Unpublished Henry Ford Study Sparks Controversy in Vaccine Debate

A recently revealed, unpublished study conducted by the Henry Ford Health System has ignited a fierce debate in the ongoing vaccine discourse. The study, completed in 2020, compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children over a 10-year period, revealing stark differences that have raised questions about vaccine safety and the transparency of medical research.

The study, led by Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist at Henry Ford Health, tracked 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016. The findings were presented during a U.S. Senate hearing titled "How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” chaired by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

According to attorney Aaron Siri, who testified at the hearing, the study found that vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of chronic health conditions compared to their unvaccinated peers. Specifically, 57% of vaccinated children developed at least one chronic illness, such as asthma or allergies, compared to just 17% of unvaccinated children.

The study also reported zero cases of brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics among the unvaccinated group, while there were hundreds of cases among the vaccinated children. These findings have been described as "astonishing" and have led to calls for further research and transparency in vaccine studies.

Despite these significant findings, the study has not been published. Henry Ford Health's communications office stated that the report did not meet their "rigorous scientific standards.” However, critics argue that the study's findings were suppressed because they contradicted the prevailing narrative that vaccines are unequivocally safe.

Siri suggested that the real reason for non-publication was the fear of career repercussions for the researchers. He stated, "Had the finding shown vaccinated children were healthier or at least had the same outcomes as unvaccinated children, then this study would have no doubt been submitted for publication and published many years ago.”

Critics of the study have raised concerns about potential biases and methodological flaws. For instance, vaccinated children had substantially more healthcare visits than unvaccinated children, which could lead to more diagnoses regardless of actual disease rates. Additionally, the study did not account for the fact that unvaccinated children might receive fewer medical diagnoses simply because they visit doctors less frequently.

Few of these critics have acknowledged that there is another possible explanation for their arguments—namely, that if vaccines did contribute to higher rates of illness, that would also increase the number of doctor visits in vaccinated children as opposed to their unvaccinated peers.

The revelation of this study has sparked a renewed debate about vaccine safety and the need for transparent, unbiased research. Proponents of the study argue that it highlights the importance of comparing real-world health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Opponents, however, contend that the study's flaws and lack of peer review undermine its credibility. They argue that unvaccinated children face higher risks from preventable diseases and that vaccines remain a crucial public health tool.

As the debate over vaccine safety and efficacy continues, the Henry Ford study serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between scientific research, public health policy, and the need for transparency in medical science—as well as the effect on researchers of the perceived effect of publication on their careers and livelihoods.

The Senate Hearing “How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines” can be see at THIS LINK.