0:05

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have

0:07

any commercials? I'm not

0:09

selling you diapers or vitamins

0:11

or smoothies or gasoline. That's

0:14

because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling

0:16

me what I can investigate or what

0:18

I can say. Instead,

0:20

you are our sponsors. This

0:23

is a production by our nonprofit,

0:26

the Informed Consent Action Network. So

0:28

if you want more investigations, if

0:30

you want landmark legal wins, if

0:33

you want hard-hitting news, if you want

0:35

the truth, go to

0:38

ikindecide.org and donate now.

0:42

All right, everyone, we ready? Yeah! Let's

0:44

do this. Action. Good

1:01

morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are

1:03

out there in the world, it's time to

1:05

step out onto the high wire. You know,

1:08

I was just sitting backstage thinking how I

1:10

say that at the top of every show,

1:12

but I really, really think about what that

1:14

means. We're an international show, millions of people

1:17

watching around the world. Right now, someone's crawled

1:19

out of bed at about 4 a.m.

1:22

in Australia to watch the high

1:24

wire. They do this every

1:26

single Thursday. Someone in Izard by Jean is staying up.

1:28

It's about 10 p.m. hanging

1:31

on for those last words to get their fix

1:33

with the high wire. Why? I

1:35

mean, why are they doing it? Why are we

1:38

becoming this sensation around the world? Why? Because

1:40

we have such an amazing track record

1:43

of getting the story right when everyone

1:45

else got it wrong. Well,

1:47

we like to say every once in a

1:49

while, I told you so. It doesn't make

1:52

us happy because a lot of lives have

1:54

been lost and destroyed because of what we

1:56

got right. But this week, and

1:58

I told you so, came from... a

2:00

unique place from a very liberal space

2:03

known as Bill Maher. On

2:05

the Bill Maher real time with Bill

2:07

Maher show, take a look at what

2:09

he said just this week. I

2:13

get it that we didn't know exactly what

2:15

was happening at the beginning of COVID and

2:17

some mistakes were inevitable. But

2:19

four years on, I'm tired of hearing,

2:21

well, we didn't know, no, we didn't.

2:23

But some people guessed better than others.

2:27

And the people who got it wrong don't seem to

2:29

want to acknowledge that now. Some people

2:31

said closing schools for so long was

2:33

pointless and would cause much worse collateral

2:35

damage to kids and they were right.

2:39

Well, we're gonna break down some of what he said.

2:41

Of course, right there, he's talking about closing down the

2:43

schools. Now March of 2024 and

2:46

finally Bill Maher's coming out and telling everyone

2:48

that watches show we've got to admit it,

2:51

okay? We were wrong on a few things

2:53

like shutting down schools. So we thought it'd

2:55

be fun to look back at when was

2:57

the first time we said we thought it

2:59

was a really bad idea to shut down

3:01

schools. Take a look at this. It's

3:04

absolutely crazy. I try to imagine what it would be

3:06

like if I was a kid. Back

3:11

when I was in school, everybody

3:13

got the cold, right? I mean, this

3:15

is essentially what's happening. This is a

3:18

widespread cold. It's really problematic for 0.26%

3:20

that die around the world. But

3:23

we know it's not really problematic at

3:25

all for children. Can you imagine if

3:27

we had been quarantining all these years

3:29

every time someone had a

3:32

cold in school? You would never be

3:34

in school. You would never be back

3:36

to school. And to think we've

3:38

been letting kids walk through the school that are

3:40

HIV positive or have all sorts of back. We

3:42

passed laws to make sure that we

3:45

didn't act too crazy around people that

3:47

had life-threatening illnesses like that that were

3:49

in school. And now what is really,

3:52

and you can honestly say this for

3:54

children, less than the flu, much more

3:56

like the common cold. We are shutting

3:58

down entire. schools.

4:03

It's a world run by hypochondriacs.

4:05

And to think that we're going to

4:08

have to eliminate the common

4:10

cold from the world we live in in order to

4:12

get back to work or go back to school. Right.

4:15

To begin with, that was August of 2020, some

4:17

almost four years ago that we were making that

4:23

statement in the middle of COVID. Now, one

4:25

of the things that Bill Maher said is

4:27

that, well, I mean, we were just guessing.

4:29

I guess guessing you get it once, maybe

4:31

twice, but when you started hitting it out of

4:33

the park, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,

4:36

10, 11, 12 times, at a certain

4:39

point, maybe someone should check in

4:41

with what we're talking about. I

4:43

was attacked. The headline said that

4:45

we were calling it a common cold. There

4:47

was no words to the common cold. That's

4:49

insane. But let's look at the stats. This

4:52

is what anti-vaccine figure, Del Binger, is using

4:54

Facebook and YouTube to encourage people to intentionally

4:56

contract the coronavirus. That was one of the

4:58

headlines because I said for everybody under the

5:00

age of, say, 60 or 70, if

5:04

you're healthy, if you have no comorbidities,

5:06

those other issues that are putting you at risk,

5:08

you should go out and catch this cold so

5:10

we can get to herd immunity. Well, let's look

5:12

at what we now know. Was I wrong? I

5:14

was definitely saying about the kids, zero

5:17

to 19 years old. We now know

5:19

across the world the fatality rate was

5:21

0.0003%. We're reporting back in 2020 that

5:23

the death rate worldwide

5:28

seemed to be about somewhere around 0.27%. It ended up

5:30

at 0.35%. We were right in the ballpark

5:35

of a common cold or maybe

5:37

a bad flu season for many.

5:39

So we had it right, not

5:41

because we were guessing, because we

5:43

were looking at the science coming

5:45

out of China, coming out of Italy, and

5:47

of course the cruise ship that made all

5:49

of this famous. But let's move on to

5:51

the next statement made by Bill Maher on

5:53

what we got right and the rest of

5:55

the world got wrong. headline

6:00

Bill Maher pushes Steve Bannon

6:03

Wuhan lab conspiracy theory which

6:05

was typical of the mainstream media

6:07

at the time. Of course it

6:09

wasn't a conspiracy theory and it

6:11

wasn't owned by Steve Bannon and

6:14

now everyone including the Biden administration

6:16

admits at least a 50-50 chance

6:18

that the virus could have

6:20

begun in the lab in Wuhan

6:22

that was doing gain-of-function research on

6:24

that virus. Now

6:26

long before we had FOIA and got the

6:28

Fauci emails that show that he was talking

6:31

to all of his top scientists that were

6:33

saying it sure looks like there's an insert

6:35

in this virus that would mean it had

6:37

to come from a lab like we're 80%

6:40

sure it's from a lab. Now of course

6:42

he paid people off and manipulated them and

6:44

they wrote a paper saying no way this

6:46

came from a lab is definitely natural origin.

6:49

It's now proven to be one of the

6:51

greatest frauds in science but we weren't just

6:53

pushing a lab theory we were bringing on

6:55

scientists as we do and I've said from

6:58

the beginning you were a part of an

7:00

investigation that we is ongoing here on the

7:02

high wire we brought in people with all

7:04

sorts of different perspectives that were talking about

7:06

things that looked odd

7:08

and strange about this virus. Let's

7:10

go back to Dr. James Lyons

7:12

Wyler that came in to talk

7:14

about his own perspective of an

7:16

insert that appeared to be in

7:18

this virus. Take a look at this. If

7:21

you're looking at this particular coronavirus, this

7:23

coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses

7:26

that are most closely related to

7:28

the bat coronaviruses. However, phylogenetics

7:31

has a hard time placing it

7:33

with only 75% support. All the

7:38

other nodes you'll see on that tree,

7:40

this is a phylogenetic tree of coronaviruses,

7:43

actually have 100% support.

7:45

So what's disrupting the phylogenetic

7:48

signal of placing this into

7:50

a unique monophyletic group as

7:52

it's called in phylogenetics is

7:54

I believe this inserted element. I

7:57

found that it actually did match

8:00

of vector technology,

8:02

this vector technology is

8:04

a mechanism by which

8:07

molecular biologists insert new

8:09

genes into viruses and

8:11

bacteria. This vector

8:13

technology is called a P-shuttle,

8:15

F-N vector. Now,

8:17

it's really unusual to find

8:19

a vector technology sequence in

8:22

a virus that's circulating in

8:24

humans. And so, naturally,

8:26

one thing that we can say,

8:29

I think for certain, is this

8:31

particular virus has a laboratory origin.

8:34

That was January, what, 30th of 2020. I

8:38

mean, we weren't even locked down yet.

8:41

And here on the high wire, we

8:43

were talking to a scientist saying it

8:45

looks like there's an insert that would,

8:47

you know, make us believe that it's

8:49

man-made. We don't see it in nature.

8:52

He talks about the phylogenetics, meaning we

8:54

still, to this day, they cannot find

8:56

an animal, not a pangolin, not a

8:58

rat, not a mouse, not a bat,

9:00

that has SARS-CoV-2. We

9:03

would see something really close nowhere near.

9:06

As James Lyons Wyler so accurately

9:08

put, only about 75% of

9:10

it adds up to what we see in nature. This

9:13

is one of the major strikes against

9:15

anyone that said this was of natural

9:17

origin. And of course, now the Farron

9:19

Cleavidsight insert is what all the world

9:21

is looking at. And was it

9:24

a peace shuttle, as James Lyons Wyler said?

9:26

Well, that would be a way to insert

9:28

a Farron Cleavidsight, but I spoke with him

9:30

recently. He said, we can't guarantee that for

9:33

sure. But what we were talking about

9:35

was inserts that made this virus

9:37

look like something happened, man-made

9:39

was put in there, could not have happened

9:41

in nature, or it would be so extremely

9:44

rare, especially since we saw nothing like it

9:46

and still don't in nature. January

9:48

of 2020 here on the high

9:50

wire. And

9:53

then we got this for saying it,

9:55

media matters. Facebook and YouTube are letting

9:58

anti-vaxxing figure, W-8T push deadly coronavirus. misinformation.

10:00

This is another headline. January 30th,

10:02

Batesley baselessly floated a theory that

10:05

the coronavirus outbreak started with a

10:07

vaccine development accident at a lab.

10:09

He also suggested it is a

10:12

bioweapon. Oh my God. Now

10:14

we know that these bioweapons labs are

10:16

all over the world. There's always the

10:18

potential for a lab leak and we

10:20

were even discussing it then. The Wuhan

10:23

lab had had a previous lab leak

10:25

that we told you about on the

10:27

high wire. So the whole world has

10:29

come around and Bill Maher, we weren't

10:31

guessing. We weren't guessing. We had scientists

10:33

were actually reading the genetic code of

10:35

the virus and pointing out anomalies all

10:37

the way back in January of 2020.

10:40

But go ahead, keep tuning into

10:42

CNN. Keep tuning into MSNBC. Keep

10:44

paying that cable bill so that Fox

10:46

can lie to you about what's on there.

10:48

We'll be totally dead to the actual conversations

10:51

that involve science. But if you want science,

10:53

stick with the high wire. Let's look at

10:55

what else he said. When

10:58

COVID hit, we did a lot of stupid things because

11:00

America never reacts. It

11:02

only overreacts. Ubers

11:05

look like those orthodox Jews who wrap

11:07

themselves in a van,

11:09

who then rot in case their plane flies over a

11:12

grave. We washed the mail. We

11:23

played baseball in front of cardboard

11:25

cutouts. And

11:35

ate in parking lots with

11:38

inflatable dolls. They

11:43

closed the ocean. We

11:45

were told to wash our hands every five minutes

11:47

and don't ever touch your face. And if you

11:50

absolutely must go to the beach for the sake

11:52

of all that's holy, wear a mask. So

11:57

funny if it wasn't so absolutely

11:59

disgusting. destructive to our constitutional

12:01

rights as Americans, to our

12:04

economy, to our jobs, to

12:06

our children's education. But

12:08

let's talk about there's a couple of elements

12:11

here. First of all masks. What were we

12:13

saying about masks? Was it just a hunch?

12:16

Well, here's how we were reporting on it. Are

12:18

you starting to see these images around

12:20

the world? Children with masks

12:22

and shelters in their schools being socially

12:25

distant, stuck in square boxes, more than

12:27

six feet away from each other? This

12:30

article by the world-renowned scientist, Dr. Russell

12:32

Blalock. Here's a couple of quotes from

12:35

a brilliant article. Face masks pose serious

12:37

risk to the healthy. Listen to this.

12:39

As for the scientific support for the

12:41

use of face masks, a recent chemical

12:44

examination of the literature, in which 17

12:46

of the best studies were analyzed, concluded

12:48

that none of the studies established a

12:50

conclusive relationship between mask, respirator use, and

12:53

protection against influenza infection. As

12:55

several studies have indeed found

12:57

significant problems, however, with wearing

12:59

such a mask. This can

13:01

vary from headaches to increased

13:03

airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation,

13:05

to hypoxia, all the way

13:07

to serious life-threatening complications. That

13:10

was May of 2020. Now the Cochrane

13:12

collaboration is backed up in modern

13:14

science, even having been through COVID.

13:16

Physical interventions interrupt or reduce the

13:18

spread of respiratory viruses. Basically finding

13:20

wearing masks in the community probably

13:22

makes little or no difference to

13:25

the outcome of influenza-like illness, like

13:27

illness compared to not wearing masks.

13:29

Wearing masks in the community probably

13:31

makes little or no difference to

13:33

the outcome of a laboratory-confirmed influenza,

13:35

SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks.

