The premise of the docu is that after years of being told that a comprehensive comparison of vaxxed and unvaxxed children can't be performed for ethical reasons, Del Bigtree (ICAN, HighWire) finally got somebody within the medical establishment to agree to a retrospective cohort study, comparing medical outcomes between groups. The only condition of Bigtree's was that whatever the study showed, the authors promised to publish what they found.

Well the study was completed and shows vastly increased rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated children. The lead author of the study, one Marcus Zervos of the Henry Ford clinic, is a vaccine proponent and likely did not expect it to produce the results it did. Once the study was complete, he refused to publish it officially because, as he states in a secretly filmed conversation, he fears for his career and because 'I'm not a good person'. Bigtree and his organisation are now being sent cease and desists from the Henry Ford clinic for defamation, unless they retract this very documentary about the study. It premiered at the Malibu Film Festival and online yesterday. Please share it with any normies it might influence.

As someone who's followed a lot of Highwire stuff, it doesn't reveal too much that's new for me, plus in my opinion Del spends too long burying the lede for the uninitiated, because he knows he's sitting on powerful ammunition. However once it brings everyone up to speed, the footage secretly filmed at dinner with Marcus Zervos is very damning and revealing. Zervos considers it a good study, an important one, the best that could be done as things stand... he agrees with Del about the issues - but he has agreed (with somebody) not to publish it because he doesn't want to be hounded, because he thinks it wouldn't change anything and because he's weak and 'got too many other things to worry about'. Which in turn means the story is much bigger than Marcus Zervos alone and it reveals that everything Bigtree says is true, about scientific cover ups and their willingness to publish if the study had shown the opposite results.

The premise of the docu is that after years of being told that a comprehensive comparison of vaxxed and unvaxxed children can't be performed for ethical reasons, Del Bigtree (ICAN, HighWire) finally got somebody within the medical establishment to agree to a retrospective cohort study, comparing medical outcomes between groups. The only condition of Bigtree's was that whatever the study showed, the authors promised to publish what they found.

Well the study was completed and shows vastly increased rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated children. The lead author of the study, one Marcus Zervos of the Henry Ford clinic, is a vaccine proponent and likely did not expect it to produce the results it did. Now that the study's complete, he refuses to publish it officially because, as he states in a secretly filmed conversation, he fears for his career and because 'I'm not a good person'. Bigtree and his organisation are now being sent cease and desists from the Henry Ford clinic for defamation, unless they retract this very documentary about the study. It premiered at the Malibu Film Festival and online yesterday. Please share it with any normies it might influence.

As someone who's followed a lot of Highwire stuff, it doesn't reveal too much that's new for me, plus in my opinion Del spends too long burying the lede for the uninitiated, because he knows he's sitting on powerful ammunition. However once it brings everyone up to speed, the footage secretly filmed at dinner with Marcus Zervos is very damning and revealing. Zervos considers it a good study, an important one, the best that could be done as things stand... he agrees with Del about the issues - but he has agreed (with somebody) not to publish it because he doesn't want to be hounded, because he thinks it wouldn't change anything and because he's weak and 'got too many other things to worry about'. Which in turn means the story is much bigger than Marcus Zervos alone and it reveals that everything Bigtree says is true, about scientific cover ups and their willingness to publish if the study had shown the opposite results.

The premise of the docu is that after years of being told that a comprehensive comparison of vaxxed and unvaxxed children can't be performed for ethical reasons, Del Bigtree (ICAN, HighWire) finally got somebody within the medical establishment to agree to a retrospective cohort study, comparing medical outcomes between groups. The only condition of Bigtree's was that whatever the study showed, the authors promised to publish what they found.

Well the study was finally completed and shows vastly increased rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated children. The lead author of the study, one Marcus Zervos of the Henry Ford clinic, is a vaccine proponent and likely did not expect it to produce the results it did. Now that the study's complete, he refuses to publish it officially because, as he states in a secretly filmed conversation, he fears for his career and because 'I'm not a good person'. Bigtree and his organisation are now being sent cease and desists from the Henry Ford clinic for defamation, unless they retract this very documentary about the study. It premiered at the Malibu Film Festival and online yesterday. Please share it with any normies it might influence.

