ICAN MAKES HISTORY

Did you notice 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 corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Inform Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I

can on decide.org and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Well, I'm very excited to report that actually this week of all the great lawsuits and things that I can has been a part of, I would say this last week, I can actually made history, especially when it comes

to the issue of medical freedom and choice. This is what that look like in the news. A federal judge rules that Mississippi must join most other states in allowing religious exemptions from vaccinations that children are required to receive in order to attend school. This ruling comes as a result of a lawsuit filed last year by several parents who say their religious beliefs have led them to

keep their children unvaccinated and out of Mississippi schools. The deadline for the Mississippi Department of Health to allow religious exemptions is July 15th. This is an incredible story. We could just say there it is, but I really want to get into details of it because so many of you out there have been working with us, trying to really make a difference in this space and make

sure that we're going to be able to maintain our right to body autonomy now and forever. This is going to be a huge milestone in that journey, especially for those other states that are still suffering from the same type of authoritarian pressure when it comes to your right to opt out of the childhood vaccine program. I want to, though, sort of talk about how we got

here because there's many years behind this work and a lot of brilliant people that were a part of it. So this story actually begins for me to be able to be when I made the documentary Vax from cover up to catastrophe. We had, you know, got a bus that said, Vax on the side of it. We were traveling the nation and people were signing the names

of their injured children on the side of it. Well, one day we pulled the bus up into Mississippi and there it is. You can see the signatures of all these children who had been either killed or damaged by the vaccines. A powerful site that bus now sits on our campus here at the campus by side. But there it was. We're in front of Capitol and something

happened. A couple of mothers warrior moms came up to me as I stepped off the bus and we were usually they're just to speak out. We want to take you in the Capitol to meet with some of our representatives, our senators and assembly members. We think you should be talking to them. I had never done that before. And so as they dragged me into the Capitol,

I found myself in these conversations with different political leaders there. And, you know, I have to say that the process was super interesting. Trying to figure out what really was a perspective, why they believe that you should have no religious exemption. One of the few states in the country that had that level of oppression on this conversation. And when the day was all over, I would

say that my life was changed forever. I was reflecting on it and thinking, you know, as I'd done it, I walked out of the Capitol and thought, I actually really enjoyed this. I mean, who would have ever thought talking to politicians would be fun or interesting. But the whole game of sizing them up, trying to figure out what things they cared about and find that door

that you could open up into the conversation was really interesting. And I thought to myself, you know, I'm pretty good at this. This is something I want to do more of. And I really changed my journey after that moment. More and more, I was leaving the Vax bus and flying to different capitals to do exactly that. So word got out, Dell likes talking to politicians. But

he's warrior moms blew me away at how much they knew about the political system. The relationships they'd already developed with many of them. And that is sort of the root of what happened. This law would not have been changed as it was last week. Had it not been for the incredible work of mothers. And I mean moms, like very few fathers anywhere to be seen. When

we look back historically, it will be women that really fought to make a difference in this space. So it is my honor and pleasure to be joined by two of those warrior mothers, Lindy McGee and Mary. Joe Perry. You guys were there. You dragged me off the bus. I still remember that moment. I remember being terrified. How these women just marched into capital, talking to people

they don't know. You know, Lindy, when you, you know, think about that moment, how long had you already been at this conversation before the Vax bus arrived? How long you've been fighting this, you know, removal of the religious exemption in Mississippi? Well, Vax was in 2016. And we founded MPD. We were in 2012. Wow. So we had been at the Capitol for a few years by

then. And we're blessed to have been kind of had our hands held by some women that had been working on this ahead of us that were grandmother's by then. So at least three years since 2012. Mary, Joe, when we think about this, is my understanding correct that Mississippi was the first one to lose the religious exemption? How long had that been gone when you guys really

started ramping up this attempt to bring back the religious exemption? They're freezing. Oh, am I frozen or they're frozen? Here we go. Technology. Okay. Mary, Joe, how long ago did this? Yeah, great. How long ago did you guys lose your religious exemption? So back in into up until 1979, Mississippi had on the books a religious exemption, but it required that the family either be clergy or

that it was part of their religious tenants and practices that they could not take vaccines. And so in 1979, a chiropractor from Rankin County, which is where we live, filed a lawsuit against the state and the state actually decided in the state courts that unconstitutional that our vaccine was not going to be a real threat. So the law for religious exemption was unconstitutional. And so they

revoked it. And then ever since then, we've not been able to get something to replace it. And the battle with our legislators has monumental and even impossible. We've been promised over and over again that if we, you know, if we would jump through certain hoops and get a certain number of legislators board that they would pass it. And we've had overwhelming support before almost the entire

Republican caucus. And so, you know, the state has still upgun still blocked our bills for religious exemption. So it's been impossible. And it's really disappointing that we wound up having to take it to federal court. But, but perhaps, perhaps this was the best way anyway, because now the state of Mississippi can never take it away from us. It's really amazing. 1979. And so over 40 years,

Mississippi, I mean, first so many people in this movement, it was like California SB 277 2015. That was demand. You know, at 9 a.m., you meet with this person, 930 this person, you know, and so we went through that process. What I think is interesting about this really is that when we think about the religious exemption, this is something I want to talk about. I had

been there, so I went in the first day, went really well, we talked in politicians. You guys said, now part of it, it seemed that unfortunately, this is the politics can sort of be like a man's show. Do you find it was difficult, even there was only women in there to really be taken seriously? Absolutely, absolutely we did. Our lawmakers are misogynistic and paternalistic and so

a lot of us are just saw our movement as a bunch of emotional mothers. We would come with the science and the facts and leave the emotions behind, and you know, armed with the science, and they were not hearing it. They dismissed us. And so when facts came on the scene, and you were speaking out in moral courage, that is why we wanted you to come

in and speak to our lawmakers. And we were just going to talk about the fact that we were in the middle of the world. We did find that they were more receptive to you. You know, Mary Jo and I, so many people that are part of the M.P.V.R., who were up there lobbying. Our husbands are back at home working so that we're able to do that.

And we just were not taken seriously. Speaker Gunn, the speaker of the house, like Mary Jo said, would give us hoops to jump through. We would jump through everyone of them, and he would just move the bar year after year so that we couldn't get anywhere. Well, I remember I visited several times over the first couple of years there, and it felt like we were really

starting to get traction. And then one day you called me and said, Dell, we have finally got a hearing in front of, I believe it was the Senate Health Committee, if I remember correctly. But the House Health Committee, and you said it was going to allow us to have a speaker speak, and we would like you to do that. And remember I came down instead of

course. And that morning, I woke up and I was really actually, you know, praying and thinking about how are we going to do that? And I had addressed this body of people. I had never done it before. We never really had that whole like health committee allowing us to give a presentation. They said you can do a PowerPoint. You said they're going to be open to

a PowerPoint. And I remember that morning thinking this is wild that we're in the Bible belt here. We are where, you know, religious belief really carries more weight than anywhere else I'm fighting this conversation, certainly more than California. And it just dawned on me, you know, I sort of, you know, was moved to think, you know, is a minister. I grew up in church. Let me

actually connect these two thoughts together. And I gave a speech that, I have since sort of, you know, weaved in throughout speeches I've given since. But this was the first time I sort of, you know, also showed the science but moved into a conversation about spirituality and even more specifically the Bible. This is fascinating. It's raw. You get to see me early days. Dell does a

little Bible thumping. Take a look at this. Genesis 27. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Man and female in creative. Then God left the God said, let me through all the multiply. We are creating in the image and let us God. Seriously. Who said this? That God needed this. That perfect he created bodies. It's said, man.

And a two-packed instance of mine here, it goes on. Now the serpent wasn't more cunning than any beast of the feet. Little later on. And the serpent said to the woman, you will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you heap up the top of this tree, your eyes will be open. And it will be like God, no more good than evil. This

is what we're supposed to protect ourselves up. This is what we're supposed to protect ourselves up. We're supposed to keep remembering that our ego is in our ideas and wanting to be God or do something better. It makes us make mistakes. We make mistakes when we get out of control. And we start thinking we're better than God. And then in the end they come to themselves

and leave. And God put them form and says, so we said, I heard your voice in your garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hit myself. And he said, who taught you? That you were naked. That you eaten from those creatures. I can't even think that you should not eat. Who taught you? You were naked. Who taught you? You needed 72 vaccines

to live in God's life. Who taught you that God had failed so miserably in creating you? That you needed all of these vaccines. Who taught you that God had failed so miserably in creating you? My honesty felt like the conversations we started having from that moment on changed a very serious way. We really started gaining traction in Mississippi from that moment on. It was powerful. That

speech was absolutely powerful. We're in Mississippi, the Bible belt, and our seeking a religious exemption just makes the fact that we were met with such opposition is so evident of how deep the medical establishments claws are in our politicians. And I know not just Mississippi is dealing with that, but we are predominantly Republicans here at Red State, but as far as how our legislators legislate, we

are purple at best. Yeah, and then of course there was just a part of a conversation where it already laid out all the science, what was wrong with the vaccines, the dangers, the injuries, all of it. But in that moment, we really struck a chord. And Mary Jo soon after that, I started feeling like we were holding majorities in voting bodies, but the problem kept being

that we couldn't get to the floor. I remember we were talking to your representatives in Mississippi that, look, if you get this to the floor, I will vote in your favor. I am now, I'm with you, but we just kept getting installed. By being put into a health committee that wouldn't allow out committee. I mean, it was like years of incredible frustration because you had the

votes. Do you feel like you had the votes this whole time? I do think we had the votes the whole time. I think that the problem all along has been the leadership in the House and in the Senate. And I don't know if it's like this in other states, but the leadership, they rule with an iron fist. And there's been a lot of discontent in our

House of Representatives because our speaker of the House has ruled with an iron fist. And even those legislators who were not on our side, the year that we had almost the entire Republican caucus who had agreed committed to vote for our bill, even then he wouldn't let it out of committee. And made some excuse like that they all just said that they would because they felt

guilty. And that's not a matter what we did. And I'm not really sure where the power is. I don't necessarily think it's the drug companies. I think it's the medical association. They're very afraid. And they're very afraid of the white coats in our Capitol. Well, last year, you know, Aaron, Siri and I, and we've been looking at, you know, approaches all around the country. We really

started looking at, certainly when you're losing ground, in California, watching Maine, Flip, Connecticut, hanging in the balance, it's just always been a goal to stop that, that blood loss and actually move it in another direction. Something that's never happened. You know, we're starting to see that we can block bills better, California, having some luck there, but we've never been able to reverse it back in the

right direction. That has not happened. And Aaron, Siri and I got together and really started brainstorming. Is there another way to look at this? There's been cases that say, you know, we have a little religious right. You know, to body autonomy, a connection to God, but it keeps losing because it just was too general and they would point to things like Massachusetts versus Jacobson, a 1905

ruling around smallpox and a minister there. But Aaron and I were talking and we came up with a new strategy. I'm joined now by, I think, someone who'll go down as one of the great constitutional attorneys of all times, and the lead attorney for ICANN, the work we do, Aaron's to do. So, Aaron, can you describe, you know, what was unique about this approach and this

lawsuit that ICANN funded. Obviously, there were plaintiffs there. All the mothers and families there that are working so hard are a huge part of this. But we were happy to, you know, support this and bring in a little bit of a new perspective. So, can you give some details on exactly how we brought this case and what made it unique? Sure. Happy to doubt. And yeah,

it's extremely heartening that a federal court has now found that there is a religious right under the United States Constitution. Yes, huge. I mean something. In the state of Mississippi. Yeah. And that precedent is generally applicable and can be applied pretty much to any state in this country, which is what makes it even more incredible and more hopeful in terms of where everything is going in

this country when it comes to medical freedom. Yes. I'm going to issue Mississippi as you pointed out in your discussions with Lindsey Mary Jo, is that despite the incredible lobbying efforts that that, you know, that they and you and the other parent groups and parents in Mississippi had done for a decade. My understanding is that there had been a bill proposed every year for the last

10 years pretty much to ensure to add a religious exemption to the vaccine requirements to attend school in Mississippi. Despite the introduction of bills, never get out of committee. In particular, my understanding is and is that the lieutenant governor wouldn't let that happen. So while there might have been the political will by even a majority of the members of the Mississippi legislature. And while there was,

you know, an incredible lobbying effort by the parents who are who had their lives often torn a sunder by the lack of a religious exemption where they had to put. They had to choose between. They had to be sending their children to school or violating their sincerely held convictions and potentially gameting their children and their mortal souls. When they had to make that incredible choice, which

no American should ever have to do. That's why. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. First amendment. The first right under our constitution. When we looked at that issue, I think it became clear that the solution here was not going to come from the legislature. It needed to come from a federal judge. Deciding that under the United States Constitution, which overrides the entire state of Mississippi's state law, legislative body,

governor, executive branch, and under the United States Constitution, the citizens of Mississippi do have a right to a religious exemption to the vaccination requirements. And that was the sole and singular ground on which we brought the case that we brought. The president that had developed over the last two years that had come out of the United States Supreme Court, the constitutional landscape around the legislative and

American. I had changed over the last two years. Okay. And we took advantage of that. And and in a truly excellent, extremely well reason. Decisioned and you know, the judge gets incredible credit for a really tell brilliant decision. 39 pages laid out. So, precisely why in Mississippi there needs to be a religious exemption. But there had been, I mean, look, there have been religious exemption cases

in New York, sort of fighting on. We just have a constitutional right. But I think what was really unique about this was you sort of use this comparison right. Saying, you know, essentially the constitution is saying that, you know, that if you have any sort of right or protection that's given to one group of people that isn't religious, that group has got to have that has

have to have that mirrored protections that that's essentially, I mean, that was the added nuance. I felt like because it wasn't the first time, you know, religious rights was argued. No, there has been, there have been cases for pretty much a hundred years in this country seeking to find that. We have a right under the First Amendment to say no to a vaccine to attend to

have our children attend school. And they have failed. unanimously. This will be the first decision I'm aware of that has found that there is a constitutional right under the First Amendment to say no to a vaccine to attend your child to school. What changed on the Supreme Court constitutional landscape is that governors as you were aware and your audience is certainly aware. Yeah. Started shutting down

and doing all types of closures during the COVID-19 vaccine pandemic. Go COVID-19 pandemic. Including the churches. But while they shut down churches, they let Walmart grocery stores and other places they open. People brought challenges to that saying, Hey, well, wait a second. If it's not a health imperative that everybody has to stay home, if you could still go to Walmart, you should be able to go

to church. Right. You can't you can't say these two activities, which effectively have the same amount of risk going to church or going to Walmart. But yet you're going to favor a secular activity and not permit the religious activity. If there are two activities that are effectively similar, and you're going to permit the secular activity to go for it, you can't then claim you have a

compelling interest to have to crush the First Amendment religious freedom right to stop an equivalent religious activity. In particular, Fulton Tandem, these are two US Supreme Court decisions that came down in the last two years. And in some ways, the overreach, the fact that these some governors in this state decided to go too far resulted in those decisions and brought that jurisprudence to a real into

real focus. And we use that same exact precedent. In fact, I would call it a clarification, a development of the jurisprudence. At the end of the day, our Constitution is a living document. And what it means for better or worse is what the United States Supreme Court at the end of the day says, as well as the circuit courts and the district courts below it over

time. And that jurisprudence had moved decidedly in the direction of protecting religious freedoms and had done so. So within the context of a pandemic, so it was it was it directly became applicable to what was going on in Mississippi. And you know, and hitting reading those decisions there long. If anybody wants to read them, you know, Fulton's 100 pages almost. Great reading though. If you're interested.

