Concerns Over HHS Document Supporting Vaccine Policy Change

A recent document from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) presented to lawmakers backing Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s changes to U.S. covid vaccine policy references various studies, many of which are either unpublished or disputed, while misrepresenting others.

A health expert criticized the document, labeling it “willful medical disinformation” concerning the safety of covid vaccines for children and pregnant women.

Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, expressed frustration, saying, “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.” He emphasized that lawmakers depend on these agencies for accurate information, which he believes is sorely lacking in the document.

Kennedy, previously known for his anti-vaccine stance, announced on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would stop recommending covid vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. This decision bypassed the standard procedures for adjusting vaccine schedules, prompting backlash from pediatricians and scientists.

The HHS document, obtained by KFF Health News, was allegedly sent to Congress members who questioned the scientific basis and process of Kennedy’s announcement, as mentioned by an anonymous federal official.

Despite being the first detailed explanation from HHS, the document has not been published on their website.

Titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ,” the document has come under scrutiny for distorting legitimate studies and citing others that are controversial. HHS communications director Andrew Nixon defended the document, stating, “There is no distortion of the studies in this document… We will follow the data and the science.” However, the agency did not disclose the document’s author.

One cited study is reportedly under investigation regarding its research methodology and author conflicts of interest. Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, remarked that Kennedy often cherry-picks or uses flawed science to support his views.

Another cited work is a preprint that lacks peer review, coupled with a warning that it should not guide clinical practice. The HHS document states that “post-marketing studies” have identified serious adverse effects like myocarditis and pericarditis linked to covid vaccines.

However, misleading claims surfaced online, suggesting the preprint only indicated risks from vaccination and not from covid infection itself. One co-author rebuffed these claims, clarifying that the study did not make such comparisons. It focused solely on children and adolescents, failing to mention other research showing higher risks associated with actual covid infection compared to vaccination.

While cases of myocarditis were noted early in vaccinated adolescents, O’Leary pointed out that these instances declined as vaccine doses were spaced further apart. Now, with new protocols for vaccination, there’s no significant risk detected currently, according to CDC data.

The HHS memo contains assertions intricately countered by the studies it references, which support the vaccines’ safety for pregnant women. One paper cited mistakenly claims to address placental blood clotting without any actual mention of it.

Turrentine mentioned reading the document multiple times and failing to find the alleged claims. He expressed receiving it poorly, saying, “If I were grading the HHS document, I would give this an ‘F.’” He noted the lack of medical evidence supporting the claims made.

Neil Silverman, a professor at UCLA, remarked that while some lawmakers may know to verify references, not all may take the time, leading to a disconnect in legislative understanding fueled by the presumed credibility of the HHS.

Responses from Republican members of Congress who are medical doctors, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, have not been received regarding their review of the memo. Meanwhile, Rep. Kim Schrier’s office confirmed receipt of the document.

O’Leary underscored that some legislators might lack the expertise to dissect the references effectively. He noted, “I’ve seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.”

Moreover, staff from the House Energy and Commerce Committee confirmed receipt of the document. C.J. Young from the committee observed that previous documents from HHS usually provided sound justification for policy changes and could generally be trusted as scientifically accurate.

He added, “This feels like it’s breaking new ground,” referring to the document’s perceived sloppiness and lack of scientific merit compared to prior administration communications.

Recently, Reps. Frank Pallone and Schrier introduced legislation aimed at ensuring Kennedy adheres to vaccine decisions from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) after he announced plans to unilaterally alter vaccine recommendations.

In a further move, Kennedy stated he would remove all ACIP members, citing unspecified conflicts of interest, and he announced eight new appointees, some of whom criticized vaccine mandates during the pandemic.