#7: “Does Dr. Zervos agree that the study is flawed? If not, why not?”
. . .
No. ICAN's Del Bigtree has hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos, some of which is in the trailer for his documentery. Here's a transcript and my take (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
Why Study Not Published? Hidden Camera Video of Dr. Zervos Reveals the Truth.
So, who is telling truth about why the Henry Ford Study was never published? Was it because the study “had serious flaws”? Or, was the study “suppressed” for pretextual reasons because Dr. Zervos (and his co-authors) were afraid they would lose their jobs/careers because their Henry Ford Health bosses did not want it published?
Initially, this appeared to be a “he said, she said” situation. Aaron Siri vs. Henry Ford Health (and the study authors who aren't talking). BUT, on Sept 25th, Del Bigtree released a new trailer with excerpts from his 2020 hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos talking with Bigtree about the study!*6
Del Bigtree explained: “I had only one request [for Dr. Zervos] , no matter the outcome, you publish the study. Instead of upholding his end of the bargain, he refused to submit the study for publication. Why was it never published? Henry Ford said it was because the study was flawed, not because of it's results. … But, Dr. Zervos's statements, made directly to me, explain why his study was not published.”
Following is my transcription from the film trailer (I'm sure there will be more in the forthcoming documentary):
Bigtree:”What do you think about the study you guys have done”?
Zervos: “I think it is a good study, but it does have limitations.”
Bigtree: “Do you find any flaws in this study, is there a way they could do this study better?”
Zervos: “Not that I know of, I'd put it out just how it is.” … “It's the right thing to do, I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, “this study is flawed.” …. “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.”
Bigtree: “Is what your study shows important?”
Zervos: “Yeah, it is important. They … I'm just not gonna do it.”
Bigtree: “If I can't get this study out, than what hope is there for every kid in the future?“I said to you, “If you do this study, you're gonna come under fire. You said, “I don't care about that. I'm all about the data, and I'm about to retire anyway...”
Zervos: “Yeah.
Bigtree: “So your energy's changed on that/”
Zervos: “Energy's changing. Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.
Note: HFH put out their 10/26 press releases the day after this trailer aired. Did they not watch it!?
. . .
As noted previously, Henry Ford Health has alleged that ICAN's forthcoming documentary falsely claims HFH “suppressed the study” ...“because of its results”. Instead, HFH claimed the study was not “the ‘most important vaccine study ever.’” and that it was “immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology”... not “due to political reasons”. This flawed study was “not hidden from the public.”*7 & 8
In contrast, in the hidden camera footage, Dr. Zervos told Del Bigtree that he didn't find any flaws in his study, didn't “know of” any ways to do it better, thought it was a “good study (with limitations that were noted in his manuscript],” and that “I'd put it out just how it is.” Doesn't sound like Zervos agreed with HFH that his study was fundamentally flawed with serious issues!
Zervos agreed what his study showed was “important” and “getting it out was “the right thing to do...” But, he said “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.” ...”I'm just not gonna do it” [put the study out] … “I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, 'this study is flawed.' “ Which is exactly what Dr. Jake Scott said at the Senate hearing and Henry Ford Health spokesperson have repeatedly alleged in their statements.
Although Bigtree appealed to Zervos to consider the future health of millions of children if his study didn't come out, and Zervos agreed it “was the right thing to do,” Zervos wouldn't budge. He replied, “Energy's changing” (on being willing to come under fire for putting out his study) “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
. . .
Sounds to me like Siri was correct “that Zervos was hiding the outcome of the research and refused to allow it to be peer reviewed or submitted to journals because he was afraid of being fired” and ending his career.*1 His co-author Lamerato's boss “made it plain that they [Henry Ford Health "higher-ups"] did not want it submitted for publication.”*12 So, it appears that Siri & Bigtree are telling the truth about the study, not Henry Ford Health.
#6: “My email to Henry Ford media relations about the new film "An Inconvenient Study" ... I can't wait to hear their response!”
. . .
Don't hold your breath! However, Steve should check out the 10/07/25 interview with two Henry Ford Health executives who should have stuck with “No comment” (“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it”). Here's my take (excerpted from my 16-page letter I sent yesterday to the DFP):
(New) HFH Buried “Fatally Flawed" “Draft" That “Did Not Qualify as a Study”
Last week, “Detroit Free Press” reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science) from Henry Ford Health*17 Based on her interviews, the DFP published ,“Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” (10/07/25).
Munkarah said HFH “buried flawed data and a draft of a paper that has no science in it."“He claimed the “fatally flawed … research project … doesn't even qualify as a study.” He said HFH was "extremely surprised" by the Senate hearing and complained that an unpublished “draft” should not be shared or leaked.
Johnson said [study co-author] Dr. Lois Lamerato came to her with concerns about her “draft ” that was “led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.” [whom Steve pointed out has lots of cited publications] Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen” … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." She described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design … flaws in research.”
. . .
“buried … draft of a paper …": “Buried” and “discarded” are a bad choice of words. Sounds a lot like the study was “hidden from the public” Munkarah admits HFH “buried the study! Exactly what ICAN claims in their documentary.
“doesn't even qualify as a study”: Sure looks like one to me! The “leaked” study was not a “draft”, it was clearly a submission-ready manuscript. Talk about gas-lighting!
“she [Lamerato] came to her with concerns”: Really? Johnson failed to mention that she was Lamerato's boss “to whom Lamerato was required to send a copy before submission to a journal.”*12 (her account is contradicted by Aaron Siri's, see my previous comment #3).
“led by "someone [Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology: Johnson appears to be questioning the competence of Dr. Zervos who has published hundreds of papers. True, he is not an epidemiologist, although “Dr. Zervos area of practice and research is in epidemiology, ...”*19 He was the lead author, but that's why his co-author Lamerato was a senior epidemiologist and co-author Amy Tang was a biostatistician. Were they somehow both incompetent at their jobs and overlooked “fatal flaws”?
“flaws in research”: Aaron Siri wrote that the “reasons provided [HFH's “serious flaws”] were … all plainly pretextual … easily addressed in the study itself by the sensitivity analyses ... Meaning they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication” (see my previous comment #4))
Overall, I was astonished by the incompetence displayed by Johnson & Munkarah (“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it”). Their arguments won't convince anyone with critical thinking. If they were smart, they would have just stuck with their initial short, bland PR comment HFH put out on Sept 9th. HFH needs to hire some better PF people!
And, I'm disappointed that you [DFP reporter Kristen Shamus] just repeated their BS without any pushback on their weak claims. You didn't even mention the documentary trailer excerpt of Dr. Zervos's saying it was a “good study” without flaws that he would put out just as it is! Didn't you watch the trailer?
P.S. While listening to the latest edition of Del Bigtree's show Thursday night (“The HighWire” (Episode.445)*18 her photo & name appear in a screenshot of her 10/07 DFP article. Perhaps she & DFP will end up in the final edit of the film?
#5: “There are 9 vax-unvaxxed studies currently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Those studies actually show the same thing as the Zervos study.”
. . .
A few small vaxxed-unvaxxed studies have been published. Others, like the Henry Ford Study were “buried” and remain unpublished. Why aren't these studies done? Simple, doctors fear career suicide. The most important study (prior to the HFS) was fraudulently “retracted” and the doctor who published it had his career destroyed. Here's my take on the subject (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
Vaxx-UnVaxxed Studies Remain Hidden Because Dr.'s Fear Career Suicide
In his book & Senate testimony, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri described his fruitless efforts over the past five years to get Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamoreto to submit their study for publication:
“We tried to persuade Dr. Zervos & Dr. Lamerto] that protecting as many children as possible from vaccine injuries was more important and should override their expressed concerns about doctors feelings or protecting anyone's career. … Still, neither budged.”
“My hope has been that over time they would nonetheless choose to submit their study for publication … [five years later,] it is clear this study will never be submitted to a journal ... its finding do not match the vaccine dogma … publishing this study could result in career suicide for its authors”*12 and “would have turned virtually every person and institution in their world against them. Publishing the study would have been the right thing to do. The brave thing to do. But it would have ignited the wrath of nearly everyone and every institution that they know, rely upon, and hold dear.*11
So, “... this study and every other study like it [except for a few by independent researchers] will not get published. These studies remain hidden from the public. Unpublished. Discarded. This creates a form of selection bias that results in only studies that affirm the religion of vaccines being published. This is how the 'science' around vaccines … has developed.”*12
“Of course, if doing the right thing, the moral thing, the ethical thing regarding vaccines did not involve potential social and career suicide, we would not be in the current predicament in which we find ourselves. If this study, and others like it, were conducted and were published in medical journals, the first scientific step needed to protect children from vaccine injury would have been taken.”*11
. . .
