In a bombshell US Senate hearing on September 9, 2025, attorney Aaron Siri unveiled a long-suppressed study from Henry Ford Health System that challenges the sacred cow of childhood vaccination. Titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children," this research, conducted by pro-vaccine scientists, revealed stark differences in health between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids. Yet, it was buried for years, allegedly due to career-ending fears. This isn't just another anti-vax conspiracy; it's a damning indictment of how institutional bias stifles inconvenient truths in modern medicine. As chronic diseases skyrocket among children, this study demands we question why science seems more interested in protecting narratives than pursuing facts.
Henry Ford Health isn't some fringe outfit, it's a respected Detroit-based institution with over 30,000 employees, affiliated with Wayne State University, and a leader in infectious disease research. Lead researcher Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious diseases, was a vocal COVID vaccine proponent during the pandemic. Commissioned in 2016 by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the study analysed electronic records of 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016: 16,500 vaccinated and 1,968 unvaccinated.
Using standard epidemiological methods like Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the team tracked chronic conditions over up to 10 years. The results were explosive: vaccinated children had 2.53 times higher risk of any chronic disease. Specific breakdowns showed:
Asthma: 4.29 times higher
Atopic diseases (eczema, allergies): 3.03 times higher
Autoimmune disorders: 5.96 times higher
Neurodevelopmental issues: 5.53 times higher
After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated kids had at least one chronic condition versus 17% of unvaccinated, a 235% increase. Strikingly, unvaccinated children had zero cases of ADHD, learning disabilities, or intellectual disabilities, while vaccinated groups showed hundreds. No autism link was found, but sample sizes were small.
The authors acknowledged limitations like unequal follow-up (vaccinated kids averaged more doctor visits) and performed sensitivity analyses, restricting to kids followed 1+, 3+, or 5+ years, excluding low-visit cases. Results held firm. This wasn't sloppy work; it mirrored methods in countless published studies.
According to Siri, the team promised publication regardless of outcomes but balked when results challenged vaccine dogma. In secret recordings from the upcoming documentary An Inconvenient Study, Zervos admits it's "the right thing to do" but fears professional ruin. Henry Ford later disavowed the work, claiming it didn't meet "rigorous standards," yet issued no such disclaimers for their own similar studies.
This echoes a pattern: the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink has dodged vax-unvax comparisons for decades, despite Institute of Medicine calls. Post-1986 Vaccine Injury Act, manufacturers gained liability immunity, gutting incentives for long-term safety research. Funding flows from agencies and pharma promoting vaccines, creating conflicts that bury dissent.
X users and outlets like Daily Clout have amplified this, with posts garnering thousands of views calling it a "bombshell" exposing "deliberate poisoning." Sen. Ron Johnson entered it into the record, labelling it a turning point amid "corruption of science."
Critics pounced. Stanford's Dr. Jake Scott called it "flawed by design," citing detection bias, vaccinated kids' more visits lead to more diagnoses. UPenn's Jeffrey Morris echoed this in The Conversation, decrying "elementary errors" and confounding factors like race or income. STAT News highlighted zero ADHD cases in unvaxxed as "impossible."
Fair points? Sure, but hypocritical. These same experts stay silent when pro-vaccine studies suffer identical flaws. COVID pregnancy safety claims relied on retrospective data with biases, yet were touted as "robust." HPV cancer reduction? Observational, confounded, but unquestioned. Denmark and Germany studies showing no differences? Praised, despite limitations.
If biases invalidate Henry Ford, why not the rest? The asymmetry screams agenda. As Siri noted, adjustments persisted associations, critics ignore this. Guardian dismissed it as "unpublished," but that's the point: suppression prevents peer review.
Chronic illness affects over half of U.S. kids, asthma up 300% since 1980, autism 1 in 36. Coinciding with schedule expansion from 7 to 72 doses. Multifactorial? Yes, diet, pollution, but dismissing vaccines without investigation is negligence.
This study isn't proof, but a red flag warranting replication. Siri challenged Kaiser, CDC — crickets. An Inconvenient Study (Oct 3, 2025) will expose more, but we need action: independent funding, liability reform, transparent data.
In a field where "safe and effective" is mantra, Henry Ford shows truth-seekers face exile. Supporting this controversy isn't anti-science, it's pro-integrity. Time to demand answers, not alibis.
https://brownstone.org/articles/inside-the-henry-ford-vaccine-controversy/