Who is the author of an inconvenient study and what evidence do they use?
Executive summary
The documentary "An Inconvenient Study" centers on an unpublished Henry Ford Health System birth‑cohort analysis titled "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long‑Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children," which examined about 18,500 children and compared roughly 16,500 vaccinated children to about 2,000 completely unvaccinated children [1] [2]. The film and affiliated advocates (ICAN/Del Bigtree) present the study as evidence that vaccines increase childhood chronic illnesses; independent biostatisticians and outlets say the unpublished paper has major methodological flaws — especially surveillance bias and inadequate adjustment for follow‑up time — and Henry Ford says the work did not meet its standards [3] [2] [1].
1. Who is presenting “An Inconvenient Study” and who authored the underlying paper?
The film is promoted and distributed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Del Bigtree, who commissioned and publicized the project and the associated Senate hearing [3] [4]. The unpublished birth‑cohort paper at the center of the film lists authors affiliated with Henry Ford Health and Wayne State: Lois Lamerato, PhD; Marcus Zervos, MD; and colleagues [5] [1]. The movie’s public materials and festival write‑ups repeatedly link the documentary’s claims to that Henry Ford study [5] [3].
2. What evidence does the paper claim to use?
According to reporting, the study analyzed electronic medical records for children born in Henry Ford hospitals from 2000–2016, classifying them into vaccinated (about 16,500) and unvaccinated (about 2,000) cohorts and comparing a wide range of chronic health outcomes across those groups [1] [2]. The paper therefore rests on retrospective chart review in a single health‑system birth cohort and statistical comparisons of diagnosis rates between the two groups [1] [2].
3. Why critics say the evidence is weak: surveillance and follow‑up bias
Biostatisticians and major outlets warn the core problem is surveillance bias: vaccinated children appear more often in medical records over time, and small differences in follow‑up make the vaccinated group likelier to accrue diagnoses merely because they were observed longer. The Conversation explains the study did not adequately account for these differences; the authors’ attempts to restrict analyses by minimum follow‑up ages (beyond age 1, 3 or 5) were judged insufficient [2]. Michigan Public and The Conversation describe the same surveillance/follow‑up concerns and note the vaccinated group was far larger, amplifying statistical and bias issues [1] [2].
4. Henry Ford’s position and the documentary’s framing
Henry Ford Health has stated it declined to publish the study because it did not meet the system’s scientific standards; the film frames that decision as suppression and publicizes the claim that researchers were discouraged from publishing [6] [3]. ICAN and allies, including legal adviser Aaron Siri and public figures in the movie, assert the study was “buried” or suppressed and present it as a landmark indictment of vaccines [4] [3]. Michigan Public reports Henry Ford’s non‑publication and notes the documentary’s narrative of deliberate suppression [1].
5. Competing viewpoints and potential agendas
Supporters of the film and ICAN treat the unpublished Henry Ford analysis as suppressed evidence of vaccine harm; ICAN and Del Bigtree have an established anti‑mandate and skeptical stance on vaccination [3] [4]. Independent analysts and mainstream outlets — including a biostatistician who authored the Conversation piece and local reporting — counter that the study’s retrospective design, differential follow‑up, and inadequate statistical controls make causal claims unjustified [2] [1]. These are conflicting interpretations of the same dataset; the film promotes one narrative while multiple reporting outlets highlight methodological flaws [2] [1].
6. What’s not answered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention peer‑reviewed publication of the Henry Ford paper, responses from the listed authors to detailed statistical critiques, or any corrected reanalysis accepted by independent reviewers [1] [2]. The documentary’s web page and promotional materials repeatedly reference the study but do not supply a final, peer‑reviewed manuscript in the public record [3].
7. Takeaway for readers
The documentary cites an unpublished Henry Ford birth‑cohort study of ~18,500 children as its central evidence [1]. Independent statisticians and reporting identify serious biases — notably surveillance and unequal follow‑up — that undermine causal claims that vaccines increase chronic illness; Henry Ford says the work did not meet its scientific standards [2] [1]. Given those disagreements, the study as presented in the film should not be taken as settled evidence without a transparent, peer‑reviewed reanalysis addressing the methodological critiques [2] [1].