You have to WATCH this by Miles Mathis
https://mileswmathis.com/vax3.pdf 

https://ia601001.us.archive.org/27/items/uss-liberty-conspiracy-global-control-and-the-fight-against-c/Hidden_Costs_of_Vaccination.mp4 

** welcome to the LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com series**

Today, we are diving deep into the claims and findings surrounding a major health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, drawing upon information from three unique sources. We will discuss the claims of suppression, the startling data points, the formal scientific results, and the powerful verdicts issued by the authors of our source material.

Source 1: Excerpts from "Hidden_Costs_of_Vaccination.mp4"

The central claim discussed in this source is that a truly important, massive, long-term study comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people was completed by a mainstream institution but then deliberately concealed. This review, described as massive, covered 18,500 patients over decades and was supposedly led by Dr. Marcus Zervos at the Henry Ford Health Center. The only reason the public is hearing about this study is because it was leaked in a documentary.

The source provides a dramatic reason for this suppression: Dr. Zervos was allegedly caught on camera stating that if he had published the findings, his career would have been destroyed.

Moving to the core findings the source material alleges the study contained, the numbers presented are described as shocking. The key takeaway regarding overall chronic disease risk is that, after just five years, the vaccinated group demonstrated a four times greater risk for chronic disease when compared to the unvaccinated group. This four times greater risk is emphasized by the author by also framing it as a 500% increased risk, underscoring that the difference found was massive.

The source lays out highly specific, staggering risk increases for certain conditions found in the vaccinated cohort. The vaccinated group reportedly had up to a nine times higher risk for autism, an eleven times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, and a truly staggering twenty-five times higher risk for autoimmune disorders. Furthermore, for some conditions, such as ADD, the study apparently found zero cases in the unvaccinated group. The author notes that because you cannot divide by zero, the calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group becomes technically infinite.

The author then transitions to delivering a final, powerful verdict. The source argues that the idea of "good intentions" in the field of vaccinology should be entirely rejected. The real motivation behind the industry was never public health, but rather to make as much "dirty money as possible," no matter who was injured. The author concludes that this situation goes far beyond mere fraud or mistake, calling it a knowing genocide.

Based on this severe conclusion, the source provides sweeping recommendations. It demands a complete and total loss of trust in various institutions and figures, including agencies like the CDC and the FDA, and even in one's own doctors. The article asserts that all vaccines should be outlawed. The author further demands that the companies responsible for making them should be placed into receivership. Finally, the source advises readers to "go Amish on this question and never return". The author specifically argues that demanding more research is just a stalling tactic, as the evidence is already "crystal clear".

Source 2: Excerpts from "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children - A Birth Cohort Study.pdf"

This source presents the formal findings of a scientific investigation titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study". The study was a birth cohort study designed to compare the short and long-term health outcomes of children exposed to one or more vaccines against those unexposed, utilizing data from an integrated healthcare system in Michigan. The research involved 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 who were enrolled in the health system insurance plan. The research team included Lois Lamerato, PhD, Abigail Chatfield, MS, Amy Tang, PhD, and Marcus Zervos, MD.

The study successfully enrolled 18,468 consecutive subjects who met the eligibility criteria. Of these participants, 1,957 had no exposure to vaccination, while 16,511 had received at least one vaccine. The primary outcome measured was the development of a chronic health condition over time. The study was conducted because, despite the increase in chronic health conditions in children over the last 30 years, there is a paucity of published data to determine contributing factors. This research was undertaken to address a significant data gap and to follow the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct retrospective studies evaluating health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

The main result found was 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 (HR 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96). The incidence of a chronic health condition was significantly more common in the exposed group (277.3 per million patient-years) than in the unexposed group (111.7 per million patient-years), yielding an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 2.48.

The specific health conditions driving this association included asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders. After multivariate adjustment, vaccine exposure was independently associated with an increased risk of developing these specific conditions. Statistically significant increased risks were found for asthma (HR 4.25, CI 3.23-5.59), autoimmune disease (HR 4.79, CI 1.36-16.94), atopic disease (HR 3.03, CI 2.01-4.57), and neurodevelopmental disorder (HR 5.53, CI 2.91-10.51). Furthermore, exposure was associated with a higher risk for ear infection (HR 7.00), chronic ear infection (HR 7.89), anaphylaxis (HR 5.64), and asthma attack or bronchospasm (HR 5.82).

For several severe conditions, including brain dysfunction, diabetes, ADHD, tics, behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability, incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios could not be calculated because all observed cases occurred exclusively in the group exposed to vaccination, and no cases occurred in the unexposed group.

Regarding disease-free survival, the overall probability of a child being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination, compared to 83% in the unexposed group (p<0.0001). The researchers conducted sensitivity analyses to ensure that the shorter median enrollment time in the unexposed group did not influence the results, finding that results remained consistent for subjects enrolled for at least one, three, and five years, with the association between vaccination and chronic health disorder risk actually increasing over time (IRR 4.09 and HR 4.05 for those enrolled 5 years).

The study concluded that exposure to vaccination was associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health disorder, primarily driven by the increased risks for asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders. The findings suggest that in certain susceptible children, vaccine exposure may increase the likelihood of developing one of these chronic health conditions. The study results, while preliminary, warrant further investigation and indicate that the susceptible group prone to an adverse vaccine effect may currently be underestimated.

Source 3: Excerpts from "https://mileswmathis.com/vax3.pdf"

This source focuses on the significance of the study released in the documentary An Inconvenient Study by Del Bigtree. The key takeaway is that after more than a century, a major vaccinated versus unvaccinated study was performed by the mainstream medical establishment, specifically Dr. Marcus Zervos at the Henry Ford Health Center, using a substantial database of 18,500 patients over decades. The findings were so detrimental to the concept of vaccine safety that the study was withdrawn from publication by its authors, and Dr. Zervos was recorded stating that publication would have ended his career. The resulting report has been leaked via the film and the internet.

The study unequivocally found that the vaccinated population is far sicker across the board, demonstrating vastly elevated risks for conditions such as asthma, allergies, lupus, ADD, diabetes, and almost everything else. These risks were not elevated by minor percentages, but by many times, such as a 500% increase. Overall, the risk for chronic disease after five years was documented as about four times worse for those who were vaccinated.

The risk assessment is further amplified by the finding that the risk of many of these conditions, such as ADD, was zero for the unvaccinated group. Because zero outcomes were found in the unvaccinated cohort for certain categories, the mathematical increase in risk for the vaccinated group becomes infinite.

The author of this source advocates for severe, immediate action in response to these findings. The source insists that all vaccines should be outlawed as they pose a danger to the public good. The narrative supports the immediate placement of all vaccine makers into receivership, seizure of their assets, and the arrest of their top officers as criminals.

The author contends that the evidence proves the vaccine industry, and the medical industry broadly, has perpetrated a knowing genocide and mass poisoning, constituting fraud and theft of taxpayer money. Therefore, people should never again trust anything called a vaccine. This loss of trust must extend to the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, Congress, the President, and even personal doctors and veterinarians. The only course of action advised is to "go Amish on this question and never return".

The source rejects the notion that the field of vaccinology ever operated with "good intentions," asserting that the clear and ongoing intention was to earn massive amounts of "dirty money," regardless of the collateral damage, including mass poisoning and genocide. Given the magnitude of this crime, the author maintains that it necessitates an immediate uprising, and those responsible should face arrest and trial for high crimes against humanity.

Finally, the source argues strongly against the suggestion that more studies are needed. Demanding additional research is deemed a "slow walk" or stalling tactic designed to allow further harm. The evidence is presented as already "crystal clear," proving that the medical industry is murdering people for profit, and therefore, not a single additional study is necessary.

** thank you for listening to another session of the LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com series produced and archived at the website LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com**

The provided text is a highly critical and inflammatory commentary by Miles Mathis on the documentary An Inconvenient Study, which allegedly reveals a suppressed study finding significantly higher rates of chronic illness in vaccinated individuals compared to the unvaccinated. Mathis claims that the vaccinated group had risks for conditions like autism, allergies, and asthma elevated by multiples, sometimes up to 500% or more, citing a massive study by Dr. Marcus Zervos that was reportedly pulled from publication due to its controversial findings. The author vehemently argues that the existence of this evidence proves the vaccine industry is a knowing genocide and a fraud, calling for the immediate outlawing of all vaccines and the arrest of industry leaders. Mathis also expresses suspicion toward Del Bigtree and others featured in the film, suggesting they are running "opposition control" because they advocate for fixing the vaccine program rather than completely abolishing all vaccines, which is the author's primary demand. 

Discuss Vaccine study findings.

The discussion of vaccine study findings centers primarily on a birth cohort study conducted by researchers at the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), including Dr. Marcus Zervos1.... This study compared the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children over time2....

The sources present two distinct narratives regarding these findings: the reported results from the formal study document and the alarming claims and political interpretations made by critical commentators regarding the study's impact and alleged suppression.

1. Findings from the Birth Cohort Study (Henry Ford Health System)

The study, titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study," was a birth cohort study involving 18,468 children born between 2000 and 20161.... Of the participants, 16,511 had received at least one vaccine, and 1,957 had no exposure to vaccination67.

Overall Risk of Chronic Health Conditions

The study found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition6.

• Overall Risk Increase: Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.53-fold increase (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96) in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, compared to children unexposed to vaccination6....

• Chronic Disease-Free Survival: The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination and 83% in the unexposed group8....

• Drivers of Association: This association was primarily driven by increased risk for asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders8....

Specific Health Outcomes

The study found several statistically significant associations between vaccine exposure and specific conditions1415. Hazard Ratios (HR) were adjusted for factors including gender, race, birth weight, respiratory distress at birth, birth trauma, and prematurity1516.

Condition

Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

Risk Description

Asthma

4.29 (CI 3.26-5.65)

Associated with increased risk9....

Autoimmune Disease

5.96 (CI 1.48-24.11)

Associated with increased risk9.... The exposed group had a 6-fold increased risk17.

Neurodevelopmental Disorder

5.53 (CI 2.91-10.51)

Associated with increased risk10.... This category includes speech disorders and developmental delays19.

Atopic Disease

3.03 (CI 2.01-4.57)

Associated with increased risk9....

Eczema

1.31 (CI 1.13-1.52)

Associated with increased risk9....

Developmental Delay

3.28 (CI 1.13-9.55)

Associated with increased risk18.

Speech Disorder

4.47 (CI 2.05-9.74)

Associated with increased risk18.

Other Significant Incidence Rates: Vaccine exposure was also independently associated with increased risk for ear infection (HR 7.00), chronic ear infection (HR 7.89), anaphylaxis (HR 5.64), and asthma attack or bronchospasm (HR 5.82)20.

Conditions with Zero Cases in Unexposed Group

For several serious conditions, all observed cases occurred in the group exposed to vaccination, meaning incident rate ratios (IRR) and hazard ratios (HR) could not be calculated16...:

• Brain dysfunction1622.

• Diabetes1622.

• ADHD16....

• Tics1622.

• Behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability16....

Conditions with No Significant Association

The study did not find a statistically significant association between vaccine exposure and the incidence of cancer, food allergy, autism, motor disability, neurological disorder, or seizure disorder9....

2. Commentary and Claims Regarding Study Findings

Author Miles Matthysse and the Lenny and Maria Podcasts discuss this Henry Ford study (which they claim was suppressed) and present interpretations of its data, often using more dramatic figures than those cited in the formal study document's abstract (HR 2.53)423.

Alleged Suppression and High-Level Risks

• Suppression: The central claim is that this long-term study was completed by a mainstream institution but was deliberately buried34. Dr. Marcus Zervos, who supposedly led the study, was reportedly caught on camera stating that publishing the findings would have ended his career34.

• Overall Risk Amplified: The author claims that after just five years, the vaccinated group showed a four times greater risk for chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated group2425. This is also presented as a 500% increased risk2425.

• Specific Extreme Risks: The author presents extremely high-risk figures for specific categories, claiming the vaccinated group had:

    ◦ Up to a nine times higher risk for autism2627.

    ◦ An 11 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders2627.

    ◦ A staggering 25 times higher risk for autoimmune disorders2627.

• "Infinite" Risk: The author emphasizes that for conditions like ADD (ADHD), the study apparently found zero cases in the unvaccinated group, meaning the calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group is "technically infinite" because division by zero is impossible2526.

• Critique of Autism Data: The author noted that while the study found only 23 instances of autism, there was only 1 instance in the unvaccinated group, suggesting the vaccinated were up to 9 times more likely to get it. The author suspects the autism numbers may have been "fudged" by the study authors, perhaps through a false narrow definition, especially since the risks for related conditions like neurodevelopmental disorder (up to 11 times higher) and autoimmune disorders (up to 25 times higher) were so substantial27.

Political and Societal Verdict

The explosive nature of the data led the author to strong conclusions and demands:

• The author rejects the idea of "good intentions" in vaccinology, arguing the motivation was always to make "dirty money"2829.

• The findings lead the author to conclude the medical industry is engaged in a "knowing genocide"3031.

• The author demands a complete and total loss of trust in agencies like the CDC and FDA, and in one's own doctors3031.

• The article calls for all vaccines to be outlawed, that the companies making them be put into receivership, and advises readers to "go Amish on this question and never return"30....

3. Study Interpretation and Limitations

The authors of the formal study document acknowledged that the findings were preliminary and could not prove causality, but they suggest that in certain susceptible children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly those disorders driving the association (asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders)833.

The study noted its strengths, including using medical records rather than parental recall, having a completely unexposed cohort, and utilizing groupings of health conditions1934. However, it also addressed several limitations35:

• Retrospective Design: The study cannot exclude the possibility of unidentified confounders, such as socioeconomic status, diet, or lifestyle, although key baseline confounders (gender, ethnicity, gestational age, birthweight) were adjusted for3536.

• Ascertainment Bias: Unvaccinated children generally have less healthcare utilization, and well visits often coincide with the vaccination schedule, potentially providing more assessment opportunities for the exposed group37.

• Sensitivity Analysis: To address the potential for ascertainment bias, sensitivity analyses were conducted for subjects enrolled for at least 1, 3, or 5 years, and for subjects with at least one healthcare encounter. These analyses demonstrated results consistent with the overall findings, suggesting the association was independent of these factors38....

• Scope: The study did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines40.

The formal study's authors noted that the finding of increased risk was "in contrast to our expectations"12 and warranted further investigation33.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Increased disease risk.

The discussion of increased disease risk centers on the findings of a large birth cohort study conducted by researchers at the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), which compared the health outcomes of vaccinated versus completely unexposed children12.

Overall Risk of Chronic Health Conditions

The HFHS study, which analyzed 18,468 children born between 2000 and 201634, 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 (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.54, CI 2.16-2.97)5....

This finding suggests that in certain children, vaccine exposure may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition59.

• Long-Term Survival: The time-to-event analysis demonstrated that the overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination compared to 83% in the unexposed group1011.

