From: Broder, Karen (COC/DDID/NCEZID/OHQP)

Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:40:24 40000

Tom,
a
Karen
From: Meyer, Sarah (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <[email protected]>
Sent:Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:28 AM
To: Broder, Karen (CDC/DDID/NCEZID/OHQP) <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Follow-up on academic publishing + vax confidence
Hey Karen,
FYI, not sureifyou have seen this paper Uversky et a. article. Apparently i's goneviral..It’s conclusion
says “Increased 1864 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may
also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in
susceptible individuals". 've shared with CORVD too.
sarah
From: Lee, James Tseryuan (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <ywr0@cde. gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 3.07 PM
To: Bernataky, Colin (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <ubdis@cde. gov; Voegel, Chris (CDC/OD/OADC)
<0402@cdcgov>; Meyer, Sarah (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <ii6@cdc go>; atlaoui, Tara
(CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <kgzd@ecde gov>; Dowling, Nicole (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <[email protected]>
Ce: Verma, Anisha (COC/DDID/NCIRD/SD) (CTR) <psv2@cdc gov>; Gazy, Michael (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD)
(CTR) <an@cde gov; Lindley, Megan C. (COC/ODID/NCIRD/ISD) <cnd@cde gov
Subject: RE: Follow-up on academic publishing +vax confidence
Dear @Meyer, Sarah (COC/ODID/NCIRD/ISD), @latlaou, Tara (COC/ODID/NCIRD/ISD), @Dowling, Nicole
(COC/DDID/NCIRD/150)
Attaching below Colin's note about the Uversky article making waves publicly, would recommend
reading the email inful. for a taste of the article itself ~ “Increased Iga synthesis due to repeated
mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote.
cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.").
@latlaou,Tara(CDC/DDID/NCIRD/Y>~ |Nicole
(COC/DDID/NCIRD/SD) - are you okay with me planning atime for us to talk about this? Who else
should be invited?
Thanks,
James
From: Bernatzky, Colin (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Voegeli, Chris (CDC/OD/OADC) <oao2@ccc gov»; Verma, Anisha (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) (CTR)
<[email protected]>; Gazy, Michael (COC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) (CTR) <arxs@cdc gov; Lee, James Tseryuan
(CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD) <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow-up on academic publishing + vax confidence
Hiall,
thought 'd share a bit more information related to the Uversky et al. arice| flagged last week as well
as some broader context about the potential threats to vaccine confidence posed by select scientific
journals and publishers. There's alot of content in this email and many of the inks are provided as
backgroundif interested, so don't feel pressured to click or read everything.
1. Uversky paper metrics
Per Altmetri, the Uversky et al. paper has been accumulatinga massive amount of attention:
= Currently the third-highest Altmetric attention score among all articles published by Vaccines
« #248all-time across 24+ millon publications tracked by Altmeic, putting it in thetop 0.001%
ofall research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric
Has been tweeted 22,000+ times from 15,000+ users
« Altmeic captures information about news outlets that lnk the article but clearly does not take
steps to verify credibility, as the four English language “outlets” listed are:
Epoch Times (undoubtedly driving much of the traffic)
© Zero Hedge (previously banned on Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation prior to
Elon granting amnesty to suspended accounts)
 © X¥Znet.au (a conspiratorial and white nationalist ite “dedicated to free speech and
Western restoration”)
© Globalresearch.ca (identified by the US State Dept as a purveyor of mis/disinformation;
the articlelinking the citation is about “treating” COVIDvaccine injuries)
1. Ongoing concerns about academic publishing
Unfortunately, the Uversky papers 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 a their apparent reluctance to issue retraction or
disclaimers when these issues are called to their attention. Case in point: the Uverskypaper just
received its first citation in Seneff et al. 2023, which turnsout to be from a squad of vaccine skeptics
that includes Peter McCullough, a naturopath, and an MIT computer scientist with a track record for
promoting ideas about autism, vaccines, Roundup, etc. The short versionof events is as follows:
Call for papers: In February 2022, Food and Chemical Toxicology (an Elsevier journal) issued a
call for papers on the “potential toxic effects of COVID-19 vaccines,” which is alreadya bit ofa
red flag. The journal ialso no stranger for controversy, having infamously published and
retracted a papera decade ago.
» Paper published: In April 2022, Food and Chemical Toxicology published a review from Seneff et
al. where they argue that “billions of lives are potentially at sk” from mRNA vaccines. Since
VAERS datai presented as evidence in support of their claims, this is arguably something that
CDC could respond to directly. The paper gained enormous traction on social media (41k+
tweets) and would eventually be featured on Tucker Carlson's showlastsummer. (Additional
context and critcismofthe paper at the time of is release can be found here and here.)
+ Attempted retraction: In response, several researchers (Barriere et al.) co-authored a etter to
the editor calling for the paper’ retraction; both the letter and the call for retraction were
rejected by the journal,
+ Documenting retraction efforts: In October 2022, Barriere et al. then successfully published their
concerns in a different journal, where they detailed their experience attempting to get the.
paper retracted and offera rather incisive critique of academic publishing industry in prioritizing.
metrics over public health. (Worthwhile read if you have the timel)
Forthcoming letters to the editor: Now that Food and Chemical Toxicology has a new editor-in-
chief, Barriereetal. have written a new letter outlining their concerns in the forthcoming issue:
ofthe journal, which is frustratingly accompanied bya rebuttal from Seneff et al. (this is where
the Uversky paper is cited, bringing things ful circle).
In terms of addressing these systemic issues, this 2022 PLos article outlines a range of potential
solutions moving forward. Needless to say, it’s a complicated issue; ust yesterday, another Peter
McCullough pre-print paper was submitted to The Lancet, and although twas quickly removed for
methodological issues, news about the “Lancet study” is already circulating on social media with ts
removal cited as evidence of suppression.

Ee
Best,
Colin
From: Bernatzky, Colin (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD)
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 2:08 PM
To: Verma, Anisha (COC/ODID/NCIRO/ISD) (CTR) <[email protected]>; Gazy, Michael (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ISD)
(CTR) <ands@ede ov
Subject: Web metrics 6:29.23
Higuys,
Here's this week's Google Trends web metrics report. There was another batch of Epoch Times
eadines this week, so did a lite digging and have a slightly better sense of what might be going on.
One cause for concern istha the content being circulated describes findings from a peer-reviewed
‘paper in an open access journal. The findings sound quite damning, but the fournal publisher has a
reputation for beingpredatory and lackingeditorialand scientific rigor.This isn’ reallya case of
misinformation rooted in scientific literacy or cherry picking quotes outof context, as the article tself is
written ina way that definitely resonates with folks who have vaccine concerns. 'm not quite sure what
the authors intentions are, though they seem to be housed at legitimate institutions and publish
frequently. At the very leas, it seems like there's some editorial recklessness going on, especialy since
the net result is that this research is being viewed as legitimate and is circulating widely. (And f the
research sin fact legitimate, it should defintely be on COC’ radar)
Thanks!
Calin

Colin Bernataky (He/him/his)