Del Bigtree: The Fight for Health Freedom [Full Interview]
Discussing the importance of legal action and public awareness to challenge medical systems, expose failures and drive a global shift
Introduction
In this interview, Del Bigtree outlines a dual strategy to counter the corruption that underlies modern political and medical systems: legal action and the uncovering of truth to inform the public. Institutional medicine has largely avoided rigorous long-term safety scrutiny, and meaningful reform only seems totake place when there is immense public pressure. Through storytelling, film, and litigation, Bigtree is aiming to expose gaps in oversight, challenge entrenched narratives, and contribute to a broader realignment in how health, accountability, and authority are understood.
About Del Bigtree
Del Bigtree is a prominent media producer and public advocate known for his work in independent journalism and health discourse. As the founder of ICAN and host of The HighWire, he has built a dedicated following by challenging mainstream narratives and encouraging open dialogue. His work reflects a strong commitment to transparency, personal liberty, and informed decision-making, positioning him as a notable voice for those seeking alternative perspectives in modern public health conversations.
WCH Better Way Conference Rhode Island
May 30 and 31st. Join Del Bigtree, Dr. Trozzi and a phenomenal line up of Medical truth and freedom leaders from the USA and world. Attend online or in person. More info↗
People vs. Poison
The People vs. Poison protest/rally against liability protection for glyphosate (Roundup). April 27, 2026 · 9:00 AM · U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C. More info↗
This interview with Del Bigtree is rich with insights, but we know time is limited. Below is a concise summary highlighting the key takeaways from our discussion for your convenience.
The Court of Public Opinion Comes First
Bigtree emphasizes that courts do not lead reform, but follow the prevailing zeitgeist. Legal decisions tend to reflect shifts that have already occurred in public perception, meaning cultural change must come first. Without a large enough movement, even strong legal arguments struggle to gain traction—regardless of their merit.
This places responsibility back in the hands of individuals rather than institutions. Expanding the conversation to those who have not yet engaged is central to this strategy. Once a tipping point is reached, legal and political systems will be forced to change course.
“An Inconvenient Study”
In 2025, Bigtree released An Inconvenient Study, built around a retrospective comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated children conducted within a major medical institution. Bigtree explains that the study was led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist affiliated with Henry Ford Health. It took approximately four years to complete, and was never formally published. He says the findings showed:
2.5 times higher rates of chronic disease
6 times higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders
6 times higher rates of autoimmune conditions
57% chronic illness by age ten vs. 17% in unvaccinated children
Bigtree argues that even these concerning figures are conservative. He points to the use of standard epidemiological adjustments, such as Cox proportional hazards modeling, which he claims were applied in ways that reduced the apparent differences between groups.
What makes the film particularly effective is that the study originated from within the system itself, by people who support vaccination. The expectation was to disprove concerns, yet the results did the opposite. This official perspective makes the film accessible to audiences who would otherwise dismiss the topic as fringe.
Bigtree’s conviction around the dangers of vaccines was validated during his 2016 Vaxxed tour, where he repeatedly asked audiences to stand if they had a vaccine-injured child. He describes how roughly three-quarters of attendees stood consistently across hundreds of screenings.
Why Findings Don’t Get Published
Bigtree suggests that the conformity within institutions is driven by a combination of psychological, professional, and structural pressures. Publishing results that contradict foundational assumptions can threaten careers, reputations, and decades of work. In the case of the inconvenient study, he describes the researcher expressing concern that releasing the data could effectively end his career.
While Bigtree does believe that financial incentives play a role in this phenomenon, he places far greater emphasis on power, status, and identity. The medical profession functions as a kind of modern priesthood, where authority is rarely questioned and prestige is deeply tied to belief in the system itself. Admitting error is not just a professional risk, but a loss of self-image as the most intelligent or authoritative person in the room.
There is also an ideological component. Many within the system believe they are contributing to a larger mission of eliminating disease, which reinforces that sense of purpose. Together, these forces create a structure where maintaining one’s position and beliefs becomes more important than confronting contradictory evidence.
COVID as a Turning Point
Bigtree frames the COVID “pandemic” as a moment that exposed these underlying dynamics to the world, while emphasizing that it was by no means the beginning of the corruption. The rollout of COVID “vaccines,” combined with the suppression or dismissal of early treatment options, led many to question institutional decision-making for the first time, marking an initial break in trust.
However, the same systems, incentives, and patterns of behavior have been in place for decades without widespread scrutiny. COVID did not create these issues; it accelerated their exposure and made existing contradictions far more visible.
Legal Action and Its Limits
Through ICAN, Bigtree is organizing ongoing legal efforts, including challenges to long-standing precedents like Jacobson v. Massachusetts and cases surrounding religious exemptions. These cases aim to reshape the legal framework governing medical autonomy and could have far-reaching implications.
He stresses that legal strategy must be handled carefully. Inexperienced or poorly prepared lawyers can bring weak cases, lose them, and in doing so establish damaging precedents that make future challenges more difficult. This is why he emphasizes consistent legal strategy and experienced counsel, noting that a single bad ruling can set the movement back significantly:
Weak cases can create lasting negative precedent
Strategic case selection is as important as winning individual lawsuits
Consistency in legal approach strengthens long-term outcomes
At the same time, he reiterates that legal victories depend on public support, both in terms of funding and a willingness to speak out. Without a shift in public opinion, progress in court can be slow, limited, or even reversed.
