[oldalum]

The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?

I don't see how. MMWR is a purely factual, scientific/medical publication. It simply reports data and statistical analyses. It's like a medical journal but without editorials, letters to the editor and all the other fluff. I (used to) regard it as a completely reliable, valid source of new information. It provides early warnings of developing health problems; for example, the first case report of a cluster of a new disease later termed AIDS. Here are the articles in the most recent report. The hydroxychloroquine article, for example, simply describes the increase in prescribing earlier this year. It doesn't mention Trump, politics, etc. Even if political appointees don't try to influence the content of specific articles, if they simply exercise some editorial control over which articles and types of articles are published, that would be undesirable IMO.

• Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement — United States, March 1–May 31, 2020
  
  
• Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment — United States, January–June 2020
  
  
• Preventing and Mitigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission — Four Overnight Camps, Maine, June–August 2020
  
  
• Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network — 13 Academic Medical Centers, April–June 2020
  

[oldalum]

The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?

I don't see how. MMWR is a purely factual, scientific/medical publication. It simply reports data and statistical analyses. It's like a medical journal but without editorials, letters to the editor and all the other fluff. I (used to) regard it as a completely reliable, valid source of new information. It provides early warnings of developing health problems; for example, the first case report of a cluster of a new disease later termed AIDS. Here are the articles in the most recent report. The hydroxychloroquine article, for example, simply describes the increase in prescribing earlier this year. It doesn't mention Trump, politics, etc. Even if political appointees don't try to influence the content of specific articles, if they simply exercise some editorial control over which articles and types of articles are published, that would be undesirable IMO.

• Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement — United States, March 1–May 31, 2020
  
  
• Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment — United States, January–June 2020
  
  
• Preventing and Mitigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission — Four Overnight Camps, Maine, June–August 2020
  
  
• Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network — 13 Academic Medical Centers, April–June 2020