Original subtitles

Children struggling every day with ADHD?

God's allergies made it hard to keep up with his friends. Allergic reactions

from accidental food exposure.

Moderate to severe eczema. Flax psoriasis. Rheumatoid arthritis.

Food allergies.

Allergy. Seizure. Asthma.

Obvious. A little bit.

We are now the sickest country in the world.

The health of American children is in crisis.

A huge rise in chronic conditions in kids 17 and under. More than 40% of

American children now have at least one chronic health condition.

Autoimmune disease like rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus,

Crohn's disease, all this IBS.

I had eczema, asthma, allergies,

stomach issues.

This is to me the one that gets me. Just a few decades ago, one in 10,000

children had autism. Today it's...

One in 31.

ADD, ADHD, speech, language, like tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep

disorders, ASD, autism.

There's no way in the world that these kind of rapid increases in the incidence

of disease could be genetic. Genetic change takes generations, centuries to

play out. What's really causing our kids of this generation to be so chronically

sick? What the heck is happening?

America is the sickest nation in the industrialized world.

It is now believed that over 54% of our kids have a chronic disease, either a

neurological disorder or an autoimmune disease.

That's up from only 12.8% back in the 1980s. In roughly 40 years, we have seen

the greatest decline in human health ever recorded.

What if I told you?

There is a study that could shed light on this chronic disease epidemic, but no

major medical institution seemed willing to do it. What if I told you there was

one scientist brave enough to conduct this study?

What if I told you that when the study was finished, that

scientist was too afraid to publish it? What would you do?

Maybe you would do what I did. I got hidden cameras and recording equipment.

And I went to ask him why.

Thank you. You're very welcome.

I want to show you a video.

Okay. I'm curious of what your reaction to this is. Okay.

Just hit play here?

Yeah.

Go ahead and press play there.

What was the most shocking thing? Because, I mean...

I know what I've seen. No, and I thought it was important.

It's important information because it did show a difference between the

groups. We have some serious issues.

I actually agree with that. If I can't get this study out, then what hope is

there for everything in the future?

I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do,

but I just don't want to. I mean, obviously, like, really personal.

Sick. It's really sick.

Publishing something like that, might as well.

retire, I'd be finished. So who was that guy?

Zervos is probably going to lose his job over this.

You know, I'm thinking before we get into the hidden cameras and the study

and Dr. Zervos and all that, why don't we just take it all the way back to how

this actually started?

I've been a medical journalist for almost 20 years now. My first 10 years

was at CBS.

And the last eight years or so, I've had my Internet news show called The High

Wire. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are. But the

biggest change in my career happened when I produced a documentary about

vaccinations called Vaxxed. And at the center of that documentary was a

whistleblower from the CDC named Dr. William Thompson.

He came forward in 2015 and said that they were committing scientific fraud on

the vaccine safety studies.

Well, that film blew up and became a worldwide sensation, mostly because we

got so much bad press, starting with being kicked out of the Tribeca Film

Festival. The decision to run a controversial documentary about vaccines

has Robert De Niro at the center of a big screen backlash.

Tonight, the film festival Robert De Niro started Under Fire, a controversial

new film that many are characterizing as anti-vaccine. I think the movie is

something that people should see. There was a backlash which I haven't fully

explored. I want to know the truth, and I'm not anti-vaccine. I want safe

vaccines.

Producer Del Bigtree says canceling the screening amounts to a suppression of

the truth.

I can't imagine what type of pressure came down that would make them pull the

movie that they were obviously behind in the beginning. The message from the

medical community is clear. This is one of those scientific questions where

science has provided any answer.

Vax ended up being one of the most controversial documentaries in history.

And because of that, there were lines down the block everywhere we went. Look

at this crowd behind me. Look at this line. It goes on and on and on. In fact,

the very first day we screened at Angelica Film Center in New York, I

wanted to know why there's this giant line down the block. What are these

people here for?

Can every parent or someone, you know, if you have a family member with autism,

would you please stand up right now? I'd like to see.

Three quarters of the room stood up. I remember feeling like the air just got

sucked out of the room. I had no idea that there was this many people

suffering from this issue.

I ended up asking that question three screenings a day, five days a week, for

an entire year. And every single time, three quarters of the room stood up. I

realized I had stumbled on something absolutely massive.

After the screenings, parents of injured children were inspired to tell their own

stories. We set up video cameras and started interviewing everybody that

wanted to talk.

And what I discovered is it wasn't just autism, and it wasn't just the MMR

vaccine. There was an ocean of vaccine injury, and nobody was talking about it.

The doctor says, well, do you want the flu vaccine?

I was like, might as well do it now. I gave in. I did polio. They gave her the

V-vax. She got the two-month shot.

The MMR vaccine.

By 10.30 that morning, she was arching her back,

clicking her hips.

Didn't think I was going to cry.

That night, we were in the hospital.

With the 106-degree fever, he began to projectile vomit. He began to have this

loud pitch scream.

Like that's when the blood curdling scream started. I did not lay down for

10 months straight because he would vomit and asphyxiate. He would vomit and

asphyxiate, and she would lie there while she was asleep.

And she would choke on it. When we had that vaccination, he lost all language.

He just stopped talking. He wasn't talking. He didn't want to nurse.

He went to not talking at all. He was developing really well, except for motor

skills. He's got chronic allergies. An eczema rash.

Seed protein intralitis syndrome.

She couldn't eat anything on the glycemic index that was too high.

GI symptoms he started to have. Gut inflammation.

Chronic snoring.

Sleep apnea.

Seizure-like activity.

Sleep apnea.

She died in your arm.

Yeah. I continue to vaccinate her and make her worse and make her thicker.

The guilt, it's so overwhelming.

They killed my daughter.

Clearly this was a bigger issue than anybody realized.

But there was one particular interview that we did.

That really changed my perspective forever.

Colton was a 13-year-old healthy, strong boy. He loved anything that has to do

with an adrenaline rush.

Motocross was his passion.

The doctor says, hey, he's the age that you should get the HPV vaccine. I said,

okay. So he was administered the vaccine.

And then this is the last day he got to ride that big boy bike.

and that day he came home, he was starting to feel nauseous, really sore

neck. He still didn't want to get out of bed. I just thought, man, you're just

really weak and exhausted.

And that evening when he sat up to take a drink of water, he just flopped back,

and his head just hit the pillow, and I went,

Colton, are you going paralyzed?

They immediately took him down to Primary Children's Hospital and saw,

like, original diagnosis with transverse myelitis.

When the doctor came out and asked me, has he been sick?

I said, no, he hasn't been sick. He had the HPV vaccine on February 1st. And

they went, oh.

