Unveiling the Truth: The Suppressed Vax vs. Unvax Study and the Crisis of Institutional Bias, By Brian Simpson

Health journalist Del Bigtree has dropped a bombshell with his documentary An Inconvenient Study, exposing a 2020 study from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit that mainstream medicine buried. This wasn't just another anti-vaccine screed, it was a meticulously documented takedown of a system that silences inconvenient truths. The study, led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, a pro-vaccine infectious disease expert with ties to Moderna and J&J, compared health outcomes of 18,468 children (1,979 unvaccinated, 16,489 vaccinated) over a decade. Its findings? Vaccinated kids were 2.5 times more likely to develop chronic health conditions, 57% versus 17% in unvaccinated peers. Asthma? 4.29 times higher. Autoimmune disorders? Nearly sixfold. Zero cases of ADHD, diabetes, or behavioural issues in the unvaccinated. These numbers, presented at a U.S. Senate hearing on September 9, 2025, by ICAN attorney Aaron Siri, demand attention. Yet, the study never saw a journal, and Zervos's own words, caught on hidden camera, reveal why: "Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished."

This isn't just a study, it's a symptom of a deeper rot. The medical establishment, entwined with pharma's billions, has a track record of crushing dissent. Look at Dr. Paul Thomas: his 2020 study (n=3,324) showed unvaccinated kids with zero ADHD cases and lower rates of asthma (5.2x less) and eczema (4.5x less). Days after publication, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his license, and his paper was retracted for "dubious metrics." Dr. Peter Aaby, once a vaccine champion, found Guinea-Bissau's DTP program doubled mortality despite protecting against target diseases. His reward? Marginalisation, as WHO clung to its 1974-era playbook. These aren't isolated cases, they're a pattern of censorship when data challenges the sacred cow of vaccines.

The Henry Ford study's numbers are staggering. Using electronic health records (EHRs) and Michigan's immunisation registry, it tracked kids born between 2000 and 2016, adjusting for age, sex, race, BMI, and socioeconomic status via propensity score matching. The results? Vaccinated children faced:

4.29x higher asthma risk (aOR 4.29, 95% CI 2.88-6.38).

3x higher atopic diseases like eczema (aOR 3.03, 95% CI 2.20-4.18).

5.96x higher autoimmune disorders (aOR 5.96, 95% CI 3.13-11.34).

5.53x higher neurodevelopmental disorders, including 4.47x speech issues and 3.28x developmental delays.

6x more ear infections (aOR 6.00, 95% CI 4.16-8.65).

Zero cases of ADHD, diabetes, tics, or learning disabilities in 1,979 unvaccinated kids.

The conclusion? "Exposure to vaccination was independently associated with a 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition." This mirrors America's crisis: 54% of kids have at least one chronic condition, per CDC data, with vaccinated kids bearing the brunt.

Mainstream pushback calls it "fatally flawed." Henry Ford's September 2025 statement claimed it didn't meet "rigorous scientific standards," citing ascertainment bias (unvaccinated kids might visit doctors less, underreporting issues). But this dodges the elephant in the room: Zervos, a pharma-funded insider, feared career suicide. Co-author Lois Lamerato worried about making doctors "uncomfortable." This isn't science, it's politics. If the study's so weak, why not submit it to JAMA Pediatrics and let peer review shred it? Instead, it was shelved internally, only surfacing via Senate testimony and Bigtree's film (free on Rumble, study PDF at aninconvenientstudy.com).

Sceptics of the sceptics have a point: retrospective EHR studies aren't RCTs. Unvaccinated families often lean into healthier lifestyles, organic diets, less processed food, home-schooling, that could skew outcomes. ICD coding might over-diagnose vaccinated kids who see doctors more. But these critiques don't negate the signal: a 2.5-fold chronic disease gap isn't noise. And dismissing zero ADHD cases in nearly 2,000 unvaccinated kids as "under-detection," feels like hand-waving when Thomas's data showed the same. Compare this to COVID vaccine studies, now under mainstream fire. The CDC's 2025 MMWR pegs 2024-2025 shot efficacy at 33-46% for severe outcomes, but admits short follow-ups (7-119 days), test-negative design biases, and unadjusted prior infections inflate "added benefit." A July 2025 JAMA Health Forum study slashed global COVID "lives saved" from 19.8M to ~10M, citing seroprevalence over models. Even WHO's 154M lives-saved claim (1974-2024) takes heat: a 2025 Times of India analysis cuts measles deaths saved to 67M, not 94M, factoring sanitation and nutrition gains.

The parallel? Overreach and opacity. Vaccine advocates lean on idealized models while ignoring real-world confounders, lifestyle for vax-unvax, hybrid immunity for COVID. Yet, when Aaby or Zervos flag non-specific effects (higher mortality, chronic diseases), they're sidelined, not studied. The system rewards conformity: publish pro-vaccine data, get grants; challenge it, lose your license. No wonder X users (500+ likes on Siri's testimony clips) cry foul, while mainstream outlets like The Guardian sneer at "recycled myths."

Blind faith in untested schedules fuels distrust. No RCT has ever compared full childhood vaccine regimens to none, and ethical barriers (denying kids shots) don't justify the void. The chronic disease epidemic, 54% of kids, isn't random. If vaccines contribute, even partly, we need answers, not gag orders. Solutions? Mandate raw EHR data releases for independent analysis. Fund prospective cohort studies via neutral bodies, not Pfizer. The truth doesn't survive suppression — it demands daylight.

https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/bombshell-vax-vs-unvax-study-finally