My email to Henry Ford media relations about the new film "An Inconvenient Study"
I can't wait to hear their response! Check this out... and let your friends know about the movie.
Hi. I’m a freelance journalist with over 250,000 readers. I write exclusively about vaccines…. Over 1,800 articles.
I have read the Zervos study and your fact check.
To be honest, I’m baffled by your fact check.
The Zervos study appears to be well designed.
But the released information in your fact check lacks critical scientific basis for any journalist to take it seriously. It reads more like a political hit piece than actual science. You understand that right?
Zervos has a non-trivial h-index of 53 which is VERY impressive considering he’s only published 241 papers.
My questions are simple:
Please provide the SPECIFIC issues cited by the internal viewers that were not fixable or provide the internal document itself. What were the precise flaws in the data that were fatal (all data has flaws)? Has Henry Ford addressed these flaws in their data? If not, why not? What were the specific flaws in the analysis? In general, it is immensely helpful to shine light on flaws in the data/methods so that others do not make the same mistakes. I note that Dr. Zervos has published over 200 scientific papers in the past. Clearly, his previous studies were not flawed. What makes this one unique?
The study was IRB approved. Is your IRB incompetent or did the study authors deviate from the approved study protocol. THIS WAS NOT MENTIONED IN YOUR FACT CHECK. Or did Zervos lie about getting IRB approval? Why is your IRB approving a study when they knew the data and methods were flawed? What actions have you taken to hold your IRB accountable for approving such a flawed study design?
Is Henry Ford publicly calling for others to do this same study properly so we can understand whether the signals found in the study are legitimate? If not, why not? Perhaps I missed that. It wasn’t mentioned in your fact check. Don’t you think you should add that?
There are 9 vax-unvaxxed studies currently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Those studies actually show the same thing as the Zervos study. Are those flawed as well? Which vaxxed/unvaxxed study CAN we rely on that looked at FULLY unvaxxed vs. FULLY vaxxed? If there is no such study, then shouldn’t Henry Ford be calling for such a study?
Does Dr. Zervos agree that the study is flawed? If not, why not?
Did you actually watch the ENTIRE hearing where Jake Scott testified? Scott’s testimony was systematically dismantled by Aaron Siri’s rebuttal where he destroyed every single study Scott had collected. You saw that part, right? And you still quote him as an authority on vaccine studies? Are you serious?
Kindly cc: my colleagues with your reply. They likely have the same questions I do. You may have heard of some of them. Two are on the ACIP committee. One of them is head of HHS. One of them is a scientific journal editor and is very familiar with publication standards. I am as baffled as they are.
Thank you!
Steve Kirsch
Links
Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study
Impartial AI analysis of both the paper and the Henry Ford press release (you’ll love this)
An inconvenient study: The movie (watch for free after this Sunday)
You can watch the trailer right now on the website:
If they don’t respond, this is what I’m going to do…
I’m sure they are pretty busy with many important issues.
So if they don’t respond, I will offer to make a $10,000 donation to the hospital if they provide a knowledgeable spokesperson who I can interview on camera for 60 minutes that can answer the above questions on camera and any other questions I might have about their answers.
If they turn down that offer, then they aren’t busy. They are simply lying to the public and they don’t want to be held accountable.
I plan on letting everyone know they turned down my interview offer.
Summary
We’ll hear silence from Henry Ford media relations.
There is just no possible way they will answer any of my questions.
Please share the movie after it is released. It should upset a lot of people who are willing to watch it.
#7: “Does Dr. Zervos agree that the study is flawed? If not, why not?”
. . .
No. ICAN's Del Bigtree has hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos, some of which is in the trailer for his documentery. Here's a transcript and my take (excerpted from my 16-page letter to DFP):
Why Study Not Published? Hidden Camera Video of Dr. Zervos Reveals the Truth.
So, who is telling truth about why the Henry Ford Study was never published? Was it because the study “had serious flaws”? Or, was the study “suppressed” for pretextual reasons because Dr. Zervos (and his co-authors) were afraid they would lose their jobs/careers because their Henry Ford Health bosses did not want it published?
Initially, this appeared to be a “he said, she said” situation. Aaron Siri vs. Henry Ford Health (and the study authors who aren't talking). BUT, on Sept 25th, Del Bigtree released a new trailer with excerpts from his 2020 hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos talking with Bigtree about the study!*6
Del Bigtree explained: “I had only one request [for Dr. Zervos] , no matter the outcome, you publish the study. Instead of upholding his end of the bargain, he refused to submit the study for publication. Why was it never published? Henry Ford said it was because the study was flawed, not because of it's results. … But, Dr. Zervos's statements, made directly to me, explain why his study was not published.”
Following is my transcription from the film trailer (I'm sure there will be more in the forthcoming documentary):
Bigtree:”What do you think about the study you guys have done”?
Zervos: “I think it is a good study, but it does have limitations.”
Bigtree: “Do you find any flaws in this study, is there a way they could do this study better?”
Zervos: “Not that I know of, I'd put it out just how it is.” … “It's the right thing to do, I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, “this study is flawed.” …. “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.”
Bigtree: “Is what your study shows important?”
Zervos: “Yeah, it is important. They … I'm just not gonna do it.”
Bigtree: “If I can't get this study out, than what hope is there for every kid in the future?“I said to you, “If you do this study, you're gonna come under fire. You said, “I don't care about that. I'm all about the data, and I'm about to retire anyway...”
Zervos: “Yeah.
Bigtree: “So your energy's changed on that/”
Zervos: “Energy's changing. Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.
Note: HFH put out their 10/26 press releases the day after this trailer aired. Did they not watch it!?
. . .
As noted previously, Henry Ford Health has alleged that ICAN's forthcoming documentary falsely claims HFH “suppressed the study” ...“because of its results”. Instead, HFH claimed the study was not “the ‘most important vaccine study ever.’” and that it was “immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology”... not “due to political reasons”. This flawed study was “not hidden from the public.”*7 & 8
In contrast, in the hidden camera footage, Dr. Zervos told Del Bigtree that he didn't find any flaws in his study, didn't “know of” any ways to do it better, thought it was a “good study (with limitations that were noted in his manuscript],” and that “I'd put it out just how it is.” Doesn't sound like Zervos agreed with HFH that his study was fundamentally flawed with serious issues!
Zervos agreed what his study showed was “important” and “getting it out was “the right thing to do...” But, he said “it won't be taken like that [important scientific information] … because there's a political agenda to it.” ...”I'm just not gonna do it” [put the study out] … “I just don't wanna. Somebody's gonna come back and they're gonna say, 'this study is flawed.' “ Which is exactly what Dr. Jake Scott said at the Senate hearing and Henry Ford Health spokesperson have repeatedly alleged in their statements.
Although Bigtree appealed to Zervos to consider the future health of millions of children if his study didn't come out, and Zervos agreed it “was the right thing to do,” Zervos wouldn't budge. He replied, “Energy's changing” (on being willing to come under fire for putting out his study) “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
. . .
Sounds to me like Siri was correct “that Zervos was hiding the outcome of the research and refused to allow it to be peer reviewed or submitted to journals because he was afraid of being fired” and ending his career.*1 His co-author Lamerato's boss “made it plain that they [Henry Ford Health "higher-ups"] did not want it submitted for publication.”*12 So, it appears that Siri & Bigtree are telling the truth about the study, not Henry Ford Health.
References:
*1: 9/25/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Unpublished Henry Ford study at center of vaccine safety debate” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/09/25/henry-ford-study-vaccine-safety/86315137007/
*6: “The HighWire” (Episode 443) https://rumble.com/v6zgl0m-episode-443-cease-and-desist.html?e9s=src_v1_clr%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a @4:03 Cease & Desist Letter
*7: Henry Ford Health, “Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
*8: Henry Ford Health, “Fact-Check: Debunking the Top Myths Around Viral 'Vaccine Study'” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
Yesterday, I emailed a 16-page letter to "Detroit Free Press" reporter Kristen Shamus Henry Ford (looks like she's now out of the office until Dec 1st). My "letter" (with full citations & references) describes how Henry Ford Health "buried" the Dr. Zervos's study. Here's my Executive Summary:
Note: Since I've posted this summary, I've also posted comment #1 to #7 (which contain section excerpts from my letter, along with references and links) if you want to take a deeper dive.
UPDATE Sun 10/12/25: I just posted my comments #8 -- #11 rebutting HFH's so-called "fatal flaws" that were mentioned by Christine Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health) in her DFP interview.
UPDATE: TU 10/14/25: I just posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13).
Henry Ford Health (HFH) claimed the Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed study was shelved upon internal review because of serious data flaws – not because of the results. It was “not hidden from the public” nor was it the “most important vaccine study ever”
On the other hand, ICAN's Aaron Siri said “Dr. Zervos and Dr. Lamerato affirmed the study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication,” [but] they would not submit it for publication because, among other reasons [“higher ups … made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication”], Dr. Lamerato said she did not want to make doctors uncomfortable, and Dr. Zervos said he did not want to lose his job.”
Unfortunately, none of the co-authors nor Henry Ford Health administration have spoken with the press. Nor did they respond to ICAN's Del Bigtree's offer to be interviewed for their documentary.
10/09/25 Update: This week, Dr. Adnan Munkarah (President of the Clinical Enterprise and Chief Physician Executive) and Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science) were interviewed by Detroit Free Press (DFP) reporter Kristen Shamus about the Henry Ford Study.(DFP 10/07)
HFH issued a cease-and-desist letter to ICAN alleging defamation, then followed up with two press releases denouncing disinformation and “fact-checking” the study. ICAN responded by releasing a trailer with hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervos.
10/09/25 Update: Munkarah said HFH “buried” the study he claimed was "fatally flawed." and was just a “draft” that “doesn't even qualify as a study.” Johnson claimed Lamerato came to her with “issues” & “concerns” about the “draft” that was “led by "someone [Dr. Marcus Zervos] who had no training at epidemiology.” Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen." (Wow! Over the top, not very convincing, nor the best PR).
In the “An Inconvenient Study” trailer's hidden camera footage, Zervos contradicted the claims of HFH the study was “fatally flawed”. He said the study was a “good study” without serious flaws and was ready to publish as is. He agreed it was “important” BUT, he thought it would be “political,” so he wasn't gonna put the study out. “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I'd be finished.”
The HFH cease-and-desist letter mentioned an “initial co-author and internal independent review.” I'd guess the “co-author” was Lois Lamerato [verified 10/07] , who told Aaron Siri the study was “set to be submitted ... the issue … was the higher-ups at Henry Ford Health [her boss, Christine Cole Johnson], to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.” So, HFH's “internal independent peer review” appears to be HFH PR Speak for “your boss gets to gate-keep your work” and discard it if they don't like it!
Siri asked Lamerato what “the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's list of “serious flaws”] were “plainly pretextual” excuses that were easily addressed by sensitivity analyses. He claimed the real reason the study was not submitted was that it's results showed vaxxed children had much higher rates of chronic disease. He argued that HFH's so-called “serious data flaws” simply don't hold up to even cursory critical scrutiny.
For example, Johnson alleged the study's “most glaring problem” was that most unvaxxed children were < 3 years old (supposedly too young to diagnose, which is not true). But, Siri noted that when the authors excluded children less than 5 years old “the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down … 4.05 times the rate of chronic disease” compared to 2.75 times for all children” In other words, HFH & Johnson's “most glaring problem” was a non-issue (and the sensitivity analysis suggested a dose response curve; over time as kids recieved more vaccines, the sicker they became)
Update: 10/12/25: Posted my detailed rebuttal of the HFH "flaws" (see my comments #8 -- #11); TU 10/14/25: Posted my rebuttal of HFH "Flaws #4 & #5 (see my comments #12 - #13)
Siri described his fruitless efforts over the past five years to get Zervos & Lamerato to submit their study for publication. But, he noted, “publishing this study could result in career suicide for its authors.“ So, “this study and every other study like it will not get published. … This creates a form of selection bias that results in only studies that affirm the religion of vaccines being published. If this study, and others like it, were conducted and were published in medical journals, the first scientific step needed to protect children from vaccine injury would have been taken”
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a 2020 Vaxxed-Unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study. Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause. So, Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing his study appears well founded!