of the main things that woke Rand Paul up was he had an infection very
early on and when they kept trying to force vaccinate him in order to go into
Congress and, you know, and be on the floor, he said, I have had the illness.
I have immunity.
I'm not against the vaccine, but I don't personally need it.
And of course, he's been on the front row of, you know,
proving that Fauci lied under oath on gain of function.
We now know it.
He is now talking about these emails where we see saying destroy
this afterwards. I mean, this is a this is a criminal that was in our government.
And it's a really good question.
We're going to live in a world where the president just says, I blanket, you know,
protect from any liability, anyone that worked in my administration from,
you know, during it before, after, you know, in the years to come.
You can do whatever you want because you're never going to go to court.
It just doesn't make sense.
And I think that we should be challenging.
And you would think that of all the presidents of all times,
President Trump would be, you know, chomping at the bit to, you know,
prosecute this and see what we know.
It's it's it's curious why we're not.
Yeah. And this is a topic we've been tracking for for some time now with the
new administration in there. Also a new Department of Justice.
They reshuffled the deck out a lot of those levels at Department of Justice.
We've been watching. We've been paying attention.
And this is a conversation for the make America healthy again.
People because they've been watching too.
And I hear it everywhere I go.
So let's go into this topic, this investigation.
And I don't know if I know the answer to it,
but I'm going to try to put some puzzle pieces together and hopefully we can
build on this. All right.
So the Department of Justice is now headed by the Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Pam Bondi in her Office of Government Ethics Public Financial Disclosure
Report, which everyone had, you know, if you're going into office,
you have to put it, you have to fill this out.
Kennedy had to fill it out.
Everyone has to fill it out, take a government position.
In there, on line seven, she worked for a law firm there.
She actually was contracted by a law firm, Pansa, Mara and Maynard,
and they represented Pfizer.
So and she was awarded money for that or she she made money for that.
Over five thousand dollars.
That was compensation exceeding over five thousand dollars.
I believe it was two hundred thousand dollars for that year.
So that's just a data point we're going to we're going to keep on
because you hear Rand Paul there saying I submitted this criminal referral
to the Biden Justice Department.
OK, well, kind of a different way they did things back then.
Yeah, during the civil rights abusing
Covid times and lack of informed consent and and so on and so forth.
But he said I submitted to the Trump Justice Department headed by
Pam Bondi and has her nothing yet.
So what's going on there?
Well, if that was just a one off thing, OK,
maybe there's a lot going on, which there probably is the Department
of Justice is a massive organization with a lot of sub organizations under it
and sub offices, a lot going on, not making excuses here.
But then we see these these ducks start to line up in a row of questions.
And so I'm going to put those out here.
So we have in twenty twenty four September twenty twenty four,
federal court rules against EPA and lawsuit over fluoride and water.
This was a huge maha hot button topic is water fluoridation in the United States.
Remember, we had studies came out that showed a lower IQ in children.
So this was a citizen's petition that went to court that they lost the EPA loss.
The court said you have to go back.
You have to basically reformulate either the regulatory actions or you have
to come out and find a way a path out of the current water
fluoridation paradigm we're in right now out of nowhere.
We have the Trump Justice Department come in, makes this headline.
Trump administration fights historic fluoride ruling.
So we go to Michael Conant.
He's the lead attorney that is putting forth this legal action against the EPA.
He saw saw this all the way through and he puts out this on X after several
extensions of Trump administration has decided to appeal the federal court
decision ordering EPA to address the risk posed by water fluoridation.
He goes on to say rather than use the court's decision as an opportunity
to finally end water fluoridation, as most of Europe has already done,
the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court's order.
Conant goes on to say the decision to appeal the court's order was not made by
the HHS or Secretary Kennedy.
It was made by the Solicitor General of the Department of Justice who reports
the Pambani and the White House goes on to say Kennedy has been clear with this part here.
So what's going on there?
Why are they stepping in front of this?
This seemed like this seemed like a slow pitched softball home run.
Get this water fluoridation out.
It's been going on for a while.
This science is adding up.
We have a court ruling, a court win.
All EPA has to do is go back and make the changes the court ordered.
But then we have this story we've been reporting on for a couple of weeks now.
Trump administration sides with Bear in seeking Supreme Court ruling in roundup
fight, remember Bear is losing and has been for almost a decade in court in states
losing cancer cases, showing that glyphosate, their roundup product causes
cancer to the tune of billions and their stock price is plummeted.
They're trying to stop the bleeding in one last final appeal.
They're appealing to the Supreme Court, saying, please take this up.
We need to stop this.
And the Trump administration steps in.
In fact, the Solicitor General who reports to Pambandi steps in and says,
you should take up this appeal.
Well, this is kind of the breaking news here.
Reuters puts out US Supreme Court to hear Bear's bid to curb roundup cases.
They're going to hear this.
There is no date set hearing perhaps this summer, sometime around July.
We're going to have this Supreme Court hearing.
So again, you have the Solicitor General.
So with the fluoride case, with this case, you go in and you see who signs
on the signs, these appeals from the Department of Justice.
And I go to the Department of Justice site map of all of the offices,
all of the sub offices within here.
And a lot of it is coming out of the Department of Justice environment
and natural resources division.
That's who a lot of these people who are signing these appeals
are originating from.
Of course, the Solicitor General, it is his job as John Sauer.
His job is to put these forward.
He's kind of the point man on this.
And he's his job as a Solicitor General is to step in on these legal arguments.
So you're going to see his name on those.
But it's really this environment and natural resources division.
So the question is, which I don't know if we know the answer to yet,
is this Pambandi wielding authoritarian power to kill all these massive
of Maha initiatives and not to prosecute Fauci?
Or is are there other organizations?
Are there stay behind networks?
Are there small cut out organizations within the within the Department of
Justice that are running this outside of the view of the entire department
and also outside of the view of the administration and which way the current
wind blows and what the people elected Trump and Kennedy to get done?
That is the question that we leave our viewers with.
But something is not right in the Department of Justice.
At least when it comes to the Maha agenda,
because these are massive pillars that are that are not being.
I mean, these should be easily pushed away and they're not.
They're being they're being trampled on and they're being brought back with fury.
They're going out of their way.
I mean, it'd be one thing to just look the other way,
but to go out of your way and block initiatives that are moving forward or
force Supreme Court to look at something that they have no interest in looking at.
And it seems to be well decided in courts that this stuff is causing
cancer when we're talking about glyphosate and Roundup.
We know it's causing cancer.
It's losing cases.
Yeah, what was it you just reported?
Was the Congress took out of the latest bill sort of the liability
protection that are even our government is backed away from getting involved here.
But yet the Trump administration, it's the heart of Maha,
make America healthy again, appears to be just lowering the bar to make
America healthier, you know, as long as it doesn't take away toxic chemicals
on our food, toxic chemicals in our water, we'll do the best we can.
I'm sure I mean, what we see is the complications of the work that Bobby has
to do in there because you couldn't have someone more outspoken on Florida.
Fluoride, you know, both during, you know, his life before public office,
but even in public office.
And of course, glyphosate is a huge part of the work he's done too.
So it's it's disturbing when we're getting, you know, two different stories,
you know, conflicting with each other right inside of our own government system.
Absolutely.
And now I want to get into some science here as the last segment.
And this is a story we've been tracking for a while.
We're going to continue to build upon this because this is a flashing red light.
The science community, also HHS in general, they're going to have to step up here.
This is the headline of the Daily Mail.
Dementia time bomb warning.
A scientist find Alzheimer's proteins in long COVID patients blood.
You go into this article, it says US researchers analyzing blood samples
for more than 225 long COVID patients found significantly increased levels of tau,
a protein closely linked to Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.
Abnormal clumps of tau can form tangles inside the brains, nerve cells
disrupting communication and driving the memory loss and cognitive decline
seen in the disease and the leading cause of dementia.
So we go in this study and, you know, just to caveat, the researchers went out
of their way not to write down which people were vaccinated or unvaccinated.
So just throw that out there, regardless of the way.
One of the reasons I think they vaccinated everybody,
they wanted to make sure there was no control group for studies exactly like this.
If everyone's been vaccinated, then long COVID is a natural function.
If we can say, look, the people that didn't get the vaccine aren't suffering
long COVID, the same numbers that those are vaccinated.
And there is some ability to do the science.
