Interview With Del Bigtree – An Inconvenient Study

🖨️ Print post

HILDA LABRADA GORE: The study we’ve been waiting for is here! A researcher at Henry Ford Health conducted a retrospective study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children to docu­ment their health outcomes. He promised that he would publish the results, but then decided not to. Why not? The answer may have to do with the “inconvenient” results of the study. Del Bigtree, CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and host of The HighWire, de­cided to get the results out to the world through his film, An Inconvenient Study,¹ focusing on the alarming results that the investigators were not eager to reveal: unvaccinated children had better health outcomes than vaccinated children.

DEL BIGTREE: This study exists by the grace of God. Back in 2016, I was traveling the coun­try with the Vaxxed movie, and we were in Detroit, where Henry Ford Health is headquar­tered. [Henry Ford Health provides healthcare services at over five hundred fifty sites across Michigan, as well as offering health insurance and conducting research.] Someone told me that a top infectious disease specialist at Henry Ford Health, Dr. Marcus Zervos, MD, had watched Vaxxed and was interested in having dinner with me. I said yes.

Dr. Zervos is a world-renowned scientist and head of Infectious Disease at Henry Ford Health. Some years ago, he was one of the lead investigators at the center of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan,² which included reports of lead in the water as well as problems with Legionnaires’ disease. The state health depart­ment was acting like there was no problem. Dr. Zervos did the studies on the water and stood up against the health department, telling them that the water was toxic and they needed to do something about it.³ He got into some trouble when he “outed” the health department for not taking care of people. He is a good scientist who follows the data and tries to do what’s right.

When we sat down to dinner, the conversa­tion started out in an interesting place. The first thing Dr. Zervos said to me was, “I’ve watched your film, Vaxxed. It’s very compelling, but you’re saying something in all your speeches that I find difficult. You keep saying they’ve never done the science to prove that vaccines are safe. I’m a huge proponent of vaccines. I was offended by that. I sit on the biggest databases in the world. I went to get all the information so I could show you that you’re wrong.” Then he looked me in the eyes and said, “I’m shocked that I have to sit across from you and tell you, you’re right. We have never done any proper placebo-based trials to establish safety in any of the childhood vaccines. I want to be clear. That doesn’t mean the vaccines aren’t safe, but it does mean we can’t say that they’re safe.” I said, “Marcus, that’s all I’ve been saying.” He said, “I’ve watched you. You’re very careful about being accurate.”

Ultimately, he said, “I’m pro-vaccine. I don’t know what I can do for you.” I said, “If vaccines are making us healthier, why don’t you prove it by doing a study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated? Henry Ford is one of the greatest research institutes in the world. Would you do this study?” He said, “I would do that study.”

For the medical freedom movement, this is the holy grail of studies. We’ve been asking for it for decades. But then I warned him. I said, “If this study turns out the way I think it might, it could be damaging to your career.” He said, “I don’t care about things like that. I follow the data where they lead me. Besides, I’m about to retire.” I said, “Great.”

The study didn’t happen right away, but I kept pushing. I would call Dr. Zervos and ask, “Are you going to do that study?” Finally, in 2018, Aaron Siri (ICAN attorney) and I flew to Michigan to talk to Dr. Zervos in person. We said, “Marcus, you should do this study. There’s almost a civil war over this conversation. Are these vaccines safe or not? Are they causing other effects we’re not seeing? You could end this question forever and prove that vaccines are great.” We challenged him in that way, and he said, “Okay.” He did the study and finished it by 2020. The study included over eighteen thousand children; nearly two thousand were unvaccinated.

HG: This was a retrospective study looking back at data accumulated at Henry Ford Health.

DB: Henry Ford Health has its own medical sys­tem and its own insurance system. It’s a provider and insurer, and it’s also the hospital. This study had some of the best data collection on children, because not only did Henry Ford Health provide the healthcare and give the vaccines, but if a child happened to go to a doctor outside of the Henry Ford Health system, the fact that Henry Ford was also the insurer meant that they had those data, too. This study was done with some of the best data we’ve ever seen.

