Inside the Henry Ford vaccine controversy

The Henry Ford Health study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children was never published—until Congress forced it into the open. Here’s what it found, and why it matters.

When an unpublished study from one of America’s most respected hospital networks surfaced in the US Senate last month, it reignited a fierce debate in medicine: are vaccinated children healthier than unvaccinated children?

The study, titled “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children,” was introduced into the congressional record on 9 September 2025 during a Senate hearing on “The Corruption of Science.”

Attorney Aaron Siri, who specialises in vaccine-related litigation, told lawmakers the research had been completed in 2020 by scientists at Henry Ford Health, but never published.

The reason, he said, was fear.

“These were mainstream, pro-vaccine scientists,” said Siri. “But when their analysis showed higher rates of chronic illness among vaccinated children, they were warned that publishing it could cost them their jobs.”

Once uploaded to the Senate website, the results were public—and damning. The Henry Ford team found vaccinated children had far higher rates of chronic disease than their unvaccinated peers.

The reaction was swift.

Vaccine defenders dissected the study line by line, accusing its authors of methodological errors and “fatal flaws.” Henry Ford Health itself issued a statement calling the paper from its own infectious-disease chief “unreliable.”

This analysis looks at the study, the controversy, and the criticism—and why this single dataset has become a lightning rod in the debate over scientific integrity.