Is the Yale LISTEN Study Valid?

When subjects band together in a public forum, is a study beyond redemption?

The LISTEN Study at Yale seems to be crowd-sourcing chronic post-vaccination syndrome (PVS) cases through self-reporting via surveys that guide respondents into associating any mental or physical health issues with vaccination events. I wrote recently about a related and flawed preprint touching on PVS. (Its validity as a “syndrome” is questionable.)

The goal of Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent vaccines-autism paper in 1998 was to establish a narrative of widespread vaccine harms. He stood to make millions from it.

There are groups involved here — mainly, REACT19 and the associated MAHA crowd — that may be poised equivalently, with clear ties to the larger anti-vax and MAHA machines.

The preprint mentioned above initially became a flash point due to a lack of disclosure around it. Those issues were rectified — but after media coverage had passed, a common “oopsie” for bad preprints, I’ve found. The preprint included the head of medRxiv as an author, who also co-authored an earlier preprint with similar disclosure problems and some of the same, conflicted authors. These problems were not rectified. I covered all this earlier.

Everything about these preprints was concerning.

Now, thanks to a recent essay in STAT News, the LISTEN Study seems to be fundamentally compromised.

This post is for paying subscribers only

Already have an account? Sign in.

Subscribe to The Geyser

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe