All Episodes
Previous
Nov. 14, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:29:22
An Inconvenient Study: Live with Del Bigtree! FBI "Fast Response" Fact Checked! Megyn Kelly & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Please stop before you scroll.
I was paralyzed by the COVID-19 shock.
You will not hear my story on mainstream media.
If you do not believe this story or would like medical proof, you can go to my website at www.opkayla.ca.
That's www.opkala.ca.
The Canadian government has left me fending for myself without the necessary treatments.
Instead, they offered me MAID, which is medical assistance in dying.
That's what they offered me after this was medically proven to be caused by my COVID-19 shot.
That is not treatment.
That is suicide or euthanasia.
I would treat any human being better than that that I even disliked.
I don't just have to live without my legs anymore.
I have to live with massive pain, a lesion in my spine, no bowel or bladder movements, somebody coming to get me dressed every day, having to be alone in bed when my fire alarm goes off, unable to move.
This is not okay and I need help.
I'm appealing to anyone on social media to please share this video so that others like me can find help as well.
If we don't speak up, we won't get the help.
Please go to www.opkayla.ca to get the full story, the medical records, and the audio recording of the doctor telling you that this is related, directly caused by my COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna one.
So I just feel morally obligated every now and again to remind everybody that Kayla's story is still ongoing.
Kayla's been on the channel for a few times and I've been friends with her now since it's going on a couple of years now.
And she posted the other day because out of the news cycle, and it's partly my fault.
I've been mildly obsessed with the ostrich story and other issues that are time sensitive.
Kayla's struggle still goes on.
She was diagnosed with transverse myelitis after getting a COVID booster of Moderna after getting two initial shots of Pfizer.
She got it because she wanted to visit her hospital, her father in hospital.
She had a kid.
And she did what everyone thought made good citizens, good citizens for the greater good and had no idea that these things could happen.
I bring it up now because she put out a tweet earlier this week says, next week I'm going in for a complicated vitrectomy, retinal eye surgery.
It's been a long road and I'm praying for strength, protection, and successful outcome.
Thank you to everyone who continues to stand by me and support me and lift my story up.
I was trying to get Elon to get familiar with this story, to shed some light on it.
Appreciate that after the government of Canada abuses of its citizens, coerces them into medical tyranny, medical subservience, when they get injured as a result of it.
I don't know that her VISP vaccine injury support program claim has been approved or denied.
I don't remember what the status of that is offhand.
But after they get injured as a result of what the government compels them to do, they offer them death, literally.
They offered her medical assistance in dying, which under these circumstances is nothing less than state-sanctioned murder.
Cheaper to kill her than it is to treat her.
And they don't have the ability to treat her because, you know, the system's overwhelmed.
Something about opening your borders to tens of millions of people, losing your doctors because working conditions are terrible.
You know, healthcare system has been overloaded for decades.
And they can't treat people, but they sure as hell can kill them.
And then harvest their organs afterwards if the organs are of any use.
That's Kayla Pollock's story.
I just wanted to remind everybody about that.
That's still going on.
And it was a good, you know, a good reminder and contextually appropriate given what's going to be, it might be the entire show.
We'll see how this goes on.
An interview with Del Bigtree, who's a documentarian, journalist, has a, I'll probably call it a podcast, you know, has a channel, put out a movie called The Inconvenient Study, which is obviously a play on the inconvenient truth, Which was Al Gore's.
Inconvenient truth about a climate crisis that may or may not be as scientifically justified as some of the claims that doctors today are making.
As relates to jibby jabs, vaccines an inconvenient study.
I watched it.
It's amazing.
It's uh available for free.
The link is in the description and everyone should check it out.
But Del's got an amazing story.
Del's an amazing guy and um, he's in the backdrop.
I'm going to bring it in without further ado.
Uh Del, i'm bringing you in i'll.
I'll say that you may you may or may not find this funny.
I, you know I i'm not lazy, but I Ai is good for one thing, you know, concise descriptions.
I could not find an Ai that would give me anything other than an anti-vaccine, defamatory description of you and your bio, and it's.
It's wild.
Like you know, I did all of them and they all had the same, he's known for vaccine skepticism and purveyor of disinformation, misinformation all of them.
So you must be doing something right, Del.
Tell the world who you are.
Yeah, my name is Del Bigtree.
I am the ceo of a nonprofit called the Informed Consent Action Network.
I do a weekly uh podcast talk show, whatever you want to call it.
Uh called thehighwire.com.
Uh, previously I started out.
I consider myself a medical journalist.
I was a producer on the CBS talk show The Doctors for many years, so I won an Emmy Award celebrating the best that science and medicine has to offer.
Back in 2016, I took a?
Uh.
I don't know if you call it a u-turn.
I definitely took an off-ramp out of television when I decided to make a documentary about vaccines.
That documentary is called Vaxed Um, from cover up to catastrophe, which many people you know credit with igniting the medical freedom movement around the world.
Uh, that changed my life forever.
Like I said, once you challenge the pharmaceutical industry, your days in tv are numbered, since really, the funding in television is mostly uh pharmaceutical um, and so from that moment on, I toured the country with Vaxxed I?
Uh, started my nonprofit, I started doing my own talk show and I guess the rest, they say, is history I. You know the last uh adventure I was on.
I was director of communications for Robert Kennedy Jr when he ran for president of the United States, so I rode that incredible um journey all the way and watched him get sworn in.
I was standing in the Oval Office when he became HHS secretary, which is all part of what I think is a very important work that I know that you're involved in.
The story you just shared is why i'm here.
Uh, vaccine injury is real and for anyone that really grapples with this conversation whether they're a politician doctor, anyone I sit down with I say, look, are you under some impression that vaccines Are the only product on the earth that never injure anybody?
Can we have an honest conversation?
And everyone will say, well, no, I mean, aware that, you know, everything has reactions and vaccines are no different.
It's like, okay, then this slogan, vaccines are safe and effective that we've been stuck in for years is ignoring a group of people that are having serious side effects and even death.
And Kayla is just, you know, one of those people.
But the work that I was doing from 2016 has been on the childhood vaccine program.
COVID changed everything because the first time we mandated vaccines on adults, and I will say this, as much as it's horrific, the stories like Kayla's, and there's so many of them, it is what I knew would be a sea change in this conversation.
Because prior to an adult mandate, our children were being, their lives are being destroyed, paralyzed.
There's a story of Colton Barrett in our film, who's paralyzed by a Gardasil HPV vaccine, very much the same way.
And I point out that paralysis is written as a side effect on almost every vaccine we take.
The problem is that it was happening to babies mostly, Viva.
And so the parents were saying, I had a perfectly healthy child that was running around saying, I love you, mommy.
I love you, Daddy.
And then I took them in for their vaccines and didn't know, didn't really like capture that moment into my heart because I didn't know that was going to be the last time I ever heard my child speak.
Of course, autism and all of these things are said to have been debunked by the pharmaceutical industry, just like Kayla's story will, you know, be said to have been debunked.
Doesn't matter that a doctor said it was, it happened because of the vaccine.
The government's going to back away.
They'd rather euthanize her, murder her, get her story to stop.
This is not brand new.
This has been happening to parents of children for decades.
But finally, we're waking up and COVID has a very strange, because of its darkness, but a very strange eye-opening effect, which is now that adults like Kayla are able to tell us their story, we can't discount them the way we did with the children's stories.
We can't say, oh, you weren't paying attention as a parent.
Your child was always regressing into autism.
Your child was always going to live with seizures.
Your child was always going to have a repetitive motion disorder.
Your child was never going to be able to get out of diapers.
Your child was never going to be able to speak.
All of these things.
We just said that parents were crazy.
It's a lot harder once you see an active, healthy adult that many times maybe had an athletic background and then suddenly now can't walk.
And so it's changing this conversation rapidly and making it a lot easier to have the conversations that we've been trying, that parents have been trying to have for decades.
And we're going to get into two particular horror stories, not that they were all horror stories in the documentary.
The boy who got paralyzed and I think subsequently ended up taking his life.
Yeah.
And then the triplets who all simultaneously fall extremely ill after a vaccination.
But if we can just back it up, everybody knows I like to do this and I like to get to know the history and I couldn't get much of yours.
Where are you from?
Like, what's your upbringing like?
Yeah, it's a really great question.
When people ask me, like, how'd you get into this?
You know, you always wonder how far back you go.
But I like to talk about how I was raised.
I am one of these people that was raised by very conscious parents.
And I say that because I think it's the most important thing we do is how we raise our children.
My mother and father raised me very in a very unique way.
They were, you know, hippies from the 1960s.
They marched in Chicago.
I was raised with, you know, the heroes in my family, you know, were Abby Hoffman and the Chicago Seven and standing up for free speech from the government, standing up for the freedom of education.
But more importantly, my parents, you know, from the very moment I was born, and I'm the oldest of three kids.
I have a brother and sister.
My father was a minister, really a motivational speaker, more than a minister.
I think a motivational speaker would be a better way to describe him.
But they raised us believing that we could change the world.
