Children who struggle with ADHD on a daily basis. Scott's allergies didn't allow him to keep up with his friends.
Allergic reactions due to accidental food contact.
Moderate to severe eczema. Psoriasis.
Rheumatoid arthritis. Food allergies. Allergies. Seizures. Asthma...
We are now the sickest country in the world.
The health of American children is in crisis.
Enormous increase in chronic diseases in children ...
40 percent of children in America today suffer from at least one chronic illness.
Autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus, Crohn's disease, all
these IBS, asthma, allergies, stomach problems.
This is the trigger point for me: just a few decades ago, one in 10,000 children suffered from autism. Today it is one in 31.
ADD, ADHD, speech-related symptoms such as tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, ASD, autism.
It is not possible to attribute this rapid increase in cases of disease to genetic factors.
Genetic changes take generations, centuries, to take effect.
What is really the reason that our generation of children are so chronically ill? What is going on?
America is the sickest nation in the industrialized world.
Today, it is estimated that over 54% of our children suffer from a chronic disease, either a
neurological disorder or an autoimmune disease.
By comparison, the figure in the 1980s was 12.8%.
In about 40 years, we have seen the biggest decline in human health ever recorded.
What if I told you that there is a study that could shed light on this chronic disease epidemic, but
no major medical institution seems willing to do it?
What if I told you that there is a scientist brave enough to conduct this study?
What if I told you that this scientist was too afraid to publish the study after it was completed?
What would you do? Maybe you would do the same as me.
I got hidden cameras and recording devices and went to ask him why.
I would like to show you a video, I look forward to your reaction.
Okay. Just press play here?
Yes.
Simply press PLAY here.
What was the most shocking thing, I know what I saw.
No, I thought it was important. It is important information because it showed a difference between the groups.
We have serious problems.
I agree with you on that.
If I can't publish this study, what hope is there for any child of the future?
I'm not saying it's not right, it is right, but I just don't want to.
Really emotional.
It is sick.
If you publish something like that, you might as well retire, it would be the end of me.
So who is this guy?
Zervos said he would probably lose his job over it.
An uncomfortable study
You know, I think before we get into hidden cameras and the study and Dr. Zervos, maybe we should start from the
very beginning and see how the whole thing actually started.
I have been a medical journalist for almost 20 years.
For the first 10 years I was at CBS, and for about 8 years I've had my own internet news program called "The High Wire".
Good morning. Good morning. Good evening...
But the biggest change in my career happened when I produced a documentary about vaccinations called "Vaxxed".
At the center of this documentary was a CDC whistleblower named Dr. William Thompson.
He went public in 2015 and claimed that scientific fraud had been committed in the vaccine safety studies.
Well, this movie hit like a bomb and caused a worldwide sensation, especially because we got so much bad press, it all
started with us being banned from the Tribeca Film Festival.
The decision to show a controversial documentary about vaccines has put Robert De Niro at the center of a major backlash.
Tonight's film festival kicked off Robert De Niro under fire, a controversial new movie
that many are calling critical of vaccines.
I think people should see this movie.
There was a backlash that I have not yet fully investigated.
I want to know the truth and I am not critical of vaccines. I want safe vaccines.
The producer of "Vaxxed", Del Bigtree, says that canceling the screening is tantamount to suppressing the truth.
I can imagine the pressure they were under to withdraw the movie, which they had backed from the beginning.
The message from the medical community is clear.
This is one of those scientific questions to which science has not provided an answer.
"Vaxxed" became one of the most controversial documentaries in history.
For this reason, there were long queues everywhere we went.
Look at this line of people behind me.
In fact, the first day we showed the film at the Angelica Film Center in New York, I wanted to know why this huge line had
formed in front of the building. Why were these people here?
"Could all parents or people who have a family member with autism please stand up?"
Three quarters of the audience stood up.
I remember feeling as if the air had been sucked out of the room.
I had no idea that so many people suffer from this problem.
I ended up asking this question five days a week, three screenings a day, for a year.
And every time, three quarters of those present stood up.
I realized that I had stumbled upon something absolutely huge.
Hi, I'm Jamie. Can you tell us your names?
I am Stephanie.
This is Zion.
After the film screenings, the parents of the affected children were motivated to tell their own stories.
We set up video cameras and started interviewing everyone who wanted to talk.
And I realized that it wasn't just about autism and not just about the MMR vaccination.
There was a flood of vaccine injuries and nobody talked about it.
The doctor asked: Would you like the flu vaccination? And I thought to myself: Why not?
I gave in. She got polio.
The hepatitis B vaccination.
She got the 2-month vaccination.
The MMR vaccination.
At 10:30 that morning, she arched her back and clenched her fists.
That night we were in hospital with a fever of 41 ? degree fever in hospital.
He began to vomit and scream loudly and shrilly.
Then the bloodcurdling screams began.
I didn't lie down for 10 months because she was always vomiting and choking.
She vomited and lay there while she slept and began to retch.
After this vaccination, he lost all speech.
He no longer spoke.
He no longer wanted to breastfeed.
He no longer spoke at all.
He developed really well, except for his motor skills.
He has chronic allergies.
Eczema.
A food protein integralitis syndrome.
She couldn't eat anything that had too high a glycemic index.
GI symptoms. She developed intestinal inflammation.
Chronic snoring.
Convulsive seizures.
We woke up, and...
... she just died in her arms?
Yes.
I continued to have her vaccinated and thus harmed her and made her even sicker.
The guilt, it's so overwhelming, it killed my daughter.
This was clearly a bigger problem than anyone ever realized, but there was one particular
interview that changed my perspective forever.
Colton was a 13-year-old healthy, strong boy. He loved everything that had to do with adrenaline kicks.
Motocross was his passion. The doctor said: "Hey, he's at an age when you should get the HPV vaccination."
I said okay, so he was given the vaccine and that was the last day he could ride his big bike. When he came
home that day, he felt nauseous and his neck was very sore.
He didn't want to get out of bed. I just thought, man, you're just really weak and exhausted. In the evening he sat up
to drink some water, but then he just fell back and his head hit the pillow. I asked, "Colton, are you paralyzed?"
They immediately took him to Primary Children's Hospital and the initial diagnosis was "transverse myelitis".
When the doctor came out and asked me if he had been ill, I said no, he wasn't ill.
He got the HPV vaccine on Feb. 1, and they said, "Oh, well, we'll report it to VAERS."
