Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/29/2026 1:06:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Top health officials don't want you to read this, that's exactly why you should
Earlier this month, the Washington Post broke the news that Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, the CDC's temporary top official, delayed and then blocked a COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness paper from appearing in the agency's flagship scientific journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The manuscript was a typical one for the VISION (Virtual SARS-CoV-2, Influenza, and Other Respiratory Viruses) Network, a research collaborative between the CDC, Westat, and multiple U.S. health systems. Since 2019, the VISION Network has studied vaccine effectiveness using real-world data. Its investigations have routinely been published and widely read over the years.
The censored paper presents data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during the 2025-2026 season. The results suggest that, in the first few months after vaccination (September-December 2025), this year's vaccines were 53-55% effective against hospitalizations among the study's population of adults without immune compromise.
But Bhattacharya appears to believe that the public should not see this work -- or at least that the CDC should not publish solid science carried out, in part, by its own experts.
That's why we have to read it now. The blocked document (scrubbed of metadata) was obtained by Inside Medicine from a source who wished to be described as "someone close to the study."
Here it is, available to the public for the first time.
"I'm strongly opposed to this kind of censorship," Michelle Barron, MD, one of the manuscript's authors, told Inside Medicine. Barron, an infectious diseases physician at the University of Colorado, believes the move is an attack against transparency and the usual open scientific process. "It should be out in the world at large for the scientific community to judge it for what it is," she said.
Criticisms and Censorship Justifications
Bhattacharya defended his move by noting that technically the MMWR is not peer-reviewed. However, the journal is carefully edited and reviewed by experienced agency scientists with relevant expertise.
Why is MMWR not peer-reviewed? According to Sonja Rasmussen, MD, MS, a former editor-in-chief of MMWR, the journal doesn't use traditional peer review for two main reasons. "Having the review be internal allows for it to be rapid when necessary," she told Inside Medicine. Nowhere was this advantage clearer than in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond that, the journal is "considered the 'voice of CDC,' so it needs to be consistent with CDC recommendations," Rasmussen added.
So, while MMWR manuscripts don't follow the same external peer-review process as other important scientific journals, that doesn't mean they lack adequate rigor. In fact, VISION Network manuscripts using the same methods as the paper censored by Bhattacharya have been published in top-tier, peer-reviewed, non-CDC journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the most influential American medical journal. Indeed, the censored MMWR paper has already been submitted to another major medical journal for publication. (To my knowledge, Bhattacharya has not stifled this effort.)
At issue is the "test-negative design" that the study used to measure vaccine effectiveness. To hear Bhattacharya's take, this all boils down to the methodology of that design. But these methods are well-established, if imperfect. (It's worth noting that Bhattacharya is a health economist, not a vaccine effectiveness methods expert.)
That said, there are pros and cons of test-negative designs. This is uncontroversial, even among CDC statistics veterans. But the limitations of the approach are always acknowledged in these papers, including the one in question. This is precisely why other study designs should be used in conjunction with investigations like this one. When several types of observational studies agree, it lowers the chance that confounding variables might have altered the outcomes overall.
Still, even with multiple study designs in play, each giving a slightly different angle on vaccine effectiveness, it's possible that only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial would reveal different answers. The question is whether it's ethically possible to conduct such a study. (We'll discuss this another time soon.)
Why Now? Politics
If test-negative design studies are a part of the overall landscape for evaluating vaccines, why would Bhattacharya censor a paper like this now? It's telling that Bhattacharya censored the piece at a very late stage -- right before publication -- rather than asking CDC scientists to explore alternative options for their future work. (It's also ironic since Bhattacharya constantly railed against censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic.)
Our source for the document believes that HHS -- that is, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his underlings like Bhattacharya -- might be hoping to further weaken CDC recommendations for seasonal COVID-19 vaccines this year. It's possible that the CDC may even weaken its recommendations for high-risk patients above age 65, our source believes.