13:37

It went on to say social distancing, and none

13:39

of those things made sense. So let's talk

13:41

about the health implications. So we were right.

13:43

We're showing that all the science that existed

13:46

at the moment showed that masks were never

13:48

designed to stop a particle as small as

13:50

a virus, COVID being one of

13:52

the smallest. So that was a charade we

13:54

were all taking place with. But what about

13:56

the dangers? I had my own son on

13:59

the show. of you that maybe

14:01

weren't around with a high wire then, this

14:03

was maybe one of the most viral videos

14:05

we ever put out. It was taken down

14:07

three or four, maybe even five times. Our

14:09

website was shut down behind because of it.

14:11

Take a look at this. This

14:14

is my son, Ever. Ever is 11

14:16

years old and here in Texas, the

14:19

mandate right now is that 10 and over

14:21

have got to wear a mask. Ever has

14:23

to wear a mask wherever we go. And

14:25

so we bought this thing this week. This

14:28

measures the amount of CO2 that's in the

14:31

air. Can we just look at the ocean

14:33

numbers? Carbon dioxide levels and potential health problems

14:35

are indicated below. From 250 to 350 is

14:37

the background normal outdoor level, 350 to 1000

14:40

ppm typical level found in occupied spaces with

14:42

good air exchange, 1000 to 2000 levels associated

14:45

with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

14:48

Obviously, I don't want Ever to have

14:50

drowsiness or poor air. 2000 to 5000

14:52

levels associated with headaches, sleepiness and stagnant,

14:55

stale, stuffy air, poor concentration, loss of

14:57

attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea

14:59

may also be present. And then 5000

15:01

ppm or more. This indicates unusual air

15:04

conditions where high levels of the other

15:06

gases also could be present. Toxicity or

15:08

oxygen deprivation could occur, meaning

15:11

do not hit 5000. All right,

15:13

here we go. Right now we're at 848. So

15:15

I'm going to go ahead and just

15:18

insert this right like as he did,

15:20

right underneath and try and keep it

15:22

that feels pretty tight right there, right?

15:24

Okay, so you can, you know, breathe

15:26

naturally. Let's just see what happens. Okay.

15:33

All right, so we're at 1367. We've already just passed two. So

15:35

now we're in the place where he

15:38

can be having headaches. He can be over at 3786. Look at this, we

15:40

just passed 5000. Now we're in the

15:45

toxic level right now we can be doing this

15:48

7000 inside this mass of the CO2 7000, 8000 parts per

15:54

million. And

15:57

now he's this thing's gone off the Richter

15:59

scale folks. It can't even

16:01

register how high the CO2 levels

16:03

are inside. And look how

16:05

many seconds that was. All

16:08

right. Can I just? Yeah, you want to take that off?

16:10

No! You know,

16:13

I still, it blows my mind the

16:15

hours we had our children sucking their

16:17

own CO2 all day, every day in

16:19

schools. While many of us were in

16:21

our offices taking it off, it's really

16:23

an outrage that parents allowed that to

16:25

happen to their kids at all. I

16:28

wouldn't have done it. My kids out of school,

16:30

we built our own school just

16:32

so that wouldn't happen. That's how I handle

16:34

things like that. But I want to sort

16:36

of also let you know, we reached

16:39

out to some professionals from OSHA that said that

16:41

we did that study. Right, of course, I got

16:43

attacked. It was taken down. It

16:45

was misinformation. Now all of that's proven to

16:47

be true. We are seeing the health outcomes

16:50

and issues that came from that, all the

16:52

respiratory illnesses that were caused, a

16:54

lot of fungal infections in lungs because of

16:56

the mass. And I'll

16:58

tell you, I was never able to get a mask

17:01

on ever again. Doesn't matter if we were going to

17:03

Whole Foods, which was sort of

17:05

like Nazi Germany here in Austin, Texas. If

17:07

you really wanted to get the full San

17:09

Francisco experience, you go to Whole Foods. And

17:11

they were like masked up. And Ever would just

17:13

walk in and say, come on, Ever. And he

17:15

was like, no way, Dad. He's like, I got PTSD from

17:17

doing that thing on your show, man. I'm never putting one

17:19

on again. So that's what happens

17:22

when you get your family involved in what

17:24

you're doing. But that's what we do here.

17:26

Now beyond masks, we have the issue of

17:28

social distancing, which we are now told by

17:31

Tony Fauci in front of a Congress, it

17:33

just sort of popped up out of nowhere.

17:35

It had no basis in science. Do you

17:38

realize that if we had known that it

17:40

had no basis in real science, we

17:42

would have never locked down. We would

17:44

never distance ourselves. We wouldn't have had

17:47

cardboard cutouts in baseball stadiums or had

17:49

restaurants where it's sitting with blow up

17:51

dolls. All of that, the

17:53

destruction of our economy was on. If We

17:55

could keep everybody separated like six feet apart

17:58

or not going outside, you know, wearing. That's

18:00

on beaches. We could stop this thing. of

18:02

course, all of that group three baloney,

18:04

But we're on top of it and

18:06

I'm in in many ways. We may have

18:08

even had the source of the science

18:10

behind Sosa distancing. Look. At this

18:13

report. We've. Been hearing scientists

18:15

say over and over again there's really

18:17

no science behind social distancing. Whoa, Where

18:19

did it come from? Guess where it

18:21

came from? A fourteen year old girl

18:24

team up with social Distancing as a

18:26

part of a science project. Is

18:28

an article that came out recently. The

18:31

two thousand and six Origins of the

18:33

Lockdown Idea. But. What is

18:35

this medicine? Have A high school daughter

18:37

of fourteen her name is Laura and

18:39

last Laura with the gotten from her

18:42

dad devise a computer simulation the showed

18:44

how people, family members, coworker, students in

18:46

schools, people in social situations interact. Her

18:48

program shield enough hypothetical town of ten

18:51

thousand people by thousand would be affected

18:53

during a pandemic of know. Measures were

18:55

taken but only five hundred would be

18:57

infected if the schools were closed. Well.

19:00

You know, grade science experiment by

19:02

the way, Laura congratulations for you

19:04

of doing something in writing an

19:07

idea that the entire world followed.

19:09

but was it a good idea?

19:11

Most scientists say no. Here is

19:13

a recent article by scientists to

19:15

meet her social distancing rule was

19:17

conjured out of nowhere. Professor claims.

19:20

He. Goes on to say there's never been

19:22

a scientific basis for to be. There is

19:24

kind of a rule of thumb, but it's

19:26

not like there's a whole kind of rigorous

19:28

scientific literature that is founded upon. By.

19:31

A was glad make the entire will do

19:33

it anyway. Salei. Same

19:35

attitude. Salads Tony bow to. You're

19:37

sounding the science that. Doesn't.

19:40

Exist. Only. back

19:42

in may twenty twenty or that was taking

19:44

place said maj of we were on see

19:46

matches this show was on primetime thousand answers

19:48

right now imagine what the world would have

19:50

looked like if i'll report he was what

19:53

you saw on cnn msnbc fox and b

19:55

c a b c's what do you think

19:57

will happen i mean seriously when you say

19:59

that funding those news agencies, what would have

20:01

happened if they had told the truth? Do you

20:03

think they would have gotten away with it? Do

20:05

you think our country would have locked down? No

20:07

way. So when people are like, what is the

20:09

biggest problem right now in the world today? I

20:11

say the news. The news is your biggest problem because

20:14

it doesn't matter if your politicians even had it

20:16

right. It doesn't matter if scientists

20:18

had it right. If the news is brainwashing

20:20

you every day and telling you a lie,

20:22

you're going to believe it and you're going

20:25

to let them rob you of your constitutional

20:27

rights. Lastly, probably one of the biggest lies

20:29

ever told around all of this, one

20:31

that I can't claim alone because Rand

20:34

Paul was ranting and raving about this

20:36

same issue the entire time he was

20:39

in the government and nobody seemed to

20:41

listen to him. He's been on

20:43

my show. We talked a lot about it. If you haven't

20:45

seen that show, go back and check it out. But what

20:47

am I talking about? How about this? And

20:50

if you do get COVID, remember

20:52

natural immunity is always the worst

20:54

kind. So

20:56

even if you've had the disease, you

20:59

need a shot. Yes, some very bad

21:01

ideas were embraced as the conventional wisdom,

21:03

ideas that haven't aged well. And

21:05

a lot of the dissenting opinions that

21:08

were suppressed and ridiculed at the time

21:10

have proven to be correct. Wasn't

21:13

even a dissenting opinion. It was the

21:15

majority of all science as we know

21:17

it always knew what we said on

21:19

the show. And we

21:21

talked about herd immunity so often we

21:23

hear that based on vaccination. But the

21:25

true point, the true term herd immunity

21:27

comes from natural immunity because once you

21:29

get a virus or a bacteria, you

21:31

know, a live virus or a live

21:33

bacteria and you have the illness, you

21:35

have lifelong immunity, something that has just

21:38

never been achieved by a vaccine. It's

21:40

an inferior immunity that vaccines provide, which

21:42

is why we see second, third, fourth,

21:44

fifth doses of vaccines, why everyone has

21:46

to get a flu shot every single

21:48

year because they've never been able to

21:50

achieve a lifelong or, you know,

21:53

universal flu shot as they describe it.

21:56

Well, of course, that still remains true.

21:58

And though we could. yet no

22:00

acceptance of the power of natural immunity.

22:02

As Bill Maher said, we said even

22:04

after getting natural immunity, you should vaccinate

22:06

yourself. One of the most insane ideas

22:09

ever stated in science. And let me

22:11

say unequivocally to this date, and now

22:13

that we're through the COVID vaccine and

22:15

COVID vaccine included, because I think we're

22:17

on what, shot number nine, I believe

22:19

is the headline, dose number nine, CDC

22:21

panel, green lights, yet another COVID mRNA

22:23

shot. So nine doses now to protect

22:26

yourself from SARS-CoV-2. So I

22:28

underestimated it saying like four or five

22:31

in that review, so I didn't quite

22:33

nail it. I didn't realize how bad

22:35

this vaccine would actually be, but officially,

22:38

unequivocally, there is not a single vaccine

22:40

ever made that has had a longer

22:42

endurance and stronger immunity than natural immunity

22:45

itself. The COVID proved to be no

22:47

different. In fact, it was just a

22:49

little bit worse than all the rest.

22:52

So there you have it, folks. We

22:54

nailed it to the wall. No, it

22:56

wasn't guessing. It was based on world-renowned,

22:59

known science, peer-reviewed science, and that's

23:01

what you can always expect here on

23:03

The High Wire. All right,

23:05

I have a great show coming up.

23:07

We're gonna talk about how science is

23:09

being controlled up in Canada and is

23:11

ultimately gonna control your lives. What does

23:13

the pharmaceutical takeover look like up there?

23:15

Can you imagine if you couldn't get

23:17

vitamin C? Well, maybe that's

23:19

part of the plan. I'm gonna be talking to

23:21

a constitutional attorney who's been fighting for the rights

23:24

of Canadian citizens his entire career, his name's Sean

23:26

Buckley. He's coming up later in the show. And

23:28

if you think it's just Canada, you

23:30

better think twice. But first, it's

23:32

time for The Jackson Report.

23:45

I have to say, Jeffrey, I'm always a

23:47

little giddy when I get to start a

23:49

show out with just showing how accurate we've

23:52

been the whole time. I've said it many,

23:54

many times. I still will be called by

23:56

some news reporter next week saying, you know,

23:59

you spread misses. information and you know

24:01

how is your funding going that

24:03

you're a misinformation purveyor? I was like honestly

24:06

New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine,

24:08

show me where you got it right

24:10

because we had it right to hold

24:12

on. What misinformation exactly? Because they haven't

24:14

found anything. There's nothing we said that

24:16

you can't put the science behind at

24:18

that moment and then see that the

24:20

science has held up all the way

24:22

to now and I assume will hold

24:24

up into the future. It's

24:27

been interesting to see people rush this space now that it's

24:29

safe to talk about it. We've been really upfront

24:32

on. But you know over the last

24:34

couple of years especially it seems like a lot

24:36

of people, a lot of the public has really

24:39

noticed that governments are

24:41

noticing and really taking

24:44

inventory of their online activity and

24:46

conversations and using legislation to solve

24:48

some of the issues with this.

24:52

In Florida that's the latest state to try

24:54

to solve what a lot

24:56

of people have concerns about minors accessing

24:58

social media, kids under 14 years old

25:01

and this is what it looked like in the news, check it out. Social

25:04

media showdown in Florida, it is being

25:06

called one of the most restrictive social

25:09

media bans in the country. Governor Ron

25:11

DeSantis has signed House Bill 3 into

25:13

law, banning children under 14 from having

25:16

social media accounts on platforms considered

25:18

to have a just quality. It

25:21

also mandates that social media platforms search

25:23

for and remove the profiles of kids

25:25

who don't meet the age requirement. Being

25:28

buried in those devices all day is

25:30

not the best way to grow up.

25:32

And you know there's dangers out there.

25:34

Unfortunately we've got predators who prey on

25:36

young kids. They know how to get

25:38

and manipulate these different platforms.

25:41

It's created huge problems. This law

25:43

does not ban specific websites. Instead

25:45

it zeros in on features that

25:47

are considered addictive like infinite scrolling

25:49

and auto play videos. What is

25:51

still unclear though is just where

25:53

this law stands. unconstitutional,

26:00

saying it violates the First Amendment, the

26:02

equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment,

26:04

and federal law. It's completely stripping away

26:06

parental choice for anybody who has a

26:09

child under 14th. Proponents have

26:11

argued that access to social media

26:13

is harmful to children's mental health.