Well, we'll be reporting that to VARS.

It does look like not being able to report anymore.

Unfortunately,

Colton ended up taking his life in 2018 because he believed he'd become too much

of a burden on his family.

But the thing I remember about...

standing there and watching that interview taking place my co-producer

Polly Tommy was doing the interview was this box that was hanging on his side

that was breathing for him and it went through a tube that was going through a

hole in his throat and he literally had to wait for it to fill his lungs with

air before he could answer a question so go and then he would start answering the

question until he ran out of air I thought about all of the people that

accused these so-called anti-vaxxers of bringing back polio or the iron lung.

Once vaccination rates fall, you're going to have a lot of people getting

sick and a lot of children paralyzed for the rest of their life with polio. I

thought, he's wearing an iron lung. You're not laying in a metal tube

anymore. They've reduced it down to a box that hangs on your side and a hose

that goes to your throat.

But in this case...

He wasn't paralyzed because he had polio. He wasn't paralyzed because he

didn't vaccinate.

He was paralyzed by the Gardasil HPV vaccine.

I chose to get my daughter vaccinated because I want her to be one less woman

affected by cervical cancer. One less. Gardasil.

Then I went home and started looking up all the inserts, the warning labels that

are wrapped around all the childhood vaccines, and most of them say it right

there in serious adverse events.

Guillain-Barre syndrome. That's paralysis.

or transverse myelitis, paralysis.

And I realized we didn't eradicate paralytic diseases with the vaccine

program.

We're causing paralytic diseases with our vaccine program.

So as we travel the country, some parents would come up and say, I'm about

to have a baby. I'm definitely not going to get the MMR vaccine because your

movie shows that that one's dangerous. But what about the other 16 vaccines

that are given in 72 doses by the time my child's 18?

And I'd say, I only have anecdotal evidence from the thousands of

interviews I've done that not a single childhood vaccine is safe. But that's

not scientific.

I wanted something better. I wanted to get to the bottom of this. So I started

a non-profit called the Informed Consent Action Network.

Based on the Nuremberg Code's right to voluntary consent, the ethical principle

globally agreed upon in the wake of the Nazi doctor's horrifying human

experiment.

concentration camps for experimental purposes.

Where it states, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely

essential, and there should be no element of force, fraud, deceit, duress,

or overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.

What I wanted to do was investigate the entire vaccine program.

I was really focused on one thing. We hear that vaccines are safe and

effective. But before we even worry about if they're effective, how did we

determine they're safe?

We started looking at all the science around the world.

But we hit a big roadblock.

You can't sue a manufacturer of a vaccine. It's one of the only products

in America that has what they call liability protection.

The reason is because of a law that was passed in 1986 by the U.S. government.

The pharmaceutical industry basically blackmailed the government.

And they said, we are losing so much money from lawsuits for death and injury

from our vaccines, we can't make a profit.

Studies have shown that the whooping cough or pertussis vaccine causes brain

damage. The controversy isn't really over the fact that it happens, but how

often it happens.

And they said, if you want us to continue making vaccines, you're going

to have to take on the liability.

And our government agreed to that.

If you want to sue or you want to get any information outside of what's

publicly known, you're going to have to sue the government.

And that's when I realized I need a constitutional attorney.

And I found a guy named Aaron Seary.

Mr. Seary, you're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir.

And you're not an immunologist or biologist or...

Any kind of... For vaccinologists, no, but I depose them regularly, including

the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims

based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't

get to rely on titles.

Okay.

He had a genius way forward.

We're going to sue the government agencies, HHS, FDA, NIH, and we started

winning. And what did we prove in those lawsuits?

that the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.

Doctors used to listen to parents.

When their parents came in and said, hey, my kid is suffering with this

condition, has this issue, doctors listened to them.

But when parents started coming in and saying, my kid went in and got a vaccine

and then started having X issue, That's when doctors stopped listening.

Hi. How are you doing? We have triplets.

Two boys and a girl.

Richie, Robbie, and Claire.

Every day in our life was a party.

Every single day they were smiling and laughing and looking at each other,

engaging in each other.

On June 25, 2007, we brought them in for the pneumococcal shot.

My daughter still has the mark on her leg from the shot. She was the first one

to get it, and she screamed and never really stopped screaming after that.

But we continued. We didn't know. We did the boys as well.

By noon, Claire shut completely off.

It was as if she was blind and deaf, and all she did at that moment was stare at

the ceiling fan.

So that was at noon. We had the shot at 10 a.m.

Two o'clock, we watched Richie shut off.

They lost all their reflexes. I'm an educational audiologist.

I actually did the test for the stapedial reflex, which is the little

muscle in the middle ear, just to see if a muscle they can't control was still

working, and it didn't. The stapedial reflex dampens sound, so your ears don't

hurt from a really loud sound, and both of them had no stapedial reflex. They

stopped blinking, stopped yawning, stopped... Coughing, stopped sneezing.

The worst is when we saw the final one shut down.

We were told it was genetic.

And then we were told by geneticists that there's no possible way three

children would shut off on the same day.

So we had severe autism spectrum disorder for all three kids entering

kindergarten. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to recover

them.

The only person that we got back is Rich or Robbie, the one that was last to shut

off. Richie can only say single, maybe two words together.

Claire is still completely nonverbal, not potty trained. And Robbie is

approaching grade level, but severe OCD.

Let me tell you what a day in our life is.

So you got, say, a six or seven or eight-year-old child who's not potty

trained. and at 2 or 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning they fill their diaper.

Well, you assume that's pretty uncomfortable, so they take it off.

Pretty soon it's all over them. It's all over the bed, in short order. It's all

over me. It's all over her.

I'm snapping at her. She's snapping at me. We're both snapping at the kid, who

is the only innocent party in the whole scenario.

And the one thing that's conspicuously absent from that...

is anybody who told you that shot was safe.

They're all asleep in their bed.

They haven't got a problem in the world.

This one story of Richie, Robbie, and Claire puts an end to any discussion

that autism is only caused by genetics.

There is no genetic explanation that would turn three brothers and sisters

off on the exact same day.

What you should do, When there are widespread complaints that a product is

causing a given harm, you should study it. Vaccines should be tested like other

medicines. They should be safety tested.

And unfortunately, vaccines are not safety tested.

Of the 72 vaccine doses now mandated, essentially mandated, they were

recommended, but they're really mandated, American children, none of

them, not one, has ever been subject to a pre-licensing placebo-controlled

trial. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.

has been torn apart by mainstream media for saying that there's no placebo

trials being done for vaccines.

But he's right. It's exactly what we found in our lawsuits against the

government. Not a single childhood vaccine is going through a double-blind,

randomized placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure.

