INFORMATION TSUNAMI

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 non-profit, the Inform Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news if you want the truth, go to iCanDesight.org

and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world is time to step out onto the high world. We have been riding an amazing wave here, not just on the production of this show, which has been fantastic and I'm an amazing team working at it. But legally, all the legal wins, just a couple of weeks are getting to announce

that we've returned the religious exemption to Mississippi just absolutely massive. But right along those lines this week, the question would be what really happened here. Now we're going to be talking about the travel ban. We think about the travel ban in America. We have been aligned with China somehow on how restricted we're going to be to foreign travel coming in without vaccination. And we were one

of the last holdouts. And just as President Biden started announcing that the pandemic was over, but still we're hanging on. Still we're hanging on. Regulations hanging in there. We've talked about Novak, Jokavik, and not being able to play in sports here in America. Well, last week, we saw a really disconcerting statement by the CDC. This is how that was mentioned in the Daily Mail. Another jab

to face to the face of common sense, CDC sticks with COVID vaccine requirements for travelers coming to US. A policy that's had no effect on transmission rates. That was just April 28th just last week in announcement Thursday. This last Thursday, a sentence for disease control and prevention, update the policy rather than dropping it. The US will allow travelers that have received at least one vaccine dose

on or after August 16th into the country. The CDC says this is because many who have received a one dose since this date may have received a more protective by valent shot. Forget about any of the science behind that or whether it's protective or not. If you've been watching the high wire, but there it was. We're going to hold on to this restriction. We're not going

to let anyone that didn't get the vaccine into this country. Well, we have had so many of you reach out to ICANN and form consent action network. We're going to have a non-profit that makes this educational program the high wire possible saying, I can't get my relatives can't visit. There's so much that we're missing out on with our families. Or I can't leave the country and

get back in and all of these issues. And so we decided to bring a lawsuit. In fact, fund a lawsuit. We are not the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. But we did get directly involved with suing over this issue. Who did we sue? Let me just be very specific. We sue Joe Biden, Jr. Rochelle Walensky. And so, the United States of America, that's right. We were serious

about this. And so to just sort of lay out the timeline, you know, this was beginning of April that we launched this lawsuit just last Thursday. They're saying the CDC and obviously talking the government. We're going for it. We're going to keep restrictions locked in. But there was a deadline for the government to respond to us. That deadline in which if you do not want this

case going forward, want to get it thrown out or whatever it is, you have got to respond by this date or else. This is going to court. What was that date? That date was May 1st. Why is that important? Because instead of responding to our lawsuit on May 1st, instead this happened in the news. The White House is ending one of its final COVID-19 vaccine requirements

next week. The White House announced it will end its COVID-19 vaccine requirements for international travelers. Travelers into the United States won't need to prove that they have a COVID vaccination. The COVID vaccine will also be lifted for Canadians crossing into the US, allowing for cross-border travel to be easier. Starting on May 12th, the vaccine restrictions will be lifted. That's when the COVID-19 public health emergency is

said to expire. Experts say it's assigned. The administration believes the US is moving past the pandemic. Most notably, this policy prevented international tennis star Novak Jakovic from participating in the Miami Open. I think it may be the right time to relax mandates, although I have mixed feelings even about that. But now these policies, some of the last vestiges of the federal government's emergency pandemic powers, will

finally come to an end. There you have it. It's finally coming to an end. And this is the official statement by the White House that came out. It says the Biden administration will end COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees, not traitors, international travelers, head start educators, and CMS certified facilities. Now there's no way of knowing actually whether our lawsuit is the reason that they finally broke

down and did what was obvious to the rest of the world. But we think we might have had something to do. At least I do. Anyway, I wanted to talk to our lawyer, Aaron Sirri, just about this case and what was behind it and the teeth that we brought into it. So I'm joined right now by Aaron Sirri. Aaron. Awesome to have you on. Good to

be here. Now look, I know that you're always, you know, you're always clipping my wings and saying, look, Dell, there's only certain things that were allowed to claim. We can't claim a victory necessarily here, though. I think the coincidence is pretty obvious. But what was the heart of this case for people that just want to know what were they facing and what were they going to

have to respond to on May 1st? So the on May 1st, the day the government had to file an opposition to a motion seeking an injunction to be traveled mandate. If you saw, you know, when you put on the screen just now, a number of other vaccine mandates that the president is now going to be rescinding, a lot of those already enjoyed another lawsuit. So, you

know, he's dropping mandates for things that already have been enjoyed. You know, our understanding is that, you know, you know, our understanding is that with regards to the travel mandate, they were going to revisit whether or not they were going to extend it on May 11th. May 1st, frankly, in some ways, arbitrary the fact that they came out and decided to just drop it on that

specific date. There was no deadline that we're aware of that required a decision point on that date. Obviously, there was the need to follow an opposition to the injunction that we filed challenging the travel mandate. Which I have to say, you know, we have won a lot of lawsuits now again. Against the government FDA CDC NIH Health and Human Services. We're getting to be quite a

pain in their ass. And I don't think they like giving ICANN any more victories. I will say it seems to me that they had very little footing here and just didn't want another headline. I can wins another lawsuit against government of the United States and illegal restrictions, basically. But the climate that we're in now, this was insane that we've even waited this long. You had Biden

saying months ago that the pandemic is over. Yet still didn't really want to open up for some reason. We now know officially that the vaccine didn't work. Didn't stop hesitant. I mean, didn't stop the infection. You know, couldn't stop transmission, which was really, really laid out in a case that we brought up last week. In the case of New York State, their federal workers there. And

the judge there basically said that because this vaccine doesn't stop transmission or infection, there's no difference between a vaccinated or an undet vaccinated individual in the workplace. Here it is. The vaccine is actually being vaccinated. It does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19. As of the day of this decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are same for vaccinated, unvaccinated individuals. The petitioners

should not have been terminated for choosing not to protect themselves. In that case, I think they awarded them a back pay and their jobs back. But this is similar, right? I mean, was this sort of how we were going to argue this as far as travel that you have a product that you're arbitrarily saying everyone needs to take, but doesn't actually achieve any end goal that

makes any sense? Well, I think the fact that the vaccine doesn't prevent infection transmission shows some of the ridiculous nature of the and the illogical nature of the vaccine mandate for travelers. But sometimes it's logical what makes sense is not always the best grounds for a legal argument. In this instance, the ground that we proceeded on was the fact that there were all types of exception.

In this travel mandate, for example, the 10 to 12 million estimated undocumented legal immigrants that come to the United States and are currently residing here are not subject to having to get a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. But if you're trying to come here legally, then you are subject to it. That's obviously does not make a lot of sense. The other part of it is that there are

all types of exceptions to get around the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. But even if you're coming here legally, but you're not going to be able to get a vaccine. But one exception that didn't exist, and this really where it made the mandate in firm, is that if your convictions did not permit you to get the COVID-19 vaccine, then that wouldn't have worked. If you believe that, you

know, without getting into much legal ease, that is a founding principle of this country. The idea that you should be able to live your life by your convictions, and that wasn't accounted for in this. And that made the law in firm we argue. And we've had a series of cases under those same principles that we've been successful in. And so we were very confident that we'd

be successful here. And I think the government, we've litigated against our numerous times on this similar ground, hopefully appreciated that as well. I mean, you're talking about really similar in some ways to the Mississippi case where we return the religious exemption there that has been gone since 1979, based on the fact that you can't have a secular protection and not have a religious protection there. In

that case, really brought up because you had Wal-Mart's open and churches closed. That sort of lost in courts across the country. So there's this sort of, you know, in many ways, this COVID pandemic really pushed our laws and our understanding of our rights, especially religious rights, to a place that really hasn't been argued. I don't think quite this way for decades. If not, we would think

about 1905 and 1905, which is the way it comes in versus Massachusetts. So a lot of power now to this conversation about your religious and conviction rights. Yes. And just so that your audience fully appreciates this. When we say religious beliefs, it doesn't mean organized religion. In fact, the Constitution says the state shall establish, you know, there's something called the established causal constitution. Government's not allowed

to be involved in defining what is or is not a religion. So it's not about what will be in the Constitution Sunday. It's about what you believe what your religious, your convictions are within you that are some form of religious nature. And in many ways, you know, when this country was founded, people understood that to mean, when they thought of their convictions, they thought of the

beliefs that guided their lives, that led them to choose what they do day in and day out. And in many ways, we've kind of lost a little bit of touch with what that means legally, I guess, or vernacular, I should say. But it's far broader when what people think of what they do is not. And if you think of a religious exemption, it is the ability

to live out your life, pursuant to your convictions. And if your convictions are deeply held beliefs, or that this vaccine are not appropriate for you, that they'll, you know, affect your more of soul, for example, then the government should not be able to make you take that. And if they're giving exemptions for other individuals for secular regions, they have to honor it for religious reasons. It

shows that there's no way out imperative. Yeah. We can now move forward to Dr. John goes ahead. Now if you've spoken of this, I can say anybody thinks of that as an analogous talk right now about what he said. Hands up, if you need to ask yourself what you think of it? I think more specifically it seems like he's really targeting these executives and Moderna, Pfizer,