26:16

There's no bill powerful enough to

26:18

keep these kids from social

26:20

media. It's not possible. This

26:25

is another one of those, Jeffrey, we were just

26:28

talking about TikTok last week, right? Like

26:30

the sort of Chinese influence, a

26:32

law being written to take TikTok

26:34

away. But this is different. Ron

26:37

DeSantis in Florida doesn't seem to care

26:40

who's behind making the app. This is

26:42

just straight up about the

26:44

danger to youth. We have

26:46

sort of, shall I say,

26:48

the mommy state. I

26:51

find this interesting because so often conservatives

26:53

call where the government steps in to

26:56

take care of household issues as being

26:58

the nanny or mommy state. But

27:01

in this one, it bowls it right down the

27:03

middle, but it's about the kids' health. So tell

27:05

me what this is about. Yeah,

27:07

it's certainly an interesting conversation. So Utah was the

27:09

first state to really step into this space in

27:11

2023. This was the

27:13

headline here when they did that. Utah governor

27:16

signs laws curbing social media use for minors.

27:18

You go into that. And basically, the laws

27:20

required all users to submit age verification before

27:22

opening an account. So those laws,

27:24

it was minors under age 18, and they need

27:26

to seek parental permission for this. So

27:28

right now, we have Arkansas, Ohio, Utah, and

27:31

now Florida. They've banned minors from accessing

27:34

these accounts on social media. But

27:37

you saw their net choice, the trade

27:39

organization, and that clip there that represents

27:41

organizations like Meta. They're part of that.

27:44

Google, Yahoo, they have sued and

27:46

won injunctions in Arkansas and Ohio.

27:48

So it stayed those laws. They're

27:51

expecting, Florida is expecting a legal fight really

27:53

fast on this one. But it doesn't go

27:55

into effect until January 2025 in Florida. That's

27:57

HB 3. So it's got a lot of money.

28:00

ways to go yet. But as it said in the

28:02

clip there, the news reporting, all

28:04

kids under 14, these

28:06

social media companies have to immediately eliminate their

28:09

accounts. So they don't even get a choice

28:11

there. 14 and 15 year olds, they need

28:13

parental consent for that. And if anybody asks

28:15

for that to take be taken down, if

28:18

the parents or the kids ask for these

28:20

accounts to be shut down, if the companies

28:22

don't act, they can actually be sued personally

28:24

by these kids. And I'm talking

28:27

about some pretty happy finds. So I

28:29

think what's interesting in this conversation, because you

28:31

and I, we cover a lot of your

28:33

medical choice conversations. And one of

28:35

them is the minor consent to

28:37

vaccination, often without parental choice. We've

28:39

a rush of legislators over the

28:42

last several years, gleefully

28:44

trying to push these bills saying this

28:46

would help public health. But when you

28:48

start reading into this conversation about minors

28:50

in social media, we see something like

28:52

this is associated post reporting

28:54

on DeSantis law here and you go into

28:57

the post and it says, quote, this bill

28:59

goes too far in taking

29:01

away parents rights. Democratic Rep Anna Eskemani

29:03

said in a news release. So you

29:05

have this, you have this dichotomy of

29:07

a little bit is almost hypocrisy if

29:09

you want to call it that, like

29:12

a shot with known side effects, no

29:14

liability, all the things we've covered on the

29:16

show before. That's fine. But

29:19

you know, a TikTok video streaming account,

29:21

we've all pumped breaks. We really need to

29:23

write to give these kids and the parents

29:25

the power here. Yeah, I mean,

29:27

it really, but, you

29:31

know, I think you're making the argument that

29:33

I suppose that we, you know, I'm trying

29:35

to think where I actually land on this,

29:37

but you're right. Does a child have the

29:40

ability to decide for themselves what's good for

29:42

them? You know, and I think about, you

29:44

know, sure, we want strong parenting in homes.

29:47

Parents should be making decisions, but how many

29:49

families where both parents were maybe single family

29:51

homes are out at

29:53

work or coming home late and the child

29:55

is with a babysitter or a child is

29:58

maybe even at home or, you know, You

30:00

know, how many times, and I guess here's the question, right?

30:02

If I want, if I'm with them

30:04

and I'm having a conversation with an adult, which

30:06

we all do, you know, at a restaurant, I

30:08

just want to hand the iPad over and say,

30:10

check out some social media. Do

30:12

I not, I guess in this case, in

30:14

some of these cases, I don't even have that

30:17

right to hand it off to my kid

30:19

and say, here, go ahead and do this. So

30:21

this is where, like, again, it's these slippery

30:23

slopes when we look at our

30:25

rights. Right. And,

30:27

you know, as they say, the camel's nose under

30:30

the tent, we really want government involved in these

30:32

conversations here. And it's, it's an open question at

30:34

this point, it seems like it's going forward. So

30:36

we're reporting on it. But this conversation really started

30:38

to unravel during COVID and a lot of people

30:40

missed it in the headlines. But there

30:43

was a with some whistleblowers, there were some

30:45

internal documents from meta formerly known as Facebook

30:47

that were released to the Wall Street Journal.

30:50

And they actually did an expose several articles

30:52

on this. Here's one of them in 2021.

30:54

Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls.

30:56

Company documents show. And you go in

30:59

here and it talks about this meta

31:01

actually commissioned several studies and presented these

31:03

results internally to the company. It

31:06

says 32 percent of teen girls said that

31:08

when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram

31:10

made them feel worse. The researchers said in

31:13

a March 2020 slide presentation posted a Facebook

31:15

internal message board. We make

31:17

body image issues worse for one in three

31:19

girls said one slide in 2019 summarizing research

31:22

about teen girls who experienced the issues.

31:24

Because I'm gonna say this teen blame

31:26

Instagram for increases in the rate of

31:28

anxiety and depression said another slide. This

31:31

reaction was unprompted and consistent across all

31:33

groups. That's a big problem for them.

31:35

But here's an even bigger problem among

31:37

teens who reported suicidal thoughts. Thirteen percent

31:39

of British users and six percent of

31:41

American users trace the desire to kill

31:44

themselves to Instagram. One presentation

31:46

show. And so in summary,

31:48

this is where this is the issue they

31:50

deal with because they had a lot reason

31:52

they're doing this is because they're losing a

31:55

lot of people signing up for

31:57

Facebook. They're calling aging out. They're

31:59

not. going after the younger crowd

32:01

and they're saying, well, can we really

32:03

do this? And it says, social comparison

32:05

is worse on Instagram. This is the

32:07

problem they had. States Facebook deep dive

32:09

into teen girl body image issues in

32:12

2020, noting that TikTok, a short video

32:14

app, is grounded in performance while users

32:17

on Snapchat, arrival photo and video sharing

32:19

app are sheltered by jokey filters that

32:21

keep the focus on the face. In

32:23

contrast, Instagram focuses heavily on the body

32:25

and lifestyle. So that's where you're getting

32:28

what they're saying, a lot of these

32:30

mental health issues and these so

32:32

these were internal memos where they all sat

32:34

around, said, I don't know, what do you

32:36

think? We're driving one in three girls into

32:39

anxiety and depression and roughly 6% of Americans

32:41

and 13% of girls in England are

32:48

blaming their suicidal thoughts on our products. So

32:51

we go forward with it. Should we continue

32:53

to push forward and promote it to these

32:55

children? All in favor.

32:58

Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. Let's do it. And

33:00

it goes out. That's what we're to understand. Yeah,

33:03

yeah. These are all internal studies that were

33:05

shown to members of Facebook and this

33:07

was not given to the public

33:09

until now, obviously, until 2021. So

33:12

what that kicked off was the lawsuits,

33:14

big ones. Now, because the attorneys general

33:17

had all of this information. So you

33:19

started seeing headlines like this just recently,

33:21

met a sued by 42 attorneys

33:24

general alleging that Facebook, Instagram features are addictive

33:26

and target kids. And this is where you

33:28

get obviously all the governors involved as well.

33:30

But it says, according to the federal complaint,

33:32

metadis this via the design of its

33:34

algorithms, copious alerts, notifications and so-called infinite

33:37

scrolling through platform feeds. That's that dopamine

33:39

hit that a lot of people talk

33:41

about. You're getting this dopamine hit with

33:43

this continuous scrolling, these

33:45

videos that automatically play. It says

33:47

the company also includes features that

33:49

the attorneys general alleged negatively impact

33:51

teens mental health or social comparison

33:53

or promoting body dysmorphia such as

33:56

likes or photo filters. One

33:58

of the part of that suit. as well is

34:01

the data collection, the personal data collection

34:03

on children under 13, which violates a

34:05

whole other child online privacy protection act.

34:07

So that's in part there. It'd be

34:09

interesting to get discovery on that, to

34:11

see how they collect people's data, how

34:13

far they go. But that

34:16

suit was sealed. So we saw

34:18

the headline, and we knew, OK, they're suing them.

34:20

We have some quotes here. But that suit had

34:22

become unsealed. And now we start getting really granular

34:24

information what was in that suit. We go to

34:27

the Guardian here, and it talks about that. In

34:30

this article, the complaint said that in 2021, Meta

34:32

received over 402,000 reports of under 13 users on

34:36

Instagram, but that 164,000, far fewer than half of

34:41

the reported accounts were, quote, disabled for potentially

34:43

being under the age of 13 that year.

34:46

The complaint noted that at times, Meta had

34:48

a backlog of up to 2.5 million accounts

34:52

of younger children awaiting action. So

34:54

they can use that excuse in

34:57

saying, we have all

34:59

these users, and we have a little bit

35:01

of a backlog. So we're just going to

35:03

keep them on for now. So it obviously

35:05

works in their favor, according to the lawsuit.

35:07

But the challenge they have, and this goes

35:09

on in this article to kind of explain

35:11

this, just to give voice to the other

35:13

side. It says, with respect to barring younger

35:15

users from the service, Meta argued

35:18

age verification is a, quote, complex

35:20

industrial challenge. Instead, Meta said it

35:22

favors shifting the burden of policing

35:24

underage usage to app stores and parents

35:26

like Google and Apple, specifically by supporting

35:28

federal legislation that would require app stores

35:31

to obtain parental approval whenever used under

35:33

16 download the app. So they're saying

35:35

it's a complex industry challenge, age verification.

35:38

However, looking at this conversation

35:41

has a lot of tails on it.

35:43

So just putting this other angle on

35:45

this here, there's another conversation going on

35:47

here. It's represented in

35:49

this headline. Kansas moves to join Texas

35:51

and other states in requiring porn sites

35:53

to verify people's ages. So age verification

35:55

is going on. And so Louisiana

35:58

was the prime mover in this space. with

36:00

this law taking effect at the start

36:02

of this year. But we have about

36:04

eight other states that are going this

36:06

direction as well for age verification. And

36:09

of those states, I mean, most of them, seven

36:12

of the eight are Republican states. And there's

36:14

20 other states that are looking into introducing

36:16

legislation here, but a lot of the big

36:18

companies are just cutting access completely off in

36:20

these states because they don't even want to

36:22

try to comply with the law because of

36:25

the penalties here of trying to get age

36:27

verification. Because if any kid is signed onto

36:29

that, it's found out, they're talking every day,

36:31

they're finding tens of thousands of dollars. So

36:33

a lot of these companies are just going,

36:35

we're done in Texas, we're done

36:37

in Kansas. You

36:40

know, this is such an interesting topic. And as

36:42

we were discussing it earlier before the show, it's

36:45

one of those that I'd be really curious

36:47

where people, especially in our audience land, but

36:50

we put up a Twitter poll just a

36:52

couple of hours ago this morning. And

36:54

we asked this, in your opinion, does

36:56

the First Amendment protect a minor's right

36:58

to all content on the internet? Yes

37:02

or no. Right now, 85% of those,

37:06

I guess we have almost 1,400 votes, 85%

37:09

are saying that the First Amendment does not

37:11

protect a minor's rights. I would love it

37:13

if everyone in the audience would weigh in

37:15

right now on Twitter, at

37:17

High Wire Talk, and please share it.

37:19

I mean, I'm curious. What

37:22

does it look like when just our audience is weighing in

37:24

over the next hour or so? But then what does it

37:26

look like if you share it with all your friends? Does

37:28

it change? Are we all

37:30

in this together? Do we believe that a

37:32

parent really is in a position to be

37:34

deciding what is right for their children? If

37:36

so, does that mean that that child doesn't

37:39

have their own First Amendment rights? Certainly

37:41

a very important question

37:43

as we move forward in this modern

37:45

world. So if you wanna get involved,

37:47

go to Twitter right now, at High

37:49

Wire Talk. I'd love to see

37:51

your perspective on that. We're gonna do a lot

37:53

more of this. I wanna start interacting with you

37:55

out there in the audience to see what does

37:57

our audience actually think about some of these conversations.

38:00

we're having. Super interesting, Jeffrey. Another one is

38:02

that, you know, sort of bowls down the

38:04

middle. It fights both spaces, right? Do we

38:06

want the government getting involved in our lives

38:08

and protecting us inside of our houses or

38:11

not? Is it black and white? It seems

38:13

more and more I'm finding myself in a

38:15

gray area, which isn't very comfortable for me.

