462: Del Bigtree—An Inconvenient Study

Summary

Podcast Summary

The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe

Episode 462: Del Bigtree—An Inconvenient Study
Date: December 9, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this compelling episode, Mike Rowe sits down with Del Bigtree, filmmaker and activist, to discuss Bigtree’s recent film, An Inconvenient Study. The conversation centers on the contentious and often emotional debate around vaccine safety, medical freedom, and public trust in scientific and governmental institutions. Rowe grapples—personally and publicly—with the fallout from discussing these topics, the erosion of trust in experts, and what it means for American society. The discussion dives deep into Bigtree’s investigation, the study at the center of his film, and the broader implications for science, journalism, and public health.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Erosion of Trust in Institutions

• Public Skepticism: Rowe discusses his personal journey with skepticism toward institutions—especially regarding health, science, and journalism. He asserts a significant portion of the public no longer trusts these pillars:
  • “Half the country no longer trusts the experts.” (22:52, Mike Rowe)
• Polarization and Debate: Rowe shares how his previous interview with Gavin de Becker ignited controversy, highlighting the lack of middle ground in public discourse around vaccines and health risks.
  • “In my ecosystem, no middle... The people who are angry are very angry. The people who are relieved and emboldened are tremendously so.” (19:17, Mike Rowe)

2. The Core of An Inconvenient Study

• Premise: The film centers on a large, unpublished retrospective study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children within the Henry Ford Health system.
• Findings: The unreleased study showed a dramatically increased risk of chronic disease in vaccinated children compared to their unvaccinated peers:
  • Chronic disease risk: “2.5 times the rate of chronic disease if you've been vaccinated compared to those that are not vaccinated... 57% of these children will end up with chronic disease if they were vaccinated. In the unvaccinated group, it's only 17%.” (58:28-61:11, Del Bigtree)
• Barriers: The study remained unpublished, with the lead scientist refusing to release it over fear for his career, despite initially promising to publish regardless of results.
  • “But I'm not that guy. I don't want to lose my job, so I'm not doing it.” (63:56, Dr. Zervos, as recounted by Rowe/Bigtree)

3. The Role of Science and Journalism

• Skepticism is Essential: Both hosts repeatedly stress that questioning is the foundation of science and journalism.
  • “If the question ever stops being asked or is not allowed in the room, then science has just been converted into a religion.” (26:13, Del Bigtree)
  • “Profoundly skeptical, deeply annoying to power… The press, the last thing… should care about is ratings.” (25:41, Mike Rowe)
• Comparison to Religion/Dogma: Both observe that the conversation about vaccines and health policy has become dogmatic and faith-based, replacing humility and curiosity with arrogance.
• Demands for Evidence: The hosts call for transparent, robust scientific debate and the publication of all relevant studies.
  • “We just want to see the evidence. Ask your doctor to show you a placebo based trial.” (55:11, Del Bigtree)

4. Conflict, Courage, and Human Nature

• Institutional and Personal Cowardice: The film’s most poignant moment involves Dr. Zervos admitting he won’t publish for fear of retribution, which leads both Rowe and Bigtree to reflect on courage in science and journalism.
  • “The guy is sitting there agreeing that the study is solid, and he doesn't know he's being recorded... but he says, I'm not that guy. I don't want to lose my job.” (63:56, Mike Rowe)
  • “That moment in your movie is transcendent... it's tragic. Because in the same way that I think curiosity and humility are two of the three legs... the third is courage.” (66:04, Mike Rowe)
• Ethics of Hidden Cameras: Both discuss the ethical ambiguity of recording people without their knowledge, especially in the pursuit of exposing truths for the public good.
  • “I don't know how I feel about you either.” (67:03, Mike Rowe)
  • “To be honest, I'm conflicted about it.” (67:05, Del Bigtree)

5. What Is to Be Done?

• Call for Large-Scale, Transparent Studies: Bigtree advocates for a massive, collaborative, retrospective study—one he hoped Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would commission as HHS Secretary.
• The Need for Public Pressure: Bigtree insists change will only come when enough people demand it, drawing parallels to other social movements.
• Not Anti-Vaccine, But Pro-Transparency: Both Rowe and Bigtree are careful to stake out positions that are skeptical, not absolutist.
  • “I don't believe science is ever settled.” (81:00, Del Bigtree)
  • “Are you still open to the possibility that vaccines could truly be one of the greatest breakthroughs?” — “Yes.” (80:28-80:29, Mike Rowe/Del Bigtree)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Erosion of Institutional Trust

• “At least half the country no longer trusts the experts.” — Mike Rowe (22:52)
• “I think as a country we've entered an age where skepticism has never been more important on every single level.” — Mike Rowe (53:41)

On Courage and Cowardice

• “But I'm not that guy. I don't want to lose my job, so I'm not doing it.” — Dr. Zervos (63:56, recounted)
• “That moment in your movie is transcendent in so many ways... it's tragic.” — Mike Rowe (66:04)

On Science and Journalism

• “Science must be questioned. If the question ever stops being asked or is not allowed in the room, then science has just been converted into a religion.” — Del Bigtree (26:13)
• “If you are pro-vaccine, from my perspective, you're anti-science because they've never done the science.” — Del Bigtree (76:49)

On the Study's Results

• “2.5 times the rate of chronic disease if you've been vaccinated compared to those that are not vaccinated.” — Del Bigtree (58:28)
• “No retrospective study has ever indicated that the vaccinated are healthier.” — Mike Rowe (61:38)

On the Role of the Public

• “Success is... I live in a nation... that demands that we get involved with our government, that we ask for what we want, we vote for the things we believe, and we focus on the things we care about.” — Del Bigtree (75:53)
• “We just want to see the evidence.” — Del Bigtree (55:11)

On Institutional Apologies and Earning Trust

• “I want to trust the institutions again... They have to earn it back.” — Mike Rowe (87:17)
• “I'm still waiting for an apology.” — Del Bigtree (87:20)
• “You know, Tony Fauci has admitted it in front of the Congress. We just made this stuff up. Okay then. And every news anchor that, you know, that intimidated us, that played on our empathy... Those people need to apologize.” — Del Bigtree (88:44)

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:03-05:44: Introduction, context, and summary of previous debates (Rowe)
• 07:31-10:38: Early conversation, origins of HighWire and ICANN, trust in experts (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 18:29-22:36: Public reaction, polarization, and ongoing loss of trust (Rowe)
• 25:41-26:13: The role of skepticism and questioning in journalism and science (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 31:09-34:00: The film’s content, findings of the study, and reaction to its suppression (Bigtree)
• 43:09-48:27: US children’s health, vaccine schedule increase, and plausible links to chronic disease (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 58:28-61:46: Detailed study numbers; stark difference in outcomes for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children (Bigtree)
• 63:56-67:08: The ethical dilemma and tragic scene with the lead scientist (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 75:53-79:40: What Bigtree wants to achieve with the film and movement (Bigtree)
• 80:28-83:57: The importance of never letting science become dogmatic; remaining open to evidence (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 87:17-88:44: Need for institutional accountability and apology (Rowe/Bigtree)
• 92:24-95:59: Demand for evidence-based medicine and full transparency (Rowe/Bigtree)

---

Tone and Language

The conversation is candid, reflective, and at times clinical, but also deeply personal and emotional. Both speakers use plain language, analogies, and humor to make their points, but the undercurrent is serious—conveying concern, urgency, and a sense of mission.

---

Conclusion

This episode stands out for its forthright, nuanced engagement with a volatile topic. Rowe and Bigtree urge listeners to stay curious, demand evidence, and recognize the role of skepticism in all fields that affect public life. The episode is both an exposé of a “suppressed” study and a meditation on the values of humility, courage, and free inquiry.

---

[Watch An Inconvenient Study for free at aninconvenientstudy.com]

---

For further engagement:

• Reach out or comment on Mike Rowe’s socials with your perspective, especially if you agree or disagree—your voice, like the evidence, matters.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, guys, it's Mike Rowe. This is the way I heard it. My guest today is Dell Big Tree and the title of this episode is An Inconvenient Study. Tell them why, Chuck. Well, that's the name of Del's most recent movie, An Inconvenience Study, which is about a study that is very inconvenient for a lot of people. Oh man. This is. If you don't follow me over on socials, let me just tell you real quick what's happened, like over the last month or so or two, I guess. I interviewed Gavin de Becker about his book called Forbidden Facts and it sort of went viral, I suppose. Lots and lots of conversation about this whole business of autoimmune diseases being linked to various vaccine schedules. And a lot of people were upset with me because they think that all of those theories are conspiracy theories and they think that all of those concerns have been debunked. And I completely respect that point of view. What I don't respect and what I wasn't persuaded by was the type of argument that sort of evolved over there on Facebook, which basically came down to shut up, Mike. The science is settled. That's been debunked. I can't believe you would hang out. Blah, blah, blah, blah, and a lot of ad hominent stuff. So anyway, this conversation has been ongoing. And for the record, I am not anti vaccine at all. In fact, I'm fully vaccinated, as far as I know, with every vaccine a person can get, including the COVID vaccine. Vaccine. But I'm troubled more and more here of late, specifically by the exploding instances of childhood diseases that are consistent with the exploding schedule of childhood vaccines. I think what you're trying to say, Mike, is that the more vaccine. As time goes by, kids are getting more and more vaccines and at the same time kids are getting more and more chronic diseases. Now, is it, Is it causation? Causation does not equal correlation. I understand that. And I'm also familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect. And I also realize I'm somewhat out of my lane as I've been reminded to have these concerns at all. But it's not just me. I mean, millions and millions and millions of people have lost their basic trust in science, in medicine and in journalism, and we're constantly confronted with experts who disagree. I mean, you can switch from Fox to CNN and you can see that, but you can also see it in virtually every scientific debate that's going on today. So flashing forward, I invited my friends over on the social channels to watch the movie we're about to to discuss. It's called an inconvenient study. I encourage you to watch it, too. You don't need to do it right now. You can do it after the conversation if you'd like. It's very powerful and it's upset a lot of people already. But for the life of me, I don't know where it's inaccurate. I can't find anything in the movie that is fundamentally false. But it's a movie that shows a study that was never published but nevertheless conducted that offers just a massive signal that something is amiss between a group, a large group of vaccinated kids and unvaccinated kids. And to be clear, we're talking about the childhood vaccination schedule, not the COVID vaccine.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Although, Del Bigtree, my guest, has a lot to say about the COVID vaccine. And you know what? I do, too. Not just the vaccine, but the impact of living through the last four years. I still think a big chunk of the country is suffering a kind of post traumatic stress. I still think we're trying to come to grips with the fact that trust has been broken. And so a big chunk of my audience, whom I adore, are still very much of a mind that we should defer to the experts and not read books written by criminologists about childhood vaccine schedules.