Johnson and Johnson for making false claims, possible fraud inside of their trials. But have you had a chance to look at what he's investigating here? Yeah, absolutely. He's investigating the claims that were made by these pharmaceutical companies with the guards to gain a function, the efficacy of their products, as well as misconduct in the clinical trials, which is very interesting. I mean, I think that that

part is based on reviewing some of the documents that have come out with the clinical trials. Let me put it this way. For any other drug out there, there are pharmaceutical companies that put drugs out that hurt people all the time. It happens, drugs hurt people and they get withdrawn from the market. What makes I believe this product unique is that they use drugs to use

the claim that it was safe and effective to mandate it, to take away people's individual and civil rights. That made the claim of safe and effective, not just a medical issue, but it made it a civil rights issue. It made it an individual rights issue. And I think that it's part of, I have to imagine, it's part of what's really drawn the eye or so many

politicians that in Attorney General's at these companies focused on this product, because they use those drugs. They use those claims to take away those people's rights. And it wasn't like these companies just set idling by and just let politicians go about their business and just mandate it. They were direct participants. They have lobby, they've been part of funding various groups, that lobby legislative houses around this

country and on the federal level, to help push, promote, and enact those mandates. They wanted to come after us to take away our civil and individual rights and it's about time the Attorney General is focused directly back at them and hold them accountable for what everything they see and what they said about the safety and efficacy of these products, American people. You know, we do a

lot of work. We are very litigious, as I say, more litigious than I ever planned on being in my life constantly bringing lawsuits fully requests. But for those of us, what is the difference between the type of case that we can bring with ICANN, these civil cases that we support, sometimes we're just funding, obviously there's plaintiffs and people involved and we're just there to make sure

that the case is held up and thank God for our sponsors that make this happen. So, we have more teeth, is there, first of all, it sounds like an Attorney General is allowed to, you know, demand an investigation and get, if you will, discovery without even bringing a case yet. Is that right? Is he allowed to say, hey, I want this, this, and this, to decide

if I'm bringing a case, whereas we only see things if we can get a case in the court, get it through, you know, being, you know, their paperwork and any rebuttals coming back. So, what is the difference between Attorney General's case and just another, you know, constitutional attorney like yourself? The Attorney General has powers that are far broader than any private attorney like myself and other

attorneys out there. They have at their disposal all of the criminal code that exists in Texas. For example, I can't prosecute somebody for homicide, for negligent homicide, even if they knowingly and recklessly and purposely put out a product, am I kill somebody, for example? I can't prosecute somebody for various, you know, types of batteries. Or based on putting out again, something that a company knows would

hurt people. Or even consumer fraud claims, there are certain consumer fraud claims I could bring as a private attorney. But the grounds and breadth for which many Attorney General's around this country can bring claims are far broader. Let's put it this way. As the law stands right now in this country regarding these products because of the prep act immunity, I cannot. And most, and civil attorneys,

on this country, for the most part, aren't able to sue Pfizer, Moderna to hold them accountable in the normal course, which is what? Sue them for the injuries that their product is causing to Americans across this country. Can't do that. So, but the one thing the prep act does not do, it does not preempt criminal laws. So the Attorney General, so in the normal course, the

Attorney General has broader powers to begin with. But in this instance, the Attorney General really has, I mean, the Delta is even larger because most of the normal ways we'd hold a company accountable state laws in regards to product liability laws, design defect claims, you know, misrepresentation claims, we can't bring those under the prep act. I can't even do any of that. But the Attorney General's

hands are not tied if he proceeds on a criminal basis. So yes, he has a very broad ability to bring all kinds of claims. He obviously is going to have to use the tech system to fix this criminal law. But the heartening part about this I understand is that obviously as we're wearing in Florida, there's been a grand jury convened. And I believe there are a

number of other Attorney generals around the country or not. You're public, but I believe are also going to be launching investigations of a similar nature stand. Wow, really exciting stuff. And when I think about this, and I think about what we have contributed when you think whether it's the V-safe data and the work that's done there, you were obviously with the lead attorney in getting the

Pfizer data released, you know, 75 years, FDA tried to hide that data. You got that released. And so for all those reasons, there's a lot of tools. There's a lot of information already in AG Kenpacston's hands to work with to really dive into what happened in these trials. And so, you know, to see this all coming full circle, I mean, it's got to be exciting, you

know, just for the work that you're doing. I know we're tickled pink over here at ICANN, the High Wire. Yeah, I know. Look, we've got no tell. I think we have about about I believe we've crossed a thousand FOIA requests. Not to go. I know there was a, or at least an internal email at my firm about that. I'll request a map of ICANN. And those

document that has produced, as you pointed out, the V-safe document, the V-safe data, which and not only the data, but it shows some of the internal documentation about how that data is going to be. And how they were going to design it and how they seem to, they chose to design it a certain way. And we've gone through this. To purposely avoid being able to make

it useful to show harms, or the thousands of Fauci emails, of course, as you might recall, long ago that we obtained on behalf of ICANN. And I believe it was the opening part of the whole opening monologue on a Tucker Carlson episode. And obviously made the run of the mail. Buzzfeed got some of the documents. And ICANN got some. It seemed like the media was a

little more comfortable talking about. How Buzzfeed got the documents, but it was a bit of a mess. And it was the ICANN documents. The media across board was talking about in many instances. And obviously there are thousands of other documents. I can tell you, as you know, there are lots of different investigations going on in which those documents, various actors have reached out to us for

those documents that we put them together in packets. And we've provided them to make it useful in many other contexts and many other forums. It's kind of leaving it that way. Amazing. Well, you know, you're doing fantastic work. I want to let everyone know that we have just put, you just gave a keynote speech at Dartmouth. And we've put that up on the website, everybody. You

know, it's rare that you really get to see Aaron Cerelett-Lews and give a perspective on the laws. It pertains to the vaccine issue. This was an incredible speech. But at the heart of it, what was it that you were trying to get across in this keynote speech? You just gave it Dartmouth. React 19, which is a group that was, you featured on your show before. It's

comprised of about 30,000, I understand, seriously injured individuals from the COVID-19 vaccine. And they had this event. And they asked me to speak at it. And it was hard to say no. I normally don't do those. But I did there. And I was I think at the heart of what I was asked to address was effectively, how could it be? How can it be that these

government officials, the medical industry that all told us, hey, go out, get this product, push us to do it. Went and we, you know, these 30,000 people obviously not folks who had issues with vaccines beforehand. If they did, they wouldn't have gotten the vaccine. So it was ironic to call people are into the vaccine, you know, any pejorative with regards to vaccines because people who get

issues vaccine. They don't take the vaccine. These folks trusted their health authorities. They trusted the federal health authorities, trusted medical organizations. They got the shot. And after they did, they went back to these same organizations, these same institutions that told them, go get the shot. And they went to them and they said, hey, I'm hurt. I'm injured. Help me. Oftentimes I'm pleading, crying. And there's no

help to be had. In fact, to get the opposite is often insult added to injury. And so I think that they know a lot of these folks just can't understand how can that be. And my whole talk was about how COVID-19 vaccines did not just fall into a vacuum. They fell into a very well established paradigm in this country that has developed for 40 years around

since 1986 with how vaccines regulatory economically are treated. COVID-19 vaccines fell into that exact same regulatory free market force model. And that is what my talk is about is to help people understand. Contextually, how it could be that they're not these 30,000 of these folks. And this is one group, 30,000 serious injured vision. How does cacophony of Americans calling out, crying out for a health reconnaissance

country, could be so callously ignored by medical establishment and by health authorities. And that's really what I want to help with because to fix a problem, you first have to understand the problem. To understand the problem of COVID-19 vaccines, you got to start in 1986. Fantastic. Aaron, you're doing such great work. People, if you want to also see, obviously we're covering all the work that we're

doing here at ICANN. But Aaron's got a great substack. You should check out where he's writing about these things. Injecting freedom is the name of that substack. You're writing some great articles there. And what we're sort of uncovering as we go along. Aaron, I just want to say congratulations to the team again. The Mississippi win was huge. Whether or not we were the official death nail

on this travel ban. And I certainly know that we're having a part of all this. And then Ken Paxson has just some amazing, amazing tools and information in his hands now to really wreak havoc on this injustice. It's been taking place in the federal government a lot because of the work that you're doing. So I'm just so proud to be working with you and just keep

up the good work. It's amazing. It's really amazing. Thank you, Dell. And obviously thank you to ICANN because most of that work, almost all of that policy, will not be possible without ICANN support. So really thank you. All right, appreciate it. Take care. You're back to work. I know you're busy. We've got a lot for you to do. All right. So look, for all of you

that are out there that have been supporting ICANN, donating to us, you get to really pat yourself on the back. Every time we have these announcements, massive, massive announcements, winning cases that, and it's all built. What you have it, if you haven't been watching the high where from the beginning, when we started back in 2017, then you haven't seen how these little wins that many of

you were supporting then that just started sort of building this foundation that we could use as we moved into bigger and bigger cases. Now we're seeing these explosively gigantic cases. So for all of you that have been donating with vision, seeing where we're going, man, this is a moment you should really be excited and congratulating yourself. And for all of you that knows somebody that was

donating and you're still sitting there, want you go and thank them for the work that they've done. So we've done to protect your constitutional rights and start pushing back. We now have the wave and the energy on our side. But please, for those of you that are just watching, sitting back, you know, armchair, cordybacking this, it's time. This is the moment. This is your moment. You've

got to get involved. There's so much we want to do that we were waiting for because of the funding's not there. So we're asking for $23 a month for 2023. If you can do more, that's great. If you've done well, I'm awesome. If you only want to give us a cup of coffee or a piece of wine, a piece of bubble gum every month, every little

bit counts, but I want you to feel what it feels like to be a part of our network, the informed consent action network. This is what it's all about. We're truly not just bringing you this incredible show and the news and the truth that's out there when everyone else is lying to you. We're fighting on your behalf and making a difference in our world. Thank you

to everyone that allows me to get up here and glow it and allows me to bring lawsuits against Joe Biden and the Union. United States of America. Pretty awesome. All right, I've got a huge show coming up. We're going to get into the heart of, you know, one of the topics that brought me here to begin with. When I made the documentary back, some of you

don't even know where I started here left my job at the CBS television show, the doctors to make the documentary back to the heart of that was this rising prevalence in autism and what the CDC did and did not know about it and the fraud that they committed to try and hide it. So, I think the important studies come out about the prevalence and what the

cost is going to be to those of us that are citizens in the United States of America and our health care system. I'm going to be in studio with Mark Blacksill and Cindy Nevesin. They're just waiting in the shadows right now to come out. Two people have been at this for a very long time, but a brand new look at how we should be wrapping our

heads around this. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. What do you got for us this week? So, we all need to have a big conversation about where artificial intelligence is going. Right. You're right, but because let's face it, it's been fun up until now. You have your maps. They give you small turnative routes when there's an accident. You have automated text

message responses, even Siri voice operated virtual assistance for your iPhone. The next day is going online now where this safe, helpful fun is rapidly showing something different as it moves into the future. And the latest person to give one of these warnings is Jeffrey Hinton, he was head of the Google's brain research development. He received something called the Turring Award. It's like the Nobel Prize for

computing. He retired from Google so he can speak and warn people about these things and obviously, he's very qualified for this. He's calling him, Jeffrey Hinton quits Google over killer robot fears and regrets inventing tech that could destroy us all. And he says in there, I can soul myself with the normal excuse. And wherever we heard this before, if I hadn't done it, someone else would

have. He told the New York Times. So right now, he's saying as far as he can tell, artificial intelligence is not more intelligent than people, but it will be very soon. And he warns a bad actor is getting control of this, directing this, dictating where it's going in parts of society and leading society. And in many ways, places we don't want to see. And remember just

a month ago, there was a letter signed by really luminaries in tech and AI in a lot of places warning about this. They're calling for a six month pause in the development of artificial intelligence. This was the headline here. Tech leaders urge a pause in the out of control artificial intelligence race. They were warning about AI systems reaching human human competitive intelligence, obviously, and beyond. And

they're saying they've seen just in the last few months, these out of control of like AI labs just racing to develop these technologies, even more powerful, more powerful, and not really understanding if they can control them or predict where they're going. And you know, with that letter, it's amazing, you know, just as as I sit here and we've all been watching this that we are not

watching like just immediate gigantic hearings inside the United States, inside our government, send us Congress whoever saying, wait a minute, these aren't just, you know, a couple of, you know, no buddies out of no like, that has the designers, the ones that built these things are coming to us and saying, my God, I think we made a mistake. We made a mistake. You gotta stop us.

