Hello and welcome to the UK column. Today I'm joined by someone who needs no introduction, and that is Dell Bigtree. Welcome to the program, Dell. Thank you for having. Me, Mike, it's good to be here. Well, it's a real pleasure. Now, of course, recently you have released your latest film, An Inconvenient Study, and just tell us a little bit about it and why that film came about.
Well, as you probably know, I was a producer on the CBS talk show The Doctors in America. I won an Emmy Award celebrating medicine and science as a television program. While I was doing that show, I stumbled onto the investigation
of vaccines. There's a whistleblower inside the CDC that said they were committing scientific fraud on the vaccine safety studies is back in 2015, and I made a documentary about that called Vaxxed, which many say sort of ignited the medical freedom movement around the world. From that moment on, I've been taking that investigation further into all the vaccines. That film was just about the MMR vaccine, but what about all the vaccines we're giving our kids
here in America? It's about 72 doses, 16 different vaccines given in seven, you know, 72 doses by the time you're 18 years old. I want to know, how do we determine they were safe? Because when I was traveling the country of Vax, you know, that the second screening of that film, which was incredibly controversial, we had lines down the block because of the controversy. And I want to know who is standing that audience.
So I said, you know, at the second screening when we started our tour, you know, would everyone with a vaccine injured child please stand up in the audience? And 3/4 of the audience stood up. I felt like the oxygen had been sucked out of the room. I knew that vaccine injury was real. I knew it was a problem. I just made a movie about it. But I'd only interviewed, you know, a handful of families on
the issue. And here I'm staring at, you know, 50 families that lives have been changed forever. I asked that question every single day for an entire one year tour, probably 4 times a day, you know, five days a week for an entire year. And every time I asked that question 3. As the room stood up and you realize that this is a massive, massive problem that is somehow being buried. They're humiliating these
people. They're screaming on the television that it's not real, it's not happening. These. Parents are suffering at home, so obviously that's been a focus of my work. When I was traveling the country with Vax back in 2016, someone said to me as we were passing up through Michigan, you know, I know the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health. Henry Ford Health is one of our biggest research institutes in America and therefore really one of the biggest research
institutes in the world. And they said, would you like to meet him for dinner? I said sure. So we sat down to dinner and, you know, he said his name was Doctor Marcus Zervos. And he said something very interesting when he sat down, he said to me, you know, Dell, I've watched your film back. It's very compelling. But you keep saying something at these speeches you're giving around the country that I found very troubling. You keep saying that they've never done the proper science to
say that vaccines are safe. And he said, so I sit on the biggest databases in the world and I went and researched that so I could show you the data, show you the science. And he said to me, and I'm shocked that I have to sit across from you and tell you you're right. I did not realize we have never done a proper safety evaluation of any of the childhood vaccines that are in the program. And he said to me, now that doesn't mean that vaccines
aren't. Safe. It just means we can't say that they're. Safe. And I said that's all I'm saying. And so that's all I've been saying the whole time. So anyway, we had a very nice dinner and he said, you know, I'm pro vaccine. He brags about he's the reason that they have a mandatory vaccine program at Henry Ford Health. He said. So I don't know what I could do for you, I said. Well, you know.
Since you really believe in the program and you, you know, you're a great researcher, world famous. In fact, he had just gotten through a big investigation of the Flint, MI water crisis in Flint, MI. The health department came under fire for having lead pipes and lead water that was poisoning less affluent neighborhoods. And he stood up for those people, proved it scientifically and came out against the health department. So he was a brave scientist also.
Anyway, I said, would you ever consider doing a study? That compares the health outcomes of vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children. And and then just let's see who's healthier. And he said sure, I would do that study. I was. Shocked. Really. Because there's something about mainstream medicine that has refused to do this study for decades? It seems like the most obvious study known to man. Why is it the CDC?
Can't show us a study of Here's vaccinated compared to unvaccinated, and the vaccinated are far healthier. They're living longer, they have less cancer, they have less autism, they have less ADHD, they have less skin issues, psoriasis, you know, eczema, gut dysbiosis, all the things that our kids are suffering from. Why can't they show us a study that the vaccinator the healthiest among us and not just here in America? Why is the NHS and NHS never
done this study? Why is it that not a single regulatory medical agency in the world has ever compared these two groups of people and show to see vaccinating the vaccinator the healthiest? So anyway, I was shocked. He said he would do it and we left the dinner. It took a couple of years. I kept calling him saying, hey, you're going to do that study. Finally by about 2018 or 19, he, he, he gave us a very firm, I will do this study. I said, look, I only have one rule.