[B]

Yes. Correct.

[A]

And so what this really is is a conversation about experts versus people who are deeply concerned about contradictions in the data. Make of it what you will. I promised that I would watch this movie in the wake of the aforementioned conversations. And many people asked me to invite Del on, who I have met before. And you'll learn very, very, very soon. Under what circumstances. But if your mind is open, I believe you're going to enjoy all of this. If it's not.

I look forward to hearing from you over on Facebook. An inconvenient study indeed with Del Big Tree right after this.

There are lots and lots of digital picture frames out there to choose from, but only one is on 495 individual gift guides. That's unprecedented. Only one is recommended by Oprah Winfrey, who has put it on her list of favorite things three years in a row now. Only one is universally adored by the geeks over at Wired magazine and PC magazine. And perhaps most importantly and with all due modesty, only one is routinely and enthusiastically endorsed by me. It's true. I, Michael Rowe, own two aura digital picture frames, and I love them. I've also given them to at least a dozen People for Christmas over the last two years, they love them, too. Everybody loves Aura Digital picture Frames. And honestly, if you want to know what makes them superior to all the others, just go to their website and see this thing in action. There is no better way to share pictures with friends and family. No easier way, no more affordable way. And really, no better gift for everyone on your list. Because right now you can get $55 off Aura's limited edition stone collection frame by using promo code ro when check out that's a u r a frames.com promo code row. This deal is exclusive to podcast listeners. It's only available while supplies last. Terms and conditions apply. Ho ho ho. At auraframes.com a u r a u r a u r a.

Frames.Com/Mike.

Well, first of all, where's your security?

[B]

I don't have any. You know, once I left Bobby's side, there was no security to be found.

[A]

I really figured. I figured you'd show up with two or three guys with suspicious bulges around their ankles and.

[B]

Yeah, I don't think, you know, I mean, you can't. You can't live in a world living like that, you know, being. And I don't think that's. It's not realistic for the way I want to live my life.

[A]

Well, good. Yeah, we've met. I guess this will be the third time.

[B]

I think it's about the third time. Like we met when I met you at Freedom Fest once in Memphis a.

[A]

Year and a half ago, maybe more.

[B]

I think it's more, but time flies. I've lost all track of time.

[A]

I was at a thing called Freedom Fest, and it was Memphis. I'd heard your name, but I didn't know about the High Wire, which I believe that's what I was on.

[B]

Yeah, we saw you were there. Said, would you mind dropping in and being a guest on the High Wire? And so.

[A]

And I Googled it, and I'm like, holy cow, man. What is this jagged little pill all about? I mean, I was intrigued by. By everything I kind of read. And I showed up early in the morning, and you guys had taken over a suite in the hotel.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it was like a MASH unit or something. I mean, you have a great team.

[B]

And they're on it. They get it done. They make miracles out of, you know, square boxes with no windows and, you.

[A]

Know, it's a big team.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How many are on it now?

[B]

Is.

[A]

And is it still.

[B]

I'd say, you know, the High Wire and ICANN are nonprofit. Is probably about 25 people, maybe 30. And then, of course, half of the work we do is legal. And so our, you know, Aaron Seri is our lead attorney, but we've sort of built that out. I mean, that his, you know, group probably got 20 or 30 people that work for us.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Pretty full time suing the government, trying to, you know, use this topic of medical freedom as a way to wake people up to the fact that you're about to lose freedom. You know, if you don't control your body, if you're not the one that's responsible for the bodies of your children, then we're. I don't think we're in. I don't think we're free people.

[A]

What does ICANN stand for?

[B]

Informed Consent Action Network.

[A]

And why are so many people opposed to it?

[B]

I think we are challenging what is really a dogma. We want to say it's science. I think we're transitioning to the space where people like yourself, I think, are finally asking the right questions. You know, you can't have an intelligent look at the world, be open to. Anything's possible. We've been lied to in so many different ways that at least I have to be open to the possibility. Right. I mean, I think. Isn't the definition of insanity believing you've got it right and everyone else has got it wrong or some form of that? I think we have to have.

[A]

Well, I think that's it. You know, that's the definition of narcissism.

[B]

Oh, maybe narcissism insanity is doing the.

[A]

Same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But they're adjacent.

[B]

Yeah. So we're in a time now, and I think Covid woke a lot of people up to an issue that I've been working on for since really 2016, which is vaccine safety.

[A]

Your first film was vaxxed.

[B]

Yeah. So we are. We've made a lot of headway. I mean, I think watching Robert Kennedy Jr. Get sworn as HHS secretary. You know, I was director of communications. We met there, too.

[A]

That was the second time we met.

[B]

Yeah, we were sitting. I was. One of my favorite meetings of all times was interviewing you as the potential to be vice president for Robert Kennedy. The way you handle that meeting was beautiful. The way you speak is phenomenal. And as a director of communications, I can say I almost shed a tear when I watched you handling the press coming in on you. You know, why were you asked what's going on there? And when I watched you handle that, I just thought, oh, my God, he Would have been such a dream that would have made my job so easy. Your understanding of press, how. How to handle it, how to be gracious, but factual and articulate, it's something that you obviously, I mean, you've been at this for so long, but it's also something you can't teach somebody. You can't bring someone in and stick them into vp, into very, you know, into a very controversial presidential campaign that we had with Robert Kennedy Jr. And, you know, well, look, it would have been awesome to have someone that could handle the press as well as you.

[A]

Do, but thanks, but the country deserves. I'm a single issue guy, you know, and I'm not a political animal. And I knew both of those things when Bobby called and he encouraged me to take the meeting anyway because he said. He said, you'll have a story. And you know what? He's so right. And life is, you know, even when you're pretty sure you're going to do or not do a thing, it just no one had. I was flattered, you know, I was flattered. And I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things that Bobby at least says, I understand, but I was just so interested in the idea that he would be that interested in me. It was just so basic, you know? And, you know, I brought Mary, my business partner, and we were driving over, and she's like, you say yes to this and there's gonna be a hole in the wall shaped like me running.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

You understand that, right?

[B]

I'm like, yeah.

[A]

Look, I'm not gonna say yes, but I just felt like there was a strange triangulation going on in my business and in the country where I was getting a lot of calls. And I think I had been made strangely relevant by the headlines and by events, right? As Harold MacMillan famously said, Events, dear boy, events. And, you know, I remember talking to you in Memphis about this. When we sat down and did your show. I just. It was like that, to me, felt like the very beginning of the crumbling of our institutions and an almost primal level of trust that was suddenly feeling very wobbly. And really, I just wanted to see what Bobby had to say about that. I didn't know you were gonna be in the room. Yeah, I didn't know Cheryl was gonna be in the room. I didn't know any of the cats were gonna be there. And it wasn't fun, but, boy.

I'll never forget it. And what struck me more than anything was the fact that a simple and inevitable. No, it took me a month to say. Because you know what he said to me? Man, that really stuck. He said, yeah, yeah. You disagree with me on this? You disagree with me on that. We were talking about energy, and I'm like, look, man, I'm friends with Charles Koch. He supports my foundation. He said, ah, yeah, I sued him a couple times.

I know, but he said, listen, I don't need to be surrounded by people who agree with me on everything. Tell me if you disagree with the idea that the middle class needs a better shake. I said, no, I don't. Tell me if you disagree with the idea that these constant wars are a bad idea. I said, no, I don't. And then tell me if you don't think we're the sickest country on earth right now. I said, I do. He goes, well, Ian, you agree with the things that keep me up at night.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's why I couldn't just say no. And the last thing he said was, this Microworks thing, I can make it macro works. Yeah. And that has stuck with me to this day. So when you see him again, tell him, thanks for that turn of phrase, because we are now. I mean, much of what he suggested I ought to think about doing is happening.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So it does feel like a lot of what we've discussed in the past is just like a leaf in the tide. You know, it's just. It's just everything's being pushed forward and there's kind of a. Just an inevitability about things. That's interesting. Time to be alive.

[B]

I think it's. I mean, I think that's the gift we've been given. If you stop complaining about what's happening and realize, you know, what is it? The ancient proverb, may you live in interesting times? We absolutely do. And I think that that moment, you know, we were a ragtag, you know, group of people. I'd never run a campaign in my life, hadn't really been around politics. I'm just a media guy. And, you know, but I love Bobby. I've loved what he stood for, and I think we all. And the reason I think, I love that meeting with you is I think, as you said, we all feel like there's a providence to the life we're in at this moment. There's something really important that whether it's happening has to happen. For this dream of America to succeed or to continue, we need change. We need people that care and are passionate. And I think that that was what we were trying to put together to say. No matter what this Team as it moves with Bobby, the four of us in the room, it was like Amaryllis Kennedy, I think, Charles Eisenstein and I. And we all left our lives because we felt this calling, that this is a ride to get somewhere. And, you know, I've thought about it. I think, you know, I was standing in the Oval Office when Bobby put his hand on the Bible and got sworn in. And it was really. I just thought to myself, did I ever. First of all, this is perfect. It's perfect that he's going to be head of hhs, the most powerful position in health in the world. The main reason I was with him was I want medical freedom. I want people to be able to make their own medical choices. I want transparency in science, which has disappeared. Bobby stood for all those things. And so the idea was, if he runs for president, if he could get that job, he can put someone into HHS and start cleaning up. You know what I think are corrupt agencies that are not out for our best interest. And now he's not going to be distracted by wars or any other problem. He gets to focus right on that. But it's interesting because I thought about it and was thinking, did I ever picture him being president? I mean, I passionately stood there. I put up the big shows when he went into. When he, you know, when he announced, I, you know, direct. Decorated that stage, directed it. I put up the stage when we ran his independents. And now all of a sudden, we're gonna join, you know, President Trump, and I'm running ads to move Bobby's, you know, voters over to Trump. And. But I just thought, you know, a lot of, like, sort of, you know, New age thinking would be put the vision board, you know, put Bobby at the Oval Office desk. Like, I never did anything like that.