They are avoiding it, but I think the blanket vaccination was we don't want
a control group that can make our decision to force this product out there.
Look bad. So here we are.
And, you know, you watch all these really,
you know, inconclusive studies in many ways.
If you're not going to get into the details, what are we talking about?
Does it happen happen after vaccination or just infection?
Right. Right.
And remember, they actually vaccinated the control group in the original vaccine
trials for COVID, so exactly that as a caveat as well.
Now, let's look at the study here.
So we look at the it's basically they're using blood based biomarkers
that detect Alzheimer's disease and the pathology of the Alzheimer's disease.
This build up of these abnormal tau proteins and they find this.
This is what they write.
Longitudinal analysis revealed plasma tau one eight one levels increased by
59.3 percent following COVID-19 onset in participants who developed N-PASC.
This is basically neurological long COVID.
And it says that were worst amongst participants reporting central nervous
system symptoms persisting greater than or equal to 1.5 years.
So people that had long COVID for basically 1.5 years or longer,
they found that 59.3 percent increase in these tau, these tangled fiber
proteins, these which are kind of a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease.
So this isn't the first time we heard this.
We've been reporting on this for years.
Take a look.
We've been hearing about the microclots, all the clotting.
Look what this article says.
In contrast, when sprite protein is added to platelet poor,
what's the third P plasma with and without Rombin, a major increase in
dense anomalous clotted deposits with an amyloid nature.
There's that word again, amyloid, which is that the heart of Alzheimer's
were noted, referred to as amyloid deposits.
So this is what they showed it.
This is fascinating because we get a visual in these platelets.
You see the blood platelets there.
They put them in contact with spike protein.
And by G, that is what those platelets turn into this tangled mess
of amyloid proteins all binding together.
We were looking at clotting.
That is also at the heart of Alzheimer's and neurodegenerative disorders.
So now we know the spike protein can cause this.
Multiple, multiple studies being done all over the world on this.
The article that has everyone talking right now just came out.
Here is the headline.
A potential association between COVID-19 vaccination
and the development of Alzheimer's disease.
The mRNA vaccine group exhibited a significantly higher incidence
of Alzheimer's disease 1.225.
That means an increase above one being standard.
So a 22.5 percent increase in Alzheimer's disease amongst the vaccinated.
It went on to those that had mild cognitive impairment, MCI 2.377.
And that's a 137 percent increase in mild cognitive impairment caused by the covid vaccine.
So, you know, just we're always on it first, Jeffrey.
I mean, it's really great to be able to do this, right?
I mean, as soon as there's an article, we have an international body of science.
I just want to point out, this is how this works, Jeffrey.
It's not just you and I, we have teams and people around the world looking at this,
you know, triggering us and saying, you'll be the first ones to talk about this.
Here's this new study that just broke.
We're bringing it to you.
So when you're tracking, when you're with the high wire, you were getting this
information, not just this week when this new study came out.
But the very first time, you know, the original studies come out, we're on it.
You know, that is, you know, and look, it may prove to be wrong,
but you now know there's a signal there's something looking at.
But then when you start seeing, oh, my God, more and more studies are finding
the same thing that the high wire reported, you know, nearly two years ago,
just makes you think there's one show you should probably watching, you know,
when it comes to your health.
And, you know, during COVID and beyond, we have been one of the outlets that
leads the science.
So we were one of the first people to tell you that they didn't test a shot
COVID shot to stop transmission of the disease.
You wouldn't know that we were the first people to one of the first
people to really raise the alarm and show you the science behind the
Myocarditis signal that that probably helped a lot of people.
And now we've been raising the flag here.
We're raising it real high.
And this is this is kind of a warning to the science community.
They need to step up here and look at this.
And let's go into that study at that time that was a breaking study
out of Korea, Korean study, looking at myocognitive impairment
and Alzheimer's disease.
And they did test vaccinated versus unvaccinated with mRNA.
And this is the chart from that study that you were reporting on at that time.
And you can see the cognitive impairment there in the red.
That's mRNA vaccine and the Alzheimer's disease on the right.
That's mRNA vaccine.
You can see it's it's kicking off these diseases, these
neurodevelopmental diseases and people quicker than they actually
should be happening.
So on this investigation, I want to add some data points.
So remember Operation Lockstep.
This was just a coincidental exercise that they did before COVID of a
respiratory disease that came out of China.
How did they know?
Well, Johns Hopkins also did another exercise.
They released this in 2020.
It was reportedly in the works.
It was planned around 2017, 2018, but this actual exercise released in 2020.
This was the spars pandemic.
And in their fictional time window, they chose 2025 to 2028.
So what do they do?
Well, this is what they chose in this fictional story that they were kind
of wargaming and they said the CDC team confirmed that the three patients
were in fact infected with a novel coronavirus.
They chose that interesting, which was dubbed the St. Paul Acute
Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus or spars CoV after the city were
the first cluster of cases that had been identified.
So it wasn't Wuhan, it was St. Paul.
But they go on to say this, they created an experimental vaccine.
They pushed it out.
And it says this nearing the end of 2027 in their exercise, reports
of new neurological symptoms began to emerge after showing
no adverse side effects for nearly a year.
Several vaccine recipients slowly began to experience symptoms
such as blurry vision, headaches and numbness in their extremities.
So another data point there, how did they know?
Why do they know that?
Because now we're getting mainstream acceptance, really, of the
misfolding and the amyloid formation of these proteins that has to do with COVID.
And so just a quick background on the science of that.
That's the current theory of Alzheimer's.
You get these proteins, they begin misfolding, they attract other proteins
that seed this idea for these proteins, that attracts the other ones to start
misfolding, they form these amyloid formations like you showed in that
picture on that flashback, these thick amyloid formation of proteins.
And this kicks off kind of this neurodegenerative diseases,
whether it's crutch fully Yakup disease or Alzheimer's or just this.
These are all forms, I mean, prion disease, right?
I mean, this is this misfolding is it's really mad cow disease, right?
I mean, this is, you know, it's what makes cows go crazy.
It's what we see in cannibals when cannibals would eat each other.
When they start like losing and once your protein start misfolding,
it's like dominoes, you can't stop it right now.
There's no cure for this.
Is that right?
My understanding is we have not figured out how to stop prion disease or any
form of it.
Right.
And the human prion protein and the amyloid beta peptide,
they're basically omnipresent in the human brain,
but something kicks off a folding process, whether it's genetics or environmental
factors. And right now we're talking about the spike protein,
the COVID virus itself.
And so let's go into this study here.
This was a study that wasn't really shown too much at the time.
It was from Swedish researchers and they did a tabletop exercise.
So basically in Petri dishes and test tubes, and they found this,
this is the title of their study, SARS-CoV-2 spike amyloid fibrils specifically
and selectively accelerates amyloid fibril formation of human prion protein
and the amyloid beta peptide.
So they say this, we here provide evidence of significant spike amyloid
fibril seeded acceleration.
So the spike amyloid fibrils are seeding this acceleration in the human
brain of amyloid formation of Crutsfield Yacob disease associated human
prion protein using an in vitro conversion assay.
So that's just a method they use to study the structural
transformation from the prion protein into this pathogenic form of it.
But here's the kicker.
It goes on to say this, by seeding the human prion protein conversion assay
with other in vitro generated disease associated amyloid fibrils,
we demonstrate that this is not a general effect,
but a specific feature of spike amyloid fibrils.
We also showed that the amyloid fibril formation of Alzheimer's disease
associated amyloid beta 142 was accelerated by spike amyloid fibril seeds.
So they're saying it's isn't just an accidental effect downstream,
but they're suggesting this is actually a feature.
This is a main feature of the spike amyloid fibril.
That's a massive statement for researchers to make.
And this is where, I mean,
should start our government should start this.
HHS should pick this up immediately.
This is a massive red flag.
And as you've pointed out here,
this is three studies in now from different parts of the world all looking into this.
And I just keep thinking, meanwhile, of the West Coast contingent,
the East Coast contingent, there's going to continue injecting this spike
protein by choice into their citizens.
It would be amazing to me if there's not a mass evacuation out of those states
of people just saying, why the hell are we doing something to the rest of the nation?
Frankly, most of the world now recognizes is is not just futile, but dangerous.
It doesn't stop transmission.
People are getting sick anyway, and you're still putting this out there.
And then there's concerns for those of us that don't go near it.
Is it still shedding on us?
