Loading ...Leaked report to federal advisers calls for urgent recognition of Covid vaccine injuries
A policy document obtained by MD Reports acknowledges that people harmed by Covid-19 vaccination were failed by the medical system — and outlines reforms to address it.
For the first time since the pandemic began, a federal vaccine advisory body in the United States has acknowledged a major blind spot in the country’s vaccine safety system.
A leaked report prepared for the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) finds that many people with long-term illness after Covid-19 vaccination have gone largely unrecognised by the medical system meant to monitor vaccine safety.
The document was written by the Covid-19 vaccine workgroup advising ACIP, chaired by MIT professor Retsef Levi.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-injuries-an-acip-workgroup?
AND
Post From The Advisory Workgroup To ACIP Action (LEAKED)
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ebc45e1a68aeb270/4f9a5e62-full.pdf
Monday, March 16, 2026 – Coffee & Covid – Jeff Childers
On Saturday, the New York Times published a story headlined, “Confidential Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Track Covid Vaccine Harms.” After spending five years publishing story after story explaining that concerns about covid vaccine injuries were dangerous misinformation, anti-science hysteria, and a threat to public health— it has now platformed the federal government’s own advisory committee saying: actually, the injuries are real, there’s no system to track them properly, there’s no diagnostic code to document them, there are no clinical guidelines to treat them, and the report was “written with a sense of urgency.”
The leaked report was written by the COVID-19 vaccine workgroup advising panel, ACIP— the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The workgroup is currently chaired by MIT professor Retsef Levi, whose credentials don’t matter, since he doesn’t toe the line.
The leaked report criticized both the covid vaccine approval program and all the studies purporting to show that the jabs were safe, for two key reasons:
The “study periods” were constrained to a narrow window, starting 14 days after the first shot and ending at 60 days— only about a 45 day-span overall, which the report called the “acute period.”
No serious effort has ever been made by the agencies to study medium- and long-term vaccine injuries, which is why evidence remains thin.
The report next cited two Rasmussen studies, which each found large proportions of people who either claimed injuries from the shots or knew of at least one person who died from the shots. The clear point was that, even though traditional scientific groups refused to study post-acute injuries and deaths, the public noticed.
The surveys might not be proof —especially since the scientific establishment does not care what non-credentialed people think— but they are nevertheless evidence of the existence of injuries.
So the report gave these unstudied injuries a name: Post-Acute Covid-19 Vaccination Syndrome, or (since no federal program is taken seriously without an acronym), PACVS. Symptoms include things like severe fatigue, cognitive impairment, neuropathy, dysautonomia, chest pain, immune disturbances, and cardiovascular problems that continue at least twelve weeks after vaccination and are not explained by anything else.
It observed, correctly, that there is currently no ICD-10 diagnostic code for chronic post-vaccination illness. It’s not that the code is wrong— there is no code.
If your insurance company, your disability attorney, your doctor, or a research scientist needs to classify what happened to you, there is no box to check. The workgroup’s conclusion was stark: the appearance that injuries were “rare” is a surveillance artifact, not a clinical reality. The system isn’t finding these patients because it isn’t looking for them; it didn’t even bother to create a diagnosis code if they were found.
The ACIP is scheduled to meet this week on March 18th and 19th— if a federal lawsuit doesn’t block it first. The hearing is set for Wednesday.
? The report is 47 pages long and includes 169 footnoted sources. The Times dismissed the entire thing in six paragraphs. To its credit, the Times linked the full report, and here is the link. Read it for yourself.
This is the most important point: the report concluded with a set of recommendations designed not to cancel any vaccines, but to help jab-injured people, with diagnosis codes, new tests to help figure out what’s wrong with them, and a “center of excellence” for studying the problem and proposing solutions.
At this point, you might be wondering who could possibly be opposed to helping vaccine-injured people. Well, you’ve never met the New York Times. According to the Times and its pharma advertisers, not only is it forbidden to talk about jab injuries, you may not even try to help people who have them.
In covering the ACIP work group’s confidential report, the Times cherry-picked three outside ‘experts.’ In a miasma of “fairness and balance,” all three of the article’s ‘experts’ are openly hostile to the committee. You could fairly say they are enemies. First up was Dr. Sean O’Leary, quoted extensively, who leads the lawsuit to block ACIP from meeting at all, on anything. O’Leary is literally trying to shut down the ACIP.
Quoting O’Leary is like asking the Ayatollah to comment on the Pentagon’s Iran policy. Do you think the war is a good use of American resources, Supreme Leader?
Unsurprisingly, O’Leary nastily dismissed the leaked report and its 169 footnotes as “cherry?picked” and “straight out of the anti?vaccine handbook.” The Times’s next expert was a former ACIP member who had been fired by Secretary Kennedy. He sneered at the proposal to help jab-injured folks as a “strange side quest” that makes U.S. vaccine policy “increasingly incoherent.” Stay in your lane!
The Times’s third and final expert was a former CDC chief medical officer —a TDSer who resigned in protest last August— who scolded the panel for being “hyperfocused on finding only the negatives.” That’s pretty rich. At this point, what difference does it make?
The Grey Lady couldn’t find a single outside voice to quote in support of the report’s basic premise that jab injuries deserve ‘urgent’ attention, or that ACIP’s proposed new diagnostic category, coding changes, and requested research network are overdue reforms. Nor did any of the Times’ experts ever engage with the report’s actual recommendation: that jab-injured people need a little more help than they are currently getting, and a lot less gaslighting.
This isn’t how real journalism works. Real journalism rounds up all legitimate perspectives —even minority ones— and presents them in their best light so readers can make up their own minds. I’ll grant the Times credit for at least disclosing the three biased experts’ conflicts of interest. Oh, and one more thing, in a spirit of helpfulness— Dear Times: more typos (stray quotation mark after “it said”). Get yourself together, honey.
For more on this developing story, read Maryanne Demasi’s excellent article on Brownstone. https://brownstone.org/articles/leaked-report-to-federal-advisers-calls-for-urgent-recognition-of-covid-vaccine-injuries/