Kennedy Administration Faces Scrutiny Over COVID Vaccine Policy
HHS Document Relies on Disputed Studies to Justify Changes
A document provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to defend recent alterations to U.S. COVID-19 vaccine policy is drawing criticism for citing questionable research and misrepresenting existing studies, raising concerns about the scientific basis of the new recommendations.
Questionable Support for Policy Shift
The HHS document was circulated among lawmakers after Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s May 27th announcement that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend COVID vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children. This decision bypassed the agency’s standard process for adjusting vaccine schedules, sparking outrage among many medical professionals.
According to one federal official, who requested anonymity, the document was sent to members of Congress who questioned the rationale behind Kennedy’s move. While the document hasn’t been publicly posted on the HHS website, it represents the agency’s first detailed explanation of the policy change.
“It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it’s just not there.”
—Mark Turrentine, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine
Concerns Over Scientific Integrity
Experts allege the document, titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ,” distorts legitimate studies and relies on research that is either under investigation or has not undergone peer review. Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, described the document as a continuation of Kennedy’s long-standing pattern of selectively using or misrepresenting scientific evidence to support pre-determined conclusions.
“This is RFK Jr.’s playbook,” said O’Leary. “Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.”
The HHS maintains the document’s accuracy. Andrew Nixon, HHS director of communications, stated that there is “no distortion of the studies” and that the data “raises legitimate safety concerns.” HHS declined to identify the document’s author.
Myocarditis Claims Debunked
The document claims post-marketing studies have identified increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID vaccination. However, experts point out that the document selectively presents data. A preprint study cited is not peer-reviewed and includes a disclaimer stating it should not be used to guide clinical practice. Furthermore, the document falsely claimed the study showed myocarditis only occurred in vaccinated individuals, a claim refuted by the study’s co-authors.
While some cases of myocarditis were observed in vaccinated adolescent boys and young men early in the pandemic, rates have declined with updated vaccine formulations. According to the CDC, as of February 2024, approximately 81.3% of the U.S. population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC data shows that the risk of myocarditis is actually *higher* after contracting COVID-19 than after vaccination.
Misleading Information on Pregnancy
The HHS document also makes inaccurate claims regarding placental blood clotting in pregnant women, citing a study that does not contain any such findings. Turrentine, after reviewing the document three times, could not locate any reference to placental blood clots or pregnant women in the cited paper.
“I would give this an ‘F’. This is not supported by anything and it’s not using medical evidence.”
—Mark Turrentine, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine
Legislative Response
Representatives Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Kim Schrier (D-Wash.) have introduced a bill requiring Kennedy to adhere to official vaccine decisions made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This follows Kennedy’s announcement to remove and replace all 17 members of ACIP, citing unspecified conflicts of interest.
The controversy highlights growing concerns about the politicization of public health recommendations and the importance of relying on sound scientific evidence in policy decisions.