They would say to us almost as a daily mantra, you are here to make the world a better place.
You can change the world.
And they taught us to meditate at the time.
Like, I remember at three years old, and I hated it, but they had us sit down.
They taught us to be quiet and said, you've got to really hone this connection you have to your creator, to God, because there's going to be authoritative forces that will try to tell you what's right, will try to manipulate you, move you.
And so ultimately, they, you know, raised me with that sort of 1960s, you know, rebellious hippie adage, question authority.
They taught me to question authority.
And by the way, Viva, that does not make raising kids an easy job because in a house, there's really only one authority that's constantly there.
It's your parents.
And so the authority you're questioning is your own parents.
But they inspired us to stand up for ourselves, to believe in our own connection.
They said to me, there's no teacher, there's no politician, there's no one that overrides your intuition.
Whatever you are guided is right.
You follow that over everything else.
I like to tell the story, actually, Viva, when I was in, it was in, I believe, third grade in Boulder, Colorado, where I was born in New York City, but I grew up mostly in Boulder where my dad's ministry was.
And I would walk to school every day with my sister.
It was about three or four blocks from where we lived back when you could walk four blocks and your parents wouldn't be arrested for child abuse.
And so we would come home for lunch every day because my mom liked to make our own food.
She didn't want me eating school lunches.
We were all organic.
Everything we did never went to doctors.
I wasn't vaccinated.
All of these things were part of how my mother and father were trying to raise, as they said, avatars in the world.
And I came home for lunch and my mother said to me, Del, what happened to the shirt you were wearing when you went to school?
I remember it clearly.
I'd worn a shirt to school that I'd made in art class a few days earlier.
We were using batik dyeing where you put wax on the part you don't want to get dyed.
And I attempted to write something on my shirt and it worked.
I got, you know, it was kind of smudgy, but the flyers was the name of my gymnastics team.
And so I'd written it on the shirt.
Well, I wasn't wearing it when I came home for lunch.
And my mom said, why?
I said, well, you know, Craig said it looks stupid.
He lived right next door to the school that we go to.
And so I just went over to his house and borrowed one of his t-shirts.
My mother pulled me out of school that moment.
I did not see a public or private school after that until years later.
I was third grade, seven years later, I went back in 10th grade.
My sister was pulled out of school.
My little brother never even went to a school.
And my mom said to us in that moment, I am never going to raise kids that care what other people think.
You liked that t-shirt.
You believed in it.
You went and you let your friends say it was stupid.
I'm not going to raise kids that care about people's opinions like that.
And so that's, you know, and I say to people that are raising their kids, you know, if you raise your child to believe in their own instincts, their own intuition, if you tell them they can change the world, and maybe if you don't vaccinate them, you homeschool them, be careful.
They might find themselves as much trouble as I find myself in now.
They're like, I got to show you this and don't take offense.
I just, I wanted to look up what your, if Big Tree was your real last name.
And I say, is Big Tree Dell's real last name?
If you mean Dell Big Tree, the vaccine skeptic activist.
I just love it.
But I do have to know.
The origins of Big Tree.
I mean, I have my own, I have my own, you know, I imagine, what is the origin of Big Tree?
My mother is, her father was Mohawk.
She's Mohawk from upstate New York.
I took my mother's maiden name.
My parents were still together.
But when I turned 18, my father had actually had a very checkered childhood himself, grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in New Jersey and essentially broke out of jail.
It's an amazing story.
I'll tell you sometime, maybe over a cup of coffee, but broke out of jail and changed his life and ultimately ended up having a spiritual life becoming a minister.
But I grew up with his new name, his alias.
And so by the time I turned 18, I did not feel attached to that.
And I really appreciated my mother's heritage.
We spent a lot of time camping when I was a kid, going to Indian reservations all around America as just part of our exploration as a family.
And so I guess, and now that I find myself where I am, I think I didn't know it at 18, but that sort of warrior instinct, which the Mohawk were definitely a warring tribe, not the most peaceful tribe in the world.
But I think I feel that warrior in me.
And, you know, I took her name when I was 18.
That's how that happened.
It's very cool.
Now, okay, so you get, you have a career of journalism.
You do, you produced the movie, the documentary Vax back in 2015.
Then you're clearly on the outs.
How do you get it?
I mean, we're going to ask, I'm going to ask a bunch of questions about the Kern administration and the role of pharma influence in it.
In fact, you mentioned it in media, in television.
If you criticize, complain, or attack pharma, your life is not long in that career because the advertising is based on not attacking your sponsors.
It's just common business knowledge.
What is that?
I mean, I'm just shocked every time I go watch, it's Fox News in particular, not to pick on them, just because it's in front of the treadmill.
The amount of pharmaceutical ads, it doesn't make any sense.
It's like 50% pharmaceutical ads, 25% fast food or junk food, and then 25% other.
When did that happen that pharma got its grips into controlling narratives based on advertising blackmail?
You know, that's a really good question, like when it really got to the level it's at.
I think if you go back, you know, just over 10 years ago, well, actually, probably a little bit more now.
When I always think about around the Katie Couric interview, where she decided to do the story of autism, that was the last time we ever heard, you know, a mainstream news interview, you know, sort of documentary piece on the connection between vaccines and autism.
I think right about there, if you were to look at it, you'll see pharma starts ramping up its power over television.
It's stated now that pharma on average is covering about 50 to 70% of all advertising on television.
I always say to people, I don't want you to take my word for that.
Just like you said, just count the commercials of whatever shows you're watching.
Even your sitcoms are paid by pharma.
So even the little things about all the doctor shows, all of the measles outbreaks on a doctor's drama show, all of that's being funded.
That's being funded essentially by the pharmaceutical industry.
I want to make this clear that when you are in television, what you understand is your job and you're looking at Nielsen ratings, all of it.
The job is that television is actually a billboard.
It's not seen as an entertainment vehicle, except for those of us trying to make entertainment.
But the industry sees that as a billboard inside of every house.
And the only reason you're making the entertainment, whether it's a comedy, a sitcom, a drama, a news show, all of it is to hold eyeballs and attention on that billboard so that whatever rolls during the commercial gets sold.
So it's not just like a side function of television.
It is actually the number one function of what a TV is there for to advertise to you.
So when you see 50 to 70% of those ads are these crazy drugs with these outrageous side effects and you're giggling to yourself like who would buy that with restless leg syndrome and leaky bowel syndrome and potential death.
The truth is enough people buy it that makes a difference.
But even more so, they get to control the narrative that is spoken by the news agencies on those television sets.
And that's what they're purchasing.
So if it's 70% advertising, you're asking yourself, why did I never hear about VAX?
Why is it that I never hear about issues with vaccines?
Why is it Kayla's story she's saying will never be covered by mainstream media is because the pharmaceutical industry is not just an advertiser.
Essentially, it's your boss.
Your paycheck, 70 cents on every dollar of your paycheck is paid by pharma.
That means they're deciding what you can and cannot put in your programming on a television.
It's sinister beyond belief.
I mean, you know, people were pontificating on why and when Tucker was kicked off when he was kicked off.
I remember who was he?
He made a relatively bold statement as relates to pharma at the time, whether or not it was Dominion and all these other things.
You know, it's pure capture and pure narrative control.
And so now let's, I mean, because that's going to bring us into, so you do VAX.
You're on the outs at that point.
How do you get into the substance of an inconvenient study?
So it was actually the year that VAX came out, 2016, was an outrageous year for me.
We got accepted in the Tribeca Film Festival, and then Vax got kicked out of the festival.
That drew Robert De Niro into the limelight, who at first said he supported the film because he had a child with autism that he and his wife believed the vaccines contributed to, which no one knew.
So now we had a superstar on our side.
But even that superstar, Robert De Niro, was unable to stand up against the forces of pharma that ultimately controlled Tribeca.
And when we asked, why are you kicking our film out of the festival?
After an hour of debating it, they finally admitted the Sloan Foundation, which is Sloan Kettering, a pharmaceutical industry, medical industry, has been one of our top sponsors, and they're not going to allow us to have this film.
But that ended up creating a tidal wave of the worst press you've ever seen, Viva, but was awesome, right?
It suddenly took a film that never would have seen the light of day and made it the most controversial film in the world.
And so a bit like if you remember, you know, Passion of the Christ or, you know, these films, that controversy made lines down the block everywhere we went, everywhere we, you know, was just people were obsessed with the film.
And so that ignited a movement, which was really fascinating.
And people say, you know, even more than the film, it was the community that it built.
What happened was on the second screening, I got a call, Viva, from Angelica Film Center right after we got kicked out of the film festival right there in New York.
And the head of Angelica Film Center said to me, Dell, we'll screen your film on Friday.
I said, huh, can we push that back a month?
Because it wasn't even scheduled to screen at the festival for another month.
And I don't know if you've ever made a film, Viva.
I don't know what your background is on that.
But when you do, you're not even ready by the time you're going into a festival.
You're sending your best version as you're trying to finish it up.
And then most people will be in the festival, get a lot of commentary and people, and they'll take that and then they'll do a final edit and usually release six months to a year after that festival.
We were kind of in that track.
We were a month away from being, you know, screened at the festival when suddenly we're the biggest story in all of media.
So when the head of Angelica said to me, Del, we'll screen you on Friday.
I said, we're not ready.
We don't even have titles ready.
We don't have music in a lot of the film.
Can we at least push it back 30 days?
How about we do the day it should have screened at the film festival at Tribeca?
We'll screen Angelica.
And he said to me, Del, you're the biggest news story in media today.
I have no guarantee you're going to be a big story in a month.
That's why I'm offering it to you now.
And I said, great, we'll take it.
And so we immediately just rushed the film together, finished it as fast as we could.
I think there's some beauty to that.
There's a rawness in vax that wouldn't have been there had I had another month or so to work on it that really made it special.
But at the second screening, there's a line down the block.
I want to know who's who's in this theater?
Why are we selling out?
And so at the QA after the screening, I said, you know, would everyone with a vaccine injured child please stand up in the theater?
And three quarters of the audience stood up.
And I felt like the oxygen had been sucked out of the room.
I knew I was making a film about a problem.
I knew, you know, there's some children being injured, but that seemed like a lot.
And then I asked that question over and over again, every screening for four screenings a day, entire year, they all kept standing up.
But more importantly, they all recognized each other.
Up until that moment, they thought they were all alone.
They thought autism was rare too.
And now they're standing in the theater and there's, you know, 100 families all had the same issue.
And that is what built the movement around that film.
And so that's what I was experiencing when I met Dr. Marcus Zerbos.
What's amazing is, I mean, I can hear the skeptics.
And what they're going to say is they're going to say, you're asking a question that they have no basis to even prove why they believe it.
And so some people say, all right, well, the question is, do you believe?
Stand up if you believe.
If you have an injured child that you believe because you saw it happen was correlated with the vaccine.
What you mentioned that I had never fully contemplated before is in an adult, when if you get a jab and you start feeling some of these symptoms and you can verbalize them, when you give it to these kids fresh out of the womb, like you said, the HP, sexually transmitted disease vaccines for a newborn, they have no way of verbalizing anything.
And the only people that see that immediate causation or that immediate correlation are the parents.
I never really fully appreciate that.
When people say, like, I saw my kid go basically comatose and never come back, every parent knows when their kid has a flu, when they're sick, when they're not themselves, you know, their eyes are glazy.
I never really fully appreciated that the injury is, they can't describe it.
And somebody does feel that they got that injury, and yet it's totally disregarded because they say, you have no way of proving causation and your correlation, well, it would have happened anyhow, but we'll never know because it happened.
Three quarters of the crowd everywhere you went believed.
And you're right.
It's a really good point, Viva.
And I want to meet people where they're at.
I mean, if you've watched the work that I do, I'm not here trying to, you know, we all should be skeptical of everything from all sides of this conversation.
I want, you know, but let's meet that skepticism for a moment.
You know, first of all, parents usually are the most aware of what's going on with their children.
And what I found as I was traveling the country and interviewing these parents was they weren't stupid people.
In fact, they usually tended to be extremely well educated.
In fact, who was the one in the documentary that herself had some medical training and she knew, you know, exactly what it was when she saw it in her kid?
Yeah.
I mean, she says she's an audiologist.
Work with handicapped children and they're dealing with speaking delays and issues with hearing.
She does a hearing test on her child as they're shutting off to see if the stipedial reflex, a word I didn't even know, is working.
Like, is the child's reflexive, protecting sound working?
At one point, I think she dropped it.
She doesn't say it in the movie, but she dropped a dictionary behind her kid to see if they would react and they didn't flinch, they didn't move.
Something that would have made them move the day earlier.
But to that point, you're right.
People will say, Well, doctors will say, Well, it's anecdotal, or correlation does not equal causation, which gets to the heart of the importance of this film and inconvenient study.
Viva, the only way to establish causation is through a long-term placebo-based trial.
The only way science can say that product causes that problem is by doing a long-term trial where one group gets the drug or the vaccine and the other group gets a saline placebo or a sugar pill if it's a pill.
And we track those groups long enough that the type of issue we're looking for could arise and that has enough children or people in the study you could capture it.
For instance, you know, a cancer drug is often trialed for five to ten years with people.
They're very long trials because we want to see does it cause any mutation in your genes?
Does it cause some other debilitating side effect?
Uh, we don't know about every drug we take goes through this.
Um, and look, if it's an autoimmune disease, for instance, if you're worried about autoimmune immune system dysregulation, that doesn't happen overnight.
You're going to need to do a study.
If a product is causing that, that study has to be at least two, three, five years long.
Now, if it only happens, if our understanding is it appears to be appearing in like one and let's say 10,000 adults are getting a specific autoimmune issue, then if you're looking at a product to see if this product causes that, you're going to need at least probably 20,000 people so that you're likely to get two cases to see if they show up, right?
So, all of that is why we do pre-licensing double-blind placebo safety trials.
Here's the issue: not one of those trials has ever taken place for the childhood vaccines that we're giving our children.
Never.
They've never had a placebo trial.
They've never then, when you look at, and I talk about this in the film, many of the studies are only four or five days long.
We're talking about a hepatitis B vaccine that's given to a day one-old baby.
So, that's long, not long enough to determine anything more than a headache.
So, any side effects that product may be causing, we're not seeing them in these trials.
The longest trials for childhood vaccines is about six months, which is crazy, especially when we're talking about healthy children and no placebo group.
Well, and let's back this up just to get some terms for those who might not be familiar.
Double blind, it's explained in the film.
Explain what it means because it's not just having a placebo group, it's so that it's blinded from the scientists so that they don't somehow interfere or manipulate the results.
So, this is something that I think that you know, there's a lot of things that I discovered when I started investigating this.
I thought the FDA, our government agencies, were the ones doing the safety studies, sort of like we have a government agency that really oversees the crash tests of cars.
You don't let Ford decide, hey, we got a five-star, you know, rating on our own crash test of our own vehicle.
We'd be like, That's ridiculous.
I'm not going to trust Ford, but it's exactly what we do with pharmaceutical products.
It's the industry, it's the company itself does its own safety trials, and then it shows up the CDC, hands us its trials, and says, See, it's safe.
We don't know how those trials were manipulated.
In fact, there's a new rule by the new administration through the NIH and J Bhattacharya, where now they're saying, we want all of your published trials, not just, they've been selecting the ones that turn out the way they want.
But let's, all right, so all that to say, it's double blind.
The reason it needs to be double blind is you're doing your own safety study.
So you have a bias.
You want the product to be said to be safe because it's going to make you billion, literally billions of dollars.
I mean, the COVID vaccine made over $100 billion for the pharmaceutical industry.
So you don't want scientists to be able to manipulate the study.
So they're blinded and so are the patients, supposedly.
And so neither one is supposed to know who gets the drug and who gets the placebo.
Unfortunately, that's not even attempted with the childhood vaccine program, which gets us to the heart of the problem.
If we never did a placebo-based trial, then there's no way to get the causation.
So every time a doctor says to you, when you say, well, what about autism?
Or what about ADHD?
I've heard that people have think their kids regress in these issues after a vaccine.
Well, correlation is not causation is what they'll say.
But what they're saying is you would have needed to have done a long-term trial that we never did.
So everything's going to be correlation.
It's going to be, you know, pushed into the correlation space because you never did the trial that would have given us causation.
So by avoiding the actual science, they get away with this bait and switch to write off everybody that's seeing injury after a vaccine.
Well, and this is going to go back to like the inception of the problem is that on the one hand, there's never been, as you mentioned, unless it's wrong, I don't think anybody's contradicted this.
There's never been a double-blind placebo test for any vaccine, as far as I understand.
And then the other argument is that also, oh, geez, I was going to say, oh, yes, that now they, the argument is that they can't do these studies because it would be unethical because they have effective treatments for the diseases that would require giving a placebo to somebody to not treat them.
And so they say we can no longer do this now because what are we going to do?
We're not going to do a double-blind placebo with HPV because, you know, we're talking about cervical cancer or something.
And it would be unethical to treat them with placebo.
So we can't do a placebo test to determine safety and efficiency.
Can I work on?
I actually just got a comment from my own team that people are misunderstanding what I mean when I say it's unethical.
So I'm going to take this opportunity to try and take this one step further because what people think we're saying is that it'd be unethical to basically subject a child to HPV.
That is not what these studies are doing.
These studies are just taking regular children walking around the world.
Obviously, you're not going to come in contact with HPV unless you're kissing somebody or involved, you know, needle drugs, needles, drugs, all of those things.
That's not happening.
But what the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry has said is now that we already have, in this case, let's say Gardasil 4 was the first version of Gardasil.
Now that we already have Gardasil and we want to have Gardasil 9, of course we're not doing a placebo-based trial.
We're not going to have one group get Gardasil 9 and the other group get a saline placebo, which would be the true standard of is it as safe as salt water.
We can't do that because Gardasil 4 already exists.
