🔥Inside the Henry Ford vaccine controversy
The Henry Ford Health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children was never published—until Congress forced it into the open.
Here’s what it found, and why it matters.
LINK below 👇👇
@AaronSiriSG @HenryFordHealth
@MdBreathe @Jikkyleaks @DowdEdward @newstart_2024
The Henry Ford Health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children was never published—until Congress forced it into the open.
Here’s what it found, and why it matters.
LINK below 👇👇
@AaronSiriSG @HenryFordHealth
@MdBreathe @Jikkyleaks @DowdEdward @newstart_2024
The lead investigator, Dr Marcus Zervos, is a veteran infectious-disease specialist. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he was a regular on local news programs, promoting vaccination and defending public-health mandates.
His involvement gave the project an establishment credibility rarely seen in vaccine-safety research.
His involvement gave the project an establishment credibility rarely seen in vaccine-safety research.
Completed in 2020, the study was unpublished until it was introduced into the congressional record on 9 September 2025 during a Senate hearing.
The Henry Ford team found vaccinated children had far higher rates of chronic disease than their unvaccinated peers.
hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…
The Henry Ford team found vaccinated children had far higher rates of chronic disease than their unvaccinated peers.
hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…
After 10yrs of follow up, 57% of vaccinated children had developed at least one chronic condition, compared with just 17% of the unvaccinated children. Critics said the study was "flawed by design." Henry Ford Health itself called it unreliable.
But the authors already acknowledged the limitations (follow-up times, health-care utilisation etc) & conducted further analyses to adjust for them. Even after the adjustments, the risk ratios “remained materially unchanged.”
But the authors already acknowledged the limitations (follow-up times, health-care utilisation etc) & conducted further analyses to adjust for them. Even after the adjustments, the risk ratios “remained materially unchanged.”
The problem isn’t that the critics raised potential biases; it’s that they applied their scrutiny unevenly.
When observational studies favour vaccination, those same flaws are quietly overlooked.
Eg, the hyped claim that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer rates — all based on the same kind of prospective data. Critics said nothing about how this study was "flawed by design." @Jikkyleaks
When observational studies favour vaccination, those same flaws are quietly overlooked.
Eg, the hyped claim that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer rates — all based on the same kind of prospective data. Critics said nothing about how this study was "flawed by design." @Jikkyleaks
None of this means the Henry Ford study “proves” vaccines cause chronic illness . The authors were explicit about that. Correlation is not causation. But the magnitude of the differences...2 to 6-fold higher risks across multiple diagnostic categories—warrants further scrutiny.
@AaronSiriSG has challenged other large health systems, such as Kaiser Permanente and Harvard Pilgrim, and even the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, to repeat the analysis. So far, no one has stepped forward.
@AaronSiriSG has challenged other large health systems, such as Kaiser Permanente and Harvard Pilgrim, and even the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, to repeat the analysis. So far, no one has stepped forward.
The film — An Inconvenient Study
Produced by Del Bigtree, it chronicles the secret recordings, the moral conflict of the researchers, and the institutional fear surrounding vaccine science.
Zervos is torn between conscience and career. “If I publish this,” Zervos confides, “I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” aninconvenientstudy.com
Produced by Del Bigtree, it chronicles the secret recordings, the moral conflict of the researchers, and the institutional fear surrounding vaccine science.
Zervos is torn between conscience and career. “If I publish this,” Zervos confides, “I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” aninconvenientstudy.com
Herein lies the paradox of modern science -- when prospective data affirm institutional narratives, they’re hailed as “robust real-world evidence.”
But when they challenge orthodoxy, they’re dismissed as “deeply flawed observational studies.” The standards don’t change—only the direction of the result does.
My FULL analysis 👇👇
blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/inside-the-h…
But when they challenge orthodoxy, they’re dismissed as “deeply flawed observational studies.” The standards don’t change—only the direction of the result does.
My FULL analysis 👇👇
blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/inside-the-h…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
