A document that the Ministry of Health and Social Services sent to the legislators to support the decision of the secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to modify the American policy on hairstyle vaccines cites scientific studies which are not published or under dispute and erroneous by others.
A health expert described the document “voluntary medical disinformation” on the safety of hairstyle vaccines for children and pregnant women.
“It is so far from the left field that I find insulting to our members of the Congress that they would really give them something like that. The members of the Congress count on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and that is simply not there,” said Mark TurrentinProfessor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Baylor College of Medicine.
Kennedy, who was an anti-Vaccin activist before playing a role in the Trump administration, announced on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend ceremonial vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, by bypassing the agency’s formal process to adjust its vaccine and children. The announcement, Made on the social platform XWas welcomed by many pediatricians and scientists.
The HHS document intended to support Kennedy’s decision, obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to the members of the Congress who questioned the science and the process behind his decision, according to a federal official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the question publicly.
The document has not been published on the HHS website, although it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy’s announcement from the agency.
Entitled “Covid recommendation FAQ”, the document deforms certain legitimate studies and quotes others which are disputed and unpublished, according to medical experts.
HHS communications director Andrew Nixon told Kff Health News: “There is no study of studies in this document. The underlying data is talking about itself, and this raises legitimate security problems. HHS will not ignore this evidence or minimize them. We will follow the data and science. “
HHS did not respond to a request to appoint the author of the document.
One of the studies The HHS CITES document is under investigation by its publisher concerning “potential problems with the research methodology and the conclusions and conflicts of author’s interests”, according to a link on The study web page.
“This is the RFK Jr. game book,” said Sean O’LearyChairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics infectious disease committee and assistant pediatric professor at the Colorado University School of Medicine. “Either Cherry -Cick of Good Science or take the science of the junk to support his premise – it’s his game book for 20 years.”
Another Study cited In the document is a pre -printed which has not been evaluated by peers. According to the title of the study, there is an alert according to which “it reports new medical research which has not yet been evaluated and should therefore not be used to guide clinical practice”. Although pre -printing was made available a year ago, it was not published in a review evaluated by peers.
The FAQ supporting Kennedy’s decision said that the “post -marketing studies” of tank vaccines have identified “serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis” – of the conditions in which the muscle of the heart or its coverage, the pericardium, undergoes inflammation.
False affirmations that pre -print 2024 only showed a myocarditis and pericarditis that in people who have received a coded vaccine, and not in people infected with a covid, disseminated on social networks. One of Study co-authors publicly rejected this idea because the study did not compare the results between vaccinated people and people infected with the cocovid virus. The study also focused only on children and adolescents. The HHS document omitted many other evaluated by peers studies This has shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is higher after contracted a cocovice for vaccinated and not vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone.
O’Leary said that if some cases of myocarditis have been reported in vaccinated adolescents and young men at the start of the cocovated pandemic, rates decreased after the first two doses of storage vaccines were spaced further.
Now, adolescents and adults who have not been previously vaccinated receive only one blow, and myocarditis no longer appears in the data, said O’Leary, referring to CDCs Vaccine safety data link. “There is no increased risk at this stage that we can identify,” he said.
In two cases, the HHS memo makes affirmations which are actively refuted by papers He quotes to save them. The two papers support the safety and efficiency of coastal vaccines for pregnant women.
The HHS document says that another paper he quotes found “an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who have taken the vaccine”. But paper does not contain any reference to placental blood clots or pregnant women.
“I read it three times. And I can’t find it anywhere,” said Turrentine, Professor Ob-Gyn.
If he was classified in the HHS document, “I would give an” F “, said Turrenin. “It is not supported by anything and it does not use medical evidence.”
While the members of the Congress who are doctors should know to check the references in the newspaper, they may not take the time to do so, said Neil Silverman, Professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology that directs the program of infectious diseases of pregnancy at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the UCLA. “They will assume that it comes from a scientific agency. So they are silent with all those who have had access to this document,” said Silverman.
The offices of three Republicans at the Congress who are doctors of the Services at the Chamber and Senate committees have focused on health, in particular Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Did not respond to requests for comments as to whether they have received the memo. Emily Druckman, director of communications for representative Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), A doctor sitting on the Chamber Energy and Trade Committee, confirmed that Schrier’s office had received a copy of the document.
“The problem is that many legislators and even their employees, they do not have the expertise to be able to separate these references,” said O’Leary. “But this one-I saw a much better anti-vaccine propaganda than that, frankly.”
CJ Young, Deputy Director of Communications of House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that the members of the Democratic staff of the Committee received the HHS document. In the past, he said, similar documents would help clarify the justification and scope of the policy change of an administration and could be supposed to be scientifically exact, said Young.
“It seems to innovate. I do not think we have seen this level of negligence or inattention for details or the lack of consideration for scientific merit under the first Trump administration,” said Young.
On June 4, representative Frank Pallone (DN.J.) and Schrier presented an invoice This would force Kennedy to adopt the official decisions of vaccines of the Consultative Committee for Vaccination Practices, or ACIP. Young said that the motivation behind the bill was Kennedy’s decision to modify the vaccine calendar covers without the contribution of the ACIP vaccine experts, who play a key role in the definition of CDC policies around schedules and vaccine access.
Kennedy announced on June 9 that he would withdraw the 17 members of the ACIP, citing alleged conflicts of interest which he has not detailed and replace them. He announced eight replacements on June 11, including people who criticized the cocovid pandemic vaccine mandates.
We would like to speak with the current and former staff of the Ministry of Health and Social Services or its component agencies who believe that the public should understand the impact of what is happening in the Federal Bureaucracy of Health. Please send a KFF Health News message on signal to (415) 519-8778 or Contact here.
Kff Health News is a national editorial hall that produces in -depth journalism on health problems and is one of the main KFF operating programs – an independent source of research, survey and independent journalism. Learn more about Kff.
Use our contents
This story can be republished for free (details).