These, you know, I mean, this should have gone away.
We should have heard immunity right now,
but I think it's being destroyed by the vaccine program.
We're going to continue to just shout really loud against Gavin Newsom
and all these leaders that are trying to break free of the science,
the actual science that is not just coming out of the CDC or HHS,
but coming from around the world.
Jeffrey, it's so important right now because, look,
if every child that is injured matters, everyone matters.
We cannot just let California go down because they have a dictator there
that has no common sense or Washington or Vancouver for that matter.
In Canada, you know, children are in harm's way.
And it's why we are going to continue to talk about this.
And this vaccine is still on the market, still out there, still poisoning people.
So I really appreciate this deep dive today, Jeffrey.
Very, very important information and also great to see that many of the seeds
we've planted of truth are turning out to be really, you know,
stable oak trees in the annals of science.
Great work. All right.
Thank you. I'll see you next week.
It's not easy to do a show like this.
And I'm not like there are other podcasting shows out there or internet shows
that will just every time there's a red flag, just call it out.
It's awesome, right?
But sometimes you get it wrong.
Sometimes they get it right.
They rarely ever apologize when they get it wrong.
But when you look at the track record of our show, just seriously,
if you just go through our website and see what we've done,
then you realize we can stand by our accuracy.
But it's what you have to understand is our process here.
You know, all week long, we're looking at breaking news.
All weekend we're seeing the breaking news.
On Monday, we get together with our international team and go over what's in the news.
Jeffrey and I and our team look at what do we think are the big stories.
And then we try to disprove those stories for the next several days
so that we never end up here on Thursday delivering a story that didn't end up being true.
We're harder on our own evidence than anyone out there.
We want to make sure we got it right.
So we don't just blind ourselves.
We don't just kid ourselves.
We get hard.
It doesn't matter if it would have been explosive for our side.
We don't ever want you to not be able to trust information.
Obviously, you know, we're totally different than the United States government.
That tells you it lied to you and still believes that's its possession, you know,
position. But I also want to say this.
We've been working really hard on our website and our search engine is getting
better and better and better.
So now I'm just one thing we've been working on.
Very difficult with these.
I think we're on show number four hundred and sixty today.
Four hundred and sixty episodes of the high wire.
We stand by every second of every single one.
But how do you get all that information?
You know, how many times have Pierre Corey been on the show?
Well, now you can just search Pierre Corey.
Boom, there they are.
And you can fast forward to see what he had to say.
What about diabetes?
What is the high wire said about diabetes?
Just type in diabetes and search.
Boom, there it is.
Every time we've discussed it, it's really exciting.
It's going to get better and better.
And it's the type of thing we're able to do when you donate and sponsor
the work that we do here.
Sure, it's great to have, you know, what is that, you know, four hundred
like at least a thousand hours, probably more of important information,
historic information and see how it's all come together.
But if you can't search it, what good is it to you?
These are the things we continue to work on making better
because you reach out to us.
You say we would really love to be able to track the information,
go back and look at things.
It's hard to do it.
So I hope you'll check it out this week.
Go check out the search and see, you know, test it.
And by the way, go to info at ICanDecide.org.
If you find any issues that's not catching it, we're testing it right now.
I just opened it up.
I want you to check it out because it's better than it's ever been.
I'm really excited about it.
And then also all the lawsuits that we've been bringing,
you can, you know, get into all of that.
So speaking of lawsuits, I can.
There's nothing like us.
We're the only ones that use one law firm all the time,
Aaron, Siri and Glimstad.
By the way, Michael Connit, that fluoride, you know,
lawyer that we were just reading about that's going up against the Department
of Justice and Pampani, yeah, guess who he works for?
He works for Aaron, Siri and Glimstad.
They bring in the best and the brightest in every single department,
especially when it comes to your health.
And that is the work that we're funding.
We have 90 cases across this country in various stages of fighting for your
medical freedom and your health and your children's health and your parental
rights to make decisions for your children.
There's no one like us.
That's why we have the best track record and the best success.
And it's why you never really hear us talking about, you know,
exactly what case we're bringing so that we don't raise money off of the idea
that we're going into a courtroom.
We bring you the wins when we have them.
We won back the religious exemption from vaccination in Mississippi back in
2023, they hadn't had it since the 1970s.
We won it in West Virginia.
Unfortunately, the annals of hell have opened up and every lawyer from around
the planet is fighting us there and they've moved it into an appellate court.
So it is the fight of all fights and we need your help right now.
That's going on this year.
There are over 200 students that are being held out of school that do not
want the COVID vaccine, for instance, they're not allowed in without it.
How crazy is that?
Do you care about them?
Do you want to do something about them?
Do you realize if we win for them, we make it hard for every other state to attempt
to take away our rights?
This is how important this work is that we're doing.
It's why it's so unique the work that we're doing.
We're not just a news agency.
When we find a problem, we go out and get into courtrooms and say,
we're going to fix that problem.
There's no one you'll find in mainstream news has ever done anything like this.
So I hope you'll take this opportunity to become a recurring donor this year.
You can't imagine how important this year is going to be.
We want to also bring pressure on the PAM bondies.
We want to show that we're winning in courtrooms, that the culture is changing
and you're not going to get away with fluoridating our water or putting
pesticides and herbicides on our food.
We're going to stand up and, you know,
raise awareness both on this show but also through courtrooms.
So if you want to become a recurring donor, just go to the top of the page
thehighwire.com, click on donate to I can and becoming recurring donor.
That helps us know how many new cases we can take on, you know, how much I can travel.
So twenty six dollars a month for twenty twenty six.
So if you want to, if you're if you're just listening to a podcast right now,
we're going to make it really simple.
All you have to do is text this number seven two zero two two.
Just text that number and then right in the text donate.
And I will send you back a text immediately thanking you and giving
the opportunity to become a recurring donor seriously.
Is this work that we're doing not worth, you know, twenty six dollars a month,
you know, one dinner entree, maybe, you know, intermittent fast one of the
thirty days this month and say, I just saved children's lives by doing that.
We need your help in every single one of you that join us.
You make it, you know, more and more profound, more and more powerful,
this work that we're doing.
I also want to say there's other ways that you can donate.
How about, you know, going to the highwire store and shopping for some of our
cool sweatshirts or t-shirts or one of my favorite items right now is you can
buy a stack of these.
These have been a huge hit.
This is basically a business card that has a QR code for an inconvenient study.
And it also tells them if they don't know how to use a QR code,
just go to an inconvenient study dot com to watch the biggest film on medical
freedom and vaccinations.
I think maybe that's ever been done this specifically.
We're in the vicinity now worldwide of a hundred million views,
but that's not enough.
It's just not enough.
You know, it's the seven billion people out there that need this
information, that pregnant mom that is in the produce aisle right now
that you're looking at as you're listening to this, they need your help.
They need some way to have a communication that isn't combative,
isn't strange or awkward.
Just walk up and say, I noticed your pregnant congratulations.
And, you know, if you're curious at all about vaccinating your child,
because it's such a big topic right now, I really love this movie.
Here's a QR code.
You can just check it.
It's free, very, very informative.
There's actually scientists that are now looking at this study.
There's been so many of you have taken the opportunity,
but just go buy a stack, carry, you know, three or four with you wherever you go
and recognize that you can get the feeling I get when I go around and I know
that people come up to me and say, you changed my life, my children are healthier
because of it, you can literally save people's lives.
Every time you hand out that card, I guarantee you at least one in ten
of the cards you hand out is going to lead to someone getting information
they never would have had before.
And you can go to bed at night saying, you know what?
I probably saved 10 lives this week or a hundred lives this week.
It's how important this work is.
These products are terrible, especially the covid vaccine and this auto
immune disease crisis we're in, we don't need to be in it.
And you were giving me the opportunity to do something about it.
I want you to feel what it feels like to be even just a part time
activist. It's really an incredible experience.
I want to thank everybody that sponsors this show, sponsors our legal work,
everybody, people up in Canada where we can't even really work directly for you.
But we get to broadcast to show all over Canada.
It also gives us the ability to go up and meet with great folks like I did
just over the weekend.
I'm so proud of the work we've done so far, but it is not enough.
There is more to do.
We've got to start pouring cement around our accomplishments here
so they can never take them away.
Well, what happens if you've had cement poured around the foundational
principles of science and medicine by medical school?
But slowly, but surely you start realizing it's eroding.