In his Sept 9th written testimony, Aaron Siri noted that the “results [of the Henry Ford Study] were similar to the findings in the handful of other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies discussed in my Prior Submission (see pp. 34-35 May 21, 2025 Senate written testimony).*16
In 2020, pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a vaxxed-unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study.*14 Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause. So, his “inconvenient study” has been removed from the scientific literature and can't be cited by anyone. Jeremy Hammond wrote an excellent post/book on the subject. "The War on Informed Consent"*15
So, Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing a Vaxxed-UnVaxxed study showing vaxxed children were unhealthier appears well founded!
*14: RETRACTED: James Lyon-Weiler & Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” (11/18/20) https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674
“The IOM’s [2013] report [stated] ... “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD” Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a [2016] white paper... that discussed how to conduct such studies using the VSD. But no such study ha s even been published by the CDC despite the fact this white paper acknowledges that many chronic disorders children are experiencing today in epidemic numbers are biologically plausible outcomes from exposure to CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule but have not yet been properly studied. While CDC- and pharmaceutical-funded scientists have never published such a study, a few such studies have been published.” [e.g. Mawson, Hooker & Miller]
I would also suggest taking a look at Brian Hooker & RFK Jr's book, "Vax-UnVax -- Let the Science Speak" which summarizes the scientific literature on the subject.
#4: “What were the precise flaws in the data that were fatal (all data has flaws)? Has Henry Ford addressed these flaws in their data?”
. . .
Here's my own analysis about the so-called “fatal flaws” of the study; although I haven't had time yet to write about this issue in detail (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
HFH's List of “Serious Data Flaws” Easily Rebutted by Siri & Study Itself
During their DFP interview*17, Christine Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health Science) called it among the "worst studies I've ever seen." … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." … “It was led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.”
In addition, Dr. Adnan Munkaran (HFH President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) said “the way the research project was designed was "fatally flawed," and it doesn't even qualify as a study because the data didn't survive even the earliest internal review process.”
You [DFP reporter Kristen Shamus] wrote that, “When Johnson and other epidemiologists and statisticians at Henry Ford began vetting the draft [as part of HFH's so-called “independent internal peer review”]… they found multiple problems with the design ...” (repeating the list HFM first released to WP reporter Lauren Weber back on Sept 11th and in their 10/26 press release).
. . .
In contrast to the HFH narrative, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri said, “I met with Dr. Lamerato … she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication”*12
In his oral Senate testimony, Siri also claimed the study “was well-designed.” He said, “I litigate around studies all the time. I've read hundreds, thousands. … In terms of a design of this study, this is probably one of the best … And it is the best study that assesses the safety in vaccine.” (02:20:09) … “I think from the perspective of the establishment, this study is flawed because it's actually designed to detect safety. It's actually designed to reach a conclusion on safety. That's what makes it flawed ...” (42:30)*20
“I [Siri] kept asking [Lamerato] what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
. . .
I agree with Aaron Siri that each of HFH's & Johnson's so-called “data flaws” can easily be rebutted Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a detailed rebuttal today.
For now, I'll just briefly address what Christine Johnson called the “most glaring problem ... the amount of time researchers had to evaluate the onset of chronic disease in the unvaccinated patients … 75% were observed only until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose many chronic pediatric diseases”
In his oral Senate testimony, Siri said the authors addresed this issue by conducting “a sensitivity analysis whereby they removed any children from the study that weren't in the Henry Ford system from birth onward for at least five years thinking, "Okay, well maybe we got it wrong because the unvaccinated kids just had an average duration of less [enrollment] time. But so by doing that, we're only going to look kids who were in there for at least five years." And what they found was consistent with the findings [including all children]... the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down. They also did that sensitivity analysis at three years and at one year and each time they still found the vaccinated children a statistically significant increased rate of chronic health issues.(40:31)*20
Similarly, Siri wrote in his written Senate testimony, “Vaccine exposure was associated with higher incidence of a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (IRR 2.75, CI 2.31-3.28), 3-years (IRR 3.38, CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (IRR 4.09, CI 2.84-5.90) … Meaning … it revealed even greater harm, not less.” (p.7)*16
“Meaning, when they excluded children who were not enrolled for at least 5 years after birth, it showed vaccinated children had 4.05 times the rate of chronic disease … compared to 2.75 times the rate of chronic disease … when lookingat children with all enrollment periods … This type of sensitivity analysis again confirmed the strong validity of the study’s results.
In other words, HFH Johnson's “most glaring problem” was a non-issue. And, the sensitivity analysis, that rebutts her claim, suggests a dose reponse curve that the more vaccines children get, the sicker they are.
“The IOM’s [2013] report [stated] ... “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD” Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a [2016] white paper... that discussed how to conduct such studies using the VSD. But no such study ha s even been published by the CDC despite the fact this white paper acknowledges that many chronic disorders children are experiencing today in epidemic
numbers are biologically plausible outcomes from exposure to CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule
but have not yet been properly studied. While CDC- and pharmaceutical-funded scientists have never published such a study, a few such studies have been published.” [e.g. Mawson, Hooker & Miller]
From Steve's AI analysis: What Likely Happened “Researchers completed the analysis honestly and found results that challenge official narratives. Institutional review flagged … concerns—not necessarily scientific concerns—and halted dissemination. … The PR office then issued the “Fact Check” framing the authors as misguided [and the study as “fatally flawed”] to protect organizational and political standing. … a genuine public health system would have published … instead of burying the findings and branding inquiry as heresy.” https://alter.systems/p/26a1bce8-a552-49a7-afe9-15a6bbc8abe5
. . .
Spot on analysis! Here's what my analysis shows about how the study was buried (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP): HFH “Higher Ups” (& “Co-Author”?) “Internal Peer Review” Blocked Publication
On September 25th, Del Bigtree reported that HFH had sent ICAN a cease-and-desist” letter. He showed excerpts including, “the truth is that the draft study did not proceed past initial co-author [Dr. Lamerato] and internal independent peer reviews [her boss, Christine Cole Johnson, Chair of Public Health Science] and was never submitted due to significant and serious flaws in its data and methodology.” (@5:13)*6
Note that this language differs from the HFH press release that just said “first internal peer review” that did not mention a “co-author” review. During an “internal review” process “All authors must read the article and reconcile their comments before submission.”*13
Who was the “co-author” who found “serious flaws” in the manuscript? It had to be Dr. Zervos or Dr. Lamerato. I'd guess HFH was referring to Lamerato since she was the “corresponding author” who was responsible for guiding the manuscript through preparation, submission, and publication (although, based on the hidden camera video, the “co-author” might have been the lead author Dr. Zervos who rejected publication of his own study (under pressure from HFH?).
But, how does HFH's claim make any sense? That the “co-author” only found “fatal data flaws” [what Johnson claimed were Lamerato's “concerns” & “issues”] with their own study only AFTER they had prepared their manuscript that was ready for submission? Lamerato was the epidemiologist who designed the study and helped analyze it with co-author biostatistician Amy Tang. Were they both so incompetent at their jobs that they overlooked “fatal flaws”?
10/09/25 Update: the 10/07 DFP article fills in the blanks. “One of the authors [Dr. Lamereto]... came to me [because she was required to send a copy to her boss, Christine Cole Johnson, Chair of Public Health Science] with a draft of this report and she had concerns," said. "That happens when you're a coauthor or you're a part of a project and you think there's some issues.” Johnson's “vetting” was what HFM called an “internal independent peer review.”
HFH's so-called “internal independent peer review.” This appears to be Henry Ford PR speak for “your bosses gate-keep your work and shove it in a drawer if they don't like it”! Although, it's not clear to me how your bosses are your “peers”? Or how an employee is “independent” of his bosses!).
. . .