I'm I'm pretty sure you're pro vaccine. So you know it's going to, it's going to be a robust study, but whatever the outcome, promise me you'll publish it because you know, a lot of doctors come under attack for question the vaccine program. Tell me you're going to follow through. He said, I will follow through. I'll follow the data where it leads me. So he did that study and it was finished in 2020. It's a study of over 18,000 children.
So it's a very big study, roughly 2000 of which were unvaccinated, so 60. 15,000 vaccinated, 2000 unvaccinated. And then he didn't publish the study. And so I called and. For a while. He wouldn't answer, but eventually he did. I said, I don't understand why I thought we had an agreement. You would publish the studies. Like I really just, it's, it's just not something I can do at this time. And he kept pushing it off. So finally I asked him, can I fly out and have dinner with you?
I said sure. And I did something I don't usually do as a journalist, which is I, I decided to take hidden cameras with me and recording equipment because I had a feeling this was the last time this study would ever be discussed. Whatever was in it, I hadn't even seen it yet, but whatever is in it, I want to know. I want to hear it. And maybe someday I'll be able to show the public what happened here.
So that's what I did. I went out, I think it was around 2022, I went out and had dinner. And I've hidden camera footage of him explaining that it's a good study, that he would publish it just as it is only one problem. He will lose his career. This will be the end of his career. When I say why he handed me the study and that study is now published. The, I mean, it's now published
on the Senate website. He didn't publish it, but Senator Ron Johnson got a hold of it this year and said I'm going to put it on the Senate website. I think this is for the public good, which gives him some leeway, I guess, on copyright issues. But the study is very, very disturbing, Mike. It shows that the conclusion is 2.5 times the rate of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated. If you compare them to the unvaccinated, you're 2.5 times more likely.
You know, a good study would show a 40% increase in a problem or an 80% increase. We're talking about a 250% increased risk of having chronic disease when you look at some of the details in it, neurodevelopmental disorders nearly six times the rate. So I'm sure we're going to get into all those details. But that's that's the heart of this film. An inconvenience study. Is this study how it came about? And the hidden camera footage where you know, I'm under attack by Henry Ford help.
They sent a cease and desist letter. They're trying to say it's defamation to say that they didn't publish the the study because of the results and all those things. But we can get into that. Yes. Well, I was just gonna say it's interesting because obviously the film's been out for a few weeks now. It's millions of people have seen it so far. It's the cat is definitely out
of the bag. But what I'm noticing is because you use the term robust study and what I'm noticing in the coverage of it out there, the, the, the, the mainstream press is now any coverage of it is attacking the study for being not robust and being having issues. So I mean, how would you, how would you respond to that? Yeah, and I'm perfectly, I first of all, I want to say I'm glad that I have no problem with people attacking the study.
That's the scientific method. That's what should have happened from the beginning. This, this, this study should have been put into peer review and set up for publishing and then let every scientist weigh in on what they think the quality of the study is and all those other things. What I can tell you is this, that you know, Doctor Marcus Zervos is the head of infectious disease. At Henry Ford Health. He was in charge of the Moderna of the arm of the Moderna trials at Henry Ford Health.
I'm not aware of anyone ever questioning his ability to do a study before. So when he does the study, I'm pretty sure he knows how to do it. And when he says to me at dinner multiple times, it's a good study, but they're going to say it's a bad study. They're going to attack me. They're going to come after my my career. Because as he says in this, you know, in the video, you'll see because it's political.
So those are his statements. And that's why I think it's important that people see the film. I, there's, you can tell that I'm not, you know, put pressuring him in any way you can see. It's a very interesting human study this film to see the angst and the tension that he has with the, the, the desire to do what's right, but not the courage to do it. I'll also say this that yes, of course every retrospective study there is has, you know, limitations to it.
It is not the perfect way to do science. A retrospective study is. We've got to simply look at people that have already made their choices. We're not setting up a perfectly controlled study. We don't have a placebo group that we control. We can't perfectly match age and gender and race. And all the things you would do in a really good scientific study, all the things every one of these vaccines should have
had that study. We should have done that study before these products were ever put on the market. And that's the entire point really of this film. They have skipped the safety testing. They have skipped those studies where we would have seen, does it have side effects? How many side effects? What are the actual side effects? Because we would have tracked these vaccines like we do every drug for two to 10 years and a placebo group.
