Nicolas Hulscher Drops Explosive Vaccine Data at Michigan House Oversight Hearing

Overview

At a Michigan House oversight hearing, an epidemiologist (Nicolas Hulscher) testified that a large Henry Ford birth-cohort study comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children shows a strong association with later chronic illness—while emphasizing that the findings are observational and do not prove causation.

---

Core claims about the Henry Ford study

Study design and size

• The witness described the Henry Ford analysis as the “largest and most compelling” cohort study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated fertility/health outcomes.
• He said it followed approximately 18,000 children:
  • about 2,000 unvaccinated children (framed as the largest unvaccinated cohort in such studies)
  • about 16,000 vaccinated children
• Follow-up reportedly extended from birth to an average age of about 10 years.

Data sources and vaccination status validation

• He said vaccination status was verified using medical records and a state immunization registry (and not attributed to “memory error”).

Statistical methods

• He said the modeling used Cox proportional hazards models, including adjustments for baseline differences (e.g., age, sex, preterm birth).

Reported overall results

• After adjustment, vaccinated children were said to have about a 2.5× higher risk of developing chronic diseases than unvaccinated children.
• He also referenced a Kaplan–Meier–style comparison:
  • 57% of vaccinated children reportedly had at least one chronic disease after 10 years
  • 17% of unvaccinated children reportedly had at least one chronic disease after 10 years

---

Reported condition-by-condition comparisons

The testimony emphasized that many chronic categories were described as disproportionately higher among vaccinated children, including percentage increases reported (as stated in subtitles) for:

• Asthma
• Atopic/skin disorders
• Multiple autoimmune conditions (described as dramatically higher)
• Brain dysfunction
• Several neurodevelopmental/behavioral disorders, including claims that some appeared only in vaccinated children (e.g., ADHD and autism described as higher among vaccinated)

He further listed elevated rates for categories including:

• Cancer
• Diabetes
• Mental disorders
• Neurodevelopmental disorders
• Learning/intellectual/speech/motor disorders
• Seizure disorders
• Other neurological/psychological categories

The witness concluded that “all 22 categories” were proportionally higher in vaccinated children, calling it an “extremely alarming signal.”

---

Interpretation: association, urgency, and proposed rationale

Association, not causation

• The witness stated the findings do not prove causation, but are a “strong signal” that requires immediate follow-up.

Calls for additional research

• He argued that additional studies should be commissioned, especially another birth cohort study with:
  • larger sample sizes
  • more equal group sizes
  • tracking within the same healthcare system

Biological/risk explanation presented in testimony

• The witness offered a biological rationale linked to vaccine scheduling, claiming:
  • the CDC schedule involves many doses
  • vaccine components/adjuvants (examples mentioned: aluminum, traces of formaldehyde, and antibiotic/other ingredients)
  • and debates about mRNA-independent ingredients could contribute to chronic disease risk

Context about chronic disease burden

• He referenced his view that children’s chronic disease burden is high (citing an estimate that over 40% have at least one chronic condition) and suggested that vaccine-target infections are relatively uncommon.

---

Q&A: methodological concerns and requested improvements

Observation time differences

Legislators raised questions about how the study handled differing observation durations between groups, including concerns that:

• unvaccinated children might have been observed for shorter periods (e.g., only to younger ages)

Witness response

• The witness responded that the Henry Ford work reportedly included robustness/sensitivity analyses restricting follow-up windows (e.g., analyses where unvaccinated follow-up was limited to 1, 3, or 5 years).
• He claimed the association remained statistically significant.

Emphasis on interpretation

• Another exchange reinforced that the work should be treated as associations requiring further research rather than definitive causal proof.

---

Allegations of suppression and calls for openness

The hearing included concerns about barriers to publication or conducting further work, including:

• mentions of Dr. Marcus Zervos
• claims that he had concerns about consequences for speaking publicly (e.g., fear of job loss or “censorship”)

The testimony suggested such pressures could contribute to research remaining unpublished or inaccessible.

---

Additional topics raised by legislators

MTHFR gene screening

• A legislator asked whether children with vaccine-related health harms were screened for MTHFR variants (C677T and A1298C).
• The witness said the Henry Ford study did not include such testing, but argued genetic susceptibility could be relevant.
• He referenced prior legislative efforts promoting screening.

Informed consent and coercion

• A legislator described being pressured during the H1N1 campaign and asked how parents could be protected from threats or coercive medical messaging.
• The witness responded that the core issue is inadequate informed consent and argued that risks (including fever and pregnancy-related concerns) should be communicated.

Vaccine technology/adjuvant changes over time

• A question compared older vaccine schedules to current ones, asking whether changes in vaccine forms/adjuvants could affect outcomes.
• The witness argued vaccine schedules have expanded over time and suggested that incentives and liability protection may have reduced pressure to minimize vaccine counts.

Other evidence and reanalysis

• The hearing included discussion that Henry Ford data had been reviewed and reanalyzed in peer-reviewed form, described as “published” after reanalysis.

---

Future hearing participation and broader policy implications

The witness agreed to participate in future open discussions and proposed that legislators fund a new study with:

• much larger sample sizes (e.g., tens of thousands per group)
• equalized group sizes
• systematic tracking within the same healthcare framework to reduce missing data and improve comparability

---

Presenters / Contributors (as named in the subtitles)

• Nicolas Galscher (also referred to as Nicolas Hulscher / Nick; epidemiologist at the McCauley Foundation)
• Brett McDonald (questioner)
• Chairman (unidentified by name; speaking role)
• Representative Buckhout (questioner)
• Dr. Marcus Zervos (mentioned; not present in person per testimony)
• Del Bigtree (mentioned)
• Dr. Peter McCullough (mentioned)
• Dr. Zerbo (mentioned)
• Henry Ford representatives (requested/desired to participate; not named)
• Michigan State University toxicologists / doctors / epidemiologists (mentioned generally, not named)
• Mr. Chairman / other committee members (no specific names provided beyond the above)