You can't believe we just built back here and it could kill us all. I mean, it's really, really shocking. And to just have a bunch of, you know, in some ways, you know, leadership that's just like whatever, you know, if we're not going to take the people that invented this technology seriously, then who are we going to take? It's a parody of the guard rules we

put on this and that letter that was signed, Jeffrey Hinton wasn't on that letter, but because he was still working at Google at the time, but you know, the ideological overlap there, you would assume that he would be on that letter. But someone else has emerged once again, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. And he's obviously warned about this for about a decade and he's been in the

mix as well, obviously with Tesla, but also with neural link and the satellites in space and all of these things. He's had his finger in a lot of this stuff, but he's doing the circus recently. He was on Bill Marr and he had some things to say about this future of AI development. Take a listen. All right. With respect to AI, I just think we should

be, we should have some sort of regulatory oversight. So, you know, for anything that is a danger to the public, if it's sort of aircraft, cars, food and drug and whatnot, we've got some regulatory oversight, like a referee essentially and making sure that companies don't cut corners. I think that since, if one agrees that AI is a potentialist to the public, then there should be some

regulatory body that oversees what companies are doing so that they don't cut corners and potentially do something very dangerous. That's great. And if we don't do something, lay out a scenario for me in the next two, five, ten years. If nothing is done because we're very good at doing nothing, especially when it comes in the way of profit, and this is a big profit engine now.

For companies, they're going to want to just compete with each other. I mean, there are people like Ray Kurzweil, who doesn't think it's a problem at all. Actually, Ray Kurzweil's prediction for artificial superintelligence is 2029. He's not far on. Right. But he doesn't think it's a problem. Whereas people like you and Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking thought, I think it's a problem. Yeah, it depends. If

some people want to live forever or for a much longer period of time, and they see AI as the only way to, digital superintelligence is the only thing that can figure out how to get them to live forever, I think Kurzweil is in that category. So he would prefer to have AI, be brought up in church with my dad being a minister, just when you think

of people that are trying to just circumvent God and nature. What could possibly go wrong? And that's, you know, I just keep thinking, less you shall surely die. It feels like that's what these people are warning us about. Like, we must stop this or we could all die. Yeah, and you have this like biblical overlay on the top of, you know, what we all know from

the vaccine conversation. Yeah. Huge profit margins, really little oversight of any, you can't see the manufacturer. And then you put that on top of it. It's, it's, you can see the dire need. So he's, he's giving some common sense warnings there, if you will. But listen, listen to him. Just last month on Tucker Carlson. And this is probably one of the most, you know, important interviews

I've ever seen on artificial intelligence. As far as a warning is concerned, it's very direct. Take a listen. All regulations start with a perceived danger of planes fall out of the sky or food causes, but yes, I don't think the average person playing the thing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger. Can you just roughly explain what you think the dangers might be? Yeah, so

the danger really AI is perhaps more dangerous than say mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production in the sense that it is. It has the potential. How small and one may regard that. Probably, but it is non trivial and has the potential of a civilizational destruction. There's movies like Terminator, but it wouldn't quite happen like Terminator because the intelligence would be in the

data centers. Right. The robots, just the end effect. But I think perhaps what you may be alluding to here is that regulations are really only pointed to effect after something terrible has happened. That's correct. If that's the case for AI and we only put a regulation after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to actually put the regulations in place. AI may be in

control at that point. You think that's real. It is conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making. Making the decisions for people. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. No, that's that's definitely the way things are headed for sure. I mean, that's a comfortable interview. I don't know about you. I just, you know, I just was speaking

and the church walking past. And there's been movies about this. We're now in that space. Imagine they just say, the government gets paranoid or says, hey, let's just have AI monitor everybody. Now, every camera is tracking, everywhere you go, every decision you make, and then what are you programming the AI to be doing with that information? And I remember, you know, there was a quote, one

of the, if you by, you've all know a Ferrari who we've talked a lot about. I'm just paraphrasing here, just came to mind, but he said, you know, this, this, this moment, the singularity, this moment in which the computer apparently is going to recognize itself. This guy Ray Kurzweil has been at the head of like this discussion for a long time. I think they were saying

2040. It sounds like now Elon Musk is saying it's more like 2029 and he's really close to it. But then it will, then have a consciousness that it will, it will then once it recognize itself, now it's a conscious entity, and you've all know a Ferrari made the point that, you know, I'm not sure that I agree that intelligence marks consciousness, but he said, imagine a

intelligence beyond anything that we would be able to compete with, but has no consciousness or no conscience. That perhaps is even more horrifying. And that has stuck with me that thought. And this, this conversation has moved very quickly. It wasn't, you know, 40, 50, 50, 50 years ago, really people are warning about this. 2013, the University of Oxford did a research study in a white paper.

And this was called the future of employment. 2013. So 10 years ago. And it says, according to our estimates, around 47% of total US employment is in the high risk category. We refer to these jobs at risk, I.e. jobs we expect could be automated relatively soon, perhaps over the next decade or two. So we're here, it's a decade. And now let's see what the headlines look

like. This is just over the past week. This is Goldman Sachs predicts 300 million jobs will be lost or degraded by artificial intelligence. Now IBM, another headline, IBM to stop hiring for roles that can be replaced by AI, nearly 80,000 workers to be replaced by automation. And even writers, 8,000 was to clear. They're not. Yeah. Thank you. 8,000 writers in Hollywood, facing the same thing. We

have the Hollywood writer strike right now. Hollywood screen writers don't want robots taking their jobs either. So, you know, Jimmy Campbell's trying himself to sleep tonight because he can't create his own content. And he doesn't want AI doing it. And his writers sure don't want to be out of work. So that's going to be an issue there as well. But there is one person who loves

AI. There is one person who's pushing it on the kids. So to speak, this is Bill Gates, our old friend Bill Gates. Wow. You know, from the pandemic fame. Here's the headline for him. Bill Gates says AI chat butts will teach kids to read within 18 months. You'll be stunned by how it helps. He's at a conference. And this is some of the things he says.

He says, quote, at first, we'll be most stunned by how it helps with reading, being a reading research assistant and giving you feedback on writing said Gates. Then he says this, if you look, if you just took the next 18 months, the AIs will come in as a teacher's aid and give feedback on writing said Gates. And then they will amp up what we're able to

do in math, which is, you know, really kind of a golden achievement for AI is the solving problems through math. The writing is easy because they have this data. So it's a base of vocabulary, but the math thing is kind of this piece. But he said, yeah, 18 months probably solved at that point. So should be good. Just let the kids deal with that. Put them

on them. And we've seen all the studies with Facebook and increased social media use. How it really hurts kids development. Leads of depression. So how is this going to work when you just unleash AI on children for their learning development. Got a question that it totally and it goes to, I mean, you got a hand to this guy. He really knows how to make a difference

in this world. And the difference always being the children get to the children and they change the world. And solutions have all of our children belly up to AI. I think the question Elon Musk would probably follow up was, look, it's great. It teaches us to read. It starts advancing our math. And then it realizes to itself, man, these humans really suck at this. When you

think about it, we're far better. And what is the use of teaching these people this anymore? We might as well just handle it ourselves. And one of the quotes from, I believe in that Tucker Carlson, you know, that Elon Musk was on to say, well, you know, I hope they being the AI find us interesting because if they don't, then we're just a nuisance. And boy,

is that a horrifying thought? Absolutely. And so that's why that AI development, the future of our official intelligence is really one of the biggest conversations right now in the world. Another one is the future of speech of communication free speech for that matter. And that brings us to the next story. The American media landscape is rapidly changing right now. It's underneath everyone's nose. It's not too

obvious, but there's a lot of big moves happening within the past couple weeks. And we're going to go through that right now and talk about what that possibly means. So everyone probably have seen by now, Tucker Carlson is out at Fox. The headlines have been all over the place. And we're not going to go into speculation here because there's a lot of people saying they know

why he's out. There's a lot of reasons floating around out there. But he is no longer on Fox network. His show is no longer being produced. He is producer or not creating content. So where he ends up, nobody knows. But and that's an interesting thing because he's been, you know, since 2005, he was at MSNBC started tonight with Tucker Carlson since 2016, one of the most

highly rated news shows since then. So that is a huge gap that's being left. And we've watched the trajectory of this man over those years and his reporting and, you know, his, his really intelligence on world views. And this is a person who's been in the media most of his life. And it's interesting because just recently, just right before he was like go by Fox, he

did an interview with some, some younger guys. And this is what he had to say about really his journey. Take a listen. Right. I've spent my whole life in the media. My dad was in the media. Like that is a big part of the revelation that's changed my life is the media are part of the control apparatus. Like there's no, you know, I know, because you're

younger and smarter and you're like, yeah. Yeah. But what if you're me and you spent your whole life in that world? And to look around at all this, you know, like, oh, wow. Not only are they part of the problem, but I spent most of my life being part of the problem, defending the Iraq war. Like I actually did that. Can you imagine if you did

that? What do you think? What is one of your biggest regrets in your career? Defending the Iraq war. That is it. Well, I've had a million regrets, not being more skeptical, calling people names when I should have listened to what they were saying. Look, when you, when someone makes a claim, there's only one question that's important at the very beginning, which is, is the claim true

or not? So I say, you know, you committed murder or you rigged the last election before you attack me as a crazy person for saying that, maybe you should explain whether you did it or not. Right. Yeah. And for too long, I participated in the culture where I was like anyone who thinks outside these pre prescribed lanes is crazy. Is it conspiracy theorist? And I just

really regret that. I'm ashamed that I did that. And, and partly, it was age, partly was the world that I grew up in. So when you, when you look at me and you're like, yeah, of course, they're part of the means of control. I'm like, that's obvious to you, because you're 28, but I just didn't see it at all, at all. And I'm ashamed of that.

