Vaccinated children are sicker: this is confirmed by the most comprehensive study ever conducted on this topic. It sparked heated debates in the US Congress. While experts and fact checkers with ties to the pharmaceutical industry tear it apart as expected, vaccine critics see their worst fears confirmed. Why did the scientists involved conceal their findings—and now declare them worthless?
by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
Del Bigtree: The name is synonymous with sharptongued attacks against Big Pharma in front of the largest possible audience. The Emmy Awardwinning US television and film producer has long played a prominent role in the anti-vaccination movement. His Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), which sees itself as a “watchdog” of the healthcare system, advocates for informed consent in medical decisions. Bigtree’s sensational documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2016) presented evidence that vaccines promote autism. He supported Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign as an aggressive, rhetorically brilliant “communications director.” The MAHA initiative – Make America Healthy Again – Kennedy’s major project as health secretary, finds a passionate advocate in Bigtree.
In 2016, the charismatic activist approached one of the world’s most respected medical institutions: the non-profit Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), named after the car manufacturer Henry Ford, who founded it in 1915. With around 50,000 employees, it operates medical practices and 13 hospitals at over 550 locations in the state of Michigan. It also offers health insurance. In addition, it conducts and promotes research, including at its headquarters in Detroit, in collaboration with Wayne State University School of Medicine. Bigtree called on the head of the infectious diseases department there, internist Dr. Marcus J. Zervos, to conduct “the most comprehensive study to date comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.”
The person addressed actually took up the challenge. Together with three other HFHS physicians, Zervos embarked on the desired study to refute Bigtree’s vaccine skepticism.
Four years later, in 2020, the research report was available—and disappeared into HFHS drawers. It remained secret, and the results were covered up.
Why, one wonders?
“This could change everything.”
But Bigtree made sure it didn’t end there. New York lawyer Aaron Siri, who had already represented ICAN in numerous lawsuits and petitions, made the results public at a hearing in the US Senate on September 9, 2025, where they promptly sparked a heated exchange. Major media outlets picked up on them, and they went viral on the internet. Bigtree documents them in his latest film, An Inconvenient Study, which premiered on October 12, 2025. “This could change everything,” he hopes. (A trailer is available here », and the entire 80-minute film is available here »)
The study provides a clear answer to the question “Why are more and more children chronically ill?”: Vaccinations play a significant role.
How did the researchers proceed? They analyzed the medical records of 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016. Of these, 1,957 were unvaccinated. 16,511 had received at least one vaccination—18 on average. “Children with chromosomal abnormalities, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, congenital heart defects, or congenital brain/neurological disorders or other congenital disorders that were present or discovered at or after birth were excluded. The aim was to assess long-term health outcomes in an essentially healthy birth cohort.”
A comparison of the two groups showed that certain chronic diseases occurred significantly more frequently in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated children. This correlation was particularly evident in asthma, neurodermatitis, hay fever, allergic conjunctivitis, autoimmune diseases, eczema, and neurological developmental disorders. Ear infections occurred six to eight times more frequently among vaccinated children. Not a single unvaccinated child was affected, whereas 11% of all children nationwide are affected.
Less pronounced, but still statistically significant, was the association between vaccinations and anaphylaxis—the most severe form of acute allergic reaction, which can be life-threatening—and severe asthma attacks. (In contrast, no significant associations were found for cancer, autism, motor impairment, and epilepsy.)
The Ford team concludes: “The probability of being free of a chronic disease after 10 years of follow-up was 43% in the vaccinated group, compared to 83% in the unvaccinated group. (…) Vaccine exposure in children is associated with an approximately 2.5-fold increase in the probability of developing a chronic health disorder compared to unvaccinated children. “
This confirms fears that had already been raised by a number of earlier studies.
Foreseeable headwinds
Promptly, fierce headwinds set in. The Ford study was ‘unscientific’ and should not be taken seriously, according to eager advocates of ”evidence-based” medicine: Jeffrey Morris (1), professor of public health and preventive medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jake Scott, a specialist in infectious diseases and lecturer at Stanford University School of Medicine. “Science Feedback,” a fact-checking agency that hunts down disinformers for Meta, Google, and the EU Commission, also fired sharp criticism.
What do they have to complain about?
They say there’s a “survey bias” because of “major imbalances in the use of health services”: vaccinated kids go to the clinic about seven times a year on average, while unvaccinated kids only go twice. (There’s a similar imbalance when it comes to doctors’ appointments.) No wonder diagnoses are more common among vaccinated people: if you don’t see a doctor, you don’t get diagnosed. That is why illnesses are detected more often in vaccinated children, while they tend to be overlooked in unvaccinated children.
But why do vaccinated children visit clinics many times more often? The most obvious assumption: precisely because they are sick more often.
In the Zervos study, the vaccinated group had a significantly higher proportion of children with low birth weight, prematurity, birth trauma, and respiratory distress at birth. Critics argue that these factors increase the risk of future illnesses—regardless of any vaccinations.