Maybe you've been pulled out of sledgehammer and start breaking
that cement from around your own ankles when everyone else is telling you,
don't do it. Well, that's my next guest who is bravely moving outside
of the conventional wisdom that he was drenched in in medical school
and has been making a journey into the deep, dark abyss of scientific
curiosity, of vaccine hesitancy.
I don't know. We'll see what he calls it.
This is Joel Gader Warsh.
Dr. Joel Gader Warsh.
He's a board certified pediatrician with a master's in epidemiology.
He's one of the world's leading researchers and doctors.
He's written books on parenting, books on vaccination.
And he is a much needed voice of reason in today's polarized health debate.
Unfortunately, vaccines have been one of the most controversial topics to the point
where the word was basically censored off the internet, certainly on social media.
And other than if you said safe and effective, you couldn't really say
anything else. You can't ask any questions.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't ever need to hear the phrase
safe and effective ever again.
When you go through training, what you are taught isn't really about safety, right?
You really learn about, OK, here are the diseases.
Here are the vaccines. Here's the schedule.
So go do it. A vaccine doesn't have zero risk.
And so I think it's reasonable to say, OK,
but what are the risks from this vaccine?
Does it lead to anything later?
Do I have to do it now? Can I do it later?
And that's a very fair question.
Nothing has ever shocked me more in my life than when you actually go through
the vaccine research when it comes to autism.
I was always taught the sciences that things have been debunked.
You hear it so confidently discussed.
It's really frustrating as a human being and as a pediatrician to see this
division and to see people getting so angry at each other and fighting
and not discussing and not putting the kids first.
I don't feel like parents feel like they're being heard and they don't
feel like their safety concerns are being listened to.
And it feels like it's about money and not about health.
And that needs to change.
Facts.
Well, he's the author of a brand new book between a shot in a hard place.
He's all over social media, one of the fastest rising stars in the conversation
around vaccines, hesitancy, awareness, whatever you want to call it.
It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Dr. Joel Gator Warsh.
Thank you for having me here.
It's great having you.
I've been getting a kick out of watching your journey.
And of course, we've met before and I've had you on a podcast before,
but not on the high wire.
So for this audience,
you know, tell me about your sort of medical journey into this vaccine
conversation.
So for me, I did all the regular medical training.
I actually grew up in Canada, so I guess it's appropriate that I'm on this
episode since I'm in Canada to talk, but I did residency at Chilms Hospital
at Los Angeles, so a great Western medical program.
Didn't really think much about vaccines at that time.
You know, we're trained about what the horrible diseases are,
how great the vaccines are.
Here's your schedule and go do it.
And that's really all that I thought then.
But I met my now wife during residency.
She's very holistic minded.
She opened up my eyes to a little bit of a different world.
Started doing some training in integrative medicine and functional medicine.
Everything you hear about it in medical training is how it's all
woo woo and out there.
I went to some functional medicine courses and you're there.
And like, why aren't we taught this?
There's nothing woo woo about nutrition.
This is the biggest difference between sort of functional and, you know,
allopathic or Western.
It's just the way of thinking in allopathic medicine, where you're in
training, everything is here are the symptoms, here's the pill.
It's very pharmaceutical minded.
You're not really thinking about root cause.
You're not really thinking about, oh, you have a rash.
Why might you have that rash?
You're thinking about how do you treat that rash?
What is that rash?
So I think it's just very different.
And as soon as you start learning that you're like, like,
there's nothing crazy about this.
Why aren't we thinking this way?
Why wasn't I taught this?
So I just got really interested in that,
started practicing in that way.
And very quickly, once you are
in that world, you realize parents have a lot of questions about vaccines.
And I realized very quickly, I knew almost
nothing about vaccines and didn't have the answers.
What year did you come in as a doctor?
What year did you start your own practice?
I've been in practice for a little over 10 years,
about just a little over a decade.
OK, so prior to COVID, you're at it?
Oh, yeah, well prior to COVID.
I finished training around 2013 and had my own office for about eight years.
OK.
So as you're starting to see patients,
they start having better and better questions.
And I didn't have the answers to those questions.
So I had to start looking into it.
And as you look into some of these questions,
you start to realize that what you're taught or what we're not taught is
really everything like I didn't know the answers.
And so I started looking into it.
The answer is very much surprised me.
And the more I was discussing it in the office,
the more I felt that I need to look into it.
And certainly as I was developing an interest more in vaccines,
that was around the time when there was so much censorship.
I mean, certainly before COVID and during COVID,
there was just so much censorship.
It wasn't something I felt very comfortable talking about outside of the office.
I mean, I was even on secretary back then.
He was in Secretary Kennedy, but I was even on his podcast.
And we talked about children's health, but not vaccines,
because back then nobody really wanted to.
Well, you were I mean, I'm just thinking about the time
because you're in California, right?
Los Angeles.
And that's the same time I'm working on the Doctor's Television show.
It's like 2013.
But right around 15, 16, SB 277.
I mean, you know, California became this powder keg for this conversation.
It was, you know, SB 277.
A law that's going to force vaccinate children in order to go to school.
You're right there.
I mean, just entered in and now it's just like, you know, protests,
you know, thousands of people wrapped around the Capitol.
What was that?
I mean, what effect did that have on you as you're watching?
Because it's one thing to just have questions in your office.
But California was like, you know, on fire over this issue.
It made it very difficult to be a doctor because you couldn't have these discussions.
You couldn't talk about it.
You don't have options for your patients.
And the longer it went on, I mean, when a lot of that was starting,
I was just very young in my career.
But as things have moved along, I mean, we've really seen all of our options
taken away. Like you really can't give an exemption in California anymore.
There's really no way to do it unless somebody has a very severe reaction,
basically dies. And even then, it's really hard to prove it.
So the options were taken away.
And again, that made me very frustrated because there are patients
that legitimately should have exemptions that you feel like you should have
exemptions and you shouldn't feel like you can't give this person an exemption
or you might get your medical license taken away.
And that is the way that it is.
I mean, there's no question.
You cannot give an exemption right now in California.
And I still think that's unbelievably infuriating.
And I have patients that come to my office that, you know,
they swear by whatever the story was that happened to their young kid.
And it's totally reasonable that they should at least be considered to have
an exemption if the parent wants to do that.
And you still can't do it. It goes through public health.
They just shut most of them down and then you get investigated for for doing it.
How do we have a system that's like that?
There there has to be kids that need legitimate exemptions.
There have to be kids that have reactions to vaccines.
There's nothing controversial about that.
You can debate what's related to vaccines, but you certainly can't debate
that kids could have a seizure, could have a myocarditis, could have issues.
And nobody wants to ever admit that.
It's not a flax, it's an allergic reaction.
I mean, just simple.
There's no product, there's no food on this earth everyone can eat.
Yeah, I had a kid, a family that came to the office and
their baby, it was around two months, got vaccines that same day,
had a super heart fast rate over 200, went to the hospital.
They weren't sure what was going on.
Everything calmed down luckily and the parents were worried.
Oh, was this a vaccine reaction?
Everybody convinced them that it wasn't a vaccine reaction,
even though it was on the same day.
So they, again, at four months, went back to the doctor,
still hesitant, but doctor convinced them to do the vaccines again.
They did same exact reaction happened.
And kid had super fast heart rate, went to the hospital,
they were there for a day, everything calmed down after that.
And still nobody was willing to say that that was because of the vaccines.
And at six months, they went back to the pediatrician's office
and the pediatrician was going to kick them out if they didn't do their
vaccines again and the parents were like, look, we're not anti-vaccine.
Older kids fully vaccinated, but this kid's clearly having a reaction.
Can we not at least wait till we're older?
Yeah. Still, they were kicked out.
So I met them later on in their journey.
But it's like, how can you not sit back and see something like that and say
there is something very wrong with our system where if a patient says that,
that the doctor is going to dismiss that, if they come to my office,
I still probably can't give an exemption for that because you need
documentation, you need proof, you need to show that it came from the
vaccine, you can't prove 100 percent that happened after the vaccines.
But come on, you have that story.
Right. What else are you thinking?
And even if it's not because of the vaccine, shouldn't that be the person
who qualifies under the benefit of the doubt to say, look,
maybe this is not the kid that we need to vaccinate?
The temporal association, close enough, everyone else is vaccinated.
What harm are they, you know what I mean?
