The Lacuna Project

lacuna (n.) a gap in a record where something should be

Independent research. Not affiliated with any government, agency, or company.

Exhibit 1088

Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation

Exhibit 1088 · Institutional statement

Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation

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.

States that Henry Ford Health has issued a cease-and-desist letter to the makers of an upcoming 'documentary' and says a 2020 draft comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children 'was immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology.' Lists six flaws (sample differences, small unvaccinated sample, shorter follow-up, multiple vaccines versus none, no account of vaccine number or timing, changing guidance). Calls suppression claims 'patently false, defamatory and troubling' and says the draft was shared without the system's knowledge.

Source
Henry Ford Health
Date
26 September 2025
Quoted from
Paragraph 1 (DETROIT dateline)
Grade
Primary record
Document
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
Accessed
2026-11-10
Cited by
Findings citing this exhibit
Note
The cease-and-desist letter itself was not located. The draft manuscript is exhibit henry-ford-ms (Senate hearing record, 9 September 2025); the Michigan Public report is exhibit henry-ford-statement. A second Henry Ford page of the same date ('fact check') lists myths and rebuttals.

Cited by

Finding INF-5.13
Primary record Henry Ford Health stated on 26 September 2025 that a 2020 draft comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children "was immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology." Science Feedback's review of the draft, published four days earlier, cited an outside biostatistician who called its baseline imbalances and unequal follow-up "fatal flaws."