It's really bad not being able to do sport any more.
I now have to sit on the sidelines and watch.
Inform yourself. You can't even trust your doctor anymore.
You have to find out for yourself what is good for you.
COLTON BERRETT 2000-2018
Sadly, Colton took his own life in 2018 because he believed he had become too much of a burden on his family.
But what particularly affected me during the interview, which was conducted by my co-producer Polly Tommy,
was this box hanging by his side and breathing for him.
It was connected through a tube to a hole in his throat, and he literally had to wait for his lungs to fill with air
before he could answer a question. He ... (inhales) and then he answered the question until he ran out of air.
I was thinking of all the people who accuse these so-called anti-vaccinationists of bringing back polio or iron lung.
If vaccination rates fall, many people will fall ill and many children will be paralyzed by polio for the rest of their lives.
I thought: He's wearing an iron lung. You no longer lie in a metal tube, but there is now this box hanging
on the side and the tube that goes down your throat.
But this boy was not paralyzed because of polio or because he had not been vaccinated,
he was paralyzed by the Gardasil HPV vaccine.
I decided to have my daughter vaccinated, I wish one less woman would be affected by cervical cancer.
"One less! Gardasil"
I went home and started reading all the package inserts and warnings that come with the childhood vaccines, and for most
of them you can read it there under the serious side effects:
Guillan-Barré syndrome, that's paralysis. Or transverse myelitis, which is paralysis, and I realized - "the polio vaccine is a
success" - we have not eradicated paralytic diseases with this vaccination program - "the vaccine is effective" - we
are causing paralytic diseases with our vaccination program.
We met many parents who said that they would never have the MMR vaccination because your film shows that it is dangerous.
But what about the other 16 vaccines that will be given to my child in 72 doses up to the age of 18?
And I would say I only have anecdotal evidence from thousands of interviews conducted that no single
vaccine is safe for children. But that's not scientific.
I wanted better. I wanted to get to the bottom of this.
So I founded a non-profit organization called the Informed Consent Action Network, which is based on the right to voluntary
consent of the Nuremberg Code, the ethical principle agreed upon worldwide after the horrific human
experimentation by Nazi doctors ... which states that voluntary human consent is absolutely essential.
There must be no elements of coercion, fraud, deception, duress or overreaching or
other disguised forms of restraint or coercion.
I wanted to investigate the entire vaccination program.
I really focused on one thing. We hear that vaccines are safe and effective.
But before we even think about their effectiveness, how have we determined that they are safe?
So we started to look at all the scientific literature worldwide and came up against a major obstacle.
You can't sue a vaccine manufacturer for a vaccine. It is one of the few products in America
that has what is known as liability protection.
The reason for this is a law passed by the US government in 1986.
The pharmaceutical industry has basically blackmailed the government.
They said, 'We are losing so much money in lawsuits due to deaths and damage from our
vaccines that we are no longer making a profit.
Studies have shown that the vaccine against whooping cough or pertussis causes brain damage.
The controversy is not really about the fact that this happens, but about how often it happens.
And they said: "If you want us to continue producing vaccines, you have to take on the liability." And our government agreed.
If you want to sue or get information that goes beyond what is publicly known, you would have to sue the government.
That's when I realized I needed a constitutional lawyer. And I found a man called Aaron Seery.
Mr. Seery, you're not a doctor, are you?
No, sir.
And you are not an immunologist or biologist or ...
Vaccine researchers, no, but I regularly take testimony from them, including the world's leading experts on
vaccines, and I have to base my claims on actual evidence when I go to court. As for vaccines, I can't rely on titles.
Okay.
He had an ingenious plan: we would sue the government agencies HHS, FDA and NIH, and we started winning.
What have we proven in these court cases? That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.
Doctors used to listen to parents when they came in and said, "Hey, my child has this disease, he
has this problem." The doctors listened to them.
But when the parents came and said: "My child was vaccinated and then developed this problem", the doctors stopped listening.
Hello, we have triplets, two boys and a girl, Richie, Robbie and Claire.
Every day in our lives was a celebration, every day. They smiled, looked at each other, engaged with each other.
On June 25, 2007, we took her for her pneumococcal vaccination.
My daughter still has the scar on her leg from the vaccination.
She was the first and she screamed and never really stopped after that, but we didn't know, the boys got the vaccination too.
Around midday, Claire switched off completely. It was as if she was blind and deaf, just staring at the ceiling fan.
That was at noon. She had had her vaccination at 10 am. At 2 p.m. we saw Richie switch off.
They have lost all their reflexes. I'm a trained audiologist and I did the test for the stapedial reflex, which is this
little muscle in the middle ear, just to see if a muscle they can't control was still working, and it wasn't.
The stapedial reflex dampens the sound so that the ears do not hurt from a very loud
sound, but neither child had a stapedial reflex.
They stopped blinking, yawning, coughing and sneezing.
The worst part was when we saw it shut down on the third one. We were told it was genetic.
Then we were told that nothing could be done.
We were confronted with severe autism spectrum disorder in all three children when they started kindergarten.
We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to restore them.
The only one we got back is Robbie, who was the last to switch off.
Ritchie can only say one, maybe two words together.
Claire still can't speak at all, isn't sober and Robbie is approaching grade level but has severe OCD.
Let me tell you what a day in our lives looks like: You have a six-, seven- or eight-year-old child who is
not used to using the toilet, and at two, three or four in the morning he fills his diaper.
Well, you can imagine that's pretty uncomfortable, so it takes them off quickly.
Soon it's all over the place, in bed, on them, in short, then on us too, I scold her, she scolds me, we both scold the
child, who is the only innocent part of the whole situation.
The only thing conspicuously missing in this situation is, has anyone told you that the vaccination is safe?
They were all asleep in their beds, they didn't have a problem in the world.
This one story of Richie, Robbie and Claire ends any discussion that autism is only genetic.
There is no genetic explanation that would eliminate three siblings on exactly the same day.
If there are widespread complaints that a product is causing a particular harm, then this should be investigated.
Vaccines should be tested like other drugs, they should be tested for safety, and
unfortunately vaccines are not tested for safety.
Of the 72 vaccine doses that are now mandated or essentially recommended, but actually mandated, none of these
vaccines administered to American children have ever been subjected to a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure.
Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. was ripped by the mainstream media for saying there were no placebo studies for vaccines.
But he is right. This is exactly what we have established in our lawsuits against the government.