And just in case someone in that placebo group ends up going out and kissing somebody or doing whatever, having intercourse, we don't want them to have the risk of getting HPV.
And therefore, it's unethical now to have a placebo group for those reasons.
I hope that makes sense because I think people are misunderstanding that these studies somehow inject children with disease.
No, that's not what's happening.
I mean, there's two ends of that, you know, the lacking of ethics.
One is not treating, it's not treating someone who has a disease with the treatment when you already have it, which was part of the lack of ethics in the Tuskegee experiments, where they had people with syphilis that they were telling that they were treating, but were not.
I mean, that's unethical.
The argument here is going to be: we already have an effective treatment for it, so we can't risk exposing a certain demographic to that for which we already have a safe and effective treatment, vaccinating the vaccine.
So they just don't do it, but they never did it in the first place.
They never did in the first place.
And this is the last piece.
We're going to win this, Viva, but this is the last battleground with medicine.
They're trying to lie to people right now.
What they're saying is: no, we're not doing saline studies anymore, but all the original versions of these vaccines did get tested against saline placebos.
I just went through every vaccine on the childhood schedule yesterday on my show.
You can go to thehighwire.com, a whole section with Aaron Siri, our attorney, and we walk through every vaccine and what was actually used, not saline.
But that's the last little piece of land they're trying to hold on to.
That we once did a placebo trial, not true, didn't happen.
Placebos have never seen any part, not the original versions.
And so we are literally comparing what they do, we're comparing one unknown product to another unknown product.
And in some of these, what you see are incredible rates of injury.
Seven, eight percent of the kids in the studies having adverse reactions, having severe adverse reactions, but because the other product they're testing against also is in seven, eight percent range, they say, see, it's just as safe as the product we were against.
But had that been a saline placebo, you'd say, oh my God, that's off the charts.
So they're skipping this process, which is really, really dangerous.
They skipped it with every vaccine, and then they're going a step further.
We're not even giving one of these products at one time.
So we don't know if it's safe.
We're giving it to all of these children.
But then we're giving, as you pointed out, there's a case that just won, Sid's case, where they gave an 11-month, I believe it's an 11-month-old baby, receive 10 vaccines at one time, all at one time.
That's never been studied either.
We have never said, well, is the health of like, well, why wouldn't they at least do a study where let's give one baby one vaccine and the other group of children two vaccines?
Let's just study that and then go, okay, that's safe.
How about one vaccine and four vaccines?
None of these studies have ever been done.
All of this should have slowly stepped its way forward.
But instead, instead of science, our pharmaceutical industry and these companies have decided to just go on an assumption of safety.
So they went from one at a time to 10 at a time with never testing it.
And to the heart of this film, ultimately never testing what now 72 vaccines given to an 18-year-old, what that does to the body compared to an 18-year-old that never received any.
That study's never been done until recently.
Oh, and then we're going to get to that actually before we even get there.
Like this was one of my not an aha.
This is like, you know, the red pill happens fast, especially during COVID.
You know, going back to Kayla Pollock, where they were saying, get whichever shot you can.
And I'm like, first of all, like, you know, I knew of the lack of testing they even did for the Pfizer shot I've had on Maddie DeGary's parents.
And we went through that in detail.
And they're like, how the hell are they telling you just mix and match like you're taking shots at a bar?
Like have a little tequila, have a little whiskey.
And everybody knows what happens when you mix and match alcohol too much.
There was no science behind that.
It was just, you know, if we, if we tell you one's safe, then all three in conjunction and whatever cocktail have got to be safe.
And I don't want to get, I don't want to talk detail the entire documentary so people don't have to watch it, but there's a critical thing where you end up approaching the doctor and it starts with a Z and I always lose it.
Zerbos.
Dr. Marker Servos.
And he was under oath talking about the warnings, labels that come with these vaccines and the follow-up time of five days.
This is what sort of blew my mind.
I mean, at least in the Pfizer trials, they followed up for six months and then they, or what was it, three or six months and then they unblinded the experiment so that nobody could find out whatever happened to these kids later on compared to what is this five-day follow-up period for anything?
I mean, it's laughably stupid to the point where people are going to say, either I'm misunderstanding something or I just don't believe what you're saying.
For anyone out there, I always use the hepatitis B vaccine.
Just the full, and again, people say, where do I start in this investigation?
Start with the FDA's own words.
I don't want, you know, again, I'm not like giving you some, you know, somebody you don't trust.
If you go to the FDA and everyone, I want everyone to do this.
It's time that you actually, I know you want to just hand over your baby and you want to trust your doctor.
I think COVID, obviously, if you're watching Viva, I think you woke up to this point.
Your question now is, is the childhood vaccines, are they just as problematic as the COVID vaccine?
And I will say this, Viva, I said it to Dr. Peter McCullough before he ever really took a look at the childhood vaccine program, Pierre Corey, you know, Robert Malone, all these guys, I interviewed them and they were saying the COVID vaccine is an anomaly.
I don't want it to affect your faith in the childhood vaccine program.
And I would say to them, the COVID vaccine is the best tested vaccine we have ever seen.
No childhood vaccine ever had the level of testing that COVID did.
So if you think that was rushing on the market, wait till you see the childhood vaccine program.
Because you're right, Viva, there was a saline injection for the COVID vaccine.
The placebo group got a saline.
You know why?
Because my nonprofit threatened to sue the FDA.
We sent a letter and said, we will sue you.
They were going to use a meningococcal vaccine on all the people that were in the control group.
And we said, no, that makes no sense.
Meningococcala side effects, and you know it.
If you do that, we're going to tell the world you never had a safety study.
They stopped down the phase three trials two days after they received our letter.
Now, look, was it for some other reason?
Maybe, but the timing was suspect.
And then seven days later announced we are switching to a saline placebo group.
First of its kind, didn't happen with any childhood vaccines.
But as you pointed out, what happened as soon as they got the first people infected, it was really, it wasn't a study of 45,000 people or 30,000 people.
It was something like 180 of the first people infected decided the fate of the whole world.
They didn't wait till everyone got infected.
They grabbed that first group and said, look, 95% of them are unvaccinated that are getting sick.
So therefore, the vaccine works.
And they just, they went forward and said 95% effective.
Totally bad science.
And we're not here to talk about the COVID vaccine.
But then what did they do?
As soon as it got emergency use authorization, they said it's now unethical to keep this placebo group going.
And they vaccinated everyone in the placebo group.
So they didn't go six months, Viva.
It lasted about two or three weeks after they all got their second shot.
And after selectively writing off whatever adverse events actually occurred because they were disqualified, because they fell ill for other reasons.
And that it's.
And so look where we're at.
I know you're reporting on it.
You got turbo cancers that are now running rampant.
We know myocarditis and pericarditis by, you know, 99% of the science coming from around the world is worse in the vaccine than it is if you got the natural infection.
We've got blood clots, these rubbery blood clots coming out.
And they are screaming.
That is just anecdotal correlations, not causation.
But Viva, we didn't need to be here.
If they would have left that placebo group alone, if they would have left them go for the two to four years, if there were still that placebo group, what we would be saying is, look at, we know or we don't know that there's more blood clots now in the vaccine group compared to the unvaccinated placebo group.
But they erased our ability to do that.
They erased the science.
They erased the experiment.
And that is what they keep doing.
And it's a fraud, man.
It's a fraud on the people.
It's a fraud on our children.
And, you know, I know we're going to get in this study, but I will say this.
Viva, I would not be here.
I wouldn't be having this argument.
I wouldn't have left television and basically destroyed my TV career if we had the healthiest children in the world.
Who would care?
Who cares if they're doing this study, if it's having the same effect as water?
If we got the healthiest, most shiny, happy kids we've ever seen, we're beating the world in every other health outcome.
We're like a utopian society, then who would listen to me?
But the opposite is true.
Our children have gone from 12.8% chronic disease in the 1980s to now more than 54% of our kids have chronic disease.
That is the greatest decline in human health that has ever been recorded.
We have the sickest nation of children in the industrialized world.
And this is the sickest generation of children we've ever seen in this country.
For the first time in generations, mainstream medicine is now admitting our children are not going to live as long as we did.
So we're going backwards.
So they're sick.
And so therefore, you don't get to say, hey, look how great our 72 to 100 vaccines is working in our kids.
It's not.
And it looks like, based on the science in the center of this film, it looks like it's doing the opposite.
It looks like it's destroying the health of our children in a very serious way.
And I'll just, because I morally obligated to the steelman to that is going to be the focus on the vaccines is arbitrary.
It's air quality.
It's climate crisis.
It's every other excuse under the sun.
The bottom line, and I think you've made this point numerous times in other venues.
It doesn't matter what the excuse is at this point.
The fact that you say I've got a niece or a nephew with autism.
I've got a kid with asthma.
I've got, we've got, when you say chronic 54%, like I just grew up living with the fact that, oh, everybody, virtually everybody's got asthma.
You know, everybody has a family member or a good friend with autism, and it's not normal one way or the other.
No.