• Five-Year Risk Comparison: Commentary on the study highlighted that, overall, after just five years, the vaccinated group showed a four times greater risk for chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated group, or a 500% increased risk1213. A sensitivity analysis conducted by the study authors for subjects enrolled for at least five years similarly found a higher risk (HR 4.05, CI 2.82-5.83)14.

Increased Risk for Specific Disorders

The overall association of increased disease risk was primarily driven by several specific chronic health conditions57. The study used Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine independent risks associated with vaccine exposure:

Condition

Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

Commentary Risk Multiple

Source Reference

Autoimmune Disease

5.96 (CI 1.48-24.11)

Up to 25 times higher8...

Neurodevelopmental Disorder

5.53 (CI 2.91-10.51)

Up to 11 times higher10...

Asthma

4.29 (CI 3.26-5.65)

-810

Atopic Disease

3.03 (CI 2.01-4.57)

-810

Eczema

1.31 (CI 1.13-1.52)

-1019

The increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders was found to be strong and was primarily driven by speech disorders, developmental delays, tics, ADHD, and behavioral and motor disabilities2021. The increased risk for autoimmune disease was noted to be 6-fold in the exposed group16.

Furthermore, several other conditions were independently associated with increased risk following vaccine exposure:

• Ear infection: HR 7.00 (CI 6.05-8.10)22.

• Chronic ear infection: HR 7.89 (CI 6.08-10.24)22.

• Anaphylaxis: HR 5.64 (CI 1.11-28.74)22.

• Asthma attack or bronchospasm: HR 5.82 (CI 3.58-9.47)22.

Conditions with "Infinite" Calculated Risk

For certain conditions, the HFHS study observed that all cases occurred exclusively in the group exposed to vaccination, with zero cases in the unexposed group23.... This meant that incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios could not be calculated2425. The conditions falling into this category included:

• Brain Dysfunction8....

• Diabetes8....

• ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder)18....

• Tics18....

• Behavioral Disability18....

• Learning Disability18....

• Intellectual Disability18....

• Other psychological disability18....

Commentary stated that because zero outcomes were found for the unvaccinated group in many categories like ADD, this resulted in a calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group of infinity1315.

Autism and Risk Calculation

Although the study found no statistically significant association between vaccine exposure and the incidence of autism (IRR 1.16, CI 0.16-8.62)2728, the commentary highlights that the original study found 23 instances of autism in the exposed group versus only 1 instance in the unexposed group17. This difference means the vaccinated were found to be up to 9 times more likely to get autism17. The commentary suggests suspicion regarding the autism numbers, arguing that because autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (up to 11 times higher risk) and potentially an autoimmune disorder (up to 25 times higher risk), the numbers may have been fudged by too narrowly defining autism17.

Context of Findings

The authors of the study noted that their findings—that vaccine exposure was associated with an increased likelihood of developing a chronic health condition—were in contrast to their expectations29. They suggested that exposure to vaccination may serve as an environmental influence in susceptible children21.

The commentary surrounding the leaked study claimed that the findings were so explosive that the lead author, Dr. Zervos, stated his career would have been over had he published them3031. The author of the commentary used this data to conclude that the medical and vaccine industry has committed a "knowing genocide"3233.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Vaccine industry critique.

The critique of the vaccine industry presented in the sources is multifaceted and extremely severe, centered around the alleged suppression and subsequent leakage of a large-scale health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children1....

Core Claim: Suppression of a Major Study

The central idea of the critique is that a "huge long-term study" comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people was completed by a mainstream institution—specifically the Henry Ford Health Center, supposedly led by Dr. Marcus Zervos—and was then deliberately "buried"23. The study is described as a massive review covering 18,500 patients over decades23.

According to the author Miles Matthysse, the only reason this study is known is because it was leaked in a documentary23. The critique claims that Dr. Zervos was allegedly caught on camera stating that publishing the findings would have ended his career23.

Explosive Findings and Health Risks

The findings of this Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) study, as interpreted by the critique, form the basis for the most alarming accusations against the industry45.

Overall Chronic Disease Risk: The author claims that the study showed "unequivocally that the vaccinated are far sicker across the board"5.

• After only five years, the vaccinated group allegedly showed a four times greater risk for chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated group45. This is also framed as a 500% increased risk45.

• (In comparison, the actual published study by Lamerato, Zervos et al., found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase (HR 2.53 or 2.54) in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition compared to the unexposed group6...).

• The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years was found to be 43% in the exposed group versus 83% in the unexposed group7....

Specific Condition Risks (as claimed by the critique): The critic highlights specific elevated risks, claiming they are "elevated by many times"5:

• Autoimmune disorders: Up to a "truly staggering 25 times higher risk"1213. (The published study reported an adjusted Hazard Ratio of 5.96 for autoimmune disease9).

• Neurodevelopmental disorders: Up to an 11 times higher risk1213. (The published study reported an adjusted Hazard Ratio of 5.53 for neurodevelopmental disorders, driven primarily by speech disorders, developmental delays, tics, and ADHD10...).

• Autism: Up to a nine times higher risk1213. The critic notes that while the study only found 23 cases of autism, there was only one instance in the non-vaccinated group13. The critic suspects that the autism line in the study may have been "fudged" due to a narrow definition13.

• Conditions with Zero Unvaccinated Cases: For some conditions like ADD (ADHD), the study allegedly found zero outcomes in the unvaccinated group, meaning the calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group becomes "technically infinite" because "you can't divide by zero"512. (The published study confirms that Incident Rate Ratios and Hazard Ratios "could not be calculated for brain dysfunction, diabetes, ADHD, tics, or behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability since all cases occurred in the group exposed to vaccination and no cases occurred in the unexposed group"17...).

Verdict and Call to Action

The author delivers an "incredibly stark" final judgment, concluding that the issue is not just about fraud or mistake, but a "knowing genocide"2021. The primary motivation for the industry, according to the critique, was never public health, but rather to make "as much dirty money as possible, no matter who got hurt"2223. The medical industry, led by the vaccine industry, is accused of "murdering us for profit"24.

Based on this conclusion, the critique offers sweeping recommendations:

1. Loss of Trust: The critique demands a complete and total loss of trust in the entire industry and associated institutions, including the CDC, FDA, WHO, Congress, the President, and even one's own doctors and veterinarians2021.

2. Outlaw Vaccines: The author calls for all vaccines to be outlawed as they are considered dangerous to the public2025.

3. Criminal Action: All vaccine manufacturers should be put into receivership, their assets seized, and their top officers arrested as criminals who should be tried for high crimes against humanity20....

4. Reject Further Research: Demanding "more studies" is dismissed as merely a "stalling tactic"2427. The author argues that the evidence is already "crystal clear," and waiting for more studies only means more people will get hurt2427.

Critique of Pro-Reform Figures

Even those who expose the alleged harms are subject to critique if they do not adopt the maximalist position of complete abolition:

• Del Bigtree is criticized because he states that he wants to "fix the vaccine program, not get rid of it completely"2228. The author argues that this stance is "too convenient" and "leaves the door wide open for a whole new lineup of supposedly safer and probably way more expensive vaccines"2228.

• Dr. McCullough is criticized for attributing the failures to "good intentions," which the critic vehemently rejects, asserting that the intent was always financial gain and "dirty money"2223.

• The critique also notes a Senate hearing where Dr. Jake Scott presented 661 studies allegedly proving vaccine safety, but under cross-examination, it was revealed that "exactly none" of these studies were relevant because they lacked proper control groups or placebos, suggesting the studies were "paid for and rigged by Big Pharma"29.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Unvaccinated outcomes.

The outcomes and characteristics of the unvaccinated (or "unexposed") cohort were central to the birth cohort study conducted by researchers at the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS)12. This cohort consisted of children who had received no exposure to vaccination during their enrollment in the health system insurance plan34.

Characteristics of the Unexposed Cohort

The study included 1,957 subjects who had no exposure to vaccination, compared to 16,511 subjects who received at least one vaccine34.

• Follow-up Time: The median follow-up time for unexposed subjects was 461 days, though enrollment lasted up to 6,386 days for some individuals5.

• Demographics: Characteristics more common in the unexposed group included male sex (55%) and White race (46%)6.

• Birth Factors: Compared to the exposed group, the unexposed group had lower incidences of adverse birth factors, including: low birth weight (1%), very low birth weight (2%), prematurity (2%), respiratory distress at birth (1%), and birth trauma (0%)7.

• Healthcare Utilization: The study acknowledged that unvaccinated children typically have less healthcare utilization overall89. The unexposed children had an average of 2 annual encounters; however, if they were diagnosed with a chronic health condition, this average increased to almost 5 annual encounters10. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for the potential for ascertainment bias due to differences in healthcare utilization1112.

Health Outcomes for the Unexposed Group

The main objective of the HFHS study was to compare short and long-term health outcomes between children exposed to vaccines and those unexposed13.

Overall Chronic Disease-Free Status

The unexposed group exhibited a significantly higher probability of remaining free of chronic health conditions compared to the exposed group14.

• Chronic Disease-Free Survival: The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 83% in the unexposed group (compared to 43% in the exposed group)1415.

• Overall Incidence Rate: The incidence rate of a chronic health condition in the unexposed group was 111.7 per 1,000,000 patient-years (with 160 cases in total)16.

• Increased Risk: The study found no chronic health conditions associated with an increased risk in the unexposed group17.

Specific Condition Outcomes (Zero or Very Low Incidence)

For many specific conditions evaluated as part of the chronic health composite outcome, the unexposed group had few or zero recorded cases1819. When cases were zero in the unexposed group, researchers could not calculate a Hazard Ratio (HR) or Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) for comparison18....

Conditions where zero cases occurred in the unexposed group, according to the study results tables, included20...:

• Brain Dysfunction

• Diabetes

• ADHD

• Tics

• Behavioral Disability

• Learning Disability

• Intellectual Disability

• Other Psychological Disability

Commentary on the study highlighted the finding of zero outcomes in the unvaccinated group for many categories, such as ADD, stating that this technically meant the increased risk for the vaccinated group was infinite, as one cannot divide by zero2425.

Conditions with Low Incidence in the Unexposed Group

While most chronic conditions occurred more often in the exposed group, the unexposed group did experience a low number of certain outcomes:

• Neurodevelopmental Disorders: The total incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders in the unexposed group was 9 cases (8.2 per million patient-years)22.

    ◦ Specifically, Autism had only 1 case (0.9 per million pt-yrs)2326.

    ◦ Developmental Delay had 3 cases (2.7 per million pt-yrs)23.

    ◦ Speech Disorder had 6 cases (5.4 per million pt-yrs)23.

    ◦ Motor Disability had 2 cases (1.8 per million pt-yrs)23.

• Autoimmune Disease: There were 2 cases of autoimmune disease in the unexposed group (1.4 per million pt-yrs)22.

• Asthma and Allergies:

    ◦ Asthma had 52 cases (35.6 per million pt-yrs)22.

    ◦ Atopic Disease had 23 cases (15.6 per million pt-yrs)22.

    ◦ Food Allergy had 30 cases (20.5 per million pt-yrs)22.

• Other Conditions: The unexposed group had 13 cases of Cancer (8.8 per million pt-yrs)22, 12 cases of Neurological Disorder (8.1 per million pt-yrs)20, and 12 cases of Seizure Disorder (8.2 per million pt-yrs)20.

Deaths

Of the six deaths observed in the cohort during enrollment, one unexposed subject died due to a complicated clinical course from birth, as determined by manual review of medical records15.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Study validity concerns.

The discussion of the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) birth cohort study's validity concerns stems from two main perspectives presented in the sources: the limitations acknowledged by the study's authors and the criticisms regarding alleged suppression and fudged data raised by commentators.

1. Validity Concerns Acknowledged by the Study Authors (Internal Limitations)

The researchers of the study, "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study," identified several methodological limitations that temper the interpretation of their findings1.

Retrospective Design and Unidentified Confounders

The study is retrospective, meaning the researchers cannot entirely exclude the possibility of unidentified confounders1. Uncontrolled factors such as socioeconomic status, diet, or lifestyle, which might influence health outcomes, were not accounted for in the analysis2.

However, the authors attempted to temper this concern:

• They did adjust for several important baseline confounders, including gender, race, gestational age, and birthweight23.

• The magnitude of the observed associations (with some Hazard Ratios ranging from 2.5 to 6 times the risk) suggests that the findings are less likely to be solely due to uncontrolled confounding2.

• They tested for potential uncontrolled confounding by evaluating a control outcome—cancer—which has no expected causal association with vaccination2. They found no association between vaccine exposure and cancer, which contributes to the internal validity of the study's findings45.

Ascertainment Bias due to Healthcare Utilization

A significant concern noted by the authors is the potential for ascertainment bias due to differences in healthcare utilization between the two groups4.

• Well visits often coincide with the vaccination schedule, providing more opportunities for assessment and diagnosis in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children4.

• Children exposed to vaccines had an average of seven annual encounters, while unexposed children had an average of only two annual encounters6.

To address this bias, the authors conducted sensitivity analyses:

• They repeated the analysis using only subjects who had at least one healthcare encounter during enrollment78. Even under this constraint, vaccine exposure was still associated with a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition (HR 1.87, CI 1.60-2.19)7.

• They noted that when unexposed children were diagnosed with a chronic health condition, their average annual encounters increased to almost five, suggesting that parents sought care when necessary for serious conditions (e.g., asthma, diabetes, anaphylaxis)6.

• The authors concluded that their findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health resources because the association between vaccination and chronic conditions was independent of these utilization factors9.

Follow-Up Duration and Reverse Causality

• The median follow-up time was shorter in the unexposed group (461 days) compared to the exposed group (970 days)10. To ensure this did not influence results, sensitivity analyses were conducted for subjects enrolled for at least 1, 3, and 5 years, which demonstrated consistent results and increasing risks over time811.

• The study design evaluated only whether vaccine exposure was associated with clinically relevant outcomes, and did not evaluate temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits the investigation but minimizes the potential for reverse causality912.

Reliance on Administrative Data

The study relied on diagnosis codes in administrative data (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM), which is a common practice in epidemiologic research but carries inherent limitations413.

2. Validity Concerns Raised by Commentators (External Critique)

Miles Matthysse, the author discussed on the Lenny and Maria Podcasts, critiques the study not for its statistical limitations, but for the possibility that the data was intentionally manipulated or "fudged" to minimize the findings14.

Alleged Fudging of Autism Data

The commentator suspects the autism figures were "fudged" by the study authors, potentially through a false narrow definition14.

• While the study found only 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated group versus 1 case in the unvaccinated group, leading to an estimated 9 times greater likelihood of autism in the vaccinated1415, the commentator notes that the risk increase for related conditions was much higher: up to 11 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders and up to 25 times higher risk for autoimmune disorders14.

• Since autism is poorly defined and understood, creating a false narrow definition to exclude cases would be easy, making the autism numbers the most suspect area for potential manipulation14.

Questionable Interpretation of Significant Risk

The commentator also criticizes what is perceived as hedging by those involved in bringing the story to light. For example, a Dr. McCulla reportedly implied that only findings with a risk over 4 were significant, but the commentator argues that this is "an outright lie" because in a properly conducted study, any number over about 1.5 is a gigantic red flag14.

