In recently reviewed emails, officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expressed concerns about certain scientists and journals that conduct and publish research, potentially undermining confidence in vaccination efforts.
Colin Bernatzky, a public health analyst at the CDC, flagged a paper analyzing the effects of repeated COVID-19 vaccination, authored by scientists from the United States and several other countries. This paper suggested that multiple doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could lead to higher levels of a certain type of antibodies, IgG4, potentially making the immune system more susceptible.
However, Bernatzky admitted that he wasn’t certain about the legitimacy of the research. He expressed concerns about how the paper and its coverage were being viewed, highlighting the need for caution in interpreting such studies. Bernatzky also pointed out a wider pattern of academic journals publishing low-quality work that could lend legitimacy to anti-vaccine claims.
The paper in question had garnered significant attention, largely driven by coverage from The Epoch Times. It was cited by other researchers in discussions about the impact of the vaccines on the immune system. Bernatzky raised concerns about the affiliations of some authors, noting that they had expressed skepticism about vaccines in the past.
Bernatzky urged addressing systemic issues related to certain scientists and publishers, acknowledging that the situation was complicated. He highlighted an incident involving Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist known for expressing concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, whose paper was published as a preprint but quickly removed.
The email circulated widely within the CDC, with officials focusing on the paper’s conclusions. Despite inquiries, none of the CDC officials, including Bernatzky, provided further comments. The CDC’s quasi-journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which regularly publishes non-peer-reviewed papers, was also mentioned in the context of crafting guidance on vaccine safety.
Two journals, Vaccines and Food and Chemical Toxicology, singled out by the CDC for criticism, did not respond to requests for comment. Dr. Alberto Rubio Casillas, one of the co-authors of the flagged paper, emphasized that their work presented hypotheses and called for experimental evaluation. He defended the paper against the CDC’s criticism, asserting that each proposal was based on previous research.
Other experts, including Dr. Stephanie Seneff, praised the paper for its comprehensive analysis of IgG4 antibodies’ significance following mRNA booster shots. Seneff and others raised questions about the mainstream view on vaccine safety and effectiveness, suggesting that comprehensive review papers are shedding light on potential risks associated with these experimental therapies.
Dr. McCullough suggested that health agencies could benefit from open meetings to foster direct discussions among experts dealing with COVID-19 and its associated impacts. He emphasized the importance of hearing from experts managing patients with vaccine-related injuries, disabilities, and deaths.