BACKLASH BUILDS OVER GLYPHOSATE MOVE

This is a firestorm moment, though, and it has arcs and tentacles throughout our entire

genetic memory in America when we're searching for justice when it comes to the poisoning

of our children and our families and our communities.

And I want to paint a picture here because we've been down this road before, and I hope

everyone pays attention.

So I want to look at New York Times.

This was just this December, almost a couple of months ago here, and New York Times wrote

this article and they said the war over a weed killer might be headed to the Supreme

Court.

Well, we know it is now in the Supreme Court, but it quotes the CEO of Baron here, and

he says this, the stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes

the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy.

So he's saying this Supreme Court case, these lawsuits are threatening the tools of farmers

in the very economic viability of the United States.

So I want to say this, this, this arc of justice has a long memory, and we've been down this

road before.

Lobbyists have stabbed American children and families in the back when it came to their

health before, and it looked like this in 1984, early 80s.

We had headlines that looked really similar to what I just read you.

Look at this one.

1984.

Fear of lawsuits, prompts, DPT vaccine shortage and rationing.

They're saying all these lawsuits, these vaccine manufacturers are receiving.

We may have from vaccine shortage, we have to ration vaccines, there's going to be outbreaks.

Here's another one, same time frame.

Vaccine liability threatens supplies.

Well, I want to take the executive order, Trump just signed last week on glyphosate.

Look at the wording.

It's the exact same thing, the same wording, ensuring adequate supply of glyphosate based

herbicides, and the chemical manufacturers want legal immunity from the harms their

products cause.

We've seen this before.

It was 1986, Ronald Reagan was the president, and this is the bill he signed.

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, you go into this bill and it says this, provides

that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from

a vaccine related to injury or death, resulting from unavoidable side effects.

These shots are unavoidably unsafe, but the government and the manufacturer is, they're

not going to be held liable.

And then why don't we bring you, Jeffrey, just to that point, and this is so critical,

right?

The art of war, know your enemy, know their strategy.

We've seen the strategy, so we know how this playbook has been written.

But just that point, that they know they are unavoidably unsafe there, that they have

known side effects.

But after signing that bill, did our government go out and start giving us informed consent,

saying just so you know, some of your kids are going to be maimed and injured by this

product?

No.

They went on a campaign after giving liability protection to lie to the American people

and go with a slogan, safe and effective, safe and effective.

And if anybody questions safety, which Ronald Reagan and that bill says right there, it

is not perfectly safe for everybody.

This will destroy lives.

And for that reason, we're giving liability protection, then they should have been

honest with the American people and saying, this product is not perfectly safe.

There are going to be lives destroyed by this, and instead every doctor, every scientist,

every government official since that moment has been gaslighting America and lying to us

and frankly around the world, saying totally safe, anybody that questions it's all lunatic.

Really?

Because we gave you liability protection because it's not safe for everybody.

And this industry operation is happening again right now on our watch, and it's important

to learn from the people and the parents and the mothers that were there in 1986 and in

the early 80s who went through that fight.

One of them is Barbara Lofisher, the head of NVIC, the National Vaccine Information Center.

Here's what she had to say about that time.

Take a listen.

Okay.

They say we're going to leave the country without any vaccine.

And the Congress said we've got to protect the vaccine supply in this country.

And they said to Jeff, you can come to the table and fight for what you think the parents

and the children should get, or you can not come to the table.

But we're going to pass this legislation to protect the vaccine supply.

Then we're going to do it with or without you.

So we said we'll come to the table, but there's three things.

We will never agree to complete liability protection for doctors or for manufacturers.

Number two, if you're going to protect the vaccine supply, you have to protect the children

by safety provisions.

Safety provisions have to be part of this law.

Equal emphasis.

And the third, because they immediately went to a federal compensation program.

We said that there's going to be a federal compensation program.

It has to be an alternative to a lawsuit.

In other words, parents can choose to either go to court or they can choose to get compensation.

We understood they couldn't do both.

Amazing.

When you look at that, and I think those are, you know, we really need to think about what

she just said.

There's basically three provisions.

Not one of those provisions ended up holding up.

They wanted there still to be the right to sue outside of the vaccine court.

That ended up being taken away.

It was the only way forward.

All the safety measures disappeared, which was the heart of the lawsuits that started

the informed consent and that action network.

As you know, those were the first lawsuits against FDA CDC, NIH.

We proved they never did the safety measures.

They never put forward the task force that was supposed to improve these products.

Nothing happened.

There was no improvement of the product.

