Blocked Study Published
Controversial COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Study Published After Initial Block
A COVID-19 vaccine study blocked by federal health officials has found a new home. JAMA Network Open published the research on June 23, 2026, after political appointees at the CDC stopped it from appearing in the agency's flagship journal. The study found the 2025–2026 COVID-19 vaccine was about 55% effective at preventing hospitalizations and cut emergency department visits by 50%.
Acting CDC Director Jay Bhattacharya halted the study in late March 2026, calling its methods "crap" and "logistically ridiculous," according to The Washington Post. The original publication date had been set for March 19 in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers say the block was political, not scientific.
How a Key Vaccine Study Got Suppressed for Months
The study was led by CDC scientist Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles. It passed the CDC's own internal scientific review and cleared the Office of Science. Despite that, Bhattacharya intervened in late March 2026 to stop it. By April 22, HHS had formally blocked it from the MMWR, according to The Washington Post.
Co-author Dr. Michelle Barron said the reason was not science. "Science was never the issue," she told The Washington Post. "It was clearly not for scientific reasons that the study was withheld." U.S. senators sent a formal inquiry letter to Bhattacharya on April 23, demanding answers about the block.
What the Data Actually Shows About Vaccine Protection
Researchers studied 85,700 emergency department and urgent care visits and 26,000 hospitalizations across 179 hospitals in seven states. Data was collected from September through December 2025. The vaccine was 55% effective against COVID-related hospitalizations and 50% effective against ED and urgent care visits, according to JAMA Network Open.
For adults 65 and older, protection was slightly lower. The vaccine was 53% effective against hospitalizations and 48% effective against ED and urgent care visits, according to The Associated Press. The CDC had estimated the prior season saw up to 550,000 COVID-related hospitalizations nationwide.
The Disputed Method at the Heart of the Fight
The debate centers on a method called the "test-negative design," or TND. It compares vaccinated patients who test positive for COVID with vaccinated patients who test negative but have the same symptoms. The CDC has used this method for over 20 years to track flu and COVID vaccine performance in real time.
Bhattacharya and HHS Chief Science Officer Martin Kulldorff argued the method is too vulnerable to flawed assumptions. They called for longer-term studies instead. But biostatistics professor Natalie Dean of Emory University, who wrote an editorial in JAMA Network Open, called TND "an important and practical approach." She said waiting for perfect data would mean making health policy in a vacuum, according to The Associated Press.
Experts Warn the CDC's Scientific Independence Is at Risk
Scientists reacted with alarm when the block was first reported in April. Former CDC immunization director Demetre Daskalakis said suppressing the study "is not a hallmark of transparent scientific expertise," according to CIDRAP. The American Medical Association joined 130 other groups to express "deep concern" over how vaccine research is now being handled.
Critics say the block fits a larger pattern. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has called the COVID shot the "deadliest vaccine ever made," fired all 17 members of the federal vaccine advisory committee in June 2025. He replaced them with people who share his skepticism. Now experts fear the MMWR may no longer be a reliable source for real-time vaccine data.
Sentiment
NeutralPublishers
8
Articles
8
Reach
8