[A]

Y.

[B]

And I don't think anyone on the team did. I don't think. I think what we felt was something big is happening. We're on a wave. We don't know what this wave is. We're not going to judge it. We're just going to keep just doing what seems like the next right move. Bobby is going. Somewhere in here, it may be president. Whatever it is, it feels too big to stop. And so, you know, I think that's how I see the world now, which is, I don't know how this all ends, but I know that my job is to just do the next right thing.

[A]

Very simply, I invited you on because I had a fascinating conversation with Gavin. I've talked. Gavin and I have become friends as A result of this meeting. And I really wanted to talk to him in person. Here again. He came in once, it was maybe a year ago, I guess.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And Forbidden Facts came out and I read it and I thought, oh God, I'm just asking for trouble, but I need to talk to him. And so a couple weeks ago we had a chat and, you know, this podcast gets its share and I got whatever, 8 million people on social. But I wrote what I wrote and I put it out there and man.

Whatever. This is indicative of you, tell me. But people don't share little videos and podcast posts. It's just a promotional thing. I mean, this thing is. Thousands of people have shared it. Hundreds of thousands have read it. The people who are angry are very angry. The people who are relieved and emboldened and grateful for a book like this are tremendously so. And so I'm like, really seeing in my ecosystem, no middle.

Every day somebody asks me if the current deal for Pure Talk is legit. And I don't blame them. It does sound too good to be true. The deal in question is called Unlimited for Life. It includes unlimited talk, unlimited text, and unlimited data for just 29.95amonth.

[B]

For life.

[A]

Not your phone's life, your life. People are having a hard time believing they can lock in their wireless rate for unlimited talk, text and data for just 29.95amonth. But it's true. You can if you do it right now, because Unlimited for Life expires on December 14th. The deal includes a 30 gig hotspot on a crazy fast 5G network. This is PureTalk's top tier plan. It's normally 65 bucks a month, which means at just $29.95 a month, you save 50% every month from now until the day you shuffle off your mortal coil and join the choir. Invisible, which I hope is many years from now. Go to PureTalk.com ro lock in the best rate for unlimited talk, text and data for as long as you live. You can switch in as little as 10 minutes. You can keep your current phone, you can keep your current number, and. And you can start saving right now. Taxes and fees are not included. Some restrictions do apply. See PureTalk.com for details. Offer ends 12 14. Again, PureTalk.com ro for the deal of your lifetime. Pure Talk.

No, there's no middle. And it was the fallout of that initial post and I sent you my rejoinder just because I wanted you to see what was going on in a tertiary way as a result of Gavin's book. And now the whole thing has just got me thinking more broadly about what in the actual hell is going to happen as a result of this colossal erosion of trust. Yeah, not by everyone. There's still plenty of people in the country who are quick to tell me the science has been settled and that all that nonsense has been debunked and that Bobby Kennedy's a loon and that. Haven't you heard? What are you talking about? You don't get your advice from a criminologist. I get my advice from a scientist. And I'm like.

Do you not remember what just happened over the last four years? Never mind Agent Orange, never mind Thalidomide, never mind the Tuskegee syphilis study. Right. And so I'm most interested in getting your thoughts. And obviously, I want to talk about your movie, which I watched last night twice.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

But I want to. I think the reason I took that meeting with Bobby and I think the reason we're both kind of fumbling to articulate the strangeness of whatever it is is happening is because at least half the country no longer trusts the experts.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I understand why. When the experts can't agree, then it falls to somebody somewhere to make a call. And that's an awful lot to ask when the stakes are mortal, when they're your kid and when you're a parent who is not a scientist, but hoping against hope that something persuasive and rational is going to land in your lap. End of rant. But that's where I am. And since you've. This is your stock and trade.

[B]

Yeah, Well, I mean, it's funny because you sent me that post and your response to that post, about 30 seconds after, I was sitting at lunch with my friend here in LA and I said, the fact that Mike Rowe is going to have this conversation.

Shows you where we're at, that he is going. That he is stepping into a space I don't believe two years ago he would have ever stepped into three months ago. You know, And I think Covid is a part of it. I think there's a lot that's happened. But also this conversation has changed. We've managed to make it a mainstream question. Maybe, as you said, I think we're at least. I think we're at 50, 50 now, whereas it used to be 3 to 5% at best, 10% of people against the 90 that just thought it settled. And so there's been a massive shift. And that shift has been being driven when you talk to Gab, when You look at the data, as they say, vaccine hesitancy tends to be higher educated individuals, lawyers, doctors that are questioning it, which is not what you would expect. And so, you know, we have got to be allowed to ask questions. And you know, you're in media. This is what I say is a journalist, which is why I'm not a medical expert, just like Gavin. I'm just a journalist. So I'm not here to give anyone medical advice. I just know how to research things. I know how to read studies, I know how. And I've been suing the government, looking for information that they say is there, which hand it to me, I'd like to see it. But oh ye of little things, right? I mean, you know, but ultimately if we can't ask questions, which is the heart of a journalist, that's my job. My job as far as I'm concerned, is the fourth estate. We're the fourth branch of government. Our founding fathers said there's going to be this other non official part of our government which is essentially media. The press has got to never shirk its duty to ask the most ridiculous questions, the most pressing questions, the most important questions. It should have no allegiance to a government that's in power or to any industry around it. It should be completely free to investigate whatever it wants to investigate.

[A]

And profoundly skeptical, profoundly skeptical, deeply annoying to power. In every event, the press, the last thing the media should care about, the last thing a good journalist should care about is ratings, likability, Q scores. They should be inherently disagreeable and as free of ego as a good scientist. I mean those two things are so close, Del.

[B]

That's why I'm bringing it up, because I think it's the same foundational principle for science. It's the exact same principle. The question is the core of the value of the task. Science must be questioned. If the question ever stops being asked or is not allowed in the room, then science has just been converted into a religion. And the entire purpose of science was to get out of this faith based. We're afraid of. You know, I remember going to the Anasagi ruins and reading that they had a ceremony. I don't know how they knew it, but they had a ceremony where they would ask the sun to come back in the winter. And I just like, I almost had tears. The humility that these people didn't know if the sun's gonna come back. We have to have a ceremony to ask it to come back. We didn't wanna live like that. We wanna know what is the sun doing what is, you know, science is gonna explain everything and, you know, finding that balance with religion and science. But now when we're in a culture where you're a herit, I mean, it's a religion, you're a heretic. If you question the vaccine program, you're a heretic. If you question, you know, the regulatory agencies and why are they making decisions, you're a, wait a minute. How much funding is coming in from pharma into government? You know, why can't we ask these questions and, you know, just. And we're going to get deeper into it. But I would just, I said to Bobby just the other day when I watched the last hearing with Bernie Sanders railing into him, I said, bobby, you know, the next time Bernie rails, you know, lays into you, I would point out, bernie, we agree that pharma lies all the time. We agree that pharma puts out products that are dangerous. We agree that there's too much funding coming from pharma into the government. If you and I sat down, we would be in total agreement that the drug companies are out of control, that they're pushing products on kid, that we're over diagnosing things. You would agree, agree, agree. But if I take this word drug and convert it and suddenly call it a vaccine, Bernie's out, I'm out. You're out. Not suddenly you're out. There's no questions. There's. This is, this is made by angels. It's not the same industry. It's got to be a different part of the building, a different wing, beautiful people. Only there to help people. Doesn't need to be tested, does it? You know, what the hell happened? We just, we just took some letters. Same thing. Some sort of witches brew of something that affects your body. And why can't we question it?

[A]

I looked. Dogma is such a great word. You used it before. You know the book Morals and Dogma?

[B]

No.

[A]

Alfred Pike. For years, it was the book that came out that revealed all the secrets of Freemasonry. And so for many, many, many years, there was a standing order among the Scottish rites to, you find that book in a library, you take it. You don't bring it back. You just get that book out of the space. But I just always loved the combination of those two things, morality and dogma, and how one does not necessarily lead to the other. And how the religiosity that you're talking about has, I think, in the minds of a lot of people, infected both the fourth estate and the scientific community. Because look, science and journalism have so much in common, but the first is real curiosity, right? Like, you've got to be genuinely interested in getting.

Getting at the enlightenment of a thing, but you can't possibly be curious without being humble, which is another word you just used, humility. Because to be curious is to be fundamentally ignorant. You can't know the answer and be curious, right? So then how did both institutions wind up abdicating on humility, replacing it with arrogance, but still claiming curiosity? We're curious now, but we act as if we know, and we become offended if we're questioned. I Googled a bunch of stuff. I asked AI when you were on your way up here, and I said the same thing to Gavin. It's the AI can't talk about either one of you without every sentence being filled with these parentheticals who since debunked and not proven. And, I mean, it's to the point where it's almost impossible to read the sentence without all the modifiers in it, Right? So I guess if there's a question in this.

It does feel like it's. We're just running into a place. So if journalism and science have both lost the trust of the American people, what is the future of your film An Inconvenient Study? And how will that land? Because it just came out, right?

[B]

It came out, I guess, like, three. Just over three weeks ago, November 11, we won the Malibu Film Festival here in town, and then we put it out that night for free for everyone to watch An Inconvenient Study. It's put out by my nonprofit, and I'm really excited about what I'm seeing worldwide. I mean, the response is worldwide right now. What is it?

[A]

What is the response? And you know what? What is the movie?

[B]

Okay, yeah, let's just be clear, all right?