But why are vaccinated children more likely to be disabled at birth? Mothers who agree to vaccinate their offspring are more likely to have themselves vaccinated during pregnancy – with inevitable consequences for the unborn life they carry within them. For example, Covid gene injections in pregnant women multiplied the risk of spontaneous abortions, premature births, stillbirths, and malformations. (2)
Another flaw in the Zervos study, it is said, is the differing survey periods: on average, vaccinated children were followed up for 2.7 years, while unvaccinated children were followed up for only 1.3 years. This creates “more opportunities for diagnoses” among the vaccinated, Morris criticizes.
However, the researchers did not overlook this temporal inequality, but took it into account by performing several analyses for subgroups with the same follow-up periods: one year, three years, five years, and longer. Even then, the respective groups of vaccinated children still had comparatively higher rates of disease.
All in all, critics say the Zervos study has “fatal flaws” that greatly limit its scientific significance.
But in what way is the design flawed? After all, it was based on official guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for vaccine research. How, pray tell, should it have been conducted “correctly”? The critics remain silent on this point. Why don’t they do their own research? Science requires replication, not gaslighting and PR exorcism.
Attempts to discredit the Ford study have so far failed miserably.
Contradictions such as those expressed by Scott and Murray do not arise because a vaccine study was too weak, but because it was too strong, too convincing. Its findings interfere with certain interests.
Ultimately, the critics unwittingly confirm the most important message of Bigtree’s film: when faced with the choice of saving their own careers—even if they are about to retire—instead of telling the truth, scientists all too often prefer the indecent path. In vaccine research, this means sacrificing the health of children to save jobs, prestige, and sources of income.
Rolling backwards
The Zervos team itself apparently succumbed to this temptation: for years, it kept quiet about what it found and decided to sweep it under the rug. Is this how real science works?
It only spoke up when Del Bigtree dared to publicize the results anyway. This infuriated those responsible at the Henry Ford Health System: “This ‘documentary’” (in quotation marks), the institution explained, “falsely and dangerously claims that the HFHS suppressed a draft research paper because of its findings. HFHS also condemns the deliberate misrepresentation of information and the dissemination of misinformation on this topic, which poses a direct threat to public health. (…) Ultimately, this report was not published because it did not even come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards that we [Henry Ford] demand.” On October 13, the HFHS submitted a “fact check” on its own behalf to “debunk the biggest myths surrounding the ‘vaccine study.’” Christine Cole Johnson, chair of the HFHS Department of Public Health Service in Detroit, called the “fatally flawed” study “one of the worst I’ve ever seen.” Another HFHS colleague, gynecologist Dr. Adnan Munkarah—president of Clinical Enterprise & Chief Physician Executive at Henry Ford Health, where he is responsible for strategic direction and coordination of medical staff—saw the “seriously flawed” study as merely a ‘draft’ that “did not even qualify as a study.”
In reality—and this is where it gets hair-raising—the Zervos group’s data “consistently showed that vaccinations are a safe and effective way to protect children from potentially life-changing diseases.”
Seriously? Fact-checking yourself after the fact to make yourself look foolish: you have to think of that first.
And if the first attempt did indeed go wrong, why didn’t Zervos immediately take a better second shot? Why did he refrain from a replication that was free of the alleged “fatal flaws”? Why didn’t he avoid them from the start?
Del Bigtree is stunned: “The incredible thing is that a vaccine-friendly scientist at a vaccine-friendly medical institution conducted a study to refute ‘vaccine opponents,’ but instead made one of the most damning accusations against the vaccination program ever. We are facing a crisis of transparency in healthcare, and the public has a right to know the truth now.” Those who suppress this truth are endangering the health and lives of millions of children. A medical establishment that nods and remains silent is complicit.
This horror is shared by US entrepreneur and vaccine critic Steve Kirsch, who rose to become one of the world’s most prominent bloggers on healthcare issues during the coronavirus pandemic: “Henry Ford Hospital and the Zervos research team are telling the world that scientists are corrupt. Whenever there is a finding that contradicts the official narrative, it is buried to protect jobs. They claim to care about public health, but when it jeopardizes their careers, their careers take precedence. That’s a terrible message.“
American writer Upton Sinclair summed it up 90 years ago: ”It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” (3)
Notes
(1) See https://theconversation.com/why-a-study-claiming-vaccines-cause-chronic-illness-is-severely-flawed-a-biostatistician-explains-the-biases-and-unsupported-conclusions -265470 and https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1966282058612838632
(2) See https://www.epochtimes.de/gesundheit/bis-zu-90-prozent-fehlgeburten-forscher-fordern-impfstopp-fuer-schwangere-a3644984.html, https://politikstube.com/grossbritannien-zahl-der-frauen-die-nach-der-impfung-fehlgeburten-hatten-steigt-um-2-000-prozent/, https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/ archive/2022/08/30/covid-vaccine-pregnant-woman.aspx?ui=d503235325038e7b4f1f46eb68a48ff02ee0b104fe815572e6d5504e6da7c48e&sd=20200215& cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20220830&mid=DM1249705&rid=1590480599, https://reitschuster.de/post/deutlich-erhoehtes-risiko-von-spontanaborten-bei-geimpften/
(3) Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935), p. 109.