Isn't that what the media tries to do though? It's their only purpose. Right. They're not here to inform you really, even on the big things that really matter, like the economy and war and COVID and like things that really matter that will affect you. No, their job is not to inform you. They are working for the small group of people. They're actually running the world. They're

their servants, they're their Praetorian guard. And we should treat them with maximum contempt because they have earned it. That last lie, we should treat them with maximum contempt because they have earned it. I've said the same thing. You know, not only, you know, as I look at, you know, how do we bring to justice upon the crimes of Tony Fauci and Francis Collins and these people

that foisted a fraud upon him. And I think committed treason by blocking the investigation of gain of function started trying to, you know, evolve it. But behind all of that are these news networks that literally help them block it. Refused to ask the most obvious questions any journalist should have so they're complicit, you know, they're complicit. The propaganda's complicit. So every death and the blood of

those that have died should be on their hands. And with AI, if they don't cover AI appropriately, start demanding that people wake up to this but go along with them. Because that just happens to be running, who's running the commercial at the break and telling you what you can and cannot say. It's horrible. But it's dying, right? I mean, I think I think what we're here

to state is that this mainstream media and this propaganda machine is floundering and gasping for air. And I think instead of kicking it into the lake and letting it breathe, maybe we should just throw it in the cooler and grill it on the barbecue. And Carlson says something when someone said something, the only thing that should matter is is it true or not? That's something we've

really prided ourselves here at the high wire. You know, one of our, you know, Mato's is the truth as we find it. This is what we're going to report to you. And that that's what we've been doing. And I think that's what really matters. That's what people are really looking for is just this honest open debate at this point. And so, you know, to go further

into these headlines here, CNN, not immune from this either Don Lemon, popular anchor there. He's out. Don Lemon says he has been fired from CNN. So again, we'll hold off on the speculation. But that's what's going on. Maybe different. I don't really consider him a truth teller. But certainly it's a sign that that network is trying to find something people care about because they don't seem

to like their anchors at the moment. So I mean, absolutely. And remember, crashing and burning of the CNN plus they tried to do this subscription based thing and just pull that whole thing. But now we talk about a whole networks. Now we go beyond just the anchors Buzzfeed news, the headline Buzzfeed news, which dragged media into the digital age shuts down. They've been going since 2006.

So that's a big story. And our friends at Vice News, they announced they're going bankrupt. They've been around 20 13 or around 2013. And unfortunately, they are just not be able to pay the bills here. You know, particularly anti-vaxxers were a great word for them. They really love talking about the device of end of the wokeness conversation. Very biased in the reporting on medical freedom. And

they're going to be shutting their doors very soon. And just in honor of Vice News, let's go back and just check out some of them. They're the greatest hits of some of the articles. You might mention this. It's great friends of mine for some time now. They sure have. And if you do a search on their website, if you just type in the word anti-vaxxer, you

know that that that ignorant prejudice word that just has, you know, hidden suffering and neutralize people trying to tell their stories, you're going to see over 6,600 entries of the word anti-vaxxer they use. And they're using it not a nice way. And here's one of the headlines anti-vaxxers think it's time for political revenge. There's you, Dell. And it's not so much legal revenge, as you saw

with Aaron Seer, it's more of a reckoning. It's more of a squaring up of reality at this point. And they've been reporting on some of some of your goings on since about 2016 when you when you brought out Vax, the film cover up the catastrophe. Here's the headline here following outcry Robert De Niro Yanks anti-vaxxing film from Tribeca Film Festival. And remember at that time, no

one's seen the film. None of the reporters writing these had even seen the film because it hasn't even been screened yet. So they're just telling people not to see it. It's anti-vaxx film. And that was one of the big contentious points. I remember seeing you on an interview for the first time and going, who is this guy? And what is the stockumentary? Because this is electrifying.

And these people are hop and mad. And they haven't even seen the thing yet. So let me just say this to advice out there. You've been, you've had me in your crosshairs for a long time taking pot shots. Every time you've had the opportunity trying to bring this work down, we've grown. And thank you to all of you out there. They've shared our information. You recognize

the truth and you've made us a booming success. But to all of you out there, Vax, just know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I want. And then this one that did nage well right before the vaccine, the COVID vaccine was pushed out and the mandates started. Vice looked at their crystal ball and their infinite wisdom of journalistic integrity.

And they wrote this article headline anti-vaxxers are terrified. The government will enforce of vaccine for coronavirus. There's just being outrageous and conspiracy theorists. The government would never force this product on everybody without they're having a right to body autonomy. Yeah. That didn't age very well. And so let's move on. We have kind of the journalistic space, if you will, the media space, the new space. Now

we move on to something, you know, Daris A. Lamore sinister. So let's start with Joe Biden. He was at the 2023 White House correspondence association dinner. And he had some interesting things to say about the press. Take a listen. All right. Let me start it as serious. No. Jill, Kamala, Doug and I and members of our administration are hearing a sentence message to the country. And

quite frankly, to the world, the free press is a pillar, maybe the pillar of free society, not the enemy. Thomas Jefferson wrote. You all know this post Thomas Jefferson wrote were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government. I should not hesitate to prefer the latter. All right. Well, I'm in just such deep and profound words

from our president, United States. What's interesting and what struck me about that was he is talking about how important free press is, how important, you know, really the first amendment is. And you know, one of his digital leads at the White House, when they had an excess of vaccines, knowing what's taking these COVID vaccines, they had ordered them all, they paid for hundreds of million dollars,

they paid for this and the development of them. And no one was taking these. So there had a digital lead at the White House wrote this to Google who oversees YouTube. And it was about vaccine hesitancy. And he says this, as we move away from a supply problem, toward a demand problem, we remain concerned that YouTube is funneling people into hesitant and intensifying people's hesitancy. We

want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the high highest. And I mean highest levels of the White House. So we can see there that reporting on, you know, stories of vaccine injury, stories of maybe the vaccine not being effective, stories of natural immunity. This stuff

is all going to create vaccine hesitancy. And you had the highest. And I mean highest levels of the White House saying you can't do that. And so people may say, well, that's just one email. But thanks to Matt Taiyibi, journalist going through the Twitter files, giving us the back end of what he called the censorship industrial complex. We can go to this Twitter thread here. And

he shows the back end of this. And what he's looking at is the Verility Project. And that was something out of Stanford. We reported on that. It was like the seven month pilot program that was a plug-in for Twitter. And they use that as kind of their censorship dog whistle. These people, this Verility Project, would give them these weekly reports and say, this is misinformation. You

got to look at this. And so if you go to Matt Taiyibi's Twitter account, he has a Twitter thread of all this. You can read this. But you can see one of these internal emails. And it says, even true stories that cause vaccine hesitancy are, you know, thrown into this. They need to really be wrangled. They really need to be censored at this point. So we

see the word vaccine hesitancy. But behind the scenes, these things are being weaponized. And both Matt Taiyibi and American author Michael Schellenberger, who's been really out front blowing the whistle on how dangerous this stuff is. They did a congressional hearing and really gave all of their information out there. And Michael Schellenberger put a congressional report forward to 68 page report. You can read it. Use go

right to hear. You check that out. But it's a testimony to Congress. And it shows in great detail. You know, basically an effort by the US government intelligence and security agencies, the, you know, the health agencies to wage basically an information warfare against the American people. It's that serious. And so behind the scenes, you have this censorship industrial complex. That has been erected in the shadows.

But really out front now, we're seeing legislation, not just in the US, but around the world that is trying to curb speech in a lot of different ways. So here in the US, it's a lot of different flavors. We have the Restrict Act. This is going through legislation right now, going through the voting process. It's not yet law. But you go to Reason Magazine. And they

have a great write up on this. If you want to get to know about it, it says the Restrict Act would restrict a lot more than TikTok. So this, this came about because TikTok is a Chinese based app. And people are worried about the security risk that poses with data mining, surveillance, spying. But the problem is they wrap that kind of social popular problem into this

gigantic bill. And the bill has such broad open ended language that it, it, it, it's very concerning because it, it allows, it talks about foreign, basically foreign adversaries. And that's where the bill is aimed at. But the problem is, it allows the secretary. If you look at the bill, it's going to be a big problem. So it's going to be a lot of different ways to

I don't want to say like China, we know they're mining our information, their TikToks. But then ours certainly, you know, you want a government to step in and protect us. But it just seems like they let these things, you know, get, you know, way down the line. Then they try to scare the heck out of us through the propaganda as media, which is crumbling down around

them. And then say our solution is we're taking control of the internet for you. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on a second. That's what we were asking you to do. We didn't ask you to take over our lives and become some authoritarian dictator. We just said, why don't you make some rules for these companies? So they can't take all of our

data, but that's just not how this works. Right. They use this as a way to just grab even more power and control over our lives. And they don't want anonymity. So this, this bill has the potential to criminalize the use of VPNs as the virtual private networks that people use to disguise their identities online. And it's also has implications for cryptocurrency and Bitcoin transactions, because those

are anonymous as well. So it's so broad that all of this is baked in there. And so we're going to have a lot of people who are in the market and you know, the concern with TikTok and they could have just said, look, if there's sensitive government devices, you're not allowed to have TikTok on that. That could be, could they've been the bill. And they otherwise

would have left people alone to make their own choices. But that's not what's in here. So it's this broad sweeping thing. Americans really need to pay attention to this because it has bipartisan support. Really make your voice heard. And if they're going to pass this at least they can whittle this down to what it was supposed to be originally. But we've also over in the European

Union, we've reported on this over the last year is the European, the EU Digital Services Act, that's that's in effect now. It's affecting all the big tech companies across the EU and their services there. That just in an overview is is basically putting the onus on the big tech companies to police their speech on their platforms with huge, huge finds like 6% of their yearly revenue

finds to do this. So it obviously is going to lead to an over censorship because they don't want to get these fines. But one of the things that just happen is really been, it's been in the headlines here is a hate speech law that's going through legislation in Ireland. This is one of the headlines here. It says why we should be concerned about new hate crime

legislation. And let's take a look at this thing. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. This is called the incitement of violence or hatred and hate offenses bill 2022. So they're using the word hate hate crime. So we're seeing again a different angle here. Now it's not so much big tech. It's actually the language itself. The the the the context of the language. And in the

bill text it says this now talks about a person. If a person basically prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics. So it's it's up for interpretation. Obviously protect characteristics. I mean way too likely to is likely to incite based on who by based on some parent like persons

some overly sensitive person. I mean where does this stop if I you know discuss the issue of the issue we did this last week on the high wire saying look you know should we you know have this entire transgender and gender reassignment surgeries and things like that. The people that are pushing this for some people. That's not what we want. Our children to be educated on.