Yeah. And the whole litany of those cases. And we took those exact same principles that precedent. And we brought a lawsuit saying exactly the same thing. We said, Hey, look, in Mississippi, there is a set uncles for people plantdoing activists. We're not going to forget. So I'll just have more to explain again. That word we have thank me for bringing the return. we cure Wal marvelous

drug assault abuse and criminal warning on the last one. And I'm publicize that thinking about how even other law enforcement staff have, do you know that? We've focused on that research. In depends. Detlene to case on the likely jack or retired rights and that's really not going to be the case. Diesel 1 and don't think about it. Also 9 pages decision that everybody to free to

read. I think we have an excerpt from that decision. Very powerful stuff. Here is effective July 15, 2023. The Injoined party shall be in join from enforcing the compulsory vaccination law unless they provide an option for requesting a release exemption by July 15, 2023 defendant state health officer, Dr. Daniel P. Edney shall develop a process by which persons may request a religious exemption from the compulsory

vaccination law and the Mississippi State Department of Health shall make the process or any forms related to it available on its website thereafter while this preliminary injection remains in effect a person may seek a religious exemption to the compulsory vaccination law by requesting religious exemption pursuant to the process developed by the Mississippi State Department of Health. There it is signed. It's an incredible decision. Aaron. I

think it's I think this is arguably the biggest lawsuit when we've had this one really is going to set up a precedent and I want to say personally that I plan on through the sponsors that we have that support all the work we do to send you in every other state that thinks that they're going to rob people of religious exemption. We're going to send you

forward to get back the religious right to freedom, body autonomy all across the country. Still left on the docket. Of course we've won in Mississippi. We're going after California, West Virginia, New York, Maine and Connecticut. And you know this is a very exciting moment. I know there's a long road ahead. What was the moment like? I mean as an attorney obviously you know we've all watched

you in the plucking deposition and doing this deposition. You have this great sort of stoic you know approach the things you you know you know lead through with with grace and candor. What was it like the moment this was decided for all of those mothers that were there that have been fighting this for years just from your perspective you describe what that what that was like.

Absolutely. If I may just give the backdrop of that day for a moment we we had an evidentiary hearing actually in the morning which lasted a few hours. And we had six plaintiffs at three of which took the stand. One of one of them for example was a pastor in the state of Mississippi who is the head of a school in which he cannot send his

own daughter. In fact he wasn't aware of the Mississippi vaccination laws and his daughter was attending his school. As long as and as well as other parents in his in his church and in his community. And he had to actually exclude people from his own congregation from his own school including his own daughter. Wow. Then had to be home school. We had another one of our

plaintiffs took the stand and explained how. She moved right across the border into Alabama but effectively lived her whole life in Mississippi still. And came into Mississippi pretty much every day of the week to play baseball with all the kids they could be going to school with instead they couldn't. They hang out with their family with their friends to go to the club that they hung

out with. And so they lived their lives in Mississippi and just had to drive in every single day but you know send their kids in Alabama. We had one other plaintiff similar type of situation who was a doctor. And so you know those the I think that really set the stage for the day right then and there with these incredibly powerful you know real world life

experiences of our of our plaintiffs and what they have endured to hold true and fast to their religious convictions. You know nothing shows your religious beliefs unless you can burn somebody at the stake I guess I don't know. Then then then the sacrifice that willing me to take to maintain them. And these folks have endured incredible sacrifices. After that hearing was done the judge actually I

would say in a uncommon in my experience move asked that everybody please come back to the courtroom in around an hour and a half and the judge would at least say she would tentative rolling from the bench. The judge you know I think sensitive to the to the crowd wanted to give as he said everybody a sense of where this was going so that they knew

that they weren't left in suspense. And the courtroom it was an incredible you know one side of the courtroom was packed with families I see a picture on the screen with the that's just some of the folks you that were there on one side of the courtroom. And the other side of the courtroom for the government inside was completely in. That's the scene in the courtroom.

And so we left and we came back and you know before we walked in I had an opportunity to just address all the folks who were coming in in support of getting a religious exemption I asked them you know I'm sure that whatever the judge decides it'll be emotional and if folks could just you know keep it just under wraps just for a moment and then

we went into the judge leaves the courtroom so that there wasn't an outburst while the judge was still in the stand. You know you're on federal court there's a level of decorum that's always and I can tell you when we were sitting there and the judge came out and the judge had a quite a long line up I would you know and I thank counsel both

sides for you know the papers and the arguments. And you know I I too would have actually thank the Attorney General's office and the Department of Health's attorneys who were both extraordinary professional throughout litigation I thought that they also did a very effective job representing their councils and I think the judges rights commend them as well for their work in the case. And then the judge

finally said and so I've reached my decision and the pulmonary junction is and the judge just paused. And you could just feel the air in the courtroom just was as thick as as it could be and then you heard a good word granted. It was an incredible moment I mean I I chills go up and down my spine. Let's bring Wendy and let's bring Wendy back

in here and and Mary Jo you've been there you've been at either fight for so long what was that moment like as you sat there and in test anticipation of it and to finally hear those words. I'll just say that I personally go ahead Wendy. After a decade more than a decade of getting our hopes up and being cautiously optimistic over and over again I was

very optimistic about especially when we left at lunch that the judge would rule in our favor but it was just it's still it's still serene it's still serene and I wake up every day. Just thanking God for finally delivering Mississippi from the oppression that that these parents have lived under for all this time. It was an incredible incredible day. And her Joe is that moment like

you know the reactions by the moms were they able to keep it quiet. There was well we were instructed that we weren't allowed to make a peep until the judge had left the court earlier so everybody was sort of holding their breath and as soon as he was out the door. There was tears and hugging and we all went out afterwards and I remember walking to

my truck and thinking I'm just breathing the air and just thinking Mississippi just feels different already. It just it just felt different but I'm convinced that you know scripture tells us that God is going to make the small great and the great small and Mississippi is sort of you know look down on we're lasting in a lot of things but I believe that because I'm not

going to be a little bit more than I'm going to be able to do that. Because Mississippi is the most religious state it's mostly Christian that we have a lot of praying people here and I think that we've got a spiritual battle. Going on in the country and that Mississippi is being used by God to begin to heal our land. There's a scripture that's gotten sort

of cliche because people say it so much but I'd like to read it. Second Chronicle 714 says if my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and I will heal their land. And you know we had we've got a huge prayer group of MPVR families and

anytime something like this comes up you know they're we're fasting we're praying and and I really think that our faith is what has kept us in this so long kept us from giving up. But I just I just feel so blessed to be in the middle of a battle for what's right. And I think that's really the most important thing to do. And I think that's

really important to be on the winning side because we know we have a Lord on our side. So but I especially want to thank you. I feel like God has his hand on everything that you're doing and Aaron and everything that y'all have done over the years. The moral courage, the stepping out and doing the uncomfortable thing, the sure thing, not no one really how it's

going to turn out and what's going to happen. And I believe that when we do that when we when we follow God's call that that ultimately that and we leave the consequence is to him that that's where we find victory. And I think that's what's being on just beyond words to be a part of it. Well I just want to you know congratulate all of you.

Aaron the great work you've done Mary Jo Lindy is a final thought and you know we have been you know conversing with each other and working on this for I mean honestly you know since Vax rolled through in 2017 but for 40 years Mississippi has been oppressed and the the irony that what the most probably religious state was the one you know blocking a religious exemption

to finally come through all of that. There's so many people fighting now that are watching the high wire millions watching the high wire whether they're in states that have similar oppressions or around the world where sometimes it's even worse being arrested. We're going to be talking to someone from New Zealand coming up just a moment being arrested for sharing his spiritual beliefs on this subject. What

is your advice? How did you stay strong through all of this and what do you want the world to know? About this journey for you? That it is worth it that we sacrifice for things that are important and our phones were all blowing up when the ruling got out very fast and I know Mary Jo has as well but I've heard from so many state leaders

across the nation. Some in states that have religious exemptions and some that don't who share just how encouraging this news has been to the world. And I would just cling to faith and you know Galatians 6.9 let us not become weary in doing good for the proper time. We will reap a harvest if we do not give up. And you know I feel like the time

that it took to get here just makes the victory that much more sweet. We've been able to educate so many people. It took in P.V.R. growing to be the bee. We've been able to get a lot of advice from the people that we are with over 8,000 families. It took I can growing to be the beast that I can is with the legal team with Aaron

for everything to fall in line. And just continue on. Do not give up. It's worth it. You know this is for our children for the future of our country. We continue to do for us. And just you know we are so hopeful. I mean it just feels like this is a time of hope that we actually can use the systems that are in play. And this

is some of the beauty of it as we say. You know we had to watch ourselves and say we're warriors or these war words because they want to take those out of context. But what we mean by fighting is fighting using this brilliant court system. We have a constitution that we have. Does this give us hope that there's still you know something you know sort of

in the heart of what America represents and the heart of our constitution and dream of our forefathers. At a moment where we're losing so much hope that America is going to be this beacon of light and freedom. This feels like a moment where we are saying no. The heartbeat of America still exists and what that dream of our founding fathers left for us is still it's

still possible to be realized. Absolutely. In fact I couldn't I don't know if I could say it better. When this country was founded it was founded on the idea on the on the on a on a central core principle among others but one of the core principles is the idea of religious freedom. Now with that meant back then I think it was far broader with people

think of it today. People think of religion is something narrow something to do on Sunday. But it's not it's what convicts your heart every day it's what drives you in how you live your life how you think what you do and many people have deep help conviction. And I think that I think our court system in particular is beginning to recapture the real meaning of religious

freedom. Again the first freedom in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. And when you look at Mississippi as the example these are families these are parents who as we talked about earlier sacrifice so much to hold true to their convictions to their beliefs. And that's the court system. It's finally is beginning to recognize that. So when we think of religious freedom when we think

about a freedom of religious exemptions of vaccination that really is something emblematic not just about vaccines but even in a broader context it's the ability for every Americans to live out there because everybody who has different beliefs often looks at the other and goes well I don't know about those beliefs I don't know about those views. And if all we do is accord the views of

the majority or those that are considered in the norm or those that we've lost our way in this country the whole idea is to make sure that those who have the views that aren't the majority that aren't considered the norm that aren't the mainstream except the views are respected in this country. That's why our forefathers had to flee from England and other places of persecution. That's

why the person that meant exists. It exists precisely to make sure that those were in the minority and no doubt those are one of religious exemptions of vaccination. Our minority in Mississippi and for too long for 44 years that state has crushed their rights. But as of two days ago that is no more we couldn't be more heartened if that's the case. I'm so excited you

guys well done well done. I mean absolutely. Astounding I know for us we've been emotional here it's you know Aaron as long as I've been working on this with our team here working with your legal team. This really is a bucket list moment. I think it changes the conversation now never before have we reversed and moved and show we are now showing that this movement around

you know medical freedom medical health body autonomy is no longer just some distant thought. Now we are moving the needle in our direction. The world is moving our way and I really think that you know first of all we've got them on their heels now Goliath is rock back. This is a spiritual war. It's a beautiful, powerful moment to really recognize that God is good. And

I'm going to say it I really you know you sort of get into that space but we're talking about the religious exemption. And I think that's a great thing to be able to talk about. And I think that's a great thing to be able to talk about. And it is now coming to a state near you. We're coming for you if you want to continue to

take the rights of American citizens away. Aaron Lindy Mary Jo congratulations. Thank you for being a part of the community. All right. Take care. All right folks. Look I mean we do this every week we talk about the work that we do there's no other program like this. I don't know what other news agency. There's other great reporters out there. We'll bring you some you know

decent information once in a while. Nobody has delivered the truth the way we have all the way through COVID and even before. But it's this legal arm that changes what media is. If media could make a difference was our dream. If we could not only tell the stories but fight for the truth and those stories and bring justice. What would that look like? Well that looks

like the high wire and it is only made possible. All these legal wins that we now have and the list continues to grow is because of your incredible support. We would never be able to do this if we had to answer to sponsors like Pfizer, Sonophi, a Bence or Pampers or Exxon. We are fighting for you and you are the one supporting us. Please can you

imagine now there is going to be a huge pushback to this. Okay. The pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful lobby in the world. It just locked you down and took away all your rights and your president both of them. Trump and Biden rolled over for them. There's only one group fighting for you right now and that's us. We're winning. We're showing the way forward. We're leading

other lawyers to know what to do. But I can is going to be there in every courtroom fighting for you if we can afford it and that's up to you. So please join us now. Stop watching and being our chair quarterback on this. Why do you get involved? Be a part of the movement. That is the informed consent action network. Get in here. Be a recurring

donor. You can click on the tap at the top. We're asking for $23 a month. But even if you can only give a dollar each one of you makes a difference and make yourself a part of change instead of just watching it happen outside your door. Bring it into your home and see what other blessings come to you because you are now an active member of

society. For all of you that have made this win possible. I want to thank you. The victory is yours today. Yours and God's and we will continue to fight for all that is important. All right. I have a huge show coming up. Talk about standing in a space of conviction. Billy Takeah. Heekha is joining me from New Zealand. He is scheduled to go to jail for

simply standing up against the lockdowns there. And then I'm going to have an amazing conversation with Dr. Sabine Hazen who is an incredible gut biome specialist. She has a view into COVID and many of the problems around autoimmune disease that are happening the world that's going to blow your mind. But first it's time for Jackson report. Let's stand this idea of the Constitution and the First

Amendment. So outside of religion there's another thing in that First Amendment which was freedom of speech. And the people America right now are at an inflection point across roads with that point that direct point. Their speech their open debate has been. The widdled away has been shipped away at and outright censored over the last three years in ways that we've never seen before. Particularly in the

area of health. And that is why we've had the hardest mandated medicine push the world that's ever seen. And with and this whittling away of free speech has there's been an open purpose of the people doing that to change people's thinking and behaviors. Now we have to have an open debate about this. And let's start with the commissioner of the FDA right now. So he was

a paid consultant, a long time paid consultant with Merck J and J. GlaxoSmith Klein, Eli Lilly. He was also a lead strategy and policy advisor for Alphabet's health subsidiaries. Now Alphabet's a holding company. They have Google in there. A lot of Google companies as well. But he was a full time ahead of strategy and policy for Google's life science and health divisions. So we have in

Cal if he's only been there for just over a year now at the FDA. I just as this position, we have a curious new hybrid. We have a three way revolving door with big tech, big pharma and big government. And he has something to say about this debate around health. Take a listen. All right. One thing I learned in my work at Alphabet, which I did

between my two FDA stance of Google would be the company people recognize within the alphabet family. You know, people come to the clinician. They have a very limited amount of time. There's a little bit of discussion. Then they leave. They're immediately in the data with information they're getting on the internet. If you're not thinking about that, talking with your patients about it, asking them where they

real need for better regulation of how we deal with this complex information. You know, if our health was better than anyone else's in the world, I'd say, okay, we'll just work this out over time. But our life expectancy is going in the wrong direction. And we need to think hard about what we can do about it. I mean, I have to say, as a same argument,

I make because you're killing us, the FDA, the CDC, is poisoning us on a constant basis, amazing that he thinks that those who are trying to resist that are what's causing the health problems. Exactly. And so there's further conversation during that interview. This is one of the headlines that came out of that interview. FDA Commissioner calls for crackdown on health misinformation claims it reduces life expectancy.