And now the question is this, the inconvenience study itself that's at the heart of the documentary.
I got questions about it.
Flesh it out.
It was a question is that there has never been a comparison, a broad, large-scale comparison.
I suspect AI is going to take care of that, remedy that when you just have access to data and at a algorithmically, what's it called, like quantum computing level.
But there's never been a direct comparison between unvaccinated kids and vaccinated kids.
And that the Henry Ford Center did a study, presumably to debunk the claims that vaccines are bad.
It proved the opposite, and then they chose never to release that study.
Yeah.
So I challenged as I was, you know, got long-winded in talking about VAX.
When I was touring with VAXT, I was up in Michigan on that tour.
And someone said, I know the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health.
Would you like to meet him?
His name's Dr. Marcus Zervos.
I said, sure, that sounds great.
We sat down to dinner and he started the dinner by saying, Del, I've been watching these videos about you.
I knew I was going to meet you.
I'm pro-vaccine.
I don't know why we're really having this dinner, but you keep saying in your speeches around the country that we've never done the proper science to establish that vaccines are safe.
He said, I take offense to that.
I obviously sit at the, Henry Ford is one of the greatest research institutes in the world.
I sit on the biggest databases in the world.
So I went and dug up the science so I could show it to you that you're wrong.
And he said to me, and I'm shocked that I actually have to sit across from you and tell you, you're right.
I did not realize we have never done proper safety studies, meaning with placebos of any of the childhood vaccines prior to licensure.
He was blown away by that.
He says, but look, that doesn't mean vaccines aren't safe.
It just means we can't say that they're safe.
I said, well, that's all I'm saying.
And truthfully, you are saying they're safe.
Everyone's saying they're safe.
Every news anchor is saying they're safe.
Every doctor is telling us it's safe.
And you now know that that's not a scientific statement.
And so he said, I don't know what I can do about it, though.
I said, well, I'll tell you what you can do.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever compared vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children, which is the only study we have left.
If you skip the placebo-based trials and we see children lined up, which is what we see, we see 54% of this country has children that are chronically ill.
Many, many parents.
In fact, the majority of parents say, I believe the vaccines did that to my kid because they didn't start out with a speech delay.
They were speaking to me.
They were walking around.
They were running around.
It was after vaccination that suddenly they couldn't walk.
They couldn't talk, all of these things.
But look, as you said, Viva, the parents out there saying, I've heard that's anecdotal.
I don't believe that it's true.
So what do we have left?
We've got to do the closest thing we can to a placebo trial.
We have to compare retrospectively people that have already made the choice.
It's the only ethical way to do it.
We can only compare children whose parents, for some reason, like me, I didn't vaccinate my kids.
I wasn't vaccinated as a kid.
So groups like us, we've already made that decision.
Compare the health of our kids to the health of the kids that are receiving the vaccines.
And Marcus Zerbo said, that's fascinating.
I'd love to do that study.
I was shocked actually because no one would do it.
We've been asking for some time.
And so that's what's at the heart of our film.
That was 2016.
Sure.
Just talk for one second.
And I don't mean to sound flabbergasted.
Not one vaccine you've ever had?
I have only had one vaccine that I regret.
I almost chopped my fingers off when I was an adult and I got a tetanus shot.
I now know that once I was bleeding, you could, I mean, I don't know if you can see the scars.
I almost lost all these fingers.
Total bonehead move.
But I did get one tetanus shot at that moment when I was in the hospital.
Other than that, I've never had any other vaccine.
My kids have had no vaccines.
My brother's never had a vaccine.
Our whole family has never gone near that program.
And I say it's not even a judgmental question.
It's just like shocking that anybody could have avoided it.
It seems like as impossible to avoid as I'll call it chemtrails, but you know, I'm going to make a joke.
Okay, so we're for the purposes of this study.
And Dr. Zervo says, what's his position at the Henry Ford Institute or the Henry?
Head of infectious disease.
He is their lead virologist.
You know, I think he's an epidemiologist.
He oversees the most important studies they do.
He was the head of the Moderna trials that took place at Henry Ford Health.
So he ran and said that the Moderna vaccines were safe.
So he's who runs their major studies, at least some of them.
He'd also just finished, when I met him in 2016, he was one of the lead scientists on the Flint, Michigan water crisis, where they had pipes with lead in it that was being used.
Some old pipes were brought online to deliver water to underserved communities and it was poisoning them.
So Dr. Zerbos even had stood up against his own health department that were literally poisoning their own people.
He said it's wrong.
He got a lot of people in trouble.
People were fired.
He pointed out that the water was toxic and that we needed to change out those pipes.
Cost Flint a lot of money and Detroit.
So anyway, he would do those kinds of studies.
Okay.
And so he agrees to do this retrospective, which is you just go back and you find as many people as you can on one side and the other.
How difficult?
So tell us what happens.
I mean, I know.
So what's interesting is, you know, we at first I thought he would have to find a database.
Like maybe you're going to use the VSD database, which is the database the CDC has.
I don't know how you're going to get it.
And he ended up saying, no, no, no, Henry Ford has a really robust health tracking system for all of the people in our health system.
So that's, they both insure and they're the hospital and medical system.
And so they had millions of people in it.
And what they did is they looked at the children that were born into the Henry Ford health system that they could track from the moment they were born.
And what they found was they had about almost about 18,500 kids that had been born in the system where we had all their records.
It's a really great database because because they handle insurance, even if you went to California or your kid fell out of a tree or broke their leg or maybe got a vaccine during that period, the insurance paid for it.
So they got all those records back into Henry Ford Health.
So they had every record of these 18,500 kids.
About 2,000 of them were unvaccinated, hadn't received vaccines.
And so they did that comparative study.
And so, and to be clear, you don't just, if there's one instance in a 2,000 group, which was the unvaccinated, and one in the 18,000 and go, see, they're equal, they know it's a smaller group.
It's all percentages.
What percentage inside of the 2,000 had an issue?
What percentage inside of the 16,500?
So it was 16,000 and change who were vaccinated, 2,000 who were not.
If I may ask also, I don't know if you know this, were the 2,000, were they predominantly Amish or were they religious?
Were they from people?
Well, I don't know what their religious background was, but they were from the community around Detroit and in Michigan.
And it wasn't, they didn't like go to Amish land.
These were just kids that naturally were in that system in Michigan.
Now, there are, I will say, some of the pushback, there are concerns that there was more African-American children in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group.
There was a few more preterm births in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group, but they actually controlled for those things.
But that's the pushback.
Henry Ford said a cease and desist letter.
I don't know if I've already said that.
I say it so often.
They've sent us a cease and desist letter.
They've threatened a lawsuit for defamation.
What was the cease and desist letter saying that you cannot make reference of this study that we did that we decided not to use?
And if you do, it's going to be defamatory.
Yeah, they basically said that the film is intimating that the study wasn't published because the results were so bad for the vaccinated.
And that what they say is that is not true.
The reason we didn't publish the study was because the data wasn't good and the methodology of the study didn't meet our scientific, rigorous, you know, approach.
That's what they said.
And so they said by saying that the reason the study isn't being published is because Zerbos was just afraid of publishing because he'd be fired, that that's defamation.
They, by the way, they sent that cease and desist letter before I released the hidden camera footage of my dinner with Dr. Marcia Servos, where he said exactly, it's a good study.
I stand by it.
I'm just not publishing it because I would lose my career.
I'd be finished if I did.
I texted the person with whom I was coordinating.
I don't know if I should not mention her name.
And I was like, I texted the line where he says, I knew that it would be right to publish the study, but I'm not prepared to do it.
I'm like, holy shit.
Like, he could have been the hero.
And then I'm thinking like you made him the hero, but in making him the hero, now ultimately, that confirms the truthfulness of what you're saying.
He's proven himself to be the biggest, I won't say villain, but I'll say coward and probably a villain to many.
So they do this study.
And by the way, what would be the relevance if there's more black kids in the vaccinated side than the unvaccinated side?
Like a more unhealthy living that might, and I'm not trying to be mean or just like demographically, I appreciate the issues in Michigan, especially where the water issues are.
It's heavily disproportionately affecting the black community.
Is the argument there that because you have overrepresentation of a certain demographic that tends to be under impoverished, that that would account for more health issues among them?
That is, there is some science that shows that we're seeing higher rates of autoimmune neurological disorders amongst African-American children.
The question is, is it socioeconomic or is it, you know, diet?
Is it, you know, are we, you know, when you look at what Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to do with SNAP programs to get rid of all the sodas and junk food.
But, you know, that isn't, you know, it's hard to control for what someone's diet was, but those things might have played in.
I'll also say this.
There's, you know, and Bobby Kennedy's gotten into some trouble stating this, but it's true.
African-American children react to vaccines differently than Caucasian children do.
They actually have a heightened response.
They produce more antibodies than Caucasian children do or many other nationalities.
And there is some belief that that may be why it's almost like they're having a hyper reaction.
It may be why they're getting brain inflammation more than other children, which is leading to more neurological developmental disorders.
People will say that Bobby's racist for saying that vaccines are more dangerous for African Americans.
