News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know Dr. Sudhir M. Parikh Founder, Chairman & Publisher Ilayas Quraishi Chief Operating Officer Ela Dutt Editor Archana Adalja Contributing Editor T. Vishnudatta Jayaraman Advisor Arun Shah Ahmedabad Bureau Chief Peter Ferreira, Deval Parikh, Freelance Photographers Bhailal M. Patel Executive Vice President Jim Gallentine Business Development Manager - U.S. Shahnaz Sheikh Senior Manager Advertising & Marketing Sonia Lalwani Advertising Manager Shailu Desai Advertising New York Muslima Shethwala Syed Sheeraz Mahmood Advertising Chicago Digant Sompura Consultant for Business Development Ahmedabad, India Hervender Singh Circulation Manager Main Office Editorial & Corporate Headquarters 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Tel. (212) 675-7515 Fax. (212) 675-7624 New York Office Tel: (718) 784-8555 E-mails editor@newsindiatimes.com advertising@newsindia-times.com subscription@newsindia-times.com Website www.newsindiatimes.com Chicago Office 8846 Lavergne Ave, Skokie, IL 60077 Tel. (773) 856-3345 California Office 650 Vermont Ave, Suite #46 Anaheim, CA 92805 Mumbai Office Nikita Ajay Pai Goregaon, West Mumbai Ahmedabad Office 303 Kashiparekh Complex C.G. Road, 29 Adarsh Society Ahmedabad 380009 Tel. 26446947 F ax. 26565596 Published weekly, Founded in 1975. The views expressed on the opinion pages are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of News India Times. Copyright © 2026, News India Times News India Times (ISSN 0199-901X) is published every Friday by Parikh Worldwide Media LLC., 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Periodicals postage paid at Newark, N.J. , and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address change to News India Times, 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Annual Subscription: United States: $28 Disclaimer: Parikh Worldwide Media assumes no liability for claims/ assumptions made in advertisements and advertorials. Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of the authors and Parikh Worldwide Media does not officially endorse, and is not responsible or liable for them. Opinion News India Times (May 2, 2026 - May 8, 2026) May 8, 2026 3 F or those of us who have dedicated our lives to public health, humility is not a weakness. It means recog- nizing uncertainty, questions and assumptions and insisting that evi- dence drives conclusions. The responsi- bility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is to protect the public’s health and to earn its trust by providing accurate, transparent information. I am proud to lead the CDC as we follow the evidence, no matter where it takes us. I was disappointed not long ago to see the Hill, CNN and TheWashington Post write articles built on misleading and incomplete claims. The articles asserted that I was blocking a Morbidity and MortalityWeekly Report (MMWR) related to covid-19 vaccine effectiveness. In reality, I raised specific concerns about the statistical methodology chosen for the study in question. These concerns about the test-negative design used go directly to the validity of the study’s conclusion. Scientific disagreement is not interfer- ence. When methodological limitations could meaningfully affect findings - espe- cially on an issue as consequential as vac- cine effectiveness - it is not only appropri- ate but necessary to pause, question and scrutinize. It falls squarely within the CDC director’s responsibilities to ensure that CDC publications adhere to the highest scientific standards. The specific scientific issue in question also falls squarely within my professional expertise as a Stanford University emeritus professor of medi- cine. The CDC director is responsible for ensuring that the agency’s methods reflect the best available science. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, for instance, then-Director Tom Frieden and the CDC initially reported confirmed cases in MMWR but abandoned that approach when it became clear that those numbers understated the true spread, as testing was overwhelmed. The agency shifted to surveillance data and statistical modeling to estimate disease burden, i.e., the over- all impact a disease has on people’s health and daily life. The change in methodology was a deliberate, scientifically grounded decision made through the CDC’s estab- lished review and sign-off process for final approval. Recognizing that MMWR does not subject its articles to formal external peer review and that it serves as a bulletin rep- resenting the voice of the CDC, I issued one of my first directives as acting direc- tor, calling for the development of a peer- reviewed journal, in addition MMWR, to complement it and elevate scientific rigor across all CDC publications. Peer review remains the gold standard because it subjects findings to independent scrutiny, forces transparency about limitations and strengthens confidence in the results. The methodology used in the study at issue, test-negative design, has been used before but has well-known limitations. The core problem is that, to measure the effectiveness of a vaccine in keeping people out of a hospital (for instance), this method throws away all data about people, vaccinated or not, who are never hospitalized. Instead, it replaces data with unverifiable assumptions, leading to bias. Factors such as prior infection, behavioral differences and who shows up for care can all skew results in ways that are hard to adjust for. The vaccine effectiveness estimates this method yields could be an overestimate or an underestimate; it’s impossible to tell. At April’s CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service conference, one researcher pre- sented a paper showing that test-negative designs have significant limitations and can yield biased results if time-varying confounders -factors that change over time and influence the outcome - are not accounted for. This reflects a broader recognition that these meth- ods have constraints and are often best complemented with additional approaches to improve reliability. Such issues should be debated rigorously within the scientific process, not prematurely adjudicated in headlines. The misleading media cov- erage of this issue claims that the CDC is withholding data from the public. That is false. The CDC is not withholding data - it is upholding its responsibility to ensure that every piece of information it shares is rigorously validated, accurate and worthy of public trust. The Post article also falsely claimed that “the report had cleared the agency’s scientific-review process, which includes dozens of scientists,” but it failed to artic- ulate that the MMWR review process has always included the CDC director, who, in this case, had not cleared it. The process exists for a reason: to ensure that what we publish meets the highest standards and is worthy of being the voice of the CDC. In addition to launching a new peer- reviewed journal in the coming months, the CDC is relaunching Public Health Grand Rounds to expand opportuni- ties for open scientific dialogue. These publicly aired sessions will bring diverse experts together to examine emerging evidence and contentious questions and help shape priorities for future research and practice. The first meeting is sched- uled for June. At a moment when public trust in insti- tutions like the CDC is fragile, we cannot afford to lower our standards. Scientific integrity demands rigor, openness to challenge and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, especially when it is incon- venient. That is the standard we are committed to upholding at the CDC. Jay Bhattacharya is director of the National Institutes of Health and senior official carry- ing out the delegable duties of the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. -Special to TheWashington Post By Jay Bhattacharya Under My Leadership, The CDCWill Follow The Evidence PHOTO:ANNABELLE GORDON/FORTHEWASHINGTON POST As NIH director, Bhattacharya has served as one of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s top deputies. PHOTO:CDC.GOV