Absence of Cases (Infinite Risk)

The study noted that for serious conditions such as Brain dysfunction, Diabetes, ADHD, Tics, and behavioral/learning/intellectual/other psychological disability, all cases occurred in the vaccinated group, and zero cases occurred in the unvaccinated group516. The commentator notes that mathematically, this means the calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group is "technically infinite," which is presented as a tragic and significant finding that didn't even allow the authors to perform calculation of standard risk ratios17.

Alleged Suppression and Career Risk

A major concern regarding the validity and integrity of the study findings rests on the claim that the study was completed by a mainstream institution but was deliberately buried18. Dr. Marcus Zervos, one of the authors, was allegedly caught on camera stating that publishing the findings would have ended his career, suggesting the data was too explosive for the establishment to accept1819.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

3 sour

Scientific Study vs. Media Reporting: A Case Study in Information Analysis

Introduction: Understanding the Two Versions of the Story

In our digital world, information comes at us from all angles. A scientific study might be published, but most of us will hear about it through a news article, a social media post, or a podcast. This document compares the actual findings of a scientific research paper with how those findings were presented in a popular article and podcast. By examining the two versions side-by-side, we can develop the critical thinking skills needed to see how data can be interpreted, framed, and presented in dramatically different ways.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Narrative: A "Suppressed" Study vs. A Scientific Paper

Before diving into the data, it's crucial to understand the story being told about the research itself. The media sources and the scientific paper present very different origin stories.

1.1. The Media's Narrative

The podcast and article frame the study as a dramatic, hidden truth. According to their narrative, the key points are:

• The research was a "massive review" that was intentionally "suppressed" and "pulled from publication" by its own authors.

• The lead author, Dr. Zervos, was allegedly recorded on camera stating that publishing the study would have been "career-ending."

• The findings were not formally published but were "leaked" to the public through a documentary film.

1.2. The Study's Reality

The scientific document itself tells a much more conventional story. Key facts from the paper include:

• Its official title is "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study."

• The authors are listed as Lois Lamerato, PhD; Abigail Chatfield, MS; Amy Tang, PhD; and Marcus Zervos, MD, all affiliated with the Henry Ford Health System.

• The document is a standard, structured scientific report, complete with an Abstract, Methods, Results, Discussion, and a list of references.

• The paper itself notes key limitations in its data, such as the fact that the unexposed (unvaccinated) group had a significantly shorter median follow-up time than the exposed group.

• There is no information within the paper to support the claims that it was suppressed, pulled from publication, or leaked. It is presented as a formal research document.

1.3. Section Synthesis

This fundamental conflict between a narrative of suppression and the reality of a standard research paper sets the stage for even greater conflicts in the interpretation of the data itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Overall Finding: Comparing the "Big Number"

Both sources highlight a single, top-line number to summarize the study's main conclusion about chronic disease. However, the numbers they highlight are different.

2.1. A Tale of Two Numbers

The table below compares the central claim about the overall risk of chronic disease for the vaccinated group.

Source

Claimed Overall Risk for Vaccinated Group

Article & Podcast

A 4 times greater risk for chronic disease after 5 years. The author also frames this as a 500% increased risk.

Scientific Study

An overall 2.5-fold (specifically, a Hazard Ratio of 2.54, a measure of how often an event happens in one group compared to another) increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition for the entire study cohort.

2.2. Insight: Where Does the "4 Times" Figure Come From?

The discrepancy arises from which part of the study is presented as the main finding.

• The study's primary conclusion for the entire group was a 2.54-fold risk.

• The 4-times figure (specifically, a Hazard Ratio of 4.05) is drawn from a "sensitivity analysis" mentioned in the study. This secondary analysis only looked at a smaller subset of children who had been enrolled in the health plan for at least 5 years, not the entire cohort.

By presenting a secondary finding from a smaller subgroup as the main conclusion, the article's author chose the most dramatic number available to support a more alarming narrative, even though it did not represent the study's overall result.

2.3. Insight: Correcting the Math

Let's break down the math in the article's claim, as it contains a common error. An increase of 4 times is a 300% increase over the original amount (100% baseline + 300% increase = 400%, or 4 times), not a 500% increase. This distinction is crucial for accurately representing statistical risk.

2.4. Section Synthesis

The selective reporting of the study's main "number" is a powerful example of framing, a technique that becomes even more pronounced when examining the article's claims about specific diseases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Specifics: Comparing Risks for Individual Conditions

The most dramatic claims in the article relate to the risks for specific diseases. A direct comparison with the study's data tables reveals significant differences in what was reported.

3.1. Data Deep Dive: Claims vs. Reality

This table provides a side-by-side comparison of the risks claimed in the media versus the actual data published in the scientific study's tables.

Condition

Risk Claimed in Article/Podcast

Actual Finding in Scientific Study

Autoimmune Disease

"a truly staggering 25 times higher risk"

An adjusted risk of 5.96 times higher (HR 5.96) after accounting for other factors.

Neurodevelopmental Disorders

"11 times higher risk"

An adjusted risk of 5.53 times higher (HR 5.53).

Autism

"up to a 9 times higher risk"

"No statistically significant association was found" (meaning the observed difference was likely due to chance). The study actually found vaccinated children had a lower risk (HR 0.62), though this result was not statistically significant.

ADD/ADHD

"an increased risk of... infinity"

The study found zero cases in the unexposed group. The paper states that because of this, a risk ratio "could not be calculated." The media article transforms this statistical limitation into a sensationalist claim of "infinite" risk. This is a powerful rhetorical move, turning a lack of data into the most alarming possible finding.

3.2. Section Synthesis

These significant discrepancies in the data itself are the foundation for the wildly different conclusions and calls to action presented by each source.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Final Verdict: Comparing Conclusions and Recommendations

The ultimate message of the article and the scientific paper could not be more different. One calls for revolution, while the other calls for more research.

4.1. The Article's Conclusion

The podcast summarizes the article's verdict, framing it as a conclusion that this is a "knowing genocide" and that the motivation was "dirty money."

Based on this conclusion, the article makes several sweeping recommendations:

• A complete and total loss of trust in agencies like the CDC and FDA, as well as doctors.

• All vaccines should be outlawed immediately.

• Demanding more research is merely a "stalling tactic," as the evidence is already clear.

4.2. The Study's Conclusion

The authors of the scientific paper offer a much more cautious and reserved conclusion. The final sentence of their abstract states:

"Our preliminary findings cannot prove causality and warrant further investigation."

This single sentence highlights several key principles of the scientific method:

• Association is not causation: The study found a statistical link (an association), but its authors explicitly state they have not proven that vaccines cause these conditions.

• Findings are preliminary: The authors view their work as a starting point for more questions, not as a final, definitive answer.

• A call for more research: In direct opposition to the article, the study's authors believe their findings show that more investigation is needed, not that the case is closed.

4.3. Section Synthesis

The chasm between the article's call for revolution and the study's call for more research provides a perfect foundation for our final lessons in critical information analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Key Lessons in Media Literacy

By carefully comparing these two documents, we can derive four foundational lessons that are essential for any critical consumer of information.

1. Always Check the Original Source. Summaries, especially those aiming to persuade, can be biased or inaccurate. The article presented the "4 times" risk figure as the main finding, a classic example of "cherry-picking"—selecting only the data that supports a particular argument while ignoring data that doesn't. Reading the original study revealed this number was from a smaller sub-analysis, specific disease risks were highly exaggerated, and the authors' conclusions were the opposite of what was claimed.

2. Watch for Sensational Language. The article and podcast use emotionally charged words like "genocide," "explosive," "staggering," and "mass murderers." The scientific paper uses neutral, objective language like "associated with," "preliminary," and "warrant further investigation." Emotional language is a powerful tool of persuasion, while scientific language aims for objective description.

3. Understand the Difference Between Association and Causation.

    ◦ Association means two things are observed happening together (e.g., vaccination and higher rates of a condition).

    ◦ Causation means one thing is proven to cause the other. This study is a perfect example of research that finds a statistical association but explicitly warns it cannot and does not prove causation.

4. Consider the Author's Goal. The two sources have fundamentally different purposes. The scientific paper's goal is to ask a question and present data for peer review, inviting other experts to challenge, replicate, and build upon the findings. The article's goal is to provide a definitive answer and incite action, persuading its audience to adopt an urgent, alarming point of view and advocate for immediate, drastic change. Understanding an author's intent is key to evaluating their message.

thumb_upGood report

thumb_downBad report

A Beginner's Guide to the Key Scientific Terms in the Henry Ford Health Study

content_copy

delete

Based on 3 sources

A Beginner's Guide to the Key Scientific Terms in the Henry Ford Health Study

Introduction: Empowering Your Understanding

This guide is designed to help you understand the core scientific language used in the research paper titled, "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study."

Our goal is not to argue for or against the study's findings. Instead, this document aims to equip you with the fundamental tools to read and interpret the research on its own terms. By understanding the key vocabulary of scientific analysis—from study design to statistical measurement—you can begin to engage with the material directly and build a foundation for your own informed perspective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Study's Foundation: What is a "Birth Cohort Study"?

1.1. Birth Cohort Study

In simple terms, a birth cohort study is a research method where scientists follow a group of people (a "cohort") who were all born around the same time, over a long period, to see what happens to their health.

Think of it like this: imagine tracking two different classrooms of kindergarteners all the way through their high school graduation. By observing them over many years, you could compare how different early experiences might relate to their future academic or career paths. A birth cohort study does something similar but for health outcomes.

The paper describes its own methodology this way in the "Study Design" section:

"This retrospective study evaluated health outcomes of a consecutive cohort of children born between 2000 and 2016..."

The key insight of this study design is that it allows researchers to compare two sub-groups within the larger cohort. In this paper, the scientists compared the long-term health of children who received vaccines with the health of children who did not.

Now that we understand how the study was set up, let's look at how the researchers measured health events within these groups.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Measuring Events: What is an "Incidence Rate"?

2.1. Incidence Rate

An incidence rate is a measurement of how often a new health condition appears in a group over a specific period of time. It helps researchers understand how frequently an event, like a diagnosis, occurs.

A key part of calculating this rate is the concept of patient-years (pt-yrs). This is a standardized way to measure time when people are in a study for different lengths of time.

• One person followed for 10 years equals 10 patient-years.

• Ten people followed for 1 year each also equals 10 patient-years.

This allows for a fair comparison, even if one group was observed for a longer total time than another. For example, Table 2 in the study shows the incidence rate for developing any chronic health condition:

For the "Chronic Health Condition" outcome, the incidence rate for the vaccinated group was 277.3 per 1,000,000 patient-years.

The primary benefit of using an incidence rate is that it provides an apples-to-apples way to see how often a condition arose in each group, regardless of differences in follow-up time.

Knowing the rate at which conditions occur in each group is the first step; the next is to directly compare those rates to see if there's a difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Comparing the Groups: What is a "Hazard Ratio (HR)"?

3.1. Hazard Ratio (HR)

The Hazard Ratio (HR) is the main statistical tool the study uses to compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. A Hazard Ratio tells you how much more or less likely one group is to experience a health event compared to the other group at any given point in time.

Here is a simple guide to interpreting the number:

• HR = 1: This means both groups have an identical risk. There is no difference.

• HR > 1: This indicates the risk is higher in the group being studied (in this case, the vaccinated group).

• HR < 1: This indicates the risk is lower in the group being studied.

The study's primary finding, detailed in the "Results" section, uses a Hazard Ratio:

"After multivariate adjustment, Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition (HR 2.54...)"

This specific number means that according to the study's model, vaccinated children were about 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with a chronic condition at any given moment compared to the unvaccinated children, after the researchers adjusted for other factors like gender, race, and birth weight.

But how certain are the researchers about that "2.54" number? That's where the next two terms come in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Measuring Certainty: "Confidence Interval" and "P-value"

When scientists report a result, they also need to report how confident they are in that result. The Confidence Interval and P-value are two ways they do this.

4.1. Confidence Interval (CI)

A Confidence Interval (CI) is a "range of certainty." Instead of giving a single, exact number, scientists provide a range where the true Hazard Ratio most likely lies.

For the study's main finding, the Hazard Ratio of 2.54 was accompanied by a Confidence Interval of (CI 2.16-2.97).

The most important thing to look for is whether the number 1.0 is inside that range.

• If the range includes 1.0 (e.g., 0.80-1.20), the result is not considered statistically significant, because it's possible there is no real difference in risk.

• If the entire range is above 1.0 (as this one is), it provides strong evidence that the increased risk is statistically significant and not just a random fluke.

4.2. P-value

A P-value represents the probability that the results observed in the study were simply due to random chance. The study's "Statistical Analysis" section sets a clear standard:

A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

This means that for a result to be considered "statistically significant," there must be less than a 5% probability that the difference found between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was just a random coincidence. A smaller p-value indicates a stronger result.

Let's put all of these concepts together to read a complete finding from the study.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Putting It All Together: Deconstructing a Key Finding

This final section will walk through a complete result from the study's conclusion, applying everything we have learned.

The paper summarizes its main finding in the abstract and conclusion: "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."

The statistical evidence for this sentence, found in the "Results" section and Table 3, is (HR 2.54, CI 2.16-2.97) and p<0.0001. Here is what that means in plain language:

Term from the Study

What It Means for a Beginner

Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.54

The vaccinated group was about 2.5 times more likely to develop a chronic condition.

Confidence Interval (CI) 2.16-2.97

The researchers are confident the "true" increased likelihood is somewhere between 2.16 and 2.97 times. Since this range is entirely above 1.0, the result is considered significant.

P-value <0.0001

The probability that this result is due to random chance is extremely low (less than 0.01%).

By learning to decode terms like HR, CI, and P-value, you are taking the first and most important step toward engaging with scientific literature directly and critically.

thumb_upGood report

thumb_downBad report

The discussion of the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) birth cohort study's validity concerns stems from two main perspectives presented in the sources: the limitations acknowledged by the study's authors and the criticisms regarding alleged suppression and fudged data raised by commentators.

1. Validity Concerns Acknowledged by the Study Authors (Internal Limitations)

The researchers of the study, "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study," identified several methodological limitations that temper the interpretation of their findings1.

Retrospective Design and Unidentified Confounders

The study is retrospective, meaning the researchers cannot entirely exclude the possibility of unidentified confounders1. Uncontrolled factors such as socioeconomic status, diet, or lifestyle, which might influence health outcomes, were not accounted for in the analysis2.

However, the authors attempted to temper this concern:

• They did adjust for several important baseline confounders, including gender, race, gestational age, and birthweight23.

• The magnitude of the observed associations (with some Hazard Ratios ranging from 2.5 to 6 times the risk) suggests that the findings are less likely to be solely due to uncontrolled confounding2.

• They tested for potential uncontrolled confounding by evaluating a control outcome—cancer—which has no expected causal association with vaccination2. They found no association between vaccine exposure and cancer, which contributes to the internal validity of the study's findings45.