38:17

All right. What else we got? Right. We're

38:20

going to cover one of the biggest stories really in

38:22

the world in this space in a

38:24

moment. But first I want to talk about something

38:27

that happened last week. It's really, from

38:29

what I've seen, one of the biggest events on

38:32

American soil in several years, the single event, and

38:34

this was the tragedy of the Francis Scott Key

38:36

Bridge was hit by a container ship. And you

38:38

know, if you haven't seen it by this point,

38:41

well, here's some, here's some news to check it

38:43

out. All right. This morning,

38:45

a stunning bridge collapse at the

38:47

port of Baltimore. This nearly thousand

38:49

foot long cargo ship called the

38:52

Dolly hit a main structure of

38:54

the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The

38:56

bridge collapsing right into the harbor

38:58

waters. The governor of Maryland has

39:01

declared a state of emergency. The

39:03

moment before it hits this

39:06

structure, the ship looks dark. It

39:09

looks like it's lost power. The

39:11

ship had alerted harbor authorities to an

39:13

emergency. They had lost power. Police quickly

39:15

blocking traffic at both ends. Shortly thereafter,

39:17

we saw that massive shock from that

39:20

explosion, concrete coming

39:22

off of the pylon, water splashing off of the

39:24

ship. And then now we know that the Francis

39:26

Scott Key Bridge no longer exists. Authorities

39:28

are trying to rescue at least seven

39:30

people who were doing overnight work on

39:32

the bridge. They're believed to have been tossed into

39:35

the waves. We're talking about one of the biggest

39:37

ports in the country has been effectively crippled. It's

39:39

a major employer, more than 15,000 direct jobs, 139,000

39:41

jobs rely on this this port here. And

39:48

again, it's been effectively shut down. The

39:50

economic impact of the port of Baltimore

39:52

does not just impact the state of

39:55

Maryland. It's over 51 million tons of

39:57

foreign cargo. It's the largest in the

39:59

country. I

40:01

had to say I'm really psyched you're going to that

40:03

you've looked into this Jeffrey because I was really busy

40:05

while all this is happening I just kept you know

40:08

It's like one of those where you see walking by

40:10

TVs and you see a discussion about something that Doesn't

40:13

make a lot of sense and it seems

40:15

like almost immediately you had one story which

40:17

is this is an accident Then you had

40:19

conspiracy theories as they call them right saying

40:21

wait a minute. There's something else going on

40:24

here So I'm curious, you

40:26

know, what is fact? What is fiction?

40:29

Right now on this story Yeah,

40:31

there's a lot of moving parts of this story

40:33

It's been fascinating researching this at this point over

40:35

a week later, but we'll start out with some

40:37

of the the knowns So

40:39

this was this was owned by a Singapore

40:42

based firm. It was on charter to Marist.

40:44

This is the shipping giant and Immediately,

40:47

I mean these are just the recent

40:49

headlines immediately that Singapore based company is

40:52

looking to seek To

40:54

limit their legal liability. This is the

40:56

headline your cargo ships owner and manager

40:58

seeks to limit legal liability For deadly

41:00

bridge disaster in Baltimore. Why are they

41:02

doing that? Well, this is Morningstar Baltimore

41:04

bridge collapse likely to be largest marine

41:06

insurance claim in history I mean

41:08

we're talking billions and billions in

41:10

disruption just in the container ships

41:13

alone I mean not to talk

41:15

damage of the Bridge

41:17

in the ship. So let's go to

41:19

some some latest news here This is

41:22

the Army Corps of Engineers and they

41:24

took to their Facebook account to release

41:26

some sonar images of the underwater bridge

41:28

collapse They said this

41:30

just to give people an idea of the

41:32

of how hard this is going to be

41:34

this salvage Divers are forced to work in

41:36

virtual darkness because when lit their view is

41:39

similar to driving through a heavy snowfall at

41:41

night with high beam Headlights on so murky

41:43

as the water Divers must be guided via

41:45

detailed verbal directions from operators and vessels topside

41:48

who are viewing real-time code of imagery

41:50

No usable underwater video exists of the

41:52

wreckage because as one Navy diver stated

41:54

There's no need to take video of

41:56

something that you can't even see so

41:59

well We can look here. I

42:01

mean imagine that you can look at some

42:03

of these sonar images here that were released

42:05

by the Army Corps of Engineers and you

42:07

can see this bridge is I mean all

42:10

the the concrete mangle concrete and steel there

42:12

But it's also embedded into the mud. There's

42:14

several feet of mud at the bottom of

42:16

the river there So it's embedded into the

42:18

mud which is gonna make The salvage and

42:20

that you're trying to find out where to

42:22

cut and remove this much more difficult Especially

42:24

with with almost zero visibility at that point

42:26

Wow Some of

42:28

some of the positive notes that came out of this was

42:31

they are they have opened a new

42:33

channel to new channels Actually, and here's

42:35

some video of the first barge going

42:38

through this channel and it's an alternative

42:40

channel It goes obviously around the wreckage.

42:42

This is an 11 foot

42:44

depth channel The second channel they open was

42:46

14 feet depth Why why is

42:48

that important wealth to get the large container ships

42:50

out and in like the dolly that this port

42:53

is really designed for you You need about 35

42:55

to over 50 foot depth So

42:58

this is a temporary fix nowhere near what's

43:00

needed to really get this stuff going But

43:02

there is a little bit of movement now,

43:05

which is which is a positive another positive

43:07

really looking back across the whole thing Is

43:09

the police response to get people off that

43:11

bridge and now we know from the black

43:13

box. Here's the headline here NTSB

43:15

that's the organism one of the organization investigating

43:18

says police had 90 seconds to stop traffic

43:20

and get people off Key bridge before it

43:22

collapsed so they did an incredible job at

43:24

that point So it's really saved a lot

43:27

of lives and we have the black box

43:29

the ship's black box and although the audio

43:31

has not been released to the public at

43:33

the time of that incident there has been

43:36

the Conversation about

43:38

what was on that black box I'll read some

43:40

of that at this point because this really starts

43:42

to piece together some things that you don't get

43:44

from the video So it says here Muse

43:47

that's the person that was relaying this information in

43:49

the article said several alarms were heard on the

43:51

recording just before 125 a.m.

43:53

Followed about a minute later by steering

43:55

commands and rudder orders. So on

43:58

the ship they knew there was an issue They sounded

44:00

the alarms. The captain was

44:02

shouting steering commands and rudder orders at that

44:04

point. At 1.26 and

44:07

39 seconds a.m., the pilot on duty made

44:09

a radio call for assistance to tugboats in

44:11

the area. Sometimes they

44:13

can call these tugboats out and they can

44:15

direct the ship who's lost power. Obviously this

44:18

didn't happen. And

44:20

45 seconds later, the port anchor

44:22

dropped, giving

44:25

additional steering commands at that point. Another

44:27

thing that with the ship going that fast,

44:29

the port anchor, that was just kind of a

44:31

last-ditch effort. It wouldn't stop that size of a ship

44:33

if they obviously were trying to just do anything at

44:35

that point. It says

44:38

at 1.27 and 25 seconds a.m., the pilot said on a

44:40

radio call that Dolly had lost power and

44:42

was nearing the bridge. Around that same

44:44

time, the officer on duty for the

44:46

Maryland Transportation Authority told officers who were

44:48

at both ends of the bridge for

44:51

the road repairs to close traffic which

44:53

likely saved lives. So that

44:55

is just an incredible feat

44:57

there. Thank

44:59

God. There's two questions that remain. I

45:01

mean, just think about those police officers and there. We've

45:05

all run businesses and companies and sometimes you give

45:07

an order, it can really be like, well, can

45:09

I ask some questions about it? What

45:11

do you say? I mean, clearly these

45:14

were people that took it very seriously,

45:16

acted very quickly. So really hats off

45:18

to everybody involved in clearing that bridge.

45:22

I mean, look at those cars going there right

45:24

there just before impact. So that's

45:27

always impressive and it's great to

45:29

celebrate the human spirit

45:31

and teamwork when

45:33

it really does work. Exactly.

45:37

And so there's two big questions still floating around

45:39

here. What caused the power outage?

45:41

We may not really know that for a

45:43

while now as this investigation is going on

45:45

by several agencies. And then also,

45:48

did the ship have steering command? Obviously the

45:50

power went out. Did they have

45:52

rudder control? And why did it

45:54

turn? And so there's a lot

45:57

of people have explanations. One of them

45:59

is a... YouTube channel that deals

46:01

with all things shipping, a

46:03

very popular YouTube channel when it comes to

46:05

this topic way before this event ever happened

46:07

and this was his explanation of possibly why

46:10

the ship turned at the time we saw

46:12

it. Take a look. You'll

46:14

see the main channel this big huge white

46:16

channel right here and you

46:18

can see the red obstructions right here. Notice

46:20

how close the bridge is to the main channel.

46:22

There's not a lot of room there between

46:24

it but the key thing is

46:27

this white channel going off here to

46:29

the left. This is the channel the

46:31

Curtis Bay. If you have water

46:33

coming out at this time, if the tide is

46:35

going down remember it was a full moon. If

46:38

tides going out and you're having a tide movement

46:40

here and this is really close to

46:43

when you're coming to a slack

46:45

tide but even if not when you

46:47

hit an area where water is coming

46:49

in off your starboard side it may

46:51

push the dolly just enough to

46:54

nudge her and then you

46:56

have effects called a bank

46:58

suction where you may see

47:00

the ship start pulling and the bow will kind

47:02

of nudge to the right and the stern will

47:04

want to suck in toward the bank and if

47:06

you give it just enough a nudge and this

47:09

ship was just hugging by the way the left

47:11

side of the bank there just a bit that

47:14

may be enough to cause the dolly if

47:16

they don't have rudder control to kind of

47:18

go off skew and

47:20

I think that's one of the issues that's

47:22

leading dolly now to do this if you

47:24

had rudder control again a little bit of

47:27

left rudder and you coast under the bridge

47:29

at this speed you still have you still

47:31

have enough way on for the rudder to

47:33

have control but if power is not going

47:36

to the rudder and the rudder is locked

47:38

in place then this could be the main

47:40

problem. Very

47:43

interesting. So yeah it's

47:45

just one explanation of several out there

47:47

that are floating around but I thought

47:49

that was interesting because the video there's

47:52

a different perspective on the video it looks like

47:54

the ship takes a really hard turn to

47:56

go out of its way when you actually look at that

47:58

from a over

48:00

overhead view like that on the

48:02

map. It's actually just about 10 degrees off,

48:04

maybe 15 degrees off it looks like. So

48:07

it's still a lot of open questions.

48:09

One of the things that's a concern

48:11

is the military response because there's a

48:13

lot of ships, there's a naval base,

48:15

there's a lot of ships that are

48:17

sitting idle. This was one of the

48:19

articles by Breitbart. Transportation Department will not

48:21

say how many national defense ships stuck

48:23

in Harbor. It says according to

48:25

another inventory list maintained by the Department of Transportation as

48:27

of January 31st, 2024 there are 90 ships that are

48:29

part of the National

48:32

Defense Reserve Fleet with 53 of

48:34

those part of the Ready Reserve

48:36

Force. Our F ships are maritime

48:39

administration vessels assigned to support US

48:41

military surge, sea lift requirements. So

48:43

basically six of those RRF ships,

48:45

they're called all roll-on, roll-off cargo

48:47

ships are assigned to Baltimore according

48:49

to the list. So in

48:51

that article it says they quoted people from the

48:53

military saying look if we don't have any military issues

48:56

or conflicts, not a big problem, but if we do

48:58

a gigantic problem. So that's just

49:00

a side note to this as also talking

49:02

about the container ships not being able to

49:04

go through. But really there's

49:06

a whole conversation about cybersecurity,

49:09

hacking of the ships, electrical systems, and

49:11

you know the vulnerability of American infrastructure

49:14

here because this was a significant hit

49:16

on American infrastructure. So we're going down

49:18

that direction as well because we still

49:21

don't have all the answers so this

49:23

has to be on the table. And

49:26

in 2017, remember this

49:29

ship, the Dolly was chartered by

49:31

Marist, in 2017 Marist did have

49:33

a cyber attack that affected their

49:35

company for two weeks and

49:37

this was the headline year it cost, cyber attack cost

49:39

Marist as much as 300 million

49:41

in disrupted operations for two weeks. So

49:45

what happened was 17 of Marist's

49:47

76 terminals across the

49:49

world were infected by this

49:51

virus, this computer virus. The computers

49:54

on Marist's ships were not infected

49:56

so that's a delineation

49:59

we have to make. but the terminal software was.

50:01

So they didn't have any records of the

50:03

cargo ships, containers, what was going on, what

50:05

was going off. So it just paralyzed them

50:07

at that point. But we

50:09

go even further back. This is an

50:12

article from almost 10 years ago. I

50:14

mean, talking about the capability they had

50:16

back then. Hacking ships, maritime shipping industry

50:18

at risk. This was a warning sign

50:20

almost 10 years ago. It says, information

50:22

technology has been playing a very important

50:24

role in the maritime shipping industry. Today,

50:26

our modern ships are completely computerized. Everything

50:28

is connected to networks. Today's modern ships

50:31

have complex cargo operations that are entirely

50:33

connected through cyberspace. Then it goes

50:35

on to say, this gets even more to

50:37

the point. Cyber security is a

50:39

safety issue. Every ship built has software that

50:41

manages its engines. And that software is updated

50:44

while the vessel is underway from the beach.

