The medRxiv Tale Gets Weirder

The journey down the vaccine injury, preprint, medRxiv rabbit hole gets curiouser and curiouser.

Here’s a refresher:

• A preprint lacking proper disclosures and generating media coverage was posted on medRxiv in February.
  • Subsequent media coverage was described as a “a political and scientific storm” and “a parable for the ways in which the internet is being used to weaponize basic vaccine research.”
    • Yale released a press release about it, despite it not being peer-reviewed or offering strong evidence.
  • Disclosures were updated a week later on v2, after most media coverage had subsided.
    • Vaccine-injury proponents from REACT19 only later disclosed their interests.
• The head of medRxiv, Harlan Krumholz, was a co-author on this preprint.
• Krumholz later clarified that he has no commercial interests in the area, but refused to answer questions about when and how he found out some co-authors did have commercial interests.

Sadly, the rabbit hole has gotten deeper — much deeper.

It turns out Krumholz has been here before. He was the co-lead author on a 2023 medRxiv preprint where Brianne Dressen and Danice Hertz, both of REACT19, were co-authors. Their commercial interests were not disclosed. There are no acknowledgements, meaning there’s no disclosure of what each listed author attests they contributed to the research and preprint.

• On the more recent preprint, Dressen attests she read and edited the manuscript, but had no role beyond this, according to declarations. She is described as an “independent researcher” in the authorship list.

Hertz is a retired gastroenterologist claiming vaccine injury.

• In my scenario where this all echoes some of the 1998 Wakefield vaccines-autism scandal, this reminds us that the children Wakefield selected for this study all suffered from gastrointestinal issues.

Dressen is a former preschool teacher from Utah who claims she suffered a vaccine injury in 2020 when she participated in an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. She sued the company in 2024, claiming they did not honor the obligations to compensate injuries occurring as a result of the study. The case is ongoing, with the most recent activity in January 2025.

Dressen has been nothing if not determined. There are too many media links to feature — you can use a search engine if you want more. Her claims crossed over into the scientific press when they were featured in a 2022 article in Science.

In 2023, Dressen participated in a lawsuit in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana and five individuals (Aaron Kheriaty, Martin Kulldorff, Jim Hoft, Jay Bhattacharya, and Jill Hines) sued the Federal government asserting that by urging social media companies to do a better job controlling Covid-19 misinformation, the government had violated the First Amendment.

After appeals, the case proceeded to the Supreme Court. Alleging “a pattern of collusion between the government and technology companies to stifle free speech about important matters of public concern,” REACT19, the Manhattan Institute, and three individuals joined via a 2024 amicus brief. The three individuals listed on the brief were the founders of REACT19, including Dressen.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge in June 2024. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the government $8,925.32 to cover the printing costs of a joint appendix used in the case.

• This has another kind of inverted echo of two retracted papers reaching the Supreme Court while the authors claimed that editorial decision-making was equivalent to censorship.

Bhattacharya — one of the plaintiffs who sued the government with Missouri, Louisiana, and a vaccine injury/free speech alliance — is now the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Fun fact: He has no postgraduate medical training beyond completing medical school.

• It’s also strange to find Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis listed consecutively on the editorial board of a “journal” Science described as possibly “used to sow doubt about scientific consensus on matters such as vaccine efficacy and safety.”

• You wonder if some of these people know they are on the editorial board. It would not be unprecedented. What looks like links (blue underlined text) is just formatted text.