Ascertainment Bias due to Healthcare Utilization

A significant concern noted by the authors is the potential for ascertainment bias due to differences in healthcare utilization between the two groups4.

• Well visits often coincide with the vaccination schedule, providing more opportunities for assessment and diagnosis in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children4.

• Children exposed to vaccines had an average of seven annual encounters, while unexposed children had an average of only two annual encounters6.

To address this bias, the authors conducted sensitivity analyses:

• They repeated the analysis using only subjects who had at least one healthcare encounter during enrollment78. Even under this constraint, vaccine exposure was still associated with a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition (HR 1.87, CI 1.60-2.19)7.

• They noted that when unexposed children were diagnosed with a chronic health condition, their average annual encounters increased to almost five, suggesting that parents sought care when necessary for serious conditions (e.g., asthma, diabetes, anaphylaxis)6.

• The authors concluded that their findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health resources because the association between vaccination and chronic conditions was independent of these utilization factors9.

Follow-Up Duration and Reverse Causality

• The median follow-up time was shorter in the unexposed group (461 days) compared to the exposed group (970 days)10. To ensure this did not influence results, sensitivity analyses were conducted for subjects enrolled for at least 1, 3, and 5 years, which demonstrated consistent results and increasing risks over time811.

• The study design evaluated only whether vaccine exposure was associated with clinically relevant outcomes, and did not evaluate temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits the investigation but minimizes the potential for reverse causality912.

Reliance on Administrative Data

The study relied on diagnosis codes in administrative data (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM), which is a common practice in epidemiologic research but carries inherent limitations413.

2. Validity Concerns Raised by Commentators (External Critique)

Miles Matthysse, the author discussed on the Lenny and Maria Podcasts, critiques the study not for its statistical limitations, but for the possibility that the data was intentionally manipulated or "fudged" to minimize the findings14.

Alleged Fudging of Autism Data

The commentator suspects the autism figures were "fudged" by the study authors, potentially through a false narrow definition14.

• While the study found only 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated group versus 1 case in the unvaccinated group, leading to an estimated 9 times greater likelihood of autism in the vaccinated1415, the commentator notes that the risk increase for related conditions was much higher: up to 11 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders and up to 25 times higher risk for autoimmune disorders14.

• Since autism is poorly defined and understood, creating a false narrow definition to exclude cases would be easy, making the autism numbers the most suspect area for potential manipulation14.

Questionable Interpretation of Significant Risk

The commentator also criticizes what is perceived as hedging by those involved in bringing the story to light. For example, a Dr. McCulla reportedly implied that only findings with a risk over 4 were significant, but the commentator argues that this is "an outright lie" because in a properly conducted study, any number over about 1.5 is a gigantic red flag14.

Absence of Cases (Infinite Risk)

The study noted that for serious conditions such as Brain dysfunction, Diabetes, ADHD, Tics, and behavioral/learning/intellectual/other psychological disability, all cases occurred in the vaccinated group, and zero cases occurred in the unvaccinated group516. The commentator notes that mathematically, this means the calculated risk increase for the vaccinated group is "technically infinite," which is presented as a tragic and significant finding that didn't even allow the authors to perform calculation of standard risk ratios17.

Alleged Suppression and Career Risk

A major concern regarding the validity and integrity of the study findings rests on the claim that the study was completed by a mainstream institution but was deliberately buried18. Dr. Marcus Zervos, one of the authors, was allegedly caught on camera stating that publishing the findings would have ended his career, suggesting the data was too explosive for the establishment to accept1819.

Analysis of a Leaked Vaccination Study and Subsequent Commentary

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes information from three sources: a formal medical study, an article by Miles Mathis, and a podcast summarizing that article. The core subject is a retrospective birth cohort study conducted by researchers at the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), which compared health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The Mathis article and the podcast allege that this study, purportedly led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, was deliberately suppressed due to its explosive findings. These sources claim the study was leaked via a documentary and that it shows vaccinated children have a dramatically higher risk—up to 25 times greater for certain conditions—of developing chronic diseases. The author, Miles Mathis, frames these findings as evidence of a "knowing genocide" driven by profit, calling for the complete abolition of vaccines and a total loss of trust in medical and governmental institutions.

The actual study, authored by Lois Lamerato, PhD, et al. (including Dr. Marcus Zervos), confirms a statistically significant association between vaccination and an increased risk for several chronic conditions. After multivariate adjustment, the study found that vaccinated children had a 2.54 times higher risk of developing a chronic health condition overall. Significant increased risks were identified for asthma (HR 4.29), autoimmune disease (HR 5.96), and neurodevelopmental disorders (HR 5.53). However, the study did not find a statistically significant link to autism.

Mathis critiques figures like documentary filmmaker Del Bigtree and Dr. McCullough for, in his view, not being sufficiently radical in their conclusions, accusing them of leaving the door open for new vaccines or acting as a controlled opposition. He vehemently rejects calls for more research, labeling them stalling tactics, and advocates for immediate, drastic action, including the arrest of pharmaceutical executives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Allegedly Suppressed Henry Ford Health System Study

The central narrative presented in the Miles Mathis article and the "Lenny and Maria" podcast revolves around a major medical study that was purportedly completed and then deliberately hidden from the public.

The Central Claim

• A "Huge Long-Term Study" Was Buried: The core assertion is that a massive, long-term study comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals was conducted by a mainstream institution, the Henry Ford Health Center, under the leadership of Dr. Marcus Zervos.

• Massive Scope: The study is described as a "massive review" that analyzed a database of 18,500 patients over a period of decades.

• Deliberate Suppression: According to the narrative, the study's findings were so "contrary to the idea of vaccine safety" that it was pulled from publication by its authors.

• The Leak: The Mathis article and podcast state that the only reason the report is public is because it was leaked in a documentary by Del Bigtree, identified as "An Inconvenient Study" (a sequel to "VAXXED").

Dr. Zervos's Alleged Statement

A key element of the suppression narrative is a claim made about the study's leader. The Mathis article and the podcast both state that Dr. Zervos was recorded on camera saying that if he had published the study's findings, his career would have been "over."

2. Comparative Analysis of Health Outcome Claims

The Mathis article and the Lamerato et al. study both present data on the comparative risk of chronic conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. While there is overlap, the framing and specific figures cited in the Mathis article sometimes differ from the primary results published in the study. The sensitivity analysis in the Lamerato paper, which focused on subjects enrolled for at least five years, produced a Hazard Ratio (HR 4.05) that aligns closely with Mathis's "four times" claim.

Health Outcome / Claim

Claim from Miles Mathis Article & Podcast

Findings from Lamerato et al. Study (Adjusted HR)

Overall Chronic Disease

A four times greater risk for chronic disease in the vaccinated group after 5 years. This is also framed as a 500% increased risk.

An overall 2.54 times increased risk (HR 2.54, CI 2.16-2.97). Sensitivity analysis for subjects enrolled for at least 5 years found a 4.05 times increased risk (HR 4.05, CI 2.82-5.83).

Autoimmune Disorders

A 25 times higher risk for the vaccinated group.

A 5.96 times increased risk (HR 5.96, CI 1.48-24.11). The association was statistically significant (p=0.02).

Neurodevelopmental Disorders

An 11 times higher risk for the vaccinated group.

A 5.53 times increased risk (HR 5.53, CI 2.91-10.51). The association was statistically significant (p<0.0001).

Autism

An up to 9 times higher risk for the vaccinated group (based on 23 cases vs. 1 case).

No statistically significant association found. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.62 (CI 0.10-3.69). The study notes the number of cases was small.

ADD / ADHD

Zero cases were found in the unvaccinated group, preventing a mathematical calculation and implying an infinite risk for the vaccinated group.

No Hazard Ratio could be calculated because "all cases occurred in the group exposed to vaccination and no cases occurred in the unexposed group." This was also true for Diabetes, Tics, and several disability types.

Asthma

Not explicitly quantified in the Mathis text, but shown as a major disparity in an accompanying image.

A 4.29 times increased risk (HR 4.29, CI 3.26-5.65). The association was statistically significant (p<0.0001).

Graphical Data Presented by Mathis

The Mathis article includes an image containing nine graphs that plot the cumulative number of office visits over time. The graphs consistently show a higher trajectory for one group (orange line) compared to another (blue line) for the following conditions:

• Asthma

• Allergic rhinitis

• Breathing issues

• Behavioral Issues

• ADHD

• Respiratory Infection

• Otitis media

• Ear pain

• Infection - Other

While the lines are not explicitly labeled, the context of the article implies the higher orange line represents the vaccinated cohort and the lower blue line represents the unvaccinated cohort.

3. The Lamerato et al. Study: A Detailed Overview

The formal paper, titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study," provides the scientific basis for the claims.

Study Authors: Lois Lamerato, PhD; Abigail Chatfield, MS; Amy Tang, PhD; Marcus Zervos, MD. Institution: Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.

Objective and Design

• Objective: "To compare the short and long-term health outcomes, within a captured payer environment, of children exposed to one or more vaccines to those unexposed."

• Design: A retrospective birth cohort study.

• Participants: 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016. Of these, 1,957 had no exposure to vaccination and 16,511 had received at least one vaccine.

Primary Findings and Conclusion

• Overall Risk: After multivariate adjustment, "exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition (HR 2.54, CI 2.16-2.96)."

• Specific Conditions: The study found statistically significant associations between vaccination and an increased risk of:

    ◦ Asthma (HR 4.29)

    ◦ Autoimmune Disease (HR 5.96)

    ◦ Atopic Disease (HR 3.03)

    ◦ Neurodevelopmental Disorder (HR 5.53)

    ◦ Eczema (HR 1.31)

• Conditions Without Significant Association: The study did not find a statistically significant association for cancer, food allergy, autism, neurological disorders, or seizure disorders.

• 10-Year Probability: The probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the vaccinated group versus 83% in the unvaccinated group.

• Study Conclusion: "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... This suggests that in certain susceptible children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions."

Strengths and Limitations

• Strengths: The study highlights its major strengths as evaluating a captured population, using a consecutive birth cohort, and relying on medical records rather than parental recall. It also notes the inclusion of a "completely unexposed cohort."

• Limitations: The authors acknowledge limitations inherent to a retrospective study, including the possibility of unidentified confounders. They specifically note that unvaccinated children have less healthcare utilization, which could introduce "ascertainment bias." To address this, sensitivity analyses were conducted which, according to the paper, yielded consistent results and suggest the findings "do not appear to be due to differential use of health resources."

4. Critique and Verdict from the Miles Mathis Article

The Mathis article uses the study's findings as a foundation for a sweeping condemnation of the medical establishment and specific individuals.

Critique of Public Figures

• Del Bigtree: Criticized for stating he wants to "fix the vaccine program, not end it." Mathis suggests this leaves the door open for "a whole new slate of 'new and improved' vaccines, even more expensive." He is also accused of trying to "break the autism-vaccine connection" by focusing on the small number of cases in the study.

• Dr. McCullough: Criticized for stating that the field of vaccinology had "good intentions" that are "backfiring." Mathis rejects this, arguing the intent was always profit. McCullough is also accused of making an "outright lie" by suggesting only risk numbers over 4 are significant in such studies.

Final Verdict and Recommendations

• "A Knowing Genocide": The author concludes that the situation is not merely fraud but a deliberate "knowing genocide." The primary motivation is declared to be "to make as much dirty money as possible, letting any amount of collateral damage slide."

• Call for Total Distrust: The article calls for a complete loss of trust in the CDC, FDA, WHO, Congress, the President, and even personal doctors and veterinarians.

• Radical Actions Demanded: The author demands that all vaccines be outlawed, all vaccine makers be put into receivership with assets seized, and their top officers arrested as criminals.

• "Go Amish on this Question": The article advises readers to adopt an "Amish" position on vaccination "and never return."

• Rejection of Further Research: The call for "more studies" is dismissed as a stalling tactic designed to allow "millions more children and other innocents" to be harmed while "fake studies are being done by entities profiting from this genocide."

5. Additional Context: The Senate Hearing

The Mathis article references a separate event to bolster its claims. It describes a Senate hearing where Stanford doctor Jake Scott presented 661 peer-reviewed studies to prove the safety of childhood vaccines. According to Mathis, attorney Aaron Siri, under cross-examination, demonstrated that "exactly none of these 661 studies was relevant" because they lacked proper control groups or placebos. The article concludes that Dr. Scott was forced to admit he had not reviewed all the studies he presented.

thumb_upGood report

thumb_downBad report

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Project Phoenix Initiative: Independent Review of Long-Term Pediatric Health Outcomes and Vaccine Exposure

Report Date: October 2025 (Based on source commentary date) Prepared For: Global Stakeholder Community & Concerned Citizens Prepared By: Independent Review and Analysis Team (Drawing exclusively on available source materials)

I. Executive Summary

This report details the findings of a massive, long-term birth cohort study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, allegedly conducted by a major mainstream institution, the Henry Ford Health Center. The central premise of this analysis is that this highly significant study, covering 18,468 patients over decades, was intentionally withheld from publication due to the catastrophic nature of its findings, which directly contradict the prevailing narrative of vaccine safety.

The quantitative data derived from the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) study indicate a highly concerning association between vaccine exposure and chronic health conditions.

Key Quantitative Findings (HFHS Study Data)

• Overall Chronic Disease Risk: Exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96) in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.

  • This result was consistent across sensitivity analyses, showing the risk rising to HR 4.05 for subjects enrolled for at least five years.

• 10-Year Chronic Disease-Free Survival: The overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination, compared to 83% in the unexposed group.

• Specific Condition Risks (Adjusted HRs): The association was primarily driven by:

  • Autoimmune Disease: Hazard Ratio of 5.96 (CI 1.48-24.11).

  • Neurodevelopmental Disorder: Hazard Ratio of 5.53 (CI 2.91-10.51).

  • Asthma: Hazard Ratio of 4.29 (CI 3.26-5.65).

• Infinity Risk Factors: For several conditions, including ADHD, Diabetes, Brain Dysfunction, Tics, and Behavioral/Learning disabilities, all observed cases occurred exclusively in the vaccinated group, yielding zero cases in the unvaccinated group. Mathematically, this absence of cases in the unexposed cohort results in a calculated risk increase of infinity for the vaccinated group.

Critical Strategic Implications (Mathis Analysis)

The author reviewing this leaked information posits that the study's attempted suppression—with the lead investigator allegedly stating his career would be "over" if he published—indicates that the industry's motivation was never public health, but rather making "dirty money".

The ultimate verdict presented is that the systemic actions surrounding vaccine promotion and suppression of adverse data amount to a "knowing genocide". Consequently, the source advocates for extreme, immediate action:

1. Complete and total loss of trust in institutions like the CDC, FDA, and medical doctors.

2. Outlawing all vaccines and placing the manufacturing companies into receivership.

3. Rejecting calls for "more studies," viewing them as merely a stalling tactic.

II. Mandate and Context

A. Study Background and Alleged Suppression

The foundation of this analysis rests on a retrospective, long-term birth cohort study conducted by researchers at the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in Detroit, MI, including Dr. Marcus Zervos. The study aimed to compare the short and long-term health outcomes of children exposed to one or more vaccines to those unexposed, within a captured payer environment.

