Table of Contents
Audio and PDF Versions of This Article
An Inconvenient Study
On September 9, 2025, Senator Ron Johnson, Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, held a hearing titled “How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines”.
Among those testifying was attorney Aaron Siri, whose firm has worked closely with the organization Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), which has been at the forefront of legal efforts to compel government disclosures about vaccines via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For instance, in 2020, ICAN filed a request with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to release all documents in its possession “which compare the health outcomes of children that have received vaccines with children that have never received any vaccines.”
The background context is that back in 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a review titled “The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety”, which acknowledged the widespread parental concern that no studies had ever been designed to test the safety of the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule as a whole.
The IOM advised the CDC to allay these concerns by using patient data from its Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a collaboration with several major health care providers, to compare long-term health outcomes between fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children—or a “vaxxed vs. unvaxxed” study, for colloquial shorthand.
Instead, the CDC produced a White Paper suggesting that such a study wouldn’t be feasible—because any control group would already have been vaccinated away—and proposing to carry on with only more vaxxed vs. vaxxed studies.
ICAN’s 2020 FOIA request sought to confirm that the CDC never did the type of study that so many parents have long been demanding and that the IOM advised it to do.
The result was an admission that “The CDC has not conducted a study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.”
This leads independently thinking parents to believe that the real reason for the CDC’s refusal to do such a study is the fear that it would produce the wrong results.
During his testimony at the congressional hearing chaired by Senator Ron Johnson, Siri introduced into the Congressional record a vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study out of Henry Ford Health, a health care company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
The study had been headed up by the company’s division head of infectious diseases, Dr. Marcus Zervos, whom ICAN had approached in 2017 about doing such a study.
Dr. Zervos was receptive to the idea because, from his perspective, it could finally put to rest widespread parental concerns about vaccine safety and boost confidence in public vaccine policies.
The study was completed in 2020 but never published because it did not produce the results that Dr. Zervos was anticipating—and he feared that to publish it would be career suicide.
This is not speculative. Dr. Zervos plainly explained his reason for not wanting to publish the study to ICAN founder Del Bigtree, who secretly recorded their conversations.
These exchanges are documented in the film An Inconvenient Study, which was released on October 12 at the Malibu Film Festival.
(Watch the YouTube video at the top of this article. It’s also available on Rumble, and you can watch and download the full film at AnInconvenientStudy.com.)
During his Senate testimony, Siri summarized the study’s key findings as follows (bold emphasis added):
The Henry Ford study found that vaccinated children had a statistically significant increased rate of various serious chronic diseases. For example, vaccinated children had 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease (a group of allergic conditions); 4.29 times the rate of asthma; 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorder, which included 3.28 times the rate of developmental delay and 4.47 times the rate of speech disorder; and 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease. All of these findings were statistically significant.
There were other conditions for which a rate could not be calculated because, while many cases existed among the vaccinated children, there were no cases among the unvaccinated children. For example, while there were many cases of ADHD, learning disability, and tics in the vaccinated group, there were none in the unvaccinated group.
The foregoing is obviously extremely troubling, especially because almost all these chronic diseases that showed an increased risk result from some form of immune system dysregulation.
The study, which is available to download on the Senate’s website, is titled “Impact of Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study”. The lead author is Lois Lamerato, with Zervos listed as senior author (whose name is typically listed last on scientific papers).
Here is the conclusion drawn by Lamerato et al. (bold emphasis added):
This study found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared to children unexposed to vaccination. This association was primarily driven by asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions.
The findings are most starkly illustrated by the following graph comparing the probability of children remaining free of chronic disease by vaccination status.
As Siri explained during his testimony, the study found that “after 10 years, 57% of the vaccinated children had been diagnosed with one or more chronic health conditions, whereas only 17% of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with one or more chronic health conditions.”
If the study had found that vaccinated children were healthier, Siri reasonably supposed, it surely would have been published.
Indeed, Siri’s conclusion is supported not only by Dr. Zervos’s admission that the study was suppressed because of its findings but also by hysterical reactions to it by public vaccine policy apologists.
