Back to Authors

Greenhawt, Matthew

0000-0002-2365-9372

Mayo Clinic

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Citations 2

Vaccines, Bias, and the Perils of Non-peer-reviewed Studies: Fueling Misinformation and Vaccine Hesitancy
Munblit, Daniel , Semple, Malcolm G. , Genuneit, Jon , Ashkenazi‐Hoffnung, Liat , Poland, Gregory A, Bush, Andrew, Boaventura, Viviane, Ulloa‐Gutiérrez, Rolando , Buonsenso, Danilo , Semple, Malcolm G , Genuneit, Jon , Ashkenazi-Hoffnung, Liat , Sultan, Faisal , Putri, Nina Dwi , Apfelbacher, C J , Ulloa-Gutierrez, Rolando , Watson, Hugh R , Oliveira, Carlos R , Reyes, Luis Felipe , Olliaro, Piero , Greenhawt, Matthew , Wilder‐Smith, Annelies , Warner, John O. , Chang, Aileen Y. , Poland, Gregory A. , Boaventura, Viviane Sampaio , Apfelbacher, Christian , Oliveira, Carlos R.

Clinical Infectious Diseases | July 3, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1093/cid/ciag403 Get It

Abstract Unvetted scientific claims about vaccines can spread rapidly and undermine decades of progress in immunization and public trust. A recent non-peer-reviewed analysis, promoted at political hearings, in the documentary “An Inconvenient Study,” and on social media, has been used to suggest that vaccinated children experience higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated peers. Despite standard regression models, critical flaws - uncontrolled confounding, exposure misclassification, unequal follow-up, and outcome multiplicity, invalidate causal inference. An independent group of international experts critically appraises this analysis and contrast its claims with the consistent evidence confirming vaccine safety and effectiveness. We also show how poorly designed studies can distort public discourse, amplify misinformation, and fuel vaccine hesitancy. We outline actions to strengthen research integrity, such as transparent data sharing, labeling of non-peer-reviewed content, and evidence-based communication. Safeguarding public health demands that vaccine evidence be methodologically sound, reviewed, and interpreted by qualified experts.
International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023
Wise, Sarah K. , Damask, Cecelia, Ebert, Charles S. , Levy, Joshua M. , Lin, Sandra Y. , Luong, Amber , Rodriguez, Kenneth , Sedaghat, Ahmad R. , Toskala, Elina , Akdiş, Cezmi A. , Ansotegui, Ignacio J. , Azar, Antoine , Baroody, Fuad M. , Benninger, Michael S. , Casale, Thomas B. , Chaaban, Mohamad R. , Chew, Fook Tim , Chambliss, Jeffrey , Cianferoni, Antonella , Čustović, Adnan , Davis, Elizabeth Mahoney , DelGaudio, John M. , Flanagan, Carrie E. , Franzese, Christine B., Gill, Amarbir S. , Halderman, Ashleigh A. , Joe, Stephanie, Joshi, Shyam , Kuruvilla, Merin , Kim, Jean , Klein, Adam M. , Krouse, Helene J. , Lang, David M. , Laury, Adrienne M., Lee, Victoria S. , Loftus, Patricia A. , Marzouk, Haidy, Mims, James W., Oppenheimer, John , Orlandi, Richard R. , Phillips, Katie M. , Raymond, Mallory , Ryan, Matthew W., Sastre, J. , Schlosser, Rodney J. , Shaker, Marcus , Smith, Kristine A. , Soyka, Michael , Tang, Monica , Tantilipikorn, Pongsakorn , Taw, Malcolm B., Tversky, Jody , Tyler, Matthew A. , Veling, Maria C., Wallace, Dana , White, Andrew A. , Roland, Lauren T , Levy, Joshua M , Luong, Amber U , Sedaghat, Ahmad R , Villwock, Jennifer , Abdullah, Baharudin , Alt, Jeremiah A , Chaaban, Mohamad R , Gill, Amarbir , Kuruvilla, Merin Elizabeth , Kim, Jean , Kuan, Edward C , Lee, Victoria S , Marcus, Sonya , Mattos, Jose , McCoul, Edward D , Nayak, Jayakar V , Orlandi, Richard , Schuman, Theodore A , Smith, Kristine , Soyka, Michael B , Tantilipikorn, Pongsakorn , Tyler, Matthew A , Zhang, Luo , Schlosser, Rodney J , Chew, Fook Tim , Casale, Thomas , Alt, Jeremiah A. , Bernstein, Jonathan A. , Brook, Christopher D. , Campbell, Raewyn Gay , Ellis, Anne K. , Fokkens, Wytske Johanna , Greenhawt, Matthew , Hohlfeld, Jens Michael , Incorvaia, Cristoforo , Larenas‐Linnemann, Désirée E. , Lechner, Matt , Lee, Stella E. , Mattos, José L. , McCoul, Edward D. , Melén, Erik , Mullol, Joaquim , Nayak, Jayakar V. , Platt, Michael P. , Ramanathan, Murugappan , Raymond, Mallory J , Rhee, Chae‐Seo , Reitsma, Sietze , Sheikh, Aziz , Takashima, Masayoshi , Wang, De Yun , Zhang, Luo

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | March 6, 2023 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 293-859

10.1002/alr.23090 Get It

Abstract Background In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document. Methods ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence‐based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.