50:46

And master doesn't even know that the software

50:48

is being updated. It said Rear Admiral Paul

50:50

Thomas, US Coast Guard. Hackers could interfere with

50:53

the control of a ship, disable

50:56

navigation systems, cut off communications, or

50:58

steal confidential data according to Alliance

51:00

Global Corporate and Specialty SE's 2015

51:03

Safety and Shipping Review. Crews become

51:06

smaller, ships become larger, and

51:08

a growing resilience on automation all

51:10

significantly exacerbate the risk from hackers

51:12

disrupting key systems the report stated.

51:14

But then it goes on to

51:17

say this, security vulnerabilities in software

51:19

used by the maritime industry could

51:21

be exploited to cause ships to

51:23

malfunction or run aground. According

51:25

to research from Global Information

51:27

Assurance Firm NCC Group, they

51:29

have revealed security vulnerabilities in

51:31

ECDIS. That's electronic chart display

51:33

and information systems and information

51:35

technology product, an information technology

51:37

product used by the shipping

51:39

industry. These systems are usually

51:42

installed on ships and used

51:44

by navigation officers. So clearly

51:46

there's an open-ended question there.

51:49

There's a flap for this

51:52

conversation to get into and

51:54

a vulnerability there that people are,

51:56

several organizations, including the Coast Guard

51:58

are saying, look, this is... the

52:00

problem nine years ago. Yeah,

52:02

and it's one of those things I've seen several

52:05

reporters saying, you know, it's been proven there's no

52:07

way this is a cyber attack or, you know,

52:10

there's some of that going on. And

52:12

I just, I'm always shocked how quickly

52:14

people start making definitive statements. I mean,

52:16

this just happened sort of like the

52:19

Wuhan lab when they started saying this

52:21

is absolutely natural. No way it's the

52:23

Wuhan lab. That's where my

52:25

spidey sense goes off and says, how would

52:27

you know that? Like, you wouldn't know that

52:29

by now. You haven't, you don't know barely

52:31

anything about this. And I would prefer

52:34

the reporters at the moment. And I want to

52:36

make it clear what we're doing is just stating

52:38

what is known, the facts, the history, where we're

52:40

at. This is a story we should all be

52:42

concerned about. Clearly, it's a, you

52:45

know, if it's an attack, an attack on

52:47

infrastructure, if it's an accident, it's

52:49

one, you know, one of a kind that we

52:51

haven't seen before. But you

52:53

know, I think we should all be careful as

52:55

reporters to say, look, there's a lot of theories.

52:58

There's a lot going on here. There's a

53:00

lot that suspect and we're going to continue

53:02

to follow the different

53:04

elements of this investigation as we

53:06

get more information. All

53:08

right. Absolutely. And this is, I think, one of

53:10

the things we do best here is we can

53:13

really just take that that center space and really

53:15

take all of the information into account and look

53:17

what's going on. Del, one of

53:19

the biggest stories I'd say in the world when it comes

53:21

to free speech right now happened this week and

53:24

it came out of Scotland. Check this out.

53:27

All right. The controversial new law aimed

53:29

at cracking down on hate speech is

53:31

now in effect in Scotland. Now Scotland's

53:34

new Hate Crime and Public Order Act

53:36

convinced force today that criminalizes threatening behavior

53:38

based on age, disability, sexual orientation, and

53:40

transgender identity. The maximum penalty

53:42

if you break this law

53:45

is an unbelievable seven years

53:47

in prison. One complaint has already

53:49

been filed ahead of the law going into

53:51

effect in two weeks. It was

53:54

against J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry

53:56

Potter, who has been vocal in her

53:58

criticism of the transgender movement. I'm

54:00

currently out of the country, but if

54:02

what I've written here qualifies as an

54:05

offense under the terms of the new

54:07

act, I look forward to being arrested

54:09

when I return to the birthplace of

54:11

the Scottish Enlightenment. Very same day, the police

54:13

say they're not going to arrest her, I think. 3,800

54:19

cases the police are now looking at

54:21

in 24 hours under this new hate

54:23

crime law in Scotland. That they're going

54:25

to be completely overwhelmed. Protesters gathered outside

54:28

Holyrood, voicing concern with the bills they

54:30

say stifles free speech and

54:32

can be exploited by those looking to

54:34

silence particular groups. This move that we're

54:36

strongly together, let's stand together and

54:39

take back democracy together. What

54:41

are we going to do everyone? Thank

54:44

you very much. Let's stand together,

54:47

let's feed these people and let's

54:49

make Scotland free together. I

54:53

mean it's amazing, what a really horrifying

54:55

story this is. We've been reporting on

54:57

it, it's getting scary, now threats to

54:59

people like J.K. Rollins. I imagine they're

55:02

going to pass up the opportunity to

55:04

arrest her since she can probably afford

55:06

somewhere between a thousand and a million

55:09

of the world's best lawyers to

55:11

turn any precinct coming after her

55:13

into her own mansion. But

55:16

they'll go after the little people, the ones that

55:18

can't defend themselves. That's what's so scary about this.

55:21

The elites then walk around in

55:23

this authoritarian world in a different way

55:25

than the rest of us. Yeah,

55:29

and so Scotland has done what Ireland and

55:31

Canada and other countries have only been trying

55:33

to do with proposed legislation. So they've

55:35

greenlit this legislation and if we go

55:37

right to the the law, this

55:40

is a hate crime in public order. You

55:42

can see here a list of the protected

55:44

characteristics and you can see like age,

55:46

disability, 50% of that has to do with sex,

55:49

transgender identity, sexual orientation, sexual

55:52

characteristics. And a lot

55:54

of people pointed out there's no provision

55:56

as bill to protect women from hatred,

55:58

just these characteristics. But it also goes

56:01

further here. It goes into

56:03

defense. So it's up to the

56:05

person. You're basically guilty until proven

56:07

innocent. It's up to you to

56:09

prove that your behavior was not,

56:12

would not fall into this law. And

56:14

if you don't, you could be looking at

56:16

a fine imprisonment up to seven years. And

56:20

then it goes on to say

56:22

this, finally, that sheriffs and sheriffs

56:24

can enter your home. If

56:26

there is reason to believe, they can get a warrant. If there's

56:28

reason to believe that you are, quote, stirring up hatred

56:31

through material or behavior in your home.

56:33

So, I mean, this is

56:35

overturning centuries

56:38

of law in the UK by doing this.

56:41

And as it said in that news clip,

56:43

over 3,800 complaints in the first

56:45

24 hours, well, there's over 4,000 complaints

56:47

in the first two days once this thing

56:49

has activated. These are the complaints, because this

56:52

now falls under the Scotland police. They have

56:54

to investigate this. And they now have the

56:56

powers to do this. As

56:58

you saw at JK Rowling's, she put

57:00

out this tweet here among many others

57:02

that people are saying were controversial. She

57:05

said, in passing the Scottish Hate Crime

57:07

Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed

57:09

higher value on the feelings of men

57:11

performing their idea of femaleness,

57:13

however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the

57:16

rights and freedoms of actual women and

57:18

girls. And along other

57:20

tweets, she was reported, and a lot of

57:22

people were looking at her to get arrested.

57:24

But obviously, she will not be under arrest.

57:27

She has said that if

57:29

anybody is challenged by

57:31

this law, she will

57:33

retweet those words. She will say those words

57:35

on her account if people are persecuted by

57:37

this law. So she has stood behind free

57:40

speech in this conversation 100%. It's

57:43

a really interesting space

57:46

that's happening right now in Scotland. The world should really

57:48

pay attention to this. Absolutely.

57:50

And we've talked about it so much of it

57:52

is what you might do with information that's on

57:54

your computer that you haven't put out yet. You

57:56

see a pre-crime as a part of all this.

58:00

These were science fiction movies just maybe

58:02

a decade ago, and now it's right

58:04

upon us across the

58:06

world. Incredible reporting, Jeffrey. So

58:10

many interesting things to be

58:12

looking at, and really, as

58:14

we sort of look at, you know, I mean,

58:16

hope all the people that are new to us

58:19

recognize the difference of when we're making a statement

58:21

of fact that we know about, or

58:23

when sometimes we have hypothesized as we

58:25

were with the peace shuttle insert, but

58:27

then proved to be one of the

58:29

most important conversations years

58:31

later, and all

58:34

of that. We are always under attack.

58:36

Imagine if, you know, here

58:39

in America, you know, that

58:41

the things that we have said on

58:43

the show that would be considered, I

58:45

suppose, a hate crime simply because we're

58:47

pointing out different perspectives than the narrative

58:50

that our government and our mainstream propagandists

58:52

are sharing. So we've been

58:54

under attack. We've been shut down. We've

58:56

been censored. We are experiencing all of

58:58

that, but still millions of people. I

59:01

think it's drawing even more attention. And for

59:03

everyone out there, look

59:05

at the work that Jeffrey Jackson does. You should at

59:07

least tell your friends, hey, even

59:09

if you only watch 30 minutes of the show,

59:11

check out what Jeffrey Jackson is talking about, because

59:13

it's the current news, but with

59:15

reality and facts that we are not getting.

59:18

It's not that bumper stickers, you know, sort

59:20

of propaganda we're getting from mainstream agencies. Jeffrey,

59:22

you're amazing what you do. It's really just

59:24

an honor and pleasure to have you part

59:26

of our team here at The High Wire.

59:29

Thanks, Del. And this is what it's about. This

59:31

is the new age of media. This is open

59:33

debate. This is the truth as we find it.

59:35

And we're using truth as the guide. And this

59:38

is how some of these conversations are a little

59:40

touchy. This is how we get to the core

59:42

of this. This is how we settle disputes

59:45

and conversations because they're boiling pots. And for

59:47

the government to come in and put a

59:49

lid on them using legislation, I mean, I

59:51

feel like that's just going to create more

59:54

conflict in the division. So we really need

59:56

to have more dialogue around some of these

59:58

touchier subjects or these conversations. virtual subject.

1:00:00

So appreciate being here every week

1:00:02

and I look forward to next

1:00:04

week we're gonna knock it out of the park.

1:00:06

All right fantastic Jeffrey I look forward to that

1:00:09

too. I'll see you next week. Well

1:00:12

look you know how do we do this? How

1:00:14

do we do this show? It's we you know

1:00:16

we're not getting the Pfizer sponsorships that all of

1:00:18

those stations that lied to you are getting. Of

1:00:20

course we know why they didn't tell you the

1:00:23

truth. They would have lost their funding. We

1:00:25

know why you know Exxon gets what they

1:00:27

want. We're not funded by Exxon. We're not

1:00:30

funded by Pampers like none of it. We

1:00:32

don't want any of it and in fact

1:00:34

you know I've even turned you know

1:00:36

large sponsors away that just want

1:00:38

to you know get involved here

1:00:40

because they want to tell us

1:00:42

what to say or what we should

1:00:45

be investigating or what we can investigate.

1:00:47

I've never I will never allow that

1:00:49

to be a part of how we

1:00:51

make our decisions here. We're following our

1:00:54

muse. We're just like you. We're citizens

1:00:56

asking really important questions. I'm surrounded with

1:00:58

a team that are almost as voraciously

1:01:00

curious as I am. A word that

1:01:03

I wish permeated more of our society.

1:01:05

What happened to your curiosity? Where is

1:01:07

your skepticism? No red flags really? No

1:01:10

red flags here that we now

1:01:12

know that Bill Maher has to

1:01:14

admit that the entire destruction of

1:01:16

the civilization that we know and

1:01:19

the Constitution that we were given and

1:01:21

the Bill of Rights that was supposed

1:01:23

to protect us thrown out the door.

1:01:25

Jobs shut down. Told that we weren't

1:01:27

important. We weren't critical to moving America

1:01:29

forward. No right to go and see

1:01:31

a judge. No right to a jury.

1:01:33

All of that disappeared in the blink

1:01:36

of an eye and all

1:01:38

the media that you were watching and I

1:01:40

was watching that we were funding with our

1:01:42

cable bill. They told us that's just okay.

1:01:44

That's what it means to be a good

1:01:46

American citizen and play with the team is

1:01:48

to just hand over all your rights right

1:01:50

now. Don't worry you'll get them back. 14

1:01:54

days to flatten the curve. 21 days,

1:01:56

three months, a year. You know

1:01:59

we all went through it. But while

1:02:01

we're going through it, Jesse wasn't getting funded

1:02:04

by any of the people lying to us.

1:02:06

Guess who got none of the, you know,

1:02:08

$100 million that was put

1:02:10

as part of the propaganda package by

1:02:13

our own president, Joe Biden, to manipulate

1:02:15

you and your minds. We didn't get

1:02:17

any of that. Instead, you were here

1:02:19

with us. We brought the truth when

1:02:21

no one else did. And by the

1:02:24

way, look at, as Jeffrey said, we

1:02:26

showed everybody the water was warm. In

1:02:28

fact, we churned up the water enough

1:02:30

to get it warm enough that other

1:02:32

people like Tucker Carlson's and other reporters

1:02:34

started jumping and saying, you know what?

1:02:37

I think I'm going to start covering

1:02:39

that too. We were here first. We

1:02:41

were here when it was ice cold

1:02:43

and all of you that jumped in

1:02:46

that glacier water with us, the glacier

1:02:48

water of truth that sometimes is inconvenient.