Is this one child going to kill our herd or community immunity?
And everything's about risks versus benefits.
And in that scenario, you have to look at that kid and say,
this kid's probably at very high risk to have another severe reaction.
Maybe they're going to have a heart attack and the heart's going to stop this time.
Should the parents not have the option to say,
well, I understand that my kid could get whooping cough,
but I think the risk is much higher than my kid's going to have a heart
reaction like they did the last two times.
That's basic medicine and that's not anti-vaccine or anything out there.
That's scaring parents into doing something that might cause their kid harm.
That's way too far.
We have to come back to some sanity.
Which you are now, I would say, one of the leading voices trying to navigate
a middle ground, a middle, sensible ground.
Here's your book between a shot in a hard place,
tackling difficult vaccine questions with balanced data and clarity.
I've been watching your posts on social media around some of these
decisions coming out of the CDC, hepatitis B, you know.
And then you've got the American Academy of Pediatrics,
which is your organization, if you will.
You are a pediatrician saying, don't listen to the CDC.
That's not science, which has got to make it difficult.
I mean, I, you know, and I'll be honest with you,
I'm in a place where I have no forgiveness for doctors any longer.
There's just too much information out there.
If you're not questioning it, you don't have a brain.
I'm sorry.
If you're not like saying, I just cannot just go along with a blanket.
It's safe and effective any longer.
We're way past that point.
But let's talk about the American Academy of Pediatrics for a second.
There, I think they're giving pediatrics a horrible name at the moment.
What they're saying is there's no science to what is happening at HHS.
Removal of the hepatitis B vaccine, COVID vaccine, shared decision making.
You know, this isn't something that's going to be mandated on kids.
How do they say that that's not scientific?
I'm very, very frustrated with what's going on.
I think everybody should be.
There's no logic to this back and forth that's going on, the lawsuits.
Nobody's sitting down having discussions that's not going to help anybody.
We're not seeing any real dialogue.
It's just anger, lawsuits.
Oh, you're going to say this, we're going to do the opposite.
And that leaves all of the parents confused.
It doesn't move anything onto the next step.
And it doesn't even let us know what to do as a pediatrician.
It's so confusing right now.
I think it's the most confusing time ever.
And I said that many times, I don't know what parents are thinking right now.
I don't know how they can make a decision.
It's so all over the place with what they're hearing.
And that makes it very tough to be a parent right now, especially with a young kid.
You're hearing all sorts of different things.
And so what do you do with that?
I don't know.
So I think the American Academy ofiatrics is trying to take a stand
against what's going on, but at the same time, they're really making themselves
look bad.
I think I think we're really putting doctors in a place where
it's very adversarial.
People don't like doctors anymore.
They used to be look at the statistics that they're in different studies
that are quoted, but the recent one, you know, 70 percent to 40 percent
popularity before and after covid, I think with everything that happened,
public health is destroyed in terms of any sort of trust.
Any trust in doctors is destroyed.
And I'm seeing that more and more, even just in the Facebook chat groups,
where I'm lurking in the background where people talk about things
and you're seeing all sorts of doctors not know what to do.
Patients are coming in at a rate of not wanting to do vaccines.
That's so high that they're worried that they're not going to have enough
patients and I've seen that in multiple groups of doctors saying, well,
well, we should we change up our policies because there's so many practices
that don't take don't take patients unless they fully vaccinate on the schedule.
And and there are so many people coming in that no longer want to do that,
that it's creating discussion amongst the doctors about whether they're
going to change it or they feel like they need to change it,
whether they could maybe prioritize some of the vaccines.
And those are the ones.
It actually things are changing because people are changing it.
And I'm really shocked to see it, but it actually in the real world,
parents are more skeptical than they ever have been.
And that's pushing back on doctors to have to think about this.
And I don't think that the lawsuits and what the American Academy is doing
ultimately is going to serve things in the best way.
We saw what happened when we mandate things.
Nobody wanted to do it.
And very few people were doing COVID shots in the last year.
And I think the same thing is going to happen.
The harder the American Academy pushes and the harder doctor pushes to force
vaccines, the fewer people are going to do.
That's not the solution.
That's not the direction forward.
The direction forward needs to be here's the information.
Here's the benefits that we see.
Let's discuss the risks.
Let's figure out what those risks are.
And let's try to find some middle ground of where that should be based
on the science and data, as opposed to shoving it down people's roads,
which seems to be where we're at.
It seems like they're digging their heels in and pushing back.
As opposed to being like, OK, well, here's what Secretary
Kennedy's saying, here's what we agree with, here's what we don't agree with.
Let's discuss that.
I have got like I rarely in an interview have like 20 questions that I'm
excited to like, how am I going to remember all of them?
Because I want to get through them.
Because you brought up some things I have not thought about.
But first of all, my first question would be this moment is very specific.
American Academy of Pediatrics, this pushback, as you're saying,
this is the hardest time that you can imagine ever having been a doctor.
It's also one of the hardest times having been a parent.
You've been posting a lot about that.
You talk about these conversations in your and you're saying these numbers
are climbing. So would you say, you know, anecdotally from your experience
that this push by American Academy of Pediatrics to defy new CDC guidelines,
which I think seemed very sensible.
Let's join Denmark and other nations that are just having they're not having
outbreaks of polio, they're not having outbreaks of smallpox.
The big fear signals, you know, it seems to be perfectly fine in other nations.
Why don't we just reduce down to that?
There is science behind that.
They talk to the scientists that are seeing success there.
But would you see would you say that this push by American Academy
of Pediatrics and Gavin Newsome State of California, I think other states
you know, that are Hawaii's looking to join this defiance group.
Is that in have you met anyone, any, you know, parents coming into your practice
that that is incentivizing them to take more vaccines?
I don't think it's incentivizing people to take more vaccines.
I think it's making people question everything because once
they saw what happened during COVID and saw the public health measures,
I think now they're concerned about everything.
I wouldn't put this all in the American Academy of Pediatrics.
There are many other organizations.
I think it's just public health and mainstream medicine in general.
I think American Academy is part of it.
These states are saying we're going to use America.
We're not.
We're no longer going to make our vaccine program based on the CDC.
We're going to make it back based on the American Academy of Pediatrics.
So that puts it in a different position than every other agency or,
or, you know, nonprofit or whatever out there.
They do get a lot of funding from the pharmaceutical industry,
but they're putting they're being put in a position whether and they
must be asking for it, use us as your reference.
So I think they carry a lot of weight and they need to be we need to talk about that.
But you also brought up something I find interesting, which is as a doctor,
I hadn't even thought about this.
You know, if you're a doctor that gives vaccines to those that want it
and those that don't, you give them you have a balance inside of your practice.
We know most of the funding that comes into the pediatric practices
through the sale of vaccines, you know, guys like you are being put in an
unnaturally underpaid salaried position because all the other
pediatricians are saying, I'm not going to take you.
So I'm assuming you're in this group, you, Bob Sears, others where you have
a line out the door of people that are coming to you to not pay for vaccines.
How do you make a living?
Yeah. Well, so first of all, we have a hybrid practice.
So we have the membership model.
OK. We also you definitely do make some money from vaccines.
I don't think you make as much as people think that you do because you make
money off of visits to so you are seeing patients and you get paid for the visit
along with vaccines if you're you're giving vaccines.
Generally, there's you can make a little bit of money off of each vaccine.
I think when it comes to vaccine, when people are talking about it,
it's in the aggregate.
So if you're doing a lot of vaccines, you're making a few dollars
that can certainly add up over time, especially in a big system.
A few dollars can really add up for that system for vaccines.
But for me, it doesn't really affect me all that much.
I think if you were in a Medicaid, medical type of clinic, it might affect you
a little bit more because those margins are so small.
But ultimately, you have to do what seems right.
And there should be no reason that you can't see patients and have a
financially stable practice by just seeing patients and letting them do
whatever they feel like is best for their family.
So you're using more of a membership concierge model, which we're hearing.
But I can do that just like you said, because we have a line about the door.
Right. I mean, I can't take 99% of the patients that come that want to come to us.
Right. But, you know, the other issue, you know, to bring up
because I mean, I don't want to make an example like this is the difficulty,
but it becomes elitist, does it not?
I mean, a little bit that those of us that can afford to,
you know, have a membership pay upfront, my insurance covers it great.
If not, you know, fine, that's what that whole system is.