At the heart of this conversation of vaccine safety is how would we. How do we determine it? How do we know if vaccines are making us healthier or if they're making us sicker or if there's a balance? Or is it just some people? Maybe there's just a small group of people that are really having a bad outcome, and we should figure that out. None of those questions are currently allowed to be asked. As soon as you question at all, we've broken into safe and effective. Safe and effective. This mantrum that we've been living by. So I had the opportunity when I put out vaxxed in 2016. I was traveling the country, and we had a big bus that said vax on the side of It. And of course, that was about, really, autism. And the MMR vaccine was a very specific story about a whistleblower inside of the CDC named Dr. William Thompson that said, we're committing scientific fraud in our vaccine safety study, especially this MMR autism story. But people were signing the names of their injured children, their dead children, after vaccines. And I'll say this, you know, as a filmmaker, I made that film, was an executive producer on it. I knew there was an issue. But when we got kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival, that created.

A tidal wave of negative press like you've never seen, calling us baby killers, everything else. It was fantastic. It was like Passion of the Christ. Suddenly, I opened up in an art house theater, and there's a line down the block like it's the first Star Wars. It was amazing. And in the second screening, I asked, I want to know who that audience was. And so we were doing Q&As after every screening. And so I got up and I just said, would everyone with a vaccine injured child just please stand up? And three quarters of the room stood up, and it felt like the oxygen had been sucked out of the room. It was shocking. I knew. I mean, I'm thinking this is a small problem, Autism, small problem. And, you know, obviously they're being drawn to this film, but you should have seen the other, you know, 30 people looking at all of these people around them that are going through this really horrific experience. I ended up asking that question for three or four shows a day, for five days a week, an entire year, and the whole time, three quarters of the audience stood up. This thing is so much bigger.

[A]

And you had no idea.

[B]

And I really did. Had no idea.

[A]

Dumb. A lot of boxes are going to be opened later this month, and I hope the people on your list get to open a box from Good Ranchers. Why? Because every box from Good Ranchers is filled with high quality, 100% American raised beef, chicken, pork, or seafood, all sourced from local farms and ranches, all delivered right to your door. And gifting could not be easier. Go to goodranchers.com, choose any gift box, add a gift note, and then schedule the delivery date. Whether it's for family, friends, employees, or clients, Good Ranchers makes thoughtful gifting really simple. In fact, while you're there, why not give yourself the gift of a subscription to Good Ranchers? Use promo code Mike. You'll get 40 bucks off your first order. And when you subscribe, you'll also get to pick which of their best selling cuts you want. For free, in every order, for the life of your subscription. It's like a gift and a gift. I'm talking about free chicken thighs, free wagyu burgers, free bacon in every order for life. Once again, visit goodranchers.com. be sure to use code MIKE for 40 bucks off, plus free meat for [e-mail]. if you could eat a steer, if you could eat a cow don't take a chance on a foreign ranch. Get good ranchers now.

[B]

They had been silenced. We don't know how many are out there. No doctor knows how many. You know, how many people actually have autism. What is this thing? All of it. So, anyway, I was on tour with that film, and we were pulling up through Michigan, and someone said to me, I know the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health. I'm like, wow, that's like one of the greatest research institutes in the world. And I'm always up for a conversation as you are. You know, I'm a journalist. I'm fascinated. I don't know where this conversation is going to go.

[A]

You're curious.

[B]

So, yeah, I am. And he sat down with me at dinner and he started the conversation. Nice guy, Dr. Mark Zervos. Tiny little guy. And. And he said, you know, I watched your film back. It's very compelling. But you've been saying something as you're traveling the country, been watching your YouTube videos, and I found it very disturbing. You keep saying that we've never done the proper science to establish that vaccines are safe. And he's like, obviously, I take offense to that. I'm a. You know, I'm head of virology. I do. I mean, I'm a huge proponent for vaccines, and I sit on the biggest databases in the world. So I went to do the research on that so I could bring it to you and show you you're wrong. And he said, but I'm shocked that I actually have to tell you, you're right. I mean, you could tell. He's like, I cannot believe I have to admit this to you. And he said, 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've been saying. And he's like. And he even said, I've been watching. You're actually very careful about it. And I am, Mike. I'm not some. You know, of course, if you look at my Wikipedia or anything like that, it looks like you're some crazy lunatic. As Gavin De Becker.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

But you know, we're, I'm just asking really honest questions and looking for decent answers. Anyway. He said, I don't know what, what we're doing here. I don't know where this is going to go. I'm still pro vaccine. I said, well, hold on a second.

If vaccines are really making our children healthier, I think there'd be a way we can prove it. There's a study we keep wanting to see done, which is, why don't you compare the health outcomes of a completely vaccinated group of children to a completely unvaccinated group of children and just ask obvious questions, who's got more add, adhd, who has more autism? All these things that are skyrocketing in this country. And he said to me, I'll do that study. I said, really? Because CDC won't do it. No government in the world has ever done it. Shockingly, don't know why.

[A]

There must be, you know, there must be reasons.

[B]

I'm sure there's reasons. I speculate to those reasons in the film.

[A]

Well, you do, and they're logical and nefarious in equal parts. But are there other, like, is there an ethical concern about double blinds and placebos and using a vaccine that has already been deemed safe and effective and deliberately not giving it?

[B]

Like, definitely.

[A]

Is there that?

[B]

Yes. Well, that's, that's the, that's the argument that's being made. The argument is we can't do a double blind. So, so, you know, there's two things to talk about. What is the study? What establishes safety for a pharmaceutical product? It's very simple. The gold standard is a double blind placebo based trial. One group gets the drug, the other group gets a sugar pill painted to look just like the drug. They're double blinded, meaning the scientists don't know who got what, the people taking it don't know. And then we just track them, five, ten years, sometimes triple cancer drug scientists.

[A]

Don'T know, that group doesn't know and that group doesn't know.

[B]

Right? No one. Right. Correct.

[A]

No one knows.

[B]

The drug group doesn't know, the placebo group doesn't know, the scientist doesn't know. So definitely. And then after the end of long period of time, we look at health outcomes and then we unblind them and say, okay, who had more cancer, who had more diabetes, did anyone have a mutagenic effect, something like that. I mean, it's obvious. We learned this in high school. And what was so shocking is once I started investigating this, when I Was working at CBS as a producer on the daytime talks with the doctors. I won an Emmy award making science and medicine into entertainment. Your hair was longer, you know, it was longer, it was darker.

I remember thinner. I remember right with you. But so when I started looking into it and what Dr. Mark Zervos said is true, we have never ever done that study on any of the vaccines. Now that's a problem. What they'll say now is they obfuscate this the answer. And when you see it on the news, you know, Dr. Paul Offit will say, of course we're not doing placebo studies now, as you said, because there's already products for measles. Why would we deny, if we were to deny, if we wanted to study the measles vaccine. What you're saying to us is now you want to do a placebo trial where one group's going to get the already available vaccine, but we're going to deny access to a life saving health measure to a group in the placebo group to test if the measles vaccine is safe. We can't do that. Now that would be unethical. And that's true. I mean, I think there's an argument to be made there. Unless you had some perspective that what if the question is, what if this measles vaccine is actually shortening your lifespan? We don't know. You would. Only you're gonna have to do some form of a study to find out. And I mentioned in the film there have been studies that have found very alarming things like the DTP vaccine.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You know what I mean?

[A]

Because to merely conduct a study to gauge the efficacy of the vaccine is different than gauging the unintended consequence.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Of the same drug.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And you can't test for those two things at the same time or in the same way. Which means you have to do what.

[B]

You call a retrospective study.

[A]

Okay, so the retrospective study is flawed.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Well, because the way they all are. But the double blind placebo is unethical because now we know too much.

[B]

Right. And.

[A]

Or maybe because simply separating vaccinated from unvaccinated, maybe there are other, I don't know, mitigating factors.

[B]

Confounding.

[A]

Confounding factors. Right, right, right, yes. So I, I'm just trying to make the point that there are certain arguments.

[B]

Yes, yes. Limitations, difficulties.

[A]

What are the limitations of the study?

[B]

We should not find ourselves in this position. And that's what's so alarming. What is alarming is that we find ourselves in a Position where we're hog tied by the ethics of science. And we. We tied ourselves up. We never did the proper safety study to see, are these vaccines having some deleterious effect that we do not see? What we only. The only thing we look at in our studies is, does it create antibodies? Is there antibodies being produced? And by the way, that's not even a true understanding of its ability to stop disease, stop transmission. We learned that during COVID But it's all that they do. All you have to do is prove this vaccine created antibodies in this group of people. It works. Eureka. And we know it's safe because we just know it's safe. And so these things have been pouring onto the market. And so now when you know. And I would say this, Mike, there's no question I'm not here. Why would I be in this investigation if we had the healthiest kids in the world? I mean, if everyone's running around shiny, happy, and healthy, then who cares? Who cares, you know, if they did a safety study on vaccines or not?

[A]

Is there a second country in the world right now?

[B]

There is. Not that I know of. Like in the industrialized west, certainly in the modern world. We are the sickest nation in that world. I think you could argue. I mean, I don't know. I suppose children are dying in Africa of starvation, so you can't really make that comparison. But in anywhere where they have running water, cars, and elevators, we are the sickest.

[A]

Well, we have. A cure for starvation is food.

[B]

Food.

[A]

Right. I mean, what we're talking about now is what happens if the food you use to cure starvation turns out to be tainted right now. What have you done? It's like gangrene in your foot. Oh, I can fix it. We'll just take it off below the knee.

[B]

You know, it's funny. You're moving towards a sort of analogy that I want to make. I was planning to make it someday, which is here's how I think the vaccine program. You could describe it. I could go to Texas and say, I'm going to eradicate athlete's foot from Texas. I'm going to. I'm going to eradicate from the planet. I'm just going to chop everybody's feet off and then say, see, Not a single person in Texas has athlete's foot. But you say, but hold on. There's all these people that are dying. There's people that are bleeding out. There are people that. You can't prove that that happened. You know what I mean? And that's not my problem. I was here. And what science has done is I was just here to make antibodies. I made the antibodies. I'm walking away. Job done. No, hold on a second. What is the process of making those antibodies doing to this body? Is it causing other problems? As I said, the DTP study in Africa, Guinea Bissau, Africa, a very pro vaccine scientist. Finally, just a few years ago, it was about like 2017, I think he did it, looked back 30 years and said, I had a DTP program. We were giving it to all the kids in Guinea Bissau, Africa, and I realized we only got to like half of them.