Not a single vaccine for children is subjected to a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial before approval.
This is the gold standard for safety testing of all pharmaceutical products, but is waived for vaccines.
In case you have forgotten how a placebo-controlled double-blind study works, as we discussed
in science lessons at school, let me remind you.
We divide a group of children into two groups. One group receives the vaccine.
The other group receives a placebo, i.e. a product that has no effect on the human body.
For injectable products such as vaccines, this is a saline solution.
The study is described as double-blind, as neither the scientists nor the patients know which group has received which product.
Did they receive the vaccine or the placebo?
This is done so that the scientists do not manipulate the study in favor of the pharmaceutical industry, which
will make a lot of money if this vaccine proves to be safe.
We then follow these two groups for two to five years, sometimes even up to ten years for many drugs.
At the end of this study, we unblind both the patients and the researchers so that we can look at both groups, the vaccinated
group and the placebo group, and compare their health outcomes.
Who had more cancer? Who had more diabetes or ADD, ADHD, autism or Tourette's syndrome or lupus or multiple sclerosis?
All of these diseases are currently on the rise in the United States of America.
And if the comparison shows that both groups are the same, that there are just as many problems in the vaccinated
group as in the placebo group, then you know it's safe.
A so-called security basis has been defined.
However, if the vaccinated group has more problems than the placebo group, then we know
it is not safe and should not be marketed.
There is only one problem: not a single vaccine in the childhood vaccine schedule has ever been
subjected to a placebo-controlled double-blind trial.
Therefore, they cannot say that the vaccines are safe on a scientific basis.
Are all vaccine studies placebo-controlled?
No. And they shouldn't. For example, Prevnar 13, a conjugated pneumococcal vaccine...
The FDA has approved a new pneumococcal vaccine.
It had to be tested in a Phase III trial. The control group was Prevnar 7, whose efficacy had been proven.
It will replace Prevnar, which was effective against seven serotypes.
Parents cannot be asked to expose their children to the risk of pneumococcal disease when there was
already a vaccine on the market to prevent this.
The World Health Organization has been very clear about this.
That would have been considered an unethical study.
Dr. Paul Offit, one of the great proponents of vaccination, probably because he developed a vaccine, the
rotavirus vaccine for children, and made a fortune with it:
It doesn't matter whether I benefited financially or not.
He likes to say that you can't always conduct placebo studies, especially when there is already a vaccine against the disease.
As an example, he cites Prevnar 13, which was tested in his safety study with Prevnar 7, the earlier version of the vaccine.
And he says that Prevnar 13 cannot be tested against a placebo made from saline solution because that would be unethical.
Children would be denied access to a vaccine that is already on the market. And that is not fair to them.
What he omits, however, is that Prevnar 7 has never been tested against a saline placebo. So we don't know if it is safe.
We are therefore testing a product whose safety profile we do not know with another
product whose safety profile is unknown to us.
And this is how the entire vaccination plan works.
I like to call it the whiskey study. Let me explain.
Let's say there's a group of people who complain that whiskey gets people drunk, crashes their cars and kills people.
To test whether whiskey causes car accidents, a double-blind placebo study would be conducted.
One group, the test group, would receive 10 glasses of whiskey.
The other group, the placebo group, would be given 10 glasses of water.
Then we would let both groups drive on the same route and see who has more accidents.
That is obvious. But in this case, it is the whiskey company that is conducting the study.
And they say: Oh, we're going to do a placebo-based study.
But our placebo study is not conducted with water.
It will be vodka, another product that is already on the market.
So 10 people got whiskey and 10 people got vodka and let them all drive. And what do you
think? They had just as many car accidents.
Therefore, whiskey does not cause car accidents, as it does not cause more accidents than vodka.
To follow Dr. Paul Offit's argument to its conclusion: If vodka had ever been tested against 10 glasses of water and
there had been no car accidents in the vodka group, then it would make sense to test whiskey against vodka.
But we all know that this study was never conducted, just as no placebo study was ever conducted on vaccines.
All you have to do is type "FDA-approved vaccines" into your computer, and all the vaccines that are
administered to your child as part of the childhood immunization schedule will appear there.
Then you can click on any vaccine that interests you. Let's click on "Recombivax HB".
This is one of the hepatitis B vaccines given to your baby on the first day of life.
Hello, welcome to the world. With your first breath comes your first sexually transmitted disease.
Now if you look at the vaccine insert sheet, the warning label that is wrapped around the
vaccine when it is delivered to your doctor....
It contains all kinds of information, e.g. what is in the vaccine, all the ingredients and side effects
of the vaccine. But take a close look at section 6.1.
The clinical study that was relied on to ensure safety is listed here.
It is always section 6.1 for each vaccine. So you can look through them all.
In this case, you will notice that only 147 children took part in the entire study.
And they were only observed for five days after each dose. Five days. Think about that for a moment.
Would you take a drug whose safety has only been monitored for five days?
If your child dies on the sixth day, this was not recorded in this study. You will say: We have not recorded any deaths.
If two years later a child develops autism, other autoimmune diseases or neurological disorders, things that take years to
develop, they will say: "We didn't find anything in our study.
For this reason, every drug we take undergoes a multi-year safety study.
Most problems only develop years later.
And if the study is not long enough, you will never see that.
We had the wonderful opportunity to talk to Dr. Stanley Plotkin about this. He is considered
the reigning godfather of our vaccination program.
Dr. Stan Plotkin. Dr. Plotkin. His vaccines reach practically every country in the world.
Like the rubella vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine, rabies.
He has trained a whole generation of scientists, including myself, to think the way he thinks.
He developed the standard textbook for vaccines in 1988.
Bill Gates describes his book as a bible for vaccine researchers.
I hope it is more accurate than the Bible.
In 2018, our attorney Aaron Siri had the opportunity to question Dr. Stanley Plotkin under oath.
And he asked him exactly this question: Is a five-day safety study enough to capture all the side effects that people
complain about in connection with the hepatitis B vaccine?
THE IMPEACHMENT OF DR. STANLEY PLOTKIN IN JANUARY 2018
Dr. Plotkin, this is the product, the manufacturer's package insert for Recombivax HB, correct?
Yes.
And the experiences from the clinical studies can be found in section 6.1, right? ... Right? ... Dr. Plotkin?
Yes.
OK. If you look in section 6.1 at the clinical trials conducted before Recombivax HB was approved,
how long was the safety monitored after each dose?
Let's see... Five days.
SEE ALSO. Is five days enough to recognize an autoimmune problem that occurs after five days?
No.
Is five days enough to detect a neurological disorder caused by the vaccine after five days?
No.
There is no control group, right?
No control group is mentioned, no.
If you scroll down to section 6.2, under "Nervous system disorders" it says that there
are reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, right?
Yes.
As well as multiple sclerosis. Exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizures,
febrile convulsions, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, muscle weakness, hypesthesia and encephalitis, right?
Correct.
OK. Well...
Before proceeding, these reports must be recorded because they have been reported to the
authorities as occurring after vaccination.
This is not proof that the vaccine caused these reactions.
To determine whether there is a causal relationship between the vaccine and the disease,
you need a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Yes.
But that wasn't done for this hepatitis B vaccine before it was licensed, was it?
No.
OK.
If you are looking for a phenomenon occurring within a vaccine group, you cannot assess this without having a control group.
Is it not the case that conducting such a study would be considered unethical at the present time?
Yes, that would be ethically difficult.
So that's how the whole game works. No placebo safety study is carried out before the vaccine is approved.
Then when people with all these serious side effects are standing in the queue and you ask: "Can you do a
placebo-controlled study now?" they say: "No, that's unethical".
So they don't do it before or after all this damage.
And if they can't do a study, the doctor tells you, "I don't know of any studies that
show that this damage is caused by the vaccine.
I therefore assume that they are safe."
Do you agree with the CDC's recommendation that babies should receive a hepatitis B vaccination on the first day of life?
Yes.
You said that hepatitis B does not cause encephalitis. Correct?
That's my opinion, yes.
But the IOM, after review, has determined that there is no scientific evidence of a
causal determination in either direction. Right?
Yes, but that means they have no evidence for the assumption.
That it either causes or does not cause?
Correct.
They don't know.
They don't know because there is not enough data.
In the absence of data, I conclude that there is no evidence of a causal link.
So if there is no data to prove that it is causing or not causing, your assumption, if I
understand it correctly - is that it is not causing it?
That there is no proof of causation.
Okay. That's different from saying it doesn't cause it. Right?
Correct.
So let's be clear: The safety of vaccines is not based on science and data, it is based on an assumption of safety.
And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in. But there is a way out.
Instead of conducting a placebo-controlled study, you can conduct a retrospective study in which you examine
people who have already made their decision as to whether or not they want to be vaccinated.
And then you simply compare these groups. Those who have received the vaccines and those who have decided not to be vaccinated.
We call this the "Vaccinated versus unvaccinated" study.
It was carried out by a few independent scientists and institutes on small groups of children, but never
by a government agency or a large medical institution.
Why this study is important is illustrated, in my opinion, by a study conducted in
Guinea-Bissau, Africa, by a man named Dr. Peter Aaby.
He is one of the leading experts. He advocates vaccinations and develops vaccination programs for the Third World.
He had carried out a DTP vaccination program in Guinea-Bissau, Africa, 30 years ago and found 30 years later that
only half of the children in the country had received this vaccination, while the other half had not.
I could conduct a perfect comparative study between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
When he carried out this study, the results were overwhelming for him.
This is about vaccines. And I think it's important to recognize that no vaccine has been tested for its overall effect
on mortality in randomized trials prior to its introduction.
I suspect that most of you think that we know how our vaccines work. This is not the case.
The vaccination program we are talking about here was introduced at the end of the 1970s
after the successful eradication of smallpox.
The WHO launched a kind of first vaccination program for low-income countries.
The result was a 2.3 times higher mortality rate in people vaccinated with DTP.
And this is the most commonly used vaccine worldwide.
The vaccine against whooping cough or pertussis was therefore associated with twice the mortality rate.
You can have a vaccine that completely protects against a certain disease but is associated
with a higher mortality rate. How is that possible?
After looking at this study, it was clear that the vaccine did protect against the diseases that were vaccinated against.
The children did not die from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. It was found that there was only one problem: they died five times
more often from the vaccination than from all the other things.
So it was clear that while the vaccine protected against these particular diseases, it weakened their immune systems
and made them susceptible to all sorts of other problems.
One of the other scientists gave a TED talk about it:
Despite the protection against three fatal diseases, the introduction of DTP was
associated with increased overall mortality.
Children who received the DTP vaccine were five times more likely to die than those who did not. And this is just one
example of many studies that have now been carried out on the DTP vaccine, all of which show the same thing:
DTP-vaccinated children have a higher mortality rate than children who have not received DTP vaccination.
It therefore appears that the DTP vaccination has non-specific negative effects.
Protection against the three deadly diseases comes at a very high price, namely an increased risk of death.
So even with the best of intentions, using the DTP vaccine may kill more children than it saves.
I know these results are extremely unpleasant and most people, myself included, wish this
wasn't true, but it is what the data tells us.
This was only a study of a vaccine in a group of children.
What if we were to study children who have received not just one vaccine, but between 72 and
100 vaccines by the time they are 18 years old?
I am talking about the most vaccinated nation in the world, the USA.
Our federal health authorities actually paid the Institute of Medicine to study the safety of the immunization
schedule as a whole, and the Institute of Medicine issued a report in 2013 after conducting this review.
This report states that there have been no studies on the health differences between
fully unvaccinated and fully vaccinated children.
The CDC is responsible for conducting these studies. They have been asked time and time again to do this, but they have refused.
However, the Institute of Medicine has studied the vaccination schedule and found in its 2011 report that
there are over 150 harms that are very likely related to vaccinations that have never been studied.
Well, what did the CDC do after the Institute of Medicine released this report?
Instead of conducting the study, they conducted a study on how to conduct such a study on vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
She has spent a lot of money publishing a pamphlet on how to conduct a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
This paper was published in 2015. Now we are in the year 2025, 10 years later, and this study has still not been published.
Was this study never carried out? I do not know.
This is information that vaccine safety advocates have been demanding for a long
time, and I don't know why it hasn't been done.
This simple study would silence all vaccination opponents forever.
I have to assume that they conducted this study in every possible way and apparently can't find a way to make it look
like the vaccinated are healthier. But that's just my opinion.
I've seen some other studies comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated, but mainstream medicine says the
cohort was too small, or they criticize that the study wasn't done by a large medical institution.
So if we're ever going to get a study of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated that people believe, it needs to be done by highly
respected scientists at a major medical institution that has a database large enough to do a thorough,
solid study comparing vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.