In contrast to Johnson's claim, I think that ICAN attorney Aaron Siri tells a more reasonable story about what actually happened during the so-called “internal peer review” process:
“The study was “set to be submitted for publication [not a “draft”] in a medical journal after it was completed, but the researchers did not go through with the submission. I met with Dr . Lamerto ask why it was not submitted. She reaffirmed that she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication [so much for Johnson's claim that Lamerato “had concerns”]*12
“The issue, she [Lamerato] explained, was that the higher-ups [Johnson, etc.] at Henry Ford Health, to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.”*12
“I [Siri] kept asking what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
Note: The above passages did NOT appear in Siri's written or oral Senate testimony, only in his book “Vaccines, Amen”)
During his Senate testimony, Siri said, “While Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamerato affirmed the study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication, they would not submit it for publication because, among other reasons [as noted in his book passages above], Dr. Lamerato said she did not want to make doctors uncomfortable, and Dr. Zervos said he did not want to lose his job at Henry Ford.”*11
. . .
So, it appears that both Lamerato & Zervos, mostly due to pressure from their “higher ups” at Henry Ford Health, declined to ever submit their study for external peer review and publication.
Yesterday, I emailed a 16-page letter to "Detroit Free Press" reporter Kristen Shamus Henry Ford (looks like she's now out of the office until Dec 1st). My "letter" (with full citations & references) describes how Henry Ford Health "buried" the Dr. Zervos's study. Here's my Executive Summary:
Note: Since I've posted this summary, I've also posted comment #1 to #7 (which contain section excerpts from my letter, along with references and links) if you want to take a deeper dive.
UPDATE Sun 10/12/25: I just posted my comments #8 -- #11 rebutting HFH's so-called "fatal flaws" that were mentioned by Christine Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) in her DFP interview.
UPDATE: TU 10/14/25: I just posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13).
Henry Ford Health (HFH) claimed the Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed study was shelved upon internal review because of serious data flaws – not because of the results. It was “not hidden from the public” nor was it the “most important vaccine study ever”
On the other hand, ICAN's Aaron Siri said “Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamerato affirmed the study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication,” [but] they would not submit it for publication because, among other reasons [“higher ups … made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication”], Dr. Lamerato said she did not want to make doctors uncomfortable, and Dr. Zervos said he did not want to lose his job.”
Unfortunately, none of the co-authors nor Henry Ford Health administration have spoken with the press. Nor did they respond to ICAN's Del Bigtree's offer to be interviewed for their documentary.
10/09/25 Update: This week, Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science) were interviewed by Detroit Free Press (DFP) reporter Kristen Shamus about the Henry Ford Study.(DFP 10/07)
HFH issued a cease-and-desist letter to ICAN alleging defamation, then followed up with two press releases denouncing disinformation and “fact-checking” the study. ICAN responded by releasing a trailer with hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos.
10/09/25 Update: Munkarah said HFH “buried” the study he claimed was "fatally flawed." and was just a “draft” that “doesn't even qualify as a study.” Johnson claimed Lamerato came to her with “issues” & “concerns” about the “draft” that was “led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.” Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen." (Wow! Over the top, not very convincing, nor the best PR).
In the “An Inconvenient Study” trailer's hidden camera footage, Zervos contradicted the claims of HFH the study was “fatally flawed”. He said the study was a “good study” without serious flaws and was ready to publish as is. He agreed it was “important” BUT, he thought it would be “political,” so he wasn't gonna put the study out. “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
The HFH cease-and-desist letter mentioned an “initial co-author and internal independent review.” I'd guess the “co-author” was Lois Lamerato [verified 10/07] , who told Aaron Siri the study was “set to be submitted ... the issue … was the higher-ups at Henry Ford Health [her boss, Christine Cole Johnson], to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.” So, HFH's “internal independent peer review” appears to be HFH PR Speak for “your boss gets to gate-keep your work” and discard it if they don't like it!
Siri asked Lamerato what “the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's list of “serious flaws”] were “plainly pretextual” excuses that were easily addressed by sensitivity analyses. He claimed the real reason the study was not submitted was that it's results showed vaxxed children had much higher rates of chronic disease. He argued that HFH's so-called “serious data flaws” simply don't hold up to even cursory critical scrutiny.
For example, Johnson alleged the study's “most glaring problem” was that most unvaxxed children were < 3 years old (supposedly too young to diagnose, which is not true). But, Siri noted that when the authors excluded children less than 5 years old “the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down … 4.05 times the rate of chronic disease” compared to 2.75 times for all children” In other words, HFH & Johnson's “most glaring problem” was a non-issue (and the sensitivity analysis suggested a dose response curve; over time as kids recieved more vaccines, the sicker they became)
Update: 10/12/25: Posted my detailed rebuttal of the HFH "flaws" (see my comments #8 -- #11); TU 10/14/25: Posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13)
Siri described his fruitless efforts over the past five years to get Zervos & Lamerato to submit their study for publication. But, he noted, “publishing this study could result in career suicide for its authors.“ So, “this study and every other study like it will not get published. … This creates a form of selection bias that results in only studies that affirm the religion of vaccines being published. If this study, and others like it, were conducted and were published in medical journals, the first scientific step needed to protect children from vaccine injury would have been taken”
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a 2020 Vaxxed-Unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study. Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause. So, Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing his study appears well founded!
"Please provide the SPECIFIC issues cited by the internal viewers that were not fixable or provide the internal document itself."
...
These issues (so-called "fatal flaws") appear to be what were released by WP reporter Lauren Weber in her Twitter feed on 9/11/25, in the other Henry Ford Health 10/26/25 press release, and in reporter Kristen Shamus's "Detroit Free Press" interview with the boss (Christine Cole Johnson, HFH Chair of Public Health Science) of Dr. Zervos's co-author Dr. Lois Lamerato.
Thank you Steve for publicizing this important documentary. Any word from Henry Ford media yet? So happy to see you did an interview with Del Bigtree, just saw that today, been out of the loop while traveling to see a beloved family member who was not well. But am looking forward to getting caught up.
FYI: Nurse discusses the stunning number of patients coming in with eye bleeding and eye strokes from the Covid biotechnology (shots), here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ncK5P84MOnJl
#12: “Flaw” #4: “The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines. No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.”
. . .
This “flaw” was not mentioned by Caroline Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) during her DFP interview,*17 although it was listed in Henry Ford Healths's 10/26 press release*7).
This issue was addressed in the Henry Ford Study's Limitations section. The authors wrote, “Our study solely evaluated whether or not vaccination was associated with clinically relevant outcomes, conditions that currently contribute to the rising chronic health disease burden in children.We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation but also minimizes the potential for reverse causality” (p.14)*24
“The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines....”:
During his Sept 9th Senate testimony, Aaron Siri said ”Why don't we just start with looking at the safety of the whole schedule, which is what this [Henry Ford] study does.(02:35:09)*20 However, HFH claims that any study comparing the entire childhood vaccine schedule (instead of just one vaccines) vs unvaxxed children suffers from a “fatal flaw.”
However, Aaron Siri noted in his May 2015 Senate written testimony*26 that a 2013 IOM report said “it is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] … Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a 64-page white paper,*21 … that discussed how to conduct such studies...”
The authors of the 2016 CDC white paper noted that few studies had “examined the safety of the recommended childhood schedule as a whole. … recommended that additional observational studies [be done on] … child health outcomes compared between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children … the VSD [or other large databases such as HFH's] could be used to study the safety of the entire childhood immunization schedule. … [it] could be evaluated by comparing rates of adverse events between cohorts of undervaccinated children and children who are age-appropriately vaccinated”*21
That's exactly what the authors of the Henry Ford Study did! And, they designed their study following the recommendations of the 2016 white paper that was the CDC's guide to how to conduct such studies. By claiming that such a study is “fatally flawed,” HFH is arguing that both the IOM and CDC are wrong to advocate for studying the safety of the entire vaccine schedule!
. . .
Similarly, HFH would argue that a 2023 CDC funded study*27 by Daley, et al would be “flawed' since it looked at the association between multiple vaccines (instead of just one vaccine) and persistant asthma. It was close to being a Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed study since the group receiving 0 – 0.99 mg AL was mostly unvaxxed (instead of counting the number of vaccines, they measured the amount of aluminum (mg AL) injected into children).
The Daley study found the average rate of asthma in vaxxed children to be about 2.5x to 4x the rate of the unvaxxed, comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a rate of 4x. Table 3 in Daley's Supplementary Material”*28 shows a dose-response relationship; the rate of asthma rose from 1x to 4.00x as the amount of AL rises from 0 – 0.99 to 5 mg.
