Have any authors of 'An Inconvenient Study' disclosed conflicts of interest or funding sources?

1. What the reporting documents about author disclosures

Michigan Public reached out to the study’s primary authors, Lois Lamerato and Dr. Marcus Zervos, but the organization reports that “neither replied,” and it does not present a published COI or funding statement from them in that coverage ^[1]. The Conversation and The Hindu described the study’s substance and the Senate hearing around it, but neither piece in the provided set publishes a formal conflicts or funding declaration for the authors; they instead discuss methodological critiques and the study’s unpublished status ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Filmmakers’ and advocates’ claims vs. what the academic record shows

The documentary and affiliated sites spotlight endorsements and footage — for example, the Free Now Foundation piece quotes Marcus Zervos reassuring the filmmaker about methods in a secretly recorded conversation — but that promotional material is not a formal disclosure of funding or conflicts of interest in the sense journals require ^[6]. The film’s own website (run by ICAN) frames the study as suppressed and links to criticism published elsewhere, but does not, in the material cited here, reproduce an author COI/funding statement from the original study ^[4].

3. Institutional response and the absence of a peer‑review trail

Henry Ford Health publicly stated it did not publish the study because it “did not meet Henry Ford’s rigorous scientific standards” and warned about misinformation; that institutional statement is reported in the set but does not list author disclosures beyond criticizing the study’s quality and its non‑publication ^[5]. Because the underlying paper appears unpublished or otherwise not accepted into a peer‑reviewed journal in the materials provided, there is no standard journal conflict-of-interest disclosure record to consult in these sources ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

4. Attempts to contact authors and what reporters found

Michigan Public explicitly reports contacting primary authors and receiving no reply; its story therefore records absence of public responses rather than published COI statements from those authors ^[1]. The Conversation and The Hindu pieces likewise recount public testimony and critique but do not cite author-published funding statements or conflict declarations in the reporting provided ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Standard expectations for disclosures — and why their absence matters

Academic journals commonly require authors to declare financial and non‑financial conflicts and to list funders; multiple guidance documents and editorials make this routine and important context for evaluating research ^{[7] [8] [9]}. The sources assembled here include several general references explaining how conflicts of interest are handled in publishing, which highlights that the lack of a visible, formal disclosure (in an unpublished study) leaves readers without a standard source of transparency ^{[8] [9]}.

6. Competing narratives and potential hidden agendas

Advocates associated with the film and ICAN present the work as suppressed evidence of harms; legal advocates (Aaron Siri/ICAN) framed the story at hearings ^{[6] [4] [2]}. Independent outlets and biostatisticians criticised the study’s methods and noted detection bias and other flaws — these critiques emphasize methodological shortcomings rather than revealing author funding ^{[2] [3]}. That dichotomy — promotional messaging by advocates versus methodologic critique by journalists and scientists — suggests competing agendas: advocacy for vaccine-skeptical positions versus scientific due diligence ^{[6] [2] [3]}.

7. What is not found in current reporting

Available sources do not mention any formal, published conflicts-of-interest statements or declared funding sources authored by the study’s investigators in a peer-reviewed outlet; they also do not provide a public, signed COI form from the authors in the materials cited here ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If such disclosures exist elsewhere (for example in an institutional report or unpublished appendices), those are not present in the set you provided.

8. Practical next steps for verification

To confirm whether the study’s authors made COI or funding disclosures, check (a) the original study manuscript or appendix if publicly posted, (b) an institutional page or press release from Henry Ford Health listing author statements, or (c) journal submission records or ICMJE forms if the manuscript was ever submitted; the current reporting in these sources does not show those records ^{[1] [5] [9]}.

Limitations: this answer uses only the provided sources; those sources document requests for comment and critiques but do not include an author-published conflicts/funding declaration, so the conclusion is necessarily a statement about absence in these reports rather than a definitive statement that no disclosures exist anywhere ^{[1] [2] [3]}.