A recent hearing chaired by Senator Ron Johnson brought significant attention to an unpublished study conducted by the Henry Ford Health System, led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, the head of infectious diseases. The study, which compared health outcomes in vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children, has become a central point... of controversy. Following the hearing, Henry Ford Health System pushed back, stating the study draft faced significant peer review concerns and serious data flaws, and that the institution was unaware the rejected draft was being discussed. Critics, including a Washington Post journalist, have echoed these concerns, labeling the research as commissioned by an "anti-vaccine group" and highlighting methodological issues. However, defenders of the study offer counterarguments to the criticism: - They assert the study was not "commissioned" but was a challenge to Dr. Zervos to prove the safety of the vaccine schedule. - They claim no formal peer review was ever conducted on the completed study. - They argue that while the unvaccinated cohort was smaller, its size was statistically significant for comparison. - They contend that sensitivity analyses—which limited data to one year, three years, and five years—consistently showed worse health outcomes in the vaccinated group, with the results becoming more pronounced over time. The core finding of the study indicates vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to develop a chronic disease. Defenders of the research argue that the study's design mirrors the CDC's own recommended blueprint for such comparative safety studies and question why a major health institution would bury concerning results rather than address the alleged flaws and publish. This incident is framed as part of a larger pattern where a comprehensive vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study is avoided by public health authorities. A forthcoming documentary, An Inconvenient Study, promises to explore the entire episode in detail.show more

Camus

357,932 subscribers

Paylaş İndir