He says in this article in that interview, why aren't we using medical products as efficiently or effectively as our peer countries, Calif said. A lot of it has to do with the choices that people make because of the things that influence their thinking. Well, let me just hold on to that point for a second and go to that. Only the United States and New Zealand allowed

direct consumer marketing. So where is that in the conversation? And then let's talk about how much pharmaceutical companies spend worldwide. I have a chart here. I want to show you the United States makes up roughly 41% of total pharmaceutical spending worldwide. China comes in second with a market share of nearly 12%. But understand China has 1.4 billion people roughly. The United States has just under 332

million. So you can see the offset there of the spending. And so I don't know what he's talking about that. We're not using the pharmaceutical products enough or we're not taking them enough or people are getting their information in strange ways. The United States is over-farmed. I mean, this would be the exemplary country if there was ever one on the globe. So let's just look back.

We should be the healthiest people in the world. We are drugged more than anyone else in the world using far more drugs on every single level there is, as you said, direct to consumer marketing. And amazing when he talks about like social media is not where you're getting inundated. I look at Facebook. I don't see any on Twitter. But on my television, every freaking commercial break

and every sitcom is talking about how we're on drugs and need more drugs to survive. It's total insanity and it's killing us. And we have just been through. We have just been through the hardest influence push, censorship push around the health conversation. So what he's talking about, we need more of. We just had the biggest one in the world. And really the history of the world

when it comes to the digital aspect of this. And let's just go through what we had. Now he's calling for a double down on this because I guess it didn't work. But let's look at this. Let's look at the CDC. The CDC provided 156 million in funding. Here's a little infographic. And this is a fiscal year of 2021 to 500 plus other partners at the National

State and Local Levels. So you can see that this influence here. And this is all funding for partners specifically for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake. So this is what we're looking at. You can see there that little red box is the CDC Foundation. Interestingly enough, that's a nonprofit organization that was that was created by Congress as a go between. So instead of the CDC directly interacting

with big pharma or big tech, which wouldn't be that good with the integrity piece. They have the CDC Foundation, this nonprofit. That's a go between and this nonprofit can interact directly with any corporations it wants, any NGOs, and do this type of work. So that's interesting. But then we have studies upon studies of hired out third parties saying, well, if we were to censor, how would

we go about doing that? What would that look like? We have Stanford's Verality Project. Now this was a pilot program. Here's one of the headlines that came out of this. Latest Twitter files tackled great COVID-19 lie machine flagging. True content as disinformation. This Verality Project was a seven month project from Stanford University to monitor anti-vaccine narratives as they call it online. And what happened was a

journalist Matt Taiibi. He gained access to the Twitter files. These are the internal files, the emails that were going back and forth before Elon Musk's takeover. And he found some curious things. This is what he reports reports of vaccinated individuals contracting COVID-19 anyway. Natural immunity. Suggesting COVID-19 leak from a lot. So, if you have a lab or even worry some jokes, all were characterized as potential

violations, he writes, or disinformation events by the Verality Project, a sweeping cross-platform effort to monitor billions of social media posts by Stanford University, federal agencies and a slew of often state-funded NGOs. But here, Dell is the golden nugget. He says, that's the bullet point. Underneath that, it says viral posts of individuals experiencing vaccine hesitancy or stories of true vaccine side effects. This content is not clearly

mis or disinformation, but it may contain malinformation. Exaggerated or misleading also included in this bucket are often true posts, which could fuel vaccine hesitancy. I hate making this comparison. But I have to and this is what happens when you have Nazi Germany and some journalists wants to say, look, there's these concentration camps. And though it's true, it's going to create hesitancy towards our job to try

and clean the bloodline of our nation. I mean, this is how scary this is. They're saying these are true. These are real vaccine injury stories, but people should not be allowed to tell their stories to each other, or they might just start causing hesitancy. This is really, really scary stuff. Right. And you know, this project, when they talk about it, it's not some neutral project. Let's

just go with an open mind. Let's see what's going on. Going on here. Clearly from that dose data points, this is a very targeted actionable events that are that are targeting true stories. And we've talked, I mean, we've interviewed so many parents that have said they've been censored for just telling their story about how their child was harmed by a vaccine or how, you know, an

adult, how they were harmed by a vaccine. New longer. And we've seen Facebook take those stories off. We knew this was happening, but now we haven't black and white. So the reality projects over. That was just a fun little experiment. But now what appears to be replacing it is something a little more permanent. This is the mercury project. And here's a press release from the mercury

project, mercury project to boost COVID-19 vaccine rates and counter public health, miss and disinformation in 17 countries worldwide. So they're researching. This is a research initiative on how this miss and disinformation that they call it spread and also how to combat it. So let's look at the research framework here. Again, all this is not enough for Dr. Califf. We need more of this. I mean, what

I want to point out here is that I think I think the one thing I will agree is I think they named it properly as being one of the most toxic substances on earth in mercury. It's exactly the toxicity with which this type of government intervention will be upon our constitutional rights. I mean, it's really, really far behind. But go on. Yeah. Yeah. So we look

into there. We'll dig into their research framework. This was published on their website on March of 2023. And it says here, I mean, right off the bat, first line, vaccination is an action with clear health benefits. Well, if you're not, if you're not on board, with that, you're clearly going to be a target for this research initiative. And it goes on to say, but individuals may

face a variety of barriers to realizing those benefits, including the direct and opportunity costs required to search for accurate vaccine information. They call those quote search costs and then another is to assess the accuracy of multiple forms of vaccine information. They call those decision costs and to acquire the actual vaccination itself, which is the logistical cost. But you know, so okay, we have search costs. So

in that they wrap that up. And that takes cognitive efforts. Oh, that's tough. And then in their decision costs and when people are deciding, they said, well, one way we can help them to decide is to flag content. That is misinformation. Well, they've been doing that for three years. And that actually had, you know, I can save them a lot of money here. That has the

opposite effect of what you're trying to do. And if you're talking about cognitive effort, shouldn't you be investing in the cognition of the people to make their own decisions to develop their own intuition about what to do? What their own bodies? That seems like that would be better for Americans and be a better investment than just labeling some things misinformation. So let's look at his funding

because it always goes back to who's funding these projects. Where's the money coming from? So here's the snapshot on their own website. We have, oh boy. Don't say it. Bill and Lawrence found. There we are. Rockefeller Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the National Science Foundation, which is interesting because that is funded each fiscal year by Congress. So now you have direct government, US government involvement

in this initiative, which, you know, is very, very interesting and worrisome and problematic. And so we're at a space here where we have literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of, you know, we'll call them now citizen journalists. These are just normal people sharing accurate information. Yeah. And we have this, this censorship industrial complex, as it's been called by Taipei and Michael Schellenberger, that's coming down

and saying, you know, one of the tip of the Spirits is Robert Califf saying, we need, we need more of this. We need more censorship. And this is the battle right now. So it's the humans really versed, versed the algorithms on this digital space. And right now, the message is getting out. We have this, this moment of breath where we're, we're winning where we're really showing

people what is. I mean, and that's the problem they talk about, right? I mean, they are looking, they've got the sights on us. This is why we are investing a lot in our infrastructure and technology here at the high wires. There will always be able to broadcast to you. But while you're going to work, you know, all week, we are trying to figure out how they're

going to try and stop us from being able to communicate with you. This is getting serious, folks. It's really happening. And when you see these politicians, and when you watch someone like Califf, who is now, he literally in a human body represents this horrific merger between, you know, medicine and AI and technologies, very, very dangerous and scary things ahead. If we don't, you know, take back,

control the system, and get people that actually believe in our constitution, our rights to freedom to be running this country against crazy. Yeah, yeah. And so when we're talking about this, let's, let's focus on one product line of pharmaceutical products. And these would be products for mental health issues. We're talking about let's go out of all this is breaking news. This is out of the JAMA

journal American Medicaid, the PD out. I'm sorry journal of American Medical Association. Yeah. This is the headline here, one in four students misuse ADHD drugs in parts of US study finds. So this is, this is really concerning because these drugs are being handed out like candy. They have been especially during the code, the COVID response. You saw mental health disorders and prescriptions being filled for these

just skyrocket. So we have, like, really big widespread misuse up to 25% there of kids using these options. And that doesn't include all of the, you know, the kids that are on the drugs being pushed by these doctors. And I'm sure it just doesn't get to be enough. These are uppers. You're giving how many of our kids? I mean, they are turning our children into drug

addicts. Calif is telling us if we could just get more contact with the drugs into the society, we'd be better. They are drugging our kids and low and behold, shocking that they turn to the streets. To get heavier doses, more doses, you're creating entire environment, moving on to oxygen content. This is all sorts of other things. I mean, you want to talk about gateway drugs. How

about gateway drug pushers? Your pediatricians are drug pushers now. Right. And this is almost like the largest quiet experiment on the central nervous systems of Americans. And it's tough because, you know, it's, it's a quiet. So you don't see it. It's not overt. And so let's also focus on this, the antidepressants, that's a pro's act. So let's look at some of the headlines here. Let's talk

about how many Americans are taking these. Now, this was in 2016. One in six Americans take antidepressants that are other psychiatric drugs, study finds. It's hard to find the actual numbers of people taking it. But in the New York Times here, we found some, some, basically some quotes from this. And the title is the age of distraction. So just distraction and depression. It says antidepressants continue

to be the most commonly prescribed of these medications in the United States. And their use has become only more important than the use of drugs. And the number wide spread since the pandemic began with 8.7% of an increase from 2019 to 2021, compared with 7.9% from 2017 to 2019. So going up pretty much the whole time. But it also goes on to say about how many

prescriptions are being filled IQ VIA, global health technology and clinical research firm found that in 2021, a total of 337 million 54,544 prescriptions were filled. But here's the picture, though. This is where we start drilling down. And the really dangerous parts of this for some age groups, that change has been more pronounced. Since 2017, that's years before the pandemic. There has been a 41% increase in

antidepressant use for teenagers included in the express scripts data. So that was a study of 19 million kids. 41%. Same thing happening in the UK. This is what's going on over there with their antidepressant use. One in eight people taking antidepressants as pandemic blues linger. Now, this is a study we have not talked about. It's one of the most important studies on this topic that has

ever been published. And you probably didn't see it on MPR government funded agency or the CBC. Here's the headline. The serotonin theory of depression, a systemic umbrella review of the evidence. The authors aimed to basically evaluate the evidence on whether a depression is associated with lower serotonin concentration or activity in the brain. So when we think about depression, most people just have this reflex action. They

don't really know where it came from. Oh, yeah, it's chemical imbalance, chemical imbalance. There's there's chemicals off our tone in. And we don't know really where that came from. So these researchers, they looked at basically three of the major research databases. And they looked at from the inception of when these ideas were found in the databases all the way up till December of 2020. And listen

to what they wrote. They say this. Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with. It's caused by lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Remember, this is the whole point of these medications. It's like, you know, what, over a decade of exactly what you're saying. We've just all written it off as it's been proven.

It's a lack of serotonin. It's got to get your chemical imbalance out. And this is where, you know, when you get in the work, we do you start realizing everything is built on a pile of bull crap assumptions. Desires by the pharmaceutical industry to push the agenda because they have a product that can boost serotonin. Whether it's good for you or not. Millions of dollars off

of it. And now when you finally start looking at it, they have no science to back it up, you know, and then, you know, you have to have someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson show up and tell you all the consensus. Those. Right. Consensus. Yeah. And we'll lie. We're looking at it for specifically for antidepressants over three decades of this idea. And this, this is why this

research, this piece of research right here is so important. So these authors go on to say this even more damning quotes. This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis of depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression

is not empirically substantiated. Now one of the authors went on to do an interview with a magazine. And you can read that here. And he spoke a little more freely outside of that study. This is the title depression is probably not caused by chemical imbalance in the brain. New study. He goes on to say this. It is important that people know that the idea that depression

results from a quote chemical imbalance is hypothetical. And we do not understand what temporarily elevating serotonin or other biochemical changes produced by antidepressants due to the brain. We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI depressants is worthwhile or even completely safe. So Dell, I ask you this. How the heck did we get here? Well, it appears to be kind of the same calculation,

the same equation as how we got here with other opioids, how we got here with Big Tobacco, marketing, marketing, marketing. So in the British journal of psychiatry, there was this headline, the 25th anniversary of the launch of Prozac gives pause for thought. Where did we go wrong? And the author of the writer says this, the uptake of Prozac. Prozac was the first antidepressant on the market.

The uptake of Prozac became almost a cultural phenomenon comparable with the fashions for high protein and low carbohydrate diets to lose weight. Quote Washington City, full of Prozac, headline the New York Times, 1994 City, full of Prozac. Just imagine he writes, I am not aware of a comparable historical claims for any other pharmaceutical agent, penicillin included. He goes on to say, how do we account for

this success? It was partially result of relentless marketing undertaken with an intensity, not here to seen in pharmaceuticals by 1993. Lily had 1600 sales representatives in the field in the USA surpassed only by Smith Klein Beachham, 1800 reps for Paxill. That was another antidepressant. So understand that they were flooding the market, flooding people out there, talking to your doctors, talking to the ad agencies and just

putting as many people on the streets as possible to tout this thing and say it's the greatest thing ever. So we have Prozac, which was fluoxetine. That was approved by the FDA in December of 1987 was launched to the market in January of 1988 by Eli Lilly under the name Prozac. So, Del, let's get to the nitty-gritty here. We're all aware of these school shootings. We're

all aware of increased in mass shooting at the United States. We're all looking for answers. And the reflex action has been to blame firearms. But why? Why are we blaming firearms? Why are we leaving one of the key components off the table of this conversation every time? And the Washington Post wrote an article recently and revisited a very important event that happened in 1989. This is

the headline here. One of America's first workplace shootings had an unlikely suspect. Now, they're talking about the standard Gravair shooting in 1989. So printing company in Louisiana, Kentucky, and Joseph Westbaker walked in with an assault rifle, killed eight people, injured 12, and then unfortunately also killed himself. And this was the deadliest mass shooting in Kentucky history. And so this really did, this unfortunate watershed moment kicked

off an era of mass shootings in the Prozac window now. That started. And this is what that looked like in the news. For the first time, America really saw this through the lens of an antidepressant. Take a look. It was one ambulance after another bringing in the victims of the shooting spree to the emergency room at University Hospital. The hospital was in its code de-disaster emergency

plan mobilizing doctors and nurses to assist the critically wounded. We needed a lot of personnel, doctors, nurses, x-ray technicians, operating room personnel, recovery room. So we had to mobilize a lot of people. Jefferson County EMS assisted Louisville's emergency medical services, but there were so many victims that some were brought to the hospital and police cruisers. All together, we were faced with 15 patients who were many

haven't critically held some of not so seriously injured. I'd say at least half of those patients needed things done right away. That would be IV fluids, resuscitation, major operations, big tests to see if they had certain injuries. Family members began arriving at the hospital to check on their loved ones. Some were overwhelmed with grief. For others, the news wasn't so bad. Jeff Sidenfaden says his father,