The Henry Ford Study also showed a similar dose-response relationship. As noted previously, the sensitivity analysis showed a chronic disease rate for 1-year of 2.75, 3-year of 3.38, and 5-year of 4.09; as the children received more vaccines each year, their disease rate also increased.
#13 “Flaw” #5: “Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.”
This “flaw” was not mentioned by Caroline Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) during her DFP interview,*17 although it was listed in Henry Ford Healths's 10/26 press release*7).
It's not clear to me what Henry Ford Health means by “vaccine guidance.” Are they referring to the number of vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule increasing over the study time?
According to Google AI, four vaccines were added to the CDC schedule during the study time from 2000 to 2016: Hep A, Rotavirus, HPV, and Influenze were all added in 2006.
So, the schedule was the same for the last ten years, most of the study time. I don't see how the 2006 addition of these vaccines would significantly affect the results of the Henry Ford Study one way or the other.
As seen at 1:00:36 into the video - The fact that the henry ford health system study reported so few cases of autism among the vaccinated group is VERY SUSPICIOUS. This needs to be explained much better than it has been explained to date by Del Bigtree in his movie "An Inconvenient Study".
A start would be simply to multiply the number of vaccinated in the study by the average percent of autism diagnosed in children on a national scale at the time the study was done. If the numbers reported are not very close to this computed figure then FRAUD designed to support the vaccines do not cause autism lie must be suspected and must be investigated. Also are they hiding vaccine caused autism by failing to parse it out from all other "neurodevelopmental disorders"? i.e. hiding autism within the category of "neurodevelopmental disorders" which are greatly elevated in the vaccinated group in this ford study..
Passing on an observation proffered from Japan ~ We have a very good diet compared to the US - Japan also has its child vaccine schedule = just a small reduction in autism in Japan compared to the US. So, Yes diet is very important in many health conditions - diet is NOT the most important target to focus on to reverse The Autism Epidemic.
Repeated "overactivtion" of the immune system of the tiny baby and small child = assaults
"overactivtion" - "excessive stimulation that causes something to function abnormally"
passing along this comment from @markschlehr6911 - I read it on the youtube video "CDC 2025 autism data (spoiler alert: it gets worse!) and review of autism video content" (update#188) by Merogenomics
"It's not rocket science. Brain development (synaptic pruning) is performed by the immune system. This dual purpose role of the immune system was discovered in 2011, and they've always known that neurons grow along the paths of glial cells which are immune cells which are the majority of the cells of the brain. To assume that immune challenges would not alter brain development is crazy. Life magazines book of brain development showed that neurons grow along the path of glial cells and a quick Google search of synaptic pruning shows it's done by these cells as well all throughout brain development. On time and carefully structured to produce a neurotypical brain. When you mess when the immune system during brain development YOU CAUSED BRAIN DAMAGE."
note: I gumshoed with "are there studies showing any vaccine caused effects on the Microglia" I found this first - SARS-CoV-2, but not H1N1 influenza virus, increases levels of brain IL-1β and induces persistent IL-1R1-mediated loss of hippocampal neurogenesis, which promotes postacute cognitive deficits. Up to 25% of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit postacute cognitive sequelae.
so - Is this brain injury "feature" of sars-cov2 the result of another genetically engineered bioweapon insert in the spike of sar-cov2 and replicated by mRNA via the covid "vaccines"?
so - another reason covid is not "just the flu" and viral over activation of the immune system poses risks - probably much less risk than the current incarnation of vaccines.
"Microglia are a specific type of glial cell found in the central nervous system, acting as the brain's immune cells to protect against injury and disease. In contrast, glial cells, or neuroglia, include various types such as astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, which support and protect neurons in different ways." wickedpedia and https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/brain/brain-physiology/types-glia
Aaron Siri: On the autism piece, on the null hypothesis, yes, there were 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated group.
(02:22:58)
There was one case of autism in the unvaccinated group in this study, back up until basically 2012, you could not diagnose and bill under the billing codes for ADHD and autism. You had to pick, okay? So most autism cases did end up in the ADHD category. Up until that time because that's how the DSM-IV was structured at the time. The DSM-V changed that system. And so the autism is probably within the ADHD category in this study, by the way.
But putting that aside, one is that you've lost those to the ADHD category. And then two, if you don't have enough power, you can't reach a conclusion. The confidence interval crosses the one line on both sides. So could it be there's an increase reach, could even be a decreased risk. This study just can't tell you. That's all.
. . .
Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:29): Do you accept the study's null hypothesis or sorry, null finding for autism?
Aaron Siri (02:34:33): Absolutely. It had a null finding for autism. Clearly that's what it found. I mean it was right there in the study, said 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated. One in the unvaccinated.
Aaron Siri (02:34:45): And I explained exactly what it is. And it's exactly what it says. The data should say what the data says and unfortunately that's not what typically happens with vaccine science.
imo - By plan a "Null" for autism finding was a rigged in study result.
As with the history of lying about the causes of autism - "vaccines do not cause autism". As I would expect the 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.
I don't think it's clear the "null" result was rigged.
First, there was only 1 unvaxxed with autism; could have been due to chance (or from other toxins); perhaps that number could have been zero. The numbers here are too small to make a conclusion either way based on THIS study.
Second, the average age of both the unvaxxed and vaxxed children were 1 1/2 years old and 3 years old, respectively. Since autism is often diagnosed at an older age, this study was probably simply not catching most autism diagnoses.
The movie CLEARLY confirmed that the results of this study are accurate…and that the GASLIGHTING propaganda is being paid for by our own tax dollars…WE MUST STOP FUNDING the medical boards, agencies, colleges etc …they are killing us…
Steve, you asked HFH "What were the precise flaws in the data that were fatal/" Henry Ford Health provided the "precise flaws" in their OTHER 10/26 press release; not in their "Fact-Check which your AI analyzed here (and in your 10/13 post).
... they either haven't done one or, like the Henry Ford Study, haven't published it.
However, six years later, a 2023 CDC funded study was conducted that looked at the vaccine schedule (using aluminum content instead of # of vaccines) and just asthma (it does NOT look at totally unvaxxed like the Henry Ford Study). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/
This study found about a 5x (1.26 /mg AL; avg 4 mg AL) increase of asthma among the vaxxed (2 to 5 years old). This result was comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a 4x increase among the vaxxed.
Take a look at Table 3 in the Supplementary Data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.08.006 You can see the dose-response curve where the rate rose up to 5x the rate of asthma as the amount of vaccines (mg AL) increased.
#7: “Does Dr. Zervos agree that the study is flawed? If not, why not?”
. . .
No. ICAN's Del Bigtree has hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos, some of which is in the trailer for his documentery. Here's a transcript and my take (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
Why Study Not Published? Hidden Camera Video of Dr. Zervos Reveals the Truth.
So, who is telling truth about why the Henry Ford Study was never published? Was it because the study “had serious flaws”? Or, was the study “suppressed” for pretextual reasons because Dr. Zervos (and his co-authors) were afraid they would lose their jobs/careers because their Henry Ford Health bosses did not want it published?
Initially, this appeared to be a “he said, she said” situation. Aaron Siri vs. Henry Ford Health (and the study authors who aren't talking). BUT, on Sept 25th, Del Bigtree released a new trailer with excerpts from his 2020 hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos talking with Bigtree about the study!*6
Del Bigtree explained: “I had only one request [for Dr. Zervos] , no matter the outcome, you publish the study. Instead of upholding his end of the bargain, he refused to submit the study for publication. Why was it never published? Henry Ford said it was because the study was flawed, not because of it's results. … But, Dr. Zervos's statements, made directly to me, explain why his study was not published.”
Following is my transcription from the film trailer (I'm sure there will be more in the forthcoming documentary):
Bigtree:”What do you think about the study you guys have done”?
Zervos: “I think it is a good study, but it does have limitations.”
Bigtree: “Do you find any flaws in this study, is there a way they could do this study better?”
Zervos: “Not that I know of, I'd put it out just how it is.” … “It's the right thing to do, I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, “this study is flawed.” …. “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.”
Bigtree: “Is what your study shows important?”
Zervos: “Yeah, it is important. They … I'm just not gonna do it.”