[A]

What's it stand for?

[B]

Huh? Ddp, Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

[A]

Okay, pertussis is whooping cough.

[B]

Whooping cough. Correct. And so he would look back 30 years at the health outcomes they track. All the data had really good data. And lo and behold, the kids who got his DTP vaccine program died at 2.5 to 5 times the rate as those that didn't receive it. No one had ever looked. No one, as you pointed out, no one ever looked at all cause mortality. No. Ever looked at. Is there. I mean, and here's the deal. They didn't die of pertussis, they didn't die of tetanus. The vaccine did its job, but it obviously did something to the immune system that made them more vulnerable to other issues in their environment. And they didn't survive. No one would ever know if he hadn't done that study. There's still, by the way, I've sued UNICEF because they still give that vaccine. Now that we know this, you are killing, I think girls, it's much worse. And there's some instances where it's 10 times the rate of death given what other vaccines they got at the same time. Some of the vaccines are protective, you know, keep that event from happening. So there's a lot to be studied. And we've never done that in America. We've never asked the question, okay, let's say measles vaccine does stop measles. It keeps you from getting measles. Great. But does it have down the road consequences that actually cost us in the long run? And you know, we could get into details, but there's studies that show that a man who gets measles and mumps naturally as a child, not vaccinated has a 50% reduction in heart attacks and heart disease from those that don't have that infection. So if we look at 900,000 people dying every year.

Let'S just limit it to the Most conservative number, they would imagine 25%. 25% of them wouldn't have died of heart disease if they'd have had measles as a kid. Well, measles only killed 400 people prior to a year in America, prior to the vaccine getting here. But you know, 250,000 people would have been saved had I let you get the measles. We gotta do some new math here. We need to ask these questions now. We're too smart to not ask these questions. You know, why is that? Why would it be? Why did these studies, I'm not saying these studies are perfect, but these studies exist. They show, you know, reductions in ovarian cancer if a woman gets mumps and measles as a young child. So there's going to save you thousands and thousands of lives. And yet the virus itself that we were going after was only hundreds of people, probably weak people that would die from the virus every year. So we have to be open now. We've got to ask ourselves, and look, maybe the vaccine program was brilliant when we had horse drawn carriages and sewage running in our streets and our water systems weren't perfect and we didn't have refrigeration. All of these things have to be looked at. When we look at why, why did we get healthier, why did we go like this? And then why are we suddenly crashing now? Was there a point where 10 vaccines like you got in your generation or I would have gotten, was that the better amount of vaccines than the 54 that our kids are getting now? And by the way, there's three or four elements in every vaccine.

[A]

So 72.

[B]

So 72 moving towards. They predict 100 within a year or two vaccines by the time you're 18. So did we make a mistake? Is there too much?

[A]

Where, where, you know, where might it end if it doesn't stop?

[B]

Right.

[A]

When would we go? 250 seems like a lot, right?

[B]

We're 1,000 vaccines by the time you're 8. I mean, is there a threshold? Is there a limit? And when are we going to be allowed to ask that question? When are we going to be allowed. And what would that science look like to determine that?

[A]

Well, to be fair, we're allowed to ask it, but as I've just learned, there will be a consequence.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Do do do do do do do do do.

Well, the number is now up to 42,000. 42,000 individual companies in this country have future proofed their businesses. How they have switched to Netsuite by Oracle. These 42,000 companies now have their accounting and their financial management, their inventory, their hr, everything on one fluid platform, and are thereby prepared for whatever this uncertain future might bring, including the inevitable impact of AI. So the first question is, is your company among the 42,000? If not, the second question would be, what are you waiting for? With NetSuite, you have one unified business management suite. You've got the visibility and the control that you need to make smart decisions fast. You've got real time insights and forecasting. You're literally peering into the future with what they call actionable data. Whether your company is generating millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, it doesn't matter. NetSuite will help you respond to immediate challenges fast and more importantly, help you seize your biggest opportunities as soon as they arise. You can learn [e-mail] row and while you're there, download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning. It's an eye opener. It's a little scary, but it's important and it's free and it's waiting to be [e-mail] mike that's netsuite.com mike, that's netsuite.com.

Netsuite. Yes, Netsuite. I said netsuite.com he said netsuite.com.

[B]

Mike.

[A]

It's not the consequence you would expect from a curious population. And this is again, I was talking to Chuck about it earlier. You know, it's, it's not about me or you. It's not even about the institutions. It really is about 340 some million people who are living here who are suddenly riven by this. And I think you tell me if this tracks, but six, seven years ago, people who thought the earth was flat were looked at in much the same way as anti vaxxers. And you could get away by saying, look, I'm not gonna engage with you because no offense, but you're off your nut, okay? Peter Hotez, who famously declined to debate your friend Bobby Kennedy on Rogan's show, did so because he said, and many, many people agreed. Bobby's alone and Joe is not an impartial moderator. And you're a scientist, man. You got the white coat and everything. The step, you got it all. Don't lower yourself now. I think he could have gotten away with that argument.

2018, because there was still, it still felt like the bulk of the people in this country, you know, don't waste your breath trying to tell some lunatic that the world is round. Don't waste your breath. But I feel like we went through a hell of a time. And, you know, whether you call it gaslit or whatever, it is our faith, our fundamental faith in the dogmas of journalism and the tenets of science has been shook. So the thing that happened with Hotez is the reason that I sat with you in Memphis and we talked and it just happened.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I was like, wait a minute, man. This guy Peter Hotez, he really is a scientist, and he has an opportunity to talk to 12 million people.

[B]

Yes. Now that prove his point.

[A]

It's on the same kind of microphone, in the same kind of setting. And so suddenly to me, it's like, wait, I don't think you have permission to take the high ground and say, no, I'm not gonna sully my credentials by mixing it up with the likes of Bobby Kennedy or Joe Rogan. Because it's not about either of those guys. It's about 12 million people like me in that audience.

Who are genuinely wondering what you're going to do as a representative of science. How are you going to win my trust back? So here's my point. Half the country, in my last dust up on Facebook, they're saying, no, no, no, the institution doesn't have to win your trust back. You simply have to put your trust back in it.

[B]

That's called faith.

[A]

That's exactly right. And that's why my real problem. And if you really want to peel back this thing, I think as a country, we've entered an age where skepticism has never been more important on every single level. And that is an affront to a lot of people who are fundamentally faithful. So a lot of worlds start to collide, from religion to science to journalism to politics. And in the end, it feels to me like people are being forced to choose between the benefit of the doubt and all the faith that comes with that, and the cold calculus of skepticism upon which science and journalism both rely.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So for the average guy who's trying to raise his family and not his kids with a dumb decision, he. She is now being forced to assume the mantle of skepticism that is supposed to be worn by the super curious, humble people in search of the truth. But they've abdicated.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And so now we're left with this malaise, this hot bullying base of bullshit major tasks.

[B]

Most of us didn't go to med school because we didn't want to do the eight years of education. I don't want to have to think about this stuff. I don't want to have to. I don't want to have to look at trials. What the trials mean to me. I don't know. Why is this my problem? And you said earlier, you know, it's like one side against the, you know, and how are, how are they going to win us back? Evidence, Mike. Evidence. Right, documentation. We are now told that this is a group of physicists and we're going to have to have the faith. But show us your math. All we're asking is just show us the math. Where is the evidence that this is this great product? Where's the evidence of this mountain of studies I keep hearing about? I'm telling you, they're not there. Because, you know, I've had people under oath, I've had, you know, the head of our entire vaccine program under oath in a courtroom. And what he says there, we have videos all over our website. What he says there will blow your mind. There's not. This isn't. This conversation is not what people think it is.

[A]

What you have in your movies blew my mind. I mean, my listeners are sick of me referencing this title, but it just has come back to haunt me. I read a book years ago, it was actually a Christian book, apologetics by Josh McDowell called the evidence Demands a Verdict. And it feels like you've got evidence in this movie. So I don't know how you feel.

[B]

About spoiler alerts, but I don't care. All right, let's lay it out. Yeah.

[A]

Why would you. You're giving it away for free.

[B]

That's it.

[A]

Inconvenient study.

[B]

An inconveniencestudy.com.

[A]

Yeah. So the guy you mentioned. Yeah. The small scientist at Henry Ford agrees to conduct this study.

[B]

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

[A]

How many? How many?

[B]

In the group, it's roughly 18,500 ish. In the entire group, 16,500 are vaccinated, 2,000 unvaccinated.

[A]

Why so lopsided?

[B]

Well, if you look at the population, I mean, it happens to be the population in the Henry Ford health system. In some ways, I think it's even bigger than what we might imagine in that our population is 90, 95% vaccinated. So you only have, you know, in any, any given spot in America, you're going to have a group that's far smaller that are unvaccinated. It's just always going to be the case. But science has looked at this many, many times and said you can have a fully robust, statistically significant study. These don't have to be the same size, because what you're not, you're not saying, look, there's two here that have and two here. Therefore they're even. You recognize, it's the ratios. What proportion of this group had an issue? What proportion inside of this, inside of their own microcosm, inside of the unvaccinated. What percentage of them have adhd? What percentage of them have a neurodevelopmental disorder? We're doing the same thing in the 16,500. And what you see in the conclusion of this study done by Dr. Marcus Zervos and by the way, unpublished. I want to make that clear. I received a cease and desist letter from Henry Ford Health.

[A]

You read it at the end of the movie.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's amazing.

[B]

Yeah. And so. But just want to make that clear. They didn't publish this study. But what you see in the conclusion is 2.5 times the rate of chronic disease if you've been vaccinated compared to those that are not vaccinated. And I want to make it clear. We hear numbers and I know when we hear numbers, it kind of just goes over, you know, it's like, oh, yeah, that sounds, it's like 2 or 5. This isn't 20% more, which would be bad. It's not 50 or 80% increased risk of something. It's 250% increased risk to have a chronic disease. Which to my point, we wouldn't be here if we had healthy kids. But depending on how you look at it, if you include obesity, 54% of our nation children have a chronic disease without obesity, it's about 40%. And so we're talking about a coin toss now in. And the question would be, what's doing it?