So that when you have an issue like, let's say autism, you can say, hey, there was just the same amount of autism in the group that got the vaccine as the group that didn't get the vaccine. That's how science is done. But that study has never, ever been done.
And it's worse. Than that though, isn't it, isn't it worse than that because because it's not just that the studies haven't been done in the individuals vaccines, the studies haven't been done and how these vaccines interact with each other and and if you're giving I don't know what in the United States, I don't know how many vaccines are given at one time to be. 13 up to 13 vaccines in one sitting. So how do you how would you even do a study for that?
Yeah, I mean, I guess give a child 13 vaccines and give another one saline, you know, 13 placebo saline injections and now let's at least track them for a couple months if not years. But you're right, never been
done. And now when you ask for any study like that, some form of a controlled study, because look, it's not like we aren't seeing serious health problems in the United States. I wouldn't be here, I wouldn't be here having this conversation with you if we had the healthiest children we'd ever seen, if they were just this glowing, radiant, disease free children running and, and, and you know, the envy of the world. But it's not the case in America. Our children are 54% of them
have a chronic disease. Robert Kennedy Junior just pointed out that 76.4% of adults now have chronic disease, which means they need drugs. It's a lifelong disability. Only, you know, 75% of America's children could not join the military because they cannot pass the health exam. This, that makes us the sickest nation of children in the industrialized world. It also makes us, this is the sickest generation of children we've ever seen.
And so, you know, with those types, some health records and you never did safety studies, we don't know is all the eczema, all the psoriasis, all the diabetes, all the lupus, all the multiple sclerosis, the, you know, all the neurological disorders, all the speeds, delays, you know, all the Tourette's syndrome, you know, on and on and on.
It's due to something. It is some it is, is happening because of some toxic attack, because we've gone from 12.8% chronic disease just in the 1980s, just 40 years ago, we were at 12.8% chronic disease in our children. Now that's skyrocketed to 54% in 40 years. Genes don't change that fast. We don't evolve that fast. There's no explanation for this other than our kids are being
poisoned by something. And what I would say is when you look at autoimmune disease or let's call it immune dysregulation, which is the crisis of our times. I don't know what the stats are in England, but I'm sure they're horrible. I'm sure you're having skin allergies and issues and diabetes and many of the same things that that we have here. But here in America, you know, when you look at what that is, is your immune system has
somehow gotten dysregulated. It's confused and it's now attacking the cells of your own body. This is something that isn't happening to any other mammal on the planet. Why they're they're breathing the same pollution. They're even swimming in the same polluted ocean. But we are not seeing autoimmune disease. We're not seeing their immune systems now attacking their own bodies.
And so people will say to me, well, Dale, how do you know it's not the fluoride in the water that we have in our water here? How do you know it's not the glyphosate, the pesticides and herbicides that we're spraying on 90% of the crops that we eat? How do you know it's not the hormones in our Beep or the plastics or the forever chemicals? By the way, every one of those things? Robert Kennedy Junior talks about this.
The EPA did a study. When we look at the skyrocketing rate of of autoimmune disease, when did it start? It starts right in the early 1990s, right where all of those things become prolific in our society here in America. So it's going to be 1 of about 5 to 6-7 different toxic pollutants that's really hit our environment, including vaccines.
But what I want to say is this, if the issue is, is, you know, immune system dysregulation, shouldn't of all those things I've just listed, shouldn't we look closest at the one product amongst them that was designed to dysregulate your immune system to, to, to kick it into OverDrive, to incite it into action artificially? There's a product that does, it's the vaccines. So, you know, when I stop someone on the street and say what's the vaccine to do?
They, well, it's, you know, it's a tiny bit of virus or bacteria, I guess. And you know, because it's so small or they kill it, somehow my body's tricked into thinking it's had the disease and I develop immunity. OK, so we're tricking our immune system, but we're not tricking it one time, not five times, not ten times, not 20 times, not 50 * 72 times. And growing more and more every single year, 72 times we trick the immune system of our
children. And then we're shocked that these same children have immune systems that are totally gone haywire and are now attacking their own bodies. To me, it seems obvious. But look, that is just a hypothesis. How do you test that hypothesis? How do we test if it's vaccines? They're doing it when you ask for those controlled tests now that say it would be unethical
to do those studies. We can't have a placebo group now because we have vaccines available to these kids and we can't make them vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases just to do a study. So see, they got us, they got us hog tied. Our hands are tied behind our back, our feet behind the bottom in our back. And the Pharmaceutical industry has gotten away with never doing the safety, refusing a safety test, now refusing to do a safety test because, oh, that would be unethical.