Bigtree: “If I can't get this study out, than what hope is there for every kid in the future?“I said to you, “If you do this study, you're gonna come under fire. You said, “I don't care about that. I'm all about the data, and I'm about to retire anyway...”
Zervos: “Yeah.
Bigtree: “So your energy's changed on that/”
Zervos: “Energy's changing. Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.
Note: HFH put out their 10/26 press releases the day after this trailer aired. Did they not watch it!?
. . .
As noted previously, Henry Ford Health has alleged that ICAN's forthcoming documentary falsely claims HFH “suppressed the study” ...“because of its results”. Instead, HFH claimed the study was not “the ‘most important vaccine study ever.’” and that it was “immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology”... not “due to political reasons”. This flawed study was “not hidden from the public.”*7 & 8
In contrast, in the hidden camera footage, Dr. Zervos told Del Bigtree that he didn't find any flaws in his study, didn't “know of” any ways to do it better, thought it was a “good study (with limitations that were noted in his manuscript],” and that “I'd put it out just how it is.” Doesn't sound like Zervos agreed with HFH that his study was fundamentally flawed with serious issues!
Zervos agreed what his study showed was “important” and “getting it out was “the right thing to do...” But, he said “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.” ...”I'm just not gonna do it” [put the study out] … “I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, 'this study is flawed.' “ Which is exactly what Dr. Jake Scott said at the Senate hearing and Henry Ford Health spokesperson have repeatedly alleged in their statements.
Although Bigtree appealed to Zervos to consider the future health of millions of children if his study didn't come out, and Zervos agreed it “was the right thing to do,” Zervos wouldn't budge. He replied, “Energy's changing” (on being willing to come under fire for putting out his study) “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
. . .
Sounds to me like Siri was correct “that Zervos was hiding the outcome of the research and refused to allow it to be peer reviewed or submitted to journals because he was afraid of being fired” and ending his career.*1 His co-author Lamerato's boss “made it plain that they [Henry Ford Health "higher-ups"] did not want it submitted for publication.”*12 So, it appears that Siri & Bigtree are telling the truth about the study, not Henry Ford Health.
References:
*1: 9/25/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Unpublished Henry Ford study at center of vaccine safety debate” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/09/25/henry-ford-study-vaccine-safety/86315137007/
*6: “The HighWire” (Episode 443) https://rumble.com/v6zgl0m-episode-443-cease-and-desist.html?e9s=src_v1_clr%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a @4:03 Cease & Desist Letter
*7: Henry Ford Health, “Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
*8: Henry Ford Health, “Fact-Check: Debunking the Top Myths Around Viral 'Vaccine Study'” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
#6: “My email to Henry Ford media relations about the new film "An Inconvenient Study" ... I can't wait to hear their response!”
. . .
Don't hold your breath! However, Steve should check out the 10/07/25 interview with two Henry Ford Health executives who should have stuck with “No comment” (“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it”). Here's my take (excerpted from my 16-page letter I sent yesterday to the DFP):
(New) HFH Buried “Fatally Flawed" “Draft" That “Did Not Qualify as a Study”
Last week, “Detroit Free Press” reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science) from Henry Ford Health*17 Based on her interviews, the DFP published ,“Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” (10/07/25).
Munkarah said HFH “buried flawed data and a draft of a paper that has no science in it."“He claimed the “fatally flawed … research project … doesn't even qualify as a study.” He said HFH was "extremely surprised" by the Senate hearing and complained that an unpublished “draft” should not be shared or leaked.
Johnson said [study co-author] Dr. Lois Lamerato came to her with concerns about her “draft ” that was “led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.” [whom Steve pointed out has lots of cited publications] Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen” … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." She described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design … flaws in research.”
. . .
“buried … draft of a paper …": “Buried” and “discarded” are a bad choice of words. Sounds a lot like the study was “hidden from the public” Munkarah admits HFH “buried the study! Exactly what ICAN claims in their documentary.
“doesn't even qualify as a study”: Sure looks like one to me! The “leaked” study was not a “draft”, it was clearly a submission-ready manuscript. Talk about gas-lighting!
“she [Lamerato] came to her with concerns”: Really? Johnson failed to mention that she was Lamerato's boss “to whom Lamerato was required to send a copy before submission to a journal.”*12 (her account is contradicted by Aaron Siri's, see my previous comment #3).
“led by "someone [Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology: Johnson appears to be questioning the competence of Dr. Zervos who has published hundreds of papers. True, he is not an epidemiologist, although “Dr. Zervos area of practice and research is in epidemiology, ...”*19 He was the lead author, but that's why his co-author Lamerato was a senior epidemiologist and co-author Amy Tang was a biostatistician. Were they somehow both incompetent at their jobs and overlooked “fatal flaws”?
“flaws in research”: Aaron Siri wrote that the “reasons provided [HFH's “serious flaws”] were … all plainly pretextual … easily addressed in the study itself by the sensitivity analyses ... Meaning they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication” (see my previous comment #4))
Overall, I was astonished by the incompetence displayed by Johnson & Munkarah (“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it”). Their arguments won't convince anyone with critical thinking. If they were smart, they would have just stuck with their initial short, bland PR comment HFH put out on Sept 9th. HFH needs to hire some better PF people!
And, I'm disappointed that you [DFP reporter Kristen Shamus] just repeated their BS without any pushback on their weak claims. You didn't even mention the documentary trailer excerpt of Dr. Zervos's saying it was a “good study” without flaws that he would put out just as it is! Didn't you watch the trailer?
P.S. While listening to the latest edition of Del Bigtree's show Thursday night (“The HighWire” (Episode.445)*18 her photo & name appear in a screenshot of her 10/07 DFP article. Perhaps she & DFP will end up in the final edit of the film?
References:
*17: 10/07/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
*18: DFP 10/7 screenshot @ 1:08:30 “The HighWire” Episode 445: COUNTDOWN TO ‘AN INCONVENIENT STUDY’ https://rumble.com/v70367y-episode-445-countdown-to-an-inconvenient-study.html?e9s=src_v1_mfp
#5: “There are 9 vax-unvaxxed studies currently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Those studies actually show the same thing as the Zervos study.”
. . .
A few small vaxxed-unvaxxed studies have been published. Others, like the Henry Ford Study were “buried” and remain unpublished. Why aren't these studies done? Simple, doctors fear career suicide. The most important study (prior to the HFS) was fraudulently “retracted” and the doctor who published it had his career destroyed. Here's my take on the subject (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
Vaxx-UnVaxxed Studies Remain Hidden Because Dr.'s Fear Career Suicide
In his book & Senate testimony, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri described his fruitless efforts over the past five years to get Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamoreto to submit their study for publication:
“We tried to persuade Dr. Zervos & Dr. Lamerto] that protecting as many children as possible from vaccine injuries was more important and should override their expressed concerns about doctors feelings or protecting anyone's career. … Still, neither budged.”
“My hope has been that over time they would nonetheless choose to submit their study for publication … [five years later,] it is clear this study will never be submitted to a journal ... its finding do not match the vaccine dogma … publishing this study could result in career suicide for its authors”*12 and “would have turned virtually every person and institution in their world against them. Publishing the study would have been the right thing to do. The brave thing to do. But it would have ignited the wrath of nearly everyone and every institution that they know, rely upon, and hold dear.*11
So, “... this study and every other study like it [except for a few by independent researchers] will not get published. These studies remain hidden from the public. Unpublished. Discarded. This creates a form of selection bias that results in only studies that affirm the religion of vaccines being published. This is how the 'science' around vaccines … has developed.”*12
“Of course, if doing the right thing, the moral thing, the ethical thing regarding vaccines did not involve potential social and career suicide, we would not be in the current predicament in which we find ourselves. If this study, and others like it, were conducted and were published in medical journals, the first scientific step needed to protect children from vaccine injury would have been taken.”*11
. . .
In his Sept 9th written testimony, Aaron Siri noted that the “results [of the Henry Ford Study] were similar to the findings in the handful of other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies discussed in my Prior Submission (see pp. 34-35 May 21, 2025 Senate written testimony).*16
In 2020, pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a vaxxed-unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study.*14 Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause. So, his “inconvenient study” has been removed from the scientific literature and can't be cited by anyone. Jeremy Hammond wrote an excellent post/book on the subject. "The War on Informed Consent"*15
So, Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing a Vaxxed-UnVaxxed study showing vaxxed children were unhealthier appears well founded!