[A]

Right?

[B]

What's doing, is it vaccines? Is it fluoride in our water? Is it, you know, pesticides, herbicides, glyphosate sprayed on 80, 90% of our crops? Is it plastics, PFAS, chemicals, all of those things, as Robert Kennedy Jr. Points out, all kind of hit our world, our environment, right? In the early 90s, late 80s, early 90s, that's where all this autoimmune disease, autism just starts taking off. Something is affecting us. And so this study is just looking at vaccines. And incredibly, what it finds, it does a graph over 10 years. What is the likelihood that you will have a chronic disease if you've been vaccinated? The likelihood is 57%. 57% of these children will end up with chronic disease if they were vaccinated. In the unvaccinated group, it's only 17%. That is a, that's Mount Everest, man. It's gigantic signal. And as I point out, I mean, it's, you know, also four, five times rate of adhd, six times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Just horrifying numbers. And if this study stood alone, it is a retrospective study. It has weaknesses. It didn't have a control. It's not a placebo group. We didn't perfectly match this many African Americans and this many African American. I mean, it's just the best that taking all the data, Henry Ford Health had all the kids that were born into the system, so they had all of their records they could track, take out all the kids that would have had a predisposed birth issue, and we're left with this 18,500 kids and these horrific numbers. I point out in the film. If this, if this study stood alone, you know, maybe take it with a grain of salt, we should definitely do more studies. It's showing you a signal. More studies need to be done. This is now the fifth in my mind. The fifth study. Like it? Some people are saying there's 10 studies out there, but I talk about five that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated. There were smaller 600 kids in a homeschool study, but same results. You know, nearly 10,000 kids in pediatrician's practice named Dr. Paul Thomas. Same thing. The vaccinated are sicker.

[A]

And here's what's no retrospective study has ever indicated that the vaccinated are healthier.

[B]

Not one, anywhere in the world, by any institution in the world, any government, any health agency, no one in this world has been able to compare. Do the simple comparison of these two groups of kids and shown us vaccinated are healthier. And wasn't that the whole point of this program?

[A]

Now, your guy, why doesn't his last name stick with me? Dr. Zervos.

[B]

Zervos. That's why. Zervos.

[A]

I'm making a mental note of all the Zervos, as I know, not a lot.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Servos at the outset, agrees to publish the study irrespective of its results. The results come in, he goes dark.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You being a curious journalist, pick up the phone and ask for a meeting.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You eventually get one, and then you do something that just purely from a cinematic standpoint, made me so.

Uncomfortable and engaged.

I literally watched it with my head turned. Because you videotape him without his knowledge.

[B]

From cameras, from a hidden pen. Yeah.

[A]

And you record the conversation in a restaurant.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I. I Don't know how to dive into it.

But cinematically, it's an extraordinary moment. It's like Candid Camera without the funny part.

[B]

Yeah, it's not funny.

[A]

It's not funny.

[B]

No.

[A]

And I'm. I can't decide if I'm watching.

Humanity at its most poignant or cowardice at its keenest or tragedy, because the guy is sitting there agreeing that the study is solid and that he would publish it as is. And he doesn't know he's being recorded.

[B]

Right.

[A]

When he says, but I'm not that guy. I don't want to lose my job, so I'm not doing it.

[B]

Yeah. What.

[A]

Just walk me through what that was like as a journalist and a. Communicate. A professional communicator.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

To be on the receiving end of that.

[B]

You know, I keep getting asked that question, and, you know, to be honest, I'm there with an agenda to get this guy to publish his damn study. And so every time, I mean, he goes through that multiple times, you can see, I bring. Let me try inspire the guy. Let me threaten the guy. Let me, like, I try everything in this dinner to get him to just publish the study like you promised you would.

[A]

The Galileo moment.

[B]

The Galileo moment. You could. I. Look, I'm going to make you a hero. Well, we're going to change the world with this. We're going to fix the vaccine program. It needs fixing. He's like, I agree, it needs fixing. It needs change. Something needs to change. But, I mean, at one point he says, I'm not a good person.

[A]

I'm not a good guy.

[B]

You know, it was like. And it's.

It's an amazing. You know, even in. And you've done a lot of films and things, there's those moments when you're making something when it takes on a life of its own that you didn't really see. The truth is, as I was sitting there, I'm just thinking, damn it, I am failing. That's all. I'm not thinking about what he's saying, Frankly. I got back and said, what did we get? I don't know. Did the cameras work? Did we get. What have. Did I get him to say it? I didn't. All I was thinking is, I am failing to get this guy to publish a study that could save millions of children's lives. That's what I was thinking about. Is there one other way? Is there something I haven't thought, you know, to tell him? So as I reflect on it now and watch it, I have tears in my eyes. For many. And I don't know, it is. It's an amazing study of a human being.

[A]

It has nothing to do with vaccines, though.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That moment in your movie is transcendent in so many ways. It's just so. I'm gonna say it again. It's tragic.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Because in the same way that I think curiosity and humility are two of the three legs on the stool that hold up journalism and science, the third is courage.

Because there are times in both of those institutions when you have to endure the slings and arrows of. That's been debunked. You sellout, you traitor. You're going to be. He's not wrong to not volunteer to be burned at the stake.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Who wants to be Joan of Arc? Who wants to be Galileo? They arrested him, they threw him in jail, they took everything he had. So my heart breaks for the guy.

[B]

Yeah, because you did.

[A]

You offered him a branch to greatness.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And he didn't want it. But you also filmed him and didn't tell him.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't know how I feel about you either.

[B]

I don't either.

To be honest. I'm conflicted about it. I. I am conflicted, but it's not. To be clear, that is the only you. You can look at my last 15 years in media, I. There's not a single other instance where I've ever. That I can think of that I remember ever wearing, you know, a hidden camera. Actually, once, for Dr. Phil, which was one of the first jobs I ever had. A long time ago, he sent me as a homeless guy to Las Vegas to be a panhandling to see how many people would give me money. So you will find that one. It doesn't occur to me, but let's get off track.

[A]

When you were doing that, I was selling the Health Team infrared pain reliever, 3am on the QVC cable shopping channel. So, look, we all do what we do, but.

[B]

But it's really not my journalistic style and I don't like it. I don't like it because I have a lot in the work that I do. I work with a lot of whistleblowers. I need them to know that they're safe, that I never out of source. So in many ways, I didn't see myself in a journalistic position here. This was more a man on man. I had a bet with this guy. I challenged him, prove me wrong, do a study, and no matter how it turns out, publish it. That is not a journalist. I'm not like doing a story. I'M asking you to do science. I'm in a different space here. So you're not living up to this challenge. And so I'm there trying to gather some evidence for something. I don't know where it's going to lead to. I don't know if I'm ever going to show the world, but I know this is the last time we're ever going to have this conversation. And by the way, I hadn't seen the study yet. You see him hand me the study for the first time at that table where I actually get to look at these numbers and see these numbers and they're mind blowing. So again, I'm blown away at what I'm seeing. This is worse than you can ever imagine.

[A]

Smoking gun you knew was out there and you were trying to get.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And now you've got it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I mean, so even though he's not publishing it, and even though Henry Ford, it should be said, has specifically disavowed it.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

For all the reasons you read their cease and desist on camera.

[B]

Yeah. So because that's science, right. Transparency, people, like, there's people attacking the study. I'm like, good, attack it, attack it. That's what science is. I want the questions, I want to debate you on it. I want to push back. On our website, we have all the attacks that Henry Ford and other professional, you know, you know, virologists have weighed in. The ones that have issues, there's some on our side, but we lay out what we think are the defenses to the attacks on this study. And this is, I would say if there's one thing I'm proud of right now with this film and you ask what it's doing, I think we've just jump started the scientific method. I think we've just put some paddles on this thing and there's an international debate that is now happening because of this study. There are scientists from. Peter Gutcha, one of the founders of Cochrane Collaboration, has weighed in saying, I've seen Henry Ford's complaint, but these numbers are so astronomical they can't be explained away by confounding issues which you brought up. And we can get into those details if people want to know what that is. We should be questioning all of this. We should question this study, we should question the size of it, the quality of it. That's what we do in science. And we should hear the rebuttals and we should get more scientists in the room. We should have this debate, but mostly we should do bigger studies. What we need to say now is poking holes in the issues of a retrospective study done at Henry Ford is not going to get us to figuring out why our children are so sick. And if this study is correct, and if the other five studies just like it are correct, we have a serious problem. We are poisoning our children. And so there needs to be a come to Jesus moment. A come to science moment is what is needed right now, which is every major institution in the world says we're hunkering down, we're finding all of our unvaccinated kids, we're finding the vaccinated kids, we're figuring out how to balance that as best as we can in retrospective study. And we're going to do this study too. We are going to see how this turns out. Because if we have turned a corner and for some reason something that was totally well intentioned was delivered by impassioned, beautiful doctors that went to school to save lives and believe they're saving lives, but if they made a mistake, don't they want to know too? Don't we all want to know? Because as I've said, our children are suffering. There is something drastically wrong. You know, you do work, a lot of the work you do is with animals and things. This is the. We're the only mammal on this planet that is starting to devolve. We're losing the ability to live our environment. We're allergic to everything around us. We are starting. Our immune systems are somehow, are they evolving? So they're attacking our own organs, attacking the myelin sheath on our muscles. We've got multiple sclerosis, lupus, gut and bowel diseases in children. Crohn's disease used to be Ashkenazi Jews that were over the age of 75. It's in 16 month old infants. How, why and if you're like, what would be causing that? I don't know.

[A]

But, but I'm keen to find out.

