Retsef Levi recently made headlines after several top CDC officials resigned in protest over his leadership of the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine workgroup. In an exclusive interview with journalist Maryanne Demasi, Levi detailed the contentious situation behind closed doors at the CDC, revealing a struggle between traditional public health discussions and the push for transparency regarding vaccine injuries.
Levi, who has long been a critic of mRNA vaccines, was appointed to lead the COVID-19 workgroup after previously serving on the CDC’s influential vaccine advisory panel. He has consistently raised concerns about the potential risks associated with vaccines made by companies like Moderna and Pfizer. In fact, he has called for the withdrawal of mRNA-based COVID-19 shots, especially citing the risks they pose to younger children. His controversial stance contributed to the tensions within the CDC.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who was appointed to handle monkeypox management, lambasted the CDC in his resignation letter posted on social media. Daskalakis claimed he could no longer work in an organization that failed to engage with crucial scientific discussions. He specifically criticized the abrupt changes in COVID-19 recommendations affecting children and pregnant individuals, as well as the overhaul of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). His severe criticism highlighted fears that the agency was not prioritizing its scientific integrity.
The FDA has also weighed in, shifting its stance on COVID-19 vaccine approvals. Now, they have granted standard marketing authorization rather than emergency use authorization for certain age groups, indicating a move toward more rigorous scrutiny. Individuals can still access the vaccines but are encouraged to consult with their doctors first.
Daskalakis aimed his harshest remarks directly at Levi, questioning his motives and competence. He accused Levi of having “dubious intent” and lacking “scientific rigor,” suggesting that Levi did not consider the input of seasoned CDC staff. In response, Levi did not shy away from addressing these allegations. He asserted that the underlying issue is a broader struggle for control and the need for the CDC to face uncomfortable truths.
During the interview, Levi expressed shock at the resistance he encountered when he sought to address vaccine injuries within the workgroup’s agenda. He stressed the importance of acknowledging and providing support for individuals who have suffered injuries related to vaccination. “Recognizing vaccine injuries is a foundational component of any successful vaccine program,” Levi said. He emphasized that it is a moral obligation to care for those who trusted the system.
Levi mentioned his attempts to bring qualified physicians into the workgroup—experts who have treated thousands of vaccine injury cases. However, he faced significant pushback. “They tried to use the lawyers… to say that it was not in the scope of ACIP to examine these issues,” he recounted. “I could not accept that.” Levi’s determination to explore these topics has drawn ire from those in the agency who prefer to steer clear of such contentious issues.
The emotional gravity of this resistance became apparent. “We have seen a lot of gaslighting, and leaving the vaccine injured out to dry,” Levi remarked. His objective is not just to reassess vaccine policies but to reform the agency’s approach to public health discussions entirely.
In another development, Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer in mRNA technology, has also criticized the circumstances surrounding the resignations at the CDC. He pointed out that the ACIP’s recent approval to investigate vaccine safety and efficacy was a tipping point for those who stepped down. He bluntly stated, “They knew the gig was up, the truth was about to come out, and they would have to account for their actions.” Malone’s comments add another layer to the dialogue on the credibility of the CDC and its leaders during a crisis.
As the dust settles from these resignations and conflicts, the future of the CDC’s approach to vaccine discourse remains in question. Levi is calling for a more expansive and inclusive examination of vaccine-related data, harking back to prior discussions that were often too narrowly centered on specific inquiries. “We will not exclude any question that is relevant, nor will we exclude any data source,” he asserted, pushing for a more comprehensive view of the science behind vaccination.
Ultimately, the unfolding situation highlights a critical moment for public health policy in the U.S. Whether or not the CDC can adapt to include frank discussions about vaccine injuries and scientific dissent will have lasting implications for its credibility and the public’s trust in its recommendations.
"*" indicates required fields