The idea was to compare the two groups and ask simple questions about their health outcomes. And that’s what they did. I knew that Dr. Zervos was pro-vaccine. He had made that clear. He was doing the study to prove us wrong. Some would say that could have been risky, but I had seen so much science around this issue at this point that I thought, “Let the chips fall where they may.” We only had one request for Dr. Zervos. I said, “No matter what, agree to publish it. Whatever the study shows, publish it.” He said, “I’ll publish it.”

But in 2020, after he had completed the study, he was not publishing it. Suddenly, we could barely get him on the phone. Something was wrong. We kept reaching out, and he said, “I can’t publish it.” I finally said, “Would you have dinner with me? Can we talk about it?” I flew to Detroit to have dinner with him, and I brought hidden cameras with me and recording equipment.

HG: This is the part that felt like a James Bond movie to me. Was that legal?

DB: Yes. I’m lucky that ICAN has the greatest attorney, certainly of our lifetime, in Aaron Siri. There’s not a single thing I do that I don’t run through my legal team. And indeed, you need to be careful about this because there are states where that is illegal. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself in a situation where you want to record a conversation, you have to be in what’s called a “one-party state.” That means that in that state, only one of the two people in a conversation has to know that there’s a recording happening. In “two-party states,” both parties have to be aware that the recording is happening. I cannot remember another time I’ve ever brought hidden cameras to something. It’s not my style. There are guys who are famous for having that style. I leave that to them.

This was a different situation. At that point, I hadn’t even seen the study results, but I thought, “If that study says what I think it says, this may be the most important study that has ever been conducted. Children are in harm’s way. If he’s not publishing it simply because he’s afraid or something like that, then it’s my duty to get that information or have that information in a way that I can prove it and figure out a way to save chil­dren’s lives with that.” It overrode my usual concern because when I do reporting, I always tell my contacts and whistleblowers, “I’m never going to ‘out’ you.” In this case, it wasn’t about my reporting. This was about an agreement we had. I said, “You said you would publish this study, so I want to know why you’re not.” That’s why I brought the cameras. That’s why we have this very important information that comes from Dr. Zervos.

HG: I noticed that the word “important” is exactly the word Dr. Zervos used to describe the study. He agreed with you that it was an important study. What did that meeting reveal about why he wasn’t publishing his results?

DB: If you watch the film, he says several times in many different ways that it’s a good study and an important study. I even asked him, “Is there any way this study could be done better?” He said, “I don’t see how.” I asked, “Why won’t you publish it?” He said many different times, “It’s because it will destroy my career. I will be finished.” I even reminded him of what he had said back in 2016. He had said that he was about to retire and that he “follows the data where they lead.” I reminded him, “That was your energy at the time.” He said, “I’m not in the same head­space any longer.”

A part of it, which is lightly revealed in the film, is that he had just overseen a study at Henry Ford Health on hydroxychloroquine,^4,5 showing that hydroxychloroquine reduced death in Covid patients by 50 percent. He got attacked by Fauci and everybody on that, and he’d previously been attacked for standing up for what was right on the Flint, Michigan water thing. I think he had no armor left to his consciousness or his soul. But I want to leave it to people to decide. It’s what makes the film so fascinat­ing. We have a lot of crazy footage. Ultimately, it is a very interesting study of a human being because his soul comes through. You can feel that he wants to do the right thing, but he says, “I’m not a good person.” It’s a sad realization. He says, “I’m not like those other heroes that come out and speak out.” It’s a fascinating moment.

The results of the study are shocking. The conclusion was that the vaccinated had two and a half times the rate of chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated. I’m not talking about a 20 or 25 or even 80 percent increased risk—this study found a 250 percent increased risk of having a chronic disease. When you look at the results for autoimmune diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders, it is nearly a 600 percent increased risk among the vaccinated. These are off-the-charts numbers.

