Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

BREAKING: Senator Ron Johnson reveals a high-quality Vax vs. Unvax study will FINALLY be made public Tuesday. Originally conducted in 2000, the results have been buried for 25 years—until now. And what did the data suggest? “…the vaccinated population [is] far more prone to chronic illness than people completely...

526,705 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

17% vs. 57%: The Staggering Chronic Illness Difference Between Unvaxxed and Vaxxed Kids A Major Study Found—Before It Was Buried. A bombshell revelation from attorney Aaron Siri exposes a systemic corruption of science that has left parents in the dark for decades. Leading up to 2013, the U.S. government paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review ALL existing science to confirm the safety of the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule. Their finding? “The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule… have not been conducted.” They found ZERO studies comparing the long-term health of fully vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children. The IOM could only conclude “there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe”—a far cry from proving it is safe. They noted such a study was possible using large medical databases. A 2015 CDC white paper even outlined how to do it. Yet, the government never did. In 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sought to answer this critical question. They met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center—a mainstream, pro-vaccine doctor who conducts clinical trials for companies like Moderna. He agreed to conduct the study. Using actual medical records from 2000-2016, his team compared children with no vaccines to those who had one or more. The sample was large: ~2,000 unvaxxed vs. ~16,000 vaxxed. The results were staggering, and all statistically significant. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated children had: ▪️ 4.29x higher rate of ASTHMA ▪️ 3.03x higher rate of ATOPIC DISEASE ▪️ 5.96x higher rate of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE ▪️ 5.53x higher rate of NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS - Including 3.28x DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY - And 4.47x SPEECH DISORDER For conditions like ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, there were HUNDREDS of cases in the vaccinated group and ZERO in the unvaccinated. The overarching finding: By age 10, only 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic illness. Among the vaccinated, that number skyrocketed to 57%. This was the study that was never done. The one the IOM called for. And its findings were devastating to the official narrative. So what happened? The study was completed in early 2020… and then buried. Aaron Siri states that the researchers, despite affirming the study was well-designed, refused to publish it. Dr. Zervos reportedly said he “didn’t want to lose his job.” The co-author said she “did not want to make doctors uncomfortable.” This is the corruption of science in plain sight. Studies that confirm the desired outcome are published. Those that don’t are shoved in a drawer. We must be able to have honest science to ensure we are protecting children from infectious diseases without causing widespread chronic harm. The public deserves the truth.

Camus

1,048,777 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The Unvaccinated Cohort Had Zero ADHD: Legal Expert Aaron Siri Explains Why That's Not a "Fatal Flaw" in Critical Vaccine Study Aaron Siri, a legal expert who frequently litigates around scientific studies, delivered a powerful commentary on the contentious Henry Ford vaccine study. He argues it is one of the best-designed vaccine safety studies ever conducted, precisely because it compares vaccinated against unvaccinated children—a critical methodological standard he claims is often avoided in favor of "vaccinated vs. vaccinated" comparisons, which he likens to "studying the danger of arsenic by comparing it to hemlock." Siri gives immense credit to the scientists behind the study for their fortitude in conducting it, suggesting it was never published because the unexpected results threatened their careers. He directly addresses critiques of the data, specifically the zero ADHD cases in the unvaccinated cohort. He contends this is not a fatal flaw, pointing to 52 cases of asthma in the same group as proof that other environmental factors can cause harm. He further argues that ADHD has a known biological plausibility of being linked to immune dysregulation, a mechanism through which vaccines could potentially be a trigger, a finding supported by smaller existing studies. On the topic of autism, Siri highlights the study's finding of 23 cases in the vaccinated group versus 1 in the unvaccinated. He explains that due to outdated DSM-IV billing codes, many autism cases were historically categorized as ADHD, likely skewing the data. Ultimately, he asserts that while the study is not perfect or wholly determinative, its results are indisputable in one key conclusion: they reveal a "pretty high probability that heavy vaccination might lead to a higher instance of chronic illness" and serve as a powerful call to action for more rigorous and honest safety investigations.

Camus

16,299 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Senator Ron Johnson convened a powerful hearing to confront a crisis of credibility in science, asking a pivotal question: How much of our public health policy is built on unreliable or manipulated data? He opened with a stunning quote from Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.” The evidence presented was alarming: - A Nature survey showing 70% of researchers have failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments. - The closure of 19 Wiley journals due to an avalanche of fraudulent "paper mill" studies, with over 11,300 papers retracted. Senator Johnson then introduced witnesses set to unveil suppressed truths: - Attorney Aaron Siri discussed a concealed 2020 study allegedly showing vaccinated children suffer 2.5x the rate of chronic illness. - Dr. Toby Rogers, PhD detailed the profound flaws and historical obfuscation in autism research. - Minority witness Dr. Jake Scott argued for the public to trust existing vaccine safety studies. Johnson connected this to previous hearings where federal agencies were shown to have hidden myocarditis safety signals linked to mRNA vaccines. He argued that the "vaccine injured" have been systematically ignored by a media eager to report on disease outbreaks but reluctant to cover what they dismiss as "rare and mild" adverse events. The core accusation? That powerful, multi-billion dollar interests actively work to prevent the discovery of root causes for chronic illness. As an expert testified: “They do not want root causes to be discovered.” This hearing wasn't about easy answers, but about forcing a long-overdue acknowledgment of reality. The goal: to restore integrity to science and public faith in the institutions meant to protect our health. The truth may be inconvenient, but it deserves our attention.

Camus

26,370 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Aaron Siri breaks down why Dr. Scott's dismissal of a pivotal vaccine safety study is itself fundamentally flawed. Dr. Scott, labeled the Henry Ford Health System study "fatally flawed" due to "detection bias"—the idea that vaccinated kids seek more medical care and thus have more conditions diagnosed. But as Siri points out, had Dr. Scott actually read the submission, he would have seen the study authors specifically designed multiple sensitivity analyses to rule this exact bias out. Here’s what they found: 1. They Quantified Care-Seeking: Vaccinated children averaged 7 medical visits/year. Unvaccinated children averaged 2. This suggests less illness. However, the 17% of unvaccinated kids with a chronic issue averaged 5 visits/year—proving that when they were sick, they did go to the doctor. 2. They Removed the Healthiest Kids: To be ultra-conservative, the authors re-ran the analysis after removing all children who never sought medical care. This eliminated the healthiest unvaccinated cohort. The result? The statistically significant increase in chronic illness in the vaccinated group remained. 3. They Controlled for Duration: To ensure kids were observed equally long, they analyzed only children in the system from birth for 5+ years. The result? The risk ratio for chronic illness in the vaccinated group actually increased, further affirming the findings. 4. They Used a Control Condition: They looked at cancer rates—a condition not plausibly linked to vaccination. Here, they found no statistically significant difference, proving their method could tell a true signal from noise. Siri concludes: The establishment calls this study "flawed by design" not because of its methodology, but because of its outcome. It was designed by professionals to detect safety issues—and it found them. That is what makes it so threatening. The real fatal flaw isn't in the study's design—it's in the refusal to engage with its rigorous, validating evidence.

Camus

175,541 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

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.

Camus

33,372 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten