On September 10, 2025, The Vigilant Fox reported on a long-suppressed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos at Henry Ford Health in Detroit. Titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study," this 2020 retrospective analysis of 18,468 children revealed startling differences in chronic health conditions between the two groups. Despite its pro-vaccine lead researcher's commitment to publish the results, the study was buried for five years, allegedly due to career-threatening pressures. I will argue that the suppression of this study highlights systemic issues in vaccine safety research, necessitating greater transparency, independent oversight, and rigorous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies to rebuild public trust in public health institutions.
The Zervos study, initiated after discussions with health freedom journalist Del Bigtree and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), compared long-term health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children enrolled in Henry Ford Health's insurance plan. The results were striking: vaccinated children were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis, six times more likely to experience acute and chronic ear infections, and 4.47 times more likely to have speech disorders compared to their unvaccinated peers. Notably, the unvaccinated cohort showed zero cases of brain dysfunction, diabetes, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders. Overall, 57% of vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue after ten years, compared to 17% of unvaccinated children, a more than threefold increase in risk.
Despite Dr. Zervos' initial pledge to publish the findings "no matter what," the study remained unpublished until attorney Aaron Siri presented its results at a U.S. Senate hearing on September 9, 2025, titled "How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines." Siri, representing ICAN, suggested that the study's suppression stemmed from fears that its publication would jeopardize Zervos' career and challenge the prevailing narrative of vaccine safety. The results, described as "astonishing" and "devastating," were entered into the congressional record, with a documentary, An Inconvenient Study, set for release on October 3, 2025, to further publicise the findings.
The suppression of the Zervos study raises critical questions about the integrity of vaccine safety research. The pharmaceutical industry's influence over medical institutions, funding, and publication processes creates conflicts of interest that can stifle inconvenient findings. Henry Ford Health officials reportedly offered no substantive reason for withholding the study, a silence Siri attributes to its challenging results. This mirrors broader patterns of resistance to vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies, which are often dismissed as "unethical" despite growing public demand for such comparisons. The absence of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies of this kind, despite the availability of datasets like the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, suggests a deliberate avoidance of data that might contradict established vaccine policies.
Critics of the study, as noted in a Stat News article from September 10, 2025, argue that its unpublished status and methodological flaws, such as detection bias (vaccinated children having more healthcare visits, leading to more diagnoses), undermine its validity. However, these critiques do not negate the need for further investigation. A 2014 meta-analysis of 1.25 million children found no link between vaccines and autism, and Denmark's registry studies showed no association with Type 1 diabetes or autism. Yet, the Zervos study's findings, even if imperfect, highlight gaps in our understanding of long-term health outcomes, particularly for conditions like asthma and speech disorders, which have risen alongside vaccination rates. The refusal to publish or replicate such studies fuels scepticism, as it suggests a prioritisation of narrative over science.
The Zervos study's suppression underscores the urgent need for transparent, independent vaccine safety research. Public trust in vaccines has waned, with only 62% of U.S. citizens fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 2021, and MMR vaccination rates dropping below the 95% threshold needed to prevent measles outbreaks. The Zervos study's findings, if validated, could explain part of this distrust: parents observing chronic conditions in vaccinated children may question the "safe and effective" mantra without access to comparative data.
First, the CDC and FDA must adopt vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies using robust methodologies, such as matched cohort analyses to address detection bias. The Vaccine Safety Datalink, with its extensive health records, is an ideal resource for such research. Second, independent oversight bodies, free from pharmaceutical influence, should oversee study design and publication to ensure transparency. Third, journals must commit to publishing controversial findings, provided they meet rigorous scientific standards, to prevent suppression based on ideological conformity. Finally, public health agencies must engage with vaccine sceptics, like Bigtree and ICAN, to address concerns rather than dismissing them, fostering dialogue to rebuild trust.
Opponents argue that vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated studies are unnecessary, citing extensive research showing vaccines' safety and efficacy. For instance, a 2025 study in Annals of Internal Medicine, found no significant link between aluminium in vaccines and chronic diseases in 1.2 million Danish children. However, these studies often focus on specific outcomes (e.g., autism) and may not capture broader chronic conditions like asthma or speech disorders, as highlighted by the Zervos study. Critics also claim that withholding vaccines from a control group is unethical, but retrospective studies using existing unvaccinated populations, like the Amish or those with medical exemptions, can circumvent this issue.
The Zervos study's suppression for five years, despite its alarming findings, exposes a troubling lack of transparency in vaccine safety research. The reported threefold increase in chronic health conditions among vaccinated children demands further investigation, not dismissal.
https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/buried-vax-vs-unvax-study-finally