The HFHS study represents a rarity in vaccine safety research because it fulfills a key recommendation made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2013: evaluating the health outcomes of entirely unvaccinated populations versus those receiving one or more vaccines. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to compare multiple clinical outcomes over time between vaccinated and completely unexposed children using medical records within a captured payer environment.

The study examined 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 and enrolled in the Health Alliance Plan (HAP) insurance. Of this cohort, 1,957 children had no exposure to vaccination, while 16,511 had received at least one vaccine.

The investigative author asserts that the study was completed by a mainstream institution but was "deliberately buried". The report was allegedly leaked via a documentary, An Inconvenient Study. The motivation for the suppression is claimed to be highly dramatic: Dr. Zervos was allegedly recorded stating that if he had published the findings, his career would have been over.

B. Methodology of the Henry Ford Health Study

1. Design and Setting

• Design: Birth cohort study (retrospective).

• Setting: Integrated healthcare system (HFHS) in Michigan.

• Participants: 18,468 children enrolled in the health system insurance plan, born 2000–2016.

2. Data Sources and Follow-up

• Data were sourced from medical, clinical, and payer records from HFHS and HAP, supplemented by the State of Michigan immunization registry.

• Vaccinations evaluated included all vaccines on the CDC Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

• The median follow-up time was 904 days for all subjects.

3. Outcomes Assessment

The primary outcome was a chronic health composite outcome. This composite included conditions identified by the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative and augmented with conditions deemed of public concern by the CDC. A subject was classified as having a chronic health condition if they had one or more of the following:

Category

Specific Conditions Included in Composite Outcome

Immune/Atopic

Asthma, Food Allergy, Atopic Disease, Autoimmune Disease

Neurological/NDD

Brain Dysfunction (encephalopathy/encephalitis), Seizure Disorder, Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Autism, Tics, ADD/ADHD, Developmental Delay, Speech, Learning/Motor/Intellectual/Psychological disability)

Other Chronic

Diabetes, Cancer, Mental Health Disorder

4. Statistical Methods

Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were used to evaluate the association between health outcomes and vaccination status, controlling for factors such as gender, race, birth weight, and prematurity.

III. Quantitative Analysis: Differential Health Outcomes

The Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) study utilized rigorous epidemiological methods to compare chronic health outcomes between the exposed and unexposed populations. The overall finding challenges prevailing assumptions regarding long-term vaccine safety.

A. Overall Risk for Chronic Health Conditions

The analysis demonstrated a significant independent association between vaccine exposure and the development of chronic disease.

Metric

Result (Vaccinated vs. Unexposed)

Citation

Overall Chronic Condition Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)

2.48 (CI 2.12-2.91)

Overall Chronic Condition Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

2.54 (CI 2.16-2.97)

Interpretation (Mathis Source)

Risk is four times greater or a 500% increased risk for the vaccinated group after five years for chronic disease.

The study authors acknowledged this finding, stating that, "in contrast to our expectations," exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition. This suggests that for certain children, vaccine exposure may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition.

B. Condition-Specific Risk Detail

The increased overall chronic disease risk was driven primarily by several immune and neurodevelopmental disorders. The adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) showed particularly high risks for specific conditions:

1. Autoimmune and Atopic Disorders

Vaccine exposure was significantly associated with major immune-related conditions:

Condition

Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

Key Findings/Details

Citation

Autoimmune Disease

5.96 (CI 1.48-24.11)

The exposed group showed a 6-fold increased risk. The author critique claims a staggering 25 times higher risk for autoimmune disorders.

Asthma

4.29 (CI 3.26-5.65)

Over 4-fold increased risk of asthma. The exposed group had 145.6 incidence per million patient-years vs. 35.6 in the unexposed.

Atopic Disease

3.03 (CI 2.01-4.57)

Eczema

1.31 (CI 1.13-1.52)

Independently associated with increased risk.

Asthma Attack/Bronchospasm

5.82 (CI 3.58-9.47)

Over 6-fold risk. Incidence rate ratio was 6.30.

Ear Infection (Chronic)

7.89 (CI 6.08-10.24)

High incidence rate ratio of 5.67.

2. Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD)

The study found a strong association between vaccine exposure and the development of neurodevelopmental disorders.

NDD Category

Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

Key Findings/Details

Citation

Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Composite)

5.53 (CI 2.91-10.51)

The author critique claims an 11 times higher risk. This risk was independent of birth factors, gender, and race.

Speech Disorder

4.47 (CI 2.05-9.74)

A primary driver of the NDD composite finding.

Developmental Delay

3.28 (CI 1.13-9.55)

3. Conditions with 'Infinite' Risk Calculations

For several conditions, all cases occurred exclusively in the vaccinated group, meaning risk metrics could not be formally calculated because the unexposed group had zero events:

• ADHD (262 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

• Diabetes (42 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

• Brain Dysfunction (8 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

• Behavioral Disability (165 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

• Learning Disability (65 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

• Tics (46 cases in exposed, 0 in unexposed).

The critical analyst points out that this scenario results in an increased risk of infinity for vaccination.

C. Limitations and Sensitivity Analyses

The HFHS researchers acknowledged key limitations, primarily that unvaccinated children generally have less healthcare utilization, which could introduce ascertainment bias (i.e., less opportunity for diagnosis in the unexposed group).

However, the study addressed this:

• Exposed children averaged 7 annual encounters, while unexposed children averaged 2 annual encounters, though unexposed children with a chronic condition averaged nearly 5 annual encounters, suggesting parents sought care when needed.

• Sensitivity analyses were conducted for subjects enrolled for at least 1, 3, and 5 years, and for subjects with at least one healthcare encounter. These analyses consistently demonstrated that vaccine exposure was associated with a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition, confirming that the findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health resources.

The study also found no statistically significant association between vaccine exposure and cancer, which the researchers suggest acts as a "control outcome" and contributes to the study's internal validity.

IV. Critical Review and Strategic Implications

The sources suggest that the data, particularly the high hazard ratios, reveal a catastrophic failure in public health oversight and medical ethics. This section details the critical analysis regarding the motivations, integrity, and operational transparency of the vaccination industry and related regulatory bodies.

A. The Intentionality of Harm

The most severe conclusion drawn from the alleged suppression of the HFHS data is that the consequences are not merely fraud or mistake. The analyst strongly rejects the notion of "good intentions" sometimes attributed to the field of vaccinology, a phrase used by a commentator Dr. McCullough in the documentary.

The counter-argument is that the true motivation of the medical industry, led by the vaccine industry, was always "to make as much dirty money as possible," regardless of the collateral damage, which includes what the author calls a "genocide and mass poisoning".

B. Questioning Vaccine Advocates and Calls for Further Research

The critical review targets those who acknowledge safety issues but do not call for the immediate cessation of vaccination.

• Critique of Dell Bigtree: Dell Bigtree, the documentary creator, claims he wants to "fix the vaccine program, not end it". The author views this position as suspicious and potentially a form of "opposition control," leaving the door open for a new line-up of supposedly safer, and likely more expensive, novel vaccines promoted by vested interests.

• Rejection of Further Studies: The call for "more studies," often championed by documentary figures, is deemed a "stalling tactic". The argument is that the evidence is already "crystal clear" (particularly considering the findings even before the HFHS leak) and that waiting for new studies, which would be performed by entities profiting from the current system, only ensures millions more will be harmed or killed.

C. Systemic Fraud and Data Integrity

The sources highlight a profound lack of integrity within the system used to prove vaccine safety:

1. Suppression by Key Figures: The lead researcher, Dr. Zervos, allegedly indicated that publication of the findings would have ruined his career. This suggests that individuals in powerful positions had knowledge of the data and understood the severity of the findings, implying systemic complicity in concealing the truth.

2. Irrelevant Safety Data: A Senate hearing was cited where a doctor presented 661 peer-reviewed studies supposedly proving childhood vaccine safety. Under cross-examination, it was revealed that exactly none of these 661 studies was relevant, as they lacked proper control groups or placebos, or did not focus on childhood vaccines. This indicates that safety data presented by major institutions are often "paid for and rigged by Big Pharma".

V. Conclusion and Call to Action

The evidence, derived from a mainstream medical institution's large-scale study and the critical analysis of its subsequent suppression, necessitates a complete re-evaluation of the childhood immunization schedule and the institutions promoting it.

A. The Final Verdict

The sources conclude that the operation of the vaccine industry and its associated regulatory/medical institutions represents a massive fraud, a theft of taxpayer money, and, most critically, a "knowing genocide".

The medical industry, led by the vaccine industry, is determined to murder people for profit, demonstrating that they "couldn't care less" about human life.

B. Strategic Recommendations: A Mandate for Dissolution

Given the severity of the findings and the institutional corruption highlighted, the author provides a clear set of non-negotiable recommendations:

1. Immediate and Total Loss of Trust: Individuals must immediately stop trusting the entire industry and all its institutions, including the CDC, the FDA, WHO, Congress, the President, and their own doctors and veterinarians.

2. Vaccine Prohibition: All vaccines must be outlawed as inherently dangerous to the public good.

3. Corporate Seizure and Arrests: All vaccine manufacturing companies should be immediately placed into receivership, their assets seized, and their top officers arrested and tried for high crimes against humanity.

4. Embrace Non-Compliance: The populace is advised to "go Amish on this question and never return," signifying a complete withdrawal from and rejection of the vaccine system.

C. Future State Imperative

If these radical steps are not taken immediately, the sources project a catastrophic rise in chronic diseases, with conditions like autism escalating rapidly, and the potential for virtually every person to suffer from brain damage, diabetes, and inflammation. The time for questioning or demanding further research is over; the evidence demands an immediate uprising and accountability.

Analysis Summary of Henry Ford Health System Study Data:

Health Outcome

Vaccinated N (Incidence per 10^6 pt-yrs)

Unexposed N (Incidence per 10^6 pt-yrs)

Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)

P-value

Chronic Health Condition (Overall)

4,732 (277.3)

160 (111.7)

2.54 (2.16-2.97)

<0.0001

Asthma

2,867 (145.6)

52 (35.6)

4.29 (3.26-5.65)

<0.0001

Autoimmune Disease

201 (8.4)

2 (1.4)

5.96 (1.48-24.11)

0.02

Neurodevelopmental Disorder

1,029 (50.2)

9 (8.2)

5.53 (2.91-10.51)

<0.0001

Speech Disorder

463 (21.8)

6 (5.4)

4.47 (2.05-9.74)

<0.001

ADHD

262 (12.1)

0 (0.0)

$\infty$

N/A

Diabetes

42 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

$\infty$

N/A

(Page 20 of 20 - End of Report)

A Chronological Report on the Henry Ford Health System Birth Cohort Study and its Subsequent Disclosures

1.0 Introduction: The Scientific and Public Health Context

This report provides a chronological account of the events surrounding a significant, long-term birth cohort study conducted by the Henry Ford Health System. Based exclusively on information contained within the study's research paper and subsequent media analysis, this document details the study's impetus, its methodological framework, its controversial findings, and the alleged events that led to its unconventional public release.

The need for a comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations grew from several decades of evolving public health trends and scientific inquiry. According to the background provided in the study documentation, these factors created a data gap that researchers sought to address.

• Over the past 30 years: An increase in the prevalence of chronic health conditions in children was documented.

• 1994: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule consisted of five vaccines.

• 2011: A study found that approximately 43% of U.S. children had at least one of 20 assessed chronic health conditions.

• 2013: An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report highlighted a lack of research comparing the health outcomes of fully vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated populations and recommended that such retrospective studies be conducted.

• 2020: The CDC's vaccine schedule had expanded to include 15 vaccines.

It was in direct response to the IOM's 2013 call for such research that the Henry Ford Health System study was conceived, aiming to use its integrated health data to finally address this critical gap in public health knowledge.

2.0 The Study's Methodological Timeline (2000-2017)

To understand the study's findings, it is essential to first understand its design and chronological parameters. This section outlines the specific operational framework of the birth cohort study as described in the official research paper, providing a timeline for its data collection and observation periods.

Researchers designed the study with specific chronological parameters and institutional protocols to ensure a comprehensive retrospective analysis.

• Study Cohort Period (2000-2016): The retrospective study was designed to evaluate a consecutive cohort of 18,468 children who were born between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016.

• Observation Period (Birth to 2017): Each subject was observed from their date of birth until either their disenrollment from the Health Alliance Plan (HAP) or December 31, 2017, whichever occurred first.

• Institutional Review: Prior to the commencement of research, the study was reviewed and formally approved by the Henry Ford Health System’s Institutional Review Board.

Following the conclusion of this data collection and observation period, researchers proceeded with the analysis that would produce the study's primary findings.

3.0 The Study’s Primary Findings

The study's primary findings revealed statistically significant disparities in health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. This section reports the principal outcomes as presented in the "Abstract" and "Results" sections of the Lamerato et al. research paper.

• Overall Chronic Health Risk: After multivariate adjustment for factors including gender, race, birth weight, and prematurity, vaccine exposure was associated with a 2.54-fold increased risk (Hazard Ratio 2.54, 95% CI: 2.16-2.97) of developing a chronic health condition.

• Condition-Specific Risk Increase: The study reported a statistically significant increased risk for vaccinated children for several specific conditions. The adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) from Table 3 include:

    ◦ Asthma: HR 4.29 (95% CI: 3.26-5.65)

    ◦ Autoimmune Disease: HR 5.96 (95% CI: 1.48-24.11)

    ◦ Atopic Disease: HR 3.03 (95% CI: 2.01-4.57)

    ◦ Eczema: HR 1.31 (95% CI: 1.13-1.52)

    ◦ Neurodevelopmental Disorder: HR 5.53 (95% CI: 2.91-10.51)

• Conditions with Zero Unvaccinated Cases: For several conditions—including ADHD, diabetes, tics, brain dysfunction, and behavioral, learning, and intellectual disabilities—all recorded cases occurred in the vaccinated group, with zero cases reported in the unvaccinated group. This mathematical constraint prevented the calculation of a comparative hazard ratio and implies an undefined or theoretically infinite relative risk for these conditions within the study's dataset.

• 10-Year Probability: The time-to-event analysis concluded that the probability of a child being free of any chronic health condition at 10 years of follow-up was 43% for the vaccinated group, compared to 83% for the unvaccinated group.

The publication of these stark statistical outcomes was expected; however, according to subsequent reports, the study would not follow a conventional path to peer review.

4.0 Post-Completion Events: Allegations of Suppression and Public Leak

Following the completion of the study's analysis, a series of events allegedly prevented its formal publication, leading instead to its release through unconventional channels. The information in this section is drawn from commentary sources that analyzed the study's release.

According to a commentary by author Miles Mathis, subsequently analyzed in a podcast, the chronological sequence of these alleged post-completion events is reported as follows:

• Withdrawal from Publication: It is claimed that the study was ultimately "pulled from publication by its authors."

• Lead Researcher's Statement: The same sources allege that one of the study's authors, Dr. Marcus Zervos, was recorded on camera stating that his career would have been over had he published the findings.

