My email to Henry Ford media relations about the new film “An Inconvenient Study”
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
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:
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.