Federal health officials cite methodological concerns as a key factor in evaluating studies tied to COVID-19 policies.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Jay Bhattacharya is taking steps to increase evidentiary standards for research associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, focusing in part on the methodology used in studies published through the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), according to Just the News.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, MMWR published research that drew national attention, including a 2021 study on mask use. Then-director Rochelle Walensky cited findings from that study in a public statement, asserting that consistent indoor mask use reduced the odds of infection by more than 80%.
The study relied on a phone survey of approximately 1,800 California residents. Response rates were 13% among those who reported testing positive for COVID-19 and 9% among those who tested negative. Participants known to have had contact with infected individuals were excluded. Differences between groups included testing motivations, with positive cases largely tested due to symptoms and negative cases often tested for routine or procedural reasons. Commentary shared at the time highlighted this imbalance, with one analysis describing it as “wild confounding” within the study’s “test-negative” design.
MMWR is not a peer-reviewed journal and serves as a publication aligned with CDC policy communications. Its research output has been examined by multiple public health officials who later joined roles in the Trump administration.
Marty Makary referred to the journal as a “joke” during 2023 congressional testimony, while Vinay Prasad described the mask-related study as a “new scientific low point.” Prasad and Tracy Beth Hoeg later coauthored a peer-reviewed study concluding that although many MMWR studies reported mask effectiveness, a smaller percentage demonstrated statistical significance.
Other research published in MMWR has also been scrutinized. A UCLA researcher, Edward Livingston, said the CDC “misled the public” in a critique of a December study that suggested COVID-19 vaccines prevented severe outcomes in healthy children.
Additional criticism has focused on a 2022 study linking prior COVID-19 infection in children to increased diabetes risk. Joseph Allen joined others in questioning the methodology used in that analysis.
MMWR has also published findings that differed from earlier conclusions, including data indicating that natural immunity showed stronger protection than vaccination during the delta variant wave.
Bhattacharya recently confirmed in a statement that he objected to a study’s use of a test-negative design to measure vaccine effectiveness, describing the approach as “statistically flawed.” Addressing concerns about the study’s removal, he said, “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.”
He further elaborated in a follow-up response, stating, “If a study uses a test negative design to measure vaccine efficacy, it will be a heavy lift to convince me that there is anything to learn from it, no matter what the results are.”
According to federal health officials, the decision not to publish the study followed an internal review process. “Scientific reports are routinely reviewed at multiple levels to ensure they meet the highest standards before publication,” said Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services. He added that the editorial assessment identified concerns with the methodological approach used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.
Officials also noted that factors such as prior infection, behavior, and healthcare-seeking patterns can affect results in respiratory virus studies, including those focused on COVID-19.
Bhattacharya has also emphasized that MMWR is not peer-reviewed and functions as a policy-oriented publication, a distinction he said has not always been clearly conveyed. He indicated that changes to its review structure are under consideration.
The developments reflect a shift in how federal health agencies evaluate research methodology and publication standards tied to public health guidance.
Original article
Comments