Does that mean I've called out the educators. Does that mean I'm I'm inciting by I mean who's the determined well you definitely pointed out a group and made people angry at them. It ends all news as we know it really it could. Absolutely could I especially on certain topics and the topics again it's open ended is broad we're talking the gender conversation sex religion disability raise

all of that yeah absolutely so we'll go back into the bill here and here's where it gets beyond scary. It says the person shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to have been in possession of the material in contravention of subsection one so that means they are presumed to have that material to use it for hate and to incite violence unless they can prove they

didn't so guilty until proven innocent. Written in black and white. Wow the jacked opposite. Yeah wow amazing yes and so this is where it gets to your point about reporting you know really just stifling if not killing reporting and news so we talked about how it's communicated a person shall be regarded as communicating material to the public or a section of the public of the person

displays publishes distribute or dissemn it's material shows or plays the material so forget about showing videos makes the material available in any other way including through the use of an information system to the public or the section of the public information system is anything that's Twitter that's Facebook that's your phone you send a message you send a meme a video to a group of people like

a telegram group that's an information system and so what are the penalties here not a couple dollars fine a couple hundred dollars here and there we're talking 12 months to five years in prison in prison and that's where it's going to be. I mean beyond hefty here and so Ireland has something to say about this in Ireland they have something called a consultation so they allow

a consultation of the public to get a voice on this this is kind of like when the FDA has a 30 day window for the public to make comments on a new regulation or a new law so this is what recently happened headline hate speech consultation receive mostly negative responses it says a total of 73% of respondents to the government's consultation 2627 individuals total did not

support the government's plan to ban hate speech many of them argue that the only way that speech should be you know restricted or whatever is through credible threats and incitement of violence through credible threats and there's already laws against that in Ireland in the US in the UK we already have laws in the books on that so going beyond that for kind of an interpretation of

this is is really dangerous and that's where we bring back in Michael Shell and he's been watching this he sees this and he wrote this article just recently a couple days ago world on cusp of woke totalitarianism as government government act and freedom of speech and he has this warning there has been no moment similar to this one in the roughly 30 years of widespread public

internet usage in Western societies officials have introduced these policies mostly in the dead of night with little publicity or outcry there has been a virtual blackout of what's happening by mainstream news media corporate corporations with many appearing to support the new laws as shown with the Twitter files the censorship industrial complex is as much about discrediting accurate facts true narratives and content creators who threaten its

power while boosting the ones that do and that is where we're at right now just like the AI conversation the free speech conversation is just as important right now we're sitting right in the middle of it. Absolutely really really important stuff and decides whether the high wire exists in the future and the work that we do you know if facts that speak out against an idea

you know are hurt your feelings or I mean we think about what our founding fathers said like you we're supposed to be able to say whatever we want about our government officials and the policies that they have tear them you know like discuss our problems with them if we lose that it's over it's just absolutely over we now live in you know communist China still be

at Union however you want to look at it and the whole world is looking at this now really terrible in a world of laws if those laws pass we wouldn't be able to do we're about to do right now so there's been two reactions from public health officials that have quarter back the pandemic response the last two or three years those two responses are you either

apologizing the public say we screwed up say we can do better let's look at what we did wrong and let's do better next time or you gaslight the public and say we're not going to do that. I mean I never did that Trudeau Fauci and now we have a new addition to that whole of shame Randy Wiengarten she is the head of the president I'm sorry

she's the president of the American's Federation of Teachers and she was in Congress recently take a listen. All right. I'm sorry Congressman Raskin I'm just we spent every day from February on trying to get schools open we knew that remote education wasn't not a substitute for opening schools but we also knew that people had to be safe and maybe it's because I live in New York

City I live near a hospital every other minute there was a ambulance there was terror our members were terrified others were terrified and what we were simply looking for was clear scientific guidance and when we couldn't get it we did it ourselves and we were worked with doctors and we worked with others. That's an Academy Award performance. It's amazing. Wow. So passionate and sensitive. Just open

your eyes next time. So Wiengarten actually bravely appeared I guess on CNN and there's a great interaction after that hearing she appeared check out this interaction. All right. We don't know each other but speaking on behalf of millions of American parents I have four at home I had to teach him at home my wife had to teach him at home I am stunned at what you

have said this week about your claiming to have wanted to reopen schools I think most you'll find that most parents believe you were the tip of the spear of school closures there are numerous statements you made over the summer of 20 scaring people to death about the possibility of opening schools and I hear no remorse whatsoever about the generational damage that's been done. I have two

kids with learning differences do you know how hard it is for them to learn at home and not in a classroom that was designed for them and for you to sit in front of Congress and the American people and say oh I wanted to open them the whole time I am shocked I'm stunned I'm stunned and there are millions of parents who feel the exact same

way. It's exactly he took the words out of my mouth when I saw this like you have got to be kidding me and you know it's again you know we've had videos running on these people the fact that they think they can get away with this absolutely and you notice why garden in the congressional hearing said ever since February so in February the CDC releases new

guidelines in February of 2021 to reopen the schools so she claims ever since February before February forget about it but let's listen to some of the clips of her after that CDC announcement let's see how hard she tried to get those schools open take a listen. All right. The CDC guidelines everyone is asking when and how are we getting our students our children back into those

classrooms full time full time is going to depend upon what's going on with physical distancing and and what's going on with the variance. Why not trust the CDC's guidance. We have to figure out in all these schools right now which have been set up for six feet physical distancing. How this is going to work. The CDC is really great news why not tomorrow I mean literally

why not tomorrow if 90% of your teachers are vaccinated if we know what we know now. Why not just go back to school in person tomorrow. Well frankly 97% of the schools are open for in person. Not five days a week. About 60% of them are. It's amazing when you see you know the news actually doing its job and you realize there you know the only

mistake that she made with the teachers you need. And she's not buying enough commercial time on mainstream media to have them fight for her point there and by the way they're all parents saying I can not spend another day trying to teach my child that's not what I'm designed to do. I'm trying to run a network here. You know what I mean. So why can't I

get my kids back to school especially the CDC just said it's time and after we've given billions of dollars to the school system in order to open up and she just sat on that and just kept playing this cat and mouse game. Just outrageous. I mean again one of those people that you just want to just sort of walk out on the plank right now. Right.

I had her walk out of the room when she's talking. And let's not forget you know her back and forth is one thing. But let's go back to May 2021 New York Post. Internal emails showed something very interesting during that school opening of the CDC. This was a headline back then powerful teachers union that's hers. Influenced CDC on school reopenings email show and it says in

there in at least two instances. Language suggestions offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document with the CDC preparing to write that schools could provide imperfect in person instruction regardless of community spread of the virus. Trautner this is Kelly Trautner senior director of health issues at AFT argued for the inclusion of a line reading quote in the event

of high community transmission results from a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 and up a new update of these guidelines may be necessary. So you see one guard to go out and say well we got to see what happens with these variants. Oh my gosh the Omicron variant super dangerous. So she was leveraging the literally the language that the AFT had added into the CDC guys that the

CDC allowed which is a whole another story. But let's go back to. And when we look back at it and we covered this a lot but just talk about the tail wagging the dog the fact that the the scientific body was answering to the teachers union and how the science would be handled across this country and in our schools. It's just embarrassing for everybody involved the

very least. Right right you know a highly lobbied group taking money from you know people you don't want to be writing these opening guidelines. So let's look at some of the just quick some of the headlines of wine gardener throughout the last couple of years. Here's her Twitter post actually we can hear directly from her words herself she says huge judge strikes down Florida's school reopening

order. She says unconstitutional to require brick and mortar classes this month judge requires safe school reopenings. Thank you. Then here's another one teachers union considers strike over school reopenings. Here's one before that CDC announcement 2021 reckless call as cruel teachers chief denounces Trump plan to reopen schools and the teachers did strike and here's the headline teachers unions test good well with strike threats hardball negotiations. But

you know what were the other countries doing because during one of those interviews at CNN. You know Europe you know Europe was doing a lot better than us and they they opened up and they had all the mitigation techniques and it was fine. Well remember Carl Lotterbach he was the health minister for Germany and recovered him because he admitted on air that the vaccines the code

of vaccines did hurt people and they they admitted that Germany didn't really have a robust system for finding vaccine injury. Those were some bombshell headlines a couple months ago. But now he's saying this about school closures headline we went too far the with COVID restrictions. says Germans pro lockdown minister he says some COVID restrictions were idiocy and lengthy school closures were an unnecessary mistake. Germany's lockdown

chief has admitted so there we have admissions atoning to what you did. And then let's not forget gaslighting. That's right. And let's not forget Sweden that never closed the schools. Unfortunately we're dealing with gaslighting officials here trying to do this to the public in Sweden they're seeing headlines like this Sweden children suffering no learning loss during pandemic new study shows no schools close can't have learning

loss no schools close so congratulations Sweden once again you did you did amazing job and the science shows it hopefully in the US here we'll get some people that are actually going to talk to the talk to the American people with honesty. I mean it's amazing if you just take all those stories together Jeffrey you have AI that's wanting to sort of sensor you know like

