CDC official who decried Epoch Times article on peer-reviewed paper admitted he did not know if research was ‘legitimate.’
Scientists and journals that conduct and publish certain research pose a problem for the federal government’s vaccination campaigns that should be addressed, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials wrote in newly reviewed emails.
Colin Bernatzky, a public health analyst with the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, in one of the missives flagged a paper from scientists in the United States and several other countries that analyzed the effects of repeated COVID-19 vaccination.
Vladimir Uversky, a molecular medicine expert in Florida, and his co-authors noted that experiments have found multiple doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines lead to higher levels of antibodies called IgG4, making the immune system more susceptible.
“COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses,” Alberto Rubio Casillas, one of the co-authors, told The Epoch Times.
The paper was published following peer-review by Vaccines.
Mr. Bernatzky took issue with the paper and The Epoch Times’ coverage of it despite acknowledging he wasn’t sure about its veracity.
“At the very least, it seems like there’s some editorial recklessness going on, especially since the net result is that this research is being viewed as legitimate and is circulating widely. (And if the research is in fact legitimate, it should be on CDC’s radar),” he wrote.
About a week later, on July 7, Mr. Bernatzky provided colleagues with more information on what he described as “potential threats to vaccine confidence posed by select scientific journals and publishers.”
The paper from Mr. Uversky and Mr. Casillas “has been accumulating a massive amount of attention,” Mr. Bernatzky said, with a high attention score that was “undoubtedly driven” mostly by The Epoch Times article.
“Unfortunately, the Uversky paper is part of a wider pattern of academic journals conferring legitimacy to anti-vaccine claims through their willingness to publish low-quality work (e.g., reviews with lots of conjecture rather than original research) as well as their apparant reluctance to issue retractions or disclaimers when these issues are called to their attention,” he added.
By Zachary Stieber
