An Inconvenient Podcast: Del Bigtree on DarkHorse

Bret Weinstein speaks with Del Bigtree on the subject of medical freedom. Del Bigtree is the executive producer behind the new documentary An Inconvenient Study, which covers a study that compares the health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. 

Watch An Inconvenient Study for free https://aninconvenientstudy.com

Find Del Bigtree at https://x.com/delbigtree and https://thehighwire.com

*****

Sponsors:

CrowdHealth: Pay for healthcare with crowdfunding instead of insurance. It’s way better. Use code DarkHorse at JoinCrowdHealth.com to get 1st 3 months for $99/month.

Puori: Amazingly clean and safe supplements and protein powders, lab tested and guaranteed. Go to Puori.com/DarkHorse for 32% off grass-fed whey protein with a subscription. DarkHorse code works on all products!

Branch Basics: Excellent, effective, simple, truly non-toxic cleaning supplies. Get 15% off with code DarkHorse at https://branchbasics.com.

*****

Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com

Check out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://www.darkhorsestore.org

Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.

*****

Mentioned in this episode:

Unsafe at Any Speed: Dr. Toby Rogers on DarkHorse https://youtu.be/QQfIo75KHII

Toby Roger’s doctoral thesis, The Political Economy of Autism for links to studies mentioned https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/20198/Rogers_T_thesis.pdf

Chapters

• 0:00 Del Bigtree in Studio
• 1:13 Sponsor: CrowdHealth
• 3:44 Sponsor: Puori
• 6:26 An Inconvenient Study
• 11:00 How This Began
• 13:44 Del Bigtree’s Vaccine Origins
• 20:53 Sponsor: Branch Basics
• 23:03 Vaccines Safety: Who Bears the Burden?
• 31:57 Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed Data
• 37:00 The Tragedy Behind the Film
• 44:44 Trust in Vaccines Is Broken
• 53:14 When Medicine Stops Serving Patients
• 57:30 Journalists Must Ask Hard Questions
• 1:05:09 Science Becomes a Religion
• 1:12:58 Medical Freedom as a Calling
• 1:14:20 Reaching People on Vaccines Topic
• 1:24:52 The Public Upgrades That Need to Happen
• 1:28:42 Parents of the Unvaccinated
• 1:36:59 The “Greater Good” Argument
• 1:36:59 Gain-of-Function Research Must End
• 1:42:13 Complex vs Complicated Systems
• 1:44:00 Del on MAHA 2026
• 2:01:52 Watch the Film (Free!)

