The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DATA VS DOGMA

Episode Date: November 6, 2025

An Inconvenient Study has gone viral. Del pulls back the curtain on a world where science has become a story told by those in power. Featuring Yuval Noah Harari’s chilling admission and a stunning Australian Senate revelation about missing placebo trials, the “safe and effective” dogma is unraveling.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Man, we've been having a good time watching all the social media blow up around our new film and inconvenient study. We're just getting in some of the stats. Those of them we can track, can't track it all, but 3.2 million views of the film, 37,000 downloads, 103,000 views on just YouTube. 22.3 million interactions on the film website. And we don't know what's happening in the watch parties. How many people were watching it all one time?

I'm assuming 10 million, 20 million, but it's not enough. We want 100 million. We want a billion. This is a world-changing film, which means we need your help to continue to share it with everyone you know. That's how we make change. We are really excited about what it's doing to the conversation around vaccine safety, especially the placebo study and this inconvenient study. as I was watching online all this going on, something popped up in my feed

and I just couldn't let it slide by. So I want to play a video because I think it plays into this. This is from one of my favorite Muppets at the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari. I think he says it all. I think what he says in this clip is really the heart of why we made an inconvenience study. Take a look at this.

In order to collaborate on a large scale, you need to convince everybody to believe in the same story. What really, the engine of history is stories. And they don't even need to be true. Some of the most powerful stories in history were fictions. But you need to get everybody, or at least a significant part,

of the population, to believe in the same story. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Science is not really, at least this is why we as a historian. Science is not really about truth. It's about power. the real aim of science as an project, as an establishment is not truth, it's power. Particular individuals, particular scientists may be very interested in the truth, personally. But as an institution, the real aim of science is power.

Amazing, right? Those are two different clips, one from 2020, one from 2015. Eval is just the gift that keeps on giving. he makes a very important point here because it's what I've discovered as a journalist. I think he's nailing the, you know, the head of the nail exactly, which is this. It's not science. It's just a story. It's a story told to create power. If I'm just sort of bring all of that together. Forget about the truth. The truth doesn't actually matter. And I think this is interesting because when you look historically at science, the reason we got into science when we started

being fascinated by science was we were tired with religion. We were tired of having faith in a god and a deity. We couldn't quite understand. We felt vulnerable. We wanted to know the facts. We want to know the truth. We want to get to the heart of what was making everything tick. Only one problem eventually, as I've been saying in my talks as I travel around now this country talking on this subject, is we essentially took science and then just turned it into a religion or even worse, really a cult that has no. It's exactly what you've all's saying. We just need you to all agree on a story. And many of the great stories of our time going back in history didn't have truth, but there were stories that shaped who we are. In this case, there's the

story that vaccines are safe and effective. And there's mountains of science that's been put behind vaccines to make sure that the safest product we have. And of course, we've done placebo-based trials. It's crazy to think we would ever put a product out there that wasn't actually safe. This is given to our children, by the way, our infants. Do you think we would ever do something as outrageous as giving children a product that's never been safety tested? How could you dare you? Well, it's all crashing down now. An inconvenient study. Our film is a big part of that, also the work we've done at the high wire. And I think that this recent hearing, at a Senate hearing, in Australia, shows you how far reaching this truth is. People are finally asking,

the question. What happens when you just ask the most basic question? What you get is the longest, most outrageous, boring, ridiculous story of science you've ever heard. Take a look at this. Of those vaccines, how many placebo-controlled studies have been done on vaccines on the childhood schedule? Senator, that would be a very difficult question to answer. And the TGA might be able to add to that, who do the initial assessment on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Sure. Thanks very much.

I'm just going to ask Dr. Nittendbeauble, who's one of our senior medical officers to the table to respond, Senator. Can I please ask you to repeat the question? The question is, how many placebo-controlled studies have been done on vaccines on the childhood schedule? I can take that question on notice. I don't have it in hand at the moment.

You need to take that on notice? Yes. I would just highlight, if I may, Senator, this is a this is a question that's also been asked of other regulators i think part of the challenge that we have is that while it is frequently held that placebo controlled or double blinded or randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in science and certainly uh in the introduction of uh new medicines particularly when there's no established standard of treatment that that is often the case there are uh fairly substantial ethical uh questions uh to be to be answered around

introducing a placebo-controlled trial when there is a demonstrated effective medication that is used to either prevent or treated treatment. So for instance, given that we do have demonstrable efficacy of vaccines for many vaccine prevent or vaccine preventable diseases, it would be ethically not only questionable but probably not arguable that a placebo controlled trial would would be appropriate given that you would actually have to specifically not vaccinate children, expose them to the disease that we know. has serious morbidity when we also know we have an effect.

So these are injections that we're giving to almost every child in the country at the moment and they're not, and we can't say at this stage you have to take on notice how many placebo controlled studies have been done, which is the gold standard? No. It's not the gold standard? So, yeah, I might just try and explain it in a different way, Senator. The gold standard for science is contextual. And so when there are new treatments to be determined, absolutely there is a preference for a placebo-controlled trial.

So you can compare a control arm with an intervention arm. And that way you're able to remove a number of the confounding factors, but also able to demonstrate both the risk and the benefit of that treatment. When there is an established treatment for which there is not only demonstrated efficacy in terms of preventing the vaccine, preventing the disease and the consequences of the disease, but also decades of real, evidence on the safety and the positive risk benefit analysis. The lack of an ethical basis for a placebo-controlled trial where, as I say, there is an accepted and efficacious treatment for a significant disease with significant morbidity, that cannot be described as gold standard.