References:
*11: Aaron Siri written testimony at Sept 9th Senate hearing, pp.3, 12 https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony-1.pdf
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*14: RETRACTED: James Lyon-Weiler & Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” (11/18/20) https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674
*15: Jeremy R. Hammond, “Oregon Medical Board Suspends Dr. Paul Thomas for Practicing Informed Consent” (3/26/21) https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2021/03/26/oregon-medical-board-suspends-dr-paul-thomas-for-practicing-informed-consent/
*16: Aaron Siri, pp. 34-35,written testimony (May 21, 2025) Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Hearig Aaron Siri written testimony https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony-1.pdf
“The IOM’s [2013] report [stated] ... “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD” Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a [2016] white paper... that discussed how to conduct such studies using the VSD. But no such study ha s even been published by the CDC despite the fact this white paper acknowledges that many chronic disorders children are experiencing today in epidemic numbers are biologically plausible outcomes from exposure to CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule but have not yet been properly studied. While CDC- and pharmaceutical-funded scientists have never published such a study, a few such studies have been published.” [e.g. Mawson, Hooker & Miller]
I would also suggest taking a look at Brian Hooker & RFK Jr's book, "Vax-UnVax -- Let the Science Speak" which summarizes the scientific literature on the subject.
#4: “What were the precise flaws in the data that were fatal (all data has flaws)? Has Henry Ford addressed these flaws in their data?”
. . .
Here's my own analysis about the so-called “fatal flaws” of the study; although I haven't had time yet to write about this issue in detail (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
HFH's List of “Serious Data Flaws” Easily Rebutted by Siri & Study Itself
During their DFP interview*17, Christine Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health Science) called it among the "worst studies I've ever seen." … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." … “It was led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.”
In addition, Dr. Adnan Munkaran (HFH President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) said “the way the research project was designed was "fatally flawed," and it doesn't even qualify as a study because the data didn't survive even the earliest internal review process.”
You [DFP reporter Kristen Shamus] wrote that, “When Johnson and other epidemiologists and statisticians at Henry Ford began vetting the draft [as part of HFH's so-called “independent internal peer review”]… they found multiple problems with the design ...” (repeating the list HFM first released to WP reporter Lauren Weber back on Sept 11th and in their 10/26 press release).
. . .
In contrast to the HFH narrative, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri said, “I met with Dr. Lamerato … she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication”*12
In his oral Senate testimony, Siri also claimed the study “was well-designed.” He said, “I litigate around studies all the time. I've read hundreds, thousands. … In terms of a design of this study, this is probably one of the best … And it is the best study that assesses the safety in vaccine.” (02:20:09) … “I think from the perspective of the establishment, this study is flawed because it's actually designed to detect safety. It's actually designed to reach a conclusion on safety. That's what makes it flawed ...” (42:30)*20
“I [Siri] kept asking [Lamerato] what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
. . .
I agree with Aaron Siri that each of HFH's & Johnson's so-called “data flaws” can easily be rebutted Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a detailed rebuttal today.
For now, I'll just briefly address what Christine Johnson called the “most glaring problem ... the amount of time researchers had to evaluate the onset of chronic disease in the unvaccinated patients … 75% were observed only until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose many chronic pediatric diseases”
In his oral Senate testimony, Siri said the authors addresed this issue by conducting “a sensitivity analysis whereby they removed any children from the study that weren't in the Henry Ford system from birth onward for at least five years thinking, "Okay, well maybe we got it wrong because the unvaccinated kids just had an average duration of less [enrollment] time. But so by doing that, we're only going to look kids who were in there for at least five years." And what they found was consistent with the findings [including all children]... the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down. They also did that sensitivity analysis at three years and at one year and each time they still found the vaccinated children a statistically significant increased rate of chronic health issues.(40:31)*20
Similarly, Siri wrote in his written Senate testimony, “Vaccine exposure was associated with higher incidence of a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (IRR 2.75, CI 2.31-3.28), 3-years (IRR 3.38, CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (IRR 4.09, CI 2.84-5.90) … Meaning … it revealed even greater harm, not less.” (p.7)*16
“Meaning, when they excluded children who were not enrolled for at least 5 years after birth, it showed vaccinated children had 4.05 times the rate of chronic disease … compared to 2.75 times the rate of chronic disease … when lookingat children with all enrollment periods … This type of sensitivity analysis again confirmed the strong validity of the study’s results.
In other words, HFH Johnson's “most glaring problem” was a non-issue. And, the sensitivity analysis, that rebutts her claim, suggests a dose reponse curve that the more vaccines children get, the sicker they are.
References:
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*16: Aaron Siri, pp. 34-35,written testimony (May 21, 2025) Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Hearig Aaron Siri written testimony https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony-1.pdf
“The IOM’s [2013] report [stated] ... “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD” Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a [2016] white paper... that discussed how to conduct such studies using the VSD. But no such study ha s even been published by the CDC despite the fact this white paper acknowledges that many chronic disorders children are experiencing today in epidemic
numbers are biologically plausible outcomes from exposure to CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule
but have not yet been properly studied. While CDC- and pharmaceutical-funded scientists have never published such a study, a few such studies have been published.” [e.g. Mawson, Hooker & Miller]
*17: 10/07/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
*20: Aaron Siri oral testimony at Sept 9th from Senate hearing transcript: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/vaccine-critics-hearing
From Steve's AI analysis: What Likely Happened “Researchers completed the analysis honestly and found results that challenge official narratives. Institutional review flagged … concerns—not necessarily scientific concerns—and halted dissemination. … The PR office then issued the “Fact Check” framing the authors as misguided [and the study as “fatally flawed”] to protect organizational and political standing. … a genuine public health system would have published … instead of burying the findings and branding inquiry as heresy.” https://alter.systems/p/26a1bce8-a552-49a7-afe9-15a6bbc8abe5
. . .
Spot on analysis! Here's what my analysis shows about how the study was buried (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP): HFH “Higher Ups” (& “Co-Author”?) “Internal Peer Review” Blocked Publication
On September 25th, Del Bigtree reported that HFH had sent ICAN a cease-and-desist” letter. He showed excerpts including, “the truth is that the draft study did not proceed past initial co-author [Dr. Lamerato] and internal independent peer reviews [her boss, Christine Cole Johnson, Chair of Public Health Science] and was never submitted due to significant and serious flaws in its data and methodology.” (@5:13)*6
Note that this language differs from the HFH press release that just said “first internal peer review” that did not mention a “co-author” review. During an “internal review” process “All authors must read the article and reconcile their comments before submission.”*13
Who was the “co-author” who found “serious flaws” in the manuscript? It had to be Dr. Zervos or Dr. Lamerato. I'd guess HFH was referring to Lamerato since she was the “corresponding author” who was responsible for guiding the manuscript through preparation, submission, and publication (although, based on the hidden camera video, the “co-author” might have been the lead author Dr. Zervos who rejected publication of his own study (under pressure from HFH?).
But, how does HFH's claim make any sense? That the “co-author” only found “fatal data flaws” [what Johnson claimed were Lamerato's “concerns” & “issues”] with their own study only AFTER they had prepared their manuscript that was ready for submission? Lamerato was the epidemiologist who designed the study and helped analyze it with co-author biostatistician Amy Tang. Were they both so incompetent at their jobs that they overlooked “fatal flaws”?
10/09/25 Update: the 10/07 DFP article fills in the blanks. “One of the authors [Dr. Lamereto]... came to me [because she was required to send a copy to her boss, Christine Cole Johnson, Chair of Public Health Science] with a draft of this report and she had concerns," said. "That happens when you're a coauthor or you're a part of a project and you think there's some issues.” Johnson's “vetting” was what HFM called an “internal independent peer review.”
HFH's so-called “internal independent peer review.” This appears to be Henry Ford PR speak for “your bosses gate-keep your work and shove it in a drawer if they don't like it”! Although, it's not clear to me how your bosses are your “peers”? Or how an employee is “independent” of his bosses!).
. . .
