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.