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 data sources and methodology does An Inconvenient Study rely on?
Executive summary
An Inconvenient Study is a 2025 documentary built around an unpublished Henry Ford Health retrospective comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children; the filmmakers and allied groups say the study used Henry Ford patient records and prior published literature (PubMed, CDC, FDA, National Academies) while critics and Henry Ford describe the project as methodologically flawed and not publishable [1] [2]. Coverage shows the film leans on the unpublished Henry Ford analysis, interviews (including secretly recorded conversations), archival documents and public data repositories, while independent experts and outlets have highlighted specific bias and matching problems in the underlying research [3] [4] [5].
1. What the filmmakers say they relied on — internal Henry Ford data and public repositories
The documentary and its promotional materials present the core evidence as an unpublished retrospective study conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos and colleagues within Henry Ford Health comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients; the film also cites and links to public sources such as PubMed, National Academies reports, CDC and FDA documents and YouTube videos of scientific discussions to provide historical and contextual material [1] [6] [3].
2. Documentary methods described — interviews, hidden recordings, archival material
According to publicity and allied outlets, the film uses filmed interviews with Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Ron Johnson, Dr. Zervos and others, plus a secretly recorded conversation between Zervos and Bigtree and archival documents from the Henry Ford project; ICAN and the filmmakers frame these elements as exposing a study “suppressed” because its results were inconvenient [3] [6] [1].
3. The core empirical claim — a retrospective vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparison
Multiple descriptions of the project make clear the central empirical approach: a retrospective comparison of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children drawn from Henry Ford Health System records. The film presents that analysis as the evidence linking vaccines to higher rates of chronic disease, and uses supplementary literature to bolster the narrative [6] [7] [1].
4. Critics: which methodological problems are cited by outside experts
Independent reporting and peer-critic commentary highlight several methodological flaws in the unpublished analysis. Henry Ford publicly said the work “did not meet rigorous scientific standards” and pointed to a small unvaccinated sample and poor matching — unvaccinated children were reported as disproportionately white, male, of different birth complication profiles and socioeconomic backgrounds — creating an apples-to-oranges comparison [8] [3]. Biostatisticians who reviewed the claims described biases and unsupported causal inferences in the study and in the film’s interpretation [4] [5].
5. How supporters frame the film’s selection and presentation of evidence
Supporters and organizations tied to the film (ICAN, Free Now Foundation, Children’s Health Defense promotion) frame the documentary as exposing suppressed research and as using the unpublished Henry Ford data as a corrective to a perceived lack of independent vaccine safety inquiry; they stress that the study’s author defended methodology in conversations with filmmakers and that mainstream institutions refused to publish or debate the findings [3] [9].
6. Transparency and peer review: where reporting shows gaps
Available reporting repeatedly notes the Henry Ford analysis remained unpublished and therefore not subject to peer review; Henry Ford’s response urges rebuilding or reworking the study framework to meet publishable standards. The film’s reliance on an unpublished, internally held analysis means key elements (exact inclusion criteria, matching algorithm, covariates, statistical code, raw counts) are not fully available for outside replication in the sources reviewed [8] [1] [3].
7. Competing narratives and potential agendas
The film is produced and promoted by groups and figures with long-standing skepticism of mainstream vaccine policy (Del Bigtree, ICAN, RFK Jr. allies), which influences selection and emphasis of materials; conversely Henry Ford and mainstream outlets emphasize methodological failings and public-health risks of disseminating unsound conclusions. Both perspectives have clear institutional and ideological stakes: filmmakers pressing a suppression narrative, and institutions warning against dissemination of what they call “fatally flawed” analyses [3] [8] [2].
8. What remains unconfirmed in available reporting
Current reporting in these sources does not provide the full protocol, dataset, or statistical appendices from the Henry Ford analysis, nor independent, peer‑reviewed replications of its claims; therefore key technical questions about variable definitions, matching procedures, confounder control, and sensitivity analyses are not resolvable from available materials [1] [3] [8].
Bottom line: the documentary centers on an unpublished, retrospective Henry Ford Health comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and supplements that analysis with public literature and filmed interviews [1] [6]. Independent reviewers and Henry Ford officials contest the study’s methods and note limited transparency and potential sampling/matching biases, and those critiques are the main counterweight in current reporting [8] [4] [5].