He's trying to point out the truth, which is we should not be giving one size fits all.
We should be looking at African American children differently.
I think some Hispanic children probably fit into this category too.
But this is where the one size fits all is really dangerous.
Vaccines are not reacting in bodies the same way.
Bobby wants to get more, you know, concierge medicine.
Let's design, if we're going to have vaccines, let's make them appropriate for the people we're giving them to, not say, sorry, sorry, your body reacts, you know, more, you know, extremely.
But could those things affect the Henry Ford study?
Yes.
I mean, these things can affect these studies.
It's why a retrospective study is not the ideal way to do the science.
We should have done this back when we were doing a more controlled environment with placebos.
It's so stupid.
It blows my mind that we live in a world that's politically correct to the detriment of the people that purportedly are being politically correct for.
Like, no, the black population, not disproportionately, but gets more prone to sickle cell anemia than the white population.
It's a known fact.
And so you want to ignore the science to protect them and in so doing, hurting the very people you purport to protect.
It's insanity.
So he does this.
You got 18,500 kids and 16,000 have been vaccinated.
And for whatever the reason, 2,000, none.
Like, not one, not two, zero.
None.
That's wild.
Okay.
And then what was the outcome of the study before we get into Zervos, who created the hero, no longer the hero?
Yeah.
So the outcome, the conclusion of the study basically states, though vaccines are important and we expected to see that the vaccinated were the healthier children, we were shocked to find that the opposite was true.
What if you received a degree of what?
To a proportion of what?
To the proportion of the vaccinated were 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated.
There was also other rates.
You were six times more likely to have a neurodevelopmental disorder if you were vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated and nearly six times the rate of autoimmune disease amongst the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
Those are catastrophic, gigantic Everest size differences.
There's a, I don't know if you know Dr. Peter Gutscha.
Peter Gutscha found is one of the founders of the Cochrane collaboration, refer to Cochrane now, that, you know, over a decade ago, they came together as top scientists around the world that believed that science wasn't being done appropriately.
And they started judging and rating different studies and designing what would be a Cochrane level, an appropriate study.
So this guy's a world-renowned scientist.
He's looked at this Henry Ford study.
He's looked at the fact that they've sent me a cease and desist saying that this study wasn't well done.
And what he has said is, I have looked at this study and it is very troubling because the complaints by Henry Ford, though we should look at it, do not explain how big these differences are.
You can't explain this away on some African-American children.
There's more than one group.
You can't explain it away by a couple of early births.
This is a seismic, massive difference.
Yeah, it is.
I mean, I can steal manate.
They'll say demographics and therefore it's nurture versus nature or nurture, an upbringing which was more privileged for lack of a better word, like not exposed to the same contaminants, whatever.
So you get the study.
Before you go and undercover record the meeting with Zervos, and this is why I say I could never be, I could never be a journalist because you have to appreciate at that moment in time.
If he doesn't decide to do the right thing, and worse, if he decides to do the wrong thing, which is pretend that that is not the reason for which the Ford Institute is not publishing it and threatening to sue you, that you're going to release this to prove that you're right.
And in so doing, you're going to destroy a man's life.
Oddly enough, he wouldn't do it himself because he didn't want to destroy his own life in one way or another.
Except that he was either doomed for heroism or doomed for destruction.
And it was his choice and he passed up on it.
You know, you're going to destroy the man's life when you publish this.
And it's the question is how that makes you feel.
No, it's a really good question.
You're like the second person of the many interviews that's asked it.
And it is worth asking.
The truth is, it's not the type of journalism I do.
This is the first time I've ever taken hidden cameras to record any of my sources.
I tend to really leave my whistleblowers.
If they want to stay in the background, that's fine.
And I had some consternation about doing this at all.
But as I sat with my team, we all kind of decided, Dell, you're not being a journalist in this moment.
This isn't a story that you're doing.
This was a challenge from one man to another to say, do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study.
And we are willing to accept whatever the outcome, as long as you are.
Publish whatever it is.
I was willing to accept that the vaccine would come out healthier, which would prove the work that I've been doing with my nonprofit and vaccines and movies wrong.
I said, whatever it is, and he agreed, I will publish it no matter what.
I said, this might hurt your career.
He said, I don't care.
I'm near retirement age anyway.
So we had an agreement.
And in many ways, we had a bet, right?
He owed me on that bet.
And that is why I approached him.
And I spent two years from 2020 to about 2022.
I kept calling him.
We were still friendly.
I was like, come on, Dr. Zervos, why aren't you publishing it?
I hadn't really seen it.
He'd given me, he'd give me the idea that it didn't look very good for the vaccinated.
And he had said to me, you know, off record, things like, you know, I didn't set out to destroy the vaccine program, Del.
That wasn't, that was never going to be something I wanted my name attached to.
And I said, this study's that bad.
Now, none of this appears in dinner, but this is what he was saying to me on the phone.
This study is so bad, you think it will end the vaccine program?
I got to see the study.
So finally, after two years of saying, just publish it, do what's right.
I said, I'm going to be in the Michigan area.
Why don't we grab some dinner?
He said, great.
And so I went to dinner, but I brought some hidden cameras, a little pen camera, and I think I had a watch camera and a phone that was recording the audio because I wanted to have an honest conversation with him.
And I didn't know what I was going to do with that.
But frankly, I was there to try and talk him into it one last time.
But I did know this was the last time this conversation was ever going to happen.
And I do, you know, who my allegiance is to more than, you know, if we look at Zervos as a source, my allegiance is to the children of this world and to the parents of these children.
And if there's a study that is going to show us something that we've never seen before, I'm not, I'm not going to do Raiders of the Wasp art here and find it and have you show.
That's why I made the decision to go in and have an honest conversation with him.
And you can see, you know, how passionate I am trying to tell him, I'm going, I will work with you to make you a hero.
There's a movement here now.
The world is changing.
You can be the guy that saved the vaccine program that made it safer.
We're never going to make changes.
If vaccines are our future and maybe there's adjustments we could make, how are we going to make those adjustments that we don't know we have a problem?
So all of that is a part of the film as you're watching me have that conversation.
So do I feel bad about it?
The truth is, Viva, I think when you watch the film that you can tell, he's not cold about it.
He's not careful.
He's not saying, I could give a crap about these kids.
You can tell, he says, I know what's the right thing to do.
You can tell him he's struggling with it.
He's so close, but cannot get up the courage to potentially ruin his career.
So I hope, in all honesty, I believe he wanted the study out there.
I believe he wants the world to see it.
He just doesn't want his name attached to it.
So there's a chance, I hope, that he's able to say to Ford, Look, I did what you wanted.
I didn't publish the study.
Okay.
I didn't know this jackass was recording me.
How is that my fault, right?
I did the study that we all would have assumed made vaccinated look healthier.
It's not my as soon as it went against our pharmaceutical sponsors and everyone that pays us.
What did I do?
I shut it down.
I didn't publish it.
What else can I do?
Why would I lose my job over this?
Yeah, that's it's it's interesting.
Like, and I wasn't asking you in a judgmental way.
You got you got the answer, which is this is a man who's prioritizing his own concerns for legacy over quite literally over the potential safety of millions of children, past, present, and future.
And it's he had the opportunity to do, you know, to be a hero and instead opted for preservation of ego and preservation of reputation, which ultimately it's going to cost on both ends because whether or not he wanted you to do his dirty work for him and that was the way to do it, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Well, he's still going to get in as much trouble with his institution.
They're going to say you shouldn't have even been having these conversations with somebody.
And he's still going to be loathed by people who said, how long you knew about this for two years?
And he still said nothing.
Can they not?
Let's just hypothetically say that there's problems with the method that they did the last time.
Can they not just redo the study, subject it to peer review and scrutiny of other people to say what was definitively wrong or what was definitively right?
Well, that's exactly my question.
Right?
If the study design wasn't appropriate, you saw what Dr. Zerbos was trying to do.
Certainly you must recognize the scenes.
I would say we're almost split 50-50 since COVID.
I think the latest poll shows that 60% of pregnant mothers are saying they will not directly adhere to the CDC childhood schedule.
That means we're well past 50%.
This is now an issue that we are very divided on.
So it can't be lost on Henry Ford, the importance of doing a study.
If you think there's a way to do this study that would show that the vaccinated are actually healthier, why didn't you just go and do that?
Why is the decision to just shelve it and never go near it?
We found the 20,000 children that were born into your system.
It's very robust.
You've done a great job tracking those children.
And you happen to have 2,000.
If you talk about 20,000, 2,000, it's almost 10% of the population, which is even a little larger than your average unvaccinated group.
We think it tends to be 3% to 5% or 7%.
So it's as robust a group of control groups as we're ever going to see.
Why didn't you say to Zerbos?
We don't like methodology.
Let's adjust it.
Let's fix it.
Let's do this study the way Henry Ford would feel good about it.
That's where I, I mean, that's where it's all my opinion, right?
This is where you can accuse me of, it's all my opinion.