David, did not realize he had been shot in the chest. As far as he knew, he didn't know he was being shot or anything. I heard from some of the other people in there that I was talking to, that their family members had played dead, that they, you know, were the first to be shot and they played dead so that they wouldn't get killed. I'm these

stories never get easy to hear, but in that moment, it was like a rarity. I don't know what the exact numbers, but it feels like we're looking into mass shooting now in America. Almost, you know, I don't know if it's every day, but certainly every week, you know, there's something going on and it's really bad. Right. Right. It's, you know, it's almost like war reporting, but

from a health aspect because of these health connections to these things. And I want to be clear, because, you know, you and I both know we will be attacked for even, you know, venturing into this conversation, but let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying drugs should be off the table when I'm saying, I mean, that guns should be off the table, but drugs should certainly

be on the table. And this is happening in almost every important conversation we need to be having here in America and around the world. When we talk about vaccines, which we're doing, COVID vaccine and all the excess mortality, I'm not saying that COVID itself, the disease isn't, you know, causing that or might be a part of it, but you can't take the vaccine that you gave

everybody off the table when you start seeing rises of death after COVID has gone. I mean, it's the form and behind all this is the pharmaceutical industry, the most powerful industry in Washington. It owns your television set. It owns your government. So every time you want to have a decent conversation here, you're ridiculed and called, you know, insane for daring to say, wait a minute. What

are these SSRIs doing to the brains of people who are already depressed? We've always had depression. Why do we start seeing school shootings? Why do we start seeing matches? We've always had guns. Why do we suddenly start seeing all these mass shootings? What was the actual change in our society? Oh, I don't know. It just happened to start like with Prozac. Right. And I'll use the

same ideology that I've heard CDC ACIP voting members do for vaccines. If this vaccine can save just one person, we have to put it on the market. So flipping that around, if these antidepressants cause just one of these shootings, we have to have this discussion and really have it seriously here. So let's go back to 1990, the summer of 1990, the Chicago Tribune. This was the

reporting. Remember Prozac was just put on the market in 1988. We have this headline, suits take aim at Prozac, widely hailed Lily drug. And it says in the last two weeks after 30 months on the market, the drugs glittering reputation has begun to tarnish amid a mounting outcry about alleged negative effects. I want to say Edward West, a spokesperson, get ready for this. Del, a spokesman

for Lily, decline a comment on the suits, which together asked for 300 million damages from the firm. The company, he said, contends that information about the drug should be communicated to people by their health professionals, not the media. Where have we heard that before? I mean, we're talking 30 years later. Same thing. He says he asserted, however, that an estimated two million patients have taken the

antidepressant with no notable adverse effects since Prozac received FDA. The administration, administration approval in December of 1987. So again, two talking points that we continue to hear clearly these are talking points. You just deflect how many people have taken the drug or how many people have taken the vaccine. Great for the consensus is great for the larger group. Let's not focus on this little pesky problem

with these ones that seem to get off kilter and go and kill their friends. Right. And what did this drug company executive or the spokesperson say? The media shouldn't be talking about this. This should be communicated by individuals. This type of information because it's very dangerous. So here we are full circle with Robert Callis saying, you know, again, trust information. We can't have this misinformation out

there. So now let's focus on this lawsuit because, okay, we have Prozac. We have a lawsuit actually pointing the finger at this drug and a mass shooting. What happened? Well, unfortunately, the people that were trying to pin this on Prozac lost they lost that. And then Eli Lilly was going around saying, you see, it was found in a court of law that our drug was safe.

And they went around with that talking point. But now we find this. This is the headline. Prozac maker paid millions to secure favorable verdict in mass shooting lawsuit victims. Say, remember, this was the one that could have set the tone for the rest of the world. We probably would never hear a Prozac again. It would have just been a cautionary tale. It says in this article,

the drug maker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Westbaker's victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at standard reviewers secretly paid the victims to 20 million. 20 million to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company. Indianapolis based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed

the jury's verdict. And if that isn't enough, we have, and this, we have from the BMJ missing documents from that trial. So not only do Eli Lilly come in and swoop in and give money to these people to sway their decision. It appears that some missing documents are taking out of this conversation. Here's the headline here. This was the headline from years ago, FDA to review

missing drug company documents. And this is really bombshell. It says in here, the US Food and Drug Administration has agreed to review confidential drug company documents that went missing during a controversial product liability suit more than 10 years ago. The missing documents, which were sent to the BMJ by an anonymous source last month, include reviews and memos indicating that Eli Lilly officials were aware of the

1980s that Philaxitine had troubling side effects and sought to minimize their likely negative effects on prescribing. And then here's where it really gets into the regulatory part. David Graham currently associate director in the FDA's office of drug safety criticized the analysis of postmarking surveillance data submitted by Lilly to the FDA after discovering that Lilly failed to obtain systematic assessments of violence and had excluded 76 of

97 cases of reported suicidality. Dr. Graham concluded in a memo dated 11 September 1990 that quote because of apparent large scale under reporting, Lilly's analysis cannot be considered as proving that Philaxitine and violent behavior are unrelated. And get this. It goes on to say this one of the people at the FDA that originally approved this drug for use came back and said this. Dr. Capit the

original reviewer of Philaxitine told the BMJ quote if we have good evidence that we are that we were misled and data were withheld, then I would change my mind about the safety of Philaxitine. I do agree now that these stimulatory side effects, especially regards to suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation are worse than I thought at the time that I reviewed the drug. Wow. And this is

what's amazing about this is this hypocrisy, right? On the one hand you have something like 75 million kids, let's say. And so if you want to say, well, school shootings are rare. It's only, you know, maybe let's say it's happening 200 times. It's just making, you know, somewhere in here hundreds of times. It's tiny in comparison to 75 million. So if you just go with that

sort of neildegrass-tice in view of science which we can keep beating on, which is it's great for the majority. Why focus on this pesky little side effect? Well, that pesky little side effect is claiming space in our news and making us all tear up, trying to lock us down, take away our rights, our first and second amendment rights. Well, you know, then we've got to look

at this. It is just a small group. But that's all it takes. That, you know, that clearly, if that says any ability to give you suicidal thoughts or homicidal thoughts, meaning I feel no reason to live in this earth and therefore nobody else or none of my friends should either. I mean, it's crazy that we cannot have this conversation. Exactly. So, you know, the studies are

now coming out. It seems like the researchers are, it seems to be a little more free to talk about this. This is one of the headlines out of the UK, actually just recently, a warning over antidepressants as top experts say powerful drugs may raise risk of suicide. It says a team from the University of East London examined nearly 8,000 inquesties or coroners inquests that took place

in England and Wales over the last few decades, which mentioned the drugs, these SSRI drugs. They found that around half were definitively ruled to be suicides, demonstrating that antidepressants clearly did not work for thousands of brits. And one in eight of the deaths involved in overdose using antidepressants themselves, showing they can provide a mechanism for killing oneself, the researcher said. So, Daly, I want to add

the caveat, you know, people watching this, it's very important. And this is all the research will say this and the medical professionals will say this too. You do not want to come off these if you're on these things, which a lot of people are throughout the world. You do not want to just come off these things called Turkey. You need to talk to your doctor. You

need to, but find out a regiment to get off these if you decide to do that. This is not something you want to take in your own hands, basically. Yeah, I mean, I think we have a graph, this thing gives you a sense of the rise in schools. Here's mass shootings in the US are on the rise incidents, which four or more people were killed or

injured. So here's some numbers for us. Just in 2021 during the lockdown, 690 mass shootings, 2022, 647. Currently, it looks like in 2023, we're at 131 so far. These are just really, really sad, horrific numbers. And I am so damn tired of having the pharmaceutical industry, controlling our news and our airwaves and every shill that calls themselves a journalist attacking anyone that wants to ask a

very important and obvious question. What are these drugs you're pumping into our kids having to do with this incredible rise in carnage and lack of connection and love for one another? Absolutely. And this is an investigation that is just as important as anything anybody's doing out there. I mean, this is the future of America is held in this space and this conversation. It's important to do

open conversation and to be able to have hands off government open debate on this is one of the most important conversations of our time. Jeffrey, great reporting. I love that you just boldly bravely go in there pulling out this sort of old data and seeing this cover up, hiding data. This is what you do so well. It's an honor to be working with you and congratulations

once again, you're a huge part of the win with ICANN, the work that we're doing. So, you know, just it's a great day to be alive. It's a great day to be a journalist on the high wire and you're doing an amazing job. Thanks, now. We're so proud to be here with you. All right. We'll see you next week. All right. Well, you know, as the

sort of house of cards continues to fall around COVID. And I know, you know, obviously we're stretching out a lot of different conversations, but we keep coming back to this because whether or not we want to think this entire thing is in our rear view mirror, there is still an oppression. There's still some of the authoritative pressures are still attacking people that were involved there. But

it's all leading. When you watch CalF, he's been saying that a month or two months ago, he's saying right now what he wants to do is lock us down even harder. Take more of our rights away because the pharmaceutical industry that funds him in the Silicon Valley tech giants and AI, you know, lunatics that are funding him and funding our government want to make sure that

we have no choice in these conversations. Well, in America, you know, as I was having this conversation recently, some really good friends, we did have a Constitution that held up. I mean, though, you know, we did see a mandated vaccine. Our courts mostly ruled that that was unconstitutional. The mass on planes were unconstitutional. And you didn't really see anyone getting their door kicked in. And I

don't know that many people that were arrested for speaking their mind. But in other nations that we used to believe is, you know, free and sweet and beautiful nations, they didn't fare so well. I'm thinking about Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Well, this next story comes out of New Zealand. Imagine if you are free, just like Dell Big Shree who stood on the capital steps of

Mississippi fighting this issue, you know, year after year with all of these, you know, mothers and, you know, a few fathers, trying to get back your own rights and maintain that sort of connection you have to your own body autonomy. That's all that was happening here. There's been documentaries about him. They're attacking him. And now he's facing jail time. I'm talking about Billy T. Cahica. This

is just a short piece of a documentary. It gives you a sense of how the media wants to portray this story. You may or may not have witnessed the phenomenon that is Billy Taka Hika Jr. Leader of the New Zealand Public Party. Co-leader with Jamie Lee Ross of Advanced New Zealand. I got boys right now and have them all in fair custody. What is it? It's

called a facilities procedures. They're colored up and handed my projects to Billy. Freaching to his followers. I am an ordinary Maori Kiwi New Zealander and I woke up to a very early on that something did not smell right. To support his key political plan that the government does not tell the truth, he does. We know we are thinking logically. What we said early on that the

media claimed on the conspiracy theorist is now mainstream. What he says stems directly from QAnon, the unfounded conspiracy theory that it began in the US in 2017 and is now sweeping the globe. At its core that there's an elite cabal which covertly controls the world. The disease was never lethal as it was made up to be. And it's more to include anti-5G, anti lockdown thinking that

coronavirus is a whole or no worse than the seasonal flu. Billy Tika Higa and his false vacations might not matter if nobody was listening, but they are. We are your party at Vouchie's Zealand. Your boys, your town, your party. His rallies are full, but it's when you analyse his social media that you really get a sense of his influence. In the past two months their Facebook

party page has had nearly 800,000 interactions. And this is the really telling part nearly 4 million video views. Way higher than either Labour or National. What's in it for him? Fame? I think he's very dangerous on a whole lot of levels. Stop this 1080 for a start, this 5G. It's gotta go, it's killing all our people man. We've got a question in the COVID in the

virus. Freed him! Freed him! He's speaking what we've been thinking right along. He's an honest man. What he's saying is, it sounds more true. Is the only one speaking the truth? Is the only one confronting the government? Is the only one calling all these f*** up? You know what I think about these draconian measures that Billy was fighting against, I too was fighting standing, fun of

crowds just like that. You think about what's happened with this conversation. All of the authoritarianists, all many of them have lost their jobs since New Zealand. Just into Arden, lost her job. She had to step down under just massive hatred from the country for her authority. And other things, he looked at Boris Johnson who was doing the same thing in the UK. He's no longer there.

Andrew Cuomo was taken out. He decided instead of being attacked for killing people in nursing homes, he'd rather be accused of sexual misconduct. And of course, Laurie Lightfoot just lost her standing there in Chicago. But although all that changes happening, there's these repercussions of things that happen to normal people. And in this case, retro-spectively, and just now the court case came up for Billy Takeahika. This

is the headline that we're now seeing in New Zealand conspiracy theorist Billy Takeahika, jailed for COVID-19 protest. He's on appeal at the moment. Judge Peter Winters sent us to Takeahika to four months in imprisonment. This is the moment he was arrested. We have the event he was at. And this is just some of the personal footage that was provided to show this horrific and stupid moment

in New Zealand. Hey, that's alright. Did not force me. It's fine. Hey, no violence. No violence. They go on and on and on. We don't want to see violence. They calm. They call everybody. They get it. We need to do this. It's coming. And I hope that he's not going on. Please email people back there and tell them to be violent. I've got to do the

right thing. I mean, amazing. It just shows the character that in the moment of being arrested, the only thing he's concerned with is making sure that those around him do not fall into violence. So, I think that's exactly what they want, thinking about the protection of the police officers. I mean, truly a beautiful and noble spirit. You can see it there. And it's my honor and

pleasure to be joined right now by Billy Takeahika. Thank you so much for taking the time. This is a horrific outcome at the moment. So, you know, what went down to court case? Was the judge just sort of totally against you from the beginning? Or, you know, what are we talking about here? Yes. Kia ora, greetings, Del. It's a great honor and privilege to be here

today. And, you know, one of the things that we just heard in the mainstream media slander attack on me is that they are saying that I was putting forceifications, including the COVID-19 SARS-2, who was the equivalent of a flu virus. Well, you'd be pleased to know that three days ago in mainstream media in New Zealand came out that a leading university epidemiologist was covered in a

very, very significant article saying, well, guess what? Everybody, it's time to move on. COVID-19 is the same as the seasonal flu for most New Zealanders, which is what we were saying back in 2020. You know, it was very, very clear to you, Del. You know, you and I and Dr. Washi Bhutasa spoke about this 18 months ago. Yeah. And so the IFR was very, very clear

to the infection fatality rate that we were dealing with in influenza equivalent mortality rate here. And it's out now. The narrative is crumbling. But unfortunately, the judge that we had during this trial, which involved three district court appearances with myself turning up the face, these charges for breaching the COVID-19 public health response act 2020, it became very, very clear that the judge that we were dealing

with was a true believer of the government narrative of the narrative that had no science behind it, had no justification behind it, and had no logical sense behind it. He was a complete believer. You know, I don't like to disrespect anyone in the judiciary. I'm a former member of the Army in place. And but he will he would not entertain any of the improved and up-to-date

current information, which tells us that lockdowns offered no benefit, but only harm and destruction, which is the whole reason why I protested that day. I became the Councillor for New Zealand now, and I heard all the stories of suicide, of people dying alone, of economic business, the destruction, but social harm, social unease and disease, was just through the roof like it had been in other countries.

And I had to stand up against it, not thinking I would be arrested, but not only that, not only thinking I wouldn't be arrested, but found guilty of the charges. Now in New Zealand, the right to protest is guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Because I was going to ask you that. What is the actual charge? Like what are you being charged with?

So the charges on facing, while have faced, include attending a protest and organising a protest. Now the protest itself was very, very tiny, less than 100 people. It was outdoors. It was a very nice day. It was peaceful as anything, because all of them were my events of being peaceful. All of them, they've been beautiful events. I worked very, very closely with the police to make

sure that protest is police and public are safe, which I did at every event I did, and yet that meant nothing on the day. They had made up the mind that they were going to get me that day. It was day one of a national lockdown because of one case of COVID, one case of the flu equivalent, but they had been wind up. They were going

to get me that day. And they did. And normally with breaches like this, you'd be sort of pro-tested, pro-season released after two or three hours. But they kept me in New Zealand's largest prison, reminds me to for about, for a day and a half in the place to not want to let me go. They considered me a public enemy. Wow. And yet you're peaceful. You're just

there. Speak your mind, stating science. And so you're saying the judge wouldn't even allow the science really into the courtroom to discuss what we now know retrospectively, almost like you're being tried based on what was understood in the dark ages versus what we now know that has been, the light is shining down on it. I mean, this makes me nervous too. And for those, obviously we're

an international show. Here in America, my concern is we feel like, oh, this could never happen here, but we are so close. I mean, our neighbors in Canada, we watch bank accounts being shut down by people that were supporting truckers. I mean, you know, it's not long. And I'm not asking anybody, what is your message right now to other freedom fighters around the world? I mean,

obviously it's so clear. You're, they're making an example of you. You feel like that is what this is about to deter anyone from ever thinking they can stand in front of an audience and defy mandates by the government. Yeah, correct. So it creates a chilling effect across the citizenry that may be interested in protest activism. And I mean, I mean, I'm not sure if I'm right.

And what it does now, it's communicating to New Zealanders that if you say something that the, that the government doesn't like that you may be victimizing this way, you know, Dell, a few months earlier in New Zealand during another lockdown, Black Lives Matter had a had two gigantic protests each with 10,000 people at it. No masks, no social distancing, breaching a level to lockdown. And there

was not one arrest. Now that proves to me that we've got an ideological awful. The message to other freedom fighters around the world is, is, they all up. You know, take a robust approach to this. But be careful because, you know, what I'm dealing with now is, I've found guilty for preaching this act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees my right to protest,

peacefully protest in any situation, but that was, that was overridden, which is unbelievable. And given that I have no previous convictions, I have a long service record to country and community, I'm a pastor, I'm a family man, I've done many, many, many, many, many big campaigns about helping New Zealand be a better place to live in. The judge, you know, read all this out and said,

I had a significant number of excellent character references that I tested to my good character. And then he sentenced me to five months prison, which, which, if you had been there, the feeling that we through the courtroom was one of shock, absolute shock and horror. Even with the police staff, that was shocked. That was absolutely shocked. That was absolutely shocked. That was absolutely shocked. How do

we help out? I mean, you know, as, you know, we got this audience of millions of people watching right now. Is there any way we can put some pressure or help? I know you're sort of bringing this up on a peel or something we can do to get involved because this is just a crime against humanity. And if we allow it to happen to you, then

you're just the beginning and it starts happening all over the world. So what can we do? What can we do to help you out? Thank you, Bill. That's really important. Well, we're doing a couple of things right now. Number one is that we have a petition on change.org. It's called Justice for, there we go, for Bill E. T. K. and Vinnie Eastwood. Now, Vinnie Eastwood is

my dear friend who was arrested with me. And we launched this just a few days ago. And so the petition is growing. So we'd like people to recognize that what's happening with me just makes no sense. So, I think that's the biggest doubt in the last two weeks we've had killers. We've had people charge with manslaughter. Gang members involved in drive-by shootings, child molesters, receive home

detention. That the community detention option was available to the judge. I mean, really, I should have been found innocent charges this most, but he couldn't. And so he found me guilty, he sentenced me to prison, but he could have easily have just convicted me and given me a fine. Let me go. And we move on. We're live. But he hasn't. And my key concern is that

we've got this appeal underway now. My key concern is if they get me in prison, that they may try and have their way with me inside. Now, I just about want to say that, not out of fear, but to say that that's possible in New Zealand. We used to be the flagship country for freedom and critical thinking people and good people. But that's been absolutely eradicated

and destroyed in the last six years. And I was listening to what you're saying earlier in your interview with Steven. I mean, everything that's happening in the United States around conflicts of interest with drive companies is here. We've got the same problem. We've got government doctors and scientists that are putting out this flyers about vaccine hesitancy and overcoming it. Saying it's an independent paper. And on

the bottom of it, it's got probably sponsored by Pfizer and GSK. But it's rolled out into the enforcement area as well. So in terms of helping me, if people could go to that website. Let's do this post. Get out your pens, get out your papers. This is what we do here at the high wire. I don't want you just sit around. Look how easy it is.

Why don't we just fill out this petition right now? There's 5,000 signatures. We can do way better than that. You're looking for 7,500. I want to blow this out of the park. Let's go ahead and just hit it up here so that he can walk in and say, look at the world is watching you. And that's all that petition like this does. If you walk in

the courtroom stage, just watch it and know the world is watching how you act here. And you will go down in history about how you decide this case. Let's make sure they're being watched. And as you're going through all this, my understanding is you're also working on a documentary. Yes, still. And boy, I tell you what, this is funny. God works because you've been on my

list because I've got I've got Russia on board. And Russia's a good friend of ours. And I've got Russia, the tar. Great, great doctor. Done a lot of great work out there. Yeah. It's great. But we've got a documentary. It's called The River of Lies, the New Zealand Scandemic. Right. And obviously gave a documentary. And it's a boomer. It's we've filmed 1,800 minutes of interviews, data,

scientists, interviews, including Dr. Whitegarden, another great medical leader. And he's been working on these documentaries and sovereign medical activists. But we've got the stories of people that have been harmed for no good reason. One of my dear friends is wife died after receiving the second jab. And they did it because they needed their jobs as we they go and get the jab or lazy job and

leisure home. And that's the reason why many people got the jab. But this documentary, it's an absolute bomber. Is it available now? Did I miss me? Yeah. We're still editing it. So I want to I want to interview you on the next week or two to get you. You would be the very, very last guy we're going to interview. But it's been edited right now. We

had planned originally was going to be a one episode documentary. But we had a production meeting a couple of weeks ago. And it was decided that no, we've got too much good data here. It'll be a shame to waste any of it. So we're going to have a three episode documentary. But the thing is I want to I want to impress a bit. I want to

tell you, what's happening in New Zealand is a representation of what the globe has gone through. What we've all gone through. And so the data that we've gotten at is something that anybody around the world can use to educate people that are perhaps sitting on the fence, not sure or not even on the fence and on the other side of it. Because what the way that

I crafted the documentary is that we don't want to go down any rabbit holes. We don't want to be called conspiracy. We just wanted to fix Jack. And we wanted to become cool and clicked it in the way that it's presented. So we didn't want to, you know, I mean, I get caught a cure. No guy. I've never had anything to do with you. And I

get caught a John guy. I've never had anything to do with with President Trump either. But we just want to be very, very calm. Very centered in the way that we present the evidence and the facts. And such good layout that anybody would be able to go well to a family member that they lost. You know, because they spoke up, say, look, mum, dad, sister, brother,

cousin, just look at this. Just look at this and then make up your mind. Because the world has to make a choice to Dell is that as the narrative is crumbling and breaking down. You know, all those that slam G was a conspiracy nut job slam B is a conspiracy nut job. Now, if they come to terms that they're wrong. They're completely wrong. And the way

that we that we get them over that line completely. And so, you know, the way that we get them over that line is to, is to very warmly, but factually and firmly. Present the data that cannot be fact checked and down away with. Well, what I really look forward to in your documentary. And though, you know, there's many out there now. But what is so interesting

about New Zealand is you truly are an experiment. We've talked a lot about Australia. But when you look at islands, your lockdown was so complete that you're really one of the only experiments that got to vaccinate everybody. But for the virus was actually there. So if the vaccine was ever going to work, it should have worked in New Zealand. And the fact that it has it

and you had the same infections rates, they skyrocketed through the roof. You've had massive death. The vaccine didn't seem to help from and you've same stupidity in hospitals, you know, putting people on ventilators. I mean, all the same things, but it was done in a microcosm in a much more contained space. So it gets outside the argument, well, we were already under attack by the virus.

We didn't know what was happening. New Zealand sat back and was able to hide itself and really make a calculated effort based on what the WHO was doing. And the CDC and the FDA said if we could only do this, it would have worked great. It was a disaster. But New Zealand has been a disaster for your economy. It's been a disaster for your society. Now

they're going to try and scare anyone from telling the truth. The next time they pull this by, you know, throwing you in jail. We're going to do everything we can to support you. So if you want to get involved with the documentary, here's that information again, River of lies in New Zealand's Scandemic River of lies.co.nz. And please let's sign that change.org. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

you. Thank you for your peace and your candor and truly beautiful loving vibe. You're putting out love is the only way we win this and you really are representing that such a beautiful way. That's one of which everybody to be in God's care. Thanks brother. Appreciate you. Thank you. Take care. As we look at the science, I just want to, you know, this is really at

the heart of what the high wire does is an investigation into what is happening around the science of accident. What's happening to our bodies? What are these things doing? I got to see a few videos recently that just blew my mind and I've been really excited to try and get this next guest on the show and I want to make it clear because a lot of

what we do in this investigation is get into therapies, get into ideas that are happening. Some of them are hypotheses. Some of them are proven. We've got peer review. But as you've seen, science is an ever moving space. So I want to be careful to say, you know, in all that we do here at the high wire, you need to do your own investigations. Don't just

take it, you know, hook line and sinker. Also recognize that we're involved in an investigation here that is ever moving. So some of the views that are about to be shared may or may not be viewed shared exactly by the high wire. I can, but it's a part of our desire to try and triangulate the truth of what's really going on here to be a part

of the scientific method, challenging it from all sides. No one is bringing a more, I think, clear and and riveting challenge. Then Dr. Sabine Hazen and she is going to join me in a moment. This is what she looks like in the news. Joining us is Gastroenterologist Dr. Sabine Hazen. Gastroenterologist Dr. Sabine Hazen. The whole basis of my research lab is really to write the dictionary

of the microbiome and disease. We are seeing that if you have an imbalance in the gut, you are more predisposed to disease. Basically an expert at running clinical trials. Yes, yes, right. Clinical trial gave me a view of what was the future. So when clinical trials didn't work, I was like, well, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do that. I would do

a procedure called people transplant, taking stools from a healthy donor and putting it into the patient. And it was amazing because you would have a patient that was dying and miraculously he lived after people transplant. The world of the microbiome, unfortunately, we only know about the 1%. We've only identified about 15,000 bugs and there's about trillions out there that we have no idea what they're doing.

Will humanity survive when we start introducing four billion prescriptions per year given? Will humanity start surviving when we change the microbiome and remove the diversity? Is to receptors or found the Bows. So it made sense to me to look there because that's where everything ends. When I saw that hydroxychloroquine and Z-PAC had an impact on COVID in the stools and started the creation of my protocols

and writing my protocols, I lost no one. No one died. So we're talking thousands of patients. And then all of a sudden on Twitter, a post goes off. Dr. Hazen is doing unethical protocols. So this is the patent of a zythromycin, vitamin C, vitamin D, and then hydroxychloroquine. I want to understand a lot of people have used this formula that you're saying. You're not collecting on

this. I know, I'm not. It was my donation to humanity. It was like a mark in history, you know, being on the right side of history. To me, that was more important. We're entering into a world of individualized medicine. I think doctors need to be doctors again. Thank you. Thank you for having me. You know, I've been watching some of these videos now. And there's been

a lot of celebrity of great doctors that have stepped out. But as I start looking at the work that you've done, in many ways, some of that sort of built on the work that you've done. And so, you know, I'm just so honored to have you joining me. Thank you. Right now, of course, you did a great interview with Epoch Times. But I want to talk

about just this. What caught my attention is when we're looking through some data. So I'm going to say, did you see this video? It was a discussion about a study you did where you took some of your peers. You knew they were about to get the COVID-19 vaccine. It said, hey, could I get what was it? Fecal samples or Fecal samples? So Fecal samples. I do

before. You get the vaccine. Yeah. Then after. Tell me what it is. You know, what made you decide to even ask that question? I think in order to answer that question, you kind of have to go back to the history, my history. Okay. So I'm a gastroenterologist. And I've been doing, you know, I was doing GI for a long time. And then GI went from GI

to clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies. And then, you know, one of the bugs, which is known as clostridium difficile, which is a bacteria that, you know, kills a lot of people. See if. See this. Yeah. So we've heard about it. Yeah. Yeah. So see if was essentially killing a lot of people. And I was known in the world of clinical trials as the queen of C.

Diff. Okay. Because people with pharmaceutical companies would come to me because I would recruit these patients. Try them through different clinical trials. And then when the clinical trial didn't work, I would do a procedure called Fecal Transplant. Fecal Transplant is essentially the process of taking stools from a healthy donor. We don't extract it. They just donate. Yeah. And then putting it into the colon of the

person that is sick with C. Diff. So the first case, you know, this was a movement that was started in GI, you know, started in the 1950s. You know, the Fred Ainsman was the first one that did the first two cases by Enema. Okay. And that Dr. Tom Barode, my partner. Also, you know, started it in the 80s doing a lot of cases and writing the

data, presenting it to the American College of Gastro and different meetings. And, you know, a caught on fire in the within the GI doctors, because we started seeing something that was working. Right. So when that was working, you know, at least, you know, even though I put patients on those clinical trials, I always knew, well, you know, what I'm going to have the funding from the

pharmaceutical company to pay for this clinical trials. Right. So I felt I'm putting the patient through the clinical trial. I'm doing the trial. But then I have funds to do these fecal transplants, right? When fecal transplant became a capsule of poop. Right. I looked at the whole field. And I said, okay, so we've gone. I've been doing clinical trials for pharma for at least three decades.

Yeah. We have gone from antibiotics for everything to biologics for everything. Remember, biologic started for Crohn's disease. You marrow, re-imicate, you hear it all over the news. Right. And then to, unfortunately, biologics for psoriasis for everything. So then now we're in the fecal material business. That's what's coming. And I said, we're literally going to be giving people fecal material in capsules. And we have no idea

what we're doing. Right. Just sort of kind of, I mean, which ironically, as I've invested, I'm not assigned to some of the registered journalists. Right. But when you really look into the very first vaccines, when you look at the first, like all of it is just kind of this guessing game. Let's take this plus lap it and go, oh, it looks like it works. Right. And

it's amazing. How many, sometimes centuries, the science goes on. And no one really ever asked, why is it working? We don't really understand the mechanism. Yet the science is building this foundation. It's saying we know everything. You'd actually don't know much at all. Right. And this is what is really shocking to people. Exactly. And especially in the microbiome space, when you look at the microbiome, what

is the microbiome? It's trillions of bugs in your bowel. Really? Okay. Around you, in your, in the air, on your skin, in your nose, in your bowels, we only know about 10,000 bugs. But of those 10,000 bugs, we probably know about maybe 500, not being generous of what they do. What they actually do. What they actually do. So we have about 1% that we've identified. I'm

being generous. Okay. And there's about a trillion that we have no idea what their names are. What they do. And this is just in the bacteria level. There's a virus level. So we've isolated a few viruses, right? Epstein, Bar HSV, CMV, JCV. Right. But there's a whole world. The virus is out there floating around that we have no idea what names they have. Okay. So when,

which by the way, is one of my arguments I had with a friend that was like screaming at me because I didn't want to use the COVID vaccine. He's like, where you could finally be safe. I was like, I don't know how you feel safe. In the face of probably millions of viruses you're doing nothing about. I don't know why that makes you feel safe that

this timely presented, this little like rice drop. In an ocean has anything to do with actual health. It's kind of crazy. Cause Barbara just tells you get this one. And then all your problems are solved. We'll worry about the other million things we don't understand at all some other time. And that's the problem. That's exactly why I stepped into this, right? So I went from not

understanding, well, how do we fix? How did we fix it? Right? How did the process? What is in the stools? Why is it working? Right. Are acting with what? Right? So I felt that, well, here's a, and at the same time, if you remember, there was a company called U Biome that was selling stool samples to everybody. And then other stool samples. And I looked at

that. And I said, well, they have a good idea. Let me send some of my stools, right? Before and after I treat C. Diff. Let me see what I see. I couldn't see anything. It was basically nothing. And it was not even reproducible. In other words, I test the stools the first time. And then the same stool sample, I get a completely different result. So when