That's the gold standard of safety testing for all pharmaceutical products,

but it's being skipped.

for vaccines.

In case you forgot how a double-blind placebo-based trial worked as we

discussed it back in high school science class, let me remind you.

We break up a group of kids into two groups. One group is going to get the

vaccine. The other group is going to get a placebo, which is a product that has

no effect on the human body. When it comes to an injectable like vaccines,

that is a saline injection.

Then it's called double-blinded because both the scientists and the patients are

blinded from knowing which one they got. Did they get the vaccine or did they get

the placebo?

This is so that the scientists will not manipulate the study in favor of the

pharmaceutical industry that will stand to make a lot of money if this vaccine

proves to be safe.

Then we track these two groups for two to five years, sometimes as long as 10

years for a lot of drugs. And at the end of that study, we unblind both the

patient and the scientist.

So we look at both groups, the vaccinated and the placebo group, and we

compare their health outcomes.

Who had more cancer?

Who had more diabetes or ADD, ADHD or autism or Tourette's or lupus or

multiple sclerosis? All of these things that are currently skyrocketing in the

United States of America.

And if, when you compare them, they both turn out the same, there's the same

amount of issues in the vaccinated group as in the placebo group, then you know

it's safe. You've established what we call a safety baseline.

But if the vaccinated group has more issues than the placebo group, then we

know it's not safe and it shouldn't be put on the market.

Only one problem.

Not a single vaccine on the childhood schedule has ever been through a double

-blind placebo-based trial.

Therefore, they cannot say the vaccines were safe based on science.

Are all vaccine trials placebo controlled?

No, and nor should they be. So, for example, when Prevnar 13, so Prevnar was

a conjugate pneumococcal vaccine.

The FDA has approved a new pneumococcal vaccine.

It had to be tested in a phase three trial. And so the control group there

was Prevnar 7 and had been shown to work.

It will replace Prevnar, which was effective against seven serotypes.

You can't ask parents to take, to put their children at risk of pneumococcal

disease when there existed on the market at the time a vaccine to prevent that.

And the World Health Organization has been very clear on this. That would have

been considered an ethical trial.

Dr. Paul Opitz, one of the big proponents of vaccinations, probably

because he's made a vaccine and made a killing off of it, the rotavirus

vaccines on the childhood schedule.

It doesn't matter whether I financially benefited or not.

He likes to go around and say, well, we can't always do placebo trials,

especially if there's already a vaccine that covers that disease.

So he'll use an example like Prevnar 13. Prevnar 13 in its safety trial was

tested against Prevnar 7, the earlier version of the vaccine.

And he'll say you cannot test Prevnar 13 against a saline placebo because it

would be unethical. You'd be denying children access to a vaccine that is

already on the market. And that's not fair to them.

But what he leaves out is that Prevnar 7 was never tested against the saline

placebo, so we don't know if it's safe.

So we're testing one product we don't know the safety profile on with another

product we don't know the safety profile on, and this is how the entire vaccine

schedule works.

I like to call this the whiskey study.

Let me explain.

Let's say there's a group of people that are complaining that whiskey is making

people drunk and they're crashing their cars and people are getting killed.

Now, in order to test does whiskey cause car accidents, you would set up a double

-blind placebo trial.

One group, the test group, would get the 10 shots of whiskey. The other group,

the placebo group, would get 10 shots of water. And then we'd have them both

drive on a driving course and see who has more accidents.

It's obvious.

But in this case, the whiskey company is the one doing the study. And what they

say is, oh, we're going to do a placebo-based trial. But our placebo

-based trial is not going to be water. It'll be vodka, another product already

on the market. And so 10 people get the whiskey shots and 10 people get the

vodka shots. And they had them all drive. And guess what? They had just as

many car accidents.

Therefore, whiskey does not cause car accidents because it didn't cause any

more than the vodka did.

And so to take this all the way to the end of Dr.

Paul Offit's point, if vodka had ever been tested against 10 shots of water

and there was no car accidents in the vodka group, then it would make sense to

test the whiskey against the vodka. But we all know that study was never done,

just like no vaccine placebo study was ever done.

All you have to do is... Type in FDA-licensed vaccines on your computer,

and every vaccine that they give your child on the childhood schedule will

appear there.

And then you can click on any one you're interested in. Let's click on Recombivax

HB. This is one of the hepatitis B vaccines they give your baby on the

first day of life.

Hello, welcome to the world, gasp for your first breath, and here comes your

first sexually transmitted disease.

Now, go to vaccine insert. This is the insert or the warning label that is

wrapped around the vaccine when it's delivered to your doctor. It has all

kinds of information, like what's in the vaccine, all the ingredients, side

effects of the vaccine, but I want you to focus on...

Section 6.1. This is where they talk about the clinical trial they relied

upon to establish safety.

It's always 6.1 on every single vaccine, so you can look at all of them. But in

this one, you'll see that there was only 147 children in the entire trial, and

they were only monitored for five days after each dose.

Five days.

So think about it. Would you take any drug that was only monitored for safety

for five days?

If your child dies on day six, it wasn't captured by this trial. They'll say, we

didn't see any deaths.

If a child had autism two years later or other autoimmune diseases or

neurological disorders, things that take years to develop, they'll say, we didn't

see any in our trial. This is why every drug we take goes through a multi-year

safety trial.

Most of your issues are going to take years to develop.

And if your study isn't that long, you'll never, ever see them.

We had an interesting opportunity to talk about this with Dr.

Stanley Plotkin, who's considered to be the reigning godfather of our vaccine

program.

Dr. Stan Plotkin. Dr. Plotkin. Virtually every country in the world is affected

by his vaccines.

Like the rubella vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine, rabies. He trained just a

generation of scientists, including myself, to think like he thinks.

He developed the standard textbook for vaccines in 1988.

Bill Gates called his book a Bible for vaccinologists.

I hope it's more accurate than the Bible.

In 2018, our attorney, Aaron Seary, had the opportunity to pose under oath

Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And he asked him this exact question. Is a five-day

safety trial long enough to capture all of the side effects that people are

complaining about from the hepatitis B vaccine?

Dr. Plotkin, this is the product, the manufacturer insert for recombivax HP,

correct? Yes.

And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct?

Correct.

Dr. Plotkin?

Yes. Okay.

In Section 6.1, when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre

-licensure for recombivax HP, how long does it say that safety was monitored

after each dose?

Let's see.

Five days.

Okay.

Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five

days?

No. Is five days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose

from the vaccine after five days?

No. There is no control group, correct?

It does not mention any control group, no.

If you turn to Section 6.2, under the nervous system disorders, it states that

there have been reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome, correct?

