Since their PR department is ghosting me (as expected), I just left email and voicemail messages for their CSO. Will he do the right thing? We are about to find out.
Will anyone at HFHS consent to be interviewed on the study by … [Sharyl Attkisson]?”
. . .
Not a chance. Sharyl is very knowledgeable on vaccines (see her 2024 book “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails”). And there's NO chance HFS would consent to be interviewed by ICAN's attorney Aaron Siri! (however, Steve will interview him tommorow on his Rumble channel VSRF*1 (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) Episode #199)
However, a couple weeks ago, two executives from HFH were interviewed by Detroit Free Press reporter Lauren Shamaus.*17 Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science).
On Monday, in response to the Sunday night premiere of the "An Inconvenient Study" documentary, the HFH PR folks put out a revised press release*29 adding “Myth #5”: the “film proved nothing except that we have rigorous scientific standards … We do not bend to pressure from those with special interests ...” [except for Big Pharma?] and referred readers to their 10/07 DFP interview “for more on our perspective.”
Munkarah's perspective was that HFH “buried” the study he claimed was "fatally flawed," just a “draft,” and “doesn't even qualify as a study.” Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen." She disparaged Dr. Zervos competence and failed to mention that she was co-author's Lamerato's boss “to whom Lamerato was required to send a copy before submission to a journal.”*12
So, I would love to see Steve, Sharyl, or Aaron interview (or even better, depose) these HFM executives. Unfortunately, I just don't see that ever happening.
imo - By plan a "Null" for autism finding was a "rigged in" ford study result.
As with the history of lying about the causes of autism - i. e. "vaccines do not cause autism". As I would expect the 100% pro vaccine people involved with the henry ford study would do.
It is obvious to me that the autism data chosen to be included in this study was "carefully selected"and "carefully not selected" so as to show a "null" result for autism when the carefully selected data was analysed. 16,511 in the vaccinated group and ONLY 23 cases of autism were "found" in the data they choose to include in the study.
For instance - Picking a figure of 1 child out of 60 children having autism, in actuality, and most probably also shown in available, but (carefully) not selected records, then of the 16,511 in the vaccinated group 275 children actually had autism - NOT the 23 cases of autism shown in the data the study group included in the study. A 12 times understatement.
The pharmaceutical company "gold standard" study.
Dr Paul Marik "If you think about it. The pharmaceutical companies design the study and they design it for whatever outcome they want. They then conduct the study and conduct it in a way that it will give them the outcome. They then evaluate the outcome so that they get the outcome they want. They analyze the data so it creates the outcome they want and then they get ghost writers to write the paper producing the outcome they want. It's a completely bogus system and till there is more transparency and we change the way clinical studies are done - Unfortunately, I don't think you can really believe anything you read."
Dr Paul Marik at 49:20 into the video below Epidemic of Fraud: Exposing Hydroxychloroquine Censorship Independent Medical Alliance (Formerly FLCCC Alliance)
Your tenacious efforts in the end will pay off when the whole truth comes out about the whole deception. We greatly appreciate all your work in this area Steve.
People put their jobs and income before the good of the people. They have no faith in our Creator and no conscience. I believe that in the last 75 years with the promotion of Well Baby visits, regular visits to doctors, and mandatory vaccines to get into public schools that the vaccines particularly, along with the drugs have damaged the brains, of every recipient. The matter in them enters the brain and damages the hypothalamus, pituitary and Pineal glands. These glands provide the ability to think, the memory, and emotional development. The country has gone down from the top to the bottom of the barrel scholastically, morally, and also physically; and vaccines are a major contributor. The Pineal Gland is our Seat of Consciousness, which gives us perception and intuition as to what is right or wrong. I believe that the injections have destroyed this gland in many....and caused the disconnection from a belief in our Creator and asking for guidance.
The frontal lobe is responsible for moral wise vs. unwise behavior choices. That is why 18 year olds or 21 year olds are Not adults. It is formally set at the age of 30. The beginning of true adulthood.
Keep the pressure up Steve, they're starting to crumble!
Big Pharma seem intent on getting Bied Flu injections into another lucrative marketplace, of the gullible. In association with their corrupt laboratory boffins, they've made several attempts to strengthen Bird Flu to try and justify their next lucrative, deadly injectable mRNA money spinner.
