What data sources and statistical methods does An Inconvenient Study rely on?
Executive summary
An Inconvenient Study centers on an unpublished Henry Ford Health analysis comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children; the film and affiliated sites say it used health‑system clinical records and referenced public vaccine data (cdc.gov, fda.gov) while portraying statistical comparisons of chronic‑disease incidence by age [1] [2]. Critics and Henry Ford Health say the analysis was not published because it failed the system’s scientific standards, citing small unvaccinated sample size, mismatched groups and surveillance/detection bias concerns identified by independent statisticians [2] [3] [4].
1. What the filmmakers and promoters say about the data sources
The documentary and its promotional site state the project draws on Henry Ford Health’s internal patient records for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparison and explicitly cites public repositories — CDC mortality and vaccine safety pages and FDA licensing documents — as supporting sources used in the film’s narrative [1] [2]. The film frames those medical‑record data as a “buried” Henry Ford study whose results the filmmakers argue were suppressed and supplements the hospital dataset with publicly available federal vaccine data for context [1] [5].
2. Henry Ford Health’s position and why it matters
Henry Ford Health has publicly said it did not publish the study because it did not meet its rigorous scientific standards and warned against misinformation; that statement is central because the health system controls the primary clinical dataset the film relies on and therefore contests both data quality and the decision to highlight unpublished results [2] [3]. The institution’s refusal to publish is cited by multiple outlets noting the dataset’s limitations and by the film as evidence of suppression [2] [5].
3. Independent methodological criticisms highlighted by statisticians
Biostatisticians and public‑health commentators have pointed to key methodological weaknesses: surveillance bias (different follow‑up time that can make one group look sicker), detection bias (differing healthcare‑seeking behavior leading to different diagnosis rates), confounding due to demographic and socioeconomic imbalances, and small unvaccinated sample sizes — all of which invalidate causal claims if not properly controlled [4] [3]. TheConversation piece spells out that the paper’s primary methods “were not sufficient to adjust for this surveillance bias,” a cardinal statistical flaw for longitudinal comparisons [4].
4. What statistical methods the film claims or implies were used
Promotional materials and commentary around the film describe comparative incidence analyses by age and present striking graphics (for example, curves of percent “free from chronic conditions” by age) implying cohort comparisons and survival‑style plots, though they do not fully disclose analytic protocols, model specifications, or adjustment strategies in public materials [6] [1]. The film claims the Henry Ford data were analyzed to produce age‑stratified comparisons but available sources do not provide a full methodological appendix or peer‑review protocol for those analyses [1] [6].
5. The core statistical controversies and their practical effects
If follow‑up time differs between vaccinated and unvaccinated children or if the groups differ in demographic or healthcare‑use patterns, observed differences in diagnosis rates can be driven entirely by surveillance/detection bias and confounding rather than vaccine effects; independent reviewers emphasise these are precisely the risks in the Henry Ford dataset as described [4] [3]. Henry Ford’s statement that the unvaccinated subgroup was small and not properly matched — “apples‑to‑oranges” by their account — illustrates how sampling and matching choices can produce misleading rate differences [5] [3].
6. Competing narratives and hidden agendas to note
The film and allied organizations frame the story as suppression by medical institutions and federal agencies; advocacy groups and sympathetic outlets amplify that narrative [5] [7]. Conversely, Henry Ford and several mainstream outlets present rejection on methodological grounds. Both sides have agendas: filmmakers seek to seed doubt about vaccine safety and institutional transparency, while Henry Ford faces reputational and scientific‑integrity incentives to insist on rigorous standards [1] [3].
7. Limitations of reporting and next steps for verification
Available reporting does not include the full analytic code, regression models, covariate lists, or exact cohort‑construction rules that would permit independent reanalysis; the primary hospital dataset remains unpublished, so claims about causality cannot be independently verified from current public materials [1] [3]. Journalistic verification should demand the dataset, pre‑specified analysis plan, and peer review; statistical reanalysis would need to control for age at follow‑up, healthcare‑utilization, socioeconomic status and other confounders highlighted by biostatisticians [4].
Summary: the film leans on Henry Ford clinical records plus public CDC/FDA material and presents cohort comparisons by age; statisticians and Henry Ford contest the study’s methods — small unvaccinated sample, mismatching, and surveillance/detection bias — and the raw data and analytic details needed to settle the matter have not been released for independent scrutiny [1] [4] [3].