Yes. As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis,

myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral

neuropathy, including Bell's palsy.

muscle weakness, hyperthesia, and encephalitis, correct?

Correct. Okay. Now, before you go on, these

reports are required to be included because they have been reported

to the authorities as happening after vaccination. That is not proof that

the vaccine caused those reactions.

In order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the

condition, you need a randomized placebo-controlled study.

But that was not done for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure, was it? No.

Okay. Without a control group, if you were looking for...

a phenomenon occurring in the vaccine group, you cannot judge that phenomenon

without having a control group.

Isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a

study today?

It would be, yes, it would be ethically difficult.

So this is how the entire game is played. They don't do a safety placebo

trial before the vaccine is licensed. Then when people start lining up with

all of these serious side effects, you say, well, can you do a placebo-based

trial now? And they'll say, no, it's unethical. So they won't do it before.

They won't do it after there's injuries. And when they can't do a study, your

doctor says to you, I haven't seen any studies that show that these injuries

are being caused by the vaccine.

Therefore, I'm going to assume they're safe.

Do you agree with the CDC's recommendation that babies receive a

hepatitis B on the first day of life?

Yes. You stated that hepatitis B doesn't cause encephalitis, right?

That's my opinion, yes.

But the IOM, after doing its review, determined it couldn't find science to

support a causal determination one way or another.

Correct? Yes.

But that means that they don't have evidence for the supposition.

That it either causes or doesn't cause.

Right. They don't know. They don't know because there aren't enough data. In the

absence of data, my conclusion is that there's no proof

that causation exists.

So if there's no data to show that it causes or it doesn't cause.

Yes. Your supposition, is that what I understand correctly?

Yeah. Is that it doesn't cause it?

That there's no proof that it does.

Okay. That's different than saying it doesn't cause it, correct?

Correct.

So let's be clear. Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. It's based on

an assumption of safety.

And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in. But there's one way out of

it. Instead of doing a placebo-based study, you can do a retrospective study

looking at people that have already made their choice whether they're going to

vaccinate or not.

And then you just compare those groups, the ones that got the vaccines and the

ones that decided not to vaccinate. We call that the vaccinated versus

unvaccinated study.

It's been done by a few independent...

scientists and institutes amongst small groups of children, but never by a major

government agency or a major medical facility.

The reason this study is important, I think, is illustrated by a study that

was done in Guinea-Bissau, Africa by a man named Dr. Peter Abe.

He's one of the lead experts. He's pro-vaccine, and he develops vaccine

programs for the third world.

He had a DTP vaccine program he'd run 30 years ago in Guinea-Bissau, Africa, and

recognized 30 years later, you know what, only half the children in the

country got that vaccine, and the other half didn't. I could do a perfect

comparative study between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

And when he did that study, the results blew his mind.

This is about vaccines.

And I think it's important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for

all effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced.

I guess most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing. We don't.

The program we are talking about at this time, the vaccine program was

introduced.

Sort of in the late 70s, after the successful eradication of smallpox, WHO

made sort of the first immunization program for the low-income countries.

When you come out here, you have 2.3 times higher mortality if you are DGP

vaccinated.

And that is the most commonly used vaccine in the world. So the whooping

cough vaccine or Pertussis vaccine was associated with two-fold higher

mortality.

You can have a vaccine which is fully protected against a specific disease,

but associated with higher mortality.

How is that possible?

After looking at the study, it was clear that the vaccine did protect against the

disease they were vaccinated for. The kids didn't die of diphtheria, tetanus,

and pertussis.

Only one problem.

Once they looked at it, they were dying at five times the rate of all of these

other issues.

So it was clear that though it was protecting against these diseases, it

was weakening their immune systems to all sorts of other problems.

One of the other scientists on this study did a TED talk on this.

In spite of being protected against three deadly diseases, the introduction

of DGP was associated with increased overall mortality.

Children who received DTP vaccine had five times higher risk of dying than

those who didn't. And this is just one example of many studies now done of DTP

vaccine, and they all show the same. DTP vaccinated children have higher

mortality than those who didn't get DTP.

So it appears that DTP vaccine has negative, nonspecific effects.

The protection against the three deadly diseases.

comes at a very high price, namely increased risk of dying.

So, with the best of intentions, the use of DTP vaccine may kill more children

than it saves.

I know these results are extremely uncomfortable, and most people,

including myself, just wish they weren't true.

But this is what the data tells us.

That was just the study of one vaccine in a group of children.

What if you studied children that were receiving not one vaccine, but between

72 and 100 vaccines by the time they're 18?

Of course, I'm talking about the most vaccinated nation in the world, the

United States of America.

Our federal health authorities actually paid the Institute of Medicine to look

at the safety of the vaccine schedule as a whole. And the Institute of Medicine,

after conducting that review, came back with a report in 2013.

The report said no studies have compared the differences in health outcomes

between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized

children. The CDC's responsibility to do those studies, and they've been ordered

again and again and again to do them, and they have refused.

But the Institute of Medicine has looked at the vaccine schedule and said in

their 2011 report...

There are over 150 injuries that are likely to be associated with vaccines

that have never been studied.

Well, what did the CDC do after the Institute of Medicine issued that

report? Instead of doing the study, they ended up doing a study on how to do a

vax versus unvax study.

It went and it paid a whole lot of money to issue a white paper on how to conduct

that study comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids.

That white paper came out in 2015.

Now, here we are in 2025, 10 years later. They still never published that

study. Now, have they never done the study?

I can't tell you.

This is information that vaccine safety advocates want and have been asking for

for a long time. And I'm not sure why it hasn't been done.

This simple study would shut up every anti-vaxxer forever.

I have to believe that they have done this study every way they possibly can.

And they can't seem to figure out how to make it look like the vaccinated are

healthier. But that's just my opinion.

several other studies I've seen that did compare vaccinated to unvaccinated, but

mainstream medicine says, well, the cohort was too small, or they poke holes

in it saying it wasn't done by a major medical institution.

So if we're ever going to get a vax versus unvaccinated study that people

believe in, it's going to have to be done by highly credited scientists at a

major medical institution who has a database big enough to do a thorough,

robust investigation comparing the vaccine. to the unvaccinated.

As fate would have it, Dell met the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford

Health System, Marcus Servos.

I'll never forget that meeting because you said something to me. You said, I've

watched your film. It's intriguing.

But you said, I'll never forget. You said, you've been saying something and

watched your videos.

that I had an issue with. You said that they cannot say that vaccines are safe

because they've never done the proper safety studies.

And you said to me, I actually researched that because I wanted to see

if that was true. And you said, I'm sorry to have to report to you that

you're actually right about that.

The proper safety studies have not been done.