You know, I'm in, you know, I have a practitioner I go to.
But I just think what about all those people that are struggling to make ends
meet, probably using their last dollars if they're watching the high wire
to buy organic, you know, which is, I think, incredibly important.
But then they're outside of this, you know, system.
How are we going?
What would be your recommendation to getting around?
How do we get to a place where we're all getting equal care?
Well, I think there are a few different ways.
I think we would have to change the rules around kicking people out and
discriminating. That would be one way to make sure that all practices are taking
patients. But ultimately, the real way to get there is to get the research
that we actually need to convince the doctors of the science behind vaccines.
And we can go from there.
I mean, I still think we don't have the research.
I think that the Henry Ford study, what you brought out is probably the best
that we have. And even that is still not perfect.
I mean, we need prospective studies, but we need 20 studies like the one that you
showed. We need the we need the Henry Ford research to be reassessed.
We need to be peer reviewed.
We need the same thing at Harvard and Kaiser and in Denmark and wherever.
And let's let's see if what they found is correct.
If you start seeing that trend with good data, that would start to open up
people's minds a little bit in the medical world.
They wouldn't be able to dismiss that totally.
But we haven't even been able to get that research
rereviewed, just, oh, you know, Henry Ford, Henry Ford says it says it's no good.
It's like you have on camera, the doctor saying he didn't want to get it published.
And you you could look at any of the research out there.
And that study is certainly as good as most of, if not better than the vast
majority of vaccine research that we have.
There's no question about that.
You can poke holes in that study.
You can poke holes in any retrospective study.
That's why they're not great.
They're as good as you have.
But the fact that we don't have 50 of those studies when we're giving more and
more vaccines, 30 plus vaccines to kids, it's insane that we wouldn't have that.
And I think if we did that research, if we did 50 studies, if we did prospective
studies and everything was the same in the vaccinated, unvaccinated group,
everybody's tune would change, including yours, including Secretary Kennedy's.
Nobody's here saying that you couldn't ever have a vaccine that's useful or
you always going to have these huge risk with vaccines.
The question is, what is that risk?
And we don't have any idea what that is.
And as we add more and more vaccines, you can't just assume that they're never
going to cause a problem.
That's insane.
And that's what you see when you talk to these doctors.
They just assume that more is better always.
Every vaccine is good and they never go backwards.
And like you were discussing with the COVID vaccine, there's no ability
to look back in the past and say, well, you know, here's what we thought
then, here's what's going on now.
We have a disease that doesn't seem as concerning as it used to be.
So well, let's at least just say we could recommend it, but we're not going
to require anybody to do it ever again, because it clearly the risks are not
what they used to be and are clearly the benefits are not what they used to be.
And we're just still not sure what the risks are.
We can't possibly be.
I think there I think AAP is committing suicide.
I think Gavin Newsom's committing political suicide on that one vaccine,
especially there's two you talked a lot about all the vaccine on all of them.
Definitely. But everybody knows the COVID vaccine is a disaster.
Everyone knows it doesn't stop transmission.
Everyone is starting to question if, you know, if I'm getting sick three times
after and or friends that have seven shots and it's doing nothing to protect
them and more and more studies showing, you know, myocarditis,
pericarditis, if these amyloid plaques and prions.
I mean, God knows what future we have in this species.
But forget about all of the doctors that have are just, you know,
you know, a part of a religious cult or whatever you want to call it, you know,
hypnotized by their education.
You are not.
And I appreciate that.
Not any more.
But I question based on what you just said,
I know you're trying to find this middle ground.
You're saying parents are confused.
What is, you know, where's the, you know, and I've watched podcasts.
You're in Gary Brekker just recently said, you know,
one side is saying you take the vaccines, you're going to die.
The other side is saying, if you don't take the vaccines, you're going to die.
There's a middle ground, you know, we know there has to be middle ground.
Do we know? Do we know there's a middle ground?
Like how I know this is your pursuit.
And based on what you just said, which you're right, there's
frankly, almost no science on the safety of vaccines.
There's certainly no dependable science
properly done science.
There's definitely no placebo based before we even go out, you know,
prospective study that was done correctly prior to licensing these products.
And then everything's retrospective after that.
And that's, you know, vulnerable to bias.
You know it.
I know as you're looking deeper into it.
So how, when you say I'm trying to find the middle ground,
how do you go from the middle ground, which is clear vaccine injury has to be possible?
Covid vaccine injury now documented.
Hepatite, you know, then you have people
complaining and then you have the sickest children, which you talk a lot about.
Autoimmune disease running rampant seems pretty obvious.
If your immune system is out of whack, maybe we should look at the product
that is, you know, inciting your immune system.
But then on the other side, no, you know, on the pro vaccine side,
frankly, nothing but bold, loud statements and no science backing up at safety.
So where, how do you pursue middle?
Let me start here because you mentioned this and I think it's so interesting.
In the same week, I could get an email from a very pro vaccine person saying
that I'm killing kids because I'm talking about any sort of risks around kids.
And that very same week, I can get an email from somebody who's very
anti-vaccine saying I'm killing kids because I'm talking about how vaccines might
have some benefit. And so there are two very loud extremes.
I think most people are in the middle and the reality now that I've been in this
for a while, a lot of people are actually much more in the middle.
And a lot of doctors are starting to hear this.
I think the best thing that's happened so far with Secretary Kennedy,
no matter what you believe about him, is he's brought this out.
And and it's a conversation.
You can't you can't go by public conversation.
It's a public conversation.
You can't say we're not moving towards the middle now.
It's way over here and it's moved here.
But you can't say that we're not moving more to the middle with discussions
around hepatitis B, with changes to the CDC schedule, with discussions around autism.
These things were never even talked about before.
Yeah.
Most doctors were never even aware of it.
They are now, they're aware of it.
People are going into the office and not wanting to get vaccines.
Doctors are questioning what they should or shouldn't do.
They're looking into it, they're talking about it.
So we are very slowly moving in that direction.
And I hope that as we continue to move forward, that's going to push the research
that's actually needed to move the doctors.
Because right now, I think the unfortunate part is whatever Secretary
Kennedy is doing is very open to being all just replaced in a few years if he's not there.
And that's not going to move things forward.
Changing the CDC schedule is doing nothing.
Right.
I think it's it's really great in terms of discussing because I think it's
opening up that discussion.
But ultimately, if he says, OK, we're doing the CDC schedule, it's going to be this way.
And all the doctors say, no, no, we're just going to do the AAP schedule,
which is what was before.
If he's not there in three years, they're just going to say, we're just putting it back.
Right. That's what would happen.
So I think.
But what would happen to all the doctors like you?
And I think they are increasing.
There's more and more doctors are quietly starting to say, hey, look,
I just met with one in Canada.
I just had just watched an inconvenient study and he said, I am literally saying to
my patients right now, I've got four
pregnant moms that are wanting to know what my opinion is on vaccines.
And he said, I am officially taking a hiatus from the conversation.
I don't even know what to tell you.
I'm starting my own research.
He said, based on your film, I've got a refrigerator full of vaccines
brought up meningitis as a concern, but I don't know what the safety of that.
You're right. I mean, I am worried about meningitis,
but I don't know how much harm that single vaccine can cause.
I don't know where to find that information who's brand new to this,
but very insightful, very thoughtful.
And it's just a fascinating conversation.
I don't know that this just swings back now.
They'll use authority to swing it back, but you're not going to.
You can go, hold on a second.
I mean, would you change with your patients if suddenly CDC is back under, you know?
So I think the schedule could change back.
I don't think you can put back the conversation.
I think that has changed for good now.
I don't think you can go backwards to the point where people don't understand
that vaccines can cause a problem.
I think the real question is, can we get to the point where the science
could catch up to the point where people are actually willing to do their studies
and then willing to look at those studies, honestly, and say,
OK, well, here's where the risks are with vaccines.
Let's make better vaccines.
Let's use fewer vaccines.
Let's let's figure out where that balance is for kids' health.
Or let's just at least not require them.
I mean, it's a very easy place to start.
Let's not force anybody to do anything.
That should be, you know, the bar, the low bar.
Certainly in a free country.
And we don't most places in America don't require them for school.
Right. Those states are doing just fine.
Most countries don't require vaccines to go to school.
They're doing just fine.
Well, I do I would say let me correct that for anyone watching is brand new today.
Every state requires them.
They have exemptions.
They have exemptions, but they're not very forthcoming about it.
And if you just showed up, you won't know.
They won't tell you, by the way, you can just opt out.
You have to go out of your way to find that information.
But you're right.
There's only five states currently
that just have no exemption whatsoever.
So it's a little different than not having it mandated.
You have to sort of go out of your way.
I'm curious because in our nonprofits
called informed consent action network, I've been fighting just for informed
consent. I want patients to be informed.
I'm not, you know, I like you.
I get attacks from people because I don't say I'm eradicating vaccines.
From the face of the planet, I'm not a vaccine abolitionist.
I think I'm a realist.
Pharmaceutical industry is too big and there's too many people that just are,
you know, live in fear and will do whatever Pharma says.
And they have every right to do that.
I really do believe in freedom.
This is a free country, but you can't force your thought system on me.
I can't force mine on you.
But you seem like one of these doctors that is trying to get to inform consent.
So let me ask you a question.
Can I get a little test response here?
If a parent says to you, what is your opinion?
What should I know about hepatitis B?
What is informed consent from a doctor actually sound like?
I want to and for everyone out there that has a doctor,
I want to see if they think this is what they'd want to hear from the doctor.
I mean, informed consent means having a discussion to me, at least.
I mean, it's having a discussion and explaining what we know and what we
don't know the risks versus the benefits of any procedure,
whether that's hepatitis B or heart surgery.
And then ultimately letting the parent make the best decision for them.
It's providing them with information so that they can have it.
They can look it up.
I mean, I think to have.
So what do you say?
Listen, I'm asking you.
Well, you would know about happy.
Well, I think you need to know the risks of hepatitis B so that
I mean, I guess it depends on which age your child is, let's say, for a newborn.
If you are exposed to hepatitis B, then you could you could die.
You could get cancer, liver cancer, be the two biggest concerns.
I you would need to know that the risk of getting hepatitis B as
newborn is extremely low.
We're talking one in a million to one in seven million.
If you don't have hepatitis B, is it possible that somebody could come
and bleed on your baby? Sure, it's possible.
Is it possible that you could bang into a needle as a newborn or have a wild
baby party? Yes, I guess it's possible, but it's very unlikely.
So I think you need to understand what the risk is that you actually might
be exposed to the disease versus what your risk is from the vaccine.
And when we're talking about the vaccine, if parents want to get in that discussion,
if they want to look at everything, you can certainly get into how the trials
were run, how long the safety testing was.
How long was it?
Active was four to five days for the main vaccine.
So I think that are five to six days.
So I think that's important to know they did follow them after,
but it's very short term, mostly done in adults.
So we don't have long term safety data on hepatitis B.
And I think that's important for parents to know as well.
It doesn't mean that it's completely unsafe.
We've been using it for a very long time.
And you can argue whether what the safety data is.
Again, I don't think it's been studying the way that we would know.
But I think that's the part of informed consent that gets missed is
there's just a lot that we don't know about the long term risks from these
vaccines, which is what was discussed in ASIP recently.
And I think why they changed it moving it back, because I just don't think
we really understand what the risk profile is to giving a newborn baby
a vaccine, something where the risk to them is extremely low.
And that seems to be common sense to be.
It's it's not just, oh, we're just protecting its hepatitis B.
Because if you were to ask me as a physician,
do I want a baby to get hepatitis B? Of course, I don't.
Of course, nobody wants a kid to get hepatitis B and die.
But that's not the full story.
The question is if you're giving three million kids hepatitis B vaccine
and you're protecting maybe one kid who the parents didn't realize
they had hepatitis B or that fell through the cracks.
I mean, that's tragic.
You don't want that.
But what is the risk to giving three million kids that vaccine?
And are there some deaths from that?
Are there some fevers?
Are there some seizures?
Are there some autoimmune conditions that they develop later in life?
What does that look like?
We've never studied that.
And you can't just keep giving kids vaccines on day one.
We vitamin K, RSV, hepatitis B, and diabetic
eye omen all in the first two or three days.
How can you look at that and say there can't be some risk from that?
Yes, there can be some benefits.
It's certainly vitamin K can help prevent a blame bleed.
But when you're doing multiple things on a one day old baby,
there has to be some downstream effect from that.
Everything has good and bad.
And we there's no reason why we can't have those discussions
as scientists and say, we don't want anyone to get hepatitis B.
We don't want to have a blame bleed.
But we also don't want them to develop autoimmune condition.
We also don't want a seizure.
I appreciate that.
And if doctors were just speaking like that, I think we would be in enough.
We would never found ourselves in, I think, the position we find ourselves now.
When you watch what Bobby Kennedy is doing, there's been all the he's not a doctor.
You know, he's anti-vaccine.
You know, and I mean, he's also made the argument.
So it was his wife on the view and others that I think there's only been two
doctors in the HHS position.
It tends to be lawyers, which is what he is.
And I think he's super well qualified in that he's been a lawyer fighting for
health most of his entire career.
But I want to ask you a specific question because obviously,
you know, you're you're writing, you're being forthcoming.
You want a middle ground.
You want, you know, you'd love for the AAP to be open minded.
Can we do some science?
Why aren't we doing a Vax versus unvaccinated study?
Why isn't all this happening?
You want all that happening?
Is there, you know, so you need Bobby to be successful at opening up this
dialogue? Is there any way that he could do this better?
If you wanted, like when you're watching what he's doing,
I imagine you're hoping I need you to open up the minds of the doctors around
me, those that train me, the university system.
Is there a way he could do this differently that wouldn't create this
massive pushback by AAP and Gavin Newsom?
And is there any, you know?
I don't know if there's any way.
I wish he could include people.
I wish they could sit down and have conversations.
I don't know if they're willing to do it.
No, Paul Offit's been offered.
He's offered to show up ace if he didn't.
He refused to show up.
I was just on the Charlie Kirk Show with Aaron Seary,
and we offered Paul Offit to come to be a part of it, and he wouldn't.
And I mean, I hope that some of them will be more willing to do it.
I don't think people like Paul Offit are going to do it at this point.
They've not wanted to do it for so long.
But there are so many other people involved and many other doctors.
And if I had a dream, it would be that they would sit down in a room
and talk about some of these things and do it openly so that they could say their
position, he could say his position and they could find some sort of common ground
to work from.
He doesn't necessarily have the time to do that.
So that that may be the problem is
oh, I think trying to get people to I mean, like if he would, I think he would do it.
But I think that having those discussions would take a lot more time
than just making changes.
So I think he's doing what he thinks is best.
But ultimately, that's at the cost of including people that he needs to be
the the minions, the fighters of what he actually wants to do to change the schedule.
You actually need the people to change the schedule that are administering
the vaccines and right now you don't see that.
So I think that's where it's really tough for him, I would imagine.
I don't know. I've never spoken to about it.
But I think that he's trying to do what he can do and he has only so much
time for right now and he wants to get as much of it done.
And then he knows he's going to get pushed back.
But the better way to do it would be to actually have discussions.
Well, the real better way to do it would be to have the data to back things up.
But since he doesn't have that data, because it doesn't exist,
he has to do things based on what he thinks is best.
And I think he's working on the data.
So let's talk just as far as the data.
If he does a Henry Ford style study, maybe millions of kids
using some database, whether it's Medicare or Medicaid or something,
compares vaccinated to unvaccinated, what would what would AAP have to see?
I mean, would they have to be in charge of it?
I mean, short of being in charge of it, where they would accept
the data we're looking at, they would never accept anything that he does.
I would think I don't think in the short term they would,
but it still doesn't matter because you still need that as a first step.
We need somebody to do it so that they can say, here's what they think is
wrong. And then you say, OK, well, here, then give me your statisticians,
redo it, show me where we did it wrong, do it in a different way.
And then hopefully other places would start to copy that and mimic
and we get multiple.
I don't think any one thing that Secretary
Kennedy does is going to change the minds of most doctors,
nor should it necessarily, but it might, but they're going to hear about it.
They're going to have to hear about the study.
They're going to have to read about it, look into it, look how they did it,
start to focus on, all right, here's how we would do it differently.
And that's the first step towards moving in a different direction,
because there was never even a discussion of that in the first place.
So I think he needs to do it.
And I think it will help no matter what they find.
I don't think that's going to move the needle very much,
but it will move it in that, in that a little bit.
