Landmark study exposes alarming health risks in vaccinated children — after years of suppression – NaturalNews.com

• A long-suppressed Henry Ford Health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children found vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of chronic health conditions, including asthma, autoimmune diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders.
• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to develop asthma, 5.53 times more likely to have neurodevelopmental disorders and 4.79 times more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases. Unvaccinated children had zero cases of ADHD, learning disabilities or tics.
• Despite the study’s robust design and alarming results, it was never published due to fears of professional backlash and industry pressure. Researchers admitted they did not want to “make doctors uncomfortable” or risk their careers.
• The study highlights systemic issues in vaccine safety research, including lack of long-term studies, conflicts of interest in public health institutions and suppression of inconvenient data that contradicts the narrative of vaccine safety.
• Advocates demand independent research, informed consent and policy changes to prioritize child health over pharmaceutical profits, emphasizing natural immunity and alternative health approaches.

For nearly a decade, a groundbreaking study comparing the long-term health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children gathered dust in the files of Henry Ford Health, one of America’s most respected medical institutions. Conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos, a staunch vaccine proponent and head of infectious disease at Henry Ford, the research was intended to silence critics by proving vaccines were safe. Instead, it uncovered devastating evidence that vaccinated children faced far higher rates of chronic illnesses — findings so explosive that researchers refused to publish them, fearing professional and institutional backlash.

The study, titled “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study,” analyzed 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016. Of these, 1,957 were unvaccinated, while 16,511 received at least one vaccine. The results were staggering:

• Asthma: Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to develop asthma.
• Neurodevelopmental disorders (including speech delays): 5.53 times higher in vaccinated children.
• Autoimmune diseases: 4.79 times more prevalent in the vaccinated group.
• ADHD, learning disabilities and tics: Zero cases in unvaccinated children; multiple cases in vaccinated children.
• Chronic ear infections: 6.63 times more common in vaccinated children.

By age 10, 57 percent of vaccinated children had at least one chronic health condition, compared to just 17 percent of unvaccinated children.

Why was this study buried?

The study’s lead researchers — Dr. Zervos and epidemiologist Dr. Lois Lamerato — admitted in internal communications that the data was scientifically sound but too controversial to release. According to attorney Aaron Siri, who testified before the U.S. Senate on September 9, the study was “shoved in a drawer” because its findings “did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe.”

“Had this study shown that vaccinated children were healthier, it no doubt would have been published immediately. But because it found the opposite, it was suppressed.” — Aaron Siri, ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network)

The implications are dire. If widely known, this data could undermine public trust in vaccines, trigger lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and force regulators to reconsider safety protocols. Instead, the study remained hidden — until now.

A pattern of deception: How vaccine safety research fails the public

This isn’t the first time vaccine safety research has been manipulated or suppressed. As Siri noted in his Senate testimony, pre-licensure clinical trials for childhood vaccines do not confirm long-term safety, and post-licensure studies are rarely conducted independently. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has acknowledged that most vaccine injuries—including autism—have not been properly studied.

Yet, despite these gaps, public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies continue to insist vaccines are universally safe. The Henry Ford study is a rare exception — a large-scale, retrospective analysis that actually compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Its suppression raises serious ethical questions:

• Why do regulators ignore studies that contradict their narrative?
• Why are parents denied full informed consent about potential risks?
• Why are natural immunity and alternative health approaches dismissed without rigorous study?

The fight for transparency: What happens next?

The study’s release comes at a pivotal moment. With RFK Jr. now leading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), advocates for medical freedom and vaccine transparency see an opportunity for real reform. However, entrenched interests — Big Pharma, captured regulatory agencies and complicit researchers — are unlikely to surrender without a fight.

Key demands from health freedom advocates include:

• Independent, long-term studies on vaccine safety, free from pharmaceutical industry influence.
• Full disclosure of risks in vaccine informed consent forms, including data on chronic illnesses.
• An end to vaccine mandates that strip parents of medical autonomy.
• Investigations into regulatory capture at the CDC, FDA and NIH, which have long-standing financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
• Support for natural immunity and holistic health approaches, which have been systematically undermined by public health policy.

“We can do far better than a society in which more than half of our children suffer from a chronic health condition. We can save children from both harm from infectious diseases and harm from these products.” — Excerpt from the unpublished Henry Ford study.

The bigger picture: A broken system

The Henry Ford study is not an outlier. Previous research, such as the 2017 Mawson study (which found vaccinated children had higher rates of allergies, neurodevelopmental disorders and ADHD, and CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson’s admissions about data manipulation in autism studies, paint a consistent picture: vaccines may contribute to chronic illness in susceptible children, yet no one in power wants to acknowledge it.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies enjoy legal immunity from vaccine injuries under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, while families bear the burden of lifelong medical costs. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is notoriously underreported, and studies like this one are buried to avoid liability.

A call to action: Demand answers, protect children

The suppression of the Henry Ford study is not just a scientific failure — it’s a moral one. Parents deserve honest information to make informed decisions about their children’s health. The fact that researchers prioritized their careers over public safety is a damning indictment of a system that values profits over people.

As this story develops, three critical questions remain:

1. Will the Henry Ford study finally be published in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. Will Congress or the HHS launch an investigation into why it was suppressed?
3. Will parents ever be given the full truth about vaccine risks?

One thing is clear: The era of unquestioned vaccine orthodoxy is over. The data is out. The cover-up is unraveling. And the fight for medical freedom has just entered a new, decisive phase.

The truth will not stay buried forever

For years, parents of vaccine-injured children have been dismissed as “anti-vaxxers,” their concerns mocked by mainstream media and public health officials. Yet, as studies like this one emerge, their worst fears are being confirmed: Vaccines are not as safe as we’ve been told, and the system designed to protect children is failing them.

The Henry Ford study is a wake-up call. It’s time to demand transparency, restore informed consent and prioritize children’s health over corporate profits. The future of a generation depends on it.

Sources for this article include:

X.com

VigilantFox.com

hsgac.senate.gov