Who are the authors of 'An Inconvenient Study' and what institutions are they affiliated with?

Checked on December 10, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The unpublished paper tied to the documentary An Inconvenient Study is repeatedly described in reporting and promotional material as authored by Lois Lamerato, PhD; Abigail Chatfield, MS; Amy Tang, PhD; and Marcus Zervos, MD, affiliated with Henry Ford Health System and Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit [1] [2]. Major outlets and critics report the study was never peer‑reviewed or published and that Henry Ford Health says it did not meet its standards [3] [4].

1. Who the promotional materials and film identify as the authors

Promotional pages for the film and related writeups list the study authors as Lois Lamerato, PhD; Abigail Chatfield, MS; Amy Tang, PhD; and Marcus Zervos, MD, and give an institutional line linking the work to Henry Ford Health System (Detroit) and the Department of Public Health Sciences/Division of Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University School of Medicine in some summaries [1] [2].

2. How mainstream reporting frames institutional affiliation

Independent reporting contacted the named authors and frames them as “primary authors” tied to the Henry Ford system; Michigan Public reports that reporters reached out to Lois Lamerato and Marcus Zervos as the study’s primary authors [5]. The film’s own site and its backers repeatedly link the work to Henry Ford Health [3] [2].

3. Henry Ford Health’s response and the publication status

Henry Ford Health has publicly stated it declined to publish the study because it did not meet the system’s scientific standards; outlets note Henry Ford also denounced claims that it suppressed research and cautioned against misinformation [4] [3]. Multiple sources emphasize the document at the heart of the film remained unpublished and has not undergone peer review [3] [6].

4. Disputes over methodology, detection bias, and credibility

Biostatisticians and science outlets criticized the study’s methods. The Conversation and The Hindu summarize expert critiques that vaccinated children in the Henry Ford dataset averaged far more clinic visits than unvaccinated children, creating detection bias that inflates diagnoses in the vaccinated group — a methodological problem the paper’s authors reportedly attempted to address but did not resolve [7] [6]. These outlets present the study as “unpublished” and “severely flawed” rather than as established science [6] [7].

5. Advocacy groups and documentary producers’ framing

Advocacy organizations and the film’s producers (including ICAN/Informed Consent Action Network and figures tied to Del Bigtree) present the study as suppressed evidence of vaccine harm and foreground Marcus Zervos as the researcher who “ran the study” at Henry Ford [3] [8]. Those groups argue that institutional pressure, not scientific weakness, explains the study’s non‑publication [8] [2].

6. What the public record does not confirm or leaves unresolved

Available sources do not present a peer‑reviewed, published version of the paper; they do not include a publisher’s page or journal citation for a finalized study [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention any formal retraction notice from a journal because the study was not published [3]. They also do not provide a full institutional authorship line that would appear in a journal article beyond the film’s and allied sites’ statements [1] [2].

7. Competing narratives and potential agendas to note

Mainstream science outlets and independent reporters present the work as an unpublished, methodologically weak study that was refused by Henry Ford for scientific reasons [6] [7] [4]. Advocacy groups and the documentary frame the same facts as evidence of suppression by the “medical‑industrial complex” and emphasize the authors and Henry Ford ties to claim a cover‑up [8] [2]. Both narratives cite the same named individuals; they diverge on whether non‑publication reflects poor science or institutional censorship [3] [8].

8. Bottom line for readers seeking verification

If your question is strictly “Who are the authors and what institutions are listed?” available reporting and the film identify Lois Lamerato, PhD; Abigail Chatfield, MS; Amy Tang, PhD; and Marcus Zervos, MD, and associate them with Henry Ford Health System (and in some references with Wayne State University School of Medicine) [1] [2]. For claims about the study’s validity, publication, or suppression, independent outlets and scientific critics report the paper remained unpublished and raise substantive methodological concerns; Henry Ford Health says the work did not meet its standards [3] [6] [7] [4].

Limitations: I relied only on the supplied reporting and the documentary’s materials; available sources do not include a peer‑reviewed publication, institutional authorship records, or direct author statements beyond media outreach noted by Michigan Public [5] [3].

Want to dive deeper?
What is the full citation and publication date of 'An Inconvenient Study'?
Which journal or publisher released 'An Inconvenient Study' and is it peer reviewed?
Have the authors of 'An Inconvenient Study' published other papers on the same topic?
Are there institutional press releases or media coverage identifying the study's authors and affiliations?
Do the authors of 'An Inconvenient Study' have declared conflicts of interest or funding sources listed?