In contrast to Johnson's claim, I think that ICAN attorney Aaron Siri tells a more reasonable story about what actually happened during the so-called “internal peer review” process:
“The study was “set to be submitted for publication [not a “draft”] in a medical journal after it was completed, but the researchers did not go through with the submission. I met with Dr . Lamerto ask why it was not submitted. She reaffirmed that she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication [so much for Johnson's claim that Lamerato “had concerns”]*12
“The issue, she [Lamerato] explained, was that the higher-ups [Johnson, etc.] at Henry Ford Health, to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.”*12
“I [Siri] kept asking what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
Note: The above passages did NOT appear in Siri's written or oral Senate testimony, only in his book “Vaccines, Amen”)
During his Senate testimony, Siri said, “While Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamerato affirmed the study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication, they would not submit it for publication because, among other reasons [as noted in his book passages above], Dr. Lamerato said she did not want to make doctors uncomfortable, and Dr. Zervos said he did not want to lose his job at Henry Ford.”*11
. . .
So, it appears that both Lamerato & Zervos, mostly due to pressure from their “higher ups” at Henry Ford Health, declined to ever submit their study for external peer review and publication.
References:
*6: “The HighWire” (Episode 443) https://rumble.com/v6zgl0m-episode-443-cease-and-desist.html?e9s=src_v1_clr%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a @4:03 Cease & Desist Letter
*11: Aaron Siri written testimony at Sept 9th Senate hearing, pp.3, 12 https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony-1.pdf
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*13: “Editorial: What Is Peer Review?” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8889431/
Yesterday, I emailed a 16-page letter to "Detroit Free Press" reporter Kristen Shamus Henry Ford (looks like she's now out of the office until Dec 1st). My "letter" (with full citations & references) describes how Henry Ford Health "buried" the Dr. Zervos's study. Here's my Executive Summary:
Note: Since I've posted this summary, I've also posted comment #1 to #7 (which contain section excerpts from my letter, along with references and links) if you want to take a deeper dive.
UPDATE Sun 10/12/25: I just posted my comments #8 -- #11 rebutting HFH's so-called "fatal flaws" that were mentioned by Christine Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) in her DFP interview.
UPDATE: TU 10/14/25: I just posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13).
Henry Ford Health (HFH) claimed the Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed study was shelved upon internal review because of serious data flaws – not because of the results. It was “not hidden from the public” nor was it the “most important vaccine study ever”
On the other hand, ICAN's Aaron Siri said “Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamerato affirmed the study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication,” [but] they would not submit it for publication because, among other reasons [“higher ups … made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication”], Dr. Lamerato said she did not want to make doctors uncomfortable, and Dr. Zervos said he did not want to lose his job.”
Unfortunately, none of the co-authors nor Henry Ford Health administration have spoken with the press. Nor did they respond to ICAN's Del Bigtree's offer to be interviewed for their documentary.
10/09/25 Update: This week, Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science) were interviewed by Detroit Free Press (DFP) reporter Kristen Shamus about the Henry Ford Study.(DFP 10/07)
HFH issued a cease-and-desist letter to ICAN alleging defamation, then followed up with two press releases denouncing disinformation and “fact-checking” the study. ICAN responded by releasing a trailer with hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos.
10/09/25 Update: Munkarah said HFH “buried” the study he claimed was "fatally flawed." and was just a “draft” that “doesn't even qualify as a study.” Johnson claimed Lamerato came to her with “issues” & “concerns” about the “draft” that was “led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.” Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen." (Wow! Over the top, not very convincing, nor the best PR).
In the “An Inconvenient Study” trailer's hidden camera footage, Zervos contradicted the claims of HFH the study was “fatally flawed”. He said the study was a “good study” without serious flaws and was ready to publish as is. He agreed it was “important” BUT, he thought it would be “political,” so he wasn't gonna put the study out. “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
The HFH cease-and-desist letter mentioned an “initial co-author and internal independent review.” I'd guess the “co-author” was Lois Lamerato [verified 10/07] , who told Aaron Siri the study was “set to be submitted ... the issue … was the higher-ups at Henry Ford Health [her boss, Christine Cole Johnson], to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.” So, HFH's “internal independent peer review” appears to be HFH PR Speak for “your boss gets to gate-keep your work” and discard it if they don't like it!
Siri asked Lamerato what “the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's list of “serious flaws”] were “plainly pretextual” excuses that were easily addressed by sensitivity analyses. He claimed the real reason the study was not submitted was that it's results showed vaxxed children had much higher rates of chronic disease. He argued that HFH's so-called “serious data flaws” simply don't hold up to even cursory critical scrutiny.
For example, Johnson alleged the study's “most glaring problem” was that most unvaxxed children were < 3 years old (supposedly too young to diagnose, which is not true). But, Siri noted that when the authors excluded children less than 5 years old “the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down … 4.05 times the rate of chronic disease” compared to 2.75 times for all children” In other words, HFH & Johnson's “most glaring problem” was a non-issue (and the sensitivity analysis suggested a dose response curve; over time as kids recieved more vaccines, the sicker they became)
Update: 10/12/25: Posted my detailed rebuttal of the HFH "flaws" (see my comments #8 -- #11); TU 10/14/25: Posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13)
Siri described his fruitless efforts over the past five years to get Zervos & Lamerato to submit their study for publication. But, he noted, “publishing this study could result in career suicide for its authors.“ So, “this study and every other study like it will not get published. … This creates a form of selection bias that results in only studies that affirm the religion of vaccines being published. If this study, and others like it, were conducted and were published in medical journals, the first scientific step needed to protect children from vaccine injury would have been taken”
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a 2020 Vaxxed-Unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study. Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause. So, Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing his study appears well founded!
"Please provide the SPECIFIC issues cited by the internal viewers that were not fixable or provide the internal document itself."
...
These issues (so-called "fatal flaws") appear to be what were released by WP reporter Lauren Weber in her Twitter feed on 9/11/25, in the other Henry Ford Health 10/26/25 press release, and in reporter Kristen Shamus's "Detroit Free Press" interview with the boss (Christine Cole Johnson, HFH Chair of Public Health Science) of Dr. Zervos's co-author Dr. Lois Lamerato.
https://x.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1966159966856958201
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
These "fatal flaws" are all BS and easily rebutted (I'll write about that later).
Thank you Steve for publicizing this important documentary. Any word from Henry Ford media yet? So happy to see you did an interview with Del Bigtree, just saw that today, been out of the loop while traveling to see a beloved family member who was not well. But am looking forward to getting caught up.
FYI: Nurse discusses the stunning number of patients coming in with eye bleeding and eye strokes from the Covid biotechnology (shots), here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ncK5P84MOnJl
#12: “Flaw” #4: “The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines. No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.”
. . .
This “flaw” was not mentioned by Caroline Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) during her DFP interview,*17 although it was listed in Henry Ford Healths's 10/26 press release*7).
This issue was addressed in the Henry Ford Study's Limitations section. The authors wrote, “Our study solely evaluated whether or not vaccination was associated with clinically relevant outcomes, conditions that currently contribute to the rising chronic health disease burden in children.We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation but also minimizes the potential for reverse causality” (p.14)*24
“The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines....”:
During his Sept 9th Senate testimony, Aaron Siri said ”Why don't we just start with looking at the safety of the whole schedule, which is what this [Henry Ford] study does.(02:35:09)*20 However, HFH claims that any study comparing the entire childhood vaccine schedule (instead of just one vaccines) vs unvaxxed children suffers from a “fatal flaw.”
However, Aaron Siri noted in his May 2015 Senate written testimony*26 that a 2013 IOM report said “it is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] … Subsequently, the CDC commissioned a 64-page white paper,*21 … that discussed how to conduct such studies...”
The authors of the 2016 CDC white paper noted that few studies had “examined the safety of the recommended childhood schedule as a whole. … recommended that additional observational studies [be done on] … child health outcomes compared between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children … the VSD [or other large databases such as HFH's] could be used to study the safety of the entire childhood immunization schedule. … [it] could be evaluated by comparing rates of adverse events between cohorts of undervaccinated children and children who are age-appropriately vaccinated”*21
That's exactly what the authors of the Henry Ford Study did! And, they designed their study following the recommendations of the 2016 white paper that was the CDC's guide to how to conduct such studies. By claiming that such a study is “fatally flawed,” HFH is arguing that both the IOM and CDC are wrong to advocate for studying the safety of the entire vaccine schedule!
. . .