One of my favorite things about this film and this study is that they are sparking debate around the world among scientists and doctors. One of those is Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, who is one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration. He is brilliant. This is a guy who built the collaboration that was going to analyze all studies in the world. They are famous for doing this. In fact, you think of Cochrane when you’re going to design a study because you have to look at what they need from a good study.

Dr. Gøtzsche has pored through the Zervos study. He acknowl­edges that any retrospective study has problems because people have already made decisions, and you don’t have control over it the way you would if you did a placebo-based trial. But he says, “Those placebo trials were skipped by the childhood vaccine program. They’ve never been done. Now they say it’s unethical to do them. They won’t do the studies now, so the gold standard that’s left is a retrospective study.” Gøtzsche has pointed out that while there may be problems with any study like this, these numbers are so big, they cannot be written off by “confounding issues” or the types of things that Henry Ford Health and other scientists on the pro-vaccine side are trying to argue.

The critics are saying that it’s not a good study, or that the data are not good, or that there is not a big enough control group. But there are two thousand unvaccinated kids in this study! To give some perspective, the study that was used to approve the hepatitis B vaccine given to day-old babies had only one hundred forty-seven total children, with no control or placebo group, and the children were followed and monitored for only five days. In other words, a five-day safety study of one hundred forty-seven chil­dren was deemed perfectly good science—good enough to mandate and give a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease to newborns across America. Yet a study with eighteen thousand kids, including two thousand unvaccinated, followed for multiple years, doesn’t have “good enough data”? I don’t buy it.

Henry Ford has sent us a cease-and-desist. They’re saying that it’s defamation for me to be saying that they didn’t publish the study because they were afraid of the results. They’re saying, “The reason we didn’t publish it was because it’s not a good study. It’s bad data.” They said that before they knew that I had the hidden camera footage of their lead scientist and infectious disease expert.

Henry Ford wants to see all the footage. They want all of it, not just what’s in the film. I said, “First, you’re going to have to give us all the data for your study.” We’ll see where that goes.

HG: You’re holding their feet to the fire in your inimitable way. Have other groups done this kind of retrospective study before? Your film hints at that fact.

DB: It does. It is the most important part of this film. Truthfully, any single retrospective study could potentially have some anomaly or flaw. That is why good science has to be reproducible. In fact, to take a side note, it’s one of the beauti­ful things that Jay Bhattacharya is involved with as the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He says, “We’re no longer going to infer the quality of a study based merely on its pub­lication in an esteemed journal like the Lancet or the British Medical Journal. The quality of a study will be judged on the number of stud­ies that have produced the same results.” He is moving science to where it should have been.

Over the last several years, almost every editor of major peer-reviewed science journals has said, “More than 50 percent of the science that’s happening in our journal can’t be re­produced,” which means it’s total baloney. All these things that we see being published, you can’t assume they’re true. Harvard started testing many of the scientific realizations in papers across the country, and it’s the same thing—less than 50 percent where they could reproduce the science. Reproducible science is everything. In a world where there’s so much funding, there’s a lot of motivation to hide your flaws under the bed.

I say all that because that is what is so important about this study. Depending on how you look at it, there have been around four or five decent vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies. One of the most famous ones was by Dr. Anthony Mawson out of the University of Mississippi. He did a homeschool study where he pulled six hundred mothers of homeschooled children and collected data on the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.⁶ That study had very similar numbers to this one. There was something like five times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, four times the rate of autism, thirty times the rate of rhinitis and off-the-charts rates of asthma. The same signal happens in the Henry Ford study.

You also have Dr. Paul Thomas, the Oregon doctor who had a huge pediatric practice. He was waking up to vaccines. He was allowing people not to vaccinate. One day, he said, “I have a lot of patients who aren’t vaccinated. Let me take all the health records of every kid that was born in my practice and compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated.” He had very similar results.⁷ The vaccinated were sicker. They had higher rates of asthma and higher rates of all sorts of autoimmune diseases. In addi­tion, Brian Hooker and Neil Miller have done a study.⁸ Same results. I say “the same” in that it is the same signal. Not one of these studies shows that the unvaccinated are the ones who are sick. Every single one shows serious chronic disease issues among the vaccinated.