1:02:50

Man, thank you so much for having

1:02:52

been a part of this miracle that

1:02:55

we call the high wire, an experiment

1:02:57

in programming, but we have more to

1:02:59

do. And as you know, we've

1:03:01

got a legal team that is fighting

1:03:03

so much of that information was backed

1:03:06

in science that was uncovered by FOIA,

1:03:08

Freedom of Information Act requests done by

1:03:10

Aaron Siri and his team. There is

1:03:13

nothing like this in the world where

1:03:15

a legal team works for a media

1:03:17

outlet and we actually bring lawsuits to

1:03:19

get to the truth. We actually bring

1:03:22

lawsuits to protect you when we find

1:03:24

something that's inhumane or going against our

1:03:26

constitution. We're fighting for you. There's

1:03:28

no one like us yet. Here we

1:03:30

are. We need your help. There's so

1:03:33

much we need to do. You can't

1:03:35

imagine what's about to take place in

1:03:37

the middle of this election season with

1:03:39

all the propaganda that wants to go

1:03:41

on, all the desires to control every

1:03:43

parts of our life at stake. We

1:03:45

need your help because behind the scenes,

1:03:47

though we're not getting political, we are

1:03:49

fighting for your rights. We're standing for

1:03:51

your right to free speech, to vote

1:03:53

however you want and to publicly talk

1:03:55

about it. If we lose that right,

1:03:57

the United States of America is over.

1:04:00

So while all the other news anchors are

1:04:02

making their millions and millions of dollars and

1:04:04

those networks have billions of dollars to lie

1:04:06

to you, how about you cough up

1:04:09

like, I don't know, $24

1:04:11

a month for the high wire. Go to

1:04:13

thehighwire.com. Hit that donate button because your life

1:04:15

depends on it and say, you know what?

1:04:17

I want to be a part of this

1:04:20

massive beautiful experiment in media which has

1:04:22

been telling us the truth and can

1:04:25

prove it's been right all these

1:04:27

years. $24 a month would be awesome for 2024,

1:04:31

but on, you know, 50 cents a

1:04:33

dollar, wherever you're at, I get it. Some

1:04:36

of us are going through hard times, but

1:04:38

we want to take us out of

1:04:40

those hard times. We want the truth

1:04:42

that prevails so that we can move

1:04:45

into a space where the people with

1:04:47

the right ideas and the right values

1:04:49

and the right ethics can be heard

1:04:51

and not silenced. The

1:04:53

government is not as big a problem as

1:04:55

the media. The media that we are fighting

1:04:57

it up against right now, it's a tug

1:04:59

of war. The high wire is winning on

1:05:02

the truth level, but they want to shut

1:05:04

us down and if we don't get

1:05:06

your help, they're gonna shut us all

1:05:08

down. So do me a favor, donate.

1:05:10

Just hit donate, D-O-N-A-T-E, put that in

1:05:13

your text and text the number 72022

1:05:17

and we'll send you a link to make

1:05:19

it super easy to be a world changer,

1:05:21

a defender of democracy

1:05:23

or the Republic of the United

1:05:26

States of America as

1:05:28

it stands. All right, when

1:05:30

we think about defending what the

1:05:32

United States of America represents, you

1:05:35

know, you have to wonder, are we that beacon of

1:05:37

light and hope? You know, is it

1:05:39

really the best way to govern? People question

1:05:41

that. So many of us saying this is

1:05:43

still the greatest country in the world that

1:05:46

allows for the freedom of expression, the freedom

1:05:48

of choice in so many ways. We were

1:05:50

robbed of it for a couple of years.

1:05:53

But what happens if your borders start

1:05:55

to get weak? What happens if right

1:05:57

next door there's an epidemic? epidemic,

1:06:00

an epidemic brewing of

1:06:02

authoritarianism. Is it contagious?

1:06:05

Could it come here? Could America

1:06:07

end up looking like this?

1:06:11

Regulations are on the way for natural supplements

1:06:13

and vitamins in this country. The federal government

1:06:15

is strengthening regulations around natural health products such

1:06:18

as vitamins. Everything from supplements

1:06:20

to apple cider vinegar and green tea

1:06:22

could be threatened by new Health Canada

1:06:24

regulations. Federal experts say the stricter regulations

1:06:27

are necessary to protect people, but the

1:06:29

natural health industry says these restrictions, they

1:06:31

go too far. Health Canada

1:06:33

now has the ability to immediately recall

1:06:36

any natural health product and force producers

1:06:38

to update their labeling. But

1:06:40

the most contentious change is still to

1:06:42

come. Health Canada wants to charge producers

1:06:44

the cost of monitoring and approvals. These

1:06:47

that range from hundreds to tens

1:06:49

of thousands of dollars. Health Canada

1:06:51

has been targeting these products for

1:06:53

decades, looking to regulate their use

1:06:55

and restrict your access.

1:06:58

The changes basically subject the natural

1:07:00

health community to the same powers

1:07:02

and regulatory penalties as chemical drug

1:07:05

companies, otherwise known as

1:07:07

the almighty and powerful Big

1:07:09

Pharma. And right now already the margins

1:07:11

are extremely tight. So we're going to

1:07:13

that's going to drive the small and

1:07:15

several medium players out of business, which

1:07:17

then will reduce products. It's also going

1:07:19

to drive the prices up. More than

1:07:21

70 percent of brands say they would have

1:07:23

to remove a product from the market. And one in

1:07:26

five brands say they are considering leaving the Canadian market

1:07:28

altogether. Frankly, 75 percent of Canadians use

1:07:30

these products on a regular basis to

1:07:32

help maintain and optimize their health. And

1:07:34

so anything that is going to further

1:07:36

restrict the access to those products and

1:07:38

potentially increase the cost of those products,

1:07:40

I think should be something that Canadians

1:07:43

should want to be concerned about. Actually,

1:07:47

so many of you have been commenting and

1:07:49

even calling in and saying, Del, we're under

1:07:51

attack up here in Canada. We're

1:07:54

on the verge of losing our ability to

1:07:56

get vitamin C and vitamins. They want to

1:07:58

make it illegal. What happened? to

1:08:00

our health when all we're left

1:08:02

with is sort of the pharma

1:08:04

chemical products that are out there.

1:08:07

Well at the center of this

1:08:09

battle is a brilliant constitutional attorney

1:08:11

that joins me now. Mr.

1:08:14

Buckley, thank you so much. Yeah,

1:08:16

very pleased to be here. What

1:08:20

is, what is

1:08:22

this about? Like what's going on? Are vitamins illegal

1:08:24

in Canada? Just give me the sort of straight

1:08:26

scoop as we sort of

1:08:28

just saw in the news. What's going on

1:08:30

in Canada? Yeah, we're in the process of

1:08:32

losing our vitamins and if I

1:08:34

use the term natural health product that's what

1:08:37

we call your dietary supplements. So

1:08:39

we do it a little differently in Canada.

1:08:42

We actually have to get government

1:08:44

permission to sell a dietary

1:08:46

supplement. So we have to jump through safety

1:08:48

and efficacy hoops and get a license to

1:08:50

do that. But it's

1:08:52

been a softer model. So for example,

1:08:54

I'll use ginger tea as an example.

1:08:57

We've used ginger tea for what, 2,000

1:08:59

years? Ginger tea? Ginger tea. Okay, ginger

1:09:01

tea. dietary supplement. It helps with nausea

1:09:04

and other digestive issues and we've known

1:09:06

this for thousands of years. Yeah. Well

1:09:08

our regulations don't require us, our natural

1:09:10

health product regulations, to do a clinical

1:09:12

trial to show that you can use

1:09:15

ginger tea for nausea. So they've been

1:09:17

softer that way. What's happening

1:09:20

is, is Health Canada's come in with

1:09:22

this new initiative called the Self-Care Framework.

1:09:24

So Health Canada, is that sort of

1:09:26

like our FDA or CDC?

1:09:28

Exactly. Okay, exactly. So you have the

1:09:30

FDA, we have Health Canada, which is

1:09:33

a bit of an Orwellian term. But

1:09:35

in any event, so Health

1:09:39

Canada is imposing this new framework

1:09:41

where basically they're moving us into

1:09:43

full harmonization with the

1:09:45

chemicals over-the-counter drugs. Okay. And this

1:09:47

is going to be an absolute

1:09:50

train wreck and we are going

1:09:52

to lose our products. So one

1:09:54

part of this, remember full harmonization,

1:09:56

well the big pharmaceutical companies, they

1:09:58

pay huge fees. for product licensing.

1:10:01

Even each year they have to

1:10:03

pay a renewal fee for a

1:10:05

license, for site licenses to manufacture.

1:10:07

Well Health Canada is imposing these

1:10:09

fees on the dietary supplement

1:10:12

companies. We had a meeting, a

1:10:14

public meeting with Health Canada last week and

1:10:17

there were industry members saying, well, we're going to

1:10:19

go out of business or we're going to have

1:10:21

to cut, you know, 40 to 90% of our

1:10:23

products lines. The homeopathic

1:10:25

doctors, they need thousands

1:10:28

of products to have a full practice

1:10:30

and the suppliers say, we can't do

1:10:32

it. The tradition,

1:10:34

if you're a traditional Chinese doctor,

1:10:37

you need about 800 products, different

1:10:39

products to have a full scope of practice.

1:10:41

Well, the suppliers have said, we can't

1:10:44

do this. So we're going to lose those

1:10:46

two healing traditions alone because

1:10:48

the products they use to help us aren't

1:10:50

going to be there. And that's just one

1:10:52

aspect. So remember I told you

1:10:54

we can use traditional use evidence to

1:10:57

show a product works. We're

1:10:59

going to lose that right because full

1:11:02

harmonization. Pharmaceutical company can't come out

1:11:04

with a new drug, a novel

1:11:06

chemical and point to

1:11:09

traditional use evidence. They have to run double

1:11:11

blind clinical trials. Well, we're now going to

1:11:13

have to, you want to use ginger tea

1:11:15

to treat nausea? You're going to

1:11:17

run a double blind clinical trial. It's not

1:11:19

going to happen because there are no

1:11:22

intellectual property rights. So,

1:11:24

and they've, they've also told

1:11:26

us, well, under this licensing

1:11:28

scheme, if it's for

1:11:30

a condition for which you would seek the

1:11:32

advice of a healthcare practitioner, so it's not

1:11:34

truly over the counter. It's not truly self

1:11:36

care. We're not going to grant

1:11:38

you a license. You have to go through the,

1:11:40

the full blown chemical pharmaceutical model, which you can't,

1:11:42

and that alone, we're going to lose all our

1:11:45

professional products. So what are Canadians going to do

1:11:47

when there's no naturopathic doctors? I mean, what pops

1:11:49

into my mind is like, let's say urinary tract

1:11:51

infection. I go to a doctor, they want to

1:11:53

give me an antibiotic or something like that. So

1:11:56

many people like recognize like cranberry

1:11:58

juice for pomegranate juice. You're saying that that

1:12:00

sort of would be, you know,

1:12:03

have to like go through some sort of

1:12:05

double blind study in order for that to

1:12:07

be something you have access to? To make

1:12:09

that claim. And this is how part of

1:12:11

how the game works is you're not allowed

1:12:13

to say anything that is unapproved.

1:12:16

So right now... What happens to a

1:12:18

practitioner that recommends something like that that's

1:12:20

unapproved? Is there any, you know, ramifications

1:12:23

for those practitioners? If they're selling

1:12:25

the product. And a lot of

1:12:28

naturopathic doctors and homeopathic doctors, traditional

1:12:30

Chinese practitioners, actually, a lot of

1:12:32

them in Canada still compound. Where

1:12:35

they will make a remedy for

1:12:37

you based just on your needs.

1:12:41

So we're going to be in a world of hurt. I

1:12:43

mean, they're not going to take cranberry juice off the

1:12:45

shelf because people use it just as a

1:12:47

juice. But if you don't

1:12:50

have a naturopathic doctor to tell you, wait,

1:12:52

you have a urinary

1:12:54

tract infection, take unsweetened

1:12:56

cranberry juice, then

1:12:58

you have no option but to go to

1:13:01

the pharmaceutical industry doctor. And

1:13:03

the censorship is rife in

1:13:06

the natural health community. What

1:13:08

is the excuse they're giving? I

1:13:11

mean, is it like a, like

1:13:13

why... You obviously have

1:13:15

to sell this to the population

1:13:17

of Canada to say, we're doing

1:13:19

this for you because... And

1:13:22

there's enough Canadians going, oh, thank you very

1:13:24

much. What are they offering? Why is this

1:13:26

necessary? But in their pitch, what do

1:13:28

they say? Is it safety? It's

1:13:30

always safety, isn't it? Safety is

1:13:33

the most dangerous term to safety or

1:13:35

to freedom rather. Right. Right.

1:13:38

Ever. Like as soon as, if

1:13:40

you hear the government say that something's necessary for

1:13:42

your safety, the first question you have to ask,

1:13:44

because we just learned through the COVID experience, all

1:13:46

this hype. I mean, I was

1:13:48

watching the earlier clip that, you know, you

1:13:51

pointed out earlier, it was just like a

1:13:53

bad flu season. Right. But

1:13:55

they had us convinced that we were all

1:13:57

going to die. So you always have to

1:13:59

ask... relative risk. So they are saying

1:14:01

in Canada this is for a safety and they

1:14:04

create risk. So

1:14:06

they try in any possible

1:14:09

case example they can give, they'll

1:14:11

float. But you always have to

1:14:13

ask, okay you're telling me I'm in danger. Well

1:14:16

compare that to some other dangers that

1:14:18

I face each day so I can

1:14:20

make an educated decision. Is this dangerous?

