By Louis Conte and Adam Garrie, The MAHA Report
On Wednesday, Dr. Robert Malone reported on his Substack that he and other members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) were misled by data presented to them by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
If true, this is big and scary news.
The data in question concerns Merck’s new monoclonal antibody, Clesrovimab, meant to treat Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). The CDC plans to administer this drug to all healthy newborns born to mothers not recently vaccinated for RSV.
The revamped ACIP, which advises the CDC on whether or not to approve a vaccine, voted 5 to 2 to approve Clesrovimab. Malone was among those who supported the new drug.
But – and this is key – Malone and others on the ACIP were acting on data they assumed was unimpeachable. It wasn’t.
In his Substack post, Malone tells the story of how he learned more about the data: via two well-established investigative journalists – Dr. Maryanne Demasi and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz. After the CDC vote, these writers discovered crucial facts about Clesrovimab were conveniently omitted. One such: in its clinical trials, Clesrovimab caused “excess deaths” relative to the controls.
Malone explained the ACIP’s presumption: that the information on Clesrovimab had been vetted by the CDC and the outgoing ACIP RSV subcommittee prior to the committee presentations. “We had no reason or opportunity to question,” Malone said. “Still, a minority subset of members were uncomfortable with the data trends. I voted in favor of the resolution based on the information and logic presented.”
Malone now concedes that he made a mistake to trust the data. “I will no longer be able to trust that what is presented in CDC summaries to the ACIP is transparent, accurate, and unbiased,” he said.
And that is the crux of the matter and why Malone, to his endless credit, is flagging an enormous problem with the way data is analyzed and presented by CDC scientists and data analysts.
“The omissions in June 2025 were not technical footnotes, but decisions that shaped how evidence was framed for those tasked with safeguarding public health,” Malone said. “ACIP members were shown partial analyses that downplayed safety concerns, while broader and more troubling patterns remained off the table.”
Malone noted that the CDC’s selective reporting prevented ACIP committee members from fully assessing Clesrovimab’s mortality risks. He credits Professor Retsef Levi, one of only two ACIP members who voted ‘no,’ for pointing out that “Four different trials all show deaths going in the same direction.”
How could this happen? How could no one at the CDC notice?
It appears that CDC officials engaged in a number of suspicious methods of manipulating the data that resulted in the concealment of death outcomes in the “treatment arms” – the group that received Merck’s monoclonal antibody treatment.
Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz noted, “In total: 12 deaths among 3,710 nirsevimab (a monoclonal antibody treatment product of Sanofi–AstraZeneca) recipients versus 4 deaths among 1,797 controls – a mortality rate of 0.32% in the treatment arms compared to 0.22% in the control arms. The imbalance may appear small in absolute terms, but it was unexpected, and it runs consistently in one direction.”
Even more concerning is the fact that Merck’s Clesrovimab, while presented as a new product, “is nearly identical in structure and function to Sanofi–AstraZeneca’s nirsevimab, approved in 2023.”
This implies that data problems identified by Drs. Malone, Demasi, and Shir-Raz may also be concealing death outcomes on products already on the market and currently being administered to infants.
Dr. Malone pulled the mask off a disturbing pattern of data manipulation at the CDC. Here at the MAHA Report we have investigated and reported on the behavior of other public health officials such as Dr. Peter Marks and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who played fast and loose with data in an attempt to make new pharmaceutical products appear safer and more effective than they are.
How did we get into this mess?
When he assumed his post in the government, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called for restoring transparency and gold-standard federal public health research. He recently dismissed all 17 members of the ACIP because of their ties to Big Pharma. But now the enemy is within, which should make every CDC employee wary and scrupulous.
How far has Big Pharma infiltrated CDC ranks – or was the (manipulated) data presented due to gross negligence? Does the fault lie with government scientists hoping to ingratiate themselves to the pharmaceutical industry they’re supposed to regulate?
We do know that altering or falsifying federal government data is a crime. If the conduct of CDC officials rises to that level, there must be accountability as children may have died as a result of these actions.
The stakes are huge. In order for science to operate at an objective level that can qualify as “gold standard,” the data analyzed by scientists must be clear, clean, and complete.
Dr. Malone and Yaffa Shir-Raz may have uncovered more than what amounts to a critical oversight by unnamed CDC officials. They may have uncovered systemic problems that prevent scientists from working with the gold standard data that is required to reach sound conclusions.
Whether through incompetence or malice, the CDC is clearly in urgent need of reform so that the quality of clinical data passed to ACIP adheres to the standards that Dr. Malone describes in his article. If indeed the lack of cohesive, accurate data is the result of malice, it means that those seeking to undermine Kennedy’s reforms are doing so from within the very agencies he is working to reform.
Secretary Kennedy is frequently attacked in the legacy media for allegedly damaging the public’s faith in vaccines and other pharmaceutical products. But through their investigations, Demasi, Shir-Raz and Malone have shown us that Kennedy is right to remain skeptical.
What these researchers have found regarding the “data” on Clesrovimab should disturb all of us – for it draws attention to corruption not only outside of the CDC but inside it as well, at its core.
Takeaways:
Independent research discovered that ACIP was not given cohesive data on Merck’s recently-approved RSV monoclonal antibody treatment.
The inaccurate data exaggerated the safety of the new product while downplaying its serious side effects, including death.
Why would the committee vote in favor of ANY vaccine to be given to newborn babies? The vaccine schedule should be drastically reduced not increased. You should be ashamed of yourself for believing anything the CDC says. The CDC is paid by big pharma.
I would advise HHS RFK Jr, Dr. Malone and all of the ACIP committee to take my view: the msm medical community which includes the cdc cannot be trusted. Assume that everything is tainted until you have proven otherwise. Do not trust them.