When the New York Times follows your scoop
On the weekend I published an investigation based on a confidential report obtained exclusively by MD Reports. The document is a policy paper on vaccine injury scheduled to be discussed at this week’s ACIP meeting.
The report was not publicly available anywhere. After weeks of background work and conversations with sources, I obtained a copy and published it in full on MD Reports so readers could review the document directly.
Stories like this rarely appear out of nowhere.
They usually begin quietly, through relationships built over months or years with people inside institutions — scientists, clinicians, regulators and staff who believe the public deserves to know what is happening behind closed doors.
Cultivating those sources takes time and trust. Much of investigative journalism happens long before anything is published.
After my article appeared over the weekend, the New York Times published its own story covering the same document — which is entirely appropriate.
However, the Times article does not acknowledge that the report was first made available by MD Reports, nor does it link to my original investigation.
I wrote to the reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, asking whether the article could be updated to include appropriate attribution to MD Reports. So far, I have not received a response.
Journalism has always involved scoops that are later followed up by other outlets. I understand that. But moments like this highlight something about the modern media landscape.
Large media organisations have enormous resources and distribution networks. Independent journalists do not — certainly not me. I rely largely on readers sharing stories and supporting my work directly.
At the same time, the environment for independent reporting has become more difficult.
Substack now requires Australian subscribers to complete age and identity verification, which has affected my subscriber base.
And social media platforms — even those that champion free speech, such as X — manage their algorithms in ways that deprioritise links to certain topics or to sites like Substack.
None of this stops the work. But it does shape the conditions under which independent journalism operates.
Investigative reporting requires patience. It involves obtaining documents, verifying information and presenting the evidence clearly so readers can judge it for themselves.
Independent reporters do this work without corporate backing or institutional funding. I do not have a team handling enquiries, research or marketing.
If you regularly read MD Reports but have not yet taken out a paid subscription, this is one of those moments where your support truly makes a difference.
A subscription is US$75 per year, which amounts to a little over $6 per month.
That support allows me to continue pursuing stories and following the evidence wherever it leads.
If you are able to upgrade to a paid subscription, I would be deeply grateful.
If not, please consider sharing my links with your networks to help others find my work.
Thanks again,
Maryanne
BuyMeACoffee - HERE
PayPal - QR code
03/16/26: You are too kind to the NY Times, a thieves den.
THEY STOLE YOUR WORK. And they would NEVER have had the story had they not gone shoplifting, so to speak (and these are the people who claim that they're morally superior to everyone else).
At any rate, where is the payment option whereby I can simply donate?
I did this once before, and, alas, I can't recall how it was done, why is why I'm being a nudge.
Do inform, please.
Appoorva Mandavilla and Sheryl Gay Stolberg open their piece deceptively: “Citing a survey called “Killer Jab?,” which found that nearly one out of four Americans reported knowing someone who died from a Covid vaccine, a federal work group is calling for sweeping changes to how the medical establishment tracks and treats injuries from the shots. The changes are proposed in a confidential report obtained by The New York Times.”
They “obtained” a confidential report that you posted publicly — and they didn’t bother to cite your work!