Just a total gaslighting of America, and the poison of America, and a ramp up of the

amount of vaccines that were then forced on our kids through mandated actually increased

the toxic level into our children.

And so I think, as we look at this right now, let's not make the same mistake.

I think Bonnie Hari is right.

We're not going to send five parents into negotiate some part of this that will be okay

for America.

We're going to stand as one loud body as we should have back in 1986, outside the halls

of justice.

I think we have to stand up, shout, and make sure that our voices are heard, that we

are not going to accept this here in this country.

And Del, this goes beyond glyphosate.

So right now, lobbyists are leveraging the midterms to drive a wedge between Trump and

the Mahafocus agenda that Kennedy brought in, that really propelled Trump into the presidency

without Kennedy.

Clearly, Trump would not be sitting as a president right now.

And this is no clearer than in this political article from just a couple days ago.

And listen to this.

It's literally framed by lobbyists, the entire articles of victory lap by the lobbyists.

It titled RFK Jr.'s days of going wild on health may be over.

They say this about RFK Jr.

For Washington lobbyists, the move was an early glimpse of how midterm realities are forcing

the administration to shift away from Kennedy's anti-vaccine and anti-chemical plans.

Instead, the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries he's long targeted are breathing

a sigh of relief as the White House signals its rating in Kennedy's attacks on their products

and tasking him with touting healthy eating in the present Trump's efforts to cut drug

prices and deals.

Kennedy's not there and Trump are not there, so lobbyists can breathe a sigh of relief.

But I want to go on.

And then it goes on and say, they actually get quotes from lobbyists.

So they're running circles and victory laps in this thing.

This guy says, picking on farmers, now they're talking about trying to get this harmful

chemical glyphosate out of our food supply, trying to get the lawsuits that and get people

that are damaged by this to make sure they don't have immunity to keep doing this.

This is what they say, picking on farmers.

That's how they frame that.

That's the base of your party, said Sam Goldig, managing partner at CGCN, a publicly

lobbying shop that has worked for food maker Kraft Heinz.

You don't want to mess with that before an election, so that's the kind of conversation

Trump's getting in his ear.

But then it goes on and say this, drug makers and manufacturers of chemicals including pesticides

are some of the biggest spenders in Washington, typically outpacing food makers, the pharmaceutical

research and manufacturers of America, which represents brand name drug makers spent nearly

38 million on lobbying last year.

It's highest on record, the American Chemical Council, meanwhile spent almost 19 million

last year.

These are not mom and pop farmers.

This isn't your local person down the road selling you eggs.

These are big ag.

This is the biggest of the biggest of chemical manufacturers, big farmer manufacturers.

They're attempting to essentially bubble wrap Washington at this point and the president

and insulate him from the American people and the Maha focused.

When we talk about polls, the midterms are coming right around the corner and there's

a lot of polling you're going to see out there right now.

They're trying to get the pulse check of the American public and also influence the elections

at the state levels.

Here's one of them that's coming up and they can be deceptive.

Piling agencies should be unbiased.

Listen to this polling agency.

This is the intro before they even present the data that they pulled from.

They say this in the districts that will decide the control of the House of Representative

next year, Republican and Democrat candidates who support eliminating longstanding vaccine

requirements will pay a price on the election, goes on to say vaccine skepticism is bad

politics.

All right, well, so much for unbiased.

Just look at their questions they're asking, the respondents, the respondents were asked,

what do you think about this?

Please tell us whether you agree or not.

Do vaccines save lives?

They also say vaccines are the best defense against many infectious diseases.

There's no nuance there.

There's no room for, maybe they save lives sometimes, but what about safety?

We'd like to see more safety.

We wouldn't like mandates.

We don't like those things.

No room for nuance.

So these are crafted.

These polls are crafted.

At the same time, we really know which way is going.

Despite the media trying to divide us, despite lobbyists trying to paint pictures or pulling

companies trying to paint pictures, America is actually more united than they tried to

tell us that we are.

So here is a 2025 Gallup poll going right into this year.

And it talks, they're asked what your view of business sectors in the US are.

And you can see a list of business sectors there.

Look at the bottom, pharmaceutical industry and the federal government, least favorite

businesses and the negatives.

And that clearly federal governments in Washington and they're being assaulted by pharmaceutical

lobbyists.

This is not America.

This is not the American people what they wanted.

And now let's continue.

This is a Brownstone Institute article by Jeffrey Tucker.

What the polls say about the pharmaceutical industry and vaccines.

You can see there starts right out public confidence.

Here's another way of putting it.

And key US institutions, you can see Farma right there down from the year 2000, 60% of

people love Big Farma.