that started happening, I said, well, this field of stool testing is non validated, non verified and non reproducible. That defies science and research to begin with. Cause the one thing I think about, if you're going to do an experiment in research, you got to make sure you have the same results over and over again. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges, right? So if I'm comparing your

stools to mine, for example, well, we can't be compared to each other. We're from different areas. We've eaten different foods. So when you look at these stool samples and it tells you normal, well, what's a normal? Those, you know, I'm a scientist. I'm a, I'm a rebel. I question the narrative constantly because it's my body, right? So I need to understand. You mean to tell me

that just, you know, whatever the consensus says is not where you like to live, you're like living on the opposite. In fact, I was probably a rebel in Met School. I was a rebel in residency. Because I believe that science evolves for one science changes. One day, how much, you know, in medicine, we've seen so much, so many changes over the years, right? The Jackson one

year is great for heart disease. The next year hold off it's not great for heart disease, right? One treatment for a bug is important. And then the next, you know, 10 years, it's not important, right? So it all depends who is the science of the hour, the scientist of the hour that becomes, you know, popular with his narrative, right? I mean, and this moment could be

me, right? I could be saying it right, or I mean, I'll be right, right? Like the disclaimer you say, right? I'm on a path to discover the microbiome. I could be right. I could be wrong. And one might, some smart ass would be, you know, part of my language will probably try to disprove me, but that's fine. I acknowledge that. I like the criticism because criticism

is what allows us to look at the other side of the scenario. So from FICO transplant started seeing a lot of improvements with FICO transplant, then started noticing that there's a lot of wrong microbiome stuff going on. There was no validation. So I basically opened up. It turned like a fad, but the fad wasn't actually getting to the, the, the, the fad had no basis. Got

it. None whatsoever. And so I started saying, well, I think the best way to do this to look at the microbiome is to essentially take the microbiome at a clinical level. Let's look at what the Japanese in Japan look like versus the Japanese in America. Let's look at the vegan versus the carnivore. Let's look at what medications are doing before and after in the microbiome. And

essentially, you know, this was kind of like a path for me of discovery, of asking questions and wanting to understand the question. So, you know, so my path, how did I get here? COVID hit. And it didn't, I didn't, you know, I've been doing clinical trials for pharma for 30 years, practically. Yeah. Since University of Florida, my first year of GI. I couldn't understand why a

vaccine that was so that, first of all, I couldn't understand a virus that was mutating and giving it a vaccine for everyone. Right. Thinking that we're going to just stop this virus. Right. And then I couldn't understand why are we stopping early treatment? Right. We should be turning off the fire. In other words, a couple of scientists have this idea. They put this idea and the

turn off the virus. And then that. So basically to me, it was more important to turn off the fire quickly, save as many lives as possible. And then look back. Right. What? I mean, we literally, when you think of the turn fire, we said in hospitals, come get tested. Oh, as it turns out, the fuse is burned. You're now on fire, but go home. You're not

totally in flames and it hasn't gotten out of control. When it gets out of control and you have a forest fire in your body and you know, it looks like you're going to be in a forest fire. Right. You're going to lose your house, then come back here and see what we can do about it. Because the most insane thing we've ever watched in a world

that has always said early treatment in every single problem there is in medicine is best. We said there will be no early treatment. You can only come back here when you are in full on, you know, death, you know, and defying death. So they're absolutely. And so that was that was essentially the problem, right? Those were the red flags to me. Yeah. Those were the red

flags that said, why? Why do I, first of all, remember, I was in 2020 in March, 15, 14, 15. I was writing protocols. So I was studying. When COVID hit, I was still in the pharmaceutical world of, hey, clinical trials. This is the way we do it. We go with the FDA. I was still doing all that. Right. So my thought was, well, this is, uh,

this is a chance to save humanity. I'm going to step in as a clinical trial physician. And I'm going to look at, what is the best protocol that I feel is the best protocol? So I had a couple of, you know, uh, you know, running hurricanes as I like to call them. The first thing was I told, I, I had created because all these labs were

nonvalidated that analyzed the tools. I had four years prior to that started my own lab to look at the genetics of the gut microbiome. Yeah. So I was already on this path of, let's look at the microbiome. We're heading into a world where pharmaceutical companies are going to be developing products with FICO material. I want to know, does my FICO material patient that's coming have bipolar

disorder? Because then I'm swatching seeded. I'm swapping seeded for bipolar disorder. Right. Right. So I as the consumer, you know, if I ever get to be the patient, would like to know, who is my donor. Right. Who is my donor? And what does my donor have? And you know, right. So I, you know, I know, I'm a donor, right. And I have, uh, I have a

donor, right? because if the, if just taking a FICO transplant fixes this one problem, is it bringing over a problem that that donor might have had? Am I taking that on? Is it that? I mean, it's, it's almost like computer programming that. It's, uh, it's a little bit like computer programming. I mean, it's, uh, remodulating the, the genetics of the microbes. Yeah. So it is a

little bit. So, yes, I mean, we have seen cases of, you know, first of all, we've seen cases of people dying from FICO transplant. So obviously, we were aiming to fix C-diff and then we put in another bad virus or bacteria in there that killed those people. You know, we have seen miraculous cases. You know, when you do the analysis properly, when you look at the

microbes, you said, you give me one image of this elephant. Yeah. Yeah. Just as, just imagine if your microbiome could just achieve this. Basically, this was the beginning for me was, you know, two cases of alopecia areriata with C-diff. And we, essentially, you know, fixed the C-diff with a new microbiome. But on top of that, the side effect was they grew here. All right. Here we

have it. I think we're the, you know, look at this, folks, just simply by doing, you know, this vehicle transplant, you fixed the C-diff, but look what happens in the hair. I mean, this is, this isn't totally shocking. People have been watching our show for many years. But if you're new to it, this is really, I think probably the most exciting space in medicine. There is.

I think so. This idea, you know, I mean, we always hear you are what you eat. 100%. Never has it been more true than what science is showing us right now. And I think it's really what made those two cases was really the donor, right? Okay. So, but we've not been other doctors have not been able to reproduce these cases. They can't reproduce it. So what

is it in the donor? So that's, that's my question, right? What is it in the donor that allowed the microbiome to grow hair in those two patients, but not in others, right? So I had a case of Alzheimer's where the, the husband lost his memory and he had C-diff and I did fecal transplant on him and he remembered his daughter's date of birth after six months.

So this was obviously the first that made us start looking, wait a minute, if we fix the gut, maybe we can fix the brain, right? Wow. But until we get, so the problem is in medicine, people are in a rush to develop these products, right? Because it's all about the products. Well, you know, it's not about understanding the diagnostic. We need the diagnostic. Imagine if people

were bleeding. What is that? Is that, is that rush from the investors or the, the, the parent company is that look, I don't care how it works. It's working. Let's get it on the market. Somebody else will worry about that later. Just hate it over. It's sort of what it is. Exactly. That cares why it works. Just get it out there. It's the story. It's the

story that drives the marketing that drives the funds. That drives and the story from the hope, right? Right. So you're, you have a disease, you have Parkinson's, you have Alzheimer's, you want this to happen for you. Hope, hope sells. Hope sells, right? But at the same time, there is hope with, let's do meticulous science. And there is hope with, let's just put mud on the wall

and expect it to stick. Right. And the problem is if it doesn't stick, then they're going to go back and say, well, the hypothesis was wrong. There was nothing. There was nothing in the gut. But that doesn't mean there was nothing in the gut. It's just you rushed to the wrong microbiome implanted. You rushed the science. And that's not how science works. Right. Fortunately. So with

hope comes, you have to do things meticulously. You have to have a good diagnostic tool. And so that's what we don't have right now is a good diagnostic tool. So as we are heading into a world of putting tools into the mic, into the colon of people, we are going to have complications. We're going to have complications with, you know, you swap C-Diff for bipolar disorder

because the person who is the donor, he's getting his $200 for donating poop. He is not going to put on the questionnaire, no psychiatric problem. He is not going to put on the questionnaire, then travel. You know, half the, the kids that are donating from MIT, you know, they put on these questionnaires, never travel, never use drugs. You know, healthy, I mean, come on, don't use

alcohol. I mean, you're college kid, okay. Don't, don't tell me. So that's the problem. The problem is we are trusting these questionnaires. Just taking something that has trillions of ingredients. Some of those agreements we understand, most we don't. You take it over in the one hand it had what you needed, but it could totally not have exactly what you needed or be out of balance. Clearly,

it's going to be a balanced conversation. It happens here. How are they interacting with each other that's giving this sold? Right. And most people don't even know what the balance is. In fact, you know, I read data and I read papers all the time on the microbiome and I'm like, oh my God, they are so wrong. So, you know, this is the problem. We're following, you

know, one science, one group of people, etc. So, you know, this is, unfortunately, if we don't do things meticulously, we're never going to have answers. So let's get back to the COVID situation. And you know, sweeping the world and you start looking at treatment like I'm going to get involved. So what part of the treatment conversation did you get involved in? Are there treatments that work?

Yes. So first of all, the first thing I was doing is I was treating on the front line. So remember March 15? I wrote a protocol to the FDA and I said, and I looked at all the data. So one of the data that I saw was from Dr. Raouk D.D.A. Raouk. Right. Out of front. And what impressed me with Dr. Raouk was the way that

he did the studies, you know, the testing the PCR on a weekly basis. And by the way, remember, it didn't come to America yet when you were already publishing his 20 pages. Yeah. And I was, I speak French. So I got to read his first paper. So that was the first thing is I got to read what are other doctors doing. And also I'm in the

clinical trial business. So I have about, you know, thousands of doctors that do clinical trials and that are on the front line of research. So I would make phone calls. I made phone calls to Italy. I said, what's working there? So Italian doctors would tell me vitamin C. I'm like, oh, vitamin C. And then I made phone calls to China. Hong Kong, you know, I called

some of my colleagues. And I'm like, what's working there? Vitamin D, my vitamin D. And then I started looking at the whole zinc blocking COVID, right. And then I started, I saw the hydroxy Z-packed and zinc from Dr. Raul. And I said, you know, I mean, what again, what impressed me was his methodology of his research. But also the fact that here he was risking his

life, you know, on the front line. And he was still surviving. Right. And remember, I'm. So at the first, the first few cases that we had of COVID. So here I am. I'm writing the protocols, ran it through the FDA. The FDA within 24 hours said, Dr. Hisen moved this protocol to full on. Your last protocol was what does he do those things? He said, hydroxy

Z-packed vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc. Okay. And the FDA heard that from you and said, great. We're in. Proceed. Proceed. Proceed with research. Proceed. I didn't even need to do a physical clinical trial on it. Okay. So then within 24 hours, I'm sorry, Dr. Hisen. We have to do a full on clinical trial on this. So I said, okay. Fine. I'm ready. So I said,

well, instead of a phase one, so clinical trials, there's different phases. Okay. Yeah. Phase one is like, you first, there's the animal studies. Right. Okay. Then there's the phase one, then phase two, phase three, phase four, sometimes, and then off the market. Okay. So I said, can we skip the phase one? Because it's a safe drug. I mean, it's hydroxy and Z-pack. And you know, it's,

it's not that we use it all the time. We use hydroxy for lupus patients and Z-pack. I mean, how many people have like the cold or flu and they give Z-pack? Right. So I said, can we just move the phase two? So they allow- It's one, mostly the safety, silage. Make sure that it's ethically- Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Got it. Safety phase. Got it.

So I said, can we just go to the safety and efficacy? Now remember, I'm still, you know, I'm still innocent the whole world of FDA and pharma and all this. And I'm thinking, I'm going to start my own pharmaceutical company, right? Right. Because I have this protocol. I patented. That was the first thing I did because I already was treating people. So I said- Where is

it? Where's the Lanko? Is this Zolenko ahead of you? No, he, so I was, I had written the protocol. I had submitted to the FDA. April 3rd is when, April 3rd is when it went on clinical trials.gov. Okay. So we were number three or four on clinical trials.gov. So I had two, I had two protocols. One was the prophylaxis protocol, hydroxy, two pills only and then

vitamin C and D and zinc for three months. Yeah. So that was my prophylaxis idea. Why did I think two pills of hydroxychloroquine when you're exposed to someone with, with COVID? Because I felt, look, when you have a patient with scabies or lice, right? Yeah. You're going to treat you and you're going to treat the family, right? So, so the first thing is you're exposed. Your

wife just coughed on you and you have COVID. You take those two hydroxy. People don't realize that hydroxychloroquine stays in your system for 29 days. Yeah. The half life of hydroxychloroquine. So therefore, to me, I felt, if you're exposed, it's like I'm taking the pill. I'm covered for 29 days. Now I just got to boost my microbiome with vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc for the

next three months. So that was the thought process of this protocol. And I started recruiting all the physicians at the beginning. Okay. At the same time. So this was on clinical trials.gov. For those who don't know what clinical trials.gov, that is the site where every doctor who has a patient with a scabies, who wants to know what's current in medicine or science, goes to. You want

to know what is the latest treatment for acne? You go to clinical trials.gov. Right. So everybody, it's the biggest platform in a way to raise awareness. And so what did I do when I posted it on April 3rd and 4th or 4th is I sounded the alarm. I basically, in full transparency, said, this is what I believe as a pharmacist. I said, this is what I

believe is how to prophylax yourself. Two pills if you're exposed. And then vitamin C, the zinc, the rest of the pandemic. And then, and then the treatment hydroxyz-pack vitamin C, the zinc. Right. So I started doing, I got approved. Then we had to go with what's called the regulatory body. I or B. So I was going to do a lot of research. So the IRB waited

a month. We're in the middle of a pandemic and a month. And so, and by the way, my experience with that IRB was that previously, when I was doing pharmaceutical trials, I would give a protocol to the IRB within a day or a week. I would get that protocol. Everything that's you'd always done takes like a day. Yeah, everything. Suddenly, they're telling us we're in a

pandemic. We don't understand this thing at all. We're terrified. We need answers. Yes. 30 days are waiting to just give you approval or something. It always says, it looks pretty good. Go ahead. And so I had to fight every day because I was, what do you mean? We're in the middle of a pandemic. How long is it going to take? People are dying. There's this. So

I wasn't going to wait for my protocol. I was treating as a physician on the front line. And I started gathering my peers, right? So, and I started telling them about my protocol because I needed them to refer patients because what was happening at the beginning was we couldn't even advertise. So here we are. We've waited 30 days for the IRB to approve. The IRB now

says, okay, you're approved. That night, a tweet goes off. Dr. Hazen is doing unethical trials. Dr. Hazen, five drugs, five drugs in a one arm. In other words, I wasn't doing a placebo arm, right? Because the protocol was approved as a open label. Let's see if it works. Let's see if it kills people. Right. And then let's worry about bringing on a plan. It's not a

placebo or sugar pill, right? So that tweet went off. And I really didn't pay attention to it, right? Because I said, who's paying attention to Twitter at this point? But it was, it was the, it was sent by a someone that works in public health at Oxford University that had 396 followers. So I started and Oxford, remember, is the one that started Moderna vaccine, right? So