Transcript

0:00

Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse podcast Inside Rail. I have the honor and pleasure of sitting with my friend in studio today. This is Del Bigtree. You all know him from hosting The HighWire. He's also the CEO of The Informed Consent Action Network. He has a film out recently called An Inconvenient Study. Is that correct? It's an excellent, excellent film. Send it to all your vaccine, true believing friends. It will cause them to lose sleep in a good way and maybe they will wake up from it. Anyway, welcome to DarkHorse. It's great to be here. It's really an honor. This is a bucket list moment actually. I've been appreciating your work and your podcast and you know, you've been on my show several times, but it means a lot. Well, I'm really glad you're here and I'm especially glad that you made the trip. It's obviously super inconvenient to get to us here. And anyway, it's great to have you in studio. There are always better discussions when they're in person. I agree. Our first sponsor this week is CrowdHealth. CrowdHealth isn't health insurance. It's better. Health insurance in the United States is a mess to put it mildly from overpriced premiums to confusing fine print, endless paperwork, claims that don't get paid customer service that's unhelpful and hostile. These complicated systems aren't functional and they wear us down. We used to contend with this madness, but not anymore. There's a better way. You can stop playing the rigged insurance game. You can use CrowdHealth instead. CrowdHealth is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly. No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense. With CrowdHealth, you get health care for under a hundred dollars a month for your first three months, including access to a team of health bill negotiators, low cost prescription and lab testing tools, and a database of low cost, high quality doctors vetted by CrowdHealth. And if something major happens, you pay the first $500, then the crowd steps in to help fund the rest. It feels like the options we used to have before Obamacare messed everything up. After we left our salary jobs as college professors, we spent years buying health insurance in the marketplace. It was awful. Our family of four had health insurance for emergencies only, and we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that was unresponsive and unhelpful. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever. Heather went looking for alternatives and she found CrowdHealth. We have now had two sets of great experiences with CrowdHealth. Our younger son Toby broke his foot in the summer of 2024 and Heather slipped on wet concrete and split open her scalp a year later. Both times, we went to the ER and got good but expensive treatment from the medical staff. In both cases, CrowdHealth paid our bills with no hassle. Their app was simple and straightforward to use and the real people who work at CrowdHealth were easy to reach, clear and communicative. With CrowdHealth, you pay for little stuff out of pocket. But for any event that costs more than$500, a diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy, or an accident, you pay the first 500 and they pay the rest. Seriously, it's easy, affordable, and so much better than health insurance. We can still hardly believe it. The health insurance system is hoping you'll stay stuck in their same overpriced, overcomplicated mess. Don't do it. This year, take your power back. Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months using the code darkhorse at joincrowdhealth.com. That's joincrowdhealth.com code darkhorse. Remember, CrowdHealth is not insurance. Opt out, take your power back. This is how we win. Join CrowdHealth.com. Our second sponsor for this episode is brand new to us. It's Puori. Puori makes a wide array of supplements and powders from vitamin C, magnesium, and B complex to creatine, collagen, and protein powders. What makes Puori different is how clean and pure all of their products are. All of them. Puori was founded in 2009 by two men who wanted to create the cleanest, purest products to support their own active lifestyles. Since then, their product portfolio has grown to address common nutritional deficiencies and developed world, and they have never compromised on quality. From the fundamental understanding that health requires good diet, physical activity, recovery, and balance. The founders of Puori reject quick fixes and have insisted on the most stringent Puority testing on all of their products from the very beginning. We're using Puori's magnesium, which is excellent. Like all of Puori's products, their magnesium complex is third party tested and certified by the clean label project against over 200 contaminants. And at any time, you can scan the QR code on your bottle for the test results for your particular batch. Heather's mom is expecting her first shipment of multivitamins and fish oil from Puori any day and is excited to finally have products that she knows are safe and contain exactly what they say. Nothing more and nothing less. And our son Toby has been making protein enriched smoothies for a couple of years, but has had a hard time finding a protein powder that he liked. Most of them are strongly flavored and gritty, but he wanted one that would disappear into his shake, letting other flavors shine. Now at 19, he's found his protein powder. Puori's grass fed whey protein powder, bourbon vanilla flavor. Toby says, out of all the protein powders I've tried, this is the best. The flavor is mild. It doesn't intrude on the other flavors. It's smooth going down and is full of great whey protein. Most protein powders aren't just gritty and artificial. They're actually toxic. Several studies, including those done by Consumer Reports, show that a significant fraction of protein powders on the market contain lead in amounts that are known to be dangerous. You shouldn't be eating lead at all, much less in a supplement you're taking to improve your health. Not only is Puori whey protein powder free of lead, it also delivers a whopping 21 grams of whey protein in each serving and is free of GMOs, pesticides and exogenous hormones. Toby loves the bourbon vanilla flavor, but they've also got a dark chocolate flavor made from organic cocoa powder. Whether you're looking for magnesium or a multivitamin, collagen or protein powder, you can't go wrong with Puori. Use code darkhorse at Puori.com slash darkhorse to get 32% off Puori grass fed whey protein when you start a subscription. In addition, you get a free shaker worth$25 on your first subscription order, which brings total savings to $49. Go to p u o r i dot com slash darkhorse and use the code darkhorse at checkout for this exclusive offer. So I don't know where we should start. OK, I've watched your film and I knew a lot of what was there, but I will say it's surprising as someone who is now quite thoroughly steeped in the vaccine shenanigans and propaganda and have had my eyes opened. I still learned quite a bit from it. I think it's well worth any DarkHorse listeners time to watch is what, an hour and a half? Yeah, sure. I think it's even less. It's just about 75 minutes. I wanted to part of it. We were making it so quickly. It was it was sort of rushed into production because Senator Ron Johnson saw the study. We were and we can get into details of how that came about. But the study had been languishing. I didn't know what to do with it. I couldn't publish it. You know, just didn't seem like that would do anything at all. But our attorney Aaron Siri, while I was on a vacation last summer, he handed it to Ron Johnson and he said, I want to be hearing on this right away. And so I think he set the hearing for under two months out. And Aaron called me and because we had all this undercover footage that I'd done interviewing the scientist or having dinner with the scientist that was the head of the study. And he said, Del, you got to make that documentary now. And I said, well, how much time do we have? He said, well, less than two months. And I said, Aaron, you know, I'd really appreciate if you would do the legal stuff and let me decide, you know, you know, delivery dates for documentaries. You can't make a documentary in two months. But he said, we don't have a choice. Ron thinks the windows closing on his ability to do hearings like this. It's a lot of tension in Washington, D.C. So he's already scheduled it. And I think we should have this documentary drop somewhere near that hearing. And so it forced a speed at which I don't think many people could make a very good documentary. And I honestly was planning on lowering the bar like I just didn't want to be embarrassed by it. And I take the products that we put out very seriously. But I can say that it's one of those things that it forced it. I actually think it's I really like the film. And now when I watch it, I can't think of anything that would change. I had more time and that restraint of not having the time, the year I would really like to have on a documentary like that, I think forced us to keep the story really simple and to the point. And there'd be moments where we would start to get off track and try and explain covid and get into covid and details. And then I would, you know, we just say we actually don't have time for that time to cover it. I can't make it make sense. Let's get back to just the story we're trying to tell the science that hasn't been done, what this study is, why it's relevant, important and just lose the rest of it. And, you know, I think, you know me, we've been around each other long enough. I, you know, I have a tendency to probably overstate things. And, you know, my wife always says, you have to know when you've won the argument. I think an in-command study is just a very clear, simple, you know, dictation of what this problem is and why I think the study is very important. Well, I would never have guessed that it was done under an extreme time constraint. The production values are excellent. Yeah, they does tell the story very clearly. I also, as a scientist, greatly appreciated that not only did you cover the strengths of the story, but you preempted the obvious criticisms that are raised by others. Yeah. And pointed out why, though there is a significance there, it is not devastating to the study in question. And the logic is there. And what's more, you give us the remedy. If you don't like the constraints of this study, do the right study. Right. The right study is there to be done at any moment. And there's a reason it hasn't been done, which is that the answer is sure to be, to be devastating to the mainstream narrative. But maybe we should step back and you should describe the study in question, where it came from and what happened to it. Yeah. Well, what's interesting about this is it's one of those, you know, as you're sort of fighting a battle, you plant seeds, you don't know where they're going to lead, what's going to turn into fruit or not. But this study takes me back to the very beginning of my jump into this vaccine hesitancy or medical freedom space. Anti-vaxxer, if we're going to just throw the whole pejorative at it, you know. I was touring with the documentary Vaxxed, which I executive produced and made that released early 2016. I left my job at CBS working on the talks to the doctors. I was a producer on that show. I won an Emmy Award. So producing medical science information as sort of entertainment is, you know, my, I guess, my special skill. And but Vaxxed was sweeping the world really. And we were on a tour with a bus that had Vaxxed on the side of it. And people were signing the names of their injured children or, you know, family members who were deceased after a vaccination. And, you know, I was learning a lot. The film Vaxxed was just about one vaccine, MMR vaccine, measles, mumps, rubella, and its potential connection to autism and a whistleblower at the CDC. If people haven't seen it, I think it's also a very good movie. But we were going to be pulling up through Detroit, Michigan, and somebody reached out. I didn't know who they were, but they said, look, I'm a huge fan of Vaxxed. And I know the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health. Would you be interested in having dinner? And I said, well, yeah, of course, that'd be super interesting. And so I had dinner with Dr. Marcus Servos and really nice guy who sort of surprised me. He started, you know, this is something that, you know, you and I have been at different parts of this debate over the years in this conversation. But back in 2016, when I was having this dinner, he said, you know, I watched your film, which I was impressed by. It's clearly not wasn't going to be, you know, talk about what he'd be interested in or at least believe in. And he said, you know, it's very compelling film. He said, but you've been saying something on this tour with this film. Like, I looked you up, I've been watching your YouTube videos that I found very disturbing. You keep saying that they've never done the proper science to establish safety on any of the childhood vaccines. And he said, so I sit on the biggest databases in the world. I went and, you know, did my research so I could show you what you're wrong about. And he said, and I'm shocked that I have to sit across from you and tell you you're right. Well, I will just pause you right there. One, I want to know where what was your perspective when you were working at CBS before you had delved into the MMR vaccine? Yeah. Well, I think it's it's important to note that I'm not vaccinated. So at all, at all. My mom was a really like I mean, my parents were ex hippies or had come out of the 1960s. My parents marched in Chicago. I was raised very much with that sort of rebellious advocacy for freedom of speech, freedom of education, antiwar, you know, all of that. And somehow in that my you know, I was we were very health conscious. All you didn't think organic food, but we ate like, you know, mostly macrobiotic and things like that. But my mom didn't vaccinate me. And it wasn't something she didn't do it with some deep. I went to a deep medical researcher and it was just how I was raised. I didn't think a lot about it. I remember the moments where I was, you know, coming out of home schooling and going into a public high school. And the principal was, you know, my mom would drag me to, you know, what was one of the things I appreciate about her. She didn't fix the world for me. She brought me to every conflict she had and wanted me to see what had to happen there. And she's like, they don't want to let you in the high school come with me. And it started as a little kid. There'd be times like, I don't want to go. I know this is going to be is going to be you in some really awkward space. And so she dragged us to all those things. But I remember her saying to my principal, you know, he said, we have a mandate for vaccines in this school, Boulder, Colorado. She says, yes, but the state has a thing was a personal belief exemption. We have that exemption. She's like, but there's no one in the school is unvaccinated. And I'm putting my foot down on this. And she said, let me ask you something. If, you know, all your kids are vaccinated, right? Yes, you believe the vaccines work. He says, yes, of course. So then what harm is my son going to do if he comes to school here? I mean, what risk is he if the vaccines work? And he did not have an answer to that. And I wouldn't say my mom was the world's best debater, but I was really impressed in that moment. And sure enough, he's like, OK. And so I got into the school all that to say I don't know. So when I was working on the medical talk show, the doctors, my mom would call me and say, what are you doing working on a medical talk show? You've never been to a doctor in your life. And and I, you know, I said, you know, for some reason, I feel like this is where I'm supposed to be. I feel like I'm a little bit of