sort of control everything you have the technology sides wanting to sensor. Assuming as we've watched boss we've watched algorithms come in so now AI will be in control of our speech who is censored in who is censored out whose voices get heard and then you see sort of this inability to stand in the truth when it finally catches up to you. This is a perfect storm

we're in the middle of it and it's so important to work you're doing to sort of help us you know wake up the world really really important times. Great report. These are pivotal times for American people throughout the world and I hope everyone is not only paying attention but getting activated as well whatever that means in your lives and your communities it's time. Yeah by the

way it's for the people by the people that's this government if you don't like AI if you want this pause I would recommend that you call your senator your assembly members on both the federal and state levels and let them know I mean just call and say hey are you aware Elon Musk and the you know the leading Godfather of AI is warning us all of

just disaster outcomes I think we should listen to them want to know why my representative is aren't that's all you have to do it actually works you know you start flooding their phones and sending emails they listen they work for you. All right great Jeffrey great reporting I'll look forward to you know see you next week. Sounds good. All right well for those of you out

there we've been talking about you know you've been sponsoring and and donating and making all this possible well it happened this week May 1st we launch the informant our online news magazine many ways we take the highlights of what's shared here on the high wire some of you caught like drinking from a fire hose well it's laid out for those of you and many of you

like to read this stuff and and have friends that would prefer to read it then to see it in a video or sit down the informant is going to be so great for all of those things this is really a gift we're seeing as a gift right now to all of you that support our work so it's going to those of you that anybody that donates

doesn't matter how much you donate if you are donated to us recurring donor which we keep asking me a part of then you get this online news magazine and by the way it's going to you know we're getting rave reviews of everybody that received it this week and we want to hire new writers and expand there all that's made possible when you decide to sponsor and

support the work that we do again I just want to thank everyone out there that's made this possible you'll have a lot of fun with it and if you want to be getting the the newest and latest and breaking stories in this magazine all you have to do is become a recurring donor at the highwire or at the informed consent action network okay from the very

beginning in a lot of you now are watching the highwire based on what you just went through with COVID and your friends said hey you got to check out the highwire I'm not seeing anyone else talk about these things like showing us what the FDA actually wrote the emergency use authorization and revelations and you know Pfizer data where you're aware of this or the V-save data

like this show I'm watching is even you know suing and winning lawsuits and I want to thank all of you that help spread the word but there's many of you out there that have heard is it there's something about vaccines and autism and issues like that well we have covered them and but that's really where I started I left CBS and my work on the doctors

television show to sort of dive into an investigation which ended up being this documentary vaxed about a whistleblower inside the CDC that gave us 10,000 documents proving they were committing scientific fraud when it come to discussions of causes in the prevalence of autism well they keep telling us well it's not really growing we're just reporting it better that is becoming a really old story and it

is starting to sound really horrifying because it keeps accelerating it keeps going like this and you've been watching it just recently in the morning and certainly finding about autism uptick in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in the U.S. new data from the CDC that shows more children than ever are being diagnosed with autism. Growing number of children are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in

the United States. The new study from the American Academy of Pediatrics has found that the rates of diagnosed autism and children has tripled over the past 16 years. What the CDC now finding in terms of how common an autism diagnosis is in 2021 and 36 children overall how has that changed in just two years from 2018 it was one in 44. The CDC is reporting as

well that an estimated 5.5 million of American adults having diagnosed with autism. Nearly 3% of 8 year olds were diagnosed in 2020. Compared to 2.3% in 2021. More than 1% of girls overall have autism predominantly it's been found in boys and certain minority groups reporting more cases of the disorder than ever before. Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder dramatically increased in black, Hispanic and Asian communities those

rates are up by 30%. Where are we on the question of what's causing autism? The reality is we just don't know yet we don't know what causes autism. That's so scary that after all this time and is prevalent is it seems to be that we still don't know. That's an amazing line it's so scary that with as long as we've been discussing this and as fast

as this skyrocketing we just don't know. Kind of makes you think that maybe they just don't want to know. But look this conversation today we've had a lot of conversations about the cause of autism but the conversation that we're about to have is really forget about causing it we know it's happening it's being reported everywhere what is the cost of our society what is what is

going to be the damage done. What will happen to our healthcare system this is the study that we're going to be discussing here. Autism tsunami the impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the United States. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by two of the authors right now Mark Blacksle and Cindy Nevesen and of course Toby Rogers who is also

the third author on this who we've had on this show couldn't make it today but I want to thank you for joining me. It's great to be here though. So you and I go way back in fact I'll be honest when I had first watched Vax in the form that was in before I got involved. I remember saying to Andy Wakefield you know Andy this sounds

like a lot like your just a lot of your voice and perspective and we've got this whistleblower are there other professionals and people out there that have similar thoughts on this. Oh yeah and one of the first interviews I ever did was you I was turned on to you and you you know had some brilliant statements that ended up being in Vax so I've stood on

stage with you. You've been deep in this for a very long time but what about this study? What made you decide you want to sort of tackle this study in particular? Well I'm a dad first and foremost and I have a 27 year old daughter with autism and I worry what her future will be and and I'm afraid for our country and for all the families

that have children with autism. We've seen an epidemic. Before 1930 the rate of autism in the world was effectively zero then for a long time it was really rare one in 10,000. Around 1990 it started ticking up and ever since then it's gone vertical. The rates are still going up and we don't know when they will plateau. And what that means is there's a generation of

kids that are now entering adulthood and they're going to live a long life and at some point their parents will die and what will happen to them? Who's going to take care of them? How will they be? How is it housed? What will they do? What services will be? And we'll we keep flooding the world with new children with autism so that what used to be

a really rare phenomenon now becomes 5, 10, 15, 20 million Americans. We're not prepared for that and I'm afraid about that and so what we wanted to do in this paper was shine a spotlight on the societal impact of the costs of this epidemic. Cindy this is a space you know you are environmental allow you to do a lot of you know studies reports on the

environment how it's affecting human beings. So this is similar to that but you've also done a lot of work in the autism the two of you written papers together. What was unique about what you were approaching in this particular study versus other studies that we've you've been looking at prevalence but what was it here that you were really trying to isolate? Well I mean the difference

between our study on the cost of autism and previous studies is that we took actual data of autism time trends we projected it into the future and convolved that with population projections. So we rather than assuming that autism has always been 1% going back to older people today. We looked at the actual rates and so we're able to do a more realistic age stratified projection of

how things would evolve into the future. Let's take a look at just if we look at this study. Again here's the headline on autism tsunami the impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the United States. We just pulled this excerpt it's just sort of gives you a sense of what this paper is about of course you'll all get to read this if

you're signed up to our newsletter but our model projects a total population wide autism spectrum disorder cost in the US of 5.5 for trillion dollars per year by 2060 accounting for inflation with potential savings of 1.9 trillion per year with pursuit of ASD prevention so it could be lowered we believe these projections work against the temptation to normalize recent trends in autism spectrum disorder prevalence rather

they reinforce the need to address rising autism prevalence as more than just an urgent public health concern but also as a policy question with respect to where resources will come from and how to mitigate and prevent the worst case scenarios. 5.5% trillion dollars per year. Now I know there's a lot of people that just can't think out as far as 2016 but it's literally around the

corner. Many people live right now watching this will be living at that time and I just think about we're having so many discussions right now about our finance. We're about to you know go into a debt ceiling crisis once again and 5 trillion is a massive number the interest alone on that and to think that that is just for one group of people suffering with one

specific health issue I want to say I mean is that how did you come to that number like how do we get there? It's simple arithmetic you take Cindy you know we developed these population projections you do you do the rate the data on the rates today you project that forward we made conservative assumptions about projecting it folks yep you take those rates you multiply them

by population projections and say how many people are going to have autism and then you do we did and there's a literature on the cost of autism by individual at different stages in the lifespan so we have it for children for working it. I mean there's a lot of people who are going to have a lot of issues with autism and things but for a parent

and there's many if we look at just that that sort of news montage we're talking you know one in 44 one in 36 it keeps going higher and higher when we look at just boys we are starting to crest you know under one in 20 boys being diagnosed which means there are people watching the show that just heard about that just heard that their child got

this diagnosis what are the types of costs to a family I mean you've done fairly well in life but it's expensive there are parents that get yeah just devastated by this well the cost vary through the lifespan when the children are young the biggest costs are special education which cripples you know something like 25 30% of special school budgets are on special education it's education it's

lost parental productivity the parents you know it's tough to take care of a child with autism often the mother is removed from the workforce it takes the toll on the father's career so lost parental productivity is a huge number and medical cost causes divorce to look at that to me so many times it's just so difficult the families on the fabric yeah and then over time

you know the person with autism ages and when they are an adult in the working age period of life it's lost productivity of the individual so what they would have made is what they would have made in the work for employment rates among even mild adults with autism are very low most of these people are dependent on support so they have to have something to do

during the day you have programming you have residential issues particularly when their parents are gone and medical costs as well so those costs and autistic the the lifespan of people with autism there are higher death rates usually from accidental death drowning or things like that but basically these are people that live along in full life and so someone's going to you know they're going to be

elderly at some point and how do we deal with elderly people with autism all of that those are the costs which I mean when I mean we will get into it in a minute but when I think about this and people in this argument that the prevalence has always been the same it's always one percent as you said every instance well it's always been here I've

always said where are the you know giant temples and housing for the elderly that are suffering from autism should be there be cities of them at this point at the prevalence we're talking about if everyone in you know 36 humans on this planet has had autism the whole time they're you know it's just it's a ridiculous statement but you know I want to ask you because

on you know when I made Vax there's obviously different referring opinions on how you you know stratify or figure out these numbers remember Stephanie Senniff was this MIT scientist we brought on on on on you know when we're looking in Vax and I said I'll never forget asking the question it's like well certainly it's going to plateau at certain points and whether it's vaccines or glyphosate

she's really big on these other environmental issues I mean there's only so much that we're increasing those things at some point plateaus and she made this dramatic statement no I think it's going to get worse and predicted you know one in two children by you know I think it's 20 32 or so you know somewhere in there but is that is that sort do you come

