Controversial unpublished vaccine study sparks debate over safety claims

A Senate hearing spotlighted a disputed unpublished study linking vaccines to chronic conditions. Critics cite major flaws.
Henry Ford Health didn't publish a vaccine study. Was it "buried" or just "rejected science"?

In a recent U.S. Senate committee hearing, a claim emerged that a study conducted by Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System linked childhood vaccines to chronic health conditions. The study, however, was never published, leading to accusations that Henry Ford intentionally suppressed it. The health system denies these allegations, insisting the research was flawed and not worthy of publication.

Despite Henry Ford’s firm stance, anti-vaccine proponents have seized upon the study as purported evidence of vaccine-related harm. This controversy has fueled further debate, even spawning a documentary suggesting a conspiracy to hide unfavorable vaccine research findings. Henry Ford and other experts label these claims as part of a worrying trend of fringe beliefs gaining traction in mainstream discussions.

The Unpublished Study

The study, titled “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study”, was conducted by researchers from Henry Ford Health and Wayne State University School of Medicine. It analyzed over 18,000 children born between 2000 and 2016, categorizing them into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

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.

Senior scientists at Henry Ford reviewed the study and decided against publishing it, citing serious flaws. The study resurfaced at the Senate hearing, claimed as evidence of corruption in vaccine science.

Allegations of Suppression

Attorney Aaron Siri, who testified at the hearing, argued that the study’s suppression was politically motivated. Siri, associated with U.S. Health and Human Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., claimed Henry Ford buried the research because it contradicted the belief that vaccines are safe.

“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,” Siri told the committee. “Had it found vaccinated children were healthier, it no doubt would have been published immediately.”

Henry Ford’s Response

Dr. Adnan Munkarah, Henry Ford’s chief of clinical enterprise, stated that the study was never suppressed but simply found to be flawed. He emphasized that the study’s data and methodology were inadequate for drawing valid conclusions.

“The data that has been used is not complete data,” Munkarah explained. “There is a significant discrepancy between the groups in that study. The analysis that was done was not the correct analysis.”

Criticisms from the Scientific Community

Dr. Jake Scott from Stanford University also criticized the study, noting discrepancies in the cohorts and the length of follow-up. He pointed out that the vaccinated cohort had a longer follow-up period, potentially skewing results.

Dr. Jeffrey Morris, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, further noted that the study’s uneven follow-up time and differing cohorts undermined its conclusions about vaccines and chronic disease risk.

Documentary and Legal Action

The controversy took another turn with the release of a documentary titled “An Inconvenient Study”, which claimed the study was suppressed. Henry Ford responded with a cease-and-desist letter, condemning the documentary as misinformation and asserting their commitment to rigorous scientific standards.

“The film proved nothing except that we have rigorous scientific standards in place for a reason: to ensure the only studies we submit for publication come from research rooted in sound, infallible data that have passed our stringent review processes,” the health system stated.



Read More Michigan News

Share the Post:

Subscribe

Related Posts