Editor Becomes a MAHA Darling

Oh, boy, here we go. I’m toying with a new logo because of this . . .

The lede to a recent MedPage Today story starts this portion of an ongoing saga:

In an unusual move, the FDA asked vaccine makers to conduct randomized studies evaluating possible long-term effects of the COVID-19 shot, including spike persistence and post-vaccination syndrome symptoms.

The information being used to justify this “unusual move” comes from two preprints posted on medRxiv where Harlan Krumholz, the co-founder and head of medRxiv (also, Treasurer to the CZI LLC-funded openRxiv, and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology — JACC) is a co-author.

Krumholz has become a cyberlibertarian creature of the era of “disruption,” “open science,” and OA, and what I wrote two years ago is now fully in swing with MAHA and their ilk:

There is a direct line between undermining scientific authority for the sake of disruption and open science, and a sense of opportunity brewing among those seeking to sideline science, viewing open science as open season on scientific authority.

Preprints have always been at the epicenter of this disruption sidelining legitimate authority, following on the heels of author-pays OA. Now Krumholz has put himself at the center of a major anti-vax MAHA controversy by participating in preprints about purported “vaccine injury syndrome” identified with a corruptible survey instrument (no blinding, groupthink) — and one has to wonder why.

I’ve covered these particular preprints extensively (the bad preprints, the bogus study behind them, the cyberlibertarian “My Pillow” attack from Krumholz, the conflicting editorial philosophies Krumholz cannot reconcile), noting many inexplicable aspects of these preprints and Krumholz’s role in them:

• Released with inadequate disclosure but clear conflicts of interest when disclosed
• An author on both preprints also the head of medRxiv
  • Refusal to answer questions about how he got involved, when he knew about conflicts of interest, and so forth
• At least four participants in the study met, formed a group, gave that group a name and acronym, coordinated a position in the public media, and argued for the outcome of the study to go in their direction
  • The study itself was using a dubious survey instrument in the first place, so it seems like the entire thing was aimed at this very goal, making this latest essay confirmatory in a way the authors might not have registered

In another post, I provided this litany about the grift behind it all:

The vaccine injury compensation aspect ties into the preprints on medRxiv we’ve discussed for a few main reasons:

• The head of medRxiv (and now EIC of JACC) was a co-author on them
• There remain disclosure problems
• Co-authors have ties to RFK Jr. and his enterprises
• The preprints seek to describe a new vaccine injury — post-vaccination syndrome
• Patients have already banded together, suggesting this was less a study than a prelude to a class action suit
  • If so, RFK Jr., might make some coin from these preprints
    • Will medRxiv withdraw them given the massive potential conflicts here?

It’s worth remembering that most of the grift-related articles are being published OA, and that the entire idea of “public access” and “science for the public” put this in play. Wakefield needed Google. These grifters need OA and preprints to ensure success in the Substack era.

• Rumors are that NLM indexers are being pressured to index Jay Bhattacharya’s “gaslight” science journal, which is where these preprints might find their natural home.

Now, Krumholz’s double-barreled hooey is being used to justify further attacks on mRNA and Covid-19 vaccines by Vinay Prassad and other MAHA trolls, despite actual evidence, some of which a solid journal editor refused to retract despite demands from RFK Jr., to do so.

• BTW, RFK Jr., has to resign or be fired. I want to be clear about that from my perspective.
  • He never should have been confirmed in the first place, and has been the absolute nightmare we all dreaded.

MedPage Today’s reporter nicely ends the story with a recitation of this actual scientific evidence:

Large observational studies from researchers in Norway and others suggested that COVID-19 vaccines may prevent long COVID symptoms or reduce symptom severity. Data from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs also indicated that lower long COVID rates may be attributable in part to vaccines.

The CDC recommended vaccination to prevent long COVID.

An FDA that celebrates misinformation has turned repeatedly to preprints — and now they are exploiting the explicit participation of the head of medRxiv, who is also posing as a journal editor who supports stringent peer-review and editorial selectivity.

If the American College of Cardiology, Yale Medicine, and other bodies remain passive in the face of this complicity in the onslaught on medical evidence and vaccine science, shame on them.

For me, I rest easy.

Because I told you so.

Did you miss last week’s list of links we shared by text message? Receive these, bonus posts, and updates about our forthcoming book by adding the “Disrupted Science” newsletter to your account. Go to your account at the top of the page, click on “Manage” for your emails, and add it to the emails you receive from us! Thanks!

Click Here for a Shortcut