And then when you do the last study that's available to you, a retrospective study, they point out the flaws. Well, it didn't have a control. It didn't have a proper control. You didn't perfectly match race to blah, blah, blah. And that's what they're doing to this study. But Peter Gutcha has been posting a lot about this. He's one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration. I think we just call it Cochrane.
Now. You know, a world renowned scientific group that set out to raise the standards of scientific investigation. And he's been posting that he has looked closely at this study and he says it perfectly. I have seen what Henry Ford is complaining about this study. But those anomaly, those potential confounding issues cannot explain the size of the differential that we're essentially seeing here. We're not seeing a 20% increase
in neurodevelopmental disorders. We're seeing a 600% increase in the, in the scale that they do at the end of the study. They look at, you know, over time, over 10 years, what would be your odds? You know, what would be the risk of having chronic disease? And what they discover is the vaccinated, 57% of those children vaccinated will have a chronic disease by the time they're 10 years old. More than half that's, that's now your coin toss. Like I want my kid to be healthy.
It's a coin toss if you're vaccinating them. Meanwhile, the vaccinated in this study, 2000 of them, what it shows for them, 17% of them will have a chronic disease. That is an astronomical difference that cannot be explained by well, there's a few more, you know, African American children on the vaccinated side or there was some birth difficulties. All that should be looked at. And I'll also say this, the study does a very brilliant job
of testing its weaknesses. For instance, one of the weaknesses they say is that the follow up time, the amount of years that they follow the children that are unvaccinated was shorter. And so that's not fair that some diseases may appear later on in the vaccinated group that didn't appear in the unvaccinated group. Perfectly, perfectly reasonable argument. But in the study, they limit the study so that let's just look at all the kids that were only in it for one year and what do they
find? The vaccinated have even higher rates of chronic disease. Then they limit it to all the children, both unvaccinated and vaccinated, that had to be in the program for three years. Same thing, worse for the vaccinated and then lasted five years. So when they tested timing, it actually got worse for the vaccinated. So every way they looked at it. And then then they'll try to say, well, unvaccinated kids aren't going to their doctors as often.
This is this is one of the arguments that's made against. There's been several studies like this, by the way. We'll get into that in a minute. But that's the argument that's always made. Well, the unvaccinated don't go to doctors. I mean, you could argue probably because they're so healthy given what you're seeing in this study, but they did some controls. They said let's limit it. Let's not have any kids that
never go to doctors. Let's say you have to at least go to the doctor once a year while you're in the program. And what they saw is it didn't change the outcome. And one other thing they noticed when you looked at the serious illnesses like asthma, like, you know, some, I forget the exact categories, but the ones where there were unvaccinated children that had it, they found that sick unvaccinated children go to the doctor about 5 * a year on average and seven times was the
average for the vaccinated. So what it shows us is if an unvaccinated child is sick, they go to the doctor. Their parents aren't crazy. They're like my kids having a speech delay or whatever it is, I'm going to go to the doctor and check this out. So this idea that the unvaccinated, we're just not seeing their illness because they don't go to doctors, I think that's even disproven the study. And so those are the attacks that are happening. And I'll just say this, you can
attack the study. That's the scientific method. And it should have happened the other way around. It should have been published, you know, by Henry Ford. It should have been published by the Senate. But they're not going to do it. And so now we're looking at an unpublished study and we're we're asking questions. The only question that should be asked that I ask at the end of this film is why are there about four or five other studies
exactly like this? All of them, they've tried to attack them, but they're all showing the exact same signal in every one of these studies. One is by a Doctor Mawson out of the University of Mississippi. He did a homeschool study of homeschool children and found very similar results I think. Five times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders. Four times the rate of asthma, very similar to what this Henry
Ford study. Doctor Paul Thomas out in Oregon here in America had a huge pediatric practice and he was open minded. He let people they didn't want to vaccinate. He let them come to his practice. He would still see those kids and he realized, Oh my God, I have a very, I could do a robust study of my unvaccinated compared to my my vaccinated children. He did that. He lost his license for doing that study.
That study was so horrifying that they immediately went in and threatened and and ultimately took his license away. And that's what happens to doctors and scientists that ask this question. But here's the thing, the Henry Ford study was not done by Doctor Paul Thomas that is open to not vaccinating children. It wasn't done. You know, you know, viewing homeschool students, which is, you know, was 600 kids. This was 10s of thousands of children in a.
