Claims About a Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children

study of comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

As the trailer you just watched noted,

Del Bigtree, ICANN's CEO,

had met Dr. Marcus Cervas at one point,

who was the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.

And he agreed to meet and to potentially do the study.

He conducts clinical trials for vaccines, including for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

He's a validly pro-vaccine.

And when we met him, we argued that this was an opportunity

to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.

To our surprise, Dr. Cervas said he would conduct the study.

He recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians within Henry Ford to do so.

These were mainstream scientists who no doubt held orthodox views regarding vaccines.

In early 2020, I received a copy of the study.

It showed the results of the analysis comparing children enrolled in Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016,

from birth onward, who had no vaccines compared to those who had one or more vaccines.

The study was based on actual medical records.

Meaning finally, a large vaccinated versus unvaccinated study using health data from a major United States health institution,

something, as the IOM pointed out, never existed before.

The study began by explaining it set out

to reduce vaccine hesitancy by assuring parents the CDC vaccine schedule is safe.

Instead, what these researchers found

was that vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma,

3.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease,

and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders,

which included 3.28 times the rate of developmental delay,

and 4.47 times the rate of speech disorder.

All of these findings were statistically significant.

There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group,

but zero in the unvaccinated group. Hence, a rate cannot be calculated,

including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics.

For example, there were 262 cases of ADHD in the vaccinated group, and there were none in the unvaccinated group.

In this study, there were around 16,000 kids in the vaccinated group, by the way, and around 2,000 in the unvaccinated group.

So the rate, of course, between those is important, and that's what the study

compared. These findings were troubling, including because these chronic health issues can be caused by immune system dysregulation, and vaccines can cause immune system dysregulation.

Citations for this are in my written submission.

Overall, the study found that after 10 years, 17%

of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue,

while 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue, often multiple.

That's 17 versus 57%.

The only real problem with this study and why it didn't get submitted for publication is that its findings did not fit the belief and the policy that vaccines are safe.

Had it found vaccinated children were healthier, it, no doubt,

would have been published immediately.

But because it found the opposite,

it was shoved in a draw.

We have repeatedly urged Dr. Zervos and LaMoretta to submit the study for publication.

They have affirmed the study was well-designed and conducted,

but Dr. Zervos has said he doesn't want to lose his job.

And Dr. LaMoretta has said she does not want to make doctors uncomfortable.

This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted,

how only studies that confirm the beliefs and policies that vaccines are safe get published.

Everything else gets shoved in a draw.

This selection bias is dangerous and results in corrupting all the science concerning vaccine safety.

We can protect children from infectious disease,

and we can protect children from vaccine harms.

We should and we must do both.