• Documentary Leak: The report was allegedly leaked to the public by Del Bigtree through a documentary film titled "An Inconvenient Study."

• Congressional Disclosure: The same sources claim that the leaked report was also provided to the U.S. Congress.

The public release of the study via these alternative channels placed its findings into a broader, and reportedly active, political and social context.

5.0 Contemporary Events and Reactions (c. September-October 2025)

In an article dated October 13, 2025, author Miles Mathis contextualized the study's leak by citing several contemporary events. This final section chronicles those discussions and policy actions as described in the source material.

The following events were reported by Mathis to have taken place in the weeks surrounding the study's public disclosure:

• "Recent" Press Conference: Mathis referenced a recent press conference featuring Trump and Kennedy in which autism was allegedly blamed on Tylenol.

• Florida State Policy: The article claimed that Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis and his surgeon general were "no longer recommending any vaccines."

• "Last Month's" Senate Hearing: A Senate hearing from the previous month was described, where Dr. Jake Scott reportedly presented 661 studies intended to prove the safety of childhood vaccines. Under cross-examination by attorney Aaron Siri, it was alleged that none of the studies were relevant because they lacked proper controls or placebos. The source further claims that Dr. Scott admitted to not having reviewed all of the studies he presented.

This report has provided a strictly chronological account of the events concerning the Henry Ford Health birth cohort study, its findings, and its subsequent disclosure, based entirely on the available source texts.

Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study

Lois Lamerato, PhD1, Abigail Chatfield, MS1, Amy Tang, PhD1, Marcus Zervos, MD2,3

Henry Ford Health System, Detroit MI

Department of Public Health Sciences1

Division of Infectious Diseases2

Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit MI3

Running head: Association of childhood vaccination on chronic health in children

Word Count: 292 (Abstract), 4143 (Body)

Corresponding Author:

Lois Lamerato, PhD

Senior Scientist

Public Health Sciences

Henry Ford Health System

1 Ford Place – 5C

Detroit, MI 48202

Phone: 313-874-6367

llamera1@hfhs.org

Financial Disclosure: This study had no external funding.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the short and long-term health outcomes, within a captured payer environment, of

children exposed to one or more vaccines to those unexposed.

Design: Birth cohort study

Setting: Integrated healthcare system in Michigan.

Participants: 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 enrolled in the health system insurance plan.

Main Outcome Measures: Development of a chronic health condition over time.

Results: A total of 18,468 consecutive subjects met eligibility criteria for the study, of which 1,957 had no

exposure to vaccination and 16,511 had received at least one vaccine during their enrollment in the plan

with various levels of exposure. After multivariate adjustment, Cox proportional hazards modeling

demonstrated that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of

developing a chronic health condition (HR 2.53, CI 2.16-2.96). Of the chronic health conditions, exposure

to vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of asthma (HR 4.25, CI 3.23-5.59),

autoimmune disease (HR 4.79, CI 1.36-16.94), atopic disease (HR 3.03, CI 2.01-4.57), eczema (HR 1.31,

CI 1.13-1.52), and neurodevelopmental disorder (HR 5.53, CI 2.91-10.51). There were no chronic health

conditions associated with an increased risk in the unexposed group. The overall probability of being free

of a chronic health condition at 10-years of follow up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination and

83% in the unexposed group.

Conclusion: 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.

Introduction

Over the past 30 years, the prevalence of chronic health conditions in children has increased.1

According to a 2011 study, approximately 43% of children in the United States (32 million) have at least 1

of the 20 chronic health conditions assessed in the study.2 Despite this, there is a paucity of published data

to determine contributing factors.

Vaccination has reduced the incidence of certain targeted childhood infections and their associated

morbidity and mortality.3 Nonetheless, vaccine hesitancy remains a significant barrier to maintaining and

increasing vaccine uptake and the number of parents foregoing all vaccinations has been increasing.4 5

Common parental concerns relate to the growth of the vaccine schedule, administering multiple vaccines

contemporaneously, and the potential for long-term adverse health outcomes from vaccination.6-9

Research addressing these vaccine safety concerns can assist clinicians in discussions with their patients

and serve to reassure parents of the overall safety of vaccination.10

The safety review period in pre-licensure clinical trials is typically of insufficient duration (<30 days)

to assess a vaccine’s impact on long-term health outcomes.11 However, a number of post-licensure

observational studies have, with mixed results, examined whether certain vaccines are associated with

developing certain health conditions.12-16 An important limitation to these studies, as highlighted by the

Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety,10 is that “most

vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines

administered at a single visit,” instead of comparing completely unvaccinated populations with those

receiving one or more vaccines. This led the IOM to recommend retrospective studies evaluating the health

outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

Hence, this study compared the short and long-term health outcomes, within a captured payer

environment, of children unexposed to vaccines with those exposed to one or more vaccines. Addressing

this significant data gap could allay parental concerns and bolster vaccine confidence.

Methods

Study Setting

Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is a large, vertically integrated healthcare system, offering

primary, pediatric, acute, and specialty services in Metropolitan Detroit, with 4.2 million ambulatory care

visits annually. The Health Alliance Plan (HAP), a non-profit health maintenance organization (HMO) and

subsidiary of HFHS, has approximately 570,000 enrolled members, approximately one-third of whom

receive care within HFHS. HFHS’s diverse patient population, clinical resources and information

technology systems, make it uniquely suited for this study.

Study Design

This retrospective study evaluated health outcomes of a consecutive cohort of children born

between 2000 and 2016 and enrolled in HAP. This cohort was identified using the HAP and HFHS

administrative database. Subjects were observed from birth until the earlier of disenrollment in the plan or

December 31, 2017. Data sources for this study included medical, clinical and payer records from HFHS

and HAP, supplemented with data from the State of Michigan immunization registry. Data tables included

encounters (outpatient and emergency), hospitalizations, diagnoses, procedures and billing data on all

services. Vaccinations evaluated included all vaccines on the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

(CDC) Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule (Vaccine Schedule). Death data was

obtained from HFHS electronic medical records and the State of Michigan’s Vital Records System and

manual chart review was conducted to ascertain cause of death for subjects who died during plan

enrollment. All HFHS patients receive a lifetime medical record number that links across data-tables.

The study was reviewed and approved by HFHS’s Institutional Review Board and conducted in

accordance with the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology’s Guidelines for Good

Pharmacoepidemiology Practices (https://www.pharmacoepi.org/resources/guidelines_08027.cfm).

Study Population

Inclusion criteria: born and enrolled in HAP for > 60 days between January 1, 2000 and December

31, 2016 with HFHS designated as their primary care system.

Exclusion criteria: chromosomal abnormalities, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida,

congenital heart disease, or brain, neurological, or other congenital conditions present or discovered after

birth. These exclusions correspond with the objective of evaluating long-term health outcomes in a

generally healthy birth cohort.

Definitions and Outcomes Assessment

The primary outcome of this study was a chronic health composite outcome which included

conditions identified by the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative,2 and augmented with

conditions considered to be of public concern or public health significance in the CDC’s White Paper on

Studying the Safety of the Childhood Immunization Schedule.17 The composite includes: diabetes, asthma,

food allergy, cancer, brain dysfunction, atopic and autoimmune disease, and neurological,

neurodevelopmental, seizure and mental health disorder. A subject with one or more of these was

classified as having a chronic health condition. Other health conditions evaluated, but not part of the

composite, include asthma attack or bronchospasm, anaphylaxis, eczema (acute and chronic), ear

infection (acute and chronic) and peanut allergy.

We identified the relevant International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision (ICD-

9-CM and ICD-10-CM) diagnoses from healthcare encounters during enrollment in the plan for the

conditions of interest. Subjects were classified by exposure to immunizations prior to onset of each

condition (exposed versus unexposed) and then compared based on exposure status.

Brain dysfunction was defined as encephalopathy or encephalitis. Neurodevelopmental disorders

were defined as autism, tics, ADD/ADHD, developmental delay, speech disorder, and learning, motor,

intellectual, behavioral, and other psychological disability. Mental health disorder was defined as anxiety,

depression, bipolar, phobia, emotional disturbance, psychosis, somatoform, and eating, manic, mental,

mood, obsessive compulsive, personality, and stress/adjustment disorder. Only children 2 years and older

were evaluated for neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders. Chronic eczema was defined as at

least 1 reoccurrence 60 days or more after first episode. Chronic ear infection was defined as at least 2

reoccurrences within a year after first episode.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive characteristics are reported as percentages, mean values ± standard deviations, or

median values with interquartile ranges (IQRs). Chi-square tests were used to compare the difference in

baseline characteristics differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children at birth. The number

of events for each outcome and incidence rate per 1,000,000 patient-years (pt-yrs) were calculated.

Incidence-rate-ratios, calculated by Poisson regression models, are presented with their associated 95%

confidence intervals. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were used to evaluate

the association between health outcomes and vaccination status. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to

estimate the 10-year cumulative risk of developing a chronic health condition from birth to the first episode

of the condition and classified by prior exposure to immunization (exposed versus unexposed). The groups

were compared with the use of a log-rank test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Since enrollment time was shorter overall in the unexposed group, sensitivity analyses were conducted by

repeating the above analyses for subjects enrolled for at least 1-year, 3-years and 5-years. Additionally, to

overcome potential ascertainment bias in subjects with lower levels of health care utilization, we conducted

a sensitivity analysis by repeating the above analyses in only those subjects with at least one encounter

at HFHS during plan enrollment.

Results

Study Population

A total of 18,468 consecutive subjects met eligibility criteria, of which 1,957 were unexposed and

16,511 were exposed to at least one vaccine, see Table 1. In exposed subjects, the median number of

vaccinations was 18 (IQR 2-28). Characteristics more common in the exposed group were female sex,

African American race, low-birthweight, prematurity, respiratory distress and trauma at birth. The median

follow-up time was 904 (IQR 392-1,954) days for all subjects, 970 (IQR 430-2,093) days for exposed

subjects, and 461 (IQR 196-1,081) days for unexposed subjects (with enrollment up to 6,575 days in the

exposed group and 6,386 days in the unexposed group).

Clinical Outcomes

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR), based on exposure status prior to developing the

condition, were calculated, see Table 2. Overall, the development of a chronic health condition occurred

more often in the group exposed versus unexposed to vaccination (277 vs. 112 per million pt-yrs,

(p<0.0001) and was more common in those exposed to vaccination (IRR 2.48, CI 2.12-2.91).

A statistically significant association was found between vaccination and the incidence of asthma,

atopic and autoimmune disease, and mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders including

developmental delay and speech disorder. A statistically significant association was not found between

vaccine exposure and the incidence of cancer, food allergy, autism, motor disability, or neurological or

seizure disorder.

Other conditions occurring more frequently in exposed subjects included ear infection (IRR 6.63,

CI 5.73-7.66), chronic ear infection (IRR 5.67, CI 4.37-7.37), anaphylaxis (IRR 8.88, CI 1.24-63.47), and

asthma attack or bronchospasm (IRR 6.30, CI 3.85-10.31). Vaccine exposure was not associated with

increased incidence of eczema (IRR 1.06, CI 0.91-1.23), chronic eczema (IRR 0.94, CI 0.74-1.20) or

peanut allergy (IRR 6.80, CI 0.95-48.69).

After multivariate adjustment, Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that exposure to

vaccination was independently associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition

(HR 2.54, CI 2.16-2.97), see Table 3. Vaccine exposure was independently associated with an increased

risk of asthma, eczema, atopic and autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders including

developmental delay and speech disorder. Other variables in the model independently associated with

increased risk of developing a chronic health disorder were male gender (HR 1.33, CI 1.26-1.41), African-

American race (HR 1.11, CI 1.04-1.18), low-birth-weight (HR 1.20, CI 1.01-1.42), very-low-birth-weight (HR

1.48, CI 1.14-1.91) and prematurity (HR 1.24, CI 1.09-1.41). Vaccine exposure was not significantly

associated with higher risk for cancer, food allergy, autism, motor disability, or neurological, seizure or

mental health disorder. Incident rate ratios and hazard ratios could not be calculated for brain dysfunction,

diabetes, ADHD, tics, or behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability since all cases

occurred in the group exposed to vaccination and no cases occurred in the unexposed group.

Vaccine exposure was also independently associated with increased risk for developing other

conditions, including ear infection (HR 7.00, CI 6.05-8.10), chronic ear infection (HR 7.89, CI 6.08-10.24),

anaphylaxis (HR 5.64, CI 1.11-28.74), asthma attack or bronchospasm (HR 5.82, CI 3.58-9.47) and

eczema (HR 1.31, CI 1.13-1.52). Vaccine exposure was not associated with chronic eczema (HR 1.26, CI

0.98-1.60) or peanut allergy (HR 6.31, CI 0.88-45.37).

Time to event analysis demonstrated that the overall probability of being free of a chronic health condition

at 10-years of follow up was 43% in the group exposed to vaccination and 83% in the unexposed group

(log-rank test, p<0.0001), see Figure 1.

There were six deaths in the cohort during enrollment. After manual review of medical records,

including death certificate where available, cause of death was determined to be due to a complicated

clinical course from birth (2 exposed, 1 unexposed), brain injury (1 exposed), and unknown cause (2

exposed).

Sensitivity Analyses

Since median enrollment time was shorter in the unexposed group, a sensitivity analysis for

developing a chronic health condition was conducted for subjects enrolled in the health plan for at least 1-

year, 3-years and 5-years which demonstrated consistent results. Vaccine exposure was associated with

higher incidence of a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (IRR 2.75, CI 2.31-3.28),

3-years (IRR 3.38, CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (IRR 4.09, CI 2.84-5.90), as well as a higher risk for

developing a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (HR 2.84, CI 2.38-3.38), 3-years

(HR 3.48, CI 2.74-4.42), and 5-years (HR 4.05, CI 2.82-5.83). To address the potential for ascertainment

bias in subjects with lower levels of health care utilization, we conducted a sensitivity analysis by repeating

the above analyses using only subjects with at least one encounter during enrollment. Vaccine exposure

was associated with higher incidence of a chronic health condition for subjects with at least one healthcare

encounter (IRR 1.83, CI 1.56-2.14) as well as a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition (HR

1.87, CI 1.60-2.19).

Discussion

Main Findings

This study is a comprehensive analysis to determine if exposure to vaccination is associated with

the development of any long-term chronic health condition in children, or if outcomes are similar, or

superior, to those unexposed. We did not find any statistical association between vaccine exposure and

cancer, food allergy, autism, seizure disorder and certain other conditions. Statistical comparisons could

not be conducted for certain conditions, such as diabetes and ADHD, because there were no cases in the

unexposed group. Despite this and in contrast to our expectations, we 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 increased risk for asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental

disorders. Overall, our findings suggest that in certain children exposure to vaccination may increase the

likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these disorders.

