Are the authors of 'An Inconvenient Study' still active in research or affiliated with the same institutions as when published?

1. Who are publicly named as the study’s authors — and where they were tied to

Reporting around the documentary and the unpublished paper identifies specific names: Lois Lamerato, Abigail Chatfield, Amy Tang and Marcus Zervos are cited in promotional material and ancillary links as connected to a Henry Ford Health System / Wayne State team ^[1]. The film’s producers and ICAN foreground Marcus Zervos as the study’s lead author in interviews and promotional write-ups ^{[7] [6]}. Michigan Public also names Lois Lamerato and Marcus Zervos as primary authors when seeking comment ^[2].

2. What institutions have publicly reacted or been referenced

Henry Ford Health publicly disavowed the claim that it suppressed the research, warning that it did not meet the system’s scientific standards — this institutional response is recorded on the film’s IMDb entry and is referenced elsewhere in the coverage ^{[3] [6]}. The study’s association in reporting is repeatedly tied to Henry Ford Health and Wayne State-affiliated departments in promotional materials and local write-ups ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Are the authors still active in research, according to coverage?

Available sources do not mention up-to-date changes in the employment status or ongoing research activity of the named authors. Michigan Public sought comment from Lamerato and Zervos but received no reply, and therefore could not confirm whether they remain active or at the same institutions ^[2]. The documentary and allied outlets present the authors in the context of the unreleased paper, but do not provide formal CV updates or institutional directories showing current appointments ^{[7] [6]}.

4. Did institutions or critics address the study’s scientific standing — and how does that affect the authors’ public profiles?

Several outlets have explicitly criticized the study’s methods and conclusions, with a biostatistician’s analysis (published in The Conversation and summarized in The Hindu) highlighting serious detection bias — vaccinated children had many more clinical visits, creating more opportunities for diagnosis, which undermines causal claims — and arguing the work is severely flawed ^{[5] [4]}. Henry Ford Health likewise said the research did not meet its standards, framing the issue as rejected science rather than a suppressed truthful finding ^[3]. Those public critiques shape how the authors and their work are perceived, but the sources do not document institutional disciplinary actions or personnel changes tied to those critiques ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

5. Competing narratives: suppression vs. rejection of science

The film and ICAN argue the study was “suppressed” because its findings were inconvenient; they foreground recorded interactions with Marcus Zervos and legal testimony to that effect ^{[7] [6]}. By contrast, Henry Ford Health and independent analysts portray the outcome as peer and institutional rejection based on methodological shortcomings, not an intentional burial — The Conversation and The Hindu detail the statistical biases that, in their view, invalidate the causal claims ^{[3] [5] [4]}. Michigan Public’s reporting emphasizes that the authors did not respond to requests for clarification, leaving an evidentiary gap ^[2].

6. What’s missing from current reporting and how it limits conclusions

No source in the provided set offers an authoritative, contemporaneous roster or CV confirming whether the named authors remain in the same institutional roles or are actively publishing new work; Michigan Public’s unanswered outreach is explicitly noted ^[2]. The film’s promotional materials and ICAN coverage frame the authors as central figures but are advocacy-oriented and do not substitute for institutional records or bibliographic searches that would confirm current affiliations and research activity ^{[7] [6]}. Therefore a definitive answer about current employment or active research status is not supported by the available reporting.

7. How to verify authors’ current status beyond these sources

To resolve the open question, authoritative next steps would be: check Henry Ford Health and Wayne State faculty directories and recent PubMed/Scopus author searches for Lois Lamerato and Marcus Zervos; request confirmation directly from Henry Ford Health’s press office or the authors if possible; and consult institutional conflict-of-interest or personnel bulletins. These specific verification steps are not covered in the provided sources (not found in current reporting).

Summary: reporting ties the study to named Henry Ford–affiliated authors and shows institutional and methodological critiques, but available sources do not provide confirmation of whether those authors remain active in research or at the same institutions ^{[1] [2] [5] [4] [3] [6]}.