a Trojan horse because I didn't buy totally into the medical establishment. I didn't grow up in it. I wouldn't say I just a lot of the stories I was doing for CBS and on the show were challenging the system. I was interested when a drug was being recalled. Why it took so long. How to get approved for safety to begin with. When glyphosate was ruled to be probably carcinogenic to human beings by the WHO, I was like, oh, I want to get to the bottom of that story. And I'll tell you, you know, one thing less about medicine, but Monsanto like that was Satan in my family. I mean, from for years and years, all the stories of organic farmers who had the seed blow over on their farm in Monsanto, assuming them, I hated that company. And so when I saw this moment where Monsanto is being accused essentially of spraying things on 90 percent of our crops, it is probably carcinogenic to human beings, which is the second highest cancer rating. There is second only to does cause cancer. The beauty of that show was I could reach out, which I did to Monsanto and say, hey, look, you're you know, WHO is saying your product probably causes cancer. Would you like to defend it on our television show? And I had a sense that they felt like it would be a safe platform for them. The doctors, the medical show were sponsored by they just didn't know that the hippie son of the hippie kid is in here. And so they agreed and sent Donna Farmer, head of toxicology to the show. And and I reached out to Jeffrey Smith who had written books about Monsanto and had a debate on the show. So those are the types of things just to give you an idea. I was very controversial. I was a little older than most of the producers on the show. My career kind of got a late start. So I was really into venturing into deeper discussions in that show. I think was designed to be having. But because of that, I was the highest rated producer on the show. I was really getting a free ride. For the most part, my producers would just say, I don't even understand this story. What do you what's going on? Monsanto is like, trust me, this is a big deal. And so so all that being said, the vaccine issue wasn't one that I was focused on at all. And I hadn't covered it at all. But I did. I was doing a really complicated story about children, babies that were being taken away from their families. And based on what were supposed to be fractures in bones from infant abuse. And there was this radiologist who had written a whole paper on how he believed it was Ricketts, that it wasn't child abuse, that this was a form of Ricketts, infants that are born when their mothers were vitamin D deficient, especially African-American mothers. They were forming these things that look like fractures that were filled with calcium. But he's like, this is Ricketts. Fascinating story. And but while I was talking to his name was Dr. David Abe. While I was interviewing him for that story, he said, look, you probably shouldn't have me on your show. And I said, why? He said, well, because I'm considered a quack if you look me up online. I said, why is that? He said, well, I'm one of these doctors that believes the vaccines cause autism. And I said, oh, but this story has nothing to do with that. He's like, I know, but it probably could undermine my credibility. I'll worry about that. And then he said, would you ever cover that story? And I said, you know, this show is pretty set on the fact that vaccines are safe and effective. And we had a bad run in with Jenny McCarthy, which has made things complicated around here. So look, if there's a big sea change in that conversation, let me know. And so he's the one that a year later called me and said, there's a whistleblower in the CDC that's coming forward and saying they're committing fraud on the vaccine safety studies, specifically MMR, autism. And that ended up being a vaccine. So that triggered and that's a long. I mean, to get that deep into it, but it's I don't really it's important to know I do come at it with a bias in some way. I want to push back on that in a strange sense. Our final sponsor this week is Branch Basics, which makes simple, all natural, non-toxic cleaning products. We've been using Branch Basics cleaning products for several months and we love them more than ever. They are effective, non-toxic and easy to use. What more could you want in cleaning products? We use Branch Basics in one concentration for countertops and a slightly stronger concentration in the shower. It works on practically everything you need to clean from laundry to produce. And Branch Basics really works. You use cleaning products every day. But do you know what you're cleaning your home with or how it might be affecting how you feel? Many products look clean, but contain ingredients linked to hormone disruption, skin irritation and respiratory issues. And because cleaning brands in the U.S. don't have to list everything they contain, you don't really know what's in your products. Branch Basics changes this with full transparency about their entirely non-toxic ingredients. Their premium starter kit comes with one powerful concentrate that makes everything laundry detergent, bathroom cleaner, glass cleaner, even pet wash and vegetable rinse. Just one plant and mineral based formula replaces it all and it's safe for babies, pets and anyone wanting to reduce their daily exposure to harmful chemicals in the new year. Branch Basics ships us two products, a concentrate and an oxygen boost. And the shipment includes empty bottles that you fill to different concentrations for different jobs. When you're on out, all you need to do is restock the two products on their site or on Amazon or at Target. And you're again ready to clean everything in your home from laundry to bathroom to countertops. Founded by three women on their own personal health journeys, Branch Basics was created out of a desire to heal. Through years of research, trial and error, the founders discovered the powerful impact that removing toxins from their environment had on their health. And now they're on a mission to help others do the same. And there's more good news. Branch Basics is now available everywhere you shop at Target, Target.com, Amazon and of course, BranchBasics.com. Tossing the toxins has never been more convenient. And for anyone grabbing the premium starter kit, you can still get 15% off at BranchBasics.com with code "DARKHORSE". Just use code "DARKHORSE" for 15% off the premium starter kit at BranchBasics.com. After you purchase, when they ask where you heard about them, please make sure to mention our show. What I hear in your story is if I take your story and I take what I now know, the burden of proof was reversed. We were sold the idea that vaccines are safe and effective. I think all normal people assume that that must be the result of large studies that have demonstrated a net benefit to these things. And we don't check, right? It would be arduous to go look at all those studies and, you know, how much would you need to understand to actually figure each one out just to determine that, of course, they were studied against an inert placebo and showed themselves to be beneficial. Right. That's what I would expect. And so anyway, the burden of proof was subtly reversed on us, where if you believe these things aren't safe, then the burden's on you to show it. And of course, who are we to do that? What technology do I have? What funding do I have? Right. What access to the nation do we have? In light of the fact that the studies weren't done, the obvious natural response is. I'm not going to allow you to give me a technology I can't assess that hasn't been assessed for safety when the human body is built to deal with infectious disease. So the point is the burden is on them to really establish that it is safe. And in the absence of that, your mom's approach, which you took on passively, is the logically natural one. It's not a bias, right? It's the precautionary principle being applied correctly in a system where most of us don't understand that this is the direction that precaution goes. Most of us assume that taking the vaccine is the precaution rather than I don't know what's in that. I don't know how well it works. I don't know what unintended nonspecific effect it's going to induce. Right. So anyway, I don't really hear it as a bias. I hear it as your family had the natural intuition and raised me with a natural skepticism. Yeah. My mom was incredibly skeptical of any industry that said that it could make you healthier or safer. And, you know, I mean, the principle in my house was always question authority. I mean, always. And that's not an easy way to raise kids because the only authority around is my parents. And so it was a fairly loud and volatile home in a good way. Not like, but just we had loud arguments at tables. We were, you know, I would be invested in perspective and we'd be as debating inside of our household at a very young age. Well, my household was the same. Yeah. Very skeptical of corporate motives and interventions. Strangely, I think medicine got an exemption for some reason, that there was a belief, you know, there was simultaneously this sort of skepticism of authority, but also a belief in science. And so when you see, you know, when you see this thing that is dressed up as if it is the pinnacle of our scientific achievement and that not only is it wonderful what insights it's brought, but it's actually providing us the ability to avoid horrible medical fates that used to exist. And, you know, it's not that there aren't those instances. Nobody dies of gangrene anymore. Right. True. That was a pretty rotten way to go. Yeah. So there was, I think, too much faith in the medical system with respect to technology. Well, you know, because there was assumption it was being scientific. Right. But totally unjustified. Just below the surface. Just, I mean, it was fascinating because I would say my family came at things probably for more of a spiritual, religious perspective. You're created brilliantly. You don't need things outside of you to make the body healthier. And so that was the perspective. But that takes faith and that takes, you know, some belief in whatever, you know, dogma you're following. And when you think about science, science is supposed to rid us of the need for faith. It's supposed to, right, you know, answer the questions that couldn't be answered and get us out of this very vulnerable, humbling experience inside this cosmos. And start empowering us with facts and learning an ability to question and answer. And I mean, you've done so much, so many great podcasts on this, but it is shocking. I mean, for me, diving into this, you know, I was covering issues and being acceptable in a lot of different topics, getting into this one and then really becoming a specialist. And I think as a journalist, I don't think anyone's put more time into one single investigation for me, which is vaccines. And even more specifically, not just like we hear safe and effective. I don't care about the effective part. You know, once I made Vaxxed and started seeing these giant audiences that would stand up every time and say, who in here has a vaccine? And your child and that was happening five shows a day, five days a week for an entire year. I'm watching three quarters of the audience stand up. I'm thinking how have these people been hit and going down that rabbit hole and then really studying how this whole thing happened? Then, of course, you start going, whoa, what other science am I assuming was done correctly? And I'm in a very I'm in a place where, you know, when I talk to Peter McCullough or Paul Merrick or Robert Malone, it doesn't matter. They're all starting to come to the same conclusion, like everywhere I look, it's the science wasn't done. Well, I have a suggestion for you. You feel free to ignore it, but I'm pretty sure that there would be a great documentary if you were to take all of the people who have arrived in this location, most of us unsuspecting that there was anything to find. I mean, I vaccinated my own kids. Yeah. Right. And, you know, it's not that I was in the dark about the possibility of hazards. We delayed every vaccine we could because the idea in our minds was the more development that has passed before something goes wrong, the better off you are, which is probably true. But even with that level of skepticism already present, we just missed the boat with respect to how much potential harm there was here. So, you know, my story, as I've told you personally, it's a little embarrassing how much I missed, how much I took on faith that was completely unwarranted and how I arrived. More or less kicking and screaming in the exact inverse camp where I never thought I would be. I was a real believer that vaccines, even though they carried risks, were a, you know, a beautiful, elegant intervention that had the ability to just load information into your immune system that would allow you to fend off a disease that might otherwise harm or kill you. By the way, perfectly brilliant idea and wonderful. I love it. I love it. The one in the textbook is great and the one in the textbook is perfectly safe because it's on paper and it's theoretical. But anyway, what I would imagine would be, the documentary I want to see is one in which all of the people who have had an experience like that one, and you know, Bobby famously had this experience. He did not want to end up there and reluctantly just couldn't turn away. But if you documented all of those stories of how did I end up, you know, as a terrible person who believes unforgivable things, what it would do is it would model for people who cannot conceive that those of us who are now raising the alarm about vaccines, they can't imagine we could possibly be right. But if they understood that there's no eagerness to arrive in that camp, it's a horrifying discovery and it's good people who can't look away. It's a career destructive. I mean, it lacks self-preservation in its journey. It takes over your life. It takes over your reputation. Yeah. Anyway, yeah. So let me zip back in. So Dr. Zervos, I'm traveling with Vax. I've made this documentary and he says I haven't, you know, we didn't do the studies. I'm shocked to find that. But he said it doesn't mean that vaccines aren't safe. It just means we can't say that they're safe. He said, yet you do on every television show, 24 hours a day, every news agency. I mean, it is the mantra of all mantra of safe and effective, safe and effective. And he essentially he said, I don't know what we're doing here. I don't know what I can do to help you. I said, well, would you ever consider, you know, doing a vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparative study to get to the bottom of it? And if, you know, I want to know if we're wrong or we're right. I mean, vaccines make this healthier. Certainly you would see it there. And he agreed to do that study. And so the film is just about how long it took him to talk him into it. But cutting to the chase, you know, the study is horrific, what it discovers. And, you know, in all the conversations we've had like that was in the back of my mind. But I couldn't, you know, I think you and I sort of we were agreeing on Covid. We're in Bath, England, and we had a, you know, a very memorable dinner actually where I learned a lot. But you were saying I shouldn't be dragging all vaccines into this conversation at that moment in one way, you know, one way. And I knew I had this guy that was, you know, I think at that point probably done the study, but was sitting on it or we were about to get it done. But what makes this study so important to me, Brett, is I think it is it is the scientific method. The scientific method to me demands that your opposition get to be the one that take the shot at your hypothesis. And we really haven't had that situation. I didn't go to, you know, there are other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, you