Same thing. I still say it now. The proper safety studies haven't been

done. So then I said to you, all right, and you're like, I don't know what I'm

doing here. I don't agree with you. I believe in vaccines.

And I said, would you ever consider doing a vaccinated versus unvaccinated

study? And you said I would do anything wherever the data, the data is the data,

right? Yeah.

The first time I met with Dr. Zervos, he agreed to do a vaccinated versus

unvaccinated study.

I mean, I would think static.

He was perfect.

Ford Medical Center is one of the greatest research centers in the world,

and Dr. Zervos is in the middle of being a hero for having just worked out the

entire Flint, Michigan water crisis.

For decades, Flint, one of the poorest cities in America,

had bought its water from Detroit. Instead of staying on the Detroit water

supply while the pipeline was being built, the city would temporarily get

its water from the Flint River.

That decision would force the city to activate an old water treatment plant.

Here's the plant.

Here it is.

This is what is coming out of the tap.

Water's brown, has a bad odor. We cannot drink the water.

They soon became a breeding ground for Legionella, and people were getting

sick. The oxygen, you're on that all the time, or do you ever get to take it? I

want it all the time.

Yeah. Her doctor, Marcus Zervos, had been treating a chronic skin infection

that her weakened immune system couldn't control.

They are doing a lot better. I'm ecstatic. You know, if I can get them

healed over a little bit more, I'm going to get you an appointment with those

transplant doctors.

There had been 90 confirmed cases in the year and a half following the water

switch.

Twelve people had died.

Sean McElmurray had pulled together a team of 23 scientists and experts from

around the state. The team says the state wouldn't authorize them to start

the search for the source of the outbreak.

Dr. Zervos was the infectious disease expert, and he was worried about the

delay. It was critical to start right away because by June we expected to see

more cases of Legionnaire's disease and there would be more deaths, which is

what we...

expressed in a meeting that included top leadership at MDHHS. I remember my

colleague telling him that if he didn't do that, you know, people could die.

Unfortunately, Nick Lyon's response was that, well, they have to die of

something. I mean, you're just in shock as a result of him saying that, the

director of the health department.

Dr. Zerbo seemed perfect.

He'd stood up against the entire health system in Michigan, so I figured he'd

probably be brave enough to do this study.

But then a couple of years went by and still no study.

I called Aaron and said, why don't we go see if we can't convince him to finally

do this study.

I flew down to Michigan and we went to meet Dr. Zervos in person.

We said, look, here's your opportunity.

The results should be directly in line with the orthodoxy.

The vaccinated kids should be healthy across the board. He could be hailed a

hero for finally shutting up the anti-vaxxers.

He said he's willing to do it.

The study was going to use the data they literally already have in their

fingertips. The data of millions of people who are already in the Henry Ford

Health System database, including hundreds, maybe thousands of completely

unvaccinated children.

as well as, obviously, children who are vaccinated.

What that would allow is taking that multi-million person database,

segregating out the children who had been in the Henry Ford system from birth

continuously for a few years.

Because it's a captive HMO environment, meaning it provides the insurance and it

provides the medical care, it has most of the health records for these kids,

including if they go out of the Henry Ford medical system, Henry Ford...

as the insurer was still paying for it. So they had the health codes for all the

medical services that these kids got. So if you segregated out those kids, now

you have a cohort of children from birth for at least a few years where you knew

everything about them.

I previously was a program director at Henry Ford Hospital, so I know it well.

It's one of the best integrated health systems.

to do research.

Henry Ford receives over $90 million in annual research funding with nearly 700

residents and fellows and 53 ACGME accredited training programs.

I think Henry Ford, like other institutions, has a bias towards the

goodness of vaccines.

You can't miss it. It's a full page letter here from Henry Ford with 56

signatures saying in bold letters, the science is clear, vaccines.

save lives. If the results came back demonstrating that the battery of

vaccines was associated with chronic diseases and that unvaccinated appeared

healthy over time, such a result would be particularly convincing.

You know, I'm for vaccines.

I'm not, you know, I'm obviously for vaccines. I think it's the best way of

controlling infectious diseases which are deadly.

I'm for mandatory vaccination.

Henry Ford is mandatory vaccination because of me.

Henry Ford is one of about 90 health care systems across the United States

that are working to enroll a total of 30,000 volunteers in the Moderna-Cove

vaccine study as quickly as possible.

This is the worst pandemic of the last 100 years, and our best hope of dealing

with this is by having an effective vaccine.

Henry Ford is requiring all 33,000 staff members to be fully vaccinated by

September 10, 2021.

The health system says this is consistent with its existing vaccination

policy, which includes team members get the flu shot every year and stay current

with other vaccinations.

It appeared to me that Henry Ford was pro-vaccine, not anti-vaccine. So I had

to assume the only reason they would do the study was to prove us wrong.

Dell and I thought that was an excellent opportunity.

They can do the comparison and presumably they could get it published.

We only had one request.

The ask was, whatever the outcome, you publish it.

Would he stick to that if the results show that unvaccinated kids are

healthier? And when he realized that if he submitted that for publication, he's

going to face the wrath of his entire profession,

didn't know.

This was our greatest fear.

I mean, vaccines are the holy grail of modern medicine. And anyone that decides

to challenge vaccines in any way are essentially considered heretics.

Vaccines are safe.

Vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines are safe and highly effective.

Safe and effective.

Safe and they're highly effective.

Vaccines are one of humanity's most incredible accomplishments and they've

saved millions of lives. Childhood vaccines have prevented about four

million deaths around the world every year. The overwhelming majority of

pediatricians in this country strongly support vaccinations.

Missing her vaccination date. We're not vaccinating.

The schedule as it's currently recommended is well tested. We've

studied it down in so many millions of children. Billions of people. Decades of

extensive peer-reviewed scientific studies. Centuries of science. The

science is pretty settled. Settled for many years now. This idea that we're

taking too many vaccines. There's really no science to back that up. The

scientific community publishes paper after paper after paper.

There is nothing to see. There's nothing to see. I will not stand here and let

conspiracy theories. distract from real solutions.

Most doctors can't tolerate being called quacks or having their reputation

destroyed. And I went from treating the head of the laboratory at my hospital

for hypertension to becoming somebody that was doubted on every level after a

while because of one thing that I said, which was, can we stop giving vaccines

to my sick patients and give it to them on the day of discharge? And had they

not tried to intimidate me, doubt me, and pushed me to research and show that

what I saw was actually real, I would still be locked down. up working as a

regular doctor. The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the

governor, is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida law.

All of them. All of them. My experience with discussing or disclosing harms

associated with vaccines is that those are not welcome ideas or conversations.

