factmission.org

During the recent Senate hearings, participants highlighted a Henry Ford Health System study, billed in a forthcoming documentary as ‘An Inconvenient Study,’ and portrayed it as conclusive proof that vaccines elevate childhood chronic-disease risk, claiming it was concealed by researchers fearing retaliation. Drawing on the Senate hearings, public reports, and other online materials, I reconstructed the study details and in this post summarize some of my main findings and concerns. These overlap with Dr. Scott’s observations, with several additional points of my own. Study at a glance. The cohort includes ~18,500 children from the Henry Ford Health System (Michigan), born 2000–2016, comparing ~16,500 vaccinated to ~2,000 unvaccinated on diagnoses of multiple chronic conditions, as documented in the Ford electronic medical records. Reported results. The overall rate of “any selected chronic disease” was about 2.5× higher in vaccinated children. For various individual or grouped outcomes, many estimates were statistically significant and fell in the 3.0–6.0×range, leading the authors to conclude that “vaccine exposure in children was associated with increased risk of developing a chronic health disorder.” Why causal claims aren’t warranted. The dataset is valuable, but the study has major limitations that compromise the ability to make strong conclusions. 1. Baseline imbalance/confounding: large differences between groups, with key potential confounders not taken into account. 2. Ascertainment bias from health-care utilization differences: Major differences in encounter rates likely inflate detection in one group. 3. Age-related ascertainment bias from unequal follow-up: Vaccinated and unvaccinated have very different follow-up distributions, affecting who ages into typical diagnosis windows. Follow-up is the critical limitation of this study. Median follow-up is ~1.2 years (unvaccinated) versus ~2.7 years (vaccinated): far too short, especially for many of these conditions often first identified around ages 5–10 years once children are in school. This severely limits the study’s ability to assess whether vaccine exposure increases risk of developing chronic disorders over childhood, regardless of statistical significance in the reported comparisons. I’ll delve into these points in more detail below.

This took me a year. It’s long, it’s dense. But the stakes could not be higher. The first hour takes you behind closed doors, using documented WHO Symposium Proceedings to expose a 1989 10-year follow-up to a gold-standard CDC vaccine trial. The results were devastating: half the vaccinated participants were dead or terminally ill, while the unvaccinated placebo recipients remained healthy. But health officials had a massive problem. Unable to sell this vaccine in developed countries due to safety concerns, they had already dumped millions of doses into Africa. They faced a choice: A) Admit what happened and pull the vaccine. B) Bury the placebo data to protect their reputations and the pharmaceutical industry—resulting in the WHO's continued use and the deaths of millions more. They chose B. My presentation names the scientists who faced that choice. I show their faces. For a year, I have negotiated with them behind the scenes to come forward. Instead, they refused to speak on camera and threatened me with legal action if I released their private communications. The second hour dismantles their counter-arguments and reveals how the vaccine industry responded to this disaster by quietly eliminating true placebo-controlled trials altogether. My goal is to rally Epstein-level public pressure to force the release of the withheld 1989 placebo data. This data will rewrite history and might reshape the future by revealing what happens when we allow a small elite group to control the narrative. I am working on shorter summaries, but this is the definitive deep dive. Watch it. Share it. Get commentators to cover this topic so we can raise awareness and force them to address this.