Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testifies throughout his Senate Committee on Well being, Schooling, Labor and Pensions affirmation listening to.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Photographs
conceal caption
toggle caption
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Photographs
A doc the Division of Well being and Human Companies despatched to lawmakers to assist Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s determination to alter U.S. coverage on COVID vaccines cites scientific research which might be unpublished or beneath dispute and mischaracterizes others.
One well being skilled known as the doc “willful medical disinformation” in regards to the security of COVID vaccines for youngsters and pregnant ladies.
“It’s so far out of left subject that I discover it insulting to our members of Congress that they might really give them one thing like this. Congress members are counting on these businesses to supply them with legitimate info, and it is simply not there,” stated Dr. Mark Turrentinea professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor School of Medication.
Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist earlier than taking a task within the administration, introduced Could 27 that the Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention would now not suggest COVID vaccines for pregnant ladies or wholesome youngsters, bypassing the company’s formal course of for adjusting its vaccine schedules for adults and children.
The announcement, made on the social media platform Xhas been met with outrage by many pediatricians and scientists.
The HHS doc meant to assist Kennedy’s determination, obtained by KFF Well being Information, was despatched to members of Congress, in keeping with Democratic workers on the Home Power and Commerce Committee and the workplace of Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash.
Titled “Covid Suggestion FAQ”, the doc has not been posted on the HHS web site, although it’s the first detailed rationalization of Kennedy’s announcement from the company.
Medical specialists who reviewed all of the citations within the FAQ stated it distorts some respectable research and cites others which might be disputed and unpublished.
HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon instructed KFF Well being Information: “There isn’t any distortion of the research on this doc. The underlying information speaks for itself, and it raises respectable security considerations. HHS won’t ignore that proof or downplay it. We are going to comply with the info and the science.”
HHS didn’t reply to a request to call the writer of the doc.
One of many research the HHS doc cites is beneath investigation by its writer, Sage Journals, relating to “potential points with the analysis methodology and conclusions and writer conflicts of curiosity,” in keeping with a hyperlink on the research’s webpage.
“That is RFK Jr.’s playbook,” stated Dr. Sean O’Learychair of the Committee on Infectious Ailments for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics on the College of Colorado College of Medication. “Both cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to assist his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.”
Outdated and misinterpreted analysis about myocarditis and pericarditis
One other research cited within the doc is a preprint that was made obtainable on-line a 12 months in the past, and has nonetheless not been printed in a peer-reviewed journal. Below the research’s title is an alert that “it stories new medical analysis that has but to be evaluated and so shouldn’t be used to information scientific observe.”
An alert in blue on the high of a preprint research cited within the HHS doc informs readers the research has not been peer-reviewed.
Screengrab of a preprint research on medRxiv.org/KFF
conceal caption
toggle caption
Screengrab of a preprint research on medRxiv.org/KFF
The FAQ attracts on the preprint to assert that “post-marketing research” of COVID vaccines have recognized “critical hostile results, resembling an elevated threat of myocarditis and pericarditis” — situations during which the guts’s muscle or its overlaying, the pericardium, undergo irritation.
Whereas analysis early within the pandemic did discover that, new analysis not included within the memo signifies that the danger has fallen with new vaccine protocols.
And the HHS doc omitted quite a few different peer-reviewed research which have proven that the threat of myocarditis and pericarditis is larger after contracting COVID for each vaccinated and non-vaccinated folks than the danger of the identical issues after vaccination alone.
One the 2024 preprint coauthors refuted the thought that their analysis discovered myocarditis and pericarditis had been attributable to the COVID photographs, reasonably than COVID an infection, noting that the research didn’t examine outcomes between individuals who had been vaccinated and people contaminated with the COVID virus.
The research additionally centered solely on youngsters and adolescents.
O’Leary stated that whereas some instances of myocarditis had been reported in vaccinated adolescent boys and younger males early within the COVID pandemic, the charges declined after the 2 preliminary doses of COVID vaccines had been spaced additional aside.
Now, adolescents and adults who haven’t been beforehand vaccinated obtain just one shot, and myocarditis now not reveals up within the information, O’Leary stated, referring to the CDC’s Vaccine Security Datalink. “There isn’t any elevated threat at this level that we will establish,” he stated.
Congress depends on well being businesses for correct steerage
In two situations, the HHS memo makes claims about risks to pregnant ladies which might be actively refuted by the papers it cites to again them up. Each papers assist the security and effectiveness of COVID vaccines for pregnant ladies.
The HHS doc says that one other paper it cites discovered “a rise in placental blood clotting in pregnant moms who took the vaccine.” However the paper does not comprise any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant ladies.
“I’ve now learn it thrice. And I can’t discover that wherever,” stated Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor.
If he had been grading the HHS doc, “I’d give this an ‘F,'” Turrentine stated. “This isn’t supported by something and it is not utilizing medical proof.”
Whereas members of Congress who’re physicians ought to know to examine references within the paper, they might not take the time to take action, stated Dr. Neil Silverman, a professor of scientific obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Infectious Ailments in Being pregnant Program on the David Geffen College of Medication at UCLA.
“They’ll assume that is coming from a scientific company. So they’re being hoodwinked together with everybody else who has had entry to this doc,” Silverman stated.
The places of work of three Republicans in Congress who’re medical medical doctors serving on Home and Senate committees centered on well being, together with Sen. Invoice Cassidy, R-La., didn’t reply to requests for remark about whether or not they obtained the memo. Emily Druckman, communications director for Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash., a doctor serving on the Home Power and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Rep. Schrier’s workplace did obtain a replica of the doc.
“The issue is quite a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they do not have the experience to have the ability to decide these references aside,” O’Leary stated.”
C.J. Younger, deputy communications director for the Home Power and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic workers members of the committee obtained the doc from HHS. Up to now, he stated, related paperwork would assist make clear the justification and scope of an administration’s coverage change and might be assumed to be scientifically correct, Younger stated.
“This feels prefer it’s breaking new floor. I do not suppose that we noticed this stage of sloppiness or inattention to element or lack of consideration for scientific benefit beneath the primary Trump administration,” Younger stated.
KFF Well being Information is a nationwide newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about well being points and is likely one of the core working packages at Kff.
