There has been much talk about a recently “discovered” study that claims to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children, as summarized here (the article). The original study may be found here (link).
Based on a survey or so-called epidemiological analysis, it reportedly found that vaccination appears to harm vaccinated children. The data presented indeed suggest this outcome. Logically, there is no reason to continue vaccination programs. The conclusion is self-evident.
However, upon closer reading, one finds manipulation and misleading language throughout the report. The authors describe the study’s “scientifical robustness,” yet there is no science in it in the true sense of the word. Science means experimental work — controlled, measurable, and reproducible — not the simple collection of questionnaire data. At best, this is an observational social survey. The first author of the study, Lois Lamerato, Ph.D., holds a degree in sociology.
The medical establishment habitually promotes such surveys as “scientific studies,” presenting themselves as scientists. In reality, physicians and medical experts do not study science, even at the most basic level. Their understanding of science is therefore distorted and false. Whenever they invoke the word science, their claims must be judged critically and corrected accordingly.
The article’s conclusion reads:
“Considering the scale, the scientifical rigorousness and robustness of the Henry Ford study, it is obvious that the industry can no longer claim that children’s immunizations are safe.”
The phrase “scientific rigor” is again misused. It is not a scientific study but a survey. The survey findings are still valid and valuable — they show that childhood immunization is not safe and must be stopped. There is no rational basis for continuing it.
The article also quotes:
“Pharmaceutical companies, the media on their payrolls, and our health authorities have long claimed that robust studies of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children do not exist — creating a loophole allowing them to assert that vaccines are safe.”
Here again, the real issue is misrepresented. While pharmaceutical companies and media play their roles, it is the medical professionals — physicians and health experts — who design, promote, and guide such studies. They are the ones the world follows, under the illusion that they are scientific authorities. In truth, their field — medicine — is not science, and their knowledge of real science is minimal. This is a deliberate strategy by the medical profession to shift blame to others while maintaining their elite status as “medical scientists” and continuing the cycle of false treatments and invented illnesses.
The article finally states:
“In view of the alarming outcomes of this study, it is clear that proper and honest safety testing of vaccines must finally be performed.”
But why should further “honest testing” be pursued when there is no evidence that such illnesses, or their alleged viral causes, even exist? These are merely claims — opinions presented as scientific facts — made by medical experts based solely on observation, without proof of either the illness itself or its supposed source, the virus. For decades, the medical establishment has carried out a profound scientific deception: claiming the authority of science while possessing neither its training nor its credentials.
It is time to stop granting research funding to medical professionals and institutions for so-called “scientific studies.” Physicians are not scientists; they are trained only to prescribe medicine. Until real scientists — those grounded in chemistry and experimental validation — are brought back into this discussion, the deception will continue. For the sake of truth and public health, this lie (that physicians are followers of science, science experts, or scientists) must end.
PS: In response to recent comments, this note (below) is added to clarify my original point and ensure the intended meaning is clear.
As I wrote earlier, “Logically, there is no reason to continue vaccination programs. The conclusion is self-evident.” The available survey data, reports, and emerging patterns already provide sufficient evidence that vaccination is causing harm on a large scale. The signs are visible to anyone willing to look objectively — declining public health, unexplained illness, and the erosion of trust in so-called preventive medicine.
When people insist that “larger studies” are still needed, I see it differently. To me, such demands are not calls for truth but for funding — a way to keep the machinery of grants, institutions, and careers running while avoiding the obvious. It is a strategy to delay acknowledgment, to pretend uncertainty, and to justify continuing the same harmful practices under the banner of “further research.”
This is not good science. It is not even good ethics. The true scientist recognizes when evidence, logic, and experience already converge to a clear conclusion. Continuing to ignore the “elephant in the room” — the harm being done — is not research; it is denial dressed in professionalism.
It is time to stop hiding behind endless studies and start facing reality. The cost of delay is not measured in papers or funding cycles — it is measured in human suffering.