Är det bättre att inte medicinera och vaccinera alls?

The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) is one of the main anti-vaccination groups in the United States. Founded in 2016 by Del Bigtree, it spreads misinformation about the risks of vaccines and contributes to vaccine hesitancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_Consent_Action_Network

Social movements use legal tools to create narratives. Those narratives support social agendas which certain movements leverage to mislead their followers and potential followers. In this Article, we examine one influential anti-vaccine organization, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), that uses its far-reaching platform to create false narratives around legal action. Again and again, this anti-vaccine group misrepresented both the legal and the factual meanings of court decisions, settlements, and other legal actions to create a narrative to galvanize its followers and influence newcomers. ICAN filed lawsuits that make anti-vaccine arguments—even when the legal framework did not fit doing so—and misrepresented the results. Most commonly in this category, while FOIA requests can only ask for documents and cannot ask queries, ICAN framed its frequent FOIA requests and subsequent lawsuits as if they were asking the agency to answer questions, rather than provide records. The group then presented the results to support one of its narratives—that vaccines cause autism—when the results did not, in fact, support such a narrative. This Article shows how legal tools advance disinformation and misinformation, creating a misleading, alternative reality.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/105c474b9e70243fe00731afab547871/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2034356

Scott isn’t the only scientist unaffiliated with Henry Ford who found the study faulty. Dr. Jeffrey Morris, a professor of public health and biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in a piece for The Conversation that “The Henry Ford data could be helpful if the study followed both groups of kids to the same ages and took into account differences in health care use and background risks.”

“But as written,” Morris continued, “the study’s main comparisons are tilted. The follow-up time was short and uneven, kids had unequal chances for diagnosis, and the two groups were very different in ways that matter. The methods used did not adequately fix these problems. Because of this, the differences reported in the study do not show that vaccines cause chronic disease.”

Scott said he was “flabbergasted” that the study was presented as evidence at the hearing because it was so fraught with issues. “It’s pretty obvious to me that it wasn't suppressed truth, it was just rejected science,” he said.
https://www.michiganpublic.org/health/2025-11-06/henry-ford-health-didnt-publish-a-vaccine-study-was-it-buried-or-just-rejected-science

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

0.09. Falsk ryktesspridning
Att sprida påhittade uppgifter om personer, företag eller organisationer med uppsåt att utsätta dessa för andras missaktning, eller att avsiktligen sprida förvrängd eller påhittad information med uppsåt att vilseleda, är förbjudet.

The health system urges anyone who comes across content regarding this discredited draft to recognize it’s being weaponized.

[i]The BMJ review included observational studies but not a very important one, the US Henry Ford study. Its investigators dared not publish it, as they were afraid of getting fired (5)

A more plausible explanation for the censorship is that institutions are horrified by running a risk of being seen as critics of vaccines, which are taboo (10). If they deviate from the industry mantra that all vaccines are safe and effective, they can expect retaliation.

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

I det här fallet lades ett utkast från 2020 till en artikel som syftade till att jämföra hälsoutfall för vaccinerade och ovaccinerade barn omedelbart på is efter den första interna granskningen på grund av allvarliga problem med dess data och metod. Dessa brister inkluderade:

Det ovaccinerade patienturvalet skilde sig avsevärt från det vaccinerade urvalet, med fler pojkar, fler vita barn, färre prematura barn och mindre andnöd vid födseln.
Det ovaccinerade urvalet var mycket litet i jämförelse med det vaccinerade urvalet.
Mängden tid som mätte sjukdomsförekomst var mycket kortare för de ovaccinerade barnen. En fjärdedel observerades endast till sex månaders ålder, och 75 % observerades endast fram till 3 års ålder, vilket är innan läkare med säkerhet kan diagnostisera kroniska barnsjukdomar.
Utkastet jämförde flera vacciner kontra inga vacciner, istället för ett specifikt vaccin kontra inga vacciner. Ingen hänsyn togs till antalet vacciner eller tiden mellan vacciner och sjukdomsförekomst.
Vaccinriktlinjerna har ändrats över tid, men det togs inte hänsyn till.

Utkastet övervägdes aldrig för inlämning till tidskrifter eftersom det inte alls kom i närheten av att uppfylla de rigorösa vetenskapliga standarder som systemet kräver – samma standarder som tidskrifter också har.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health

Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. A primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer.
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/compass/discipline_humanities/toolkit_humanities/pdf/1_2_sources.pdf

0.09. Falsk ryktesspridning
Att sprida påhittade uppgifter om personer, företag eller organisationer med uppsåt att utsätta dessa för andras missaktning, eller att avsiktligen sprida förvrängd eller påhittad information med uppsåt att vilseleda, är förbjudet.