My opinion is this: that had this study by one of their lead scientists at Henry Ford, had the study come out and it showed that it's actually the unvaccinated that have 2.5 times the rate of chronic disease.
It was the unvaccinated that suffered at six times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders.
It was the unvaccinated that had this study, I have to believe, not only would have been published, it would have been the most celebrated study in the world.
It would have been the quintessential study that says Robert Kennedy Jr. is wrong.
Del Big Tree is wrong.
Anyone that has ever covered this issue that wants to blame vaccines, we finally done it.
We proved vaccines can't possibly be the cause because it's the unvaccinated that are so sick.
It's hard for me to believe that they actually had an issue with the methodology.
They had an issue with the result.
It landed on the wrong category.
And it's going to, you know, will it hurt?
I doubt it.
I don't think it hurts them that they bury the study because it's pharma that funds the studies they do all the time.
It's hundreds of millions of dollars they make off of pharma.
I doubt pharma is going to say, I can't believe you did a study and tried to bury it.
We're not going to use you anymore.
That's the accusation that I think they're making.
And the chat is true.
Yeah, well, I'm just saying the chat is telling us that it's glitching on Rumble and Locals.
I don't know if it's glitching on Twitter as well and people are making the joke that it's big pharma, a salary.
There's a higher, I mean, it is totally anecdotal, but there's a higher rate of glitching if you have the Del Big Tree on your show.
And I guarantee you, there's a higher rate of having this particular episode taken off of YouTube and other, I deal that all the time.
Yeah, well, I'm going to, it's not on YouTube now.
I'm going to publish it.
I like danger, so I might try that.
No, it is, where does it stand now?
So, and everybody is glitching.
I'm going to republish this as a I recorded.
It's recording on Streets.
It gets a clean audio.
Where does this stand now?
The movie's out.
It's been publicly available for how long?
It's been publicly available for just about just over a month on November 3rd.
Actually, no, November 11th.
So right there, November 11th, we won the Malibu Film Festival.
We won Best of February for free for the entire world to see.
You can just go to an inconveniencestudy.com.
We've also, you can download the study itself.
You can read the whole study yourself.
You'll see that they do challenge studies on some of the issues we've talked about.
They actually recognize that there's some potential, you know, natural limitations to a retrospective study that they actually address in the study and see if it's affecting the numbers.
And they see that that doesn't seem to be affecting the numbers.
But you can watch it right there.
Is being shared all around the world.
We're, you know, well past, you know, 30 or 40 million views worldwide.
And that's just what we can track.
You can download it for free.
We don't know how many people are having large groups.
I've seen, as I said, I saw Peter Gutcha come out and start putting up ex-posts about this study, which means international scientists are now getting involved.
There's a very serious debate.
I'm very happy about that.
I saw this film and this study come up in a hearing, a Senate hearing in Australia, where one of the senators there asked their health department, Have you seen the Henry Ford study?
And they said, We know about it.
We know it's done by Informed Consent Action Network.
So this thing is reaching, it's getting worldwide.
But you know, I don't want tens of millions of people to watch this, Viva.
I believe everyone in this world should watch it.
If you do not, I mean, and you can say, I already know that, but I don't think it's been laid out this way.
I don't think it's been laid out this clearly.
And so many people, what they're saying is when I watched this film, I knew a lot of it, but it was never stated this clearly.
And my friend, who would never go near this conversation, said, just watch it, that friend just reached out and said, oh my God, I'm sharing this with everyone we know.
This film is especially for, I would assume, a lot of your audience has been trying to figure out how to communicate about the COVID vaccine and the things that woke them up to people they love.
This film's design for exactly that.
It's designed to not beat anyone over the head, to show them the facts as we know it and ask your own questions.
So it's out there.
The study's out there.
I don't know if the right word is the metadata, but is the data out there so that anybody else can compute it or process it or try to do their own?
No, the actual background data is something that we've requested from Henry Ford Health.
If you want to say that the data is no good, why don't we give it to an independent scientific body or give it to the world?
Why don't you post it?
And people say, well, because it's private information.
It's really not.
You can't, the way that these institutions do studies, they don't know what your name is.
They de-identify all of it.
We know they have all this de-identified.
They could present this data of 18,500 kids and let anyone else in the world do this study.
That's really what we're asking for.
We're also asking that every major medical institution in the world, after seeing this, do their own study.
Kaiser Permanente has probably got hundreds of thousands of children across their platform that they could do this study on.
We want Robert Kennedy Jr. at the CDC, I believe he's been trying to get this study done.
There's been shenanigans with the database that were all torn apart before he got there, is my understanding, which is really unfortunate that science is at this level.
But here's what's so alarming, Viva.
This is the most obvious study you would ever do.
If you want to prove that vaccines actually make children healthier, just compare those that received them to those that didn't.
And the fact that not a single health agency in the world, not a single other major medical institution in the world like Henry Ford, has ever been able to do a study that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated and showed that the vaccinated are actually the healthier children.
I find that incredibly troubling.
I find it dismaying because it's not lost on all of these regulatory agencies on these institutions that you would shut up the anti-vaxxers.
It'd be over.
Our argument is over the moment you can prove the vaccinated are the healthiest among us.
Why aren't you doing that?
I assume it's because they are trying to do it and they cannot make these studies come out in their favor.
That's my opinion, but it's an opinion based on logic.
You know how, you know what the headline, you know what it would be?
We'd all be talking about it.
It said, C, vaccinated, unvaccinated, were finally compared.
Robert Kennedy Jr. is wrong.
Biggest mistake the world's ever made.
Del Bing Street, don't ever listen to him again.
Here you go.
Well, I'm challenging the world now.
Do that study.
Prove me wrong.
That's how we got here.
That's what I said to Henry Ford.
That's what I said to Dr. Marcus Zervos more specifically.
Prove me wrong, Dr. Zerbos.
And he tried to.
And instead of proving me wrong, it's one of the most damning indictments of the vaccine program we've ever seen.
Now, there's other studies that have done it.
There's a homeschool study by Anthony Mawson, a doctor, scientist from, I think it was Mississippi University and University of Mississippi.
We have Dr. Paul Thomas had a huge pediatric group that he oversaw.
Some of them were vaccinated, some weren't.
He compared them, same results.
We've seen the study done between five and 10 times now, and it's reproducible, Viva.
It's getting the same result.
Every one of them shows the vaccinated are the ones that are sicker.
That means, Houston, we have a problem.
Once you start seeing science, it doesn't matter who does it.
It doesn't matter on what group they do it.
They're getting the same result.
That starts being very, very powerful evidence that we've made a critical error in the health of our children.
And I don't want to end this on a question that is going to potentially blackpill some people if they're not already sufficiently blackpilled and one that's going to ask a big question of this administration.
But when you see Albert Buerla in the White House and being promised more future work with the government as opposed to being investigated by this government, given what RFK Jr. is trying to do, do you not get the same feeling of doom that I get when it seems that the more powerful elements of this administration are continuing to make deals with the devil instead of investigating the devil?
And you'll never get to the bottom of this because Pfizer is too intimately intertwined with it through COVID and other stuff.
And now they seem to have a foothold in the good graces of this administration that I think should be prosecuting them, not contracting with them.
Well, I think that's a very complicated question, and I love complicated questions.
I want to state up front that I was, as I think I said earlier, director of communications for Robert Kennedy Jr. as he ran for president.
I was in the Oval Office when he was sworn in as HHS secretary.
We talked a lot about how he was going to have to handle that job, obviously, whether he was president, but it was all about health.
We were running him for president so that he could have an effect on the HHS secretary, make those choices, CDC, FDA.
So having him at HHS is the best of all worlds.
I would say this, Viva.
I think people misunderstand Bobby if they think he was going to eradicate vaccines from the planet.
I think they don't understand Bobby if they think that he's there to destroy the pharmaceutical industry.
We need pharma.
If you've ever been in a car accident, you're going to really wish that we kept evolving pharmaceutical products that get better and better at doing miraculous things in the right situation.
The vaccine program is different, right?
And we need to separate those things.
But also, I want to state that the little bit I've been around President Trump, the extensive time I've been around Robert Kennedy Jr., one of the things that has been said about Bobby is that he's going to eradicate vaccines from the earth.
He's going to take away our vaccines.
That was never his goal.
It is not his goal.
It's not what he's there to do.
I think if he achieves his mission, what he's going to do is take away in some way, the best way that he can, given the rules of governorship and what we can do, is bring back our right to choose.
He's not there to take away.
If you believe in vaccines, this is a free country.
You should be allowed to vaccinate your children.
I know there's people in this movement that get really upset with that, but what we're fighting for is freedom.
We are not going to get into a religious discussion.
If you believe in this religion of vaccines, it's a free country.
But you should be allowed to choose.
You should be allowed to vaccinate or not vaccinate and not have the government involved between you and your doctors.
So you've already seen the first step in this direction, which is shared decision-making on the COVID vaccine.
That is a new term we've never seen before on the childhood schedule.
Robert Kennedy Jr. is bringing that, which means it's no longer necessarily recommended by the CDC that you have to get this.