That move from the Florida Surgeon General, a doctor there, drawing

condemnation from public health experts.

Whether it's ignorance, it's stupidity, or it's malice, at the end of the day,

people are going to get hurt.

He's not going to necessarily receive a warm embrace by some of the people in

his profession, but that's really what courage is all about.

It's a very hostile environment, both scientifically and in the media.

for individuals who reach conclusions or have opinions that counter mainstream

ideas.

Every independent scientist that has ever ventured into doing a vaccinated

versus unvaccinated study of any kind is immediately under assault.

There's one by Dr. Anthony Mawson out of Mississippi. He did a homeschool study

of about 600 kids and discovered alarming rates of allergies.

ADD, ADHD, neurological disorders, and a four-fold increased risk of autism

amongst the vaccinated.

As soon as the study came out, his job was under threat.

In fact, I asked him if he'd be in this film, and he said, look, you can show my

studies, but I have just been dragged through the coals on this. I can't take

anymore. Then there's Dr. Paul Thomas.

Hey, how are you guys doing? What I'm seeing on this side is a pink,

So, scarred up eardrum. I've been a pediatrician for 35 years. I'm now

retired. What I noticed in the first decade or so of my practice is kids were

getting sicker and sicker. And over the next decade, as more and more patients

chose not to vaccinate, I got to see the difference.

But I wanted to see, could I prove it?

So we got all the data from my practice. We looked at every baby born into my

practice and published it in an international journal of public health.

And that study was peer-reviewed. It was robust.

We found massive increases.

I mean, we're talking 400% to 500% more allergies, autoimmune conditions,

neurodevelopmental issues, and then we had infections of all kinds.

Massively increased in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

What happened when I published that study?

Within days of it being available online, I get a call from my attorney.

Don't go see any patients. Don't write any prescriptions. Don't go into the

office. Your license has been emergently suspended.

You are a threat to public health.

What's today?

Today is the last time I will be doing clinical medicine in Oregon.

Knowing that you guys are keeping it going, the heart of this place lives on.

So what if Dr.

Zervos does this study and it turns out exactly the same way as the others?

Would he still publish it? That was the question.

Years went by.

In 2020, I was informed they had put together a study.

And I had that study in my hand and I looked at it.

The significance of it.

It was an actual study that, when published, was the first step in

changing this landscape.

Weeks went by, and then more time went by, and at some point, what I learned

was it was not going to get submitted for publication.

Aaron called me and said they finished the study.

Only one problem.

They're not going to publish it.

I mean, it was everything we were afraid of.

I called Dr. Zervos and I said, can I fly out and meet you for dinner?

And he agreed.

I wanted to look Zervos in the eyes and ask him, what's so damning in this study

that you're afraid to publish it?

I wanted to know what was in this study. I hadn't seen it.

I also imagined there's got to be a way to talk him into publishing this study.

But one thing was for sure.

This was my last chance.

I'm going to bring hidden cameras and recording equipment so that no matter

what happens at this dinner, I can prove it happened.

What do you think about the study you guys have done?

It's important information because it did show a difference between the

groups. I don't know how to explain.

I don't know how to explain it, but it was an important finding.

I mean, the study was... Do you find flaws in the study? I mean, is there a

way you can do the study better with what's there?

Not that I know of.

No?

Impact of childhood vaccination on short and long-term chronic health outcomes in

children. A birth cohort study.

This one is really robust.

What were the results?

The CDC put out a white paper on how you would look at vaccinated versus

unvaccinated, and we followed it to 18.

I agree with that. No. You agree with that? I agree.

A hundred percent did.

We looked at this every other way and sideways.

I think this is a devastating commentary on our public health interventions.

Because if this is true, we are systematically making kids sick. And not

just a little bit sick.

Very sick.

Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.

I mean, I'm just curious.

What in this data makes you think...

it will be as catastrophic to your career as you think.

What was he so afraid of? The study was a bombshell.

18,468 subjects, 1,957 of them were fully

unvaccinated. When comparing the health outcomes of the vaccinated versus the

unvaccinated, they found an increased risk in the vaccinated of several

chronic health conditions.

The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma

diagnosis.

4.29 times in the adjusted.

And that seems, I've looked at a lot of studies, that's 3.26 to 5.65.

They also found three times the risk for atopic diseases.

Which is kind of a subset of allergic diseases.

They found a almost six times risk for autoimmune disease.

The autoimmune diseases this paper looked at include thrombocytopenic

purpura, rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus, MS,

multiple sclerosis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.

They mentioned there are over 80 different autoimmune diseases, and what

their data showed for autoimmunity, six times increase in those who got vaccines

when compared to the unvaccinated.

Which is staggering.

Because autoimmune disorders really represent significant morbidity and

health costs and suffering, you know, accrued over a lifetime.

Neurodevelopmental disorders.

What kind of numbers are we talking about? Do you remember?

Five and a half times risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

We know that the immune system is intimately connected with both brain

development and brain functioning.

When the immune system gets triggered by illness, potentially by vaccination, you

can get neuropsychiatric symptoms, presumably related to brain inflammation

and immune processes in the brain.

2.92 times the amount of motor disabilities.

4.47 times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to

the unvaccinated.

Three times the rate of developmental delay.

They found the same things I found related to allergy and autoimmunity.

Also, six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

Interestingly, there were several health conditions where they couldn't even do

this analysis because there were none in the unvaccinated group.

The way that the mathematical formulas work... You can't have a zero in any one

group and be able to compare risk.

For example, there were 262 children who had ADHD in the vaccinated group.

Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero cases of ADHD.

Zero. These ones are just mind-boggling. These conditions were not found at all

in almost 2,000 unvaccinated kids.

Zero brain dysfunction.

Zero diabetes.

zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual

disabilities, zero tics, and zero other psychological disabilities in the

unvaccinated.

I'm going to read the conclusion here. Despite this, in contrast to our

expectations, again, the author's expectations was they'd conduct the

study and...

Probably find vaccinated people a whole lot healthier than the unvaccinated,

right? This is what we found. We found that exposure to vaccination was

independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood

of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to

vaccination.

Any vaccine, even just one, compared to none.

At two and a half times more likely to have a chronic health condition.

There were no chronic health conditions associated with an increased risk in the

unexposed group.

None.

What does this graph mean?

Explain that to me.

No vaccines versus vaccines.

That's basically your likelihood of not having a chronic health condition.

They did something called time-to-event analysis.

At 10 years, the likelihood of being free from a chronic illness was

only 43% in the vaccinated group versus 83% in the

unvaccinated group.

It's a big difference.

So if you're unvaccinated, you stay up here above the...

