GOVERNMENTS worldwide claim childhood vaccines are safe and effective but cannot produce the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled trials good science relies on as proof. Many believe that the ‘safe and effective’ narrative is based on a complete fraud.
Childhood vaccines are tested in small cohorts over days rather than years, and against other vaccines rather than a saline placebo. The hepatitis B vaccine, given to babies in the US on the day of birth, was studied in 147 children who were monitored for just five days after each dose.
The godfather of vaccines, Stanley Plotkin, Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, was deposed by lawyer Aaron Siri in 2018 during a vaccine-related custody case to defend childhood shots. Under oath, he admitted that five days was not long enough to pick up vaccine-induced autoimmune issues, chronic illness or neurological disorders, and that the study had no control group.
In the US, up to 54 per cent of children are diagnosed with a chronic illness and from birth to 18 years old receive 72 vaccines in combination to protect against 17 diseases. That number is around 24 per cent in the UK and British children receive 25 doses to protect against 15 diseases.
Anecdotal evidence of vaccine harms has plagued healthcare professionals and campaigners for decades. They want solid evidence and are baffled that governments have failed to conduct vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies to prove jabs are not behind the chronic illness epidemic.
There are independent studies, though, the most recent and damning of which remains unpublished, despite being conducted by the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), respected for its research. It is titled Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study. (The Henry Ford teaching hospital has a $90million annual research budget and a top-five ranking in the US.)
Dr Sylvia Fogel, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, reviewed the paper and described it as ‘robust’. She said she was moved to tears at the results: ‘This is a devastating commentary on our health intervention. We are systematically making kids sick and not just a little bit sick, very sick.’
Vaccine advocate Professor Marcus Zervos*, division head of infectious diseases at Henry Ford, conducted the study. He was approached by Del Bigtree*, host of The HighWire, an online show offering a critical look at vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. Bigtree asked Zervos to silence antivaxxers by analysing the millions of childhood records from birth kept at Henry Ford. Bigtree also asked that whatever the results, Zervos should agree to publish. The study was expected to mirror vaccine orthodoxy, but Zervos was warned that he would come under attack from his profession if the results failed to support vaccines. He remained confident.
Zervos, who is coming up for retirement, accepted the challenge in 2016. The study concluded in 2020 with shocking results. The unvaxxed children were far healthier than the vaxxed. This was huge news and should have been published immediately but Zervos reneged on the deal and buried the study.
So what did it say? The team reviewed health records of 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016; 1,957 were unvaccinated and 16,511 had received at least one vaccine.
Data showed no unvaccinated children developed diabetes. Vaccinated children were four times more likely to develop asthma, three times more likely to suffer atopic disease (such as food allergies, eczema and hay fever), they had six times the risk of developing autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome and lupus – there are 80 different autoimmune diseases in all. They had three times more motor disability, four times as much speech disorder, four times as much developmental delay, and six times the risk of chronic ear infections. But the result that is perhaps most important is the five-and-a-half times risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.
When it came to measuring brain dysfunction such as ADHD, tics, learning disabilities, behavioural disabilities and other psychological disabilities, they could do no official comparison because there was none recorded in the unvaccinated group. Do vaccines cause autism? That is the million-dollar question. Again, because there was only one child in the unvaccinated group compared with 23 in the vaccinated group, the numbers were not considered statistically significant enough to draw conclusions.
However, the paper’s conclusion reads: ‘Exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared with 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.’
Bigtree invited Zervos for dinner in June 2022 to ask why he had not published findings that could save children from developing chronic ill-health. He covertly filmed his response.
Zervos clearly valued his career more than protecting children and said: ‘Our study did show a difference between the groups. If we weren’t in a world of censorship, I’d put out this study. Nothing is going to come out of [publishing] it other than me losing my job. I might as well retire. I’d be finished.’
Bigtree’s moving film An Inconvenient Study, released last month, charts the detail. It also shows devastated parents sobbing as they describe how their children regressed or died post vaccination. One boy paralysed by the HPV vaccine committed suicide. Triplets, two boys and a girl, became severely autistic after their vaccines.
Bigtree promptly received a ‘cease and desist’ letter from Henry Ford’s lawyers which accused him of defamation for saying the study was not published as the authors did not like the results. The letter also said: ‘It [the study] did not come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards HFH and its researchers demands.’
It has since been reviewed by other doctors and scientists who say the study is robust.
It could be dismissed as a one-off, but there are other vax vs unvaxxed studies. In 2020, Drs Paul Thomas and James Lyons Weiler published their paper Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination. Thomas was a paediatrician in Portland, Oregon, who noticed unvaccinated children in his practice had better health than vaccinated. He reviewed their childhood records – results below.
The study shows the same as Zervos’s study but within four days Thomas’s medical licence was suspended, he was branded a danger to public health and forced to retract his paper accused of bias and poor methodology. Neither author agrees.
Zervos’s study should be front-page news, but since the film’s release it has been largely ignored by the mainstream. Meanwhile, we are dealing with an autism epidemic and our children’s health continues to deteriorate.
*Zervos instituted mandatory covid vaccinations for 43,000 staff at the Henry Ford Institute.
As Professor of Medicine at Wayne State University School of Medicine, he co-authored a retrospective study of 2,541 covid patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and found it was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate of 13 per cent versus 26 per cent.
Zervos was also involved in the 2017 Flint, Michigan, water crisis, and stood up to Flint’s health authorities who wanted to bury the information. He identified that contaminated water from the Flint River caused 12 to die of Legionnaires’ disease.
*Bigtree is founder of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a non-profit organisation based on the Nuremberg Code’s premise that consent to medical procedures must be voluntary and informed. In 2022, ICAN successfully challenged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to produce the Pfizer papers, safety documents it relied upon to licence Pfizer’s covid jab. It also gained access raw data from the V-safe app used by the public to report covid vaccine side effects. Adverse event data was supressed by health authorities.