And then hopefully we can get some follow up from that.
So yeah, I think it will.
I think it is just like the Henry Ford study is moving the needle
because parents and people seeing it are saying,
why can't you do a study that shows me your side's right?
Right. And I think as we get more and more studies,
sure, AAP will continue to dig its heels in and force covid vaccine
on innocent children and lose more and more ground, more and more
relevance. I think states are going to start.
I think people start leaving states over some of these vaccines
like it just doesn't make sense.
But I do think the power is in the people, which is why we do what we do.
The more people are saying, I'm just not listening to you anymore
because you're not in a reasonable position.
There's got to be a reason around this.
And I think that's what's ultimately going to change things.
It's going to be the stuff that Secretary Kennedy is doing,
but also it's the parents, the parents that keep
opting out of the system or questioning it.
It's going to be the thing that's going to force
the doctors to say, parents are concerned about this.
Where is the research that they want?
Why don't we go do it?
We're so sure the vaccines don't cause a problem.
What are we worried about to go do that study?
And that that that doesn't make any sense.
There's very clearly it's either clearly been done
and they don't want to show what it is or there's some
some sort of weird logic around not doing it.
Like you would think the first thing you would do to counter
what Secretary Kennedy says would be, all right, we went to Harvard.
We looked at the last 15 years.
Here's the data and that's never been done.
It's still not been done in the last, you know, year.
It's insane to see it hasn't run.
Well, no, I mean, that's what they would do.
I know, let's let it be front pages in New York.
And then but you have to ask yourself,
since we know they've done it, because it would be so obvious
they've done it and they're not getting the response they want.
Why are they so gung-ho on a product
that then is doing so poorly in comparative trials?
All of that we could go on and on.
I want to have you stick around for off the record.
I actually want to talk about how well you're trained
for infectious disease, childhood illnesses,
because if people stop vaccine, we're all going to see meals.
We are going to see chicken pox.
I want to know what you know about that.
Have you had to do your own research?
Are you ready for a chicken pox outbreak or a measles outbreak?
Would you know what to do?
I'm going to ask you that in off the record.
Where do people follow the work that you're doing?
Probably the best place would be at Dr. Joel Gator on Instagram or X.
So at Dr. Joel Gator and Instagram or X,
the book is between a shot and a hard place.
You definitely want to pick this book up.
It's also great for people that are think are on the fence.
You're wanting to just move into starting to think reasonably.
Obviously, Dr.
Gator is bringing reason, maybe not as far as you are at this moment.
But I think obviously one of those great people that is giving,
you know, people in the Republic of California
an opportunity to, you know, change their vaccine schedule for their kids,
which I always I know that's risky.
It's it's honorable that you're doing it.
So you want to check out off the record.
Remember, you can only watch off the record
if you're a recurring donor.
I don't care if you give us a dollar a month,
but I want you to be involved.
They're trying to get you to vote with your dollars
and trying to get you to feel what it feels like to be involved in a movement.
That's what this is about.
And so it's our gift back to you, just a little extra programming.
And aren't you curious what he actually knows about infectious disease
and are we ready for it?
Should we start seeing outbreaks
because people are taking less vaccines?
And what does that world look like?
Also, there's other ways to donate.
We still have a few bricks left in our terrorist program.
You want to do that so you can come and visit.
Maybe you could be live right now,
watch this interview and get a picture with Dr. Aider,
but first you have to have a brick.
And this is my favorite brick of the week.
Well, my favorite brick this week is right here.
To my lovely wife who had the courage to stand for our children
and to challenge me to seek the truth.
You know, mother's instincts are probably the most powerful medical tool there is.
And God, for all of our wives, I think,
that have led us in the right direction.
Moms, parents making better decisions,
being courageous to get outside of the box,
and the high wire is all about.
All right, well, look, there's heroes
on every side of a difficult situation.
The heroes in Canada, the truckers that stood up,
may have changed the future for the world,
yet Canada still finds itself in difficult positions.
The work is never done.
Freedom doesn't exist until there's freedom for all.
And freedom isn't secured if the very next election
could change our rights when it comes to freedom.
When you see groups like American Academy of Pediatrics,
when you see leaders like Gavin Newsom,
you know, you know, literally calling, being anti science right now.
And I've said it, if you are pro vaccine,
if you're staunchly pro vaccine,
you are now on the anti science position.
There is actually more data and science around the risks
as we're looking at this, especially around the COVID vaccine.
We keep reporting on it.
The lack of, you know, quality in the flu vaccine,
which has now been denied.
This is an anti science.
This is science finally being done.
But by the way, if you have a problem with it,
then get in a debate, sit down with me or, you know,
Dr. Warsh or Robert Kennedy Jr.
We're all open to having that conversation.
But as we look at the world right now,
we've got to take our wins.
We've got to solidify them.
We've got to open the door even wider.
We've got to push back against American Academy of Pediatrics.
All of this, you know,
what the pressure that actually changes the world?
It's the people, you know, I could do this all day long.
But if I'm the only voice talking about it
and you're all staying quiet inside of your houses,
nothing changes.
Frankly, you know, when I watched the COVID situation take place
and people would say, oh, I had to get the vaccine
in order to hold onto my job.
I always think, no, your job gave you an opportunity
to find another job.
Or why didn't you talk to everyone inside of that business?
Here in the United States of America,
roughly 30 percent of the people denied taking that vaccine.
That means that's across the entire nation.
All 340 million of us, 30 percent of us said, oh, hell no.
That means inside of your job, there was 30 percent of you,
most likely, that weren't taking it.
But you didn't know who each other were
because authoritarianism wins when you are silent.
It wins when you're afraid to talk about it.
It stays and even when you might even be
the majority in a conversation,
which is, I think, where we're moving right now.
I think American Academy of Pediatrics
is now going to find itself in a minority position.
I think Gavin Newsom is now speaking to less people
than he that are that agree with him.
And I don't I think they're like crazy.
I don't know what's wrong with them.
But we don't know that if we don't talk.
And so we let authoritarianism rain
when we're not using our voices,
when we're not standing up together,
when we don't recognize that we are winning.
They don't want you to know you're winning.
And you can't know you're winning if you're staying locked,
you know, afraid inside of your cave,
just you know, hoarding what little truth you're clinging onto.
You've got to share it,
which is why I really want you this week to take us up on this.
Please go to our high wire store and grab this card.
This really is a game changer.
Just what Dr.
Warfus is talking about this Henry Ford study.
We're not going to have another moment like this.
I mean, this isn't just another movie.
This isn't just another study.
It's one of a kind.
I don't know when we're ever going to have this opportunity.
Again, where the opposite side, the pro vaccine side,
a doctor scientist that says, I'm the reason we force
vaccinate everyone that works at Henry Ford Health.
When that guy does a study
and suddenly we get our hands on that study
and the whole world can see it and say,
geez, when I watch this movie,
this guy is clearly in hidden camera footage,
which is super intriguing to listen to.
But he is clearly saying, this is a good study.
I don't know how I would do it any different.
It didn't turn out how I wanted and I have tried
and I'm not going to put it out
because it will destroy my career.
It will destroy the vaccine program.
When Bobby Kennedy does this study,
I guarantee you he will.
They'll say, well, I mean, he was anti-vax.
You cannot say that about this study.
You cannot say that about Henry Ford.
No doctor can explain this.
They can try to poke holes in it.
But just like Dr. Peter Guccia,
one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration has said,
I've seen Henry Ford's complaint,
but it doesn't explain these numbers.
And the more people that see this,
not only will you change their lives,
the more people that will know
that even the pro vaccine side can't do a study
that makes their product look good.
And once that starts happening,
the more of us that know the harder it will be back
to put this genie back in his bottle,
wrap it all up, lock it away,
censor the rest of us that are still talking,
we make that impossible when we share the truth,
when we share the truth.
Not hide the truth, not hide from the truth,
not covet the truth, share the truth.
Do your part this week.
Go buy a stack of cards and see how many people
you can give it to.
This is a game changer.
We made this movie.
I'm proud of it, but more importantly,
Henry Ford did a study that is absolutely
changing this conversation around the world.
Let's be a part of it, get involved
until everyone around the world knows the truth.
This is just one of the many things
the high wire is involved in.
We also have our lawsuits,
your donations make all this possible.
Thank you for watching and share this show.
With everyone you know and I'll see you
next week on the High Wire.