Now it's 28% in 2025 compared to other industries.

But now let's go to some real polling.

Here is a poll that everyone should pay attention to.

This green, the green spot right there represents giving families a choice.

People said families should have a choice when they responded to this in their vaccination

decisions.

You average that across, that's across the entire political spectrum, independent, Republican,

Democrat.

Average that across is almost 50% say that, that they want that.

And then if you look at, if you look at the red, the red tells you basically that vaccines

are unsafe.

You average that across.

It's about eight or nine percent across the spectrum.

Just straight up vaccines are unsafe.

But here's the real slam dunk, the home run, the closest to a sure thing in an uncertain

political environment.

This is the poll everyone should be looking at.

It crosses all party lines, the opposition to giving vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity.

Just how we started this section, there's the red across the board.

You average all that together across the entire political spectrum.

You're looking at high 70 something percent.

Everyone wants this, everyone wants this immunity gone from vaccine manufacturers.

So why would we put it on pesticide makers?

Why would we allow them to have that if this is so unpopular?

The only way is if we don't make our voices known, right?

And look, I am into issues in this country.

I really have said I'm politically marooned, I'm still in politically marooned, but I see

a president right now that is vulnerable to public opinion that actually cares about public

opinion.

And I think he's getting some bad polling from, you know, not public opinion, but lobby

opinion.

I think we all need to make our voices known.

I think the best thing you can do if you believe you're a part of Maha is to say you're

absolutely not happy with this and not being represented and this could affect your

vote that we want to see a different, we want to see a different outcome here.

We want to see a different strategy towards our farming practices.

We would love to see massive investment into regenerative farming practices and teaching

tools for farms.

I think we all care about farmers, you know, it's not necessarily their fault that they've

manipulated, manipulated over years and really made to be addicted to this product and it's

weed killing, you know, properties.

And there's all sorts of new technologies, there's lasers that kill weeds and bugs and

all of it.

Why aren't we modernizing like that?

We're going to have AI take over the world, but we can't have some robots go out and clean

up the weeds.

Come on.

President Trump, let's get on this.

And the lobbyist, my message, lobbyists will speak for you if you don't speak for yourself

and that's at the federal level and that's at the state level.

So I present this not to demoralize, but to show people that it's time to get involved.

It's really time to stand up and do this, whether it's phone calls, emails, however you

want to activate.

Because it's not just glyphosate, it's not just vaccines, lobbyists are already rolling

back what we reported as maha victories in the past.

So in 2025, I want to show this article here, Trump moves to tighten rules on risky research

on viruses.

So we put it in executive order together basically to end risky gain of function research.

That was a celebration and right after he did that, you had the National Institutes of

Health, they already began terminating networks aimed at stopping these pandemics before they

start.

They tried to frame it as a bad thing.

This is the Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Disease.

This was a Tony Fauci-led initiative.

This is an initiative that gave Peter Dazick, an eco-health alliance, Grant's Christian

Anderson.

He's just part of the authors of the proximal origin saying, no way this virus came out

of a lab.

But in private emails, as we've shown, we're saying, it looks like this might have.

Usually the people that were getting the grants from this, Trump, Kennedy, they shut that

down, NIH shut that down.

Here's the new article, the most recent article.

Congress forces NIH to reverse policy, continue funding Fauci's unsafe infectious disease

centers.

And it says this in the article, university lobbyists have struck back, managing a slip

language into, managing to slip language into the congressional appropriations bill at

the force of NIH to spend 18.2 million to fund creed centers once again.

It doesn't just stop there.

Gavi, the vaccine alliance, started by funding, seed funding, by Bill Gates.

We celebrated this when it happened.

The vaccine alliance has its billion dollar grant cut by Trump administration.

Now here's the more recent headline, US Congress backs Gavi, the vaccine alliance, despite

Trump administration cuts.

And it's now putting a slipping a rider in a foreign assistance bill.

And you can read the language for yourself right here.

And how much does it carve out for Gavi?

Well, a total of over $3.5 billion.

You can see that number right there for Gavi and other initiatives.

These are lobbyists at work.

This is how it's done.

They slip things into bills.

And they basically do this outside of the view of American people, unless journalists spot

like this and people try to activate in Washington at the state level and say, do not do this.

These are victories that we've voted for.

Do not reverse these.

New men, huge, huge importance there.

And again, we're waiting for journalists that are funded by Bayer, Monsanto, Moderna,

Sinofi eventis.

That's why your work is so important, Jeffrey, and the work that we're doing here.

Because obviously we're not getting any money from any of those people.

Really, unbelievable moment.