Was it 80% of you are going to be perfectly healthy, whereas you're

dropping below the 50% tile?

Which is exactly what I've been stating. I've been saying 54% of America's

children have a chronic illness.

That's right there. That's basically what that's showing.

10 years follow-up.

57% of the vaccinated had a chronic health condition in just 10 years.

should shock everyone.

Let's remember, the entire conversation of the moment in America is the fact

that 54% of our children are chronically ill. And here we are looking at the

study and it's almost exactly those numbers.

57% of the vaccinated are chronically ill, whereas only 17% of the

unvaccinated.

I think because I have an interest in vaccines and I understand off-target,

nonspecific effects, I was sad, but I wasn't surprised.

I can tell you that these data are consistent with my greatest concerns

regarding the childhood vaccination schedule. That despite the good

intentions of the field of vaccinology, that is backfiring on us.

In virtually every single chronic health category, the vaccinated are doing far

worse.

But there is one issue. It's the one that I have been talking about for years

and puts me in the middle of this entire investigation, and that is autism.

And in this study, it appears that there was no statistical significance with the

vaccine-autism connection.

And I wanted to know why.

Yet autism...

It's neutral.

Does that mean we're wrong about autism, Mark? No. No?

No. No, there are a lot of variables involved and it's hard to control for.

When you don't have a lot of instances, as occurred here with autism, where you

only have 23 instances of autism in the vaccinated group and one instance of

autism in the unvaccinated group, that wasn't enough.

instances to actually be able to determine whether or not there is a

statistically significant increased rate of autism.

So even though the study shows all sorts of neurodevelopmental disorders, when it

comes to autism, there weren't enough children diagnosed with autism in this

group to answer that question. That is why studies like this need to be

replicated at even larger scales.

The fact is there's a signal, and the signal is...

unvaccinated kids healthy. That should be a very important positive study. The

converse of this is kids that are vaccinated, it doesn't look so good,

particularly for the neuropsychiatric disorders.

Looking at the measure of association, and I'm an epidemiologist, I live in

this, neutral is one.

Neutral means no association is one.

If it's two, it means there's a two-fold risk.

When we're doing non-randomized data, especially from corporate data stores,

what have you, we have a higher threshold. And a good threshold to

remember is four. If there's a four-fold increased risk in a data set, if we were

to go do this somewhere else, almost certainly we would find an association

when this is telling us that the risk relationship is greater than four.

I was sitting at that dinner reading the study for the first time and thinking,

oh my God, the world needs to see this study.

But the more I pressed Dr. Zervos to publish it, the more excuses he had.

I think it's a good study, but it doesn't have limitations to it. The

argument against it is going to be that it's, same thing, retrospective, it's

not a controlled group.

There's other factors involved.

It's a heterogeneous group of conditions.

The perfect example was hydroxychloroquine.

Did I happen to mention that not only was Dr. Zervos at the center of the

Flint, Michigan water crisis, he was also at the center of the

hydroxychloroquine study that was done by Ford and showed a 50% reduction in

death for those that received hydroxychloroquine. And for that, he got

attacked by Tony Fauci and virtually everybody in mainstream media and the

medical world.

The Henry Ford Hospital.

A study that was published was a non-controlled retrospective cohort

study. So that study is a flawed study.

The PR at Henry Ford, they put a gag order on me. I couldn't talk about

anything. They said to me, Mark, so what? So

you go on CNN.

They would be happy.

They'd be thrilled to have you on CNN.

And you say what you feel. But they're just going to twist what you say anyway.

and make you look bad anyway.

So what good is it? So I should still be able to defend myself and say what the

inaccuracy is.

So I'm thinking to myself, maybe the Henry Ford PR was right, is that it's

just going to get twisted around anyway, make you look bad, and you get fired. So

what good does it do?

So what's going to happen with this one is the same thing, is that somebody's

going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study is flawed, as

opposed to...

looking at it in the way that it should be looked at. How about looking at this

as important scientific information that can inform how the Harvard study should

be done when we take them like that?

And then I can say, why?

Because there's a political agenda.

I get it. It has its issues.

Any retrospective study is always going to have the same problems.

It's always going to have the same attacks upon it.

There are limitations to retrospective studies.

That's the reason why we like to do randomized clinical trials when we can

because they don't have the same limitations.

The major one that you have to worry about with retrospective studies is

things that are different between the groups that you're comparing that you're

unable to account for.

If you want a flawless study, do a placebo-controlled trial. Any

retrospective study is going to have flaws in it.

But in this study, they made a point to address many of the flaws that they

found themselves.

If someone were critical of the study, I think issues that a researcher might

raise would be things like the different lengths of follow-up for the groups

between the children who receive no vaccines and the children who receive

vaccines. The authors actually did do a sensitivity analysis.

where they limited the analysis to children who had at least a certain

amount of follow-up. When they limited the follow-up time for both the

vaccinated and the unvaccinated to one year, it's still 2.75 times higher rate

of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limited it to three years,

it's 3.38 times the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated.

And when they limit it to five years, it's four times greater.

So no matter what they did to limit the follow-up time, the results of the study

didn't change.

The results indicate that the different follow-up period really did not have a

substantial effect on the research question that they were probing.

Another concern is that there are just big differences in how likely

the children who received no vaccines were to seek health care compared to the

children who received vaccines.

So in other words, could the differences we're finding in the study just be due

to the fact that these kids were being seen less often and so they're getting

fewer diagnoses?

To try and address this, they limited the population of children who didn't

receive any vaccines to children who at least had some number of medical

visits. And even in that sensitivity analysis, the main findings persisted.

In this study, they adjusted for confounders. Confounders can be age,

socioeconomic status, gender, racial, ethnic group, and used a technique

called Cox proportional hazards, which means holding all other factors equal.

What's the relationship between the factor of interest and the outcome?

Even after they were adjusted for, the effect of these characteristics was

actually pretty small.

I actually expected that those adjustments would have a really powerful

effect, but they actually didn't. And when you do a lot of sensitivity

analysis and what you're seeing doesn't change much, that can be reassuring. The

authors did a good job with the information that they had. I have seen

studies on vaccines published in good journals that are much weaker in

quality.

Is what your study shows, is it important?

Yeah, it is important. You know who you should send it to? Which is what I told

you a while ago.

Because I'm not going to do it, because I don't want to end up like Diddy or...

I don't want to suffer like McCullough did.

But here, I give him credit for taking it, you know, and standing up for it.

But, um...

I'm just not going to do it. I'm not going to do it.

In any other climate, in a regular climate, you would have put this study

out just as it is, right? If we weren't in this world of censorship... I'd put

it out just as it is. You would? I'd put it out just as it is.

I'd like to just finish out my work, you know, doing international work.