I'm following the tweet. It has 77 retweets. And my name is trashed already. And I'm, what's going on? And that's basically when that was sort of like the first, you know, red flag for me. Right. The next day, there's a stat news, stat news, Dr. Sabine Hazen, a clinical trial company progenobion is doing a trial without placebo on five drugs. Is this even research? What are

we doing here? This is totally not research. So all this, but that post didn't make it to mainstream media. That post made it to all the regulatory officers, the IRBs and the FDA. That day, the FDA calls me and says, Dr. Hazen, I'm sorry. We have to ask that you do a placebo control trial. Now, at the same time, you know, Zalenko was like doing his

own thing. The doctors were treating. I was treating. You know, so everybody was kind of on this rumble. Yeah. Of, uh, of hydroxy and Z-pack, right? So, and by the way, I partnered with Dr. Tom Barode on these protocols, because Dr. Barode is the father of fecal transplant. He's the one that brought triple therapy for H. Pylori. Right. To market. And he's done tremendous work in

medicine and in GI. So I felt, you know, older physician, scientists that all of us as gastroenterologists followed, because he really led us to the world of fecal transplant. So to me, I felt like this is the most legit physician that I could be part of with this. And as I was running Hydroxy, he was looking up Ivermectin Doxycycline. And he was telling me, Sabine, it's

all about Ivermectin. It's all about Ivermectin. So I said, Dr. Barode, I'm too busy right now fighting with the IRB and at the same time, saving lives. And at the same time, I convinced my scientists that we needed to look at the stools for COVID. So my scientist, Dr. Papuzzi, said, you're wasting, it's going to cost you close to $200,000. You're wasting your money, you're never

going to find COVID in the stools. So I said, well, if I'm not looking at it, I'm not going to find it. So we basically had this little bet him and I. And then the first thing I did, as I was writing the protocol was also collect stools of patients with COVID. So the first patients that were that I was treating, one of them was like

a pediatricians or daughter had COVID. So I had a couple friends of mine in Malibu or in Beverly Hills and I started collecting. I'm like, I need your stools. I need your stools. So we had the first samples, like eight or nine samples. And so we developed, we had to develop a whole pipeline to see COVID in the stools. So that was the first moment that

we discovered COVID was in the stools, whole genome, not a small little portion, but a whole entire genome. Not one time. In the stools, but thousands of times. In other words, thousands of copies of COVID in the. All right. Let me just, let me just, just this conversation going on a lot with our audience that the, it's never been isolated. That COVID was never isolated. Is

that an accurate statement? Because it sounds like you're looking at something. Yeah. So you have to remember this virus. And now the whole data is kind of, you know, more in the open, where we know it was manipulated. And I'm going to be upfront with that because I'm in the genetic sequencing business. In a way, and the reason there's, so you have all these older scientists

or that are from an older mantra, right? Of, you know, you have to isolate the virus. You have to give it. And then by reproducing it, then you know, in other words, I isolate COVID. I give it to a mouse. The mouse gets COVID. There's my experiment. That's scientific. That's what we call inside. That's the old method of doing science, right? The idea of culturing a

bacteria or virus, right? Yeah. To therefore prove its existence. Right. We no longer have to do that now because we are in the level of genetic sequencing. So in other words, we look at sequences, codes, DNA, RNA. Then we're producing to RNA. And those sequences determine what is matched to the virus or to the bacteria. You're able to sort of using computer technologies. Get deep into

this. You can isolate, pull this out and see an entire genetic code. And say, wait a minute. We know that's coronavirus because it has all the attributes of the coronavirus. We can see where, because I'm hearing all about these incidents. We see all of those things. And what you're saying is that for you, it doesn't make sense to go back and sort of scrape it, put

it in petri-tradition, seeing how to see it, you know, if it grows or put it in a mouse. Correct. We can see we have enough scientific evidence. And we're so deep in. Why go back to sort of an archaic isolate process? Yes. So and you have the clinical, right? In other words, you have a patient that fits the PCR, positive PCR, even though these PCRs, you

know, are so the sensitivity and specificity is really poor in my opinion. You still have a positive PCR, the same symptoms, right? Loss of smell, loss of nose, coughing, short of breath, fever, diarrhea, you know, the same symptoms. And now you also see in the stools the sequence of the virus. Right? Now, if we didn't see the sequence of the virus and we had all these

symptoms, I would say, well, you know, there's maybe, maybe there's no COVID, right? But the fact that we saw this sequence, call it whatever you want to call it. So you see the sequence, you see if they have these symptoms. If I look for, look, there's a sequence. If you don't have the sequence, the symptoms, I don't see the sequence. So you sort of able, I

say, through groups, like there is these two things are going together. Correct. And it removes this whole sensitivity and specificity because this is forensic medicine. You go deep enough into the microbiome that you find the virus. And you know, you have to find the vaccine, you know, the virus, the virus, the virus, the virus, the virus, the virus. And in a way, it's an isolation. So

we were the first lab in the world to use the technology to isolate the whole genome in the stool samples. Okay. Here's your study that you got into detection. So I was going to, from patient people samples by whole genome sequencing. All right. And so super fascinating. You find it. You see the work that you don't, you're doing work around it. Now, the government knew about

my work because I'm in contact. So remember, for you, I'm working with the government. I'm trying to standardize my lab test. I'm trying to do everything by the book. Right. So I work with the NIH. I work with the FDA. I work with the NIST National Institute of Standard, which basically standardizes all these stuff. So I called the National Institute of Standards. And I basically said,

you know why you guys need to pay attention in the stools because we're finding it. And actually China had founded by PCR, but they didn't find the whole genome sequence. So we said we found the whole genome sequence. So we went saying in 100% of the positive patients, but also we're finding it in the asymptomatic. And when you take the history, you realize a week prior,

they had symptoms. Right. So it was all correlating. It was like, you know, basically forensic. So that's when the National Institute of Standard started looking at the septic tanks because they realized, maybe that's how we track the virus. And that's how they started looking at the dorms and the colleges because now it gave them a new way. You set that off. You can find it in

the stools. Yes. That was my whole platform because I felt, you know, and it was so funny because you were talking about God before. You know, this whole thing has been divine intervention for me. Because it's the moment you realize you have a genetic sequencing lab. You have a clinical research company that does clinical trials. And both those things are really needed for this pandemic. And

who else has both those companies except me? Right. Right. So I said to myself, that's why I kind of jumped and I knew in my gut that was going to find COVID in the stools. And so when we found COVID in the stools, that's basically, we started noticing hydroxychloroquine and Z-PAC eradicated the virus in the stools. And so, you know, 10, 12 patients later, I said,

this is the way. The proving a mechanism. I can use it. I can show you improved mechanism. So I had the diagnostic. Yeah. I had isolated. If you want to call it isolated. I had found COVID in the stools. I had found that hydroxy and Z-PAC eradicated. So to me, that became my patent, right? So, and that became my clinical trial, right? What happened is that,

and going back to the RAB, finally, the RAB approved us. We get stopped by the FDA to run a placebo control trial. So I convinced the FDA to let me do the trial. And the placebo was going to be high dosages of vitamins. So basically, and I had to make my own vitamins. So I called them pharmacist in Beverly Hills. And I said, formulate. I need

a formula. I cannot have the capsule needs to be vegetable. And needs to be pure vitamin C, pure vitamin D, Z-PAC. Because I need to give all these patients my vitamins that are in the clinical trial. I can't have them by its vitamins of CVS, Walmart. So let me get this straight. So isolate hydroxychloroquine. You gave just the vitamin part. Is that what you're doing? No,

I gave hydroxy Z-PAC. And vitamin C, D, and Z-PAC. But the hydroxy Z-PAC killed the virus. The vitamin C, D, and Z-PAC, what we discovered as we were testing patients with vitamin C on their own, vitamin D, it actually increased a bacteria called bifidobacteria. So that's where my path took me. So, but before I get to that, because I know I tend to be a bit

hurricane. The RAB finally approved us. The FDA stopped us. RAB stopped us again. And then the RAB comes back and says, I'm so sorry, Dr. Hazen. So this is May. They're like, I'm so sorry, Dr. Hazen, but we can't do your trial. You're going to have to find another regulatory board. That regulatory board was hired by Moderna to run their clinical trial. So while they said

that I'm finding another RAB, and I'm trying to find someone that's preferably independent, small, boutique. It's not very easy in the middle of a pandemic. And I found someone, and then within a week they approved the protocol. That week, or within that week, that's when, as I was open for enrollment, ready with my protocol. And remember, I'm in the clinical trial business. I know how to

recruit patients. I have my ways, from search engine optimization to everything, right? To get patients. I could not recruit one patient in that clinical trial because they already, the lobbyist used the polyp, you know, they used Trump to create chaos within my protocol. So here you have Zalanko talking about hydroxychloroquine in hopes to save people. And I didn't really say anything back then to say, it's

my protocol, my patent, because I felt, you know, he's saving lives. Yeah. That's what he's supposed to do. He's going to do what he's going to do. You know, the guy had terminal lung cancer. Yeah. And he was fighting this for humanity. So I said, this is his platform. This is his time. Right? And then, Zalanko, you know, the Trump, I was shocked because I live

in Malibu. I'm trying to recruit in Malibu, my colleagues. And, you know, nobody wanted to, they called it the Trump drug. So that protocol was destroyed. We couldn't even, we could not even post an ad that is approved by the IRB on Facebook or Instagram. In fact, I'm banned from Facebook and Instagram on all my pages. You know, I have like LA clinical trials, ventricular clinical

trials. I mean, I have a lot of clinical trials. So when you put a lot of pages to recruit these patients, none of them we could advertise. So that's when I started seeing the power of lobbying in America. Right? And so the Moderna vaccine lobbyist, fights or Moderna, probably Johnson and Johnson all just going and really just put pressure on these IRBs. The entire system, do

not let any other product. Now when I've said this in many talks, because I think the motivation is the emergency authorization says you're not going to rush the vaccine product out, you know, because rush it through trials, if there's any other product that works, they can't have any other product work. Well, if you had a product work, they would not be able to advance the protocol.

So they would not be able to advance the vaccines. Right. So I knew at that point, well, I'm kind of stuck with hydroxy. I'm not going to, you know, and I was treating people with it. And I was still looking at the stools, right? Because science isn't evolving, you know, a tool or an evolving field, rather. And so in July, because I was stuck, I mean,

you know, recruiting, Dr. Burrotti said, why don't we move to Ivermect and Doxy side? So that was July 2020. So July 2020, I started rewriting another protocol. And remember, these protocols are like 300 pages, you know, and you have to write a consent and you have to, you know, it's a whole team 20. 24, 7, just rewriting, correcting. And we have to resubmit it to the

FDA, fight with the FDA to get it approved, then get the IERB to approve it. So we started in July. We got approved. And of August for Ivermect and Doxy cycling zinc and vitamin C and vitamin D because I believe that vitamin C and vitamin D and zinc is huge in the in treatment, prophylaxing, improving your Bifidobacteria, improving your gut. So to me, that was, that

was the basis. And then so what happened was, you know, the, we passed through the IERB no problem. We started and then, you know, my friends and colleagues remember back then. So it was Peter McCalla was on the Hydroxypan. And and Pierre Corey was on the Ivermectin. So I basically called Pierre and I'm like, Pierre, dude, there's a role for a Hydroxychloroquine too. And, you know,

Ivermectin is not just on its own. It's got to have other drugs. So I basically connected the drug and I said, I'm going to put those two because I said, we're at war here. Okay. Obviously we're so somewhere along the line. And I told Dr. Baroddi this. I said, look, I'm going to put these protocols to, to going. But I'm telling you, there's going to be

another movement to kill Ivermectin. And I was right. And that really ticked me when I saw that because it was, Seth, Seth Meyers, the comedian. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Posted or a horse based. And the whole time I'm like, why is a comedian talking about Ivermectin? He doesn't even understand. It's a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to Bifidobacteria. You know, so to me, this

whole thing like just little by little, I just, you know, my fumes started going on in this pandemic because here I have, I've just, you know, treated everyone. No one died on my shift. No one. I mean, we're talking about, you know, officials, politicians, celebrities. I mean, I'd be on the front cover. You know, I'm a Malibu physician. Right. So, and of course nobody's talking because

they don't want to talk about hydroxychloroquine and they don't want to be political because their, their show is sponsored by, by pharmaceutical companies. Right. So, so I was stuck in this little thing, right? Of, um, here I am. I'm doing the research. Here I'm doing the clinical trials. I saw what was happening to my colleagues, right? The, the, the, the, the, the defamation, the, the physicians

that was sitting here thinking you didn't get sort of that free negative advertising, which these guys did. I mean, that's when I started looking, we started talking, so wait a minute. You know all these guys, you're in the middle of it. In fact, you're in the lab doing the most important work, which you can prove this. Right. Yeah. And actually, um, you know, I tried to

stay under the radar. You did a good job. Yeah. Thank you. I was, I was trying to stay under the radar. But I think there's also a huge force trying to keep me under the radar, because let's face it, I mean, you know, I've done over 300 clinical trials for far more. So, you know, there's a lot of charts in my storage facility that we have

to store for 25 years. So, you know, I'm the person that basically brought drugs to market. Right. So I'm, I'm, you know, in bed with, you know, the, the evil side, right. But unfortunately, there is, you know, and I'm not going to trash Pharma, because Pharma does do a good job. Some Pharma. But what we've seen in this pandemic is a rush of products, a rush

of vaccination of everyone, and not proper research. Yeah. Okay. Because proper research would have been, let's do the animal. I understand rushing and you're panicking and you're, you know, you're this, you know, house wife. That's three. Three hundred pounds and you're afraid of COVID killing you and you want a vaccine. I get it. Okay. But at the same time, why didn't we continue the animal studies?

Why didn't we continue looking at the genetics? Right. Is the vaccine affecting the genetics? Is it affecting the P53? We have the technology before and after you could look at the P53 and see. Did it affected? Did that spike? What is P53? P53 is basically a marker that we test for cancer. Okay. So, you know, we have the technology. If we have a hypothesis and we

say, well, these, these cancer, these vaccines are causing cancer, right. Well, we can look at it and say, is it causing cancer, right. So basically, as all these protocols were going, I, I was doing it the right way with the FDA watching, with the FDA coming to my office. And at the same time, I was also running other protocols, you know, autism, fecal transplant. I was

running, you know, other protocols. For pharmaceutical companies at the same time. So to me, because my whole attitude of why I stayed in clinical trials is because I am one of those doctors that is actually has an oversight. P.I. oversight is what I am. So in other words, if a pharmaceutical company comes to me and says, we want you to investigate this product, no problem. But

if the product has a side effect, I'm going to be making the phone call to the FDA and saying, this, this is a side effect. I'm not going to hush it and close it under the, you know, I'm not going to put it under the table. I'm going to report it. Because that's what's called vigilance in research and in medicine. So that's why I stayed independent.

