Is this why our kids are so sick? Share this with EVERY new parent

Leave a CommentIs this why our kids are so sick? Share this with EVERY new parentHealth

“An Inconvenient Study” (2025) is a documentary exposing a suppressed 2016 study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Directed by the Informed Consent Action Network, it reveals potential links between vaccines and chronic conditions like autoimmune disorders and developmental delays. The film chronicles the study’s abrupt halt and cover-up, raising urgent questions about vaccine safety, institutional transparency, and the long-term impact on children’s health, urging viewers to confront hidden risks.

This film just won Best of Festival at the Malibu Film Festival. Watch the film now at http://AnInconvenientStudy.com. Or here.

Directed and produced under the auspices of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the film chronicles the origins, execution, and suppression of a landmark 2016 study comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Executive Producer Del Bigtree, a prominent journalist known for his work in medical freedom advocacy, serves as the central figure driving the narrative. The story unfolds as a high-stakes scientific showdown, revealing tensions between institutional research protocols and public demands for transparency in vaccine safety data.

The film’s plot begins in 2016, during a public confrontation where Bigtree challenges the head of infectious diseases at Henry Ford Health System—one of America’s premier medical research institutions—to conduct the most comprehensive vaccinated (vaxxed) versus unvaccinated (unvaxxed) study ever undertaken.

Bigtree’s provocation stems from his long-standing questions about potential links between childhood vaccinations and chronic health conditions, arguing that existing research often overlooks long-term comparisons. The unnamed expert, confident in the prevailing scientific consensus, accepts the challenge, aiming to definitively disprove Bigtree’s assertions with rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.

What follows is a meticulous investigation: researchers at Henry Ford assemble a birth cohort study, tracking short- and long-term health metrics across thousands of children, including rates of infectious diseases, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and overall chronic illness burdens.

As the study progresses, the film interweaves archival footage of Bigtree’s initial challenge with behind-the-scenes glimpses into the research process. Viewers see the assembly of data sets, statistical modeling, and preliminary analyses, emphasizing the study’s scale and methodological stringency—far beyond typical observational trials.

Key events include the researchers’ initial optimism, followed by mounting internal debates as results emerge. The narrative builds suspense around the data’s implications, highlighting how the study was designed to affirm vaccines’ protective role against life-altering diseases like measles, whooping cough, and polio, while scrutinizing any correlations with conditions such as asthma, allergies, or neurological issues.

Midway through, the plot pivots to the study’s abrupt halt. Despite completion, the findings are shelved, never submitted for publication. The film reconstructs this suppression through leaked communications, institutional memos, and Bigtree’s persistent inquiries via his platform, The HighWire. Henry Ford Health’s official response, quoted extensively, asserts: “This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution. Data has consistently shown vaccinations are a safe and effective way to protect children against potentially life-altering diseases.”

The documentary juxtaposes this with the study’s referenced birth cohort analysis—a detailed PDF entered into U.S. Senate hearing records—detailing methodologies like propensity score matching to control for confounders such as socioeconomic status and genetics.

Expert testimonies form the film’s backbone. Interviews feature the anonymous Henry Ford lead researcher (voiced in shadow for anonymity), who grapples with the ethical bind of conflicting results. Additional voices include epidemiologists, pediatricians, and statisticians who review the data, discussing challenges in isolating vaccination effects amid multifactorial health determinants. No single “smoking gun” is presented; instead, the film methodically unpacks nuances, such as higher acute infection rates in unvaxxed cohorts versus elevated chronic markers in vaxxed ones, urging viewers to weigh trade-offs.

Thematically, the documentary explores scientific integrity, the politics of evidence suppression, and the human cost of withheld information. It portrays institutions like Henry Ford as guardians of public health orthodoxy, yet questions whether “standards” serve science or status quo. Broader stakes involve parental choice, regulatory oversight, and the evolution of pediatric medicine in an era of expanding vaccine schedules.

Climaxing with the study’s public unveiling, at 85 minutes, it blends investigative journalism with data visualization, leaving audiences with raw study excerpts and an invitation to engage via social platforms.

Ultimately, “An Inconvenient Study” documents not just a buried report, but a pivotal moment in the vaccine debate, amplifying voices long marginalized in mainstream discourse.

Remember this