How has Henry Ford Health publicly explained its decision not to publish the study referenced in the documentary?
Executive summary
Henry Ford Health has consistently said the unpublished 2020 draft was never advanced because it failed to meet the institution’s scientific standards — describing the data and analyses as flawed and the paper as unreliable — and has pushed back against claims the study was “buried” for political reasons or suppressed because of its results [1] [2] [3]. The system has publicly condemned the documentary’s portrayal as disinformation, issued a cease-and-desist to the filmmakers, and pointed to internal peer review and scientific judgment as the reason the work remained unpublished [2] [4] [3].
1. Henry Ford’s core explanation: methodological flaws and failure to meet institutional standards
Henry Ford Health’s public statements emphasize that the draft “did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand” and that the underlying data and analyses were flawed, which made it irresponsible to submit or share as peer-reviewed research [1] [3]. The health system’s official fact-check and vaccine-study web pages frame the decision as routine scientific gatekeeping: internal review raised problems with data quality, methodology and analyses, and those deficiencies prevented the paper from advancing toward publication [1] [2].
2. Denouncing the documentary and legal pushback
Beyond scientific critique, Henry Ford Health has taken an explicitly legal and reputational stance: the institution called the documentary’s portrayal “false and dangerous,” accused the film of twisting information and spreading disinformation that threatens public health, and sent a cease-and-desist letter to its makers demanding corrections or retraction [2] [1]. The messaging couples a technical explanation for non-publication with strong language about defamatory intent in the film’s narrative [2].
3. Internal peer review and who knew what when
Hospital leadership has described the process as internal peer review that “immediately shelved” the draft upon discovery of serious issues with data and methodology, and senior officials have said they were not involved in or even aware of the study until it surfaced publicly at a Senate hearing [4] [3]. Adnan Munkarah, Henry Ford’s chief of clinical enterprise, told reporters he had not been involved and that, after review, the study “wasn’t a very well‑designed or executed piece of research,” a restatement of the institution’s core reason for non-publication [3].
4. Competing narratives: suppression claims and alleged career fears
Opposing accounts — voiced at a Senate hearing and amplified by the documentary and allied commentators — assert the paper was suppressed because its results were politically inconvenient and that authors feared professional consequences if it were published [5] [6]. Attorney Aaron Siri and others have argued the authors’ reluctance or institutionally driven shelving reflects censorship; those claims prompted scrutiny and remain the central contention driving the film’s thesis [5] [7].
5. Independent critiques that buttress Henry Ford’s position
Outside experts presented at the hearing and in subsequent analysis have pointed to concrete methodological problems that would justify non-publication, such as differential follow-up time and unequal healthcare-utilization between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups that can bias diagnosis rates, and several biostatisticians publicly labeled the results unreliable for inference about vaccine safety [5] [6] [8]. These technical critiques are the same kinds of findings Henry Ford cites to defend its decision not to publish [1] [3].
6. Where reporting limits prevent definitive resolution
Public records and media reporting document the competing claims — Henry Ford’s explanation of flawed methods and internal shelving, the documentary’s claim of institutional suppression, and outside experts’ technical critiques — but do not establish motivations beyond the parties’ statements; available sources do not provide a public, fully transparent audit of the raw data and internal review memos that would conclusively resolve whether the non-publication was purely scientific judgment or influenced by other factors [3] [2] [7].