Mainstream science has torn into those studies, saying they were done by “anti-vaxxers,” which is not true. Anthony Mawson wasn’t an anti-vaxxer, he was a legitimate professor. Or if you look at Brian Hooker, yes, he has a vaccine-injured child, so some might argue he has a bias—but these are good scientists. Paul Thomas lost his medical license for doing his study. Anthony Mawson had his career attacked. Dr. Marcus Zervos knows these stories. He knows that when you decide to delve into this territory, the pharmaceutical industry starts attacking you, as well as the U.S. government and health agencies. Luckily, with Robert Kennedy Jr. at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), I don’t think HHS will attack the Henry Ford study.

What sets it apart is that Henry Ford Health states how pro-vaccine it is in its own advertising. Dr. Marcus Zervos said, “I’m the reason we force-vaccinate everyone who works at Henry Ford Health.” You couldn’t get more pro-vaccine. If you’re going to say, “This study had a bias,” it was going to be a bias in favor of the vaccinated, which is what makes this so unique. They set out to prove that the vaccinated were healthier. Instead, some of their data are even more damaging and terrifying than those other studies.

Up until this moment, no study in the world comparing vaccinated to completely unvaccinated has been able to show that the vaccinated are healthier. That highlights a major problem with the vaccination program. That is what we’re shouting from the mountaintops with this film. This is only eighteen thousand kids. The CDC needs to take a larger database. We need to take the health databases of every single state in America. We need the National Health Service (NHS) in England to take its entire database, as well as Sweden, Japan and countries across the world. “Compare your vaccinated to your unvaccinated.”

Around the world, of course, countries are all using different vac­cine schedules, but we in the U.S. are the most vaccinated nation in the world. If the Henry Ford study results are true, and the other four or five studies that have been done are true, then we have made an absolute and complete scientific error with this vaccine program—because the numbers are staggering.

RFK Jr. and President Trump say that 40 percent of children have at least one chronic disease. I say 54 percent, because I like to add in obe­sity. I don’t think you can blame obesity just on lifestyle decisions. These chemicals and maybe even these vaccines are contributing to it. Fifty-four percent of our children are chronically ill with either a neurological disorder, an autoimmune disease or obesity. That is up from 12 percent in the 1980s. That means that in roughly forty years, we’ve seen the greatest decline in human health that has ever been recorded. We’re the sickest nation in the world. We have the sickest generation of children that has ever been in this country. So, Tony Fauci and Peter Marks do not get to dance around and say how great they are and praise the CDC and HHS. Our regulatory agencies have overseen—and, frankly, been responsible for—the greatest decline in human health, especially children’s health, that has ever been recorded.

Keeping the 54 percent of American children with chronic disease in mind, look at the Henry Ford study. When they did a chart showing the likelihood, over ten years, that a vaccinated individual would develop a chronic disease, that likelihood was 57 percent. That is close to 54 percent.

HG: You asked Dr. Zervos to do this study because you had seen the data accumulating from true scientists indicating that unvaccinated populations are consistently healthier.

DB: I was also suspicious because not a single health agency in the world has ever produced this type of study. I’m a journalist. You learn to have a feeling about things or a red flag about something. You also have had Robert Kennedy Jr. out there saying that they’ve never done placebo-based trials. I was his director of communications when he ran for president, so I have a bias on this story. There was not a health agency in the world that wanted Robert Kennedy Jr. to be HHS secretary. I assure you, it is not lost on them that—if vaccines were truly safe—all they would have needed to do to prove RFK’s statements wrong would be to compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. In the U.S., the CDC under Joe Biden could have done it. The CDC under Obama could have done it. The CDC at any time could have done this study to “shut up” Del Bigtree, every anti-vaxxer, Andy Wakefield and Robert Kennedy Jr. They could have said, “See? We compared these two groups of kids, and the vaccinated are clearly living longer and have healthier lives.” Why has that study never been done? If it had been, you would have known about it. That would have been a huge headline—Sanjay Gupta would have never stopped talking about. It would have been the headline around the world. Why wouldn’t they do the most obvious study known to man to finally win this argument?