As fate would have it, Del met the head of the infectious disease department at Henry Ford Health System, Marcus Zervos.
JUNE 5, 2022
I will never forget this meeting, because you said to me: "I've seen your movie (Vaxxed), it's fascinating."
But you said, and I'll never forget this, "I've seen your videos that I had a problem with."
They said that vaccines cannot be said to be safe because proper safety studies have never been carried out.
And you said to me: "I actually researched that because I wanted to see if it was true."
And you said: "I'm sorry to have to tell you that you're actually right about that."
Yes, I still say that.
No proper safety studies have been carried out.
That didn't happen and is still the case today.
I then said to you: "All right."
And you said: "I don't know what I'm doing here.
I don't agree with you. I believe in vaccines."
And I asked, "Would you ever consider doing a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people?"
And you said, "I would do anything, wherever the data is, because data is data, isn't it?"
Yes.
When I met Dr. Zervos for the first time, he agreed to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated
people in a study. I was thrilled. He was perfect.
The Ford Medical Center is one of the best research centers in the world.
And Dr. Zervos is about to make a name for himself as a hero for solving the entire water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
For decades, Flint, one of the poorest cities in the USA, bought its water from Detroit.
When a pipeline was built, the city temporarily drew its water from the Flint River instead of
continuing to use the water supply from Detroit.
This decision forced the city to put an old water treatment plant into operation.
"Here is the Flint"
It comes out of the tap.
The water is brown and has a foul odor.
We can't drink the water.
It soon became a breeding ground for legionella and people became ill.
Oxygen - are you constantly connected to it or can you take it off sometimes?
All the time.
Yes.
Marcus Zervos, her doctor, had treated a chronic skin infection that her weakened immune system was unable to control.
You feel much better.
I am thrilled.
If I can heal her a little more, I will get you an appointment with the transplant doctors.
There were 90 confirmed cases in the year and a half after the water supply was switched. 12 people had died.
Sean McElmurry had assembled a team of 23 scientists and experts from around the state.
The team says the state would not allow them to begin searching for the source of the outbreak.
Dr. Zervos was an expert in infectious diseases and he was concerned about the delay.
It was important to start immediately because by June we expected more cases of Legionnaires' disease and
there would be more deaths, which we expressed in a meeting with top MDHHS leadership.
I remember my colleague telling him that if he didn't do that, people could die.
Unfortunately, Nick Lyon's answer was that they had to die of something.
I mean, you're just shocked when the director of the Ministry of Health says something like that.
Dr. Zervos seemed perfect. He had gone against the entire health care system in Michigan, so I thought
he would probably be brave enough to do this study.
But then a few years passed and there was still no study.
I called Aaron and said, "Why don't we try to convince him to finally do this study?"
I flew to Michigan, and we met with Dr. Zervos in person. We said, "Look, here's your chance.
The results should be directly in line with orthodoxy.
The vaccinated children should all be healthy.
He could be hailed as a hero for finally silencing the anti-vaccinators. He said he was prepared to do this.
The study was to use the data that was literally already available to them.
The data of millions of people already recorded in the Henry Ford Health System database, including hundreds,
perhaps thousands of completely unvaccinated children, as well as vaccinated children, of course.
This would make it possible to use this database of several million people and filter out the children who have been in the
Henry Ford system continuously for several years since birth.
Because it is a closed HMO environment, meaning it provides both the insurance and the medical care,
it has most of the health data on these children.
Even if they leave the Henry Ford Health System, Henry Ford will continue to pay for it as their insurer.
They therefore have the health codes for all medical services that these children have received.
If you filter out these children, you have a cohort that you know everything about from birth for at least a few years.
I used to be a program coordinator at Henry Ford Hospital, so I know my way around there.
It is one of the best integrated healthcare systems for research.
Henry Ford receives over $90 million in research funding annually, with nearly 700 residents and
fellows and 53 ACGME-accredited training programs.
I think Henry Ford, like other institutions, has a fondness for the benefits of vaccines.
You can't miss that. Here's a full-page letter from Henry Ford with 56 signatures saying in bold
that the science is clear: Vaccines save lives.
If the results showed that vaccinations were associated with chronic diseases and that unvaccinated people remained healthy
over time, such a result would be particularly convincing.
JUNE 5, 2022
You know, I'm in favor of vaccinations. I'm in favor of it, of course. I think it's the
best way to fight deadly infectious diseases.
I am in favor of compulsory vaccination. Henry Ford is in favor of mandatory vaccination because of me.
Henry Ford is one of about 90 health systems in the United States working to recruit a total of 30,000 volunteers
for the Moderna Covid vaccine trial as quickly as possible.
This is the worst pandemic in the last hundred years and our best hope of dealing with it is an effective vaccine.
Henry Ford requires all 33,000 employees to be fully vaccinated by September 10, 2021.
The health system says this is in line with its existing immunization policy, which includes team members getting the flu
shot every year as well as keeping other vaccinations up to date.
It seemed to me that Henry Ford was pro-vaccine, not anti-vaccine, so I had to assume that the only
reason they would do this study was to prove us wrong.
Del and I thought this was an excellent opportunity.
You can carry out the comparison and presumably publish it.
We only had one request and that was that whatever the result, it would be published.
Would he stick with it if it turned out that unvaccinated children are healthier?
And if he realized that he would expose himself to the wrath of his entire profession upon publication?
We didn't know. That was our biggest fear. I mean, vaccines are the Holy Grail of modern medicine.
And anyone who decides to question vaccines in any way is basically considered a heretic.
Vaccines are safe. Vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines are safe and highly effective.
Safe and effective. Safe and highly effective.
Vaccines: one of mankind's most incredible achievements, saving millions of lives.
Childhood vaccinations have prevented around four million deaths worldwide every year.
The vast majority of pediatricians in this country strongly support vaccinations.
Missed vaccination appointments. We do not vaccinate.
The currently recommended vaccination schedule is well tested.
We have studied it in millions of children.
Billions of people. Decades of extensive peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Centuries of science. The science is pretty clear. It has been for many years.
The idea that we are giving too many vaccines, there is really no scientific evidence for that.
The scientific community is publishing one study after another.
There is nothing to see. There is nothing to see.
I will not allow conspiracy theories to distract from real solutions.
Most doctors cannot tolerate being called quacks and having their reputation destroyed.