They're desperate to make Bird Flu as dangerous to humans as they dare, in order to get their other desperate partners in crime, the unelected criminals in the World Health Organisation (the WHO), to declare the next Scamdemic. Unfortunately, the human experiments on Bird Flu fail to catch on, so the launch stalls again, and there are no takers for the next batch of useless but poisonous mRNA-injected crap, which they call 'VACCINE'.
No doubt the PREP Act will again shield the pharmaceutical criminals and all concerned in this depopulation exercise. Again, nobody will be held responsible for the injuries and DEATHS the 'Vaccines' cause.
Steve. We need to get HHS to use (the substantial) NIH funding to Henry Ford health care as leverage to get this study submitted for open peer review. It should be open peer review. At least half of peer reviewers should be retired or independent epidemiologists. This will avoid reviewers who are afraid (like Dr Zervos) of being fired for their professional opinions. Furthermore. Each reviewer should be willing to sign their review. The paper should be submitted to an open access journal.
Not just getting it to preprint. I strongly advocate getting it in front of unbiased peer reviewers. Open peer review (signed by the reviewer) will contribute towards unbiased reviews. Using retired epidemiologists will also contribute toward unbiased peer reviews. Using financial leverage to encourage submission of the article will incentivize the submission of this article. Henry Ford heath care gets 43 million in NIH funding. That can be used as leverage. Why not?
It is imperative that the raw data underpinning the study "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study" be made available for rigorous, independent scrutiny. The reported findings, suggesting a 2.5-fold increased hazard ratio (HR 2.54, 95% CI 2.16-2.97) for chronic health conditions among vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, carry profound public health implications if substantiated. Despite the identification of methodological flaws, including potential selection bias, ascertainment bias due to differential follow-up and healthcare utilization, incomplete adjustment for confounding variables, and limitations in statistical power for rare events, these issues do not inherently invalidate the results. Rather, they underscore the urgent need for transparent data access to facilitate a comprehensive re-analysis. The current study, conducted within the Henry Ford Health System, relies on proprietary administrative and clinical records, which are not publicly accessible. This opacity hinders the ability to confirm or refute the associations with conditions such as asthma (HR 4.29), atopic disease (HR 3.03), autoimmune disease (HR 5.96), and neurodevelopmental disorders (HR 5.53). A robust, independent evaluation, conducted by researchers unaffiliated with the original authors (e.g., excluding individuals such as Morris or Scott, as stipulated) is essential to address these concerns. Such an analysis should incorporate advanced statistical techniques, including propensity score matching or inverse probability weighting, to mitigate confounding, and extend follow-up duration to ensure equitable ascertainment across exposure groups. Drawing on 45 years of research experience, I have encountered analogous scenarios where preliminary findings, despite methodological imperfections, retained substantive validity upon re-examination with refined methodologies. My professional judgment suggests that, even after accounting for the identified limitations such as the lack of socioeconomic data or dose-response analysis, the adjusted results may closely align with the original estimates. This hypothesis warrants empirical testing through data release, enabling a definitive assessment of the vaccine-chronic condition nexus. The scientific community and public health policy demand no less than this level of rigor to either affirm or refute these potentially transformative findings.
Good way to put it. Many scientific findings have been subsequently discovered via imperfect experiments and observations. In this one, the unvaccinated were something on the order of 1/8 of the total, so the number of vaccinated to unvaccinated wasn’t close to being symmetric. It also looked like the vaccinated had a higher incidence of premature births to the unvaccinated. So, confounders? looks like it needs further examination, but the medical establishment will not be anxious to explore that, unfortunately.
What if the study adjusted for premature births, when it really was a symptom of a confounder, such as an independent reason for premature births AND the end point (eg, all cause mortality)? Not to pick it apart, but we probably agree we really need to see the details of the data, to say anything conclusive. It’s tantalizing.
Will anyone at HFHS consent to be interviewed on the study by … [Sharyl Attkisson]?”
. . .
Not a chance. Sharyl is very knowledgeable on vaccines (see her 2024 book “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails”). And there's NO chance HFS would consent to be interviewed by ICAN's attorney Aaron Siri! (however, Steve will interview him tommorow on his Rumble channel VSRF*1 (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) Episode #199)
However, a couple weeks ago, two executives from HFH were interviewed by Detroit Free Press reporter Lauren Shamaus.*17 Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science).
On Monday, in response to the Sunday night premiere of the "An Inconvenient Study" documentary, the HFH PR folks put out a revised press release*29 adding “Myth #5”: the “film proved nothing except that we have rigorous scientific standards … We do not bend to pressure from those with special interests ...” [except for Big Pharma?] and referred readers to their 10/07 DFP interview “for more on our perspective.”
Munkarah's perspective was that HFH “buried” the study he claimed was "fatally flawed," just a “draft,” and “doesn't even qualify as a study.” Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen." She disparaged Dr. Zervos competence and failed to mention that she was co-author's Lamerato's boss “to whom Lamerato was required to send a copy before submission to a journal.”*12
What total and absolute BS! (as I've detailed in my previous pinned comments at https://kirschsubstack.com/p/my-email-to-henry-ford-media-relations)
So, I would love to see Steve, Sharyl, or Aaron interview (or even better, depose) these HFM executives. Unfortunately, I just don't see that ever happening.
REFERENCES:
*1: https://rumble.com/c/VaccineSafetyResearchFoundation?e9s=src_v1_clr
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Siri's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*17: https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
*29: Revised 10/13/25 HFH “Fact-Check” (original published 9/26/25): https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check I noticed their previous 10/26 press release has been removed; same except for adding Myth #5
Dr Lanfear? The gift that keeps on giving
imo - By plan a "Null" for autism finding was a "rigged in" ford study result.
As with the history of lying about the causes of autism - i. e. "vaccines do not cause autism". As I would expect the 100% pro vaccine people involved with the henry ford study would do.
It is obvious to me that the autism data chosen to be included in this study was "carefully selected"and "carefully not selected" so as to show a "null" result for autism when the carefully selected data was analysed. 16,511 in the vaccinated group and ONLY 23 cases of autism were "found" in the data they choose to include in the study.
see CDC Data and Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder here https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html note: Data through 2017 was included in the study.
For instance - Picking a figure of 1 child out of 60 children having autism, in actuality, and most probably also shown in available, but (carefully) not selected records, then of the 16,511 in the vaccinated group 275 children actually had autism - NOT the 23 cases of autism shown in the data the study group included in the study. A 12 times understatement.
The pharmaceutical company "gold standard" study.
Dr Paul Marik "If you think about it. The pharmaceutical companies design the study and they design it for whatever outcome they want. They then conduct the study and conduct it in a way that it will give them the outcome. They then evaluate the outcome so that they get the outcome they want. They analyze the data so it creates the outcome they want and then they get ghost writers to write the paper producing the outcome they want. It's a completely bogus system and till there is more transparency and we change the way clinical studies are done - Unfortunately, I don't think you can really believe anything you read."
Dr Paul Marik at 49:20 into the video below Epidemic of Fraud: Exposing Hydroxychloroquine Censorship Independent Medical Alliance (Formerly FLCCC Alliance)
So Dr. Lanfear, Prof. Morris and Prof. Scott are three lying professioners. Don't let up. Put them down and mock them until they loose their jobs.
Cockroaches. I hear them scattering.
Can you get a copy of Zervos paper anywhere. I would love the read the whole paper.
https://imahealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/entered-into-hearing-record-impact-of-childhood-vaccination-on-short-and-long-term-chronic-health-outcomes-in-children-a-birth-cohort-study.pdf
Hope that above link works.
Thank you so much it did work!
I'm starting to think we can't trust "the science".
Your tenacious efforts in the end will pay off when the whole truth comes out about the whole deception. We greatly appreciate all your work in this area Steve.
Crickets are coming... Expect them.
People put their jobs and income before the good of the people. They have no faith in our Creator and no conscience. I believe that in the last 75 years with the promotion of Well Baby visits, regular visits to doctors, and mandatory vaccines to get into public schools that the vaccines particularly, along with the drugs have damaged the brains, of every recipient. The matter in them enters the brain and damages the hypothalamus, pituitary and Pineal glands. These glands provide the ability to think, the memory, and emotional development. The country has gone down from the top to the bottom of the barrel scholastically, morally, and also physically; and vaccines are a major contributor. The Pineal Gland is our Seat of Consciousness, which gives us perception and intuition as to what is right or wrong. I believe that the injections have destroyed this gland in many....and caused the disconnection from a belief in our Creator and asking for guidance.
The frontal lobe is responsible for moral wise vs. unwise behavior choices. That is why 18 year olds or 21 year olds are Not adults. It is formally set at the age of 30. The beginning of true adulthood.
I'd hide too if I was him ....!🤷🏻♂️🦧🤦♂️
Keep the pressure up Steve, they're starting to crumble!
Big Pharma seem intent on getting Bied Flu injections into another lucrative marketplace, of the gullible. In association with their corrupt laboratory boffins, they've made several attempts to strengthen Bird Flu to try and justify their next lucrative, deadly injectable mRNA money spinner.
