"An Inconvenient Study" is a documentary film premiering October 12, 2025 at 8 PM EDT.
https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
[edit addition the next day] Just finished the video. Should be good for an initiation for folks who are largely unfamiliar with the subject of vaccine injury, while another brick in the wall of vindication for those that have kept abreast of this subject. A must-watch and share for everyone, to help broaden the information landscape.[end edit]
This study was designed by employees of Henry Ford Health that have hundreds of peer reviewed published science papers under their belt, as well as being well experienced in designing trials and studies of pharmaceutical products, and is just one of the subjects covered in Aaron Siri's book "Vaccines Amen - the religion of vaccines"
One of the most stunning things I took away from "Vaccines Amen" was the fact that of the two vaccines for hepatitus B vaccines - that are administered to infants during their first day of life, one was studied for just 4 days and the other for 5 days before licensure, with no followup. Let alone that hep B is an illness generally contracted through sexual contact and illicit druggies sharing of needles. So unless the mother is a prostitute of junkie is exposing your child to the risks of vaccination worth the benefit? We all have to make these decisions on the basis of risk VS benefit.
Henry Ford Health's threat of lawsuit against ICAN and Dell Bigtree is interesting considering it is two of their employees that used their database to construct the study. The researchers were very pro vaccine and embarked on the study with the intent of shutting up "anti-vaxxers" for good. Its authors wrote their goal was to "reassure parents of the overall safety of vaccination."
But the facts and data blew up in their faces. There are NO studies or trials that support the oft touted claim that childhood vaccines are "safe and effective".
Here is what Henry Ford Health alleged:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check
It's amusing that Henry Ford Health's 4th and final point was:
""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."
During that same congressional testimony Aaron Siri made mincemeat out of Dr. Jake Scott, who even admitted to having over a hundred patients die of COVID-19 while under his team's care. Siri's book "Vaccines Amen" utterly destroys all of the false claims Dr. Jake Scott made in his testimony, regarding there having been any placebo controlled trials for childhood vaccines on the schedule. Aaron Siri litigates against the government in these matters and points out that there is not a single vaccine in the childhood schedule that has a control that was given an inert placebo.
"Dr. Jake Scott: "I've treated hundreds of COVID patients"
Sen Ron Johnson: "Did you say you lost a hundred then?"
"[Dr. Jake Scott:] I lost dozens of patients, probably over 100. I lost track to be honest. Uh it was awful. I lost many, many, nursing home folks who live nearby - and multiple per day."
The use of Dr. Jake Scott's congressional testimony as if it supported their grievance against Dell Bigtree and ICAN would seem to highlight the collective delusion that Henry Ford Health would seem to suffer. Perhaps it could indicate that their ambition toward suing ICAN could well wind up backfiring, with them defaming their own institution in the process, through data, facts and truth which Dr. Jake Scott did not seem to have a handle on as well.
Detailed at this link:
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=2129.msg3998#msg3998
Compare that with Dr. Zev Zelenko whose team had already cured 500 elderly and high risk patents by March 23 of 2020 with zero deaths and zero hospitalizations. Or Dr. Brian Tyson's team who has treated over 20,000 with zero deaths in patients that showed up within 7 days of the onset of symptioms, with 6 hospitalizations in all. I believe the survivors of those that died of a lack of effective treatment by Dr. Jake Scott should perhaps seek a remedy.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check
Jake Scott even cited this Dainish study that was trotted out as refuting the link between MMR vaccine and autism:
""The 2002 New England Journal of Medicine article by Madsen et al., often cited as pivotal in "debunking" the link between MMR vaccination and autism, contains numerous red flags that point to serious flaws and, potentially, elements of scientific misconduct or fraud. A thorough forensic analysis reveals multiple issues involving inappropriate handling of confounders, diagnostic biases, misrepresented incidence rates, and modeling weaknesses. Here's a critique of the study, line by line and layer by layer:....."
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/whats-wrong-with-the-danish-study/
Henry Ford Health's threatened lawsuit against Dell and ICAN may help launch this video of their study into the stratosphere! If it doesn't demonstrate HFH's abject fear of truth, then why don't they respond appropriately? The typical knee-jerk response of trying to censor and cancel truth, as opposed to demonstrating why the study is untrue through their own study of the data, is exactly how Pharma's deadly illness industry has gotten to where it is today.