to those numbers by sort of using this that is just if we just map it out it goes that is we're much more conservative than Stephanie okay we you can see the curve you showed the curve it's an S curve we flatten it out we have not seen a plateau yet we still see those dark dots yes those are going on this straight up straight up

and that support Stephanie's argument but our model they are going to be basically we flattened it out we didn't ask her at some point those increases have to stop and that's how we built our scenario and so go ahead what I'm looking you have a red line there was that red line represent I just wanted to point out that the symbols on the graph are actual

data from the black dots that we see going up that is what we know the protection that is what is the reality reality while adding the points that we do know about this is what's happened with again that is why our model was was different because we took the actual age stratified structure of the rate of autism and we're projecting it we're still kind of in

the exponential growth phase but our our choice was to model it as a as a growth that does level off at a certain level right sort of a logistic function and we had different scenarios the red line is the base case okay where we did you know it's a logistic curve yeah yeah it's not exponential it's logistic it's definitely argues for exponential increase and that's what

it looks like today but we said no it's a logistic curve there's a lower line the blue line yeah it's our low case and that was a conservative estimate that allowed for the fact that when we changed over from the DSM 4 to DSM 5 that maybe California became more lenient on who they allowed into their program so the DSM what is the DSM when we

talk about that diagnostic and statistical manual okay where the diagnostic criteria for autism reside okay so this is where they sort of lay out all the different types of addition like one two three four okay all right we're on number five but I wanted to I wanted to mention that we already I have we Mark and I have recent data from San Diego California DDS you're

this study is done on data out of California is that we already know that that low that low case is not realistic and that we're making assumptions that the California data represent only half or less of the total autism cases and that there there's a whole other additional set of milder cases and we were with the low curve we were allowing for the fact well that

maybe the California data includes everything now and that's why there's no numbers are increasing so sharply but we we have evidence now so you mean so I mean this is what's amazing about this is you're not just being you know incredibly dramatic you are literally you put in a line this as it could be here even though the actual numbers are skyrocketing above this yeah but

let's just show the whole spectrum of what could possibly happen and even the blue line is horrifying it's really high the the financial you know it's out of 3% which is right in 36 yeah yeah so because we take we take each of these numbers this is for severe autism yeah these cases that's the California data there's a scalar effect to to include the milder cases

and we multiply by two basically you got a couple other graphs let's take a look at from this paper is that really right here you're we look at how this is how you broke it down basically in the data that it's is coming in yeah when that goes into graph form this is really shocking to look at this next bar graph so this is how this

trend has changed we look at 2016 even which isn't really that long ago but what is the blue the blue is the blue is the children's children zero to 21 and so then obviously as those children grow up then they enter this red group which ends up being the adults and then the green ends up being elderly and as you're pointing out here we really don't

even have any elderly yet some very few but very feel like they they don't really make and we don't even have many adults right and this is one thing in the little montage in the beginning part of the talking point is oh we have 5.5 million adults with autism no we don't show show them to us yeah where where are they where are they housed where

are you know what services are being provided there is no resource being directed to elderly people right or adults with autism in 2060 more than half of the population will be adults and most of their parents will be gone right so that's the crisis that's the impact of the tsunami and if we don't do so if we actually you know put our fingers in our ears

and say it's not happening we won't even begin to address that let's talk about it for a second let me just bring out because if you've written some great books folks if you haven't you know this one especially is such an easy read it makes perfect sense if you have someone that's telling you look it's just because they're diagnosing it better this book denial gets into

that argument and beats that hell out of it very easily and I use the reference there which is essentially when we look at all the great Diagnestitians of the world you know throughout time Tourette and all this and you write about this right they went into Santa's Islands they have a lot they could do but let's go to the in Santa's Island right up everything we

can see we've been looking at people with negative mental health outcomes for centuries it's not as though we yeah we don't just started at this started at this Leo Conner when he when he wrote about autism said I have seen for the first time a group of children whose condition is so different from anyone we've ever seen before that I'm going to write about him yeah

he has what was 11 11 kids they were all born in the night and again you know and now what's amazing is these people are fascinated by it scientists and psychologists fly from around the world into see these very interesting this new thing that's popped up in his 11 kids Leo Conner wrote a textbook in 1935 it was the doctor's Spock book of his generation called

Child Psychiatry the first textbook on child psychiatry in 19 third nothing about autism while other diseases are disorders of childhood but nothing about autism and then in 1938 he saw his first kid that the parents took their child with who was clearly autistic all the way up from forest Mississippi to meet the great Leo Conner and Johns Hopkins University and there we had the origin of

autism. So that said brings me to really sort of the fate of this paper you got it peer reviewed you got it published and now recently we have an email that says let's just take a look this email is what you received that it's being retracted this is forget who the person is that wrote this Jennifer Hadley Jennifer Hadley sent you this later basically we are

retracting your paper and you've of course written back rebutted this you and Toby the three of you got together and really laid out your perspective on this but what's their argument what is it you know why did they tell you they're retracting this paper no good reason to be honest representative data yes it's very vague we've been fighting this for close to two years now okay

because some concerns got raised and we addressed every single concern but it's been a very opaque and untransparent process we don't know there somebody complained the club I think kind of coalesced they sort of said how did you let this paper get out we don't know we're speculating yeah but we've gotten very scant evidence the journal first said we're going to retract it we we want

to peer review it again and they put it how did it go through peer review the first time I mean you know you peer review you've got people they read it they look at your data this is what they do they approved it right yeah normal peer review process the journal Cindy and I both dealt with Chad previously published numerous things there and they've been very

good to work with yeah and and the first time we went through peer review it's sailed through peer review it's actually built on some of our prior work but the one reviewer said simply excellent two words and the other said you guys are understanding your contribution to the field so it it and it it sailed through what's amazing about this is because I know look I've

watched this we we ever I've watched scientists and people like yourself you have learned to just let me just avoid the touchy part of this conversation let's at least speak to the part that's affecting all of our lives and it just this seems like such an innocuous study that just to get it out like like this is just let's just talk numbers because you're all admitting

at least that this thing the numbers are higher and higher and going up yeah can we talk costs so we would have seemed and that's why unlike other studies it might have looked at it's not a cause studies just saying numbers that's right but ultimately it's this prevalence idea it's what we're talking about that that they want to still live in this dream world of it's

all just been happening all this time all the way back to Egypt we've got you know yeah entire temples filled with autistic adults we just didn't know about it I mean it makes absolutely sense that was that that was the criticism that they two of the five reasons they're just using to justify the retraction are that prevalence hasn't actually changed and we haven't considered that the

diagnostic criteria have changed that means literally the same it's just the same argument keeps coming around Mark I mean just just to give it a sense of this you've been at this for quite some time all the way back you know the congressional hearing in 2012 2012 folks this is Mark Blackswell speaking in a congressional committee we grabbed an excerpt from this because it really comes

down to the big problem and we've talked about it even earlier in this show what happens when your government is forcing a product on everybody and maybe it has a problem you think that there may be some intervening or you know controlling censorship of the overall discussion look how well this ages I'm sure Mark is proud of this moment I know we are this was 2012

congressional hearing for a long time we had low rates in America about one two one in 10 thousand then around 1990 something new and terrible happened to a generation of children autism rates didn't just rise they multiplied this escalation covered both full syndrome autism and the broader autism spectrum including Asperger's some people claim this isn't real that we're just doing better diagnosing that's just wrong if

you read the old literature the old surveys they look for everybody and they couldn't find people they didn't miss 99% of the children with autism it's not hard to find a child with autism it's obvious when they're autistic the notion that we're just doing better diagnosing even in the CDC studies they're using the same methodology so when you see those numbers rising that's not because the

methods are changing it's because there are more cases in the midst of this crisis the federal agencies responsible for the health of our children have failed in their duty CDC's negligence has led the way many of us believe CDC is actively covered up evidence surrounding autism's environmental causes and IH meanwhile has received the lion's share of funding money they've wasted on status quo research and gene

studies it's a absurd to focus on genetic research in this crisis there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic I'll just say that in the financial world the result of pressure to manipulate numbers to provide the answers that bosses want has a name it's called securities fraud in medicine they're similar pressures they're called special interest politics and even peer review and what CDC has given us

is the medical equivalent of securities fraud all to avoid the inconvenient reality of the autism epidemic it's it's looked like you're back yeah it's it's raised you a little bit has it be too on it's great and I haven't been added as long as you or in you obviously are directly involved you have a daughter that is in this space but you know to to come

you know all this way and still be up against this same censorship and control how you know honestly what keeps you going in this I mean you're I first of all it's just right it's the right thing to do it's a big problem who's gonna do it who's gonna take it on and secondly on you know probably more importantly I worry about my my daughter you

know who's gonna take care of her one thing that struck me in that is is the people that went after us on the censorship front the the retractable action impetus came from a blog post written by the it's called the spectrum news it's sponsored by the Simon's Foundation which is one of the biggest funders of genetic research in in the country in the world so the

ones that are getting funded to all the studies I'm proving that autism is genetic which they have been trying to do forever for ever and for funnily funded by you know Simon's in uh all Jim Simon's Jim's time and then also I know that autism speaks which is the biggest hot you know the most funded autism nonprofit yeah and they have stipulated they will never look

at vaccines they're in this genetic space and so all the funding's going there and I can we replay I want to replay just the last little line in this news part that I think really says it all can we replay that really quickly? Where are we on the question of what's causing autism? The reality is we just don't know yet we don't know what causes autism.

