Who authored An Inconvenient Study and what is their background?
Executive summary
An Inconvenient Study is a 2025 documentary built around an unpublished Henry Ford Health "vaxxed vs unvaxxed" paper whose named authors in coverage include Marcus Zervos and Lois Lamerato; the film is promoted by Del Bigtree and ICAN and names Marcus Zervos as a primary investigator [1] [2] [3]. News outlets and statisticians have publicly criticised the unpublished study’s methods and conclusions and Henry Ford Health says it did not publish the work because it did not meet its scientific standards [4] [5] [3].
1. Who the filmmakers and promoters say authored the study
The documentary and allied outlets identify Marcus Zervos, MD, along with Lois Lamerato, PhD, and other Henry Ford Health researchers, as the primary authors of the unpublished birth‑cohort analysis called “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long‑Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children” — a dataset repeatedly cited on the film’s website and in related promotion [2] [3]. Free Now Foundation and the film present Marcus Zervos as the study’s lead investigator and quote his private assurances about the work’s validity [1].
2. The public, institutional response and Henry Ford’s position
Henry Ford Health has publicly disavowed the claim that it “suppressed” a valid paper, saying the system did not publish the study because it failed to meet Henry Ford’s rigorous scientific standards; the institution also cautioned against what it called dangerous disinformation tied to the film’s narrative [6] [3]. Michigan Public reached out to primary authors Lois Lamerato and Dr. Marcus Zervos and reported they did not reply to requests for comment [7].
3. Independent critiques of the study’s methodology
Prominent critics — including biostatisticians writing in mainstream outlets — have analysed the unpublished study’s approach and concluded it suffers from serious biases, chiefly detection bias from differing healthcare‑use between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (vaccinated children averaged ~7 visits/year vs ~2 for unvaccinated in Henry Ford data), which inflates diagnostic opportunity and can explain higher documented chronic conditions among the vaccinated cohort [4] [5]. These critiques are published in The Hindu and The Conversation and were cited after a September 2025 Senate hearing where the unpublished study was presented [4] [5].
4. The film’s backers and their agendas
The film is produced and distributed by organizations and figures associated with vaccine scepticism: Del Bigtree (the film’s central on‑screen promoter and the initiator of the original challenge), the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), and legal allies such as attorney Aaron Siri, who has represented parties challenging vaccine policy; these connections are explicit in coverage and in the film’s own site [3] [7]. Michigan Public notes the legal and advocacy networks around the film, underscoring that the film’s narrative aligns with ICAN’s long‑running critique of vaccine mandates [7].
5. What the available reporting confirms about author backgrounds
Available sources identify Marcus Zervos, MD, and Lois Lamerato, PhD, as named authors on the putative Henry Ford analysis and cite their institutional affiliation with Henry Ford Health and Wayne State School of Medicine; Michigan Public lists Lamerato and Zervos as primary authors and notes they did not respond to inquiries [2] [7]. Free Now Foundation and the film quote Zervos describing the methods as sound in recorded conversations [1].
6. What sources say — and do not say — about credentials and claims
Reporting and critics confirm the authors’ institutional affiliations but also record that the study remained unpublished and that Henry Ford said it failed scientific standards [3] [6]. Sources do not provide full CVs, detailed employment histories, or peer‑review records for the named authors in the material provided here; those specifics are not found in current reporting [1] [2] [7].
7. Why this matters: science, disclosure and public trust
The dispute mixes an unpublished dataset, a high‑profile documentary, and advocacy organizations. Independent statisticians argue the analysis methodology cannot support the film’s causal claims because of ascertainment and selection biases in electronic health records [4] [5]. At the same time, the film frames the failed publication as censorship, a narrative advanced by ICAN and legal allies — an argument that serves an advocacy agenda and that Henry Ford disputes [3] [7].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided reporting; it does not include direct access to the unpublished manuscript, full author CVs, or contemporaneous statements beyond those cited in the sources above, which are silent on detailed biographical résumés [1] [2] [7].