Similarly, HFH would argue that a 2023 CDC funded study*27 by Daley, et al would be “flawed' since it looked at the association between multiple vaccines (instead of just one vaccine) and persistant asthma. It was close to being a Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed study since the group receiving 0 – 0.99 mg AL was mostly unvaxxed (instead of counting the number of vaccines, they measured the amount of aluminum (mg AL) injected into children).
The Daley study found the average rate of asthma in vaxxed children to be about 2.5x to 4x the rate of the unvaxxed, comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a rate of 4x. Table 3 in Daley's Supplementary Material”*28 shows a dose-response relationship; the rate of asthma rose from 1x to 4.00x as the amount of AL rises from 0 – 0.99 to 5 mg.
The Henry Ford Study also showed a similar dose-response relationship. As noted previously, the sensitivity analysis showed a chronic disease rate for 1-year of 2.75, 3-year of 3.38, and 5-year of 4.09; as the children received more vaccines each year, their disease rate also increased.
REFERENCES:
*7: Henry Ford Health, “Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
*17: 10/07/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
*20: Aaron Siri oral testimony at Sept 9th from Senate hearing transcript: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/vaccine-critics-hearing
*21: CDC, “White Paper on Studying the Safety of the Childhood Immunization Schedule” (2016) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/media/pdfs/white-paper-safety-508.pdf
*24: “Henry Ford Study” Zervos, et al “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children A Birth Cohort Study” (2020, unpublished, in 9/09/25 Congressional Record) https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf
*27: Daley, et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/
*28: Daley Supplementary Materiasl https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.08.006
#13 “Flaw” #5: “Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.”
This “flaw” was not mentioned by Caroline Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) during her DFP interview,*17 although it was listed in Henry Ford Healths's 10/26 press release*7).
It's not clear to me what Henry Ford Health means by “vaccine guidance.” Are they referring to the number of vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule increasing over the study time?
According to Google AI, four vaccines were added to the CDC schedule during the study time from 2000 to 2016: Hep A, Rotavirus, HPV, and Influenze were all added in 2006.
So, the schedule was the same for the last ten years, most of the study time. I don't see how the 2006 addition of these vaccines would significantly affect the results of the Henry Ford Study one way or the other.
As seen at 1:00:36 into the video - The fact that the henry ford health system study reported so few cases of autism among the vaccinated group is VERY SUSPICIOUS. This needs to be explained much better than it has been explained to date by Del Bigtree in his movie "An Inconvenient Study".
A start would be simply to multiply the number of vaccinated in the study by the average percent of autism diagnosed in children on a national scale at the time the study was done. If the numbers reported are not very close to this computed figure then FRAUD designed to support the vaccines do not cause autism lie must be suspected and must be investigated. Also are they hiding vaccine caused autism by failing to parse it out from all other "neurodevelopmental disorders"? i.e. hiding autism within the category of "neurodevelopmental disorders" which are greatly elevated in the vaccinated group in this ford study..
Passing on an observation proffered from Japan ~ We have a very good diet compared to the US - Japan also has its child vaccine schedule = just a small reduction in autism in Japan compared to the US. So, Yes diet is very important in many health conditions - diet is NOT the most important target to focus on to reverse The Autism Epidemic.
Repeated "overactivtion" of the immune system of the tiny baby and small child = assaults
"overactivtion" - "excessive stimulation that causes something to function abnormally"
passing along this comment from @markschlehr6911 - I read it on the youtube video "CDC 2025 autism data (spoiler alert: it gets worse!) and review of autism video content" (update#188) by Merogenomics
"It's not rocket science. Brain development (synaptic pruning) is performed by the immune system. This dual purpose role of the immune system was discovered in 2011, and they've always known that neurons grow along the paths of glial cells which are immune cells which are the majority of the cells of the brain. To assume that immune challenges would not alter brain development is crazy. Life magazines book of brain development showed that neurons grow along the path of glial cells and a quick Google search of synaptic pruning shows it's done by these cells as well all throughout brain development. On time and carefully structured to produce a neurotypical brain. When you mess when the immune system during brain development YOU CAUSED BRAIN DAMAGE."
note: I gumshoed with "are there studies showing any vaccine caused effects on the Microglia" I found this first - SARS-CoV-2, but not H1N1 influenza virus, increases levels of brain IL-1β and induces persistent IL-1R1-mediated loss of hippocampal neurogenesis, which promotes postacute cognitive deficits. Up to 25% of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit postacute cognitive sequelae.
so - Is this brain injury "feature" of sars-cov2 the result of another genetically engineered bioweapon insert in the spike of sar-cov2 and replicated by mRNA via the covid "vaccines"?
so - another reason covid is not "just the flu" and viral over activation of the immune system poses risks - probably much less risk than the current incarnation of vaccines.
"Microglia are a specific type of glial cell found in the central nervous system, acting as the brain's immune cells to protect against injury and disease. In contrast, glial cells, or neuroglia, include various types such as astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, which support and protect neurons in different ways." wickedpedia and https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/brain/brain-physiology/types-glia
Here's ICAN attorney Aaron Siri's explanation during his Sept 9th Senate oral testimony:https://www.rev.com/transcripts/vaccine-critics-hearing
Aaron Siri: On the autism piece, on the null hypothesis, yes, there were 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated group.
(02:22:58)
There was one case of autism in the unvaccinated group in this study, back up until basically 2012, you could not diagnose and bill under the billing codes for ADHD and autism. You had to pick, okay? So most autism cases did end up in the ADHD category. Up until that time because that's how the DSM-IV was structured at the time. The DSM-V changed that system. And so the autism is probably within the ADHD category in this study, by the way.
But putting that aside, one is that you've lost those to the ADHD category. And then two, if you don't have enough power, you can't reach a conclusion. The confidence interval crosses the one line on both sides. So could it be there's an increase reach, could even be a decreased risk. This study just can't tell you. That's all.
. . .
Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:29): Do you accept the study's null hypothesis or sorry, null finding for autism?
Aaron Siri (02:34:33): Absolutely. It had a null finding for autism. Clearly that's what it found. I mean it was right there in the study, said 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated. One in the unvaccinated.
Aaron Siri (02:34:45): And I explained exactly what it is. And it's exactly what it says. The data should say what the data says and unfortunately that's not what typically happens with vaccine science.
Thank You for your information and link.
imo - By plan a "Null" for autism finding was a rigged in study result.
As with the history of lying about the causes of autism - "vaccines do not cause autism". As I would expect the 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 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.
I don't think it's clear the "null" result was rigged.
First, there was only 1 unvaxxed with autism; could have been due to chance (or from other toxins); perhaps that number could have been zero. The numbers here are too small to make a conclusion either way based on THIS study.
Second, the average age of both the unvaxxed and vaxxed children were 1 1/2 years old and 3 years old, respectively. Since autism is often diagnosed at an older age, this study was probably simply not catching most autism diagnoses.
The movie CLEARLY confirmed that the results of this study are accurate…and that the GASLIGHTING propaganda is being paid for by our own tax dollars…WE MUST STOP FUNDING the medical boards, agencies, colleges etc …they are killing us…
Steve, did you intend NOT to have comments on your most recent post? https://kirschsubstack.com/p/attempts-to-discredit-the-zervos
Steve, you asked HFH "What were the precise flaws in the data that were fatal/" Henry Ford Health provided the "precise flaws" in their OTHER 10/26 press release; not in their "Fact-Check which your AI analyzed here (and in your 10/13 post).
I think it would be valuable if you could also run your AI on these HFH's "flaws" listed in that other press release. https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
When is the CDC announcing their retrospective study of their databases?
They issued a white paper back in 2016 on how to conduct such a study https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/media/pdfs/white-paper-safety-508.pdf Their example illustrated how to design a study looking at just asthma.
... they either haven't done one or, like the Henry Ford Study, haven't published it.
However, six years later, a 2023 CDC funded study was conducted that looked at the vaccine schedule (using aluminum content instead of # of vaccines) and just asthma (it does NOT look at totally unvaxxed like the Henry Ford Study). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/
This study found about a 5x (1.26 /mg AL; avg 4 mg AL) increase of asthma among the vaxxed (2 to 5 years old). This result was comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a 4x increase among the vaxxed.
Take a look at Table 3 in the Supplementary Data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.08.006 You can see the dose-response curve where the rate rose up to 5x the rate of asthma as the amount of vaccines (mg AL) increased.