Interpretation and comparison with previous studies

Vaccines have contributed to reducing many targeted infections and their related morbidity and

mortality, and are regarded as an important public health achievement of the last century.18 The CDC’s

Vaccine Schedule has evolved from five vaccines in 1994 to 15 in 2020. Despite these advancements,

there is a paucity of data evaluating the impact of vaccination on long-term health outcomes, whether

beneficial or detrimental, particularly for immune-related conditions.

Limited by ethical guidelines, pre-and-post-licensure clinical trials for vaccines rarely include a

comparator arm unexposed to vaccination. These trials also generally have a shorter safety review period

(<30 days) which limits their ability to assess long-term outcomes. Observational studies can address

these data gaps but, to date, have produced conflicting results. Some studies have found an association

between vaccination and an increased risk of asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease and

neurodevelopmental disorders, as found in this study.13 14 19-28 Other studies have found no association.12

15 29-38 A common and important limitation in this body of work is that almost all studies lack a truly

unexposed comparator group, such as the one in this study, and hence typically evaluate receiving

(vaccinated) versus not receiving one vaccine (unvaccinated) in a cohort that receives most other

vaccinations (vaccinated).

For example, one study designed to evaluate the relationship between vaccination status (one or

more versus none) and long-term health outcomes in children was a population-based parental survey

conducted in Germany.31 Although limited by selection bias and parental recall, it found no statistical

association of vaccination with atopy, eczema, or asthma.31 However, the measure of vaccination was

limited to certain vaccines, and the very small unexposed group may have been exposed to other

vaccinations such as varicella, rotavirus, pneumococcal, meningococcal, influenza and/or others.

According to the IOM (2013), few studies have evaluated the Vaccine Schedule, or variations thereof, and

its association with health outcomes and none have compared differences between entirely unvaccinated

populations and those fully or partially vaccinated.10 Our study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare

multiple clinical outcomes over time between vaccinated (any vaccine) and completely unexposed children

in a captured payer environment relying on diagnoses and vaccine status from medical records.

Biologic mechanisms elucidating how vaccine exposure in certain individuals might increase a

health risk are unclear and beyond the scope of this study, but likely differ by condition, vaccine and

recipient characteristics. A common theme in the literature is that vaccination may trigger a genetic and/or

immunologic susceptibility.39 40 Vaccines aim to stimulate an antigen-specific immune response, however

there are significant gaps in understanding the complex immunological mechanisms involved, and concern

has been raised about potential untoward or off-target immunological effects in susceptible recipients.41 42

According to an IOM report, epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who

experience an adverse response to a vaccine have a preexisting susceptibility due to genetic variants (in

human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, intervening illness, developmental

stage or others.43 Viewed as an environmental exposure, in addition to antigens, vaccines also contain

small amounts of preservatives, adjuvants, additives and residual substances from the manufacturing

process.44 While this study cannot delineate the impact of epigenetics or a particular vaccine component,

the unexposed group was not exposed to vaccine components, and the exposed group to one or more.

Epigenetics is an emerging field of study which explores how the environment can influence how

genes are expressed without involving alterations in the DNA gene sequence. Research has shown that

epigenetics may play a role in the pathogenesis of many diseases, including asthma, atopy, eczema,

autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders, though precise etiologies vary and remain largely

unknown.45-50 Genetically-mediated individual variations in the immunogenicity and reactivity of vaccines

has been demonstrated.51 52 The field of vaccine ‘adversomics’, though in its infancy, seeks to bring a

precision medicine approach into vaccine practice by utilizing advanced genomic, epigenetic and

biostatistical approaches to better identify individuals susceptible to an adverse vaccine outcome to

prevent or minimize adverse consequences.52 53 This is important because, as the CDC emphasizes,

vaccines are generally given to healthy persons preventatively, and because of their widespread use, any

safety issue, even if rare, can impact large numbers of people.54 The results of this study, while preliminary,

suggest that we currently underestimate the group susceptible to an adverse vaccine effect.

We found a 6-fold increased risk of autoimmune disease in the group exposed to vaccine(s).

Certain vaccines, or adjuvants, have been implicated in autoimmune conditions such as thrombocytopenic

purpura, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis and Guillain-Barré

syndrome.10 23 24 55 The spectrum of autoimmunity encompasses around 80 disorders, most considered

rare, but combined have an estimated population prevalence of 4.5% to 9.4%.56 57 While pathogenic

mechanisms of autoimmune disease are not well understood overall, and even less so with autoimmune

sequelae following vaccination, contemporary thinking favors environmental factors triggering

autoimmunity in genetically-susceptible individuals, involving epigenetic regulation.45 Proposed

mechanisms by which vaccines may contribute to autoimmune reactions are molecular mimicry (structural

similarity between a vaccine component and self-antigen) and bystander activation (microbial agents

activate pre-primed autoreactive immune cells).40

Some studies have found that vaccination and atopic disorders, such as asthma, eczema and other

allergies, are associated, while others have not.12 13 20 22 28 Childhood infections appear to provide significant

protection from atopy and it has been suggested that vaccination can contribute to atopy by inducing an

imbalance between the two classes of T helper cells (Th1 and Th2) in genetically-susceptible individuals.58

59 We found an over 4-fold increased risk of asthma and over 6-fold risk of asthma attack in those exposed

to vaccination. This finding is consistent with Odent et. al. which found receiving DTP vaccine, versus no

receipt, was associated with increased risk of asthma (RR=5.43; CI=1.93-15.30).20 In that study, over half

of the group not receiving DTP were exposed to other vaccines and the group with the lowest prevalence

of asthma were not exposed to any vaccine (10.7% for DTP group versus 1.1% in group receiving no

vaccines), though the latter’s small number limited statistical comparisons.

Most studies of vaccination and developmental outcomes evaluated MMR35 36 or thimerosol26 37 60

exposure and autism.61 These studies typically found no association, which is consistent with the results

of this study, though the number of autism cases in this study was small. The few studies that evaluate

potential associations between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders beyond autism have

typically used a small dataset of neuropsychiatric evaluations at 7-10 years from the 1990s in which all

participants received all first-year vaccines.38 62 Studies using this dataset have produced conflicting

results.38 62 A recent pilot study using claims data found a temporal relationship between vaccination and

onset of certain neuropsychiatric disorders.27

While contributors to the rise of developmental disability in children from 9.5% in 2009 to 16.9%63

has been grossly understudied, current thinking favors multiple contributors, including the immune system

which is essential to normal brain development and is implicated in the pathogenesis of several

neurodevelopmental disorders.64-66 Epigenetic research is exploring the complex relationship between

developmentally-regulated genetic expression and interplay of prenatal and childhood environmental risk

factors and exposures,47 in addition to factors such as socioeconomic status, preterm-birth, and birth-

weight.67 A study by Iqbal et al. did not find an association between the number of vaccine antigens and

neuropsychological outcomes.68 However, a recent study examined the feasibility of examining non-

antigen vaccine ingredients and found that out of 34 ingredients, only aluminum exposure could be

consistently quantified, but did not subsequently evaluate aluminum’s impact on clinically meaningful

outcomes.69 We found a strong association between vaccine exposure (versus no exposure) and

development of a neurodevelopmental disorder (HR 5.84, CI 3.02-11.27) even after controlling for gender,

race, birth-weight prematurity, and other factors. This increased risk was primarily driven by speech

disorders, developmental delays, tics, ADHD, and behavioral and motor disabilities. The etiology of this

association is unclear, but it suggests that vaccination may serve as an environmental influence in

susceptible children.

Strengths of this Study

Major strengths of this study are that it evaluated a captured population, enrolled a consecutive

birth cohort, evaluated subjects only while enrolled, only relied upon medical records to determine

diagnoses, encounters and vaccines administered (unlike prior works which often relied upon parental

recall and survey data), had a completely unexposed cohort, and utilized groupings of health conditions,

which can reveal relationships that are not apparent when evaluating specific disorders individually

(particularly if they are rare).

Though some results were unexpected, others are consistent with conclusions from prior

systematic reviews, including by the IOM, such as the accepted causal relationship between vaccination

and anaphylaxis, which we observed, or the rejection of a causal relationship between vaccination and

cancer or MMR vaccine and autism.43 70 This contributes to the internal validity of this study’s findings.

This study also minimized the risk of misclassifying vaccine exposure. First, studies have shown

good agreement between electronic vaccination and health records and both parental recall and manual

medical record review, particularly for those unexposed to vaccines.71 72 Second, each subject’s EHR

contained vaccine administration data from HFHS and the state immunization registry, ensuring full capture

of vaccinations. In Michigan, all providers are required to report vaccinations to the state registry within 72

hours of administration. This study, to our knowledge, includes the largest cohort of children completely

unexposed to vaccination with observation in some subjects up to 18 years.

Limitations of this Study

This study has limitations. As it is retrospective, we cannot exclude the possibility of unidentified

confounders. However, this concern is tempered by the finding of significant associations between

vaccination and particular outcomes, with some hazard ratios in the 2.5-6 times risk. We lacked information

on socioeconomic status, or potentially relevant post birth factors, such as diet or lifestyle, but did adjust

for several important baseline confounders such as gender, ethnicity, gestational age and birthweight. To

detect the potential for uncontrolled confounding, the literature suggests evaluating disorders with no

expected causal association with vaccination, a control outcome, such as injuries or cancer.17 Importantly

in this regard we found no association between vaccine exposure and cancer. Additionally, we relied on

diagnosis codes in administrative data, which is commonly used in epidemiologic research but has some

inherent limitations.

Unvaccinated children have less healthcare utilization overall.73 Well visits coincide with the

vaccination schedule and provide more opportunities for assessment and diagnosis in those receiving

vaccines, compared to unvaccinated children, which could introduce an ascertainment bias. In this study,

exposed children had an average of 7 annual encounters, irrespective of having a chronic health condition.

Unexposed children had an average of 2 annual encounters but an average of almost 5 annual encounters

if diagnosed with a chronic health condition. This likely demonstrates that when a child had a medical

condition, parents sought healthcare. In fact, many conditions evaluated in this study are serious and

cannot be self-treated, such as asthma, diabetes, anaphylaxis or asthma attack, warranting urgent medical

attention. We nonetheless conducted several sensitivity analyses to explore the influence of healthcare

utilization in order to improve the internal validity of this study and minimize potential ascertainment bias.

To ensure the unexposed group’s shorter follow-up duration did not influence the results, we repeated the

Cox proportional hazards analysis for the chronic health composite outcome for those in the plan for one,

three and five years and for those who had at least one healthcare encounter, which demonstrated results

consistent with the overall findings. The association between vaccination and developing a chronic health

condition was independent of these factors. Therefore, our findings do not appear to be due to differential

use of health resources.

Our study solely evaluated whether or not vaccination was associated with clinically relevant

outcomes, conditions that currently contribute to the rising chronic health disease burden in children. We

did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines,

which limits this investigation but also minimizes the potential for reverse causality.

Conclusion

In this study, we found vaccine exposure in children was associated with an increased risk of developing

a chronic health disorder. This association was primarily driven by increased risk for asthma, atopy,

eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain

susceptible children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health

condition, particularly for one of these conditions. Our preliminary findings cannot prove causality and

warrant further investigation.

FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1. Birth Characteristics and Demographics Stratified by Vaccine Exposure Status Demographics

Study Population (n=18,468)

No Vaccine (n=1,957)

Any Vaccine (n=16,511)

P-value

Male 9,395 (51%) 1,077 (55%) 8,318 (50%) <0.001

Race <0.001

White 6,858 (37%) 900 (46%) 5,958 (36%)

African American 6,625 (36%) 453 (23%) 6,172 (37%)

Asian 1,131 (6%) 87 (4%) 1,044 (6%)

Hispanic 503 (3%) 31 (2%) 472 (3%)

Other 3,351 (18%) 486 (25%) 2,865 (17%)

Birth weight <0.001

Normal 17,701 (96%) 1,907 (97%) 15,794 (96%)

Low 539 (3%) 21 (1%) 518 (3%)

Very low 228 (1%) 29 (2%) 199 (1.2%)

Prematurity 1,063 (6%) 34 (2%) 1,029 (6%) <0.001

Respiratory Distress at Birth

685 (4%) 26 (1%) 659 (4%) <0.001

Birth Trauma 200 (1%) 4 (0%) 196 (1%) <0.001

Vaccine Injections 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 >30

1,958 (10.6%) 3,330 (18.0%) 7,476 (40.5%) 4,981 (27.0%)

724 (3.9%)

Definitions: Birth weight (Normal > 2,500g; low birth weight = less than 2,500g; very low birth weight = less than 1,500g) Vaccine exposure for the purpose of comparison of baseline characteristics was receipt of any vaccine during enrollment in the plan.

Table 2. Incidence of Chronic Health Conditions Stratified by Vaccine Exposure Status*

Outcome

Any Vaccine Exposure

N (Incidence per 1,000,000 pt-yrs)

No Vaccine Exposure

N (Incidence per 1,000,000 pt-yrs) IRR (95% CI) P

Chronic Health Condition 4,732 (277.3) 160 (111.7) 2.48 (2.12-2.91) <0.0001

Asthma 2,867 (145.6) 52 (35.6) 4.09 (3.11-5.38) <0.0001

Atopic Disease 946 (41.2) 23 (15.6) 2.64 (1.74-3.99) <0.0001

Autoimmune Disease 201 (8.4) 2 (1.4) 6.16 (1.53-24.79) 0.01

Brain Dysfunction 8 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 

Cancer 169 (7.0) 13 (8.8) 0.79 (0.45-1.39) 0.42

Diabetes 42 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 

Food Allergy 577 (24.3) 30 (20.5) 1.19 (0.82-1.71) 0.36

Mental Health Disorder 341 (15.9) 5 (4.5) 3.50 (1.45-8.46) <0.01

Neurodevelopmental Disorder 1,029 (50.2) 9 (8.2) 6.15 (3.19-11.86) <0.0001

ADHD 262 (12.1) 0 (0.0) 

Autism 23 (1.1) 1 (0.9) 1.16 (0.16-8.62) 0.88

Behavioral Disability 165 (7.6) 0 (0.0) 

Developmental Delay 219 (10.1) 3 (2.7) 3.74 (1.20-11.68) 0.02

Learning Disability 65 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 

Intellectual Disability 5 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 

Speech Disorder 463 (21.8) 6 (5.4) 4.02 (1.80-9.00) <0.001

Motor Disability 150 (6.9) 2 (1.8) 3.83 (0.95-15.47) 0.06

Tics 46 (2.1) 0 (0.0) 

Other Psychological Disability 9 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 

Neurological Disorder 127 (5.2) 12 (8.1) 0.64 (0.35-1.16) 0.14

Seizure Disorder 319 (13.3) 12 (8.2) 1.63 (0.92-2.91) 0.09

* Incident rate ratios could not be calculated for brain dysfunction, diabetes, ADHD, tics, or behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability since all cases occurred in the group exposed to vaccination and no cases occurred in the unexposed group.