Very pro vaccine. They brag about their vaccine program and you know Doctor Marcus Zervos does himself. This study was done to prove those other studies. Wrong and ended up doing the opposite. Prove them right. That to me makes this, I mean, now you're talking about what we call reproducible science, something that almost doesn't exist in this world.
Most, most editors of research and you know of magazines like British Medical Journal or The Lancet, many of them have come out and said we can't reproduce half the science that's being published in this this, this magazine, yet this science is being reproduced over and over again. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead, poke holes, but you can't undo what we're learning in this study.
Until someone on this earth with a larger database than Henry Ford Health has, can do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparative study and show us for the first time, it'd be the first time they've achieved it, that the vaccinated are healthier. I want to know why that study hasn't been done. I want to know why they aren't doing it right now. Why do they say we're rushing to
it? Why isn't UK saying we're on, you know what we're going to prove Delve, Big Tree and Doctor Marcus Ervos wrong and Henry Ford Health? That's that's I think the issue of our time. I believe you're seeing how powerful the Pharmaceutical industry is. It has controlled this conversation for a very, very long time. And as you just put it, put it with this film and this study and the other studies that come before it, the cat is out of the
bag. It's interesting because you know, if, if the Pharmaceutical industry was confident in what they were doing, if it was confident in, in their product, they should be welcoming studies. They shouldn't be attacking. And we saw this during COVID as well. The doctors were speaking out against the Pharmaceutical industry and and against the the rush to get COVID vaccines out were attacked in the same way.
You know, you said that that the attacks were appropriate, but but I'd just like to get some thoughts on you about the types of attacks. Because in a peer reviewed study, it's scientists. Yeah, considering the contents of the paper they are looking at it from with some rigor. A lot of the attacks that I'm seeing in in the press are don't have that rigor and they're quite populist in their in their approach. So this isn't the same kind of attack as would be seen on a peer review process.
And so I'd just be interested to get your thoughts on that. Well, exactly. I mean, that's what you know, we've all seen these videos now when you watch the news where they were all saying the same thing from COVID. The vaccine is 95% effective, 95% effective. Yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda. And they stood by it and they
were wrong. I just watched the great mashup just this morning that was showing how many times Donald Trump said he believed that the actual death rate of COVID was going to be well below 1%. And all the news pundits that said that's a lie. WHO has said it's 3.4 percent death across the world? He's lying. That's been in misinformation. Well, now we look back and we
know he was exactly right. And you know, whether you take E and Edie's, the great work out of I think it's Stanford, we see a death rate from COVID of about .35%, maybe .2%. As high as the worst would have maybe been. A study shows .5%, so 1/2, 1/2 of 1%. So Donald Trump was right. Yet we've never had an apology by a single one of those pundits. Not a single one of our news anchors, not a single one of the doctors or scientists or any from the Imperial College
apologizing for the disastrous. Statements they made, the panic they created by the true misinformation, the social distancing. We have now recognized that standing 6 feet apart. Or locking ourselves in our home was not based in science. It was arbitrary because that's what was admitted. Did in a congressional hearing by Tony Fauci himself. We know that the masks could never stop a particle as small as a coronavirus.
So what I would say is no matter what we do now, we now live in a world where we have to take everything. These news anchors and the experts that they bring on, we have to take that with a grain of. Salt and say I have watched every one of these people completely lie or have it dead wrong at the very least, so to be completely uneducated on the topic that they claim to be experts in. And yet I'm still waiting for an apology for the original mistake.
And so when these people now attack a study like this, the same way they attacked the Doctor Peter Mcauliffe's and the and the, you know, Doctor Robert Malone's and all of the scientists and doctors that came forward during COVID to say we shouldn't lock down, this is going to cause more harm than good. You know, we should now really think about maybe I should be listening to the people in the scientists. They're saying this is an important study. This study should be seen.
This study, you know, really could save lives. All things that are, you know, a part of this film and many of which that doctor Marcus Servos said himself about this study. The only reason he's not publishing it because he's afraid. He's afraid of being attacked by the media that is controlled by the by, you know, he didn't say the Pharmaceutical industry. I will. Say, by the Pharmaceutical industry. So, yeah, when you look at this, and what I mean is I don't mind
the attacks. I'm not going to be like the scientists that are covering up all of this evidence. What I'm saying is. Please attack. Let's have an open debate. Let's meet in public forums and point out what your issue is with this study, and we'll bring our scientists in and defend it. And let's let the chips fall where they may. But I think you're going to have a hard time poking up holes in this study.