I had a hunch when I went to Dr. Marcus Zervos. My hunch is that they have done this study, every way possible. Thousands of ways. But the data are so incredibly toxic and damning that all they can do is attack anyone who tries to do this type of study—because it’s all they have left. The genie is out of the bottle. This study shows that this conversation is all but over. We are going to have to ask, “Did we trade chick­enpox for permanent chronic eczema?” Parents will have to ask, “Are my kids going to have to fight a rash all over their body their entire life, versus me allowing them to have a rash for four or five days?” That is the question of our time. “Did we trade a trivial childhood illness for a chronic lifelong disease?”

The CDC came out with a study in 2025 that 76 percent of adults are chronically ill.⁹ We’re dying. Our species is dying. We’re the only animal on the planet that is losing the ability for our immune systems to protect us. That’s what that is. When you have an autoimmune disease, you have immune system dysregulation—your immune system isn’t working right. Why would that be? Is it the fluoride in our water? Is it the pesticides on our crops? Is it the plastics? Is it the “forever chemicals”?

Is it possible that if immune system dys­regulation is the crisis of our times, that it’s this product we’re giving you that is designed to alter your immune system for life? Vaccines are designed to trick your immune system into fighting a disease you don’t have. We’re not tricking it one time, ten times, twenty times, fifty times or even sixty times. We have seventy-two vaccines by the time we’re eighteen, yet we’re shocked that we suddenly have immune system dysregulation and immune systems that are confused. Our immune system is attacking proteins in our own body, attacking the myelin sheath around our nerves and attacking our liver and our pancreas.

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to at least say, “We should probably move vaccines up to the number-one thing we test in the middle of this crisis. Maybe we’ve made a mistake.” Maybe one vaccine was okay, or five. Maybe ten in the 1980s, when we were only at 12 percent chronic disease. Maybe that was a trade-off, but we are past that point. What this study and multiple studies show is that your child has more than a coin-toss risk of having a chronic disease if you vaccinate them. That’s horrible. That’s worse than 50 percent. This study shows that only 43 percent of the vaccinated will escape having chronic disease, whereas 83 percent of the unvaccinated will never have chronic dis­ease. That is the news flash of all news flashes.

HG: How can people find the study if it hasn’t been published?

DB: We got lucky. The reason this took so many years was that we couldn’t figure out a way to publish it legally. That would be a copyright infringement or something. It wasn’t the right way to go about it. We were looking for other scientists who might somehow be able to get these data from Henry Ford. The breakthrough came when Aaron Siri handed the study to Sena­tor Ron Johnson to look at and said, “Senator, you’ve been doing great work on this topic. You should know about what this unpublished study shows.” Senator Johnson said, “This is an outrage. This study needs to be seen by the world.” As a public representative working for the public good, he was able to overcome some of the limitations. He published the study on the Senate website and had a hearing about it. By publishing it, he made it available to the public so that we could tell this story. I want to tip my hat to Senator Johnson, who has been an absolute hero for the vaccine-injured throughout Covid, which woke him up. Moving beyond that, he is looking at the childhood vaccine program. He “gets” it, and does so at great risk to his own career. That’s what made it possible.

For anyone who wants to read the study, it is available on the Senate website¹⁰ and download­able at the film’s website (aninconvenientstudy. com). You can watch the film for free. I want everyone to share it with the world. You can download it and have a house party. If you want a movie theater to screen it, you can ask for it, and we’ll send the high-quality copy that a movie theater would use.