A Silent Minority with Real Influence
One of the most optimistic claims Bigtree makes is that roughly 30% of the UK, Denmark, and other countries declined COVID “vaccination,” despite individuals often feeling isolated and pressured. This number of people is more than enough to influence political and institutional outcomes if it becomes visible.
There is also a declining uptake of ongoing boosters, which is evidence that public perception is already shifting. Bigtree says the key issue is not awareness alone, but the willingness to speak openly. Silence has been one of the most effective tools maintaining the status quo.
A Narrow Window for Change
Bigtree sees the current moment as a limited window where outcomes are still undecided. The next few years will determine whether centralized control over health expands or is pushed back. This is not a distant possibility, but an immediate and unfolding reality.
Institutions must contend with public pressure, and this can only come from an informed and active public. Without this pressure, existing systems will continue largely unchanged. Now more than ever, we need to claim our sovereignty and autonomy to create a better future.
An Inconvenient Study Summary
A summary in the document from the inconvenient study, which is the subject of the film:
Results: A total of 18,468 consecutive subjects met eligibility criteria for the study, of which 1,957 had no exposure to vaccination and 16,511 had received at least one vaccine during their enrollment in the plan with various levels of exposure. After multivariate adjustment, Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition (HR 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96). Of the chronic health conditions, exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of asthma (HR 4.25, CI 3.23-5.59), autoimmune disease (HR 4.79, CI 1.36-16.94), atopic disease (HR 3.03, CI 2.01-4.57), eczema (HR 1.31, CI 1.13-1.52), and neurodevelopmental disorder (HR 5.53, CI 2.91-10.51). There were no chronic health conditions associated with an increased risk in the unexposed group. The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10-years of follow up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination and 83% in the unexposed group.
Terms explained:
HR stands for Hazard Ratio. It is the key result from Cox proportional hazards modeling (a statistical method used to analyze time-to-event data, such as the time until a child develops a chronic health condition). An HR of 2.53 means that, after adjusting for other factors, children exposed to at least one vaccine had 2.53 times the hazard (instantaneous risk) of developing a chronic health condition compared to unvaccinated children.
CI stands for Confidence Interval (specifically the 95% confidence interval). The CI 2.16-2.96 means the researchers are 95% confident that the true hazard ratio in the population lies somewhere between 2.16 and 2.96. Since the entire interval is above 1.0, the result is considered statistically significant.
Thank you Mark for everything you are doing to raise awareness.
This was indeed another great interview. I am so pleased that Del linked everything to a Silicon Valley plot to enslave humanity with digital ID, tracking of vaccines, total surveillance, a social credit system and more.
It seems to me that the more we connect the dots for all to see the sooner people will wake up to the plot that is unfolding before their eyes, one that is pure evil!
There are no silos here. Everything that is happening has been planned to the finest degree. The objective has been to create worldwide chaos in order to finalize the global takeover of humanity by what can only be described as demonic forces.
The plandemic, technology, cell phones and everything "smart", Artificial Information (AI), the poisoning of our food, our skies, the electromagnetic field, our water, and the air we breathe - all this has been planned exquisitely. The use of mind control techniques, predictive programming and well-tuned propaganda have been exceptional tools for capturing the perceptions of humans and controlling their behavior. Weather modification, directed energy weapons, electromagnetic field manipulation, genetic therapies, the creation of cyborgs, wars, famines, etc. are all connected to the Endgame. The carnage is here and we need to see it.
Amidst all of this, it seems to me that the questions to ask are:
What does it mean to be human?
What is real?
Why are we here?
What can I do to make this world a better place?
How can I contribute to the expansion of consciousness?
Thank you for the opportunity to express my deeply held views.
Lynne
Two of my favourite humans in one interview! Thanks, Dr. Trozzi.
Doctors that bought into the covid narrative do need to apologize, otherwise we can never trust them again. Those that stood up and used critical thinking skills were investigated and punished, to their financial detriment. Those that were punished and had their medical licenses stripped are the only ones that people can trust.
It's so sad that Dr. Marcus Zervos is more concerned about protecting his legacy. History will not be kind to him. He is more concerned with protecting his job than protecting children. That's a decision I will never understand, especially when he is at the age that he could retire. I think it was Gandhi that said a culture will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. No placebo controlled studies have been done on vaccines. Del Bigtree covered that on one of his episodes, along with his new documentary "An Inconvenient Study". The pharmaceutical industry hides behind the immunity they were given in 1986, when the schedule was much smaller. That shield of immunity needs to be removed.
Sadly, going to a doctor for a medical concern usually means being put on medication to address the issue, then another medication is given to deal with the side effects of the first medication. No study has been done to see the effect of combining these medications. As long as Big Pharma has control, they will seek profits before health. It's the same in veterinary medicine.
We are five plus years into this debacle. Certainly doctors, at this point, are seeing that their patients are not doing well. If they aren't asking questions now, they never will.