1:14:24

I don't know what the figures are in the United

1:14:26

States. But in Canada every year one

1:14:29

out of four million of us get hit

1:14:31

by lightning. Okay. Okay one out of four

1:14:33

million. So

1:14:36

in an average year we'll then have 10

1:14:38

deaths because there's 40 million Canadians. Well if

1:14:40

10 of us killed

1:14:43

by lightning each year you cannot

1:14:45

point to a single death caused by

1:14:47

a dietary supplement on a yearly basis

1:14:50

in Canada which means that

1:14:52

lightning is dramatically more dangerous.

1:14:55

Now would you give up a single

1:14:57

freedom to

1:14:59

protect yourself from lightning? Of course not. It's a stupid question.

1:15:01

Well when the FDA

1:15:05

and other groups in the United

1:15:08

States are saying you need stricter

1:15:10

regulations on dietary supplements for your

1:15:12

safety, as soon as you hear

1:15:14

that you'll know it's a fraud. Because

1:15:16

the risk profile is so dramatic

1:15:18

that lightning presents a bigger risk

1:15:21

to you as an American than

1:15:23

the entire dietary supplement industry. So

1:15:25

why are we even talking risk?

1:15:28

Why are we even talking government

1:15:30

regulation? And we

1:15:32

all agree well let's protect against

1:15:34

fraud. We all agree let's protect

1:15:36

against adulteration. Let's you know

1:15:39

let's not sell something that's deliberately

1:15:41

dangerous. That's not what we're referring

1:15:43

to. We're referring to regulation after

1:15:45

regulation after regulation that's needless. Being

1:15:47

imposed so the costs go up so fewer

1:15:50

people can access them. Yeah. And

1:15:52

it becomes so onerous that most of

1:15:54

the industry goes under and you're left

1:15:56

with a few big boys left standing

1:15:58

that then have a quasi- monopoly and surprise,

1:16:00

surprise thrown by the pharmaceutical industry. So

1:16:03

how do they deal with it? Do

1:16:05

they, are they basically how, I mean

1:16:07

what makes something a pharmacist,

1:16:09

are they calling it a pharmaceutical

1:16:11

product? I mean what was it

1:16:13

before? What was it called before?

1:16:15

Food versus a, I mean give

1:16:17

me the definition and how the shift is happening.

1:16:20

I think we have to go into the drug

1:16:22

model and then explain the difference between Canada

1:16:24

and the United States. So what

1:16:28

the drug model is and I

1:16:30

think we've got a graphics. Okay here we

1:16:32

go. So the drug model is there's basically

1:16:34

three parts and this is how

1:16:36

they game you. So when I'm explaining the

1:16:39

drug model I want your audience to understand

1:16:41

this is a fraud on you meant

1:16:44

to protect intellectual property rights not for your health.

1:16:46

So the first thing they do, the first

1:16:48

part of this game is they

1:16:51

define drugs so broadly

1:16:53

that it includes anything used for a

1:16:55

therapeutic purpose. So Del, if I was to say

1:16:57

to you know it's a little

1:16:59

warm in the studio we're in Texas, can

1:17:02

you drink some water I think you're dehydrated.

1:17:04

Yeah. I've now turned that water into a

1:17:06

drug because I have

1:17:08

suggested its use. I've advertised with you

1:17:10

and your audience the use of water

1:17:13

for therapeutic purpose so I've turned that

1:17:15

into a drug. So just just you

1:17:17

understand anything used for

1:17:20

therapeutic purpose is considered to

1:17:22

be a drug. That's the first part of

1:17:24

this game. The second part of this game

1:17:26

that they introduce is they make

1:17:28

it illegal to basically

1:17:30

manufacture or sell any drug

1:17:33

unless you get government pre-approval in

1:17:37

the form of a license. So

1:17:39

now we've entered this legal philosophical

1:17:41

environment in both the United States

1:17:43

and Canada except for dietary supplements.

1:17:46

Okay. So in the United States

1:17:48

and Canada for anything but dietary

1:17:50

supplements it is illegal to

1:17:53

use anything to treat any

1:17:55

purpose. And then the third

1:17:58

thing you do and this is This

1:18:00

explains why we have such poor

1:18:02

health outcomes in our

1:18:04

hospital system and in our mainstream Medical

1:18:08

system is the third thing you do

1:18:10

is is you make it so difficult

1:18:12

for serious conditions to

1:18:15

get government pre-approval that

1:18:18

Only products with with patents

1:18:21

go through them meaning only novel

1:18:24

chemicals The last time I had

1:18:26

an expert on the stand in Canada

1:18:28

and I asked well How long does it how

1:18:30

expensive is it to get through this? Drug

1:18:33

approval process without blinking and I the experts

1:18:36

said a billion dollars now that'd be Canadian

1:18:38

dollars that'd be about 700 million US

1:18:41

dollars and you know you can do it

1:18:43

for a couple hundred a million I mean

1:18:45

easy yeah, but the point is is it's

1:18:47

so expensive that unless you have a patent

1:18:50

You will not go through the process

1:18:54

So Dell both you and I have

1:18:56

grown up in an environment where the

1:18:58

only approved treatments for serious health conditions

1:19:00

In both the United States and Canada are

1:19:03

novel chemicals, and this is by design Right

1:19:06

this is because our food and drug

1:19:08

laws, and they're they're Virtually

1:19:11

identical between the two countries and they're

1:19:13

virtually identical in all the Western nations

1:19:16

The the drug approval laws are

1:19:18

designed not to get good health

1:19:20

outcomes The drug approval

1:19:23

laws are designed to protect

1:19:25

intellectual property rights. This isn't

1:19:27

by accident And

1:19:29

where that gets dangerous is what we saw

1:19:32

I would say during kovat right and it's

1:19:34

something that was very curious There's multiple reasons

1:19:36

when we look at a drug like let's

1:19:38

say hydroxychloroquine that has been around For

1:19:41

some time used by millions of people for

1:19:44

all sorts of different issues to it already

1:19:46

had Established a safety profile,

1:19:48

but we heard Tony Fauci saying it

1:19:50

has to go through randomized controlled trials

1:19:52

and all that Which is sort of

1:19:54

I think I mean, I'm just maybe

1:19:56

I'm making the wrong comparison, but he's

1:19:59

basically saying Millions of dollars need to

1:20:01

be poured into research in order for this

1:20:03

thing to make any claim like that. What

1:20:06

you're saying is because that's an

1:20:08

off patent drug at the

1:20:10

moment, or maybe not ivermectin, I might be mixing

1:20:12

up them too, but let's just say any drug

1:20:14

that once we know worked for something and we're

1:20:17

seeing them say, well, no, we've got a better

1:20:19

drug now. What they're saying is we have a

1:20:22

new novel chemical that

1:20:24

is patented, which we know will

1:20:26

make millions, hundreds of millions of

1:20:29

dollars. Therefore we love the fact that

1:20:31

it's really expensive to go through these trials.

1:20:33

We're not even going to look at a

1:20:35

drug that we once owned because we don't

1:20:37

own it anymore. We'll just kick that out

1:20:39

of the way. So all of this repurposing

1:20:41

of drugs hits the skids because no one

1:20:43

will pay that to say that it

1:20:45

can handle, as you're saying, this

1:20:48

physical issue, this illness. If you're going

1:20:50

to claim it does anything for this

1:20:52

illness, it has to have all this

1:20:55

money poured into research and

1:20:57

studies. No one, no vitamin

1:20:59

will go through it because no vitamins are on. I

1:21:01

don't know if you can get a patent for

1:21:03

a lot of these natural supplements. You can't. That's

1:21:06

the difficulty. Right. So you can't. I

1:21:09

like to use Viagra as an example just to explain

1:21:11

how the process works. I don't

1:21:13

know about in the United States, but when Viagra

1:21:16

was first approved, there were actual

1:21:18

mainstream news articles on how expensive

1:21:20

a single pill was because

1:21:22

it was so popular. Cancer had a patent.

1:21:25

They got drug approval. So

1:21:27

they could charge whatever they wanted and they were

1:21:29

just charging a fortune. But then when it goes

1:21:31

off patent, anyone can

1:21:33

manufacture the non-brand name is

1:21:35

Sedinafil. So the price just

1:21:38

drops. Now Sedinafil doesn't go away

1:21:40

just to kind of answer your analogy,

1:21:42

but the only products that get approved

1:21:44

in the first place are ones that

1:21:46

have a patent when they go through

1:21:48

the process. So you never

1:21:50

mean on the market after the pharmaceutical

1:21:52

company tries to dissuade them. Now

1:21:54

getting back to the hydroxychloroquine or

1:21:56

ivermectin example, something else was going

1:21:59

on there. is doctors

1:22:03

using off-label use as it's called. So

1:22:05

let's say we have ivermectin approved

1:22:08

for use for parasites in humans.

1:22:10

Well, that's drug approval, but

1:22:13

that's separate than doctors having the right

1:22:15

to off-label use and use it for

1:22:17

whatever they in the professional judgment feel

1:22:19

is important. But it's just

1:22:22

interesting in the state

1:22:24

I live in, we call them provinces, Alberta. Our

1:22:27

college of physicians and surgeons made it

1:22:29

clear to every doctor in the province

1:22:31

that if you treat early COVID, so

1:22:35

if you treat COVID before somebody shows up

1:22:38

at the emergency department with blue lips that

1:22:40

you are committing professional misconduct. You treat them

1:22:42

at all. Yeah, until they're

1:22:44

in crisis. And you

1:22:47

would lose your license to practice if

1:22:49

you use ivermectin to treat COVID. So,

1:22:51

but that's a bit of a separate issue than we're

1:22:53

dealing with. Well, but I mean, I think it's, part

1:22:57

of what I'm pointing out is the off-label, the

1:23:00

usage means it hasn't been proven to,

1:23:02

treat the illness or disease we're talking

1:23:04

about. As you're saying, as soon as

1:23:06

you wanna treat a disease or illness, Health

1:23:08

Canada steps in and says, you need a

1:23:10

license to do that. And therefore there's a

1:23:13

huge cost to that. So both, I would

1:23:15

guess natural products that were once deemed

1:23:18

as food and off-label or off-patent

1:23:20

products, has no value to the manufacturers to

1:23:22

get involved in that. And so you can't

1:23:24

get the license, it can't be used. And

1:23:27

so then the opposite becomes true. If you

1:23:29

try to use something that doesn't have the

1:23:31

license to treat what you're talking about, you

1:23:33

lose your license. And so this

1:23:35

whole thing is wrapped up and it's not,

1:23:37

I mean, how far away are you looking

1:23:39

at our politics and how we're handling sort

1:23:42

of this conversation? I mean, are we on

1:23:44

a slippery slope or? You guys are on

1:23:46

a slippery slope. And just so that people

1:23:48

understand, I mean, you can't,

1:23:51

you cannot patent a dietary supplement.

1:23:54

So if it's gonna cost hundreds of millions of dollars

1:23:56

to get through this process, you just won't do it.

1:23:58

Because as soon as you're... through it anyone

1:24:00

can can just piggyback on your

1:24:03

application that sell the product and you can't

1:24:05

you'll never recover the cost it's never happened

1:24:07

in my lifetime where one's gone through the

1:24:09

process yeah it's never happened in your lifetime

1:24:12

and it never will because it's not it's

1:24:14

the whole purpose is to protect just so

1:24:16

people really get that why would I pay

1:24:18

a hundred million dollars to do a vitamin

1:24:21

C study stop sepsis let's say which is

1:24:23

something that dr. Paul Merrick has done

1:24:25

great research on but if I'm going to

1:24:27

do that study at the level that the

1:24:29

drug is at as soon as it

1:24:31

soon as I get done there are

1:24:35

myriad companies that could all just say hey

1:24:37

we got vitamin C you don't own the

1:24:39

patent so there's no way for me to

1:24:41

you know to you

1:24:43

know reimburse that cost right that's the

1:24:45

problem the problem is no one really

1:24:47

owns it so therefore no one can

1:24:49

make the money off of it and

1:24:51

this is this entanglement that

1:24:54

goes on you know it's it's

1:24:56

actually really fascinating and I could really

1:24:58

get in the weeds over some of

1:25:00

the FDA meetings I've gone to and

1:25:02

CDC meetings around drug patents and getting

1:25:05

approval and the trials some of it

1:25:07

I like look I'm always screaming we

1:25:09

need double blind placebo studies of vaccines

1:25:11

before they should be given to people

1:25:13

they don't happen yes they're expensive but

1:25:15

these are products are being forced on

1:25:18

children and can be problematic

1:25:20

but let's let's stay focused here so

1:25:22

in the end it's they're

1:25:24

really just lowering the bar on

1:25:27

what we call like a pharmaceutical

1:25:29

product you're saying anything that I

1:25:31

say hey drink some water because

1:25:33

you look dehydrated I just turned

1:25:35

that into basically a drug and now

1:25:37

I need licensing and I

1:25:39

and I need all the rest is this is

1:25:42

this coming from you know

1:25:44

inside Canada or do you feel like this is

1:25:46

more of a global pharma plan

1:25:48

this is clearly coming from outside Canada

1:25:50

this is clearly part of a international

1:25:53

harmonization and it's why Americans

1:25:55

need to be concerned so

1:25:57

and first thing is is you have

1:26:00

have to avoid this drug model and

1:26:02

you're not in it for dietary supplements.