People have wanted to buy my research center to own me. I never wanted to. I, you know, I want to do research the right way. Because at some point, I'm going to be the patient, right. I'm going to be the patient that's going to be taking that drug. And I'm going to be the patient that's going to be going to be needing that drug. So we

really need research to be done properly, ethically, and not, you know, mess it up because of a price of a stock. Because that's what it's all about. So then, you know, so Ivermectin is getting killed. Hydroxychloroquine. You can't get your trials on the way you want. So you decide, well, hold on a second. Here comes the vaccine. Now the vaccine is coming out. Your friends decide,

you know, most of medicine is going to jump in. And so you said, can I test your, can I get some fecal syndrome? I was looking for, right. I, you know, I knew what the microbiome looked like, you know, before COVID. I knew that in kids, babies, especially, they had a lot of this bacteria called bifidobacteria. Yeah. I knew that, you know, the probiotic industry, if

you turn around the bottle and the label, it says bifidobacteria. It's very important. So I'm going to be able to, you know, I'm going to be able to, you know, to get some fecal syndrome. So, you know, that was basically bifidobacteria was very important, right. So the first thing I started looking at is what is the microbiome of people that have severe COVID versus people that

have been exposed to COVID and never had COVID. Okay. So an example of farmer, a farmer is wife had COVID. He never had COVID. He took her saliva, smeared it. He had COVID on her, his face, and he, and we did a YouTube video together, by the way, the YouTube was removed in the last couple weeks. And all we were talking about is farming and how

it's similar to the microbiome, how the micro, we learned so much about the microbiome from farming, you know, fertilizers, poop, etc. So we were, this is a biome itself. And that's what you use a fertilizer is the poop of the cow. Right. That's your microbiome. Right. So we were talking about just all those things. Right. And one of the things that he said, he said that

to me. So on that video, that was in 2020, I think 2021. He said to me, you never got it. So the first thing I said is, Matt, on on YouTube, I said, Matt, can I have your tools? And can I have your wife's tools? So what did I realize with math is what I realized with the, I did a study of 70 patients, 43 had

severe COVID and 20 had exposed exposure to COVID and a couple like 10, had or 10 to 20, I can remember, we were 72 patients altogether. And basically, what happened was the asymptomatic had bifidobacteria. The symptomatic had zero bifidobacteria. They exposed had a lot of bifidobacteria. But they also had another bacteria called fastylobacterium crutch needsy, which we don't hear too much about it because it's not

a pharmaceutical or probiotic. But this is another bacteria that actually is in the colon of people. Some people have a lot of it. Some don't have a lot of it. So those people that were severe with COVID had zero fastylobacterium, zero bifidobacteria, high bacteriodes, which is a bacteria that's like not necessarily a good bacteria, if it's out of balance. And then loss of diversity. In other

words, the microbiome was eaten by something. Right. So the hypothesis became, did the virus cause the dysbiosis, the imbalance, the killing of these microbes? Or did the killing of these microbes occur because of the fact that the patient started off with a messed up microbiome? Right. You know, you think of your patient that took antibiotics for a tooth. And then all of a sudden, you know,

gets COVID. Or the person that's like drinking heavily. The next day gets COVID, right. He was in a big crowd, drank heavily, did he kill his microbiome? And therefore, was he exposed to COVID? So, so that was really the, that was the beginning, right? The, that showed me, this is what I may be looking at in my colleagues. So I really wasn't looking at, hey, let

me pinpoint the bifidobacteria specifically. I was just seeing what is a severe. So, yeah, I'm seeing a pattern with severe COVID. I'm seeing a pattern with highly exposed COVID patients. And then let me see, I didn't even know. And honestly, you know, I wasn't, you know, I was not convinced of this vaccine from the beginning because of the fact that I saw the mutations. Remember, every,

those eight patients, they were all different. They all had a different mutation. So some people had like four spike mutations. Some people had three. Some people had one. So, you know, there's different combinations. And as you see the progression of this virus, you see it. It has one head, one body, one tail. And then you start seeing it with like 10 heads, 10 bodies, 10 tails.

And then 20, 33. So there's multiple combinations to this virus. So when you get a vaccine, and I'm giving you a spike protein, right. They tried to mimic that original spike protein for Wuhan, right? The one head, one body, one tail. And now it's 40, got one. The one body, right? So now we're at 33 spikes. But there's different mutations. So you're going to put 33

spikes. It doesn't make sense. So you're always catching your tail, trying to beat up this virus. So to me, the idea was build up the microbiome, right? Let's look at the microbiome. So as I was stopped, you know, from recruiting and, you know, and also I wasn't doing too much clinical trials. I had a lot of time. Well, sort of, I do a lot more than

most people do in one day. So I basically get that. I get that. So for me, I was like, okay, hurricane mode. Let's get tools. So I started collecting tools from my colleagues. And, you know, and people would come to me and say, Hey, I heard you're doing a trial on looking at the vaccine before and after. And I'd like to make sure that I know

what my, my baseline microbiome looks like before I get vaccinated, right? Because we don't know what's in the shot. And, you know, is there contamination? We don't know, right? There was so many people who were so much we didn't know. So I basically, you know, I accumulated like four samples. And one thing that I noticed was the Bifida bacteria, which is this important billion dollar industry,

drops by 50% and some of them dropped to zero within after vaccination, after this vaccine. So then I said, okay, well, let me look at more people, right? And then we looked at 34 patients. And we noticed that indeed the Bifida bacteria dropped. What was interesting is I didn't lose track of these patients, right? I basically said, okay, well, let me keep looking, right? Now remember,

all these tool samples are expensive. So I collected the tools to say, okay, well, let me continue looking, right? And what we discovered is that 90 days, right, into the virus, into the vaccine. The Bifida bacteria dropped from like, you know, if you were a million, a million reads, for example, or relative abundance of maybe 5% to zero in 90 days. The damage kept on persisting.

So basically, and that's what you're seeing. And that's 90 days. So you saw it drop. Nine months later. Wow. So you saw a drop up front just but a serious drop over time. It's nothing worse. It wasn't affecting itself. And in fact, what you saw with that paper, with that, was four patients. And one of them was actually taking vitamins. So we thought, well, it's probably

skewing. That's probably why he went up and he was doing probiotics, et cetera. But then even though he was on the probiotics and the vitamins and everything, his Bifida bacteria still dropped. So this is why I didn't really change anything in those patients. You know, I didn't change before and after because I wanted to see, I said, I want you to do the same diet. I

want you to say, do the same. If you're taking probiotics, if you're taking vitamins, just stick to the same program because I just want to see what the vaccine is doing by itself. And then what happened is, as I was seeing that, you know, there was a little girl, and I'm not going to say her name, but Paraply, Jig vaccine injured, who everybody that listens to

your podcast knows, you know, came to me and I decided, let me look at her microbiome, right? So I looked at her microbiome and her brother, who had gotten the placebo. Now, remember, kids have a lot of Bifida bacteria, okay? This kid had zero Bifida bacteria. Her brother, who was basically God the placebo. I'm trying to put in the placebo. I had a lot of Bifida

bacteria. So here's in the same family, the kid that's Paraply Jig that God the vaccine got zero Bifida bacteria. And here's the... I had someone I know recently. This is why it really actually got my interest that got the vaccine. And then I would say weeks, if not a month or so later, told me, oh my God, I got the worst food poisoning of my life.

I had to go to the hospital. I almost died of never seen anything like it. I think I got a piece of bad meat or something like that. And it just didn't really... There's something about it. Yeah, and they're really struggling to get back to having... Yeah. ...feeling healthy again. Yes. Is that... Would that be sort of what would be if you lost your Bifida bacteria?

Yeah, that's the trend. That's what we're seeing. So I started seeing... So Dr. Denise Hertz, who's been very... She's a gastroenterologist in Beverly Hills. I treated tons of celebrities, prominent gastroenterologist. God vaccinated. And herself became debilitated after the vaccine. And she speaks about it. And I tested her tools because she actually came to me from a neurologist that said, hey, Sabine, I know. And by the

way, all my colleagues thought I was crazy at the beginning because they're like, look, you're becoming an anti-vaxxer. And I'm like, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I put these trials to market, right? I want to see the science. I want to see the data. It's not being an anti-vaxxer to ask questions and to defy the narrative. It's not. Anyways, all these doctors now believe me because guess

what? They've seen CMV and cephalitis. They've seen, you know, herpes and cephalitis. They've seen increase in Parkinson's, increase in Alzheimer's. They can't explain it. So this doctor came to me. And by the way, Dr. Denise Hertz is one of the most ethical, righteous physician. And we're very respected in the community of physicians. Okay. And she came to me and was debilitated. I tested her microbiome, zero

bifidobacteria. And let me just say, from there we started doing... I started like increasing the awareness because I'm not afraid to speak. I'm not afraid for full transparency. Everything about my life. I'm on Twitter every day. I even say what I'm... Just a question. Just because I know that this is something that's gut biome thing has come up in the work that I've done. People looking

at autism. We've seen the fecal transplants there. And you've been involved in some of that. But we really haven't ever looked at this element of what are vaccines. And I would guess drugs. Do you think that as we move forward, it seems to me good something. And the science, especially as we're realizing how important this gut biome is that a part of safety trials and efficacy

trials should be testing stool samples before and after a product. 100%. And not only before and after, but like nine months, a year, we want to know, right? Same thing with antibiotics. Yes, we understand antibiotics kill strep pneumonia that you have because strep pneumonia is going to kill you at this moment. But is the antibiotic killing the rest of your microbiome? We're going to have a

bigger problem down the road, right? Think about going back when we were doing antibiotics for everything, right? Then CDIF started popping up. And then we had to do fecal transplant. It was no longer appeal to fix... It was taking stool from a healthy donor. What happens when you can no longer count on the healthy donors? And that's why, by the way, I started looking at... I

imagine if you just with a vaccine wiped out ever... But we could see that entire population... What was the mistake? And that's why I stood up is because we are not equal in our microbiome. Some of us have a resilient microbiome, right? You think of the person that survives COVID and never got COVID, the whole pandemic. Resilience, right? You think of the person that got vaccinated

five times and never got a side effect from the vaccine. Resilience. So resilience is an important thing that we need to protect, to preserve. Because the resilient ones are going to be the ones helping the non-resilient. So if there is something to this, you know, science of mine that I'm directing, and we're killing the microbiome, well, you have no hope for Alzheimer's. You have no hope

for Parkinson's or autism. If you're demolishing the entire microbiome of humanity and also globalizing what makes us believe that we can just have a pill that fits all of us. Crazy. Right? I mean, Africans have a different microbiome. They're in the jungle. You give an antibiotic to that African. You wipe out his whole diversity of the microbiome. You know, you give an antibiotic, or now what

I'm showing, a messenger RNA to the Amazon jungle. They can't survive. They've adapted to living in the jungle because of their microbiome. So once you change that microbiome and you make them like city folks, they will not survive, you know, one little microbe that's in the earth. We've gotten really deep into this, and I want to have you back on. But I do, you show me

an image in a different space, but I want to share it just to sort of close this out, because it really gives a good visual. This is super interesting. Well, this is my fecal transplant. So this is the case of fecal transplant. The first column is the child with a bacteria we've identified as lactobacillus animalis. So that giant blue is just one big microbe just taking

over the time. Taking over everything totally out of balance. Totally out of balance. He kicked to, he came to my office kicking his head, breaking his teeth, the parents. Each one of them were taking turns at staying up all night to stay with him because you could not sleep. He had like a huge amount of proteobacteria, which are none necessarily you good microbes. Okay. The second

column is his sister's microbiome. Now you could see she's a neurotypical child. That is diverse, amazing. And then I after transplanted the kid matches. What did you transplant with you take the her stools, her stools, you took her stools gave it to her brother who's out of balance. And the third one what happens to that biome we get the blue under control. Yeah. And then after

and continuing and you could see he started with a Shannon index of 2.2, which is essentially a loss of diversity. And then he went up to 6.2. And I'm happy to say last week, he went with a girl to prom. Wow. So this kid is sleeping, he's doing amazing. So there is hope. But we cannot kill the diverse microbiome. And we got to understand what is

killing the microbiome. And especially in this messenger RNA vaccines that are developing. So is the spike protein triggering other viruses and therefore killing the microbiome possibly. Well, I look forward to seeing more of your work. I want to thank you for taking the time. So incredibly fascinating. Anything you want to do. Anything we can do to help, you know, if you ever need funding or help

or support. That's what we're talking about. Thank you. Yes. We're trying to look at the microbiome of newborns of vaccinated mom versus non vaccinated. So please. Do you have a found. How do we follow? We're doing to a foundation. The microbiome research foundation. The microbiome research foundation. And that's what we go microbiome research foundation dot org folks. I think we need to get involved in this

process. And you can even sign up for clinical trials. We basically on progeny biome, we have a bunch. We put your name on a list. And as we get funds and as we need patients, you know, we're doing Parkinson's right now. We're looking at the microbiome of Parkinson's. Wow. And then from there, we're going to do animal studies to see if those microbes are real and

create a mouse model for Parkinson's. So a lot of exciting things. I'm working with Dr. Adams. We're trying to develop an assay for autism. So we could prevent autism, but also try to treat it. And we're going to do a lot of work. By what you saw with with the technology. So, you know, there is hope in the future. I think we cannot censor one of

I was very disappointed to see that one of my papers on frontiers. I found out Frontiers Journal is a predatory journal. Yeah. I published the paper. It was a hypothesis on why Ivermecting works. Yeah. I think we can pop that up. Yeah. And that was. And you said it's a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis. Ivermecting. In fact, I'm testing the microbiome based hypothesis on Ivermecting's mechanism in

COVID-19. Ivermecting feeds might bifida bacteria to boost immunity. It says right there, it's a hypothesis. Why would they pull the whole idea? Let's start a discussion. Anyone else want to jump in and look at this? That's it. You know, science is about prove me wrong or prove me right now. So I said to you shut it down, burn it, make sure no one ever sees it

again. And by the way, I send that hypothesis to every physician I know in academia. So they could see what's going on in medical field. So, I'm not going to let this slide. Amazing. You are a superhero. Thank you. It's really great to finally have you in studio with Ford to see more of the great work that you're doing. When we, you know, look at this

entire cover up and who was involved in the think of the media, how you watch, you know, Seth Myers, where's the comedian doing same things that is destroying studies that are trying to be done? Yes, Seth, you had that about a power. Maybe we put you on the list that got people killed when we look back historically at this whole thing. But somebody took tasks with

the BBC, someone you might know on almost exactly this issue. Take a look at this. You've changed the COVID misinformation. Has BBC changed this COVID misinformation? The BBC does not set the rules on Twitter. So I'm asking you. No, I'm talking about the BBC's misinformation about COVID. Why do that? Well, COVID is no longer an issue. Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation

regarding that? I'm asking and side effects of vaccinations and not reporting on that at all. And what about the fact that the BBC was put into pressure by the British government to change the editorial policy? Are you aware of that? This is not an interview about the BBC. Oh, you thought it wasn't. I see now why you've done Twitter spaces. I am not a representative of

the BBC's editorial policy. I want to make that clear. Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about something else. First of all, I just want to say Elon, you're on my bucket list, man. I'm here in Austin. If you ever find yourself sweeping through town, we would love to have a conversation with you. I've got some serious questions about a lot of what you're doing. But

also, so excited about, I think you've been one of the biggest news stories. But here at the high where we've gotten so much of this right, we didn't listen to mainstream. No one was pressuring us because we don't have sponsors. I'd love to have a conversation with you about how we all move forward in this really dangerous and precarious world. You have such an interesting voice

and you're just one of those people. I think we'll be fascinating to have here. So next time you're in Austin, want you to give us a call. All right. Look, this is the high where we are so excited about what we do here. I am so thankful that I'm a part of this network, this growing body of people. That's you out there that are actually making

a difference in the world that are actually stepping up and doing something standing for science, standing for medicine, standing for freedom. And it doesn't matter if you're a mother or you're one of the great, you know, microbiome specialists in the world, we all have a job to do right now. Our children, the future of this species, it depends on all of us breathing right now. If

you're watching the high wire, that means you, that means everyone you know, how many world changes are out there that just don't really know the truth yet because they're not looking the right place. Please show the high wire and get them focused in the right place so that we can inspire them. Because we need them, that specialty, that thing they do that makes us all unique.

We're all God's creatures. We are all a part of something so important. We are watching the world close in on us, the liars, the thieves, the moneyed interests are trying to rob our world from us and make decisions that could wipe out everything that makes us healthy. Everything that makes us free. It has never been a more important time to be alive. There's never been a

more fantastic and special time to be a human being. Celebrate what we're in right now. No human beings ever been needed more than you are needed right now. At least that's what I think. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing on the high wire. And I'll see you next week.