How many are we talked about? Many of these cover multiple antigens, and I think in 1990 the full schedule was 21 antigens and now it's about 60. So with that in mind, what placebo-controlled safety studies have been done examining the combination of multiple antigens in these ejections? Yes, thank you for that question as well, Senator. The growth or the evolution in the immunization schedule, and again, it might be something that Dr. Pete might like to comment on, has been cited as a challenge.

All of that to say, we've never done a placebo trial. That's it. It's just that easy. See how quickly that comes out? We've never done a placebo trial. Look how hard that guy's got to work and passes it off first. Well, can I stand it to you? Well, I can't answer that. And to you, I didn't come prepared. Well, let me take a crack at this. Let me spin up the biggest story you've ever heard. You know, it reminds me like of a child that's got like the cake and icing dripping off their face and their little hands have got the cake. And I see like, Johnny, did you eat the cake? No, I didn't eat the cake.

Well, I would agree that there is a cake there And it clearly looks like somebody might have taken a bite out of it. I can't imagine who that would be. And I think we have to assess the fact that it's a sweet cake And anyone would want the cake and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Making up excuse after excuse, but this is where we're at now. We're at a point now where the questions are being asked. And they are totally screwed.

They're screwed because they don't have the answer anyone wants to hear. Nobody wants to hear there was no placebo. So they're playing this game. And we pointed out in the movie. They play this game about, well, we can't have a placebo because we have vaccines that have already been approved. But they were approved without a placebo. And so this game keeps going. And I'm telling you, it's scary.

It's daunting. It's why this film is so important. It's why this study is so important. Since you skipped all the placebo trials, now we are having difficulty. But one of the things that you're all pointing out as you watch the film, there's a couple real highlights. I want to play one of them. This is an excerpt from the film that gets an exactly. this, this bait and switch of, we can't do a placebo trial because we already have a product

available, yada, yada, yada. This is the whiskey study from our film. Are all vaccine trials placebo controlled? No, and nor should they be. So for example, when Previnar 13, so Previnar was a conjugate pneumococcal vaccine. The FDA has approved a new pneumoccal vaccine. It had to be tested in the face three trial. And so the control group there was, Prevnar 7 and had been shown to work. It will replace Prevnar, which was effective against seven serotypes. You can't ask parents to take, to put their children at risk of pneumococcal disease when there existed on the market at the time, a vaccine to prevent that.

And the World Health Organization has been very clear on this. That would have been considered an ethical trial. Dr. Paul Op, it's one of the big proponents of vaccinations, probably because he's made a vaccine and made a killing off of it, the rhodovirus vaccines on the childhood schedule. It doesn't matter whether I financially benefited or not. He likes to go around and say, well, we can't always do placebo trials, especially if there's already a vaccine that covers that disease. So he'll use an example like Prevnar 13. Prevnar 13 in its safety trial was tested against Prevnar 7, the earlier version of the vaccine.

And he'll say you cannot test Previnar 13 against a saline placebo because it would be unethical. You'd be denying children access to a vaccine that is already on the market, and that's not fair to them. But what he leaves out is that Prevnar 7 was never tested against a saline placebo, so we don't know if it's safe. So we're testing one product we don't know the safety profile on with another product we don't know the safety profile on, and this is how the entire vaccine schedule works. I like to call this the Whiskey Study. Let me explain. Let's say there's a group of people that are complaining that whiskey is making people drunk and they're crashing their cars and people are getting killed.

Now in order to test does whiskey cause car accidents? You would set up a double blind placebo trial. One group the test group would get the 10 shots of whiskey. The other group the placebo group would get 10 shots of water and then we'd have them both drive on a driving course and see who has more accidents. It's obvious. But it's a But in this case, the whiskey company is the one doing the study. And what they say is, oh, we're going to do a placebo-based trial. But our placebo-based trial is not going to be water. It'll be vodka, another product already on the market. And so 10 people get the whiskey shots and 10 people get the vodka shots, and they had them all drive, and guess what?

They had just as many car accidents. Therefore, whiskey does not cause car accidents because it didn't cause any more than the vodka did. And so to take this all the way to the end of the car accidents, of Dr. Paul Offutt's point. If vodka had ever been tested against 10 shots of water and there was no car accidents in the vodka then it would make sense to test the whiskey against the vodka. But we all know that study was never done.

Just like no vaccine placebo study was ever done. This reminds me of the moment we did the football analysis of the COVID vaccine and how it works. So many of you've been writing in saying, oh my God, I finally totally know how to explain this to somebody and how this game is played. I love that about this film. It's so straightforward, so clear. If you haven't seen it, I hope you will go to an inconvenience study.com and check it out. Share it with everyone you know.

We've got it out there for free. This is what we're all about with our nonprofit. Everybody that donates to us, I want to thank you for making this a worldwide sensation and allowing us to really push the envelope. We're reaching Australia. I guarantee these questions are going to be in our own. Senate as we go into the midterms. These are the questions that need to be asked. And anybody that is afraid to go near it or has been hiding or obfuscating, your days are numbered. This is over.

This conversation is over. We now know the entire science around this vaccine program is a sham. Now we're going to figure out what we're going to do about and how we're going to get to the truth.