This issue cannot and will not go away until they set out to do the same thing their employees/colleagues set out to do with this video. To prove vaccines safe through their own data. Since their outcome-bias for any such trial is obvious from the lawsuit, they would need bring in outside help to supervise study design and execution.
What kind of legal team would suggest such a blunder as to threaten a lawsuit? If invoking Dr. Jake Scott is any indication of the quality of their lawsuit, have they lost the suit already? What kind of management would not see they were being ill advised by council?
If anyone at HFH had any common sense, they would naturally follow the obvious, proper and ethical course of action rather than whining, and use their own data to do a retrospective study that debunks the study they claim is defaming them.
But being among the high priests in the religion of vaccines, what can we suppose they will do with the obvious, ethical and moral course of action?
Here is the actual study:
"Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study"
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf
Authors:
Lois Lamerato, PhD
Current affiliation: Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, United States
Scopus ID: 6506202936
6,693 Citations from 6,223 documents
152 Documents
39 h-index
10 Preprints
1,133 Co-authors
Abigail Chatfield, MS1, Amy Tang, PhD1, Marcus Zervos, MD
Seems like a somewhat different Henry Ford Health that appealed to the FDA to be able to treat patients with hydroxychloroquine, since they found a 50% reduction in death of those treated. No surprise the FDA rejected their appeal.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=384.0
But then perhaps not so surprising they are so gun-shy now considering the thrashing they got from Anthony Fauci's illness industry profiteers and their lackeys that we posted here in August of 2020.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=139.msg161#msg161
In part they wrote the following in their open letter:
___________________________
" "To our friends and colleagues around the country and globe:
We believe wholeheartedly that a mission statement is more than a plaque we hang on a wall, but rather an idea we embed in our hearts and minds that unifies, empowers and enables us to do what we do every day for the people of our communities.
Our mission is to improve people's lives through excellence in the science and art of health care and healing. For more than 100 years, we have proudly pioneered clinical and scientific breakthroughs that have advanced health care here and abroad.
As an early hotspot for the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen and lived its devastating effects alongside our patients and families. Perhaps that's what makes us even more determined to rally our researchers, frontline care team members and leaders together in boldness, participating in scientific research, including clinical trials, to find the safest care and most effective treatments. While feeling the same sense of urgency everyone else does to recognize a simple, single remedy for COVID-19, we need to be realistic in the time it takes to fully understand the optimal therapy or combination of therapies required of a new virus we are all trying to contain.
The most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. However, this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze. Therefore, a whole scientific field exists in which scientists examine how a drug is working in the real world to get as best an answer as they can as soon as possible. These types of studies can be done much more rapidly with data that is already available, usually from medical records.
Like all observational research, these studies are very difficult to analyze and can never completely account for the biases inherent in how doctors make different decisions to treat different patients. Furthermore, it is not unusual that results from such studies vary in different populations and at different times, and no one study can ever be considered all by itself.
Our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution to the other studies of hydroxychloroquine that describes what the authors found in our patient population. We – along with all doctors and scientists – eagerly support the need for randomized clinical trials.
We also want to point out that scientific debate is a common occurrence with almost every published study. In part, this is what fuels the advancement of knowledge – challenging one another on our assumptions, conclusions and applications to get to a better place for the patients we collectively serve. You can read the original study here and the senior author's letter to the editor here.
Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Adnan Munkarah, M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer
Steven Kalkanis, M.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer"
___________________________________________
The "inconvenient study" done by heavily qualified folks that work at Henry Ford Health, that used Henry Ford Health's data to do a retrospective study, they quickly rejected it.
Thus they have placed themselves under an obligation to use their own data to refute the findings of the "inconvenient study", particularly since a retrospective study is all that can be done for drugs/vaccines once they are licensed because the control group would be, theoretically, deprived of a proven life saving drug/vaccine. But it would seem that the reality in this case is that the placebo group would be the ones whose lives were being saved!
But shy did HFH ask for the FDAs permission to use hydroxychloroquine? Certainly doctors like Zev Zelenko and Brian Tyson knew they didn't need to fall on their knees faces before FDA masters! Particularly since HCQ and IVM are two of the safest drugs on the planet, and doctors are at liberty to prescribe drugs off-label. Indeed about 25% of prescriptions are off-label.
bump