They're desperate to make Bird Flu as dangerous to humans as they dare, in order to get their other desperate partners in crime, the unelected criminals in the World Health Organisation (the WHO), to declare the next Scamdemic. Unfortunately, the human experiments on Bird Flu fail to catch on, so the launch stalls again, and there are no takers for the next batch of useless but poisonous mRNA-injected crap, which they call 'VACCINE'.
No doubt the PREP Act will again shield the pharmaceutical criminals and all concerned in this depopulation exercise. Again, nobody will be held responsible for the injuries and DEATHS the 'Vaccines' cause.
Unjabbed Mick (UK Patriot). We live longer!
Steve. We need to get HHS to use (the substantial) NIH funding to Henry Ford health care as leverage to get this study submitted for open peer review. It should be open peer review. At least half of peer reviewers should be retired or independent epidemiologists. This will avoid reviewers who are afraid (like Dr Zervos) of being fired for their professional opinions. Furthermore. Each reviewer should be willing to sign their review. The paper should be submitted to an open access journal.
totally. At least to preprints
Not just getting it to preprint. I strongly advocate getting it in front of unbiased peer reviewers. Open peer review (signed by the reviewer) will contribute towards unbiased reviews. Using retired epidemiologists will also contribute toward unbiased peer reviews. Using financial leverage to encourage submission of the article will incentivize the submission of this article. Henry Ford heath care gets 43 million in NIH funding. That can be used as leverage. Why not?
Don't drink the Kool-Aid folks. It's the Apocalypso! Get out your dancing shoes.
It is imperative that the raw data underpinning the study "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study" be made available for rigorous, independent scrutiny. The reported findings, suggesting a 2.5-fold increased hazard ratio (HR 2.54, 95% CI 2.16-2.97) for chronic health conditions among vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, carry profound public health implications if substantiated. Despite the identification of methodological flaws, including potential selection bias, ascertainment bias due to differential follow-up and healthcare utilization, incomplete adjustment for confounding variables, and limitations in statistical power for rare events, these issues do not inherently invalidate the results. Rather, they underscore the urgent need for transparent data access to facilitate a comprehensive re-analysis. The current study, conducted within the Henry Ford Health System, relies on proprietary administrative and clinical records, which are not publicly accessible. This opacity hinders the ability to confirm or refute the associations with conditions such as asthma (HR 4.29), atopic disease (HR 3.03), autoimmune disease (HR 5.96), and neurodevelopmental disorders (HR 5.53). A robust, independent evaluation, conducted by researchers unaffiliated with the original authors (e.g., excluding individuals such as Morris or Scott, as stipulated) is essential to address these concerns. Such an analysis should incorporate advanced statistical techniques, including propensity score matching or inverse probability weighting, to mitigate confounding, and extend follow-up duration to ensure equitable ascertainment across exposure groups. Drawing on 45 years of research experience, I have encountered analogous scenarios where preliminary findings, despite methodological imperfections, retained substantive validity upon re-examination with refined methodologies. My professional judgment suggests that, even after accounting for the identified limitations such as the lack of socioeconomic data or dose-response analysis, the adjusted results may closely align with the original estimates. This hypothesis warrants empirical testing through data release, enabling a definitive assessment of the vaccine-chronic condition nexus. The scientific community and public health policy demand no less than this level of rigor to either affirm or refute these potentially transformative findings.
Paul, i couldn't agree with you more on this one!
Good way to put it. Many scientific findings have been subsequently discovered via imperfect experiments and observations. In this one, the unvaccinated were something on the order of 1/8 of the total, so the number of vaccinated to unvaccinated wasn’t close to being symmetric. It also looked like the vaccinated had a higher incidence of premature births to the unvaccinated. So, confounders? looks like it needs further examination, but the medical establishment will not be anxious to explore that, unfortunately.
"looked like the vaccinated had a higher incidence of premature births to the unvaccinated. So, confounders?"
Authors adjusted for premature births, etc. in regression analysis. Made no difference in the results.
What if the study adjusted for premature births, when it really was a symptom of a confounder, such as an independent reason for premature births AND the end point (eg, all cause mortality)? Not to pick it apart, but we probably agree we really need to see the details of the data, to say anything conclusive. It’s tantalizing.
Well done Steve! Thank you for pushing back on their erroneous claims. Makes me wonder how much money HFHS gets direcly from pharma.