[B]

I'm keen to find out. And shouldn't we, shouldn't we, when we look at this 1990, early 90s, all these chemicals come into our environment, all probably be, you know, it's a toxic soup that is clearly causing a lot of this. But fluoride, pfas, plastics, shouldn't we, when we're looking at an autoimmune disease crisis, let's call it immune dysregulation. Our immune systems have gone haywire in our children. That doesn't. There's no genetic way to explain that. We don't. Suddenly our genes just start changing and Suddenly our bodies, our immune systems don't work. Something's messing up our immune systems. And I'm just going to say from a lay position, layperson's position, of all the things we see that are toxic right now and in our environment, should we look closest at the one product that we've described that is designed to alter your immune system for life? That's what a vaccine is attempting to do, is attempting to mimic something in nature where you get an infection for five or six days, like measles. It's a Brady Bunch episode in the early 1960s with laugh tracks. Everyone in the family gets it. So I'm not of this school is deadly. I'd like to know why they put a laugh track to it. Back when everyone was watching tv, nobody went crazy. Oh my God. How did they make this deadly disease so funny that it didn't happen? But to stick to the point, we are trying to mimic nature. And if you stop someone on the street and say, how does a vaccine work? Most people say, I don't know, they kill a virus or they make it less dangerous. And then they inject into our bodies and it tricks our immune system into thinking it's had the disease so we don't have to get sick and then we're protected for life. Okay, great, let's go with that version. So we're not just tricking our immune system one time or five times, or 10 times, or 20 times, or 50 times or 70 times, you know, 72, going towards 100 times. We are tricking the immune systems of our children, sometimes 10 different diseases, all tricked on the same day in an 11 month old baby that just won a court case of dying from sids, they finally evolved. Said this baby was killed by getting 10 vaccines, 11 vaccines, I think at the same time in 11 months. So if we're tricking that immune system 72 times, is it that shocking that our immune systems are confused and are now attacking proteins that are our own body? Not. No longer not self. Remember, all it is is not self. Self, not self. That's what your immune system is doing. Is this self? Is it not self? Is it self, not self. Attack it, self. Don't go near it. Now it's attacking self, self, self attack my pancreas, Diabetes attacking my muscles, Multiple sclerosis attacking. So we confused it.

[A]

We've confused possible.

[B]

Is it, is it in the realm of possibility? Can we just. Are we allowed to ask the question, did we do something wrong?

[A]

If the humility, the aforementioned humility and curiosity are still guiding the ship then. Yeah. We're allowed to ask. In fact, you know, it's incumbent.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But without the courage to answer it.

Trees are falling in the forest and no one's hearing it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So what is your hope with this movie, realistically and. And given the impact it's already had, the response you've already received, what do you think it could do and what looks like success to you?

[B]

Success is. I live in a nation that is of foreign by the people. It's the greatest charter for civilization, I think, that was ever designed. It demands that we get involved with our government, that we ask for what we want, we vote for the things we believe, and we focus on the things we care about.

Is always because I'm in media. I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer. My job is to try and get as many people to recognize that their voice matters. And they need to get really loud right now with every doctor, with everyone they meet. They need to share films like this, books like Gavin's, as many out there. My attorney's got a great book, Vaccines Amen, that gets into all the work he's done suing manufacturers and the government for us. But we can only change things that we care about. And when we get to that sort of fulcrum point, that.

Body of people that are loud enough and large enough, we still have a nation that changes course. And I can give the definition gay marriage. No matter what position you take on, it was nowhere. It's nowhere when it's just some people complaining somewhere. But when you hit that point where enough of the population thinks, I don't think this is fair, courts start acting differently, laws start changing, things start moving. I believe we are at that fulcrum point now. I will say, Mike, I think the position I now hold on vaccines, and this is going to be upsetting to a lot of people after I've been investigating. I don't think any journalist has investigated this topic, certainly more than I have. I have. I have international bodies of scientists that weigh in every week with me. I have sued government agencies. I won back the religious exemption from Mississippi so that you can go to school without being vaccinated, claiming I have a religious right. They hadn't had that since the 1970s. I'm funding the lawsuit to win that freedom back for West Virginia. I don't care about. I'm not here to eradicate vaccines from the planet. I'm here to make sure that you always have a choice. But right now, my statement is, if you are pro vaccine. From my perspective, you're anti science because they've never done the science. They never did the placebo trials. They won't do a safety trial now telling it's unethical. And the only gold standard study that's left is a retrospective study. And every single one of them is showing us the same signal and they're trying to deny that that is science denial. And until someone produces science. A come to science moment. I just thought of that today. I love it. A come to science moment is demanded and it's gotta be demanded by everyone that walks this earth right now. We are close and I think deep down I hope that this primes this conversation because this is the study I wanted Robert Kennedy Jr. To do once he finally got into HHS. I pray that he's able to do it. I pray that he's able to get the databases together and get the, you know, and we talked about this when we were running. Bobby. You cannot just put people on that study that have a, you know, are skeptical about vaccines. You've got to have both sides. We've got to get totally pro vaccine science to sit down with those that are starting to question it and come up with a study that would make both of them happy, that studies the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And it has to be massive. It should be the biggest study ever done by hhs. It's the only thing I care that he achieves. I mean, the rest of it, great, you're getting chemicals out of food, you're cleaning up baby food. All of it, great, great, great. But this we will not. I don't believe that we will get to the bottom of the chronic disease epidemic of our times if we don't take a look at this study. At least I won't sleep and neither will every parent of a vaccine injured child.

[A]

That's my point too, in a way. And that's what I would say to the people who are so disappointed in me right now for having you on and for not having somebody of equal passion on the other side to smack you down. I don't do that show, really. And it's not because I think the other side's opinion hasn't been expressed. I think it's still the status quo. I think a lot of reasonable people say, don't you remember polio? Don't you remember pertussis? Don't you remember. Haven't you read about the iron lungs? And that the one of the like. Are you still open to the possibility that the vaccines could truly be one of the greatest breakthroughs and miracles in the history of modern medicine.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. Square that, then.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How can the. I know two things can be true at the same time, but how can. Doug Del Bigtree. How the hell did you get that name, by the way?

[B]

That's a whole other long story.

[A]

Well, I'll land the plane there in a minute. But how can you say to people that you are still open to the idea that vaccines could be one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of medicine and at the same time so deeply skeptical of their unintended consequences?

[B]

Because. And people say this, Del, why don't you say you're anti vaccine and why won't Bobby make that statement? People in our movement, medical, free, whatever, there's a lot that. Dell, why don't you say you're anti vaccine? Because I don't believe science is ever settled. If I settle my science, if my science says that there is no such thing as a good vaccine, there's no way vaccines can ever work, then I am in the same entrenched position as the people I'm trying to talk to. I think most doctors and scientists have not looked closely enough at this, and I've proven that by the Dr. Peter McAuliffe's that have come onto my show. First, they thought it was just the COVID vaccine. They would say things like, but the childhood. I don't want this to hurt the childhood vaccine. And I would hand them all of my work and say, please read this. And now, Dr. Peter McAuliffe, Dr. Pierre Cory. These are all. Dr. McCullough is the most published heart doctor in the world. He is absolutely saying. He just said on my show last week, I believe the entire childhood vaccine program needs to be stopped immediately. We need to evaluate it. It appears we're doing more damage than we're alleviating. Dr. Paul Merrick, the most published ICU doctor in the world. Same position. These are people that once they looked. Once they finally looked at it, they're really having an issue with the same thing. There is no science. Bret Weinstein said that to me when he finally came around. It was one of the most chilling moments. We had had an argument about a year earlier.

[A]

He changed his.

[B]

Yeah, wow. Yeah. Because he said, obviously, like you. Covid was like, that's a bad vaccine. We all watched it, rushed onto the market. And, you know, in this debate I had at a dinner with Brett, I said, brett, that is the best tested vaccine we've ever seen. There's not a Childhood vaccine that went up against a placebo, first of all, ever. And as long as the COVID vaccine did so that officially, that one you think was rushed onto the market, there's no childhood vaccine that was ever tested that long, ever. He's like, that cannot possibly be true. I said, brett, he's like, I think you're doing a disservice to this conversation by moving it into the childhood vaccine program. I said, it just happens to be the investigation I've been on for like six years, Brett, and you're way too smart. Now you're going to look into this, and I'm telling you, you're going to see what we've all seen. And a year later, he came up and he's already said this on my show. I'm allowed to tell this story now. He came up and said, I have to apologize. And I said, about what? I mean, I totally forgotten about the conversation. He's like, you were right. And what he said to me about the vaccine program, and he said something that. He said.

Look, I wasn't a fool. I know that every product has side effects. I wasn't one of these. Like, there's no way vaccine injury isn't happening. And it's probably a small group, and we should probably study that group. I've always been there. He says, but what I was shocked to find is that there is no science.

That was. I mean, I hadn't even put it like that. I'd been at it for seven or eight years. And that is the position we find ourselves in now.

[A]

Whatever else science should ask of us.

It's not permitted to ask me to take a leap of faith. I'll take my leaps of faith in romance.

You know, with the God thing. That's between me and really nobody else. Science is between me and everybody. And, yeah, I think that, you know, I try and pay close attention to the language and the way it impacts me today versus five years ago. And just the way I feel now when I hear somebody tell me the science is settled and when I hear them cluck and when I hear them say, oh, that's been debunked. It's been debunked. Like, it's been like, there's so many ways to pet someone on the head and there's so many ways to discourage curiosity and skepticism, which is very different, by the way, than cynicism.

[B]

Correct. And we should be careful about that. Yes, yes.

[A]

Because cynicism, nothing good, good comes from cynicism, but nothing bad comes from being skeptical. I don't think it might make it somewhat disagreeable and not always fun to be around, but we just. I just feel so strongly that at the root of all of this is a willful abdication of skepticism on the part of the institutions we rely upon most. And that is the gap into which everything is falling. And most regular people are simply trying to figure out how skeptical they need to become. And in my own little ecosystem, with my little 9 million study that I've been conducting for like 14 years now, they're split. There are a lot of people who claim to like me and pay attention to the stuff I do are disappointed in me because I guess they have come to equate the skepticism you're talking about with something conspiratorial or mystical. And that's why I'm with Gavin on this one. He's saying, look, they're pre bunking you. It's not just debunking anymore. They're getting ahead of it. And they're still making arguments based on authority and based on hierarchy. And it works in the military to a point, it works in life to a point. But, you know, we are living at an unprecedented moment, at least in my life, it's unprecedented, where we're still trying to get our heads around the fact that the white coat and, you know, all the harbingers of trust are tarnished. And here's the point I really wanted to make. Sorry, I was just talking until I remembered what I wanted to say. I want to trust the institutions again. I'm desperate to. I just don't think you're going to get there by going, oh, okay, so I trust them. Something like Giant has to happen. They have to earn it back.