That's so scary that after all this time and as prevalent as it seems to be that we still don't know. I mean that this is where we're at they literally and based on Vax with the movie I made the last study ever funded looking at any connection between the vaccines and autism the last study ever funded by the United States of America was finished in 2004

it's a fraudulent you know study how they handled it was fraudulent and that's what the movie is all about and so when I hear doctors say well we've looked that you have it. In fact it's the only thing that's been taken off the table and everything else you put in there has never fit has it gotten us anywhere and so we're literally like driving racing down

a highway with blindfolds on purpose and now you try to do a study saying well while we're racing it's going to cost us a fortune and now they'll even censor that I want to bring up I interviewed Neil deGrasse Tyson just a few weeks ago and he made a statement about the scientific method. I said the scientific method is dying right before our eyes but to

get into that let's just say what he said. The scientific method is do whatever it takes to to not be fooled that something is true that is not or that something is not true that is did I say that right. I get what you say. Do it everything does it mean get a chart recorder. Get a get a friend to verify. Unauthored in any way possible

any way possible. Yes. Okay. I don't care what it is. Yep. You don't want to be fooled into thinking something is true that isn't or something is not true that is. I mean yeah. Go ahead. So the censorship in impetus came from part of the argument was undeclared non-financial conflicts of interest. It was ad hominin ad hominem mostly to me okay. For my ideological commitments that

was the thing that I don't have an ideological commitment to a cause. All we care about is if those numbers are doing what they do. What they are reported to do is what can we do to stop it. That was a thing they beat us up about is our prevention scenario. So that was some hidden agenda. I don't have a dog in the fight about what

the environmental cause is. But we need to find it out. And we need to beat up the people that say oh we just don't know. Of course we need to know. Why don't we want to find out? Why do we want 3% 6% 10% of American children to beat us up? We need to be disabled by autism to leave the workforce to be uncared for in

their old age. Of course we need to know. Of course we need to stop it. That's not an ideological commitment. That's just a search for the truth. Yeah. And that's what and shout out to Toby Rogers who looked online in Jad because they have some line in there. But undeclared non-financial conflict of interest. Toby went through every one of the open access articles. There was not

a single one of them. That declared that used where anyone in there an author declared a non-financial conflict of interest. They just made that up. To take down an inconvenient order. And I want to just talk about, because in this and only we talk a lot about it, I need people to really understand this. The entire process of a medical journal or a science journal. And

the scientific method and how it's supposed to be handled there is you have put forward a hypothesis if you will using the data as we know it, arguably projecting into different ways that could project out even lower lines and where we're actually at right now. You cover the game. It seems to be a savings you could possibly be. You don't just get dramatic on the highest

number we could possibly find. So there should be no issue there. But the scientific method, the way this is supposed to work is my understanding is it used to be that any dissenting voice doesn't matter if they're all fully funded to be looking for the genetic reason behind autism. I've never been able to achieve it. But that's who wants to be a dissent. They write the

dissent and that is supposed to be attached to your paper. Stuck there like tattooed on you for life saying, this has been our argument against this theory. And then you get to rebut it and say, well here's our science and here's where it's at. And that is tagged on. And this begins this foundational principle of the science around this conversation. And this is what is so

terrifying is that they are not sticking to scientific method in the process of peer review and this interaction and science, they're erasing it, which means 10 years from now, 20 years from now, when we try to look back at what we knew and what we didn't know and find our bearings and where we're at, certainly someone will say, well, Cindy and Mark were accurate or they

missed it by this much. Here's why they got it wrong. And the dissenting voice was right or the, you know, or it was wrong. Right a letter to the editor. Right, right. Publish it. Put your name on it. Right. Not a single person who influenced Springer and Jad's decision is named. We don't know who they are. Right. You know, the cowards. Cowards. Yeah. And we should,

I should tell a story of Mark. Mark was involved in a very similar situation in 2002 with this very same journal where somebody had published a paper that falsely said that autism was increasing because of diagnostic substitution for intellectual disability. Mark wrote a letter to the journal laid out his facts for everyone to review. That was published along with the original article. The original authors were

forced to concede that he was right to their credit. To their credit. They did. They went and looked at the data again and discovered that it was a group of us. Right. But it all played out in public space where everyone could review the data. Yeah. So, people understand this. So, I understand that just, and I don't want to get in the weeds there. But basically,

this is argument that, well, they used to be called retarded. Now they're just being called out to, they're doing a better job of saying what it was. It was at the basic argument. Diagnostic substitution is one of the, right? Right. Right. Right. But gay people. instance that we had some question issues being someone that's, you know, a play, a play or a score of inquiry put

senator ability has been pretty steady through time autism rates have gone up their issues about co-occurrence but the argument and Cindy and I have written on this together is that the arguments for diagnostic substitution don't work. My point was just that was sort of, that was the right process. The right process? The do process way to handle it to give, to let everyone view the data

and judge for themselves and let the scientific discussion play out. In our case, we're just shut down by anonymous critics. I think too, you know, our founding fathers, one of the brilliant things that happened is John Adams and Thomas Jefferson basically make this agreement with each other that we have had massive disagreements on decisions that have been made in this country where it's going to lead

but we should start writing letters back and forth to each other as, you know, the historical reference so that people will know what we're arguing about and be able to define, you know, the foundation of how we move forward, where we went wrong, that is exactly how these studies was be done and, you know, I can't tell you almost everyone that sits in these seats, that

I bring in here, that I've done brilliant work, we are watching censorship of science and this, you know, interaction at a level that is unprecedented. I mean, it was bad years ago when you were before the Congress, I think we're at now, it is way worse. They're basically locking down and the autism problem is too big to handle. I don't think anybody can get their minds

around five trillion. I mean, it's just like a small amount of money and dollars a year and they just want to, you know, ignore it and I hope that they'll be gone and not in charge of dealing with it when the problems really get critical. And they will become critical. Well, if there isn't, show us. Show us what we did wrong. Right. Yeah. Well, we asked

for the same thing when Vax got kicked out of Tribeca. If there's, they said, well, there's some doctors in science to disagree, what do they disagree about? Yeah. And we should have the right to defend this film and where our information came from and then if we don't stand up, fine, but we're not going to tell you and that's where we live. I just hope that

we don't lose the commitment from people like you that are fighting this constantly uphill battle dragging. You're already boat anchor. You can imagine behind you the odd stacked against you, but literally what you are showing us in this study is you may think this is in a part of your life, but you're going to be paying for it. And where do you think that money is

going to come from? So it's, yeah, well, you guys are doing great work too. So give, give the I can. All right. And by the way, everyone, this is a super easy, great book. And this is a fascinating book. Just sort of based on a ride through. And all the places that it was in society and sort of looking at stories that maybe you would see

differently. If you realize how close in contact, some of those historical figures were to Mercury and did. Mercury was the standard of care for centuries. It's. And they've created a lot of people and it's crazy to think about what happened. Well, I want to thank you for taking the time to come in and join us today. Really great work and we'll keep celebrating it. Keep up

the great work. Appreciate that. You know, there's a lot that can we can be frustrated about. This autism conversation, has just had one horror and nightmare scenario after another, things being shut down. But there's been a massive really breakthrough, something that is so game changing. You know, it's brought tears to our eyes multiple times on this show. And that is this new concept of communication, spelling

to communicate. And once again, this is one of those things that is really finally working for people and the establishment wants to shut it down sensor and say it's not working. But it's winning festivals. This is a documentary. We're going to just show you the trailer because tomorrow we're going to be doing a live interactive screening on the high wire for everyone that wants to watch

it and get to ask some questions of those in the center of it. But let's just take a look at for those of you maybe hearing about it for the first time. This is Spellers. There's never any doubt in my mind when someone walks into my room that they can and will spell for me that they can and do want to learn. I'm going to teach

you how to do something new, totally new, which may feel a little bit weird at first. Autism can take you as a parent to a really dark place. The future is really, really scary. We had no real reliable form of communication. We had to just basically guess for 20 years. I lost hope that I would ever be enough for them. Parents' foods are being trying to

live visual thinking, no. I mean, what's anybody going to gain by this? We should be research, academic literature, focus strictly specifically on this area to help promote it. We should have all been presuming competence in our kids and we should have been encouraging them, telling them we knew that they were in there. It's time to shift that whole paradigm. There are 31 million non-speakers with autism

in the world who are locked in a silent cage. My life will be dedicated to relieving them from suffering and silence. And to giving them voices to choose their own way. Should schools choose to really work with students, strong suit, logistics will become them or as innovative as their leaders. The average autistic child can read and team at the per-age for. But can then show it.

Imagine the difference we can make in the world of taught how we learn. We have a time opportunity tomorrow, live at 4 p.m. Central time. We will be screening Spellers on the Highwire. Right here at thehighwire.com. We will have an in-studio audience. Several of the stars of this incredible story will be here. Able to answer questions. So we'll be taking your questions throughout the screening online.

We'll be taking questions from our live studio audience. But folks, I don't know if you ever saw the movie Awakening's. This movie, Robert DeNiro. I'm back in the day about, you know, these people that sort of came out of this sort of catatonic state. This is nothing short of that miracle. I just so many countless families that I have worked directly with over the years that

thought that their child was mentally handicapped on some level. Maybe had a second or third degree comprehension ability. Now through this new form of communication, they are able to finally speak and let them know. Let us know they have always been in there and their intelligence level is not only perhaps normal, but in many cases appears to be off the charts. You know, we've talked to

Jamie Hanley who is in a calculus class just I think two years now since finally being able to speak for the first time. Cade is another one, you know, they're going to university. They're getting involved in politics. And really, truly, one of the great living miracles that you can witness before your eyes and this documentary captures that beautifully. So tomorrow, live 4 p.m. Central, that means

two o'clock on the west coast and five o'clock on the east coast. We will be live screening spellers and then having a live Q&A. I'm going to host that Q&A afterwards. And we'll keep it on our website for those of you that aren't able to catch it right at that time. We will keep it on our website throughout the weekend. But this is just all our

way to try to do it. We're trying to help promote. They want screenings all across this country and around the world. If you know anybody that has a child that's dealing with autism, especially in this sort of nonverbal space, this is a story that you should really just grab them and say, hey, come over and watch this movie with me. You literally could change somebody's life.

That's what we try to do here at the high wire. We are trying to make our lives better for all of us. We're not allowing some group of people to be overlooked. Great. The vaccine program works for most of us. So who cares about those that are being injured? All throughout this discussion today, whether it's seen at 19 and those trying to talk about the injuries

that have happened from the COVID vaccine. We're trying to stop the censorship that is going to affect your life. The AI is going to destroy the world as we know it. Nobody else is bringing you this information the way we are. We're not afraid. And yes, I have no problem standing up for a study, a paper that's about to be retracted. They say, well, don't present

it. You know, retracted study. That's right. I do. Because I no longer trust these systems that are retracting and censoring. And until you finally do figure out a way to arrest me and drag me off for telling you the truth, we will be here. And I promise you, we'll be here tomorrow with Spellers. And we will be here. Next week on The High Wire.