Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What conflicts of interest or funding disclosures exist for the authors of 'An Inconvenient Study'?
Executive summary
Reporting and public documents around the film An Inconvenient Study and the unpublished Henry Ford–linked paper identify some key players (Marcus Zervos, Lois Lamerato, Del Bigtree, ICAN/Aaron Siri) but contain limited, direct disclosure statements from the authors themselves; Michigan Public reported the authors did not respond to questions [1]. ICAN/film materials and promotional outlets tie the film to ICAN and Del Bigtree, while critics (Henry Ford, The Conversation, Stat referenced by the film site) have published critiques of the underlying study and its methodology [2] [3] [4].
1. Who the principal people and organizations are — and why that matters
The documentary prominently features ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) and Del Bigtree; promotional material for the film lists ICAN/ICAN fundraising and claims major reach for the film [2]. The alleged study at the film’s center names Henry Ford Health system researchers — including Marcus Zervos and Lois Lamerato — and the film connects legal advocate Aaron Siri and ICAN to publicizing the work at a Senate hearing [5] [1] [6]. These affiliations matter because ICAN and some named figures (e.g., Aaron Siri) are public advocates against vaccine mandates; the promotional tie between the film and ICAN/Del Bigtree makes organizational funding and editorial perspective relevant to assessing potential agendas [6] [2].
2. What the reporting says about author disclosures and conflicts of interest
Available reporting does not produce a formal conflicts-of-interest or funding disclosure form filed by the listed study authors; Michigan Public specifically attempted to contact the primary authors, Lois Lamerato and Dr. Marcus Zervos, and reported that neither replied to requests for comment [1]. The film website and ICAN materials emphasize impact and fundraising but do not publish the study authors’ ICMJE-style COI statements in the excerpts provided here [2]. Therefore, explicit, on-the-record author funding or COI statements are not found in the supplied sources.
3. Connections critics flag as relevant to potential bias
Critics and reporting raise contextual ties that could influence interpretation: the study was amplified by ICAN and Aaron Siri at a Senate hearing — Siri is described as a lawyer who specializes in vaccine lawsuits and as an adviser to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which situates the study within an advocacy ecosystem skeptical of vaccines [4] [6]. While these are organizational and promotional links rather than direct financial disclosures by the study’s academic authors, they are cited repeatedly in coverage as part of the chain that brought the work to public attention [1] [6].
4. Scientific pushback and why COI transparency matters here
Independent outlets and scientists have publicly criticized the study’s methods (detection bias, visit-rate differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children) — critiques that focus on methodological flaws rather than on disclosed financial ties but which nonetheless benefit from full transparency about funding and COI to judge credibility [4] [7]. TheConversation and The Hindu pieces explain methodological problems such as different clinic visit rates that can inflate diagnosis rates among vaccinated children; those critiques underscore why readers and journals typically expect COI and funding statements to contextualize results [4] [7].
5. What is publicly documented about institutional responses
Henry Ford Health publicly said the work did not meet its scientific standards and cautioned against disinformation, according to reporting cited on IMDb and other summaries; Henry Ford also reportedly did not publish the study [3]. Michigan Public covered the controversy and the lack of author responses to queries, and the film’s producers have framed the non-publication as suppression — a claim Henry Ford disputes [1] [3]. Those institutional disagreements increase the importance of written COI and funding declarations, yet such declarations are not presented in the available sources.
6. What we still don’t know from current reporting
The supplied sources do not include an ICMJE disclosure form, grant/funder list, salary/consulting declarations for Marcus Zervos, Lois Lamerato, Abigail Chatfield, Amy Tang, or other named co-authors, nor do they show journal submission materials with COI sections [8] [2]. Available sources do not mention specific research grants, industry ties, or personal financial interests of the named authors; Michigan Public’s outreach elicited no reply from the primary authors [1]. Because of that absence, readers cannot assess author-level financial COIs from these materials alone.
7. How to interpret these gaps and next reporting steps
Given the high public interest and conflicting institutional statements, the responsible next steps are straightforward: request copies of any ICMJE or journal disclosure forms from the study authors or their institutions; ask Henry Ford Health for the records that led to its public statement; and require the film/ICAN to publish any financial backers or production funding that could reflect advocacy alignment [3] [2]. Transparency on these points would answer whether documented financial or other conflicts exist; until then, the public record in these sources is incomplete and dominated by advocacy framing on one side and methodological critique and institutional pushback on the other [6] [4] [1].