1:26:05

They were trying to put you into

1:26:07

a pharmaceutical model, this drug

1:26:09

model and you guys rebelled in

1:26:11

the early 90s and you got this Dietary

1:26:13

Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 where

1:26:17

your classed as foods. If

1:26:19

the FDA wants to go after a specific product,

1:26:23

the FDA has the onus to prove that

1:26:25

it's not safe or it's adulterated. It's

1:26:28

really quite a freeing piece of

1:26:30

legislation. But you're censored. You're

1:26:33

not allowed to make truthful health claims. You're

1:26:36

limited to small things like supports

1:26:38

mental health or may support cardiovascular

1:26:40

health like these structure function claims.

1:26:42

So you're heavily censored. You're still

1:26:44

in trouble. But in Canada,

1:26:47

we got moved into this drug model

1:26:49

that was soft where we could use

1:26:51

traditional use evidence and now we're moving

1:26:53

into the full-blown self-care framework. The

1:26:57

intention is to get rid of the products. The

1:27:00

intention is to only have products on the market

1:27:03

that have patent protection. Now you guys

1:27:05

are starting to move into the drug

1:27:07

model. So you have

1:27:09

a group called the Consumer

1:27:11

Healthcare Products Association and

1:27:13

I'm relying on Dr. Malone who wrote

1:27:15

a piece saying, he said literally the board

1:27:17

of directors is a who's who in

1:27:19

the pharmaceutical industry and that

1:27:22

they're basically pushing pharmaceutical

1:27:24

interests. So

1:27:26

they're basically wanting to

1:27:28

have manufacturers to

1:27:31

have to go through the first phase of

1:27:33

a drug approval process. And

1:27:35

so Senator Richard Durbin of

1:27:37

Illinois in 2022 had introduced

1:27:39

an act, the Dietary Supplements

1:27:42

Listing Act, and he's going to reintroduce

1:27:44

it in this organization

1:27:46

is supporting that. We're

1:27:48

basically to sell a dietary

1:27:50

supplement now you'll have to provide this

1:27:52

long list of information which reads exactly

1:27:54

like the type of information you'd have

1:27:57

to provide for

1:27:59

a drug license application. application, short

1:28:01

of the efficacy data. Now,

1:28:05

so your class does the food, but now they want

1:28:07

to start treating you as a drug. Dale, the

1:28:09

first thing that happens is you lose your small players

1:28:12

as soon as you start introducing a regulatory

1:28:15

burden. And they're setting you

1:28:17

up for having to prove safety and efficacy.

1:28:22

And it's called rent seeking. They just make it more

1:28:24

and more expensive. And then also

1:28:26

we learned in Canada, the industry starts to

1:28:28

accept the drug model. So

1:28:32

you can't go there. Remember, the whole industry

1:28:34

is safer than light. The industry can afford

1:28:36

us these giant corporate behemoths that have hundreds,

1:28:39

you know, billions of

1:28:41

dollars. And you are just,

1:28:43

you know, like it's like a mom

1:28:45

and pop shop against Amazon. You just

1:28:47

can't compete. They can meet certain, they

1:28:49

can meet certain milestones

1:28:52

and credits and handle certain

1:28:55

regulatory payments that a smaller

1:28:57

company just can't afford

1:28:59

to do. And therefore it just flushes

1:29:02

all of the smaller players out and all were

1:29:04

left with this big pharma products,

1:29:07

chemical products. It's

1:29:09

really scary. And so what you're saying is,

1:29:11

and I would imagine that if Dick Durbin

1:29:14

is bringing this bill and we know I've

1:29:16

been to Washington, DC, we know how this

1:29:18

works. The pharmaceutical industry and these outside players

1:29:21

are visiting with our politicians all the time

1:29:23

saying, what you need to do is pass

1:29:25

a law because you got to protect the

1:29:27

citizens. Everyone needs this, right? This is all

1:29:30

about protections. Make sure that all of those,

1:29:32

you know, vitamins on the right that they're

1:29:34

not making claims and they've got proper licenses.

1:29:37

Let's move that into this,

1:29:40

this sort of model and,

1:29:42

and then we're off to the races. And

1:29:44

so they're doing it. They're, they're trying, they're

1:29:46

knocking on the door here in America. And

1:29:48

so what is the, when does this all

1:29:50

come into play? Are vitamins already getting more

1:29:52

expensive or is this a year or two

1:29:54

down the road? What's happening? Well,

1:29:56

in Canada, they're already more expensive. So

1:29:58

as soon as, like. We got pushed into

1:30:00

the drug model back in 2004, and

1:30:03

our prices just skyrocketed. I

1:30:06

remember I was on a Twitter spaces call

1:30:08

with a practitioner, Brett Hawes, and

1:30:11

he gets consulted by Americans, he gets

1:30:13

consulted by Canadians, and he was explaining

1:30:15

the same treatment protocol for a

1:30:17

Canadian that's gonna cost three to four times as much

1:30:20

as an American, and a lot of Canadians, it's

1:30:22

actually been good for the US dietary supplement industry,

1:30:24

because we try to buy from the US as

1:30:26

much as we can, and hope

1:30:28

it doesn't get stopped at the board.

1:30:30

And we try to buy smuggling, smuggling

1:30:32

vitamin C across the border. And we

1:30:34

kind of have an access

1:30:36

to justice issue here. If

1:30:40

the prices of dietary supplements rise, and they're

1:30:42

not covered by healthcare plans by and large,

1:30:44

they're not covered by the government, if

1:30:47

they keep going up, then economically disadvantaged

1:30:50

persons find themselves in the situation. They're

1:30:52

more stuck in the drug model. They're

1:30:55

totally struck in the drug model, and

1:30:58

the candidates become a huge

1:31:00

problem. Our dietary supplements are

1:31:02

tremendously expensive, and there's whole

1:31:04

segments of the population that are locked in

1:31:06

this drug model. And if you don't have

1:31:08

the right to choose how you're gonna treat

1:31:10

your body, either to prevent

1:31:12

illness or when you're sick, there's only one

1:31:15

class of humans in history that have not

1:31:17

had that right, and we call them slaves.

1:31:20

This truly is a fundamental freedom

1:31:22

issue. The last thing, the

1:31:25

one freedom you should fight for, above all

1:31:27

freedoms, is autonomy over your

1:31:29

body. And if you allow your

1:31:31

government to take away other options, then

1:31:34

you've lost that autonomy. And trust

1:31:36

me, their goal is to lock

1:31:38

the Americans into this

1:31:40

chemical drug model. And

1:31:43

this whole system has

1:31:45

to be replaced and rethought. It's

1:31:48

just a fraud. I wanna

1:31:50

just jump into one other topic, and there's a

1:31:53

bunch happening in Canada. I could probably do this

1:31:55

all day. You

1:31:57

are a big part of the Trucker

1:31:59

Con. just standing

1:32:01

up for the freedom to have their

1:32:03

jobs without being vaccinated. But more specifically,

1:32:05

I want to talk about euthanasia because

1:32:08

it's almost like in the same place

1:32:10

where they're trying to say, you know,

1:32:12

like you're saying, you want to hold on

1:32:14

to your choices in body autonomy. In

1:32:17

the other hand, Canada is handing this great

1:32:19

choice over to you to just be able

1:32:21

to euthanize yourself if

1:32:24

you're sick. But it just

1:32:26

from our perspective, like it looks like

1:32:28

it's just the bar on what, you

1:32:32

know, being sick means or being

1:32:34

in that sort of critical space

1:32:36

where we're just this right to

1:32:38

die. It seems

1:32:41

like they're taking advantage. I just saw a headline

1:32:43

about it was an autistic adult

1:32:45

female who has autism. Here it is.

1:32:48

Calgary judge rules woman with autism can

1:32:50

seek medical assistance in dying. Justin Colin

1:32:52

Fiesby said his decision will be stayed

1:32:54

for 30 days. So lawyers for the

1:32:57

father of the woman can decide whether

1:32:59

to file an appeal. So obviously this

1:33:01

father is probably, I'm assuming,

1:33:03

making an argument that this

1:33:06

person is not really, you know,

1:33:08

capable of making this decision. Maybe

1:33:10

they have depression for whatever, but

1:33:13

we used to be you're dying of

1:33:15

a critical illness. Now it's like you're

1:33:17

is, I mean, we're reading is depression

1:33:20

actually a reason to euthanize

1:33:22

yourself in Canada. Is that enough? This

1:33:24

is I almost feel like I'm in

1:33:26

Alice in Wonderland and I've fallen down

1:33:28

the hole because so first of all,

1:33:30

you know, medically assisted

1:33:33

suicide was illegal until recently.

1:33:35

Okay. And, you know, it

1:33:37

had gone all the way to our Supreme

1:33:39

Court and and no, we can't cross that

1:33:41

line. And then they waited until they had

1:33:43

a very sympathetic fact pattern. And

1:33:45

the court said in narrow circumstances, you can.

1:33:48

And it's supposed to be even if you

1:33:50

look at our law, it looks reasonable. I

1:33:52

mean, you're supposed to be in, you know,

1:33:54

have a serious health condition that is

1:33:57

irreversible and, you know, basically be

1:33:59

at that. end-of-life situation.

1:34:01

I mean the person with MS that's

1:34:03

totally losing control and it's now going

1:34:05

to start literally drowning on their own

1:34:08

spit type thing where for compassionate reasons

1:34:10

we would all feel compelled. That's

1:34:13

the intention. That's how the law is written.

1:34:15

That's how the law is written and that's

1:34:17

what the court intended but

1:34:19

it has just exploded and I

1:34:23

can't prove it just but it's now urban

1:34:25

myth. I mean you go to the hospital

1:34:27

in Canada with you know even a moderate

1:34:29

condition and they're going to ask you if

1:34:32

you want we call it made so medically

1:34:34

as you know assisted induced suicide that okay

1:34:36

spells made so we we refer to it as

1:34:39

made. The

1:34:41

last statistics we have are for 2022. In 2022 4.1% of old

1:34:47

deaths in Canada now remember we've got all

1:34:49

these COVID vaccine deaths happening

1:34:52

yeah but 4.1% of all deaths in Canada

1:34:54

in 2022 were medically induced assisted suicide.

1:35:00

That is a number and

1:35:03

it will have gotten worse since then because they're

1:35:06

pushing it. I mean here we have this I

1:35:08

think this is coming from 2021

1:35:10

total made deaths in Canada was

1:35:13

10,064 so it looks like it was 2.2%

1:35:15

so you're

1:35:18

saying it was up so the next year 2022 it was up

1:35:20

to 4.1% and you see

1:35:24

how it's just going up in a straight line there if you

1:35:26

were to draw a line on those

1:35:28

bars wow it's just and

1:35:30

there's just story after story you go to

1:35:33

the hospital with as I say you know

1:35:35

a moderate condition and they're offering it to you. One

1:35:38

of my you know family members used

1:35:40

made and you know

1:35:42

without any explanation to the

1:35:44

family as to the reason

1:35:46

so it's touching it's touching a lot

1:35:48

of us in Canada and it's

1:35:51

clearly out of control. What gets

1:35:53

what I get really nervous about when you

1:35:55

start seeing autism or any sort of we

1:35:57

saw some of this during COVID so many

1:35:59

people were reporting and we've had

1:36:01

stories on this show of

1:36:04

say your you know your child had

1:36:08

Autism or Down syndrome or something like that

1:36:10

They were being hit with a do not

1:36:12

resuscitate order right away as soon as they

1:36:14

walked in the hospital Then they

1:36:16

were like as you said, you know waited till

1:36:18

the lips are blue They can't get any treatment

1:36:20

then they're put on remdesivir and a ventilator which

1:36:22

we know killed about nine out of ten people

1:36:25

And then when they flatlined nope don't

1:36:28

try to resuscitate them doesn't matter what

1:36:30

age they are And so you

1:36:32

just see this dystopian nightmare? Where

1:36:35

we start ridding ourselves of our elderly ridding

1:36:37

ourselves of our handicap ridding you know Which

1:36:39

is I mean frankly to make the comparison

1:36:42

Yeah, it's Germany is sort of where Nazi

1:36:44

Germany starts right? I did with the get

1:36:46

rid of the indigent those that can't take

1:36:48

the care of themselves As

1:36:51

a way of gentrifying your society to to

1:36:53

what you want it to be Is

1:36:56

there a lot of conversations about that sort of

1:36:59

I mean, I would imagine you bring up

1:37:01

Nazi Germany in Canada must be like Oh,

1:37:04

you know now you're making a false comparison,

1:37:06

but are people making those comparisons? Not

1:37:11

necessarily but people are aware and I

1:37:13

mean but we're split You

1:37:15

know, we've got we've got we're kind

1:37:17

of split into I don't even want

1:37:20

to say left and right because you

1:37:22

know those traditionally those terms

1:37:24

are getting blurred with all of this

1:37:26

wokeness and Soji and and the

1:37:29

whole thing our our whole

1:37:31

society is just Dissolving

1:37:33

it's no longer cohesive at all

1:37:36

But I will answer your question is

1:37:38

depression. Can you can you get basically

1:37:40

killed by the state for being depressed? They

1:37:43

did change the law, but it's not they're

1:37:45

now delaying that till 2027 so

1:37:50

And that's not here depressed get in there and get

1:37:52

yourself So you say you go run out of time

1:37:54

you go to the hospital because you're depressed and suicidal

1:37:57

Well, you should be talked down. You should

1:37:59

be you know watch it over till you're

1:38:01

not and then you know here's the counselor and

1:38:03

off you go no they're going to

1:38:05

be saying here we'll sign here I'll take care of

1:38:07

it. You like killing yourself? Actually I do great sign

1:38:09

here. It literally feels that way

1:38:11

like you know you just get a feeling

1:38:13

for how things are and because people are

1:38:16