The Henry Ford Study’s ‘Fatal Flaws’
According to the damage-control narrative, the idea that the study was suppressed is a conspiratorial fantasy invented by Aaron Siri and ICAN, and the real reason it was never published is because it is so fatally flawed that its findings are completely worthless.
We can see how absurd this counter-narrative is by simply examining the methodological limitations that we are supposed to consider fatal flaws making the study unpublishable.
What this exercise reveals is the sheer intellectual dishonesty of those defending public vaccine policies that result in the systematic violation of the right to informed consent.
The claimed reasons why we ought to dismiss the study outright cannot withstand scrutiny.
Instead, what these efforts illuminate is the institutionalized bias in favor of the CDC’s aggressive childhood vaccine schedule—and the sheer hypocrisy of the propagandists attempting vainly to defend it.
Indeed, parents are routinely gaslighted into believing that every study finding an association between vaccines and harms is so fatally “flawed” that it must be dismissed and scoffed at, whereas every study finding no association is uncritically trumpeted as yet more conclusive proof that vaccines are “safe and effective”.
Studies producing the right results somehow manage to avoid the same intense scrutiny as those that don’t align with official dogma.
This phenomenon is clearly illustrated by the characterizations of the Henry Ford study as junk science that’s completely unworthy of our consideration.
I’ve provided several clear examples of the double standard, where any studies finding an association between vaccines and harm are scorned as “flawed” while where seriously flawed studies supporting vaccine orthodoxy are hailed as conclusive proof of vaccine safety.
What other examples of this phenomenon can you think of?
“One argument is that the study was fatally flawed because there were far fewer children in the unvaccinated group. The study population included 156,511 vaccinated children and 1,957 with no documented vaccine exposures. Hence, only 1.2% of the study population were unvaccinated”
. . .
CORRECTION: You’ve got a typo in your “156, 511 vaccinated children” number. The actual number was 16,511. See p.2 of the study: “A total of 18,468 consecutive subjects met eligibility criteria for the study, of which 1,957 had no exposure to vaccination and 16,511 had received at least one vaccine during their enrollment in the plan with various levels of exposure”
Thank you, Guy! I have corrected the error.
Thanks for doing your write up. I’ve almost completed a similar project (about 46 pages + references) that originated as a 10/10/25 letter to the Detroit Free Press reporter Kristen Shamus. Covers much of the same material except I only addressed Henry Ford Health’s arguments and not those of Scott & Morris. I went into a bit more detail in my scrutiny of the so-called “fatal flaws.” I’ll send you the link to my Substack (not yet created) after I create it and post my finished document.
Yes, please do share the link once your piece is up. Thank you!
“The study was completed in 2020 but never published because it did not produce the results that Dr. Zervos was anticipating—and he feared that to publish it would be career suicide.”
. . .
But, there’s more to the story that Aaron Siri left out of his Senate testimony and only appears in his book “Vaccines, Amen.”
Detroit Free Press reporter Kristne Shamus interviewed Christine Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health Science)*17 who was the boss of the study’s co-author Dr. Lois Lamerato. Johnson said “she” [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[?!].” 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.” That’s the official Henry Ford Health PR BS.
In contrast to Johnson’s claim, I think that Aaron Siri (ICAN’s attorney who presented the study at the Sept 9th hearing) tells a more credible story about what actually happened during the so-called HFH “internal peer review” process in his excellent book “Vaccines, Amen”:
“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 times the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
Why would Zervos fear losing his job? I think the answer lies with 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!).
So, it appears that both Lamerato & Zervos, under pressure from their “higher ups” at Henry Ford Health, declined to ever submit their study for external peer review and publication.
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
*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/
Thank you for that additional info!
What is Henry Ford’s exit strategy? The facts are obvious, and they are aware. Zervos and Limerto would do well to point out they are behaving like a manufacturer of a defective product whose negigence is about to blow up in their faces. The longer it takes to face the facts, the worse they will untilmately look, possibly even to the point of criminal liability, as the tide inevitably turns. One cannot browbeat the truth into submission with rhetoric and sleight of hand.
Well, to be fair, the establishment has been quite successful so far browbeating the truth into submission with rhetoric and sleight of hand. But the tide is turning!