Episode 449: A SECOND OPINION
Comments
Episode Segments
Episode 449: A SECOND OPINION
Filmed live before a studio audience, Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen break down Bill Gates’ shocking reversal on climate change — signaling that the global narrative may finally be unraveling. Then, a new American Heart Association study reveals alarming data on the COVID vaccine’s impact on the heart — a discovery that could mark the final blow for mRNA technology. Plus, an unprecedented in-studio panel brings together Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Suzanne Humphries — three medical truth-tellers confronting the biggest questions of our time: Are we witnessing the collapse of a system built on
misinformation? Or the rebirth of true science and transparency?
Watch this powerful new episode of The HighWire, where the truth always comes straight from the heart.
Guests: Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Andrew Wakefield
AIR DATE: November 6, 2025
Explore
Great show as usual. Love the pink boots along with the sexy legs. Way to go mama!!
It’s not just ivermectin, not just chlorine dioxide. It’s CURES. Cures are illegal. Every case of cured is a unique story, an anecdote. “Modern” medicine ignores anecdotal evidence, so all cases of cured are ignored. So all cured are dismissed. We don’t need to study cures by ivermectin, by chlorine dioxide, even by Vitamin C – we need to study “cure.’
Modern medicine does not have a testable definition of cured. It’s not hard. We’re just not doing it.
To your health Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
Great show!
Dr. Kory is right that we should give much more respect to clinical experience and not simply dismiss it as “anecdotal.” I think the ascendancy of RCTs as the “gold standard” is more about control than science. RCTs are expensive and the “reputable” journals are ill-disposed toward any science that is inconvenient to the medical establishment and the drug companies. These factors constitute huge barriers for any alternative treatments. If we observe the recent history of publishing and retraction in “top” medical journals, it should be clear that these bodies are gate-keepers, not adherents of good science.
Continuing on RCTs … A distinction needs to be made between testing of safety and efficacy. The former – particularly with a new medicine or procedure – lends itself to RCTs, because safety issues require much larger populations to study. Efficacy, however, can typically be tested with small numbers. For example, a single family doctor will generally have at least 1,000 patients, and if that doctor treats 500 of those patients for a malady (e.g. Covid) that has a CFR of 1%, and all of those patients survive, the odds of such a result by chance is 0.66%. If that doctor gives his protocol to a colleague, who achieves the same result (no fatalities) for 500 of his own patients, the odds become absolutely vanishing that both doctors were lucky. If another doctor, or a study, cannot replicate those results, then they are “doing it wrong,” and need to sit down with one of the first two doctors and find out what they are screwing up.
Continuing on the need or lack thereof of RCTs … So, RCTs aren’t needed for treating common conditions, in terms of efficacy – the lived experience of doctors and clinics, as well as of patients, is sufficient. For testing safety, when the drugs or protocols used involve repurposing of medications that have long been in use and whose safety profiles are known, then RCTs aren’t required, only reasonable surveillance. Bottom line: RCTs (and blessings from the “top” medical journals) generally aren’t needed to develop effective treatments for common ailments. Personally, if a protocol like the Zelenko Covid protocol, or the Marik sepsis protocol is found to be working at a small scale, but an RCT finds that it’s ineffective or unsafe, I’m going to be much more skeptical of the RCT than the protocol, and I will believe that the RCT was designed to fail until the RCT has been scrutinized by myself and others whom I trust.
I don’t like Del’s example of Dr. Zervos saying that if he publishes his study, he will just lose his career and won’t be able to be any good to anybody. Attempting to publish his study, and standing up to the inevitable “Wakefielding” he would be subjected to, would be one of the BEST things he could ever do for mankind. As far as his career, he can’t do much good by going along with a failed system, and in any event, he’s at the very end of his career anyway. What good would he be able to do in just a few more years on the job? So, Dr. Zervos is being shamefully selfish, putting is ambitions ahead of the welfare of millions of children. I think Senator Johnson put it best when he said, “This is SICK!” (Although it wasn’t completely clear in the film that Johnson was referring to Zervos refusing to publish, I think that’s the case.)
In previous post, I mistyped “his ambitions” as “is ambitions.”
Farmers should get together worldwide and sue that manufacturers of this product and government for forcing them to give it to their cows. It is heartbreaking to read of these animals suffering and dying . No unnatural product has ever been shown to healthful for living creatures. It may control a naturally occuring substance but ultimately it is damaging. 66 years old and never take ANY pharma drugs, except Ivermectin, otherwise homeopathy, and doing well.
This product – Bovaer, will definitely definitely reduce methane effectively. RCT shows that it kills the cows and they no longer produce methane. These cold hearted people have no concern for animal life never mind human. Reptilian mind-set, Profits, profits, profits.
A lot of other studies came up that peri and myocarditis in covid infected patients was higher. But the problem is they don’t confirm that those covid patients were not vaccinated. They are so dishonest that personally I don’t trust anything that FDA or CDC come up with.. They want to cover their asses as clearly it is a huge issue that potentially some sueing needs to happen.