As someone who's followed a lot of Highwire stuff, it doesn't reveal too much that's new for me, plus in my opinion Del spends too long burying the lede for the uninitiated, because he knows he's sitting on powerful ammunition. However once it brings everyone up to speed, the footage secretly filmed at dinner with Marcus Zervos is very damning and revealing. Zervos considers it a good study, an important one, the best that could be done as things stand... he agrees with Del about the issues - but he has agreed (with somebody) not to publish it because he doesn't want to be hounded, because he thinks it wouldn't change anything and because he's weak and 'got too many other things to worry about'. Which in turn means the story is much bigger than Marcus Zervos alone and it reveals that everything Bigtree says is true, about scientific cover ups and their willingness to publish if the study had shown the opposite results.

The premise of the docu is that after years of being told that a comprehensive comparison of vaxxed and unvaxxed children can't be performed for ethical reasons, Del Bigtree (ICAN, HighWire) finally got somebody within the medical establishment to agree to a retrospective cohort study, comparing medical outcomes between groups. The only condition of Bigtree's was that whatever the study showed, the authors promised to publish what they found.

Well the study was finally completed and shows vastly increased rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated children. The author of the study, one Marcus Zervos of the Henry Ford clinic, is a vaccine proponent and likely did not expect it to produce the results it did. Now that the study's complete, he refuses to publish it officially because, as he states in a secretly filmed conversation, he fears for his career and because 'I'm not a good person'. Bigtree and his organisation are now being sent cease and desists from the Henry Ford clinic for defamation, unless they retract this very documentary about the study. It premiered at the Malibu Film Festival and online yesterday. Please share it with any normies it might influence.

As someone who's followed a lot of Highwire stuff, it doesn't reveal too much that's new for me, plus in my opinion Del spends too long burying the lede for the uninitiated, because he knows he's sitting on powerful ammunition. However once it brings everyone up to speed, the footage secretly filmed at dinner with Marcus Zervos is very damning and revealing. Zervos considers it a good study, an important one, the best that could be done as things stand... he agrees with Del about the issues - but he has agreed (with somebody) not to publish it because he doesn't want to be hounded, because he thinks it wouldn't change anything and because he's weak and 'got too many other things to worry about'. Which in turn means the story is much bigger than Marcus Zervos alone and it reveals that everything Bigtree says is true, about scientific cover ups and their willingness to publish if the study had shown the opposite results.

The premise of the docu is that after years of being told that a comprehensive comparison of vaxxed and unvaxxed children can't be performed for ethical reasons, Del Bigtree (ICAN, HighWire) finally got somebody within the medical establishment to agree to a retrospective cohort study, comparing medical outcomes between groups. The only condition of Bigtree's was that whatever the study showed, the authors promised to publish what they found.

Well the study was finally completed and shows vastly increased rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated children. The author of the study, one Marcus Zervos of the Henry Ford clinic, is a vaccine proponent and likely did not expect it to produce the results it did. Now that the study's complete, he refuses to publish it officially because, as he states in a secretly filmed conversation, he fears for his career and because 'I'm not a good person'. Bigtree and his organisation are now being sent cease and desists from the Henry Ford clinic for defamation, unless they retract this very documentary about the study. Please share it with any normies it might influence.

As someone who's followed a lot of Highwire stuff, it doesn't reveal too much that's new for me, plus in my opinion Del spends too long burying the lede for the uninitiated, because he knows he's sitting on powerful ammunition. However once it brings everyone up to speed, the footage secretly filmed at dinner with Marcus Zervos is very damning and revealing. Zervos considers it a good study, an important one, the best that could be done as things stand... he agrees with Del about the issues - but he has agreed (with somebody) not to publish it because he doesn't want to be hounded, because he thinks it wouldn't change anything and because he's weak and 'got too many other things to worry about'. Which in turn means the story is much bigger than Marcus Zervos alone and it reveals that everything Bigtree says is true, about scientific cover ups and their willingness to publish if the study had shown the opposite results.