I treated the head of the lab at my hospital for high blood pressure and subsequently
became someone who was distrusted in every way.
All because of a statement I made where I asked if we could stop giving vaccines to my sick patients
and give them them on the day they are discharged?
If they hadn't tried to intimidate me, doubt me and push me to do research to prove that what I saw was
true, I would still be working as a normal doctor.
The Florida Department of Health will work with the Governor to repeal all mandatory
vaccination requirements in Florida. All. All. All.
My experience regarding the discussion or disclosure of vaccine-related harms is that
these are not welcome ideas or conversations.
The move by Florida's health minister, a doctor there, has been criticized by public health experts.
Whether it is ignorance, stupidity or malice, in the end people come to harm.
He is not exactly greeted with waving flags by his professional colleagues, but that gives him courage.
It's a very hostile environment, both academically and in the media, for people who come to conclusions
or hold opinions that contradict mainstream ideas.
Any independent scientist who has ever dared to conduct a study on vaccinated versus unvaccinated people is immediately attacked.
There is a study by Dr. Anthony Mawson from Mississippi.
He conducted a study of about 600 homeschooled children and found alarming rates of allergies, ADD, ADHD, neurological disorders
and a four-fold increased risk of autism in those vaccinated.
As soon as the study was published, his job was in jeopardy.
I asked him if he would be in this movie and he said, "You can show my studies, but I just went through hell over
this. I can't take it anymore." Then there's Dr. Paul Thomas.
Hey, how are you doing? What I see on this page is a pink, dull, scarred eardrum.
I have been a pediatrician for 35 years and am now retired.
WWhat I noticed in the first ten years of my practice was that the children were getting sicker and sicker.
And over the next decade, as more and more patients opted out of vaccinations, I could see the difference.
But I wanted to know if I could prove it. So we compiled all the data from my practice.
We looked at every baby I followed in my practice and published the results in an international public health journal.
The results of this study were peer-reviewed. They were valid.
We have seen massive increases, and we are talking about 400 to 500% more allergies, autoimmune diseases, neurological
developmental disorders and then infections of all kinds. Massively increased in
the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
What happened when I published this study? Within a few days of it being available online, I received a call from my lawyer.
Do not meet patients. Do not write prescriptions. Do not go to the practice.
Their authorization has been suspended with immediate effect. They are a danger to public health.
And today?
Today is the last time I'll be practicing clinical medicine in Oregon.
Because you all keep going, I know that the heart of this place will live on.
What if Dr. Zervos conducts this study and it produces exactly the same result as the other studies?
Would he publish them anyway? That was the question. The years passed.
In 2020, I was told that they had put together a study.
I held this study in my hand and looked at it, its meaning...
This study, if published, would be the first step towards changing this landscape.
Weeks went by, more time passed and at some point I learned that it would not be submitted for publication.
Aaron called me and said they had finished the study.
There was just one problem, they wouldn't publish it.
That was exactly what we had feared.
I called Dr. Zervos and asked him if I could fly over and meet him for dinner. He agreed.
I wanted to look Zervos in the eye and ask him what was so devastating about this study that he was afraid to publish it.
I wanted to know what was in this study. I hadn't seen it.
I also imagined that there must be a way to persuade him to publish this study.
But one thing was certain: this was my last chance.
I would bring hidden cameras and recording devices so that no matter what happened at
that dinner, I could prove that it had happened.
JUNE 5, 2022
What do you think of the study you conducted?
It is important information because it has shown a difference between the groups.
I don't know how ... I don't know how to explain it, these are important findings. I mean, the study was...
Do you find any shortcomings in the study? Is there a way to improve the study? With what is there?
Not that I know of.
No?
The effects of childhood immunizations on short- and long-term chronic health outcomes in children. A birth cohort study.
This is really solid.
Yes, will you show us the results?
What are the results?
The CDC has published an infographic on how to look at vaccinated and unvaccinated children,
and we followed them until they were 18 years old.
And do you agree with that?
No. We have done that 100%.
We have looked at this from all possible angles.
I think this is a damning criticism of our public health measures, because if this is true, we are systematically
making children ill, and not just a little ill. Very sick.
If I publish something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.
I'm just curious. What in this data makes you think it will be as disastrous for your career as you think?
What was he so afraid of? The study was enormously explosive.
18,468 test subjects, of whom 1,957 were completely unvaccinated.
When comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, they found an increased
risk of several chronic diseases in the vaccinated.
The vaccinated test subjects had a more than four times higher risk of developing asthma.
4.29 times higher in the adjusted study. And I looked at a lot of studies, it seems to be between 3.26 and 5.65.
They also found a three times higher risk of atopic diseases. This is a subgroup of allergic diseases.
They found that the risk of autoimmune diseases was almost six times higher.
The autoimmune diseases examined in this study include thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid
arthritis, SLE - systemic lupus erythematosus, MS - multiple sclerosis and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
You mentioned that there are over 80 different autoimmune diseases.
And what their data on autoimmunity showed was a six times higher risk in those who
received vaccines compared to the unvaccinated.
This is staggering because autoimmune diseases are associated with significant morbidity and high
healthcare costs and suffering that add up over a lifetime.
Neurodevelopmental disorders
- What figures are involved? Do you remember?
Five and a half times the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders.
We know that the immune system is closely linked to the development and function of the brain.
So when the immune system is activated by an illness or possibly by a vaccination, neuropsychiatric symptoms can
occur, which are probably related to inflammation of the brain and immune processes in the brain.
2.92 times as many motor disabilities.
4.47 times as many speech disorders in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people.
Developmental delays three times as often.
They found the same things that I had found in terms of allergies and autoimmunity.
In addition, six times more acute and chronic ear infections.
Interestingly, there were several health conditions where they couldn't do this analysis at all
because there were no cases in the unvaccinated group.
Due to the way the mathematical formulas work, you cannot have zero in a group and compare the risk.
For example, there were 262 children with ADHD in the vaccinated group.
There was not a single case of ADHD in the unvaccinated group. Zero.
These figures are simply unbelievable. These diseases did not occur at all in almost 2,000
unvaccinated children. No brain dysfunctions. No diabetes.
No behavioral disorders. No learning disabilities. No mental disabilities.
No tics and no other mental disabilities in the unvaccinated group.
I will read out the conclusion here. Despite all this and contrary to our expectations - remember: the author
assumed that the study would show that vaccinated people are much healthier than unvaccinated people, right?