On the film’s website, we are also publishing all the attacks on the study and our responses. I believe in the scientific method, and I want the challenges. I don’t want to censor people who do not agree with me. I want an uncensored scientific debate to take place. It needs to take place, and it appears to be happening. We are putting out all the attacks that the mainstream scientists are making on this study, and we’re rebutting them with scientific evidence and presenting the reasons why we think this study stands up. Peter Gøtzsche is doing the same, all on his own.

We’re all saying the same thing. This should not be the final study. This does not end this conversation. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the most robust conversation that will ever happen. We need more studies. They need to be bigger. We need both sides signing off on how they’re going to do the study before it’s done, so we keep bias out of it. We need to make sure that we’re not letting in any bias that can affect the studies. This is what Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to do. This film and this study prime our understanding of the vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies that need to happen.

HG: What is keeping the government agencies, scientific institutions and health centers from doing or replicating this type of study or asking this important question? Is it money?

DB: Greed is a huge factor, but greed is not as big a factor as power. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment have power over the world. We experienced it during Covid. No one saw it coming. Maybe Bill Gates did when he started buying up nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and getting behind vaccine programs and pharmaceutical ad­vancement. When did America take the greatest blow to its sovereignty we’ve seen in over a century? It was through health. If they could make us afraid that there was a pandemic, they could take away our rights to go to church, they could take away our rights to go to school, they could take away our rights to make a living, they could take away the most important and fundamental right of free speech. I lost my YouTube and Facebook channels. We had a president who we now know was involved in stopping free speech through social media and was promising that if re-elected, he would make misinformation their number-one campaign.

It was that very administration that told us that the vaccine stopped transmission, and it couldn’t. They told us we had to wear masks when we know there’s no science showing it can stop a particle as small as the coronavirus. [Editor’s note: The Weston A. Price Foundation has uncov­ered no evidence that viruses exist or that they cause disease.] They told us about six-foot distancing, which is why we had to lock ourselves in our home, and that turned out to be an arbitrary, made-up rule with no basis in science whatsoever. Anthony Fauci said, “You’re not attacking me. You’re attacking science,” as though he were the science.

The misinformation came from our own president, our own nation and all the leaders of the world. They want to be the ones to decide what “misinformation” is. That was the most terrifying election I’ve ever sat through. I be­lieve no matter what party you’re in, no party should ever stand for censorship or for having the government decide what the truth is. That is exactly why our founding fathers created the First Amendment. That is why we have the nation that we do. If we lose our First Amend­ment rights, we lose every right that comes after because you cannot fight for them.

That’s why this issue has been so important. I think researchers have never done these studies because they can’t do them. They’re all funded and corrupted by pharma. They’re not allowed to do these studies. People get fired for doing these studies, which is exactly what Zervos says over and over again. He is like a man who has seen a ghost. Some are angry at him because he wouldn’t charge into that fire, but for scientists, this is a suicide mission, which it should not be. It should never be scientific suicide to tell the truth. This has got to change.

With where technology is going, the games that they’re playing, and the things that they’re trying, if we can’t challenge it, I don’t think our species will last long on this earth. We can’t keep doing what we did during Covid, which is rush a product on the market that had never been successful in animal models, race it out to the public in a year, lie to the public about its efficacy, lie to the public about its safety, and then tell them, “You can’t go to work or school without getting that product.”

I hope that we’ve survived Covid. There are a lot of very scary things happening with the rise in cancer, heart disease and all the things that can be attributed to that vaccine. More studies need to be done, but let’s be clear. If we keep allowing the pharmaceutical industry to work that way—rush products out without long-term safety studies and use our government to force us to take them—can you imagine? It would only take one mistake to wipe our species off the planet. Not since the dawn of mankind has there been a “virus” that came anywhere close to wiping our species off this planet, but a mistake by man that is forced into every single body could be the end of us. That is why we need the scientific method. I feel like this film and this study have acted like a couple of shock paddles, waking up science. It’s great that they’re attacking us, because it shows that they’re awake. “Let’s have this debate. Let’s do this!”

HG: What do you say to the critics who dismiss this study and its results?