Table 3. Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Analysis for Vaccine Exposure and Development of a Chronic Health Condition*

Outcome Unadjusted HR

(95% CI) P Adjusted HR (95% CI) P

Chronic Health Condition 2.59 (2.21-3.03) <0.0001 2.54 (2.16-2.97) <0.0001

Asthma 4.50 (3.42-5.93) <0.0001 4.29 (3.26-5.65) <0.0001

Atopic Disease 3.11 (2.06-4.71) <0.0001 3.03 (2.01-4.57) <0.0001

Autoimmune Disease 6.12 (1.52-24.67) 0.01 5.96 (1.48-24.11) 0.02

Brain Dysfunction  

Cancer 0.86 (0.49-1.52) 0.61 0.90 (0.51-1.59) 0.72

Diabetes  

Food Allergy 1.38 (0.96-2.00) 0.08 1.40 (0.97-2.02) 0.07

Mental Health Disorder 1.69 (0.70-4.09) 0.25 1.63 (0.69-3.82) 0.26

Neurodevelopmental Disorder 5.61 (2.91-10.82) <0.0001 5.53 (2.91-10.51) <0.0001

ADHD  

Autism 1.01 (0.13-7.55) 0.99 0.62 (0.10-3.69) 0.60

Behavioral Disability  

Developmental Delay 3.87 (1.24-12.10) 0.02 3.28 (1.13-9.55) 0.03

Intellectual Disability  

Learning Disability  

Motor Disability 3.33 (0.82-13.48) 0.09 2.92 (0.82-10.40) 0.10

Speech Disorder 4.84 (2.16-10.84) 0.0001 4.47 (2.05-9.74) <0.001

Tics  

Other Psychological Disability  

Neurological Disorder 0.75 (0.41-1.36) 0.34 0.83 (0.46-1.51) 0.55

Seizure Disorder 2.01 (1.13-3.59) 0.02 1.66 (0.94-2.94) 0.08

HR adjusted for gender, race, birth weight, respiratory distress at birth, birth trauma and prematurity. * Hazard ratios could not be calculated for brain dysfunction, diabetes, ADHD, tics, or behavioral, learning, intellectual, or other psychological disability since all cases occurred in the group exposed to vaccination and no cases occurred in the unexposed group.

Figure 1. Kaplan Meier Curve: 10-year Chronic Disease-Free Survival by Vaccine Exposure

REFERENCES 1. Van Cleave J, Gortmaker SL, Perrin JM. Dynamics of obesity and chronic health conditions among

children and youth. JAMA 2010;303(7):623-30. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.104 [published Online First: 2010/02/18]

2. Bethell CD, Kogan MD, Strickland BB, et al. A national and state profile of leading health problems and health care quality for US children: key insurance disparities and across-state variations. Acad Pediatr 2011;11(3 Suppl):S22-33. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2010.08.011 [published Online First: 2011/05/21]

3. Hinman AR, Orenstein WA, Schuchat A, et al. Vaccine-preventable diseases, immunizations, and MMWR--1961-2011. MMWR Suppl 2011;60(4):49-57. [published Online First: 2011/10/07]

4. Schuster M, Eskola J, Duclos P, et al. Review of vaccine hesitancy: Rationale, remit and methods. Vaccine 2015;33(34):4157-60. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.035 [published Online First: 2015/04/22]

5. Hill HA, Elam-Evans LD, Yankey D, et al. Vaccination Coverage Among Children Aged 19-35 Months - United States, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67(40):1123-28. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6740a4 [published Online First: 2018/10/12]

6. Chen RT, DeStefano F, Pless R, et al. Challenges and controversies in immunization safety. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2001;15(1):21-39, viii. [published Online First: 2001/04/17]

7. Saada A, Lieu TA, Morain SR, et al. Parents' choices and rationales for alternative vaccination schedules: a qualitative study. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2015;54(3):236-43. doi: 10.1177/0009922814548838 [published Online First: 2014/09/10]

8. Kennedy A, Basket M, Sheedy K. Vaccine attitudes, concerns, and information sources reported by parents of young children: results from the 2009 HealthStyles survey. Pediatrics 2011;127 Suppl 1:S92-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1722N [published Online First: 2011/04/20]

9. Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics 2000;106(5):1097-102. doi: 10.1542/peds.106.5.1097 [published Online First: 2000/11/04]

10. . The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. Washington (DC)2013.

11. Chen R. Safety of Vaccines. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1999:1144-1163. 12. DeStefano F, Gu D, Kramarz P, et al. Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J

2002;21(6):498-504. doi: 10.1097/00006454-200206000-00004 [published Online First: 2002/08/17]

13. McDonald KL, Huq SI, Lix LM, et al. Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;121(3):626-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.11.034 [published Online First: 2008/01/22]

14. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H. Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23(2):81-90. [published Online First: 2000/03/14]

15. Nilsson L, Kjellman NI, Bjorksten B. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of pertussis vaccines on atopic disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152(8):734-8. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.152.8.734 [published Online First: 1998/08/13]

16. DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. J Pediatr 2013;163(2):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001 [published Online First: 2013/04/03]

17. Glanz JM, Newcomer SR, Jackson ML, et al. White Paper on studying the safety of the childhood immunization schedule in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Vaccine 2016;34 Suppl 1:A1-A29. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.082 [published Online First: 2016/02/03]

18. Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Ten great public health achievements--United States, 1900-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48(12):241-3. [published Online First: 1999/04/29]

19. Kemp T, Pearce N, Fitzharris P, et al. Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy? Epidemiology 1997;8(6):678-80. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199710000-00011 [published Online First: 1997/11/05]

20. Odent MR, Culpin EE, Kimmel T. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA 1994;272(8):592-3. [published Online First: 1994/08/24]

21. Kiraly N, Koplin JJ, Crawford NW, et al. Timing of routine infant vaccinations and risk of food allergy and eczema at one year of age. Allergy 2016;71(4):541-9. doi: 10.1111/all.12830 [published Online First: 2015/12/29]

22. McKeever TM, Lewis SA, Smith C, et al. Vaccination and allergic disease: a birth cohort study. Am J Public Health 2004;94(6):985-9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.6.985 [published Online First: 2004/07/14]

23. Chen RT, Pless R, Destefano F. Epidemiology of autoimmune reactions induced by vaccination. J Autoimmun 2001;16(3):309-18. doi: 10.1006/jaut.2000.0491 [published Online First: 2001/05/04]

24. Karussis D, Petrou P. The spectrum of post-vaccination inflammatory CNS demyelinating syndromes. Autoimmun Rev 2014;13(3):215-24. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.10.003 [published Online First: 2014/02/12]

25. Miller E, Waight P, Farrington CP, et al. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine. Arch Dis Child 2001;84(3):227-9. doi: 10.1136/adc.84.3.227 [published Online First: 2001/02/24]

26. Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317 [published Online First: 2010/11/09]

27. Leslie DL, Kobre RA, Richmand BJ, et al. Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case-Control Study. Front Psychiatry 2017;8:3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003 [published Online First: 2017/02/06]

28. Alm JS, Swartz J, Lilja G, et al. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet 1999;353(9163):1485-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09344-1 [published Online First: 1999/05/08]

29. Mohrenschlager M, Haberl VM, Kramer U, et al. Early BCG and pertussis vaccination and atopic diseases in 5- to 7-year-old preschool children from Augsburg, Germany: results from the MIRIAM study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007;18(1):5-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2006.00485.x [published Online First: 2007/02/14]

30. Matheson MC, Haydn Walters E, Burgess JA, et al. Childhood immunization and atopic disease into middle-age--a prospective cohort study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2010;21(2 Pt 1):301-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2009.00950.x [published Online First: 2009/12/17]

31. Schmitz R, Poethko-Muller C, Reiter S, et al. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents: findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108(7):99-104. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099 [published Online First: 2011/03/18]

32. Grimaldi-Bensouda L, Le Guern V, Kone-Paut I, et al. The risk of systemic lupus erythematosus associated with vaccines: an international case-control study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66(6):1559-67. doi: 10.1002/art.38429 [published Online First: 2014/03/05]

33. DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, et al. Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatrics 2001;108(6):E112. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.6.e112 [published Online First: 2001/12/04]

34. Baxter R, Bakshi N, Fireman B, et al. Lack of association of Guillain-Barre syndrome with vaccinations. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57(2):197-204. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit222 [published Online First: 2013/04/13]

35. Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, et al. Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. JAMA 2015;313(15):1534-40. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3077 [published Online First: 2015/04/22]

36. DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, et al. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta. Pediatrics 2004;113(2):259-66. doi: 10.1542/peds.113.2.259 [published Online First: 2004/02/03]

37. Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, et al. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. Pediatrics 2010;126(4):656-64. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0309 [published Online First: 2010/09/15]

38. Barile JP, Kuperminc GP, Weintraub ES, et al. Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7-10 years later. J Pediatr Psychol 2012;37(1):106-18. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsr048 [published Online First: 2011/07/26]

39. Sibilia J, Maillefert JF. Vaccination and rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61(7):575-6. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.7.575 [published Online First: 2002/06/25]

40. Vadala M, Poddighe D, Laurino C, et al. Vaccination and autoimmune diseases: is prevention of adverse health effects on the horizon? EPMA J 2017;8(3):295-311. doi: 10.1007/s13167-017-0101-y [published Online First: 2017/10/13]

41. Pulendran B, Ahmed R. Immunological mechanisms of vaccination. Nat Immunol 2011;12(6):509-17. [published Online First: 2011/07/09]

42. Kandasamy R, Voysey M, McQuaid F, et al. Non-specific immunological effects of selected routine childhood immunisations: systematic review. BMJ 2016;355:i5225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5225 [published Online First: 2016/10/16]

43. . In: Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, et al., eds. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington (DC)2011.

44. Offit PA, Jew RK. Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals? Pediatrics 2003;112(6 Pt 1):1394-7. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.6.1394 [published Online First: 2003/12/05]

45. Costenbader KH, Gay S, Alarcon-Riquelme ME, et al. Genes, epigenetic regulation and environmental factors: which is the most relevant in developing autoimmune diseases? Autoimmun Rev 2012;11(8):604-9. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2011.10.022 [published Online First: 2011/11/02]

46. Gomez JL. Epigenetics in Asthma. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2019;19(12):56. doi: 10.1007/s11882-019-0886-y [published Online First: 2019/11/30]

47. Millan MJ. An epigenetic framework for neurodevelopmental disorders: from pathogenesis to potential therapy. Neuropharmacology 2013;68:2-82. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.11.015 [published Online First: 2012/12/19]

48. Bollati V, Baccarelli A. Environmental epigenetics. Heredity (Edinb) 2010;105(1):105-12. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2010.2 [published Online First: 2010/02/25]

49. Kuriakose JS, Miller RL. Environmental epigenetics and allergic diseases: recent advances. Clin Exp Allergy 2010;40(11):1602-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03599.x [published Online First: 2010/08/20]

50. Mervis JS, McGee JS. DNA methylation and inflammatory skin diseases. Arch Dermatol Res 2019 doi: 10.1007/s00403-019-02005-9 [published Online First: 2019/11/07]

51. Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Jacobson RM. Vaccine immunogenetics: bedside to bench to population. Vaccine 2008;26(49):6183-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.06.057 [published Online First: 2008/07/05]

52. Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Jacobson RM. Adversomics: the emerging field of vaccine adverse event immunogenetics. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2009;28(5):431-2. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181a6a511 [published Online First: 2009/04/28]

53. Whitaker JA, Ovsyannikova IG, Poland GA. Adversomics: a new paradigm for vaccine safety and design. Expert Rev Vaccines 2015;14(7):935-47. doi: 10.1586/14760584.2015.1038249 [published Online First: 2015/05/06]

54. Centers for Disease C. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/safety.html accessed 10/25/2019 2019.

55. Shoenfeld Y, Aron-Maor A. Vaccination and autoimmunity-'vaccinosis': a dangerous liaison? J Autoimmun 2000;14(1):1-10. doi: 10.1006/jaut.1999.0346 [published Online First: 2000/01/29]

56. Hayter SM, Cook MC. Updated assessment of the prevalence, spectrum and case definition of autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev 2012;11(10):754-65. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.02.001 [published Online First: 2012/03/06]

57. Cooper GS, Bynum ML, Somers EC. Recent insights in the epidemiology of autoimmune diseases: improved prevalence estimates and understanding of clustering of diseases. J Autoimmun 2009;33(3-4):197-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2009.09.008 [published Online First: 2009/10/13]

58. von Hertzen LC, Haahtela T. Could the risk of asthma and atopy be reduced by a vaccine that induces a strong T-helper type 1 response? Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2000;22(2):139-42. doi: 10.1165/ajrcmb.22.2.3753 [published Online First: 2000/02/05]

59. Strachan DP. Hay fever, hygiene, and household size. BMJ 1989;299(6710):1259-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6710.1259 [published Online First: 1989/11/18]

60. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003;112(5):1039-48. [published Online First: 2003/11/05]

61. Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine 2014;32(29):3623-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085 [published Online First: 2014/05/13]

62. Smith MJ, Woods CR. On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes. Pediatrics 2010;125(6):1134-41. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2489 [published Online First: 2010/05/26]

63. Zablotsky B, Black LI, Maenner MJ, et al. Prevalence and Trends of Developmental Disabilities among Children in the United States: 2009-2017. Pediatrics 2019 doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0811 [published Online First: 2019/09/29]

64. Verlaet AA, Noriega DB, Hermans N, et al. Nutrition, immunological mechanisms and dietary immunomodulation in ADHD. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2014;23(7):519-29. doi: 10.1007/s00787-014-0522-2 [published Online First: 2014/02/05]

65. Martino D, Zis P, Buttiglione M. The role of immune mechanisms in Tourette syndrome. Brain Res 2015;1617:126-43. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.04.027 [published Online First: 2014/05/23]

66. Knuesel I, Chicha L, Britschgi M, et al. Maternal immune activation and abnormal brain development across CNS disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10(11):643-60. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.187 [published Online First: 2014/10/15]

67. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. America's children and the environment. Third edition. ed. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2013.

68. Iqbal S, Barile JP, Thompson WW, et al. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22(12):1263-70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3482 [published Online First: 2013/07/13]

69. Glanz JM, Newcomer SR, Daley MF, et al. Cumulative and episodic vaccine aluminum exposure in a population-based cohort of young children. Vaccine 2015;33(48):6736-44. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.076 [published Online First: 2015/11/01]

70. Maglione MA, Das L, Raaen L, et al. Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of U.S. children: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2014;134(2):325-37. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1079 [published Online First: 2014/08/03]

71. Mullooly J, Drew L, DeStefano F, et al. Quality of HMO vaccination databases used to monitor childhood vaccine safety. Vaccine Safety DataLink Team. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149(2):186-94. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009785 [published Online First: 1999/01/28]

72. Daley MF, Shoup JA, Newcomer SR, et al. Assessing Potential Confounding and Misclassification Bias When Studying the Safety of the Childhood Immunization Schedule. Acad Pediatr 2018;18(7):754-62. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2018.03.007 [published Online First: 2018/04/01]

73. Wei F, Mullooly JP, Goodman M, et al. Identification and characteristics of vaccine refusers. BMC Pediatr 2009;9:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-18 [published Online First: 2009/03/06]