In other words, the science in this paper is pretty standard.
"There was nothing new or profound here," the source of the manuscript told Inside Medicine. He noted that many similar papers have been published by MMWR and other major external journals before. "This was purely a political decision," the source believes.
That's in contrast to the motivations of the VISION Network, according to Barron.
"I think everybody's involvement in this network is from a purely scientific and medical standpoint," she said. One of the network's goals, she says, is to study vaccines in specific populations, including groups where data have often been lacking, such as pregnant women and high-risk populations. "We want data so that we know when something's working, and when something is not working. What are the risks? What are the benefits?"
That's all for now.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
When will the resident FR COVID warriors show up?
Which ones are those?
Here Is Jay Bhattacharya explanation:
There is no obligation for the MMWR — a non-peer-reviewed journal that serves as the voice of CDC policy — to publish a paper based on the statistically flawed test-negative design. The authors can do whatever they want with the paper, but they do not have a right to publish in MMWR just because they like their own method. Given its statistical flaws, no one should view the paper as providing an accurate measure of vaccine efficacy.
https://x.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/2047272439445381520
I’m not going to look them up, but there were several in this thread just last week:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4376150/posts
.
MRNA jabs killed and disabled.
It easier to fool someone than for them to admit they were fooled…..millions were fooled into taking senile Joes jabs.
“[T]his year’s vaccines were 53-55% effective against hospitalizations among the study’s population of adults without immune compromise.”
So, it was just over 50% effective for healthy people. What percentage of healthy people get hospitalized for COVID now?
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is an excellent name for a rock band.
Thanks!
.
Just 5 yrs ago it was ;
“Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve!”
.
We All had skin in That HOAX!
Per the FDA in June 2020, the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.
This is where words become REALLY important. In the US, the basis of approval EUA and the only "approved" Vaccine, was for PREVENTION...NOT for decreased severity. Indeed, look at the actual FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech info.
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.(emphasis added)
Per the Comernity Insert,
--------------------------- INDICATIONS AND USAGE----------------------------
COMIRNATY is a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (1)(emphasis added)
Per the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action, under "Indication"
Active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (Emphasis added)
Clearly, the vaccine is for PREVENTION. Nothing else. All of the clinical trials (limited as they were) and statistical confidence intervals were focused on VE with regard to PREVENTION...not hospitalization, not ER visits, not fatalies, and not symptoms. Accordingly, THAT is the basis upon which approval and Efficacy should be based.
This paper says the shots are 50%+ effective in keeping you out of the hospital. Well, that’s nice…but that’s not the basis of approval. I suspect the efficacy on PREVENTION is much lower.
This focus on non-prevention - keeping you out of the hospital, grave, etc. - is the slight of hand pushed nowadays in the COVID shot war. The shot was fabricated, designed, and built and tested to PREVENT the recipient from contracting covid.
The last time I saw a paper on PREVENTION, the shots were useless or had an Efficacy % way below 50%, which was the FDA’s benchmark.
In other words, the shots should be pulled from the market…OR redo the clinical trial (which was a joke anyway…3 months bs years for normal vaccines) and submit documentation that the shot was formulated to keep you un-hospitalized.
This paper presents that false narrative. It was rightly pulled…OR, they can publish it with my post accompanying it.
Those that took the deadly jabs will never admit they were dangerous and unproven....and now must live with the fact they injected poison into their own bodies....those spike proteins aren’t ever leaving....tic, Toc.
Seemed that those who got the Shot soon after got the Wuhan Flu, among some other
Nasty side effects.
bookmark
They don’t explain why Trump would want to suppress a paper on his own vaccine, which he created, and is very proud of.
In related news from Paul D. Thacker at realclearinvestigations.
https://x.com/thackerpd/status/2049265083239301510
EXCLUSIVE: NIH has removed virologist Ralph Baric from all his grants; UNC placed Baric on leave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.