And that is the result we came to. We found that vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold
increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic disease compared to children who were not vaccinated.
With each vaccination, even just one, the probability of chronic disease was two and a
half times higher than without vaccination.
In the non-vaccinated group, there were no chronic diseases associated with an increased risk. None.
What does this graphic mean? Please explain it to me. So it's about unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.
This is basically your probability of not having a chronic illness.
You have carried out a so-called time-to-event analysis.
After 10 years, the probability of being free of a chronic disease was 43% in the vaccinated group and 83%
in the non-vaccinated group. That is a big difference.
If you're unvaccinated, you stay above 70 up here, so about 80% of you are perfectly healthy, whereas if you're vaccinated,
you fall below the 50% mark, which is exactly what I said.
I said that 54% of American children currently have a chronic illness.
That is exactly what is shown here.
So after 10 years, 57% of those vaccinated had a chronic disease. That should shock everyone.
Let us remember that there is currently a debate in America about the fact that 54% of our children are chronically ill.
Here we look at the study, and it's almost exactly these figures.
57% of vaccinated people are chronically ill, compared with only 17% of unvaccinated people.
I guess being interested in vaccines and knowing non-specific side effects, I was sad, but not surprised.
I can tell you that this data confirms my biggest concerns about the childhood immunization schedule.
Despite the good intentions of vaccine research, this has a counterproductive effect.
In almost all areas of chronic disease, vaccinated people fare significantly worse.
But there is a problem. It's what I've been talking about for years and it brings me to the main
point of this whole investigation and that is autism.
In this study, there does not appear to be a statistically significant link between
vaccination and autism. And I wanted to know why.
Yes, autism is neutral. Does that mean we are wrong about autism? Marc?
No.
No?
No. No, many variables play a role and it is difficult to control them.
If the number of cases is low, as is the case here with autism with only 23 cases in the vaccinated group and one case in
the unvaccinated group, this is not sufficient to determine a statistically significant increase in the autism rate.
So although the study shows various neurodevelopmental disorders, in the case of autism there were not enough
diagnosed children in the group to answer this question.
This is why studies like this need to be repeated on an even larger scale.
The fact is: there is an indication. And this evidence is that unvaccinated children are healthy.
This should be a very important positive study.
Conversely, the situation is not so good for vaccinated children, particularly with regard to neuropsychiatric disorders.
As far as the strength of association is concerned, one corresponds to the value "neutral". I'm an epidemiologist, that's
my specialty, so "neutral" means that there is no association.
With a value of two, this means that the risk is twice as high.
For non-randomized data, especially from company databases, we set a higher threshold. A good guideline is four.
If a fourfold increased risk is found in one data set and we repeat the study in another location, we would almost certainly
find a correlation if the risk relationship is greater than four.
I sat at that dinner, read the study for the first time and thought, "My God, the world needs to see this study!"
But the more I urged Dr. Zervos to publish, the more excuses he had.
I think it's a good study, but it has its limitations.
The counterargument is: it is retrospective, there is no control group, other factors play a role.
This is a heterogeneous group of diseases. Hydroxychloroquine is a perfect example of this.
Did I mention that Dr. Zervos was not only at the center of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, but also at the center of
Ford's hydroxychloroquine study, which showed a 50% reduction in mortality among those who received hydroxychloroquine?
For this he was attacked by Tony Fauci and virtually everyone in the mainstream media and medical world.
The published Henry Ford Hospital study was an uncontrolled retrospective cohort study. Therefore, this study is flawed.
Henry Ford's PR department imposed a gag order on me; I was no longer allowed to talk about anything.
They said to me: "Marc, why don't you go to CNN, they would be happy to have you there, to hear what you think.
But they will twist your words anyway and make you look bad.
So what's the point?" So I should be able to defend myself and point out the inaccuracies.
I think maybe Henry Ford's PR department was right: everything gets twisted anyway, and you
look bad and get fired. So what's the point?
That's exactly what will happen here: Someone will come along and claim that the study is flawed
instead of looking at it the way it should be looked at.
How about considering it as important scientific information that can shed light on how a proper study should be conducted...
Why? Why? Because there is a political agenda behind it.
I understand it has problems. Any retrospective study will have the same problems, won't it?
It will be attacked again and again.
Retrospective studies have their limits.
That's why we conduct randomized clinical trials whenever possible, because they don't have the same limitations.
The biggest problem with retrospective studies are differences between the compared groups that cannot be explained.
If you want a flawless study, then conduct a placebo-controlled study.
Any retrospective study will have weaknesses, but in this study, emphasis was placed on addressing
many of the weaknesses identified by the study itself.
If anyone were to criticize the study, it would be the different follow-up times of the
vaccinated and unvaccinated children, for example.
The authors performed a sensitivity analysis in which they restricted the analysis
to children with a certain follow-up time.
Even if the follow-up period was limited to one year for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the rate of chronic
diseases was still 2.75 times higher in the vaccinated children.
It was 3.38 times higher with a three-year limit and even four times higher with a five-year limit.
The study results therefore remained unchanged regardless of the selected follow-up period.
The results indicate that the different follow-up times had no significant influence on the research question.
Another aspect is the clear difference in the utilization of medical care between unvaccinated and vaccinated children.
In other words, could the observed differences simply be due to the fact that these children were examined
less frequently and therefore received fewer diagnoses?
To counteract this, they restricted the population of unvaccinated children to those who had completed
at least a certain number of visits to the doctor.
And even in this sensitivity analysis, the main results remained the same.
Disturbance factors were taken into account in this study.
These confounding factors include age, socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity and origin. A method called Cox regression
was used. This examines the relationship between the factor of interest and the result when all other factors remain the same.
Even after taking these factors into account, their influence was actually quite small.
I had actually expected them to have a very strong effect, but that wasn't the case.
And if you carry out many sensitivity analyses and the results hardly change, this can have a reassuring effect.
The authors have done a good job with the information available to them.
I have seen studies on vaccines that were published in prestigious journals and were much weaker in quality.
Are the results of your study important?
Yes, they are important.
Do you know who you should send them to? Do what I already told you.
No, I'm not going to do that. No, I don't want to end up like Didier or ... go through what McCullough went through.
He deserves my full respect for taking this upon himself and standing up against it.
But I'm just not going to do that. I'm not him.
In any other climate, in a normal climate, you would have published this study just like that,
wouldn't you? If we weren't in this world of censorship...
