FOIA materials reviewed by researchers indicate key findings on reported deaths were removed from prominent sections of a major COVID-19 vaccine study.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Internal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that researchers affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised a major COVID-19 vaccine study prior to publication, removing references to reported deaths from the study’s abstract and limiting their visibility in the final version.
The findings stem from records released following litigation filed by Children’s Health Defense, which sought access to communications and draft materials related to a widely cited CDC-linked study published in 2022 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. The original research examined adverse event reports collected during the first six months of the U.S. vaccination rollout, drawing on data from federal monitoring systems including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and V-safe.
Pi is 1473309922000548 by yourNEWS Media
According to the documents, an earlier version of the study contained more detailed information regarding deaths reported to VAERS during the study period, totaling 4,496 cases. However, those details were removed from the abstract in the published version. A comment from lead author Dr. Hannah Rosenblum in the draft stated, “Note all death results/interpretation has been removed from abstract,” according to materials contained in the FOIA release, first reported here.
FDA Consultation PDF by yourNEWS Media
The study’s title was also revised. The draft initially emphasized “Reactogenicity and Adverse Events,” a term referring to post-vaccination side effects, while the published version, titled “Safety of mRNA vaccines”, shifted focus toward safety conclusions.
Additional data changes were noted in the transition from draft to publication. A figure detailing causes of death reported after vaccination—including heart disease, COVID-19 illness, and cases listed as unknown—was not included in the final article. Similar data that appeared in the draft were instead placed in supplemental materials accompanying the study.
Karl Jablonowski, a senior research scientist who reviewed the documents, said the revisions reduced the prominence of death-related findings in the published work. He stated that the abstract, which typically receives the most attention from readers, no longer included those details.
The study itself included a disclaimer noting that its findings “do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the FDA,” despite involvement from both agencies in its preparation.
The document release comes amid broader scrutiny of how federal agencies handled reports of vaccine-related adverse events. Congressional inquiries and oversight efforts have examined both the data collection process and how findings were communicated to the public.
Rep. Rick Crawford has previously criticized the intelligence and public health response to anomalous health incidents and vaccine-related data, citing concerns about analytical integrity and transparency. In separate developments, congressional committees have issued inquiries and referrals related to the handling of public health information.
The FOIA disclosures also coincide with legal and administrative actions involving CDC personnel. Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a former official involved in vaccine safety monitoring, has been referred to multiple federal agencies for review over allegations related to records management, as detailed in correspondence from lawmakers, including a letter.
The CDC study acknowledged patterns in reported deaths following vaccination, stating that clustering of reports shortly after vaccination resembled trends seen with other vaccines. However, critics reviewing the FOIA materials argued that the study did not provide sufficient comparative context to support that conclusion.
Comments within the draft show that at least one reviewer cautioned against dismissing such reports as solely the result of reporting bias, noting that events occurring shortly after vaccination could reflect genuine outcomes.
Separate research and surveys have also contributed to the ongoing debate over vaccine safety and reporting. A national survey conducted in 2025, summarized here, indicated that some respondents reported adverse effects following vaccination, though interpretations of such data vary.
Earlier federal assessments, including a 2023 intelligence-style review, concluded that serious adverse outcomes linked to vaccines were uncommon, while subsequent updates acknowledged uncertainties and evolving data.
Requests for comment from study authors regarding the revisions were redirected to federal agencies, and no additional explanation had been provided by the Department of Health and Human Services as of publication.
The released materials have prompted renewed attention to how public health data is presented and interpreted, particularly in high-impact studies that inform policy decisions and public understanding.
Original article
Comments