We're going to let the doctor decide if they recommend it, and then you get the choice.
That is, I think you're going to see the same conversation happen with the hepatitis B vaccine, which we discussed a little bit.
I think that one's on the under review at the next advisory committee on immunization practices meeting.
I believe if they do it right, they're going to move the hepatitis B to shared decision making also.
Really, there's only one person, one group of people that should ever even consider a hepatitis B vaccine, and that's a mother that is hepatitis B positive.
Her baby is going to be at risk.
So there's a place for that vaccine.
You don't want to erase it from the planet.
It may be worth the risk and all the aluminum, all the problems it's going to have because there's a risk for that baby.
And so what Bobby, and so when I see Albert Birla inside of the White House, I get nervous, but I also recognize that Donald Trump is a businessman.
He does not want to just see Pfizer, Moderna, Sinopia, Bentis, Glaxo, Smith, Klein all move to China because we're still going to be buying products.
We don't want to see all of that business go and benefit other countries.
So he's dancing a dangerous, a very dangerous line, which is he's bringing in the very people that make the products that he wants under review, like vaccines, but he's also saying, I want your industry in America.
I think you're watching a president that is doing this in many ways the right way.
He's not such a zealot that he's going to watch all of our industry disappear.
All of our controls on quality control will disappear if those products aren't being made here.
So that's what I believe is happening as he's sitting at the table.
I think when you look at Bobby, you can tell there's a little bit in his stomach because he's standing behind all of them.
But in the end, we're not trying to say that the pharmaceutical industry should be destroyed or that it's inherently evil.
It's inherently greedy and it's been allowed too much control over our regulatory agencies.
So I don't care if we're making a deal with pharma to make drugs cheaper, as long as it doesn't mean we answer to you, as long as it doesn't mean that you control the people that are in the advisory committee on immunization practices, as long as your funding is not going into HHS, FDA, and CDC.
If we have clear free agencies there, we want a robust pharmaceutical industry, but one that is under control by our regulatory agencies, not the reverse, not the reverse.
And so that's going to take, you know, it's a fine line.
I get it.
And we're very skeptical.
I get it.
But what I will say is to anyone that is maybe still on the side of pharma or is afraid of Robert Kennedy Jr., you shouldn't be.
What you're seeing are thoughtful men right now trying to keep a free market open, allow big industries to continue to thrive and billionaires to exist, but also have regulatory agencies that protect us instead of the industries they're supposed to be protecting us from.
And that's where this thing has been on its head.
We have had regulatory agencies that are protecting the chemical dyes in our fruit loops instead of protecting the children that are eating them.
We have had regulatory agencies that are protecting the lead and the arsenic and the baby food and the baby formulas.
The companies that make it, they're protecting them instead of protecting the babies and the mothers that are using these products.
Robert Kennedy Jr. is changing all of that.
We're not going to get rid of the industry, keep making baby food, but get the damn poison out of it.
And that's what's happening.
And so it's going to be difficult.
I don't think any of us would want that job, but I will tell you, having spent the time I did with Robert Kennedy Jr. all this time, there is no better person on earth to be doing this.
He is truly caring for every citizen in America.
He's not just the anti-vaxxers HHS secretary.
He's not just the clean foods HHS secretary.
He's HHS secretary for everybody, those receiving those vaccines and those that don't want to take any.
He's going to make sure that if you're taking these products, they have been through the most honest and transparent scientific review that's ever been done.
You should want that.
And he's going to say, if you don't want any product on this earth, that is your choice.
We live in a free country.
And I believe that is what we're watching in this administration.
So we should watch it with some skepticism, but don't throw in the towel because this is a free country that is driven on a free market system.
And you want us to still be the richest nation in the world as we try to bring freedom to the rest of the world.
If we're broke, if we're impoverished, and if we don't control any of the products that are coming in here, then we cannot be the leader of the free world.
We cannot be that bright shining light.
So it's a dance, and I'm very proud of the guys that are in our administration attempting to make this dance work in our favor.
Del, that was like in Billy Madison.
That was like the exact opposite of Billy Madison's answer.
Like that was, I wasn't even sure the answer you were going to give to that because that wasn't that that's a as thoughtful an answer as humanly possible.
Del, I'm going to continue on with my locals community afterwards.
I don't expect you to come.
Can you tell everybody before we end on Rumble where they can find you?
What they can do to support?
Yeah, please, you know, just go to an inconvenientstudy.com and please watch this film and share it with everyone you know.
Share it proudly.
We only, and by the way, the way we keep our government in check is by having the people behind what we believe in.
We need to be able to pressure Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump and, you know, bring our thoughtfulness to this, especially in future elections where we may have different administrations.
It's time to voice the truth.
It's time to stand side by side.
We're a nation of, for, and by the people, but that only works if the people are informed.
So I hope you'll use this film to inform your loved ones, your friends.
So an inconveniencestudy.com, if you want to watch my weekly talk show, that's at thehighwire.com.
From those two places, you can see all of the work that we've done, all the lawsuits we've won, all the work that we're doing in every sector of health for the people.
Amazing.
I'm going to confirm Raid and then I'm going to say our property advice.
So everyone, go Ray Jimmy Dora.
Let him know from whence he came.
You'll have a few seconds.
Del, thank you.
This was amazing and we'll continue to be in touch.
Have you been sued yet from the Henry Ford?
No, and I really, I don't believe that's going to happen.
And I do want to say the reason this film is important, this study is important, is because I'm not defaming Henry Ford.
Henry Ford is one of the greatest medical institutions and research facilities in the world.
That's what makes this important.
I'm proud of the times they've stood up and done things like the Flint, Michigan water issue.
I hope they will continue to do that great work.
I hope that there's not a bias.
I pray that there's not.
And I hope that this study just helps open us all up to the need to do more studies like this.
Del, amazing.
Amazing.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right, we'll be in touch.
Talk to you soon.
All right, good.
All right.
Bye.
All right.
All right, now we're going to end here and go over to locals for our after party.
It's a not behind a paywall, so everyone is not more than everyone's always welcome.
It'll be no excuse not to come.
That was amazing.
Oh, rants.
Yes.
Thank you, NeuroDivergent.
Let me bring up these two rants before we go over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
King of Biltong says, We also specialize in imported foods.
Check out our Bill Tong USA for a great selection of imported candies, cookies, groceries, and of course, Bill Tong.
Billtongusa.com, code Viva for 10% off.
Thank you, Bill Tong.
And Green Thumb Nursing says, hey, Viva, can you shout out for the loveoflily.com with one L for the Love of Lily, L-I-L-Y dot com to help this former RN now S-A-H-M.
Let me see if I can get what S-A-H-M is.
S-A-H-M.
Strategic Associate of Hotel Management.
No, that's not what I make tallow skin care healing for dry skin, eczema, diaper cream, and more.
Code Viva 10 for 10% off.
Hold on.
I want to know what S-A-H-M is.
I'm still thinking of Sammy.
Let me see here.
I'm giving up.
I'm going to go S-A-H-M meaning.
A woman who is engaged in full-time care of her.
Oh, stay at home, mom.
I didn't even see it, but then I got that from the a woman who is engaged in full-time care of her child or children and does not and does not go out to stay at home, mom.
I would have gotten it eventually.
Absolutely.
For the loveoflily.com.
If you've got eczema or if you've got fetishes about putting a baby cream on your adult bottom, some people do, go check it out.
And I'll take this back out of here.
And were there any locals now say stay-at-home mom?
I could get some other good acronyms like strategic, the strategic associate is good.
Societe paraction.
Why am I always going to the hotel industry?
All right.
We're going to go over to locals.
And we're talking Megan Kelly.
And we are talking, what was the other FBI thing that just came out?
Oh, the Tucker Carlson.
We're talking the Tucker Carlson documentary, which I listened to as I was jogging.
You want to jog and raid?
You listen to Tucker Carlson's breakdown of Thomas Crooks.
So I'm going to end this on Twitter.
I'm going to put out a vlog this afternoon.
I got to finish editing it.
My wife is at a conference during the day now, so I've been doing all the duties.
Tomorrow's UFC fight is going to be the best fight night of recent memory.
Jack De La Madalena fighting Islam Makachev.
I'll put my pics out afterwards, but I've got both of their cards.
I've got an Islam Makachev autograph, a beautiful one.
It's out for grading.
So hopefully we'll see what the grade is.
But anyway, tomorrow night's going to be an amazing fight night.
If it's pay-per-view, I'm not paying for it because I'm going to fall asleep before the end of the night.
Okay, I'm rambling.
Get your butts on over to locals.
We are ending on Twitter.
Remove.
Bye-bye, Twitter.
And we're going to end on Rumble.
We've raided Jimmy Dore.
And I'm going to publish the whole thing because I heard the audio glitching for a bit.
I think by and large it was good enough, but I'll publish the podcast.
So we're removing from Rumble.
Rumble, Godspeed.
And I will see you all Sunday night, six o'clock.
Viva and Barnes, Law for the People.
▲
Export Selection