...then I would publish it in exactly the same way.
Yes?
I would publish it in exactly the same way, yes.
I just want to finish my work, my international work.
One reason for my reluctance is that nothing will come of it except that I will lose my job, which I would rather avoid.
We are here because I fully respect you and I am aware of the danger. I told you that if you carry out this
study - I repeat again, I said that if you carry out this study, you will come under fire.
And you said: "I don't care. All I care about is the data, and I'm retiring soon anyway." That's exactly what you said.
Yes.
So your energy in this regard has definitely changed?
Yes, energy changes.
Let's put it this way: I put my entire career on the line because I saw a problem.
Because of what?
Because I saw a problem that affects the children of America and the world.
We have a seriously growing problem with autoimmune diseases and chronic diseases.
I am not saying that vaccinations are the only cause, but I am saying that this vaccination program needs a serious overhaul.
We were much healthier when we received 10 or 20 vaccines. With 54 shots and 72 doses, it is clear that we are not making
our children healthier. This is going in the wrong direction.
If there is a way to do this vaccination program better, which I believe there is, and I never said I wanted to ban
vaccines from this planet, but we currently have an autism rate of 1 in 26, 28 people? These are serious problems.
Yes, I agree with you. We could solve this differently.
Right, but how do we get there..., when I finally..., I mean, what are the chances of finding someone like you who has influence.
If I can't publish this study, what hope is there for any child in the future? I can't do anything for them.
As long as there is no change of leadership, nothing will happen.
Publishing a study like this won't... uh, it would actually be the right thing to do, but I just don't want to.
And I already have enough of these things to deal with. I don't want any more of them.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. I would like to make a note: This is the Galileo moment.
I believe that this changes more lives than anything else.
If we can fix this vaccination program, it will not only change the lives of millions of
children here in America, but around the world.
You will be the father of this change in the system.
That is historic. And I want to work with you to achieve it. That is why we are here.
Yes, I understand what you mean, yes.
We have the ability to do something that nobody thinks is possible. If not you, then who?
For some reason, the hammering always comes to my door.
No, I can't handle it, I really can't.
I'm not a good person... I won't do it because I already have enough to worry about.
Yes, it's obvious, it really gets to me.
He will simply suppress it.
I think if someone looked at that and said: That's unbelievable, how can he?
And I think he can do that just like we can do all the things we don't want to do by simply convincing ourselves.
He says something like: "It doesn't matter. It's just a study.
It won't change anything. It's too much for me. I can't do it."
And maybe he's right. Maybe it's too much for him.
It is very important that this study is published.
We must have a balance in the scientific literature and for the progress of science.
There are always pros and cons to everything.
And if we have a deep-seated belief, a bias in favor of vaccines, we have lost the balance.
And if we lose our balance, the entire scientific work goes off track.
And if that happens, large sections of the population will be harmed.
I can't help but wonder how many children will suffer from a chronic illness that they might not have to
suffer from if this information had been out there?
I treat many children with neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders, and their
lives and the lives of their families are hell.
And I know so many parents who suffer from all kinds of guilt.
Parents whose children have experienced side effects or who have observed a neurological developmental
regression in connection with vaccinations. They are devastated.
So many mothers have said to me: "My child is like this because of me, you know, through my fault. I did this to him."
I believe we are destroying our future by destroying the overall health of our most precious asset, our children.
We need to know if this is true. We are morally and ethically obliged to repeat this study again and again and
find out whether it is correct and true. We have to do that.
The fact that this study was not peer-reviewed and published is extremely worrying.
These are important findings and other health systems need to replicate this analysis.
This question really needs to be investigated. It is a very important research question.
I urge you, yes, you, the doctors, you, the researchers, carry out the research.
Find those in your data set, in your system, who are not vaccinated and compare them with the vaccinated cohort.
This is a data record. You could repeat this again. There are other closed payment systems.
Let Kaiser Permanente Southern California do it.
And let the Harvard Pilgrim System in Boston do it.
And all the other health systems across the country. And maybe even the CDC with the VSD.
With this, we can begin to address the problem that these vaccines may be causing.
If these results are valid, it represents an absolute turning point in our understanding of the
unintended and non-specific effects of vaccination.
And we need to rethink the way we implement our vaccination program.
This is a cease and desist letter we received from Henry Ford Health's attorneys.
This letter leads me to believe that they really don't want us to release this movie.
In the letter, Henry Ford accuses us of defamation because we said that the unpublished study was not
submitted for publication due to the results of the study.
They claim that the reason the study was never submitted for publication was: "Due to
significant and serious flaws in the data and methodology.
And because it fell far short of the rigorous scientific standards demanded by Henry Ford Health and its researchers."
But we just heard from Dr. Marcus Zervos, the lead author of this unpublished study and a
world-leading infectious disease expert at Henry Ford.
He told me that he thought the study was good and would publish it unchanged.
There's just one catch: if he were to publish it, he believes, it would be the end of his career. He
would be finished. Those are not my words, but his.
Even if Dr. Zervos stands by his study, does that mean it's a perfect study? Of course not.
Can we say that the Henry Ford study proves that vaccines are causing the epidemic of chronic diseases?
No, we can't do that. A retrospective study does not prove a causal relationship.
What we can say, though, is that we think she's showing a warning signal. My goodness, there could be a real problem here.
This concern is reinforced by the fact that this unpublished study is not an isolated case. It is not an exception.
There are several other studies that all showed similar signals.
So there will certainly be attacks on the limitations of this study that are found in most
retrospective studies. And we recognize these limitations.
But the only way to really disprove them is to conduct your own study comparing vaccinated
and unvaccinated children and prove us wrong.
I believe that Dr. Zervos tried to do just that and failed.
But as parents watching this movie right now, you need to ask yourself a very important question.
Why has not a single health authority or major medical institution in the world managed to produce a single study
comparing vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children and showing that the vaccinated children are healthier?
Wasn't that the real purpose of the vaccination program, to make our children healthier?
And while this study may be uncomfortable for those who think the vaccination program is safe, there is also a positive side.
In each of the studies so far, there is a group of children who are doing well.
Who don't suffer from many of the diseases that plague America's children.
Who show hardly any cases of neurological developmental disorders or autoimmune diseases.
You live in a world that is characterized by health.
Because her parents have chosen a different path.
Now you have even more data. You have been informed.
What will you do now? That decision is up to you.