How did Henry Ford Health describe its interactions with the filmmakers and why did it decline to publish the study?

1. How Henry Ford Health described its interactions with the filmmakers

Henry Ford Health publicly condemned the documentary and affiliated groups, issued cease-and-desist letters to the filmmakers and to anti‑vaccine organizations using the draft, and framed those organizations as spreading “false, misleading, and defamatory statements” that threaten public health ^{[1] [3]}. The system also said it was “unaware this long-rejected and unvalidated draft was being talked about or had somehow been shared,” and complained it was not given an opportunity to weigh in or testify before Congress when the draft was introduced in a Senate hearing ^[2]. In short, Henry Ford portrays itself as a research institution pushed into defense mode by outside activists rather than as a partner in the film’s promotion ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The official reason Henry Ford Health gave for declining to publish the study

Henry Ford’s public statements are unambiguous: the draft “did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand,” was “immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review,” and the project’s data and methodology had “serious issues” that prevented it from qualifying even as a valid study ^{[4] [6] [3]}. Leadership described the work as “fatally flawed,” saying the data “didn't survive even the earliest internal review process,” and asserting that claims of political suppression are “patently false, defamatory and troubling” ^{[3] [1]}.

3. What reviewers and outside experts identified as the study’s methodological problems

Independent epidemiologists and reporters have cited specific design flaws that explain why Henry Ford’s reviewers rejected the draft: substantial differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, detection bias because vaccinated children had far more follow-up visits (creating more opportunities for diagnoses), and statistical inconsistencies that collapse under routine epidemiologic scrutiny — all the sorts of problems peer review is designed to catch ^{[7] [5] [8]}. Multiple outlets and fact-checks concluded that the draft compared “apples to oranges,” undermining the credibility of its dramatic claims about chronic conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children ^{[8] [7]}.

4. Competing narratives and the players’ incentives

Filmmakers and allied groups like ICAN portray the unpublished draft as evidence of institutional censorship and scientific gatekeeping, arguing the results were “too inconvenient” for the medical establishment and amplifying a secretly recorded discussion with the paper’s lead author to support that narrative ^{[9] [6]}. Henry Ford frames the same facts as quality control and public-safety defense, warning that the film’s false claims could depress vaccination rates ^{[1] [10]}. Observers note the film’s producers have political and fundraising incentives — ICAN promoted the film, sold merchandise, and used the draft to argue a broader anti‑vaccine case — which creates a clear conflict between advocacy goals and impartial scientific interpretation ^{[11] [9]}.

5. What the record does and does not show

The reporting supports Henry Ford’s core factual claims: the draft was never submitted for publication, it failed internal review for concrete methodological reasons, and the health system repudiated outside use of the draft while taking legal steps to stop its dissemination ^{[2] [4] [3]}. What remains beyond the public record in these sources are internal reviewer reports or a formal, published rebuttal with full methodological re-analysis; Henry Ford’s statements summarize the rejection but the detailed reviewer critiques are not published in the reporting cited here ^{[8] [3]}. Independent outlets and experts have evaluated the draft and concurred that routine epidemiologic flaws explain why the paper was not advanced for publication ^{[7] [8]}.