And then when and I and I'm happy to see, you know, real scientific interaction on this study, but in the end that's just a game happening in science. And in the end, we have news anchors that don't know anything about this issue. Meanwhile, we can sit here and wait till someone. Finally tells us, yes, you know, that building is actually burning. Or we can go in and get our kids out of it right away and not wait for someone to tell us that building looks like it's
burning. I think I can make the decision for myself. Let's just come back on to the film itself for a minute. So you said that you did something that you don't normally do, which is to take secret cameras or hidden cameras with you. Why did you decide to do that? You know, for two reasons #1. This wasn't, this wasn't really, you know, a news story for me. I'm a reporter. I report, you know, I have whistleblowers that stay off the record.
I'm fine with that. This was about a like a challenge man to man with a scientist do this study and however the chips fall, publish that study. In a way, it's like a bet. It's a wager. I made a wager with a scientist. I'm going to wager that the vaccinator is sicker, but go ahead. Whoever wins, they get the pot. And I didn't get, we didn't get the payoff. This guy did the study. And so on that level, he had to, he had to, you know, come to
terms with that. And I just thought, but if this study shows what I think it's studies it's going to, I mean, what what if it shows what I think it's going to find, then it's important for the world to know that. And I can't just, you know, know it's there and not be able to do anything about it. I'm just not wired that way, Mike. You know, in some ways I've been attacked. Before it being an activist, not a journalist. That may be the case that, that
that may be a a decent argument. I remember when there was the earthquakes in Haiti, I was working on the doctors television show. And so we went into, you know, both bring doctors and medical supplies, but also to capture everything that was there. And I remember children suffering, people caught, you know, trapped a woman with a broken hip. And I'm supposed to, as a reporter, really just shoot that show how there's really no one around to help them. Mike, I'm not wired that way.
I'm not going to just watch this person die for a new story. I dropped the camera. I carried people, you know, to safety. I helped, you know, military put up Med tense, all of which would have made great video footage for television. But I cared more about the people. So that's how I'm wired. That's just, you know, if that means I'm not a great journalist, I don't know. When I'm watching these journalists just sit there and watch a kid getting shot to
death in the street. It's it's an important job. I'm not going to put that. Down. That is true journalism. So let me be clear, that's not me. I'm not that I'm going to run out. I'm going to try and get that kid out of harm's way. And that's what I felt like in this situation. I'm going to go and bring recording equipment. I don't know if it will ever see the light of day. I didn't know what I would do with it. I didn't have some plan with it.
I just thought this will be the last time this study will ever be spoken of on a professional level potentially if I can't talk him into publishing it, which was the main reason I had that dinner, was to just try and talk him into publishing this study. But if he's not going to publish it, then, then I want the world to know why. And that's why I took in the recording equipment. And look, I'm happy I did. I'm happy I did.
Yeah, absolutely. And so you know, the world or at least significant number of people now does know why the the papers in the public, the conversation that you had with them is more or less in the public. So. So what has the response been to the film so far? You know, it's been really amazing, as you said, I mean, it's hard to track at this point worldwide. You know what, the viewership, because we're giving it away for free. Everyone can watch it at an inconvenient study.com.
This is just a film made by my nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. I haven't checked this week's numbers. I've been doing a lot of television, radio and speaking all over the country. But the last I checked, you know, we're the 10s of millions of views. It's being shared. We see hundreds of thousands of people downloading it, which means they could be sharing it in in spaces we don't see it
anymore. I've heard about watch parties all over the world, 1020 people in A room text saying you got a standing ovation and you know in the hall that we were showing it. So and, and what we see online is I think the last I checked, 85% of the responses were positive. And I'm glad to see that, you know, as I've said that there's people that are challenging it and say, well, I have this question with it. I think all of that is important.
In some ways, I believe, and I'm sort of bragging that I think this film and this study may have just jumped started the scientific method, something that has been dead in the world. Certainly COVID, you know, put it on life support and it has been struggling. So I love the debate that's
happening. And I just think when you want, when you see some of the people that are weighing in, a lot of the ones that are coming against it, I think are just reading the cease and desist letter by Henry Ford Health. They're not reading the study itself. They're not even going far enough to watch the film or any of that. That's how that's how they dealt with COVID. That was my beef with COVID. I'm sure it was. Yours is.
Show me the evidence. That this vaccine is 95% effective against, you know, infection and transmission because all I could find was the emergency use authorization that was put out by the FDA themselves saying this study didn't even look to see if it stopped transmission. So I have been calling out the lies from the beginning. And in the end, people can just take people's opinions for it.
