Covid Vaccine

[oneforthebus]

You do not seem to understand that the expert who wrote the piece based his/her judgement on "evaluation" and then did not do that. They just -- like you -- rejected the study whole cloth because the unvaccinated kids needs less doctors visits.

Do you not understand that the writer used the conclusion of the study : that unvaccinated kids are healthier, in his poorly constructed circular argument to discredit the study?

You are being wilfully blind, open your mind

You’re willfully ignoring all of the flaws in the methodology. You also don’t seem to understand the peer review process and the fact that it’s not my or this guy’s personal opinion…there are factual reasons many “studies” are rejected by the process and not published. There are numerous other articles explaining why this study is invalid. Not going to waste my time posting all of them.

 

[oneforthebus]

https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health

DETROIT – Henry Ford Health, a nationally recognized academic medical center and research institution, has issued a cease-and-desist letter to the makers of an upcoming “documentary” that falsely and dangerously claims the health system suppressed a draft of a research paper because of its results. The health system also condemns the purposeful twisting of information and the spread of disinformation happening on the topic, which poses a direct threat to public health.

There are many factors that determine whether a research paper should be submitted for consideration by scientific journals or otherwise shared with the public. In this case, a 2020 draft of a paper that aimed to compare health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children was immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology. Those flaws included:

• The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.
• The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample.
• The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children. One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.
• The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines.No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.
• Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.

The draft was never considered for submission to journals because it did not remotely come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards the system demands—the same standards journals have, too. Claims that Henry Ford Health kept or suppressed the results from the public due to political reasons are patently false, defamatory and troubling; it’s important the public receives the truth, as this may lead to families making health decisions based on unfounded and incorrect assumptions.

Henry Ford Health was unaware this rejected and unvalidated draft from the early COVID era had somehow been shared or was being discussed, and the health system was never given an opportunity to weigh in on the topic. In addition, because the draft was shared without the system’s knowledge, there’s reason to believe it’s been altered from its original form and made to appear finalized, which it was not.

In addition, this flawed paper is now also being falsely connected to a long-term, NIH-funded research cohort at Henry Ford Health. The disinformation being presented on social media is dangerous, as it aims to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the ongoing research. The health system urges anyone who comes across content regarding this discredited draft to recognize it’s being weaponized.

Henry Ford Health believes in research that’s driven by irrefutable data and methodology and will never compromise those standards.

 

[oneforthebus]

https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check

DETROIT—Henry Ford Health condemns the spread of dangerous disinformation connected to a “documentary” that falsely claims our nationally recognized academic medical center and research institute suppressed a draft of a research study because of its results.

The purposeful twisting of information in the “documentary” poses a direct public threat. We implore anyone who comes across these myths to read the facts below.

MYTH #1: “The study proves vaccinated children are 2.5x more likely to develop chronic health conditions than unvaccinated children.”

FACT: This draft did not prove anything. The very first internal review revealed serious flaws in the data and methodology, and the paper was abandoned. Anyone who conducts public health research would agree that comparing vastly different sample sizes over different time periods with inconsistent demographic foundations is problematic.

MYTH #2: “The study wasn’t published due to political reasons – or because of its results.”

FACT: The draft wasn’t submitted for publication or shared with the public because the data and analyses were flawed, and it’s irresponsible to share scientifically flawed studies with the public.

MYTH #3: “The study was hidden from the public.”

FACT: Reputable academic medical research institutions like Henry Ford Health subject research papers to stringent, internal, and scientific scrutiny that often points out issues with data, methodology or other flaws. It’s rare that a paper makes it to the scientific journal submission phase, and even rarer that papers get published. This wasn’t hidden; it was simply rejected for scientific lapses.

MYTH #4: “This is the ‘most important vaccine study ever.’”

FACT: Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician from Stanford who testified on Capitol Hill, wrote “…this flawed analysis reveals how thoroughly political theater has replaced scientific literacy in our public discourse.” The first internal reviewers determined the paper wasn’t scientifically sound—and it never made it past draft status.

MYTH #5: “The ‘documentary’ proves the health system is withholding the study.”

FACT: The film proved nothing except that we have rigorous scientific standards in place for a reason: to ensure the only studies we submit for publication come from research rooted in sound, infallible data that have passed our stringent review processes. We do not bend to pressure from those with special interests and will never compromise the standards that have helped make us a world-renowned academic medical research institution. Read more on our perspective in this Detroit Free Press article.