💥EXCLUSIVE: Retsef Levi hits back after attacks on his leadership from departing CDC officials
Several top CDC officials quit in protest, denouncing @RetsefL’s leadership of the Covid vaccine work group. Now, in an exclusive interview, Levi reveals what really happened behind closed doors.
@HHS_Jim @SecKennedy @RWMaloneMD
@TheChiefNerd
Dr Demetre Daskalakis, a top official who abruptly resigned from the CDC, posted his resignation letter on @X, now viewed more than 19 million times, declaring his position at the agency “untenable.”
He pointed to the new Terms of Reference for ACIP’s Covid vaccine work group, chaired by Levi, whom he attacked as a figure of “dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor” who had “ignored all feedback from career staff at CDC.” blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/breaking-aci… @dr_demetre
What most people don’t know is that in the weeks leading up to his resignation, @dr_demetre had been working with Levi and other members of ACIP, locked in a tense tug-of-war over how broad the work group’s remit should be.
As Chair, @RetsefL pushed for a wide lens that would follow the evidence wherever it led. Daskalakis, on the other hand, pressed to narrow the scope of the review, and sought to populate the group with CDC loyalists intent on preserving the status quo.
Senior CDC officials, opposed to Levi’s broader approach, were reluctant to sign off on the Terms of Reference.
What really happened? What went on behind closed doors between ACIP and the CDC officials who resigned?
What did CDC officials (who resigned) - want to exclude from the Covid work group's Terms of Reference?
The CDC deployed its legal team in an attempt to intimidate ACIP into excluding vital topics from the Covid work group’s Terms of Reference — issues that urgently needed examination.
.@RetsefL, for his part, is not interested in taking pot shots or fuelling a social media brawl. But he is prepared to set the record straight. Levi was calm and deliberate, weighing his words carefully — but there was steel behind them. The attack, he told me, didn’t faze him.
Please subscribe for the FULL interview 👇👇 blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/exclusive-re…
“I am just focused on the data now,” Levi said. “I’m not going to engage in personal attacks.
@Jikkyleaks @MdBreathe
@SabinehazanMD
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨The HPV vaccine
A Scottish study was billed as ‘proof’ the HPV vaccine can wipe out cervical cancer. But a new analysis of the raw data shows it was nothing more than a statistical illusion.
LINK 👇👇
@RetsefL
@MdBreathe
@Jikkyleaks
@newstart_2024
In January 2024, headlines erupted worldwide.
“No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women,” declared @BBCNews, hailing a landmark breakthrough from Scotland.
A study in the @JNCI_Now claimed that girls who received the HPV vaccine at age 12 or 13 had not developed a single case of cervical cancer.
Two Australian researchers have reanalysed the raw data used in the Scottish study. Most women in the “zero cases” group were still under 25 when the study on HPV vaccine ended.
But cervical cancer is rarely seen in women under 25 (average age of diagnosis is ~50) - it takes decades to develop after infection. So of course there were no cancer cases in that cohort. These women were simply too young. Vaccine or no vaccine, the outcome was entirely predictable. @DrSuzanneH7
🚨The Nature of hypocrisy: pharma-funded journals smearing independent voices
@Nature alleges that I endanger public health, but it is the journal — steeped in pharma money — that ought to be looking inward.
According to the email, I was being lumped into an “anti-vaccine movement,” accused of “endangering public health,” and “profiting from disseminating misinformation.”
No evidence was provided. No articles were cited. No definition of “anti-vaccine” was offered. No complainants were named. Just blanket accusations intended as a character assassination.
Conflict of interest at the heart of @Nature
This journal that publishes vaccine research while pocketing revenue from pharmaceutical advertising and sponsored content from vaccine manufacturers.
To then assign an editor to target independent journalists who scrutinise that very industry is a glaring conflict of interest.
On its own website, Nature boasts of partnerships with @JanssenUS, @Merck , @AstraZeneca and others, dressing them up as “pioneering collaborations” to “support science.” It even publishes paid advertising features.
🚨Moderna misled ACIP on key safety studies
Biodistribution studies were never done on the Covid mRNA vaccine that people actually received — and when confronted with questions, Moderna lied to CDC’s vaccine advisers.
LINK BELOW 👇👇
@RetsefL @KUPERWASSERLAB @weldeiry @RWMaloneMD @Jikkyleaks @MdBreathe @RobSchneider @Honest_Medicine @DowdEdward
@HHS_Jim
Last week, two members of ACIP’s Covid vaccine work group, Prof Charlotte Kuperwasser & Prof Wafik El-Deiry, presented evidence @moderna_tx did not use its commercial vaccine for key biodistribution studies.
ACIP member, Dr Evelyn Griffin asked @moderna_tx if it used the commercial vaccine for biodistribution testing it submitted to the FDA.
“Is it the exact same mRNA that was used in the vaccination product — that I received, for example?”
“Yes, yes it is,” replied Moderna rep, Dr Darin Edwards
🧵ACIP to probe DNA contamination in Covid-19 vaccines
DNA contamination in Covid vaccines is back in the spotlight, with a peer-reviewed study now before CDC advisers just days ahead of their pivotal vote.
LINK BELOW 👇👇
The Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) has formed a new Covid vaccine work group, chaired by MIT professor @RetsefL. Its Terms of Reference, published last month, explicitly list “DNA contamination” as an issue to be addressed. blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/breaking-aci…
The development follows the publication of a peer-reviewed study in Autoimmunity by @DJSpeicher, @Kevin_McKernan & @JesslovesMJK, which analysed 32 vials of the more recent XBB.1.5 Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
While America panics, Europe quietly recalibrates Covid-19 vaccine policy
ATT: @SecKennedy @HHS_Jim @RandPaul @SenBillCassidy
From Sweden to the UK to Australia, countries are narrowing Covid-19 vaccine policies without controversy. So why the panic in the US?
@laralogan
@newstart_2024
@Jikkyleaks
The medical establishment has ramped up the rhetoric against @SecKennedy over narrowing Covid-19 vaccine policy. In @nytimes, 9 former @CDCgov directors warned that his decisions mean “children risk losing access to lifesaving vaccines.”
But US policy is only bringing American practice closer to what Europe has already done.
As of Sept 1, Sweden 🇸🇪no longer recommends Covid-19 vaccination for children unless an individual medical assessment finds they are at increased risk of severe disease.
Even then, it is only available with a doctor’s prescription.
💥New investigation reveals @CDCgov inflated Covid threat level in kids as resignations rock the agency
After withholding key safety data on RSV antibodies, the nation’s top health agency is once again under fire — this time for presenting Covid data in ways that inflate the risk for children.
Link below 👇👇
Among the recent CDC resignations, @dr_demetre, former head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, accused the new HHS leadership of “unskilled manipulation of data to achieve a political end rather than the good of the American people.”
But the hypocrisy is striking.
Daskalakis was one of the very officials responsible for liaising with ACIP while his own agency was withholding critical safety data on seizures in babies given Sanofi’s RSV monoclonal antibody, clesrovimab.
Following that investigation, rumblings began within the CDC itself, as sources close to the situation said that many ACIP members were “troubled” by my revelations.
ACIP member @RWMaloneMD broke ranks, warning that advisers had been given too little time to interrogate the evidence and had simply trusted the CDC’s word.
“That trust in the data presented now appears to have been ill-advised,” Malone stated. “Going forward … I will no longer be able to trust that what is presented in CDC summaries to the ACIP is transparent, accurate, and unbiased.”