know, by Brian Hooker and Neil Miller and the great guys, by the way, but who were already maybe somewhat like me, already somewhat skeptical of the vaccine program. At least they get accused of that when the outcomes turn out the way that they do. My goal and the dream of a lot of people like me, as soon as you wake up to this, like, we've got to get someone from the other side to do this study. Someone that believes that vaccines are completely safe, the greatest invention, and have them do that study so that they sign off on it. Because if it's going to be a problem, they'll see it, too. And so when he agreed when Zervos, who's who brags in the in the footage that I have of him of I'm the reason we force vaccinate every employee at Henry Ford. So you can't really get more pro vaccine than that. And so to have that guy do the study and ultimately come out with just very quickly for those that haven't seen it, 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic disease if you've been vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. There's about 18,500 kids, nearly 2,000 unvaccinated, six times more likely to have neurodevelopmental disorders, nearly six times more likely to have an autoimmune disease. In almost every major health category, the vaccinated are flailing and the unvaccinated seem almost untouched or very light, you know, small group of people with issues. So to me, no single retrospective study that I'm very clear about in the film can really answer any question for us. But of all the red flags that have ever been thrown up, it is as if when you and I were arguing you went and did the study, I mean, someone that just says, I don't believe you. Then they go and do the study. I have to assume whatever bias you can put into your science, which I do think bias affects outcomes. It had to be for the other side. And the fact that this study cannot does the opposite of showing the vaccines are safe and that the unvaccinated are the ones in danger. It's so incredibly lopsided that the vaccinator are coming out with incredible health issues. And I think the the scale on it that was really is looking 10 years out that a vaccinated child had a 57 percent likelihood of having a chronic disease and an unvaccinated child only had a 17 percent likelihood. I don't know if we're ever going to have I mean, without I don't know how we're ever going to have a moment this honest again. I mean, if Bobby does this study, they'll say, oh, well, is his bias was involved, even if he brings in other scientists. It's why I never published the study. It's why I mean, I kept begging him to publish it because I want everyone to know this is from your side. This is from the people that believe. And this film's as close as we can get. Yeah, no. I think a robust discussion is worth the spoiler here. But the tragedy of your film is that is it Dr. Zervos? Do I have his name right? Yeah. Yeah. That he does the study, as you say, expecting it to come out demonstrating the safety and utility of vaccines. And not only does his study show the exact inverse of that, but he does not come to question the study itself. He says it's a good study. It's not perfect. I would publish it, you know, under ordinary circumstances as it is, but refuses to say so publicly. And you actually it's regrettable that you have to use a journalistic tool like, you know, covertly filming him over dinner in order to hear what he actually has to say. But the fact that he rightly understands that if he publishes this study, it will be likely career ending. But I have to say, as somebody who has made some career ending decisions and had to start a new career a couple of times now, this is terrifying because he knows that the result of him not ending his career by publishing this very jarring study is that children will continue to be maimed. And in my book, there's no I mean, you know, you can imagine Nazis at death camps saying, well, I mean, this is terrible, but you don't expect me to end my career. And the answer is, yes, I do. I expect you to end your career. Yeah. And and many of us have. So, you know, I'm troubled by the cowardice that results in the study not being published. I think you've done admirable work bringing the study to a kind of attention that it might not even have gotten if it had been published in a normal sense. Yeah, I think that's true. And it opens the door. And of course, I have heard all of the critiques about retrospective studies and differential sizes of the essential essentially the control group versus the treatment group. But, you know, you also talk about in the film, the sensitivity analysis and the fact that, you know, if you correct for some of the obvious defects of the study, it does not radically alter the conclusion. No, that is it's powerful. And as I said, up top, if you don't like this study, you know exactly what study you have to do. That's right. And I poke them. We're past the point now where you get to just poke holes in. It used to be an argument. Now you're poking holes in science. Like the science is being done. It's been done nearly 10 times by what you might call biased scientists that were skeptical of vaccines, but it's been done. And now with with Henry Ford and Dr. Servos, I guess I have to be careful. I am they have threatened defamation case. So I have to make it clear that it's my opinion that they are a pro vaccine institution. They say it's not fair for me to describe them that way. So frankly, that's a strange flex on their weird that the position they want to take is you're not allowed to call us a pro vaccine, even though they took out like a whole page like pro vaccine statement during covid. And but OK. And, you know, but I want to be careful to say I'm not careful about what I'm putting out. But the accusation is that I could do great harm to their institution. And they wanted to be known that the reason Servos did not publish that study was because it's not a good study. The data is flawed and it didn't meet the scientific rigors that are standards that they are used to it. Henry Ford Health, that's the statement that they've sort of made and put out. Now they put all of that out prior to knowing that I had under cover footage of Dr. Servos saying exactly the opposite. Right. So, OK, on the one hand, you've got the evidence, right? You've got the author of the study saying it's a good study. I'd put it out as it as it is, but I won't do it because I'm not ready to end my career over it. But I would also I would just level the challenge at them. Don't you dare tell me that that study isn't good and that's why it didn't get published unless you're already planning to do the right study. Correct. Well, or what's stopping you? Why didn't when this study, which it's your database, like if the data is flawed, it's the data you're using to do all the studies that you're funded to do. That's your database. It was the cohorts born into the Henry Ford Health System. And by the way, you're probably aware of this. It's better than the VSD that Bobby dreamed would exist when he got the job as HHS secretary that he could use, because it doesn't just track, you know, ICD 10 codes inside of Henry Ford Health, because they're also the insurer even when kids left. So it's a very robust data set that they were able to use with with all the information you dream to have. But why was the response not, hey, Dr. Zervos, even though we trusted you with the hydroxychloroquine study, even though we trusted you with the Moderna trials, we're a little bit suspect of this potential study. Why didn't they come in and make the adjustments that should have been made? I mean, inside of their own internal peer review, why do you throw an entire study in a waste basket? The study design is the design set up by the CDC. They had never done this study. We're funded to do the study and decided we'll spend the money doing a study on how to do a study of vaccine, the whole, I mean, you get it. This the cat and mouse game has been ridiculous. But you're taking a million dollar store, maybe it's a half a million they spent on how to do the study. And then they copy that Henry Ford Health, which would be a great protocol to accept. This is what our own governments have to do the way to do it. You know, you bring every parameter against it, you know, cox, proportional hazards. You're doing sensitivity analysis and challenging. You can tell they're trying to give you the most conservative view of this as you can. But why didn't they fix whatever problem they saw? I mean, that's so you just make a habit of stopping three quarters of the way through a scientific process and throwing something in the garbage. That's not a very good, strong defense for their institution either. No, no, it really isn't. And, you know, in light of. I would say a vast quantity of evidence that there is a real honest to goodness problem. If that evidence is incorrect for some reason, it is certainly in our interest to discover that right away, because if it is correct. I don't know today. Yeah, kids are being vaccinated. And, you know, I will just point out in my audience is well aware of this, but. Heather and I were strong believers in the benefit of vaccines. I still believe that it is likely that there are some vaccines that make sense under some circumstances. There may be vaccines that make sense to give every child. But I don't trust any of the evidence given what I've now seen. You know, I would I would take a rabies shot if I thought I had been exposed. But I would do so knowing that I was taking a substantial risk. And I would alter my behavior in the aftermath of it. I would be very careful what I ate for a good long time. So as not to be triggered into some state that was unnecessary. But in any case, the possibility of good vaccines exists. Sure. I don't think you would deny it. I wouldn't deny it. But they have broken the system of trust with fraud. That's what yes. Fraudulent in every corner. Yeah, I mean, it's there's not there's no part of it that you can't pull a vaccine. I'll say, oh, this one, this one, they did. Right. Here's a here's a good study on this. You can't find it. No, anywhere where the question was opened, the game was rigged. Yeah, including absurdities like the supposed demonstration of the safety of aluminum adjuvants, which when you look at what they did is preposterous. I mean, it's so bad that the first time I heard Toby Rogers describe what had been done. I was sitting there thinking either this person is off his rocker or something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Yeah, because there's no there's no way that what he's saying could possibly have been the demonstration of safety for this. So, you know, I didn't know what to think at the end of his talk, but I went and checked and it turned out he was right. And so it was like, oh my God. Well, very quickly, you mean what was, you know, what are you referring to so that we can hold this? The four Angora rabbits, the data for one of which was apparently misplaced and pathology showed up in a couple of the rabbits, if memory serves. You know, so the point is, look, four ain't enough rabbits to demonstrate safety. If nothing had happened to any of those rabbits, it wouldn't tell you aluminum adjuvants are safe. But that's not what happened to the rabbits. And the idea, you know, we didn't even they lost the data on one of the rabbits. I mean, yeah, how exactly did that happen? And why was that not the, you know, if you thought four rabbits was enough and you lost the data on one of the rabbits, you would then discover, oh, well, then three isn't enough and you would realize actually, you know, 300 wouldn't be enough. So you would end up doing a correct study if that was your intent. On the other hand, if your intent is to have a reference that you can go to when you say aluminum adjuvants are safe and then you can reference some paper and nobody bothers to go look at it to discover that it was actually nonsense, you're not trying to figure out if it's safe. In fact, you're trying to avoid something you fear would show up in such a study. I mean, that's, I mean, and I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Some people look at my Wikipedia page of that. Does that even exist? I think jumps in this so quickly as Wikipedia even exists anymore, but whatever. It's a horror show. It's been a horror show. Yeah. I'm like this conspiracy theorist, but the truth is, is I really have, I always give the benefit of the doubt. I try to just imagine, I think most of these people think they're doing what's right. They believe in what they're doing. But you know, when you really drill down on Paul Offit or these people, they at the point at which you have got to do bad science or can't recognize this is so obviously poorly done. You would never accept this in anything, any other form part of your experience. Why are you accepting this? And then you're clearly, it looks like hiding something. And if, because I keep thinking and I, and I say this all the time, I believe Paul Offit vaccinates his kids. I think Bill Gates vaccinates his kids. I think these people believe in what they're doing on some level. I can't prove it. And I have tons of followers that will say, you're crazy, Del. They're injecting themselves with saline. Maybe they are, but this is the place where once you have to hide something, hide bad science or hide a result, then how can you believe in what you're doing anymore? Why isn't your own confidence in this process shaken by the fact that you're coming up short? And there's a recent, in the very Ron Johnson hearing that this study was discussed, Jake Scott, this doctor shows up. He shows up for one job and one job only to refute this idea that there's been no placebo-based trials of any of the childhood vaccines. And he's going to, he knows he's going to be across from Aaron Siri. And at this point, anyone in this space knows Aaron Siri is coming loaded for bear. You know what I mean? And when the guy hands out his 661 studies or whatever, expecting, I mean, are you still in this world where you expect, we're all going, oh my God, he's got 661 studies. There it is. And then Aaron just destroys it. He goes through the lift. 560 have nothing to do with the childhood vaccine program. They're out, you know, 50 of them and just, you know, down to you have zero. And then his response, I mean, I use this video in talks all the time. And his final response is, well, I'm really surprised if you did that, you know, if you did all that investigation because we haven't even looked into the studies ourselves. I mean, that's, that's, he shows up to win an argument and ends with, I struggle to believe that you ripped through our studies that much because we haven't even looked at them yet. And you run into that, like the, the, the ego or hubris or like that, that would allow you to just say, um, you were just supposed to bow down to this evidence and not question it or look into it. But how did, but then Jake Scott the next day will post, this is a lie. This, that there's no place. He was like, you just lost this argument on public television. We all watched it. Your studies and less you can, and they don't do Brett, what you expect to do. Like, look, I know when I've lost the debate, I have to go get my evidence, check it or say, Oh, I forgot to present this. Or here's what was missing or here's how you got this wrong. None of that. They never bring any of that. It's not like he, Aaron Siri was wrong. Here's the study. He just keeps posting the same 661 studies that were just destroyed on the international, you know, public way. And it's going to stick to that story. And that's what I can't understand about a human being. Well, it does remind me of the song. That's my story. And I'm sticking to it because I mean, that song is intentionally ironic, right? Yeah. You remember the song? No. Colin Ray has told his girlfriend, I guess, that he had fallen asleep in the hammock in the yard. And that's why he wasn't home until all hours of the night. And she says, you don't know it boy, but you just blew it. And he says, well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. And it turns out she had put the hammock in the attic. And so she knew there was no hammock anyway, but it's that the point is, and Colin Ray just continues to stick to his story because he doesn't have an alternative. And the Dr. Scott, when I saw what happened to him, right? I thought, Oh boy. This is close to an American public caning, as I think we've ever seen. Right. But it does tell you, this was, you know, we can differ over how much Paul Offit understands about the lies he's telling. But Dr. Scott was a believer. And the interesting thing that you're pointing to is that even in the moment when Aaron Siri reveals to him that what he's saying is not true, it does not cause him to update because he, some part of him is thinking, Oh God, I'm going to end up on that team of people that I know are evil. I can't do that. And so he's just stuck in, well, I'm just going to keep doubling down on all of the stuff that just evaporated in front of me. And what it really speaks to is a brokenness in the heart of science and medicine, where once upon a time scientists and doctors, and doctors were scientists, by the way, they're not anymore, but they were. They had a commitment to the truth. They had a commitment to the patient that overrode all other considerations. And unfortunately, the system that we've built now trains them to be subservient to something else so that when a patient, just as you saw with Dr. Zervos, okay, kids who have not yet been maimed are on the line. You're moved, Doc. Are you going to publish this story and fall on your sword? Or are you going to continue to pretend that what you used to believe before running this study is still true? Right. Right? And the answer is, well, you don't expect me to lose my career, do you? And the answer is, well, wait a minute. Where you're in a profession that has an oath. Yeah. That's not common, right? Oats are serious things. They're effectively above the law. And to reveal that actually either you don't know what's in that oath and you just went through it pro forma or you don't care what's in the oath is to reveal that you're not really a doc. And I see the same thing in science too. I think the number of people who publish things they don't believe in don't have a deep relationship with the scientific method. They're kind of going through the motions. And if it looks like science, you know, if it takes place with the right glassware and, you know, the right lab coat. Yeah. And it's probably scientific and it certainly is if it, you know, got published in the journal and was peer reviewed. Well, your peers wouldn't have signed off on it if it wasn't science. So yes, they would, because they're faking too. And it is that loss of commitment to higher principles that is breaking out across the entire system. And it has, frankly, it has allowed interests that are so obviously at odds with the well-being of the public to take over. Right. It should not be a surprise to anybody that pharma would be willing to sell some drugs that might not be in the interest of the patient to take them. Of course. Yeah. What we would do, share your responsibility to shareholders. It's right there. It's their actual legal commitment. Right. Yeah. So given that you would expect it is normal for corporations to try to make money however they can get away with it. Yes. And it is normal for us to view them with skepticism. It is normal for us to want independent scientists to check anything that comes out of that corporate environment. And instead what we have is a fusion of the corporate environment with these former sciences and it spits out a product that sounds and looks like science, but just isn't. And you know what? The fact that it looks like science doesn't make it work. And the fact that it doesn't look like science doesn't make it fail. If it adheres to the scientific method, it works. It's self-correcting over time. It doesn't matter if you're wearing a lab coat or frankly, I did my graduate work in rubber boots with a machete. Right. It may not look like science to you, but the point is you either applied the method or you didn't. Right. That's the question. Right. We've just lost that commitment. Well, I mean, I can speak to better than, I mean, you're a scientist. I'm not. I've write about them. I've interviewed them. I studied these studies. I know how to meet like, I'm like Bobby Kennedy. No, I'm not a doctor, but I know how to read a, you know, a study. But I can speak to journalism and it has the same horrific and probably more dangerous result, which is, I think, the greatest problem in the world today, certainly in America is media. We live in a, we would be much better off if we lived in China and just knew that our news is lying to us. It's really unfortunate that in this country we think we're getting anything, any semblance of actual information. And I am, I cannot explain the motivation similarly of my fellow journalists who I do interviews with all of them. You know, they, they ring my phone off the hook. What's Bobby up to? What's going on? Because I'll answer and knowing that the hit piece and you'll call me a crazy anti-vaxxer, but I can tell they're, I can tell they're starting to really shake and I'll look them right in the eyes. Major writers for New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, just the other day. I sat down and, and I, and I say to them, I don't understand how you're doing what you're doing. I don't understand that you're a journalist and I, I'm not, I go way outside the boundaries of what someone's trying to get an idea. Like if I should really just stick to four talking points that they'll just, I'm just saying it over and over again, that they'll publish. So I make sure I can make the point to the public I'm trying to make. I can't do it. I sit with these journalists and I just say, I need you. You, you've got to search your soul right now. And I try every attempt with them throughout every question they want me to answer. But why do you think Bobby's doing what he's doing? I mean, and I'll say to them, what happened to, you know, just like science, our job is to forever be skeptical. We're not supposed to work for the government. We're not supposed to work for any industry. We're supposed to ask difficult questions and challenge them. What happened to that? And then like lawyers, you're supposed to be working towards a motive. What is the motive? You can't tell a story if you don't understand the motive. And I said, what is my motive to sit here? I will say to them, why do you think I'm sitting here? I know you're writing a hit piece about me. Why do you think it is I'm sitting here and answering these questions? Why does Robert Kennedy Jr. leave being he's a Kennedy. This guy is born into the closest thing to a royal family this nation has on top of that, you know, he, you know, he's followed by cameras. So he has some issues in his childhood. It becomes arguably one of the greatest environmentalists alive. It certainly is an attorney is, you know, brought visibility to issues that have changed our earth as we know it. He's celebrated by the Democratic Party liberals for having achieved that. They forget about his troubled childhood. He's offered the Senate seat in New York. He doesn't want to get into politics. He hands it to Hillary Clinton. Question whatever judgment that has. But then all of a sudden in the middle of that, you know what I really want to do? I want to go and and create a fraud around the safest product known to man. And everyone knows it's safe and make people afraid of it so that I get ridiculed by every newspaper there is. I get tarred and feathered. My entire environmental career gets goes up in burned so that when I finally do decide to get in politics, I'm hated by the party that my family basically built. Because why? Right. Why? Why would anyone other than he has gone batshit crazy? But that was the problem is that then you watch the podcast, you have to say, that sounds like a sensible. I mean, I'm expecting a lunatic who just trashed the greatest life experience you could ever have for no reason. I mean, I say to journalists, is it possible that he actually saw something so devastating and so horrifying he was willing to risk his entire career to tell that story? That's Occam's razor. That's the simplest version. If you got a better, but they can't. Well, I haven't really thought about it. How are you writing and not thinking about it? And then I take it a step further with you're no longer in a place where you can even say we don't have science. Everyone's in the Atlantic interview, this reporter is like, I saw the movie. It's very compelling. I don't really know what to say about it. It's like, well, I'll tell you what you now know is you can't say we don't have science. Science has been done from your side and it's not adding up well. So now it's my science against what you're saying is science and we're in a problem. But ultimately, what I say to all of them is here's what I don't understand that you're doing. The number one conversation is around. Have there been placebo based trials or not? It's really simple. I have staked my entire career saying I have sued the government of the United States. I have spent millions through a nonprofit bringing this to light. Robert Kennedy Jr. said the same thing. And yet every time we make that statement in your articles, you will write the experts say this is not true. Paul Offit says this is not true. They've done placebo based trials. I'm like, I don't understand how that's journalism because certainly the first time we said it 10 years ago, OK, that in your first article for after 10 years to keep saying the experts say and not saying to those experts handed to me handed to me with the New York Times, where the Atlantic hand me 16 vaccines, hand me 16 placebo based trials and establishment or the original versions of those vaccines. And we will put it on the front page of New York Times and and Bobby Kennedy's done. Del Beatrice done. This is over. They were lying to you. But how are you allowing yourself to write the experts say when you now have no evidence? Do we live in a time because this means that Woodward and Bernstein would have called Richard Nixon personally said we're being told that you tap some phones over at the Watergate Hotel. Did you do it? No, I did not. I would never do something like that. Well, the experts said they didn't do it. Moving on. And that is where journalism is at. Call the guy that's being accused. Ask if it's true. If he says, no, it's not true. You stick with that expert opinion and the rest of it is considered a conspiracy. Yes, it is institution after institution that are now inhabited by people who one are actually more like actors than they are like people attempting to do the job that is is the one they've ostensibly been hired for. But worse, they don't know it. Do I mean, so that OK, this is where we're going to do. They not know this. Pull up and not know that he's he's moving around bad science. Do these journalists not know that journalism requires you to have a follow up, effing question. Where's the science? Where's the data handed to me? Well, I would I would say Paul Offit is a tough call. I don't I don't know how Paul Offit runs. I've seen him say some things that make me worry about his moral commitments. But it's possible. I mean, the real question is, did he vaccinate his kids or would he still? And I can't answer that question. I think there are clearly people in this milieu who know and wouldn't. But I do think in all of these realms, you have something. In which you are supposed to have a higher goal. And then you've been hired to do something. It's like, OK, good. I want to pursue the truth. And somebody's actually hired me to do so on stories that they're going to send me. Right. If that's the structure, it can work because there's enough alignment between your objectives and the person you hired you. But the degree to which. People can be trained to do something else, and I think mostly what they are doing is they are detecting. Their own well-being, they're like looking at their well-being as if it was a stock price. And any time if I make this move, my stock price is going to plummet. The answer is, well, then I'm going to make the inverse move. And the point is that overrides your commitment to the scientific method. It overrides your commitment to truth. And the really weird part is and I wonder I say this as a I don't call myself an atheist because I'm angry at the way atheists have handled the question of religion and dealt with religious people. I think it's disgusting. But a de facto atheist, that's where I am. I wonder if part of the problem is that people who do not have a religious orientation can make their peace with things that somebody who actually believes cannot. Yeah. And, you know, how do you make the decision to not publish a study that reveals at least strong evidence of severe harm to children that would potentially derail the maiming force? How do you not publish that if you think that the universe cares about whether you do the right thing? I know. I'll tell you. OK. Because I think it's I've seen the slippery slope. I've watched it many times. But first of all, what Zervos says is it won't make a difference. If I publish it, the system is so corrupt. He says this. It's so corrupt. I'll get destroyed. I'll never be remembered. None of this will matter. No one's going to change anything. The government would have to get involved. They won't. These institutions are never going to listen to it. So to be just a futile, you know, self I'm going to emulate or I just, you know, destroy myself for no reason, I think he tells himself that now, whether that's true or not, that's the story tells himself. And then this has been going on for years when I was making Vaxxed. I would, you know, because I was I was coming from the doctor's television show. I knew doctors and scientists all around the world. So I went to people that I'd done shows with. I'd made them famous for some surgery or something and say, hey, have you ever looked at the vaccine issue? Curious. And so many times they say, is this off the record? Yeah, I mean, if it has to be. All right, Del. I mean, I'm talking to people like heads of universe, like medical systems. I know for I've watched with my own eyes, vaccines are causing autism. I will never say that on a camera ever. I will never. You don't ever report it. I trust you. But you're you're on to something, Del. I hope you can get to the bottom of it, but I will never say it. Because if I do, I have a great research project going right now that is on the verge of hearing a cancer or I got diabetes in my sights. And if I get into this vaccine issue, I will lose all my funding and I will not be able to save millions of people. I believe I'm on the verge of saving millions of people. And by making that statement, that'll be taken away from me. And those people will die. And so I'm saving those people for so for Zervos, I'm saving these people at the cost of these. And it really doesn't matter because no one's going to do anything about this anyway. Right. OK. So that's how they justify it. That is how they justify it. It still doesn't tell me whether or not these are people who believe in a higher power. Oh, I. Yeah. But. I do think that that's how it works in the mind, as I've talked about with my audience before. Utilitarianism is a a wicked problem in the following sense. On average, we should want. A utilitarian calculus to prove that, in other words, in general, if something improves the well-being of a larger number of people, it's usually good. Mm hmm. It's not always good. Slavery can be argued to, you know, be the greatest good for the greatest number. You know, we enslave a tiny number of people and everybody else profits from it. And the point is, no, you don't get to do that no matter what. So the point is we have a basic attraction to utilitarian calculus. And we don't understand the pitfalls of it, that it can justify literally anything, including slavery, including genocide. So once you have this kind of rule of thumb attraction to utilitarianism, you also know what lie you have to tell yourself in order to justify your inaction, which is what you're telling me. Yeah. If I think I'm on the verge of a big breakthrough and it's going to save a ton of people. And if I do this other thing, I will save no people and it won't have the positive effect. Then the answer is, well, then this is the morally correct thing to do. This is actually my biggest concern about the so-called rationalists is that they have they've they have a explicit commitment to this kind of calculus. And I do think it is in conflict with a well, the beauty of the belief in a higher power is. It's not gameable, right? If you know that you're telling yourself a lie because you fear what happens if you tell yourself the truth, you can get away with that between you and you. But you can't get away with that if somebody is listening into your thoughts and saying, you know better, you're not on the verge of saving millions of people. And you know what? If you did take this risk, it would make a difference. Right. So I think we're really we've discovered a flaw in the way civilization runs at the moment, which is that science displaced faith. Maybe that needed to happen, but we didn't replace it with anything that could do the heavy lifting that faith did. Yeah. And it didn't remain true to its own principles of what science is supposed to be. So it just became another religion. Yes. You know, it's just it just happens all all that science and medicine is to me now is the most powerful religion in the world. That's all that it really is. It's become a faith based religion. It demands more faith than almost any other religion. And it lacks a God. The God in this religion is human beings that are completely and totally flawed. And we will we you know, we've we've imbued it with the same ideas of God. But these people are flawed individuals that make millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. And so this thing is so far off track. And to the point, I think that a lot of people have worked with from Bobby Kennedy and many we do feel, you know, a spiritual calling. I think God plays a big role in this movement, if you will, and the medical freedom movement, Maha movement, whatever you want to call it. You are one of the anomalies is calling. We've had some great conversations, you know, floating in Lake Travis that, you know, enjoyed. And, you know, I think you have a very unique perspective on when you're saying atheist, I don't think it rings for how most people think that word means. But and we could get into a conversation about what happens when you believe you are actually working for God, which is what I do. I mean, it's it changes. It's amazing when you really think I'm just a vessel and God needs me to be as clear and open, keep saying, yes, I'll never be as Ervos like I am the opposite. Yeah. And I find great benefit to the fact that I take huge risks and and I believe God's got my back. When you walk with that, it imbues maybe an unrealistic set of abilities, but it it gives you a confidence, I think, that has pays dividends in many, many ways. But that's a different conversation because what I think is important and I really want to pick your brain on is we can sit here and analyze what's making journalists tick that they're not doing their job. We can sit here and come to, you know, conclusions on how scientists aren't doing their job. But my biggest concern is the human beings of this planet at this moment. I don't. We're buying microphones on podcasts in your pocket. We want to get through to people. And I keep bashing scientists and showing studies refute them. But it's like you're I feel like I'm talking to an audience that is half as like it's just gotten so used to dramatic statements and outrageous news. And the new the television has been turned up to, you know, the spinal tap. It's just everything's been an 11 for so long that when something comes through, that really is important and it's really dangerous. It's just taken, you know, with a spoon of sugar, just like every other loud piece of information that's coming out. Like I think there's a reason of all the topics you've challenged a lot of things in science. This one's bigger than that. This is the lives of your children. This is the future of our species at the very least. I mean, just our natural desire to want to put covid behind us as though we've we've learned. So we haven't learned what happened there. We don't know what happened and we don't know if it's over. We don't know. There's so much we don't know. But we just it's time to change. I've got to change the channel like this 80 D. I just want more. Let me do some other Kardashian level drama. But and I feel like in some ways I'm repeating the same story over and over again. But this I don't know any other issue that's like this. There's there's some big issues in the world. There's wars, potential wars going on. We've got central reserve banking systems and but and but this. I still see on the television, they're like vaccinations are down. It's down to, you know, lower 90 percent or something or maybe upper 80 percent of people are still vaccinating. And I think when I got into this, I just wanted freedom. I've been saying I just fighting for freedom. But the truth is, is the freedom is not really going to last if they were achieving if 90 percent of the people still think this is a great product and aren't paying attention. Well, OK. I think covid did something unique. And we're losing it. I feel the same thing. Everybody's desire to move on from covid has got them not paying attention to the fact that covid wasn't really covid. It was a larger story that marches on and has you in its sights. Still, it's coming back. And we're in a shot to be sure. Yeah. But the the key thing for me is I understand that we can have impassioned arguments about the red team and the blue team. And then you go to the polls, something happens. And you can barely detect the impact of whatever shift occurred in your life. You know, maybe there's a big initiative that changes the crappy way you get your crappy health insurance. But it's hard to detect the impact of your right or wrong belief. Yeah. In the case of covid and the especially the mRNA shots, people had very strong beliefs about people like you and me. Those guys are nuts. All right. They took the shots and large numbers of them now have these sudden mysterious pathologies, aggressive cancers. There's a lot of death and injury. And it was a moment at which, hey, your wrong belief caused you a health problem. And if it didn't, it caused it to somebody you know. So the point is, whoa, that's a lot of consequence for a wrong belief. And a the rational response is the right thing to do would have been to say, actually, precaution involves me not accepting that novel technology. Maybe it works. Maybe it isn't harmful, but it sure can't be safe because it hasn't been around long enough to know what it does to a person over the course of a decade. So it was an opportunity to make that point. The thing about the rest of the vaccine schedule is. I know that we have a huge number of injured people and I have reasonable confidence in what happened to many of them. If that connection is right, the thing that really motivates me is all of the people who haven't been harmed. Yes, you may not be able to do anything for the vast number of people who've been maimed, but you can certainly stop creating new maimed children. And I do not understand the mind that lies to itself in that context. What I want to know is me and whoever else can we agree that we can do that? Can we agree that if those shots were doing what I think they're doing to kids, that it is the highest priority that we save those kids who have yet to be harmed from them? And instead, we get this kind of mushy, dissembling. Well, these experts say this. I just want agreement. If I'm right, this should end. And then maybe I'm not right. But if I'm right, let's agree this should end because no decent person could possibly disagree with that, I think. Yeah. Well, in those numbers and usually on my show, I'm very positive. I'm being really honest with you right now that we've sat, we've put together events, defeat the mandates and really put a lot on the line to try and move as many people. And we have, I don't mean to be negative, but we're watching changes happening. We're watching a government, I think, being more dramatically different. Like when you're saying when you vote red or blue or you have that argument, the country doesn't change that much. It doesn't seem like we've been told this is a giant, you know, aircraft carrier that takes forever to turn and within the four years or eight years, you really don't get much done. I would say there's a huge turn happening in several fronts that I care about. How long will it last? Will we see it? Hold on. I want to clarify one thing that I must not have made plain enough. OK. I'm not saying that things don't change substantially based on who you vote for. I'm saying that the average person sitting in their living room can't feel it. Yeah. Right. Something shifts some. Yeah. You know, and, you know, unfortunately for, you know, my entire adult life, yeah, it was really a choice between, you know, which crime family was up and which crime family was down. The point is it doesn't feel that different. You know, who are you being taken advantage on this issue? You know, 50 percent. What is it they're saying at the CDC? Seventy six percent of Americans now have a chronic disease. That's going to be hard to change. Like that's going to you know, they're sick and they're going to mostly go to doctors who are the same people that are in the same system that are making them sick. And so odds are you're right. And I actually am working on a new company for exactly that. I think we've got to build a new health care system that actually has care in mind and is about making you healthy, is not pumping you for drugs, but actually trying to get you off of drugs if you're on them, figure out better alternative holistic ways to live your life that, you know, nutrition huge. I think the pyramids great. But to the point, Brett, that's going to get really difficult here in the very near future and where I'm now trying to think of, I mean, I'm always in the strategy. We had a great strategy discussion back in Bath when you were arguing. And you said to me something that I have reiterated to myself many times. You said, I don't think you have taken stock of how much the world has changed around you. You've been in this fight so long, you're fighting the same way. You said to me, look who's in the room today in this dinner. You've got Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the M-Arnach technology. One of them got Gear Abandoned Boss. You've got me. We're here. We weren't here last year. You were all alone. I get it. But you need to reassess your strategy based on how the game has just changed. I think we're in that moment, which is we do have people shifting. And I do when the numbers that are amazing are I think amongst pregnant women, 60 percent in America when polled, at least whatever poll this was, said they are not going to stick to the CDC schedule. So that's a huge that's outside the 90, 80 percent. That could have a huge title effect to how this whole nation sits. But right behind that is going to be a world that the media run by pharma is going to take advantage of, which is measles is coming back. Oh, my God, the measles outbreak. Oh, my God, the chickenpox outbreak. Oh, my God, the end. And I think we're we do a disservice when people that aren't vaccinated say my kids never get sick. That's not true. That's not true. Yeah, they're not sick long. I mean, my kids are unvaccinated. They get sick for about eight hours. One day, my son, 17, he's warm himself down. I think he was sick for two days. It looked really bad. He's just fine now. But our kids need to get sick. We've got to change. I mean, the hardest part of this is one thing to say these things are dangerous. And a lot of people are getting that. COVID certainly helped make that clear. But in a world of AI and a world of moving forward, the technology and advancement, advancement, advancement, is that society actually capable of humming to the conclusion that actually going backwards in this one space is our way forward. That's very well said. I would point out two things. One, I think there's a battle that has to happen where the public has to come to understand nonspecific negative effects of vaccines, because part of the problem is you you hear measles vaccine and you think about measles. And as you have pointed out, maybe this is effective at preventing measles. But that's not what you as someone deciding whether or not to give this to your kid wants to know. What you want to know is, is this net health beneficial for my kid? Which is a much tougher question. Yes. Because there are lots of things. We don't know why they're connected to vaccines, but that seemed to be lots of things that we just didn't anticipate. And, you know, Christine Stable Ben has done a great job of tracking these nonspecific effects. And anyway, the public needs an upgrade in that regard. I'm trying to remember there was another point that I needed to put on the table here, and I can't remember what it was. Well, it was about this new world of having to accept that we're going back is the way to go forward. Got it. Here's here's the other little upgrade that. That's to happen in order for that to make sense. You've got a public that is used to the latest phone. Has all the stuff your last one did, plus a bunch of new stuff. And so there's this sort of addiction to, well, I want more features because I mean, especially in the context of a phone, what exactly am I giving up? Right. Yeah. That is not how things work when what you're doing is you are intervening in a complex system that is delicately balanced by evolution in a way that no human being understands. I'm tempted to say completely understands. But the fact is we're at the very beginning of understanding how a human functions and our ability to intervene in a way that is net positive is minimal. So I think the addiction to your the newest phone has a carry over that it doesn't deserve in the area of medicine. Right. Well, you know, if I'm going to take, you know, the measles shot, I want the newest one. No, you don't. When you're talking about taking a drug or a vaccine, you want the one that is best understood that the people who took it first have been around the longest. So we have some idea what its net impact is, or at least have that potential. And so, you know, going right back to what you described about your natal home, right? You were eating traditional stuff that used to be called food. Now we've got stuff that we call food that really shouldn't qualify. Right. It's a formula that's being tried on us. So getting people to separate their more or less rational attraction to the newest AI engine, the latest phone, the newest car, to separate that from their instinct about. Medicine and food, that's the key, right? You are an ancient organism built for an environment you don't live in. You should want to deviate from your ancestral environment as little as possible, because you put a person, especially developmentally, you put them in an environment that looks like the ancestral environment from the beginning and then you allow them to go through development in that environment. And then you make the adult environment match that that's going to be a healthy person. All of this ill health comes from a mismatch between the critter and the environment. And that mismatch is coming from us. The call is coming from inside the house. It's a technological pathology. Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be tough, though. I mean, and I think there's another feature to this I'm worried about. You know, I mean, I've said I want my kids at the measles that blows people's minds. Like I want them to catch chickenpox. In fact, I am concerned, Brett, that my unvaccinated kids aren't the same thing as the original baby boomers that were not vaccinated for any of these diseases and did just fine. Because they were being primed by these illnesses. There are studies that show reduced heart disease if you had measles as a child. Yeah, absolutely. Cancer is if ovarian cancer. I think is if a woman had mumps and measles when she was a kid, not from vaccinate, doesn't do it. But there's there's obviously a priming of the immune system. I'm concerned that, you know, kids now that are unvaccinated, they're not necessarily we're not going back to square one. I think about this, you know, what really sort of triggered me on this was I would always say when I started this whole thing on vaccines, you know, the greatest invention of the 20th century is in vaccines. It's penicillin. Penicillin save far more lives in all of this. But then, as I realized, the more reporting I do on, you know, antibiotics and the fact that most manufacturers are giving up on making antibiotics because they can't keep up with the evolution of the bacteria and the resistance and they're causing scarier and scarier, you know, bacteria in hospitals and things. And then I thought, you know, we're still the window we're looking at is Pasteur as a genius. But if we get to a point inside of, you know, a hundred years where we just give up on antibiotics, but we're not going when we do that, we're not going back to prior to Pasteur. We now live in a world where we have created superbugs that are like unstoppable, eating flesh, eating, you know, growing on walls no matter how much antiseptic you pour on a hospital. They're just teeming with these things. And will the same story be told of Pasteur if all he did was give us a tiny little moment of success, but left us with the most dangerous environment that we would have never had had we not introduced antibiotics to the environment. So these are the questions that I ponder now. And it's the same thing. We can't just go back to not vaccinating. Our infants aren't protected from measles or chickenpox. They're in danger. So the vaccine program is wiped out infant immunity. So now we've got to you see Bobby doing people are saying, why is he not, you know, getting rid of chickenpox, the ridiculous vaccine or even measles? Most of us know it's a Brady Bunch episode because I was in those conversations, been with scientists, even Andy Wakefield, when we were making vax, who's the big bad guy in this, he's like, we can't just send the measles vaccine program. So he's like, babies will die. I mean, we have messed ourselves up. So there's the the fact that my kids aren't being primed the way they're supposed to. And then something I'm really thinking about now is doctors aren't trained for any of these illnesses. To them, measles looks terrifying. And I look at these two deaths that happened in Texas that obviously the media wants to scream about. It's almost like they're being murdered by medicine. And I'm not saying on purpose, but if you walk into a hospital and they go, oh, you're not vaccinated, well, you're going to die. I don't want my doctor's assumption that I'm going to die of what I've just walked in to the hospital with. But they've been trained to think like that. Whereas 40 years ago, I walk in the hospital like, oh, you just have the measles. Let's get you some vitamin A. We'll get you out of here. You'll be fine. Go lay up, play some board games. Everything's going to be fine. We're living in a totally different world. All of this is going to be so much more dangerous to experience. Yes. There are a number of points here. One of them I think you're going to appreciate. Doctors aren't real doctors, which means that even the fact that something is going to reemerge is a special problem because when doctors were scientists, they would have trained themselves anew. Whereas if they're handed, you know, anti-vaxxers of the problem, they're going to die, all this stuff, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes. But on the point regarding bacterial resistance, there's a hidden story here, and I wish people understood it because actually it tells us a lot about complex systems and medicine and governance. It's a really kind of an interesting thing to understand. So we are screwing up by overusing every antibiotic at our disposal, creating a gain of function experiment in which we are training these bacteria to overcome our best weapons. And the point is it's getting ever harder to find substances that actually will deal with these new resistant bugs. However, we have the solution to that at our disposal anytime we choose to avail ourselves of it. It involves the fact that there are trade-offs in these bugs, and I'm using bugs loosely, obviously talking about microbes. Yeah. The trade-offs mean that there is a cost to being resistant. The bugs that have resistance thrive because they are so regularly encountering the antibiotics in question. Right. So they are being reinforced in their resistance because the cost of lacking that resistance is greater than the cost of having it. That ceases to be the case as soon as we stop applying this stuff. Right. What happens is the cost of being resistant now outcompetes the cost of not being resistant because there's no benefit to it. So whatever extra investment it takes to be resistant is unremunerated. So all you got to do to fix an antibiotic is withdraw it completely for a long enough period of time for evolution to return these things to their baseline state. But you cannot do that in a libertarian environment. This requires coordination. We have to agree that actually the loss of that antibiotic is sufficiently bad for humanity, that we have to take it away for a period of time to restore it and nobody gets to break the rule. Right. You have to be able to do it in a coordinated fashion or it won't work. Yeah. So I don't know that we have the wherewithal to do that. Sounds tyrannical, I'm sure. But we all need those antibiotics. We are creating the very problem that requires them. Yeah. And we are leaving ourselves no off ramps. So we need to wrap our minds around the fact that even though and I'm you know I know how this will sound to people. If you take an antibiotic that is developing, the resistance is being developed towards and you withdraw it, some people will die, some people who might have been saved by that antibiotic. Now, maybe there's a contingency plan. Maybe we can, you know, let's take a ship and turn it into a floating hospital where we can carefully deploy an antibiotic. Yeah. In a way that resistance can't escape back into the world. I don't know if there's a plan like that that would be viable, but we have to be able to coordinate our use because it is the libertarian free for all that has produced the resistance that we now can't keep up with. It's a very I mean, it's a very good point. And it's it's one of the things, you know, in this movement, I've been a part of what I would call the medical freedom movement for almost 10 years. The big baddie is any concept of a greater good, right, is we're going to make a decision for the greater body of humanity because everyone that's been injured by a vaccine. That was the argument that was used. You are an accepted casualty to achieve herd immunity. Fortunately, science didn't know how big that casualty is. And I think it is far higher than can be, you know, justified in actual math. But what you're talking about and I've said it is I'm sorry, every decision is a greater good decision of some kind, whether we're vaccinating or not vaccinating, whether we're deciding because there are casualties to every single choice that we make. Yes. And someone has got to do the math on what is the greater casualty. And I think at the moment, the way we are using antibiotics, the way we are using vaccines and the way that we are approving pharmaceutical products, especially vaccines, our species is not long for this earth. And and I don't mean naturally, I mean specifically if we keep this is what I say to every journalist, I don't care what you actually think of the covid vaccine, whether you are blind somehow to the amount of carnage. It's caused. But let's say it was successful. I assure you that if we continue to live in a world where the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to rush a brand new technology that messes with your DNA, your M RNA, whatever you want to call it, rush it onto the market within a year, skip out and then get an emergency use authorization by the government to skip out of all long term safety trials and then mandate that everyone in order to get on a bus or on a plane or go to a job or go to a school have to take this totally experimental product. Somehow we got lucky that covid, at least so far, it may have a longer term burn, did not destroy our species. But if we continue with that, allowing pharma to rush products onto the market, rush brand new technologies, get it mandated by every government in the world and everyone in a stronger and stronger authoritarian system around the world, globalist system, is forced to take this product. Nature has never and will never deliver a virus or a bacteria that can wipe the species out. But rushing science mandated on all humanity that is perfectly capable of doing that and will eventually. Well, let's put it this way. My top priority in this regard is the gain of function has to stop. Yeah. Right. Because what effectively we have are. Weapon scientists who have gotten bored with the 16 or whatever weaponizable pathogens that nature handed them and they're now shopping in all of the things that make creatures that aren't exactly human sick and looking for ones that they can teach to infect people for their own demonic purposes. Yeah. So that has to stop because we actually have pretty good resistance to the things that are circulating. Right. The story. We've been evolving with them for a very long period of time. We have. And what happened to the indigenous people of the new world when the Spaniards arrived looms too large for us because the point is this has already happened. Right. It got everywhere and everything gets everywhere, which has rendered these things much more controllable because selection has already acted to make us capable of dealing with them. That's not true if Anthony Fauci and his insane friends are dropping the caves of the Yunnan province for bat viruses that they can train. Right now, suddenly we're dealing with a whole bunch of new pathogens that we don't have the experience to deal with. And so anyway, I don't need to convince you of that, but we are technologically putting the species in danger in short order. We're doing it physiologically. We're also doing it technologically. I mean, the experiment that we are running on ourselves with AI is not psychologically safe among other risks. It is my new vaccine focus that that thing scares me. I mean, I may have found something that could potentially be more dangerous than a horror safety around vaccines. It's very frightening, even if I'm alert to the possibility of a misalignment where the AI goes after us. But you don't need to get anywhere near those scenarios to see how this can catastrophically disrupt humans and is already beginning to do so. So, well, anyway, I'm interested to hear that you're of this mind and on a project to potentially, I hope, refocus medicine around, I would argue, the precautionary principle and Chesterton's fence that we need to understand that all of the technological stuff we've done has been born of an understanding of the complicated. We are complex, complicated and complex, sound like synonyms. They're not complex. Things are fundamentally unpredictable. And so you intervene at your peril. Right. And our love of intervention and the few cases in which we've made interventions that, you know, frankly, all of the interventions that we've made that have worked spectacularly well work because they work in concert with things about the body we don't understand. Like, for example, surgery. Well, surgery works because you can slice open the human body. You can take something out or modify something and then the body has magical properties to put itself back together that we're there having nothing to do with medicine. Right. You try that with your car, you know, take a chain and, you know, cut into your car and see how well it heals. Right. Right. Your car is complicated. You are complex and we need we need to as much as possible let the body take care of itself and stop imagining that we're gods and that we intervene in all of these magical ways that, you know, are all good and not bad. And yeah, anyway, it's it's an important transition and I and I wish you luck with it. Thank you. Thank you. Before we close out here, I did want to get your sense of where we are in the larger context. You as Bobby's campaign manager saw. Director of Communications. I'm Director of... Amaryllis Kennedy was campaign manager. I ran the media perspective, social media, getting him, you know, handling the story. Right. Well, sorry about the error. It's OK. But I'm wondering, you've seen the system now up close in a way that few of us have. Yeah. And you're obviously watching what's taking place, not just at the level of human health, but at the level of this administration, which you and I both had a hand in making happen. Yeah. Where do you think we are? Where do you think we're headed? Are you optimistic? Are you concerned? Both. I like to say to journalists because they ask me that all the time. It's like, I'm giddy. I'm singing in the car. You know, I feel really good about what I see happening. I first sat Bobby down. I took out a... I don't know if it was a presidential suite, but the Hyatt in Washington, D.C. I took out a room that had a big, long conference table in it. I knew Aaron Siri, who I worked very closely with, were going to be in D.C. And they were going to be making some rounds. So I knew Bobby was going to be in D.C. I think it was like 2018, 19. And I'll never forget, I invited him up for a meeting and I was going to get us dinner. I got this nice room, but he shows up with his own box, mealy's ravenous and starving and sitting there in like, you know, the jean shirt. Great. I mean, I just love Bobby in so many ways. He's such a natural guy in such an unnatural environment where you think of Washington, D.C. But in that moment, you know, he's like,"All right, guys, why my hair?" And I pitched to him then that I thought he should run for president. I said, "I think that we are making a lot of headway in this conversation now, but that the censorship's moving in." Remember, this is pre-Joe Biden. There's only been at that moment one debate with all 20 people on stage. And I was like, "Bobby, you can jump in there and you're going to survive the debates, at least for this first several, because your name recognition alone will give you above the 2% that you need. You're coming in at an advantage." And I said, "You're going to get a real advantage because I think the media is going to make a tragic mistake and attack you on vaccines and give you far more airtime than most of the people on that stage on that one issue. And I'll be in the background working with you and Aaron, and we'll run your social media and show everybody the science." That was my hair brain idea. He thought about it for a few weeks and then just said, "I'm