Exhibit 1089

Significant flaws in Henry Ford study used to claim childhood vaccines cause harm

Exhibit 1089 · Fact-check review

Significant flaws in Henry Ford study used to claim childhood vaccines cause harm

Contrary to the claims of vaccine opponents, the study doesn’t provide credible evidence of a causal relationship between childhood vaccinations and certain chronic medical conditions.

Review of the unpublished Henry Ford manuscript, published four days before Henry Ford Health's statement. Cites an outside biostatistician who called baseline imbalances, utilization disparities and unequal follow-up 'fatal flaws,' and concludes the study 'doesn't provide credible evidence of a causal relationship.' Science Feedback was a defendant in Children's Health Defense v. Meta (exhibit ca9-2024-chd-v-meta) as a Meta fact-checking contractor.

Source: Science Feedback
Date: 22 September 2025
Quoted from: 'Conclusion' section
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://science.feedback.org/review/significant-flaws-henry-ford-study-childhood-vaccines-harm/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Science Feedback's funding page lists Facebook/Meta; amounts not retrieved.

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."