DB: You dismiss it at your own peril if you decide to stick your head in the sand and not look at the other side of the argument. The definition of insanity is believing you’re the only one who’s right. I make sure that I’m very careful to ask myself, in everything I do, “Am I seeing this because I have a bias?” We all have confirmation bias. No doubt about it. It’s “what we believe is what we see”—not “what we see is what we believe.” We have to be careful with everything that we do. That is why I’ve approached this film that way. What it presents is not an opinion. I’m showing you the evidence, the studies that have shown this result, and the people who have done these studies. You need to take that information in. If you can’t listen to the other side, then you don’t believe in science. You are a part of a religion. Religions demand faith in the perspective that you have. Science demands the challenge. You should want the challenge. You should want to see the challenge. You should want to have the argument and say to your side, “What are we going to challenge that with? What is our rebuttal to that?” Then, you can come to your own conclusions. You cannot be informed if you do not know both sides of this conversation.

---

SIDEBAR

WISE TRADITIONS BIDS GOODBYE TO HILDA AND WELCOMES KENDALL AS PODCAST HOST

In 2015, chapter leader Hilda Labrada Gore approached Sally Fallon Morell with the idea of a podcast for WAPF. Hilda had recently returned from Kenya, where she spoke with the Maasai about wise traditions, and she believed it would be valuable for WAPF to launch a show highlighting indigenous traditions, experts, authors and leaders in the ancestral food movement.

WAPF launched the Wise Traditions podcast in 2016 with Hilda as host and producer. Dedicated to conversations about food, farming and the healing arts, the podcast has become a tremendous success—regularly appearing in the top 200 of Apple Podcastsʼ Health & Fitness charts and reaching over 16 million downloads to date. Now, after ten years, we bid Hilda farewell as she steps away from her role as host and producer. We are deeply grate­ful for her vision and dedication in launching and building the podcast over the past decade.

We are delighted to welcome Kendall Nelson as the new host and producer. Kendall brings extensive experience in media produc­tion. In 2011, she directed and co-produced The Greater Good, an award-winning documentary about families whose lives were profoundly affected by vaccination, and she is currently work­ing on a film project for WAPF. With a background in filmmaking and years of interviewing experience, Kendall is well prepared to carry forward the podcastʼs thoughtful, in-depth conversations. For ten years, she has also served as WAPFʼs vaccine expert, shaping action alerts and contributing a regular column to the Wise Tradi­tions journal.

Kendall is honored and excited to step into this new role, and WAPF is thrilled to welcome her as the next voice of the Wise Traditions podcast.

---

REFERENCES

1. https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
2. Teller M. Lead in the water: Flint’s cautionary tale. Wise Traditions. 2016;17(1):42-46.
3. Gerstein M, Oosting J. Doctor: State health chief tried to conceal Flint data. The Detroit News, updated Jun. 18, 2017.
4. Arshad S, Kilgore P, Chaudhry ZS, … Zervos M; Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;97:396-403.
5. Zervos M, Arshad S, Kilgore P, et al. A sound approach: hydroxychloroquine reduces mortality in severe COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;99:138-139.
6. Mawson AR, Ray BD, Bhuiyan AR, Jacob B. Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children. J Transl Sci. 2017 Apr 24;3.
7. Lyons-Weiler J, Thomas P. Relative incidence of office visits and cumulative rates of billed diagnoses along the axis of vaccination. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 22;17(22):8674. Retraction in: Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 22;18(15):7754.
8. Hooker BS, Miller NZ. Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. SAGE Open Med. 2020 May 27;8:2050312120925344.
9. Watson KB, Wiltz JL, Nhim K, et al. Trends in multiple chronic conditions among US adults, by life stage, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013-2023. Prev Chronic Dis. 2025 Apr 17;22:E15.
10. Lamerato L, Chatfield A, Tang A, Zervos M. Impact of childhood vaccination on short and long-term chronic health outcomes in children: a birth cohort study. Detroit, MI: Henry Ford Health System, unpublished. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

🖨️ Print post