If we want to live in a world, we let other people decide the perspectives that we have, then, then I don't think we have a strong and bright future ahead of us. But instead, if people want to know, this is a very short, concise film. I'm very proud of it. We worked hard to not, you know, pack our opinions into it, but just state the facts as they now exist. And this is really the culmination with Vax was out in 2016, you know, nine years, you know, later, this is the
investigation. I've been suing the government of the United States since 2017 and winning and getting to the bottom of this this issue. Where is the transparency of science? I've had an international team of scientists read every single vaccine trial that has ever taken place. And I have one of the greatest constitutional attorneys in the world and Aaron Serie, that one.
Back here in America, we have a mandated vaccine program and in some states there's no way to opt out of it, like Mississippi. So we spent three years in court and one back your right to opt out of the vaccine program with your children in Mississippi. We're in the middle of that case in West Virginia.
But I'll say to people, because I get labeled, you know, someone who spreads misinformation, we've won, you know, multiple lawsuits against the government in the United States, and you should try to win lawsuits against the government of the United States with misinformation. It's not happening. It is not what's going on here. The misinformation is coming from our government agencies.
And look, you can understand why they have promoted these products for decades, making us believe there's mountains of evidence that they don't cause autism, mountains of evidence that it's not causing the multiple sclerosis and the diabetes and all the ADHD that are all skyrocketing at this time. What are they going to do if they have to admit we're sorry? Oops, we got it wrong. They haven't even admitted they got it wrong on COVID.
Imagine an entire vaccine program that's created the autoimmune disease crisis of the century. I mean, is this a partisan issue for people in the states? Because I mean, the damage that's being done to children in the last 30-40 years, as you say, isn't partisan. So because it doesn't only attack Democrats or only attack Republicans, it's everybody. But it's the issue of vaccination and even the issue of Covad. Is that sort of a partisan thing?
It has become that amongst the population, I would say in the population more than probably in our elected officials, you have very, very few, I think in less than a handful of actual
politics. The politicians that will speak out against the vaccine program now and ask good questions is Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Johnson and then President Trump. Beyond that that those and those are Republicans. So you know, they are weighted to Republicans. But the rest of the hundreds of them are pro vaccine because the number one most powerful lobbying in the United States of America is pharma. And they all get visited by pharma and they all get their
campaigns funded by pharma. And pharma has lobbyists in their office every other day telling them how great the work that they do are and how many lives that they're saving. And so, but amongst the people, when you see polls there, it's clear that conservatives in, in you know, or in, in the Trump's populist movement, if you will, vaccine hesitancy, which is what I like to call it is, is really very high.
But I'm hearing stats about the COVID vaccine in England that 90% of your own doctors aren't aren't taking the booster shot, which means for the first time in history, and we're seeing, I think something very similar here, that means there's a total lack of trust in the health agencies now, even by doctors themselves. So I think this issue is growing. I wouldn't say it's completely partisan, but at the moment, conservatives tend to learn more
in this direction. And, and, and I think that's because Donald Trump has been so outwardly critical of the vaccine program. He obviously brought in Robert Kennedy Junior to run HHS, which is maybe the most controversial pick in the history of mankind. I'm a little bit biased in that I was Robert Kennedy Junior's director of communications when he ran for president of the United States. So I'm proud of how that worked out. We ran him as president so that he could get in control.
The health agencies. Health has been his number one concern for, you know, I think 40 or 50 years has been one of the greatest environmental attorneys of all times. So we have someone that knows about law, knows about health, knows how the frauds take place, know how the corruption is.
We have an anti corruption government now in our health agency with Robert Kennedy, junior doctor Marty Mccary, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Jay Bhattacharya. I mean, you know, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration is the head of our National Institutes of Health, the most funded research, you know, institute in the world. You've got Martin Coldorf, also of the Great Barrington Declaration is the head of our advisory committee on immunization practices.
So things are changing, and I think because that's happening under President Trump, you have the anything but Trump or the Trump Derangement Syndrome, as we call it here, pushing Democrats against their own best interests. So that's how it sort of lays out in America. And I mean, there's what, another 2 1/2 years of of Trump's presidency to go or to three years of Trump's presidency to go? What, what what? What happens after? I mean, that's, you know, I'm
concerned about that. I'm concerned what the backlash for the response is going to be the Pharmaceutical industry at like, because look, as we've said, right, no matter how much as a as a civilization, we are waking up, you know, shows like yours and mine are millions of people. This film, an inconvenient study, will probably be seen by a billion people around the world, you know, at least by the time it's it's gone through. But yet no apology from any of
the news anchors that we watch. No apology from any of the hospitals that kept us from seeing our loved ones that use remdesivir and ventilators and killed 9 out of 10 of their patients during COVID. Blocked the use of ivermectin, which has been now proven in studies all around the world to reduce death by 80%. Block the use of hydroxychloroquine, which was in studies around the world.