just not sure this is the right time." Of course, COVID hit right at the end of that whole election cycle. And I'm still curious what that would have looked like if Bobby... And remember, in that situation, Bobby would have been on liberal news and they would have watched him speak. But anyway, I don't go back in time and I'm not the type of person that really wastes a lot of time there. I did get the call when he did decide to run and ended up being his Director of Communications. And it was an incredible ride, incredible journey. I got to be in the Oval Office when he was sworn as HHS Secretary, which I did think in that moment, "God is good. This is bigger and better than anything any of us dreamed. We have toiled and slaved to get this guy wherever he was going." But I really asked myself as I was leaving that day, "Did I ever picture him as President? In the whole new age, did I have... I never put a vision board on my wall and Bobby standing, sitting behind the desk or anything. And so the whole flight home, I was just,"What were we doing?" And I want to say that, you know, Amaryllis Kennedy, Charles Eisenstein, me, and, you know, Stephanie Speer around Bobby and Bobby, who's a very spiritual person, but we all... When I think about it, I don't know that we were just signed off and he's going to be President. It was a long shot, no matter what. But none of us felt like it was just some futile... It wasn't a lark. It wasn't a lark. There was something that was happening. We knew it was going to pay off. Somehow this is going to... We feel it. We're here for a reason. It's too big. There's too many doors opening in really miraculous places for this not to add up to something. So I do believe in God and I do believe in my... The coincidences are too big and too brilliant. All that said, getting close to DC is the most... It's a horror show. I don't like it. Bobby asked me if I was interested in coming in and being in media inside of DC. There's no part of me that... Certainly that's not my calling at the moment. I watched the criticisms. I was frustrated by the criticisms against him by people on our own side. Why has he stopped talking about vaccines? He's given up on it. I was like, "Well, you let the guy get into the job, right? The food issue." I'm happy to admit this. Press is like, "He really moved the food as soon as Maha. Just to get more people." I was like, "Yeah." It was a much more easier conversation to have on the dangers of food than the dangers of vaccines. So did he use that to get more people behind him? I was like, "Yeah." Yes. It's not like he made it up though. He's been fighting for clean food his whole life. It wasn't like he made it up to hoodwink people. It's just like, "Hey, there's this other part of something that I think we all more obviously care about." So coming out of the gate immediately started fixing the food supply. Just to look at that last year in review, I was being asked as we were trying to see if he would get confirmed. Donald Trump got in and I cheered and it was amazing. But then I realized, "Oh, wait a minute. This doesn't mean anything. Bobby's not confirmed yet." That became its own major heavy lift and scary and very, very close. I don't think people realize how close that was to not happening. But even before the election, red dye number four was being taken down by HHS by the same criminals that had had that job for decades and not done it. So when people were saying to me, "What effect do you think Robert Kennedy Jr. can have?" I was like, "He's already having it. He's already brought attention to issues that no one in this country were ever paying attention to." Red dye is coming out. It's not because because Bobby Kennedy's coming and all those people don't want to go in history as being the last fools that poisoned America. They want to say, "No, I started that before Bobby ever got there." And I would say in those interviews at that moment, if I went on the street right now and said, "Who's to every stop a thousand people? Who's the current HHS secretary?" Would they tell me Javier Becerra? They're like, "No." I was like, "How many?" I don't think one in a thousand, every reporter said, "I don't even think one in a thousand could do it." I'd say, "If I go out there and say who's about to be the HHS secretary of the United States of America?" Like, "Yeah, maybe one in 10." I was like, "That is the change." The change is we're engaged now as a voting public. And no matter what you think of Donald Trump, the one great thing about him is he woke America up. Whether you hate him, you vote against him. If you love him, you're voting for him. But both sides are realizing we're in a dangerous situation and I got to get more involved. So for all of those reasons, we're a greater nation right now than I think we've been in most of my lifetime. And to watch what Bobby's doing, starting out with food, removing chemicals from food that every liberal has wanted, every crunchy granola mom, I'm shocked they're still calling themselves Democrats. Or somehow mustering up, I think he's a crazy person. We've been talking about the food supply. He's fixing the food supply. Marty McCarry, I think, has been brilliant. Speaking out, we're going to have placebo trials. No more vaccines without placebo trials. Huge change. We're no longer going to give flu shots that can't prove to stop the virus that's circulating. Seems like a no-brainer, but... It took a lot of brain. It took a lot of brain to make that happen. I think seeing Donald Trump sort of really pressing upon Bobby to look at the peer nations and say, you know, can we study their vaccine programs? And this shift two weeks ago to the Denmark schedule plus chickenpox, I think, will save millions of lives. It's not over. There's still, you know, we've gone from 17 vaccines to 11, I think it is, or there were diseases. There's 54 vaccines. It's turning into 23, 54 shots to 23 shots at the moment, but they're still going to mandate those other ones. So for my work, I say I'll be done when I got into this with Vaxxed. I'll be finished when vaccines aren't mandated and when liability is back on the manufacturer. We have a free market system. When we get back to what the United States of America is supposed to be, you got to prove the damn thing safe. And if it isn't safe, then there's other products you're going to compete with. We're going to state it publicly. We're not going to make people take it so you don't have to fix it. We're not going to protect your liability. I think we just get back to that natural world. Most of these problems will start. I think science will return. I think the scientific method hopefully will get involved there and we're moving in that direction. So I'm ecstatic with what I see. I think that there's still vaccines. I think the Gardasil vaccine is one of the worst things ever made. It was sad to see it stay on the schedule, which says to me, I know Bobby, I know he works by consensus inside of people he trusts. So somewhere in Oz, Dr. McCarry and J. Bhattacharya, there must be a love for that vaccine. I don't know why. It is so useless, so pointless, has achieved nothing except damage. I think there's also the assumption that the ACIP meetings that are going on, and Robert Malone, I loved watching him run that last meeting. I love him in that position. I'm not sure how long it will stay there, but I think aluminum is going to come under the spotlight. That, Paul Offit's screaming bloody murder over that. So just watch Paul Offit if you want to see how much success you have. Just keep it around. Whatever he's screaming about. Monitor if his eyes are bulking. Exactly. Aluminum's a horrific thing that we're doing. It is going to be devi... Paul Offit's right. It'll be very devastating, the vaccine program. If you come to the obvious conclusion that there's no neurotoxin, shouldn't be injected into children, the justice that it is. Especially of liability, we're back on the table. Especially. So my concerns are midterms. I think that Bobby will be the first. If the Republicans, and I'm not... I consider myself politically marooned. I obviously supported Bobby. I stand behind Trump because he's supporting Bobby. It's a huge part of what we're doing here, but I think Bobby is the most effective part of this administration right now. Oh, I think that's clear. And I think that if the Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House, if that actually took place, I think Bobby would be impeached almost immediately. I think that... And so that concerns me. That's frightening. I will say I'm watching Bobby, and as you know, I have defended him against attacks from our side, which attacks that like you, I have some sympathy with. There are some things that should be done that aren't being done. But I also, in watching Bobby, it is clear that he is doing something that I don't think most of us would be capable of stomaching. What must it be like to have to negotiate in an environment where you know that how well you do adjusts how many children will be maimed, but you can't get the number to zero because you'll be out on your ear. Right? That's a rough position for a good man to be in, to have to negotiate over this. It's a Schindler-like position. It's unthinkable. And anyway, more power to Bobby for being able to do it because it needs to be done. And to the thing he beluded, I think the one thing in being as close to him for the years that I worked with him on the campaign, his spiritual life, his guiding principles to life are unmatched in the political arena. And I want to make sure I'm not saying religious, I'm saying spiritual. He's guided by something much bigger than himself. And I think that he, all along the way, and I mean this, if he didn't get confirmed or if Trump didn't win, his energy would be almost identical the next day because he truly lives his life believing if God, if it's meant to happen and I'm the right vessel for it, it will happen. I'm going to be smart. He's obviously working the political system better than most ever have. He grew up in it. He's designed for it. I'm sure he would love to change everything tomorrow. But when I sat with him at dinner, he knows the attacks, they don't bother him. From his own side, right? And the opposite side is always easy. But the friendly fire, he gets it. He understands it. He, in many ways, is forgiving of their lack of knowledge of the world that he's actually in, in the vampires and darkness that he's surrounded by. But most importantly, I think he's seeing every day as, every day I survive here, I get to do a little more good. And, you know, God willing, I last long enough to get this entire job done. But he sees that as being out of his hands. I think he's playing some chess with Trump just to make sure Trump stays happy on some things that they may not agree. I think he knows, can't piss him off. I'm going to get all these other things done that I can. And I think he's got to be ecstatic that he's really making some big sweeping changes right now and moving everything in the right direction. So he seems to be having the time of his life and I couldn't do it. It does take compromise. I'm too much of a right fighter. I can't. As strategic as I believe myself to be, I'm not as strategic as he is. And he is designed for this. And we are so lucky in this nation, the world is lucky that this man through efforts by guys like you and me and so many people that came from our different walks of life. This is a ragtag team that came together and it's pulled off really a political miracle. And I think he's making huge change. My concerns right now is how do we make sure that they're fortified and can stand the test of time. Yeah, I agree with you exactly. I don't know how Bobby does it because I think actually you and I both know where his heart is and how much he knows about what needs to happen. And he's watching the clock too. And so the ability to be strategic when you can see everything that's at stake and you must want to put your foot on the gas. It's a remarkable quality. And anyway, I'm glad he's doing it. He is the strongest argument for the Trump administration having been a success. And I'm worried too about the midterms. But anyway, let's hope that goes well. Yeah, well, I'm not into hope as much as as much action as I can. Yeah. For them, sure. We'll talk more about strategies on what we need to do there. But it's in our hands. It's back in the people's hands at the moment. And I think we've shown we can get people elected. I think we can make a difference. It is certainly not a time to be apathetic. And it's definitely not a time to think that this battle is over in any way. Yeah, I wish at some level, the scorn that is heaped on Bobby by people who've just not yet made eye contact with what a good person he is and what he is doing on their behalf as they are fighting him. I wish more people would just think for a moment whether or not what they have seen is actually a match for what they have been told about it. Yeah. Right. Just compare those two things, right? Is this person an insane person? No, this is a person with encyclopedic knowledge. Is this, you know, as you point out, what is his motive to get rid of safe and effective vaccines for children? Is he a monster? No. Doesn't look like a monster. Those of us who know him know he isn't one. So anyway, if people could just realize something is off about what they've been told. Yeah. And then go back with the fresh, fresh eyes and look at what he's doing and realize, oh, wow, this is long overdue and nobody else could have done it. Exactly. All right. Bigtree. It's been great chatting with you. Where can people find you? I do a weekly podcast called The HighWire.com. You can go there, interview all the great people on the planet that are waking up to all sorts of different realities like yourself. And the other website thing that's very important right now is an inconvenientstudy.com. The film is free. The nonprofit funded our ability to do it. I think we're nearing a hundred million views worldwide, which is very exciting. It's sparked a scientific debate. And my favorite thing about the film is how many people reach out to me and say, I have been trying to get my relative or someone I love to look at this issue. And they finally watched that movie and it actually has got them changing how they think. I think it's a really, really great tool. The way it's designed, it's simple, understandable, and it really defends itself very well. It makes its points. So everyone should be sharing that. I think it's a game changer. And I don't think we're going to have another opportunity like this. Not the way this is set up. That film is a study done by the other side. It has a power to it. It's only the second film I've made. I mean, people think, I do a weekly talk show, but I made Vax. I don't make documentaries because there's just no, I was like, I don't feel like that's a documentary. That wouldn't be a good story. Very proud of this is a reason why it's the second one. So those two websites right now will get you to everything I'm doing. I'm going to be starting a new podcast soon that will just be more getting to the basics of conversation. I love this. I love you, Brett. You're such an inspiration in how you're seeing the world. And I don't know if I was interviewing you here or not, but I really want to sit with you because I am trying to figure out how we recalibrate. We're in a place we never dreamed we'd be, but I don't want to sit in awe of it. I don't want to use it to our advantage to make sure we get everything done. We got to make hay while the sun shines. No question about it. Well, I hope everybody will consider hay is tonight the night that you should go watch this film. I think it might be. It's an hour and a half and you'll be glad you saw it. If you will. An inconvenient study. And anyway, Del, thanks for joining me. It was excellent. And look forward to next time.