Part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it

other than me losing my job, which I'd rather not.

See, I'm open to it. We're here because I fully respect you, and I recognize the

danger of, I said to you, I said to you, if you do this study,

I'm going to repeat it because I remember, I said, if you do the study,

you're going to come under fire. You said, I don't care about that. I'm all

about the data, and I'm about to retire anyway. That's literally what you said.

Yeah. So your energy has definitely changed on that. Energy changed.

Let me put it this way.

I put my whole career on the line because I saw an issue. Because what? I

saw an issue that is affecting the children of America and the world. We

have a serious growing problem about immune disease, chronic illness.

I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause, but I am saying this program

needs some serious work.

We had much better health when we were getting 10, 20 vaccines.

At 54 shots with 72 doses, it is clear we are not making our children

healthier. They're going the wrong direction.

If there's a way to do this program better, which I believe, you know, I've

never said I'm trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet, but we are at

an autism rate now of, what, 1 in 26, 28?

We have some serious...

I actually agree with that. There's a different way we could be doing it.

Right, but how do we get there if I finally, what are the odds?

I find someone like you that has got the clout.

If I can't get the study out, then what hope is there for every kid in the

future? I can't do shit for them.

Unless there's a change in leadership, nothing that's going to happen.

Publishing one study like that.

like this one, is not going to... It's actually the right thing to do. I don't

want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but I

just don't want to... And I don't want to have enough problems, but I've got

enough things like that that I'm already dealing with.

I don't want... Hold on. Hold on. I just want to say this.

This is the Galileo moment. I believe this changes more lives than anything

there is. If we can fix the vaccine program, it doesn't just change millions

of children's lives in America. It changes worldwide.

You'll be the father of the change in the system.

That's historic.

And I want to work with you to do that.

This is why we're here.

Yeah. No, I see what you're saying.

We have an ability to do something that no one ever dreamed is possible.

If it's not you, then who?

For some reason, hammering has always come towards me. No, I can't handle it.

I really can't. No, I'm not a good person. I can't handle it.

I'm not a good person, but I'm just not going to do it. I'm not going to do it.

You've got a lot of stuff to worry about.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, like, really emotional.

You know, he's just going to compartmentalize it away.

I think someone could look at this and be like, it's unconscionable. How could

he?

And I think the way that he can is like the way we all can do things that, you

know, like not do things we don't want to do is we just convince ourselves, you

know, he's saying like, it doesn't matter. This is one study. It won't move

the needle.

It's too much for me. I can't. And, you know, maybe he's right. Maybe it is too

much for him.

It's very important that the study sees the light of day.

In the scientific literature, and for the advancement of science, we must have

balance. There are always pros and cons to everything.

And when we have a deep-seated religious bias in favor of vaccines,

we've lost balance. And when we lose balance, the entire scientific

enterprise goes off track. And when that happens, large populations are harmed.

I cannot help but ask myself the question, how many children will suffer

a chronic illness that they maybe wouldn't have to suffer had this

information been out there?

I treat a lot of kids with neurodevelopmental disability and

neuropsychiatric illness, and their lives and their families' lives are

hell. And I know so many parents who suffer all kinds of guilt. The parents

who've had adverse reactions or who've witnessed neurodevelopmental regression

in connection with vaccination, they are devastated.

I've had so many mothers say to me, my child is like this because of me.

At my hand, I did this to them.

I think we are absolutely destroying our future by destroying the overall health

of our most precious asset, our children.

We need to know if this is true.

We are morally and ethically obligated to replicate this study.

again and again and again and find out if this is accurate and if this is true.

We have to. The fact that this study hasn't been peer-reviewed and hasn't

been published is extremely concerning.

It's important knowledge, and other health care systems really do need to

replicate the analysis.

This question really does need to be probed. It's a very important research

question. I challenge you, yes, you the doctors, you the researchers, do the

research. Find within your data set, within your system, those who are

unvaccinated and compare them to the vaccinated cohort.

This is one data set. You could replicate this again. There are other

captive payer systems.

Let Kaiser Permanente Southern California do it.

And let the Harvard Pilgrim System in Boston do it.

And all the other health systems around the country. And maybe even the CDC with

the VSD.

And with that, we can start actually addressing the problem that these

vaccines might cause. If these results are valid, this is an absolute sea

change in our understanding of the off-target and nonspecific effects of

vaccination. And we will have to reconsider the way we go about our

vaccination program.

This is a cease and desist letter we received from the attorneys for Henry

Ford Health.

This letter leads me to believe that they really don't want us to release

this film.

In the letter, Henry Ford accuses us of defamation for saying that the

unpublished study wasn't submitted for publication due to the results of the

study. They assert that the reason the study was never submitted for

publication was, quote, due to significant and serious flaws in its

data and methodology.

And because it did not come close to meeting the rigorous scientific

standards Henry Ford Health and its researchers demand.

But we just heard from Dr. Marcus Zervos, the lead author on this

unpublished study and a world-leading expert on infectious disease at Henry

Ford. He told me he believed the study was a good study and he would publish it

just as it is. Only one problem. If he does publish it, he believes it would be

the end of his career.

He'd be finished.

Not my words, but his.

Now, even if Dr. Zervos stands by his study, does that mean it's a perfect

study? Of course not.

Can we say that the Henry Ford study proves that vaccines are causing the

chronic disease epidemic?

No, we cannot.

A retrospective study does not prove causation. What we can say is that we

believe it is showing a signal, a red flag waved in the air by the scientific

method. Houston, there may be a real problem here.

Now this concern is heightened by the fact that this unpublished study does

not stand alone.

It's not an anomaly.

It now stands with several other studies that have all shown similar signals.

So there will certainly be attacks on the limitations of this study, which can

be found in most retrospective studies. And we acknowledge those limitations.

But the only way to really refute it is to do your own vaccinated versus

unvaccinated study.

and prove us wrong.

That's what I believe Dr. Zervos attempted to do and failed.

But as parents watching this film right now, you have to ask yourself a very

important question.

Why hasn't a single health agency or major medical institution in the world

been able to produce one single vaccinated versus completely

unvaccinated study that shows that the vaccinated children are healthier?

Wasn't that the entire purpose of the vaccine program?

To make our children healthier?

And although this may be an inconvenient study for anyone who said that the

vaccine program was safe, there is a bright side.

In every one of these studies so far, there is a group of children who are

thriving, who aren't suffering from many of the ailments that plague America's

children.

who have barely any cases of neurodevelopmental disorders or

autoimmune disease, they are living in a world that is flourishing with health

because their parents went in a different direction.

You now have even more data.

You've been informed. What are you going to do about it?

That choice is yours.