Reduced death by 50%. Certainly have given early all of these things, blood of millions, millions of people is on their hands and yet not one apology on that one vaccine and that one, you know, pandemic. So when you see that all of the institutions of power, all The Who, all the gobbies, all the Bill Gates, everyone is still lined up to maintain control of the world. And let's make it perfectly clear, there is no greater way to control the world than
through their health. And though many of these things are sold to us as health initiatives, let's go ahead and look at the, you know, Kenya situation where we know that they use vaccines to sterilize women in Kenya. We've seen issues like that in India. Here in America, we use vaccines to cull our deer population or wild deer population. Vaccines are used in animal populations to sterilize them and slow their expansion and
their growth. That, I believe, is not necessarily what it's being used for. I want to be clear, I'm not being a conspiracy theorist, but I assure you, in a nation where your leaders keep telling you we're overpopulated, we need to reduce population, and then those same people put the most of their investment into your vaccine programs, then you've got to start listening to them.
If they're saying their goal is to reduce population and they're lining you up, telling you you should never ask a question about what we're injecting bring into you, then that is a recipe for a world that you do not want to live in. So we have a lot of work to do. That's why this film is so critical that everyone shares it with everyone they know. We still have a vote in America. You still have a vote in the UK.
The only way we can get out around the power of the Pharmaceutical industry and these globalist lunatics is the power of the people. We outnumber them, but we have to outnumber them. Those in the knowing. We have to outnumber those that don't care. And that's why a film like this is so important that everyone shares. That's why we've made it free. We're not trying to make money off of it. I want it there for everyone in the world to see it.
And then with one gigantic, loud voice, we should demand every Regulatory agency of every nation that we live in to do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study and prove this Henry Ford study wrong. If you can't, then we need to do an immediate change. We have to to make an immediate reversal because it appears we are destroying the future of our
species. And if we keep rushing products like the COVID vaccine onto the market without proper safety testing and forcing everyone on the planet to take it, our days are numbered. And you know our I don't see how we survive this. We've never had a virus that has ever affected enough people to kill us off this planet. But when we have stupid leaders and bad science and funded pharmaceutical, you know, agendas, we could be really in harm's way. OK, well look, we're just about
out of time. So just one final question. And do you think that the that this film has the potential to make sure that if in the not too distant future a COVID like gag gets played again that we won't fall for it? If this film can't do it, I don't know what will. I mean, I really mean that. I think this film lays out as clearly as anyone can understand it. And look, my, my, if you see my text, it's just thousands are
coming in by the thousands. The emails are coming in by the 10s of thousands of people saying exactly this. I could not explain this to my loved one. I just showed this film and now they get it and they're sharing with everyone they know. You really, you got to see this film. You can say, oh, I know that information and you probably really do, but we've never had a tool like this that lays it out this clearly and has this study.
By such a. Clearly, you know, biased, you know, institution that should have been able to make it look like the vaccinated we're healthier and could not do it, in fact, show such alarming rates of illness. It is mind boggling. So yes, I think that this study is a game changer. I think this film is a game
changer. You know, I haven't made an another movie since Vax. There's been other good movies that have come out, but there hasn't been anything that I thought had the value or the size or the ability to do what Vax did back in 2016. This is that movie. This is the one I was proud to make. And, and this is the culmination of all of the work that I've done with my nonprofit over the last, you know, nine years. OK. Well, Del Victory, thank you
very much for joining me today. Just tell everybody where they can watch the film one more time. Just go to aninconvenientstudy.com. You can download the film, you can download the trailer, you can stream it there. You can share links with your friends. And by the way, we are posting all of the attacks that have been made against it with rebuttals on why we think those attacks are not rooted in science. So it's all there.
We're not hiding everything. We're being very, you know, open about everything that everyone's saying and having that discussion. You can find all of that. And the study itself, you can download the study, you can read it yourself and come to your own conclusions, which is what we have to start doing. We've got to do our own research. So an inconvenient study.com. You can watch the highwire.com where I have a show every week that discusses these issues. Dell, thank you.