[B]

I'm still waiting for an apology.

[A]

Right from.

[B]

From every news agency that told us that, you know, the science showed that masks could stop a particle as small as a coronavirus. That six foot distancing, which is why they locked us in our homes and destroyed our children's education and kept them going from schools. And how we standing somehow couldn't, you know, were as dangerous, had to wear a mask. But sitting in a restaurant, I mean, the whole charade is comical. If it wasn't so terrifying that we all put up with it. We all did it.

[A]

Wash the pizza box, eat the pizza.

[B]

Right? Where is the apology? We know you got that wrong. We know what you got wrong. Now the science has shown it. Tony Fauci has admitted it in front of the Congress. We just made this stuff up. Okay then. And every news Anchor that, you know, that intimidated us, that played on our empathy. I mean, that was. What was so dark about it, you know, was that it used this. If you care about your neighbor, it used biblical Christ teachings as the way we're going to force this product into you and take your freedom away from you because this is the right thing to do for you. Do you love your neighbor? Those people need to apologize.

[A]

I don't know that it's enough, Del. Maybe it is. Maybe it's a start, but I'm thinking more like the scene in Game of Thrones, you know, the walk of shame.

[B]

Shame. Because they're right.

[A]

Look, you're right. It was a colossal.

Manipulation. And they didn't do it by begging you to take care of yourself. They did it by begging you to take care of your loved ones or your neighbor or a stranger. It's the right thing to do. So again, a lot of people listening are going, we didn't know we erred on the side of this. Okay, you erred on the side of that. What do you do when you err? What do you do when you accidentally keep kids out of school for two years? What do you do? Sorry, moving on. Yeah, you can try it. But what I'm saying is I don't think we're moving on.

[B]

No, no, this is. And, and you know, for. For the issue I've been on Covid was. It was a horror experience, but, you know, I was charging the Gates. I, you know, I've been looking at this. There is no science. I've sued the government. They can't give me the science. I've had top scientists under oath, you know, with Aaron Seri admitting I have no, I have no evidence that dtap vaccine doesn't cause autism. Even though the CDC website says it doesn't. How we've sued. Hand us that evidence. Just like we say. I say this to every New York Times, you know, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. They every. They're at these events I go to, they write horrible articles about me that looks even worse than my Wikipedia. But I say to them, look, you're still here. You'll still come to my speeches. And I appreciate that you're listening. I'm amazed at how stalwart you are, though, in your position, because I keep seeing you write that the experts say Robert Kennedy Jr. S wrong when he says there's never been a placebo based trial of any of the childhood vaccines. And I keep saying to you. Why do you keep writing what experts say? I thought we were past that after Covid, we now know experts can l can be wrong. Certainly looks a lot like lying, but let's just call it wrong. And I've said, do you hand me a placebo based trial of any of the childhood vaccines? You're the New York Times, the Washington Post. When did your job become quoting experts? I feel like Woodward and Bernstein, you know, in the modern day, would just call Richard Nixon, hey, did you tap the phones at Watergate? No, I didn't. I would never do something. Well, the experts have said it didn't happen. We're moving on. Is that what reporting's become?

You know, it's outrageous.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

Where's your evidence? And this is what I'm demanding. People of the 50% right now of your audience that are really upset, we just want to see the evidence. Ask your doctor to show you a placebo based trial. In fact, I'll make it easier for them. I'll show you what they relied upon. You can type in FDA licensed vaccines right now on your computer and it'll bring up all the vaccines you're about to give your kids or yourself. And then you can click on it and it'll say package insert will be one of the options. Open up that package insert. That's the warning label. Just like your drugs. Get that. You never see that your vaccines are getting. Read the ingredients. Ask yourself if you want hamster kidney proteins injected in your body. Or how about aborted fetal DNA of dead babies being injected in your children? Some people have a problem with that. They should be allowed to opt out of injecting dead baby protein into their own children. Mercury, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80. As Gavin so brilliantly put, it's like Macbeth, you know, eye of newt and you know, bubble, bubble, you know, toe of frog, like, wow, that's. Vaccines are just as disgusting.

[A]

So many people have said, it's not mercury, Mike. It's ethylmercury. Totally different thing, right?

[B]

Is it? Totally different. What is it? It's not plutonium. It's ethyl plutonium. You know, like, like, like, as though that would matter. It's the second most toxic substance on earth. Why would I want it in my babies? Why would we want it? It. We can't think of any other ingredient to put there. Makes no sense.

[A]

But adjunct. What do they call it?

[B]

Adjuvant.

[A]

Adjuvant, yeah. Is that the answer? Is that the, Is that the.

[B]

I think, look, I've talked to so many experts that have, you know, dove deep into this and, you know, mercury they say it's a preservative. They say it's not an adjuvant. Aluminum and adjuvant, for some people. Know what that means? Just very quickly, a vaccine. Let's say you have a virus or bacteria, you're injecting the alarm. In our infinite wisdom, your entire alarm system for your immune system is in your nasal passages, your mucosal, your throat, and then into your lungs. This is where you have to breathe in a bacteria or virus for your immune system to act. You don't have, like, if you believe in God, you weren't designed this way, or if you believe in evolution. We've never gotten a virus through our arm, so it doesn't know to react. It doesn't know how to inspire the immune system. So you're gonna inject something and it's just gonna go through your body. Start running rampant. Your body's not going to fight it. So I don't know why we started here, but we did. So what we've done is say, you know, what if we add a neurotoxin, We've been bit by snakes. You know, our body does know to fight off a neurotoxin. So let's add a neurotoxin like aluminum to the vaccine, create a massive allergic reaction here. Then our immune system goes, holy cow, there's a virus in my arm. Let's go get it.

[A]

Not self.

[B]

Not self, and go and attack it. And so that's, you know, that aluminum, I mean, and I think one of the hypotheses that we're carrying on the peanut allergies and the food allergies is this. Aluminum is inciting your body to see the protein inside of the vaccine as the enemy. It's inciting an allergic reaction. Aluminum. You know that when they want to test allergies, they give rats aluminum, they put egg in them. They want them to have an egg allergy. They put egg into the. The rat, and then they give them aluminum, and it turns that egg into an allergy. Aluminum's brilliant at it. So where in science did we not think, forget about the protein. That's just. What about every other protein that's in your body the moment you took that vaccine? What if your kid just ate some peanuts? What if they had peanut butter? What if they still have eggs in their stomach? And now you just injected aluminum and told the body all proteins are your enemy? Is that why we have allergies? It's a hypothesis. It needs to be challenged. But it's an important question, and it's a study never been done. Why no study ever gave one group aluminum and another group a placebo. Because, I mean, first of all, that'd be illegal to do that study. You cannot inject people with a neurotoxin on purpose. There's no benefit.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Lawyers would love it.

[B]

We could go on and on. It's absurd, but to the 50% of your audience.

We should see evidence, not big, loud statements by medicine. This is ridiculous. Bobby's crazy. Del's crazy. They're wrong. We've done the studies. We've done the studies. Show us the studies. Show them. Now we know how to read them. Put them on the front page of the New York Times. Hey, Robert Kennedy Jr. Here are the 16 placebo trials that were done over the years. Maybe it wasn't their current one, but the original version of the vaccine before there ever was one when we could have done a placebo study and it would have been ethical. We did it. Here it is, front page of New York Times. We're waiting. We've been waiting.

[A]

I don't want you to miss your plane. Two quick things. Yeah. Gavin said, when somebody tells you it's been debunked.

Ask them by whom and wait and say, look, if it's been debunked, I apologize. I didn't know it was debunked. But since you've told me it's debunked, show me by who and when.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And oftentimes that will. That will end it. The second thing is just a passing comment on your film, an inconvenience study, which you can see for free@an inconveniencestudy.com there's such a small, passing, poignant moment. You mentioned Peter McCullough, and we meet him in the movie, and we hear from him throughout, and then you're back to.

And he just says, look, man, I don't want to lose my job. I don't want to lose my reputation. I don't want to wind up like Peter McCullough. And then you cut to Peter McCullough watching that video. Watching the video and the look on his face. It's just back to the Grecian part of this thing, man. You know what? I wasn't going to say this because it only occurred to me now, but this is where we land the plane. Your film is a Greek tragedy.

It's filled with the hero's journey. It's filled with pathos, it's filled with peripetia, it's filled with hubris and cowardice. And courage and curiosity and hope. And it's making people angry.

[B]

So I guess, Belle, mission accomplished.

[A]

I guess if you're taking Flack, you know you're over the target.

[B]

That's it.

[A]

Next time, would you explain Big Tree?

[B]

Sure. My mom's Mohawk from upstate New York. Parents still married. I was gonna be in theater. I like Bigtree as a last name. I think it actually suits me. Cause I think deep down, I feel like I'm a warrior. I wish Zervos was. I wish there was people in science. The McCulloughs, those are real warriors they're standing up against. The most powerful industry in the world is pharma. It owns everything. It owns the governments of the world. It owns the who? It owns our television set. 70% of our advertising is pharma. It's paying for your show. It's paying for. You know anyone that's on television, it's the news anchors, not this episode. And we'll see how this does online. Yeah, and you'll find out it's paying for the Internet too. I'll find out.

[A]

Oh, God.

[B]

Well, look.

[A]

Who knows what mischief you've put in motion, But I truly appreciate your time. And again, to the people who see it another way, the podcast is called the Way I Heard it. It's the way he heard it. Maybe you heard it different. But in the end, the evidence will demand a verdict. Thanks.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

When you leave a review, which we hope that you'll do, tell us who you are. Tell us who you are. And before you go.

[B]

Won't you leave.

[A]

Five.

Star.

Five lousy.

Little.

Star.

[C]

Marketing is hard. But I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to libsynads. Com, that's L, I, B, S Y N ads. Com Today.