Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testifies throughout his Senate Committee on Well being, Schooling, Labor and Pensions affirmation listening to.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Pictures
conceal caption
toggle caption
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Pictures
A doc the Division of Well being and Human Providers despatched to lawmakers to assist Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s choice to vary U.S. coverage on COVID vaccines cites scientific research which might be unpublished or below dispute and mischaracterizes others.
One well being skilled referred to as the doc “willful medical disinformation” in regards to the security of COVID vaccines for kids and pregnant girls.
“It’s so far out of left area 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 offer them with legitimate data, and it is simply not there,” stated Dr. Mark Turrentinea professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor Faculty of Drugs.
Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist earlier than taking a task within the administration, introduced Might 27 that the Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention would not advocate COVID vaccines for pregnant girls 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 choice, obtained by KFF Well being Information, was despatched to members of Congress, in keeping with Democratic workers on the Home Vitality 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 clarification of Kennedy’s announcement from the company.
Medical consultants who reviewed all of the citations within the FAQ stated it distorts some professional research and cites others which might be disputed and unpublished.
HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon advised KFF Well being Information: “There is no such thing as a distortion of the research on this doc. The underlying knowledge speaks for itself, and it raises professional security issues. HHS won’t ignore that proof or downplay it. We’ll 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 below 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 Drugs. “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 yr in the past, and has nonetheless not been printed in a peer-reviewed journal. Below the research’s title is an alert that “it experiences 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 prime 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 say that “post-marketing research” of COVID vaccines have recognized “severe opposed results, similar to an elevated danger of myocarditis and pericarditis” — circumstances through 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 danger of myocarditis and pericarditis is bigger after contracting COVID for each vaccinated and non-vaccinated folks than the danger of the identical problems after vaccination alone.
One the 2024 preprint coauthors refuted the thought that their analysis discovered myocarditis and pericarditis have been brought on by the COVID photographs, quite than COVID an infection, noting that the research didn’t evaluate outcomes between individuals who have been vaccinated and people contaminated with the COVID virus.
The research additionally targeted solely on youngsters and adolescents.
O’Leary stated that whereas some circumstances of myocarditis have 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 have been spaced additional aside.
Now, adolescents and adults who haven’t been beforehand vaccinated obtain just one shot, and myocarditis not reveals up within the knowledge, O’Leary stated, referring to the CDC’s Vaccine Security Datalink. “There is no such thing as a elevated danger at this level that we are able to establish,” he stated.
Congress depends on well being businesses for correct steerage
In two situations, the HHS memo makes claims about risks to pregnant girls 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 girls.
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 include any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant girls.
“I’ve now learn it thrice. And I can not discover that anyplace,” stated Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor.
If he have been grading the HHS doc, “I’d give this an ‘F,'” Turrentine stated. “This isn’t supported by something and it isn’t utilizing medical proof.”
Whereas members of Congress who’re physicians ought to know to verify 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 Drugs 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 targeted 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 Vitality and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Rep. Schrier’s workplace did obtain a duplicate of the doc.
“The issue is a number of legislators and even their staffers, they do not have the experience to have the ability to choose these references aside,” O’Leary stated.”
C.J. Younger, deputy communications director for the Home Vitality and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic workers members of the committee obtained the doc from HHS. Prior 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 degree of sloppiness or inattention to element or lack of consideration for scientific benefit below 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 without doubt one of the core working applications at Kff.
