This preprint—a small basic science, hypothesis-generating study on COVID-19 vaccines and “post-vaccination syndrome”—has not been peer-reviewed. Yet, it’s being amplified by major news outlets (NYT) and spreading rapidly on social media, with conclusions drawn that go beyond what the study design or evidence can support.

I’ve been asked to post preprints of my manuscripts and have consistently declined. While peer review has flaws—we all complain about it—it exists for a reason: mistakes happen, errors slip through, and conclusions can be overstated. Peer review serves as a critical checkpoint, helping to catch and correct these issues before a study reaches a broad audience.

There are concerns with this unpublished manuscript and social media is the worst venue for this debate. But even if the basic science holds, one of the most common issues I flag in peer review is authors overstating their conclusions. Whether intentional or not, that appears to be the case here, and the damage is already done.

Great coverage from Helen Branswell!