A recent document provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to Congress aimed to justify Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s controversial shift in U.S. COVID vaccine policy. The document has drawn criticism for citing unpublished or disputed scientific studies and misrepresenting others.
One health expert labeled it as “willful medical disinformation” regarding the safety of COVID vaccines for children and pregnant women. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, remarked, “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.”
Kennedy, previously known for his anti-vaccine stance before joining the Trump administration, announced on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, effectively sidestepping the agency’s usual protocol for modifying vaccination schedules. His declaration on the platform X has elicited widespread backlash from pediatricians and scientists alike.
The HHS document, which was obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to legislators who expressed concerns about the science and processes behind Kennedy’s decision, according to a federal official who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the discussion. Although the document has not been made publicly available on the HHS website, it is the first extensive rationale provided by the agency regarding Kennedy’s announcement.
Entitled “COVID Recommendation FAQ,” the document has been accused of distorting legitimate studies while including those that are either disputed or unpublished, according to medical professionals.
Andrew Nixon, HHS director of communications, defended the document, stating, “There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science.” HHS did not specify who authored the document.
One cited study is reportedly under investigation by its publisher due to potential issues related to research methodology and conflicts of interest. Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, criticized the approach, saying, “This is RFK Jr.’s playbook. Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.”
Another study referenced in the document is a preprint awaiting peer review and warns not to use its findings to guide clinical practice. Despite being available for over a year, it has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
The FAQ document asserts that “post-marketing studies” of COVID vaccines have revealed “serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis,” conditions involving inflammation of the heart muscle and its covering. However, false claims on social media suggested that myocarditis and pericarditis were observed solely in vaccinated individuals, a notion that one of the study’s co-authors publicly dismissed. The co-author emphasized that the research did not compare outcomes between vaccinated individuals and those infected with COVID and was solely focused on children and adolescents.
O’Leary pointed out that while some myocarditis cases were reported among vaccinated young males early in the pandemic, rates have declined as vaccination protocols were adjusted. Currently, vaccinated adolescents and adults only receive one dose, with myocarditis cases not appearing in recent data, per the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. “There is no increased risk at this point that we can identify,” O’Leary affirmed.
The HHS memo also contradicts itself by citing studies that support the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines for pregnant women. Notably, one claim regarding an increase in placental blood clotting among vaccinated mothers is not substantiated in the research it references. Turrentine noted, “I’ve now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere,” and added he would grade the HHS document an “F” for its lack of credible medical support.
While lawmakers who are physicians might typically evaluate the references, Neil Silverman, a professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, suggested that many may not take the time to scrutinize the document. “They’re going to assume this is coming from a scientific agency. So they are being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document,” Silverman remarked.
The offices of three Republican Congress members with medical backgrounds did not provide comments on whether they received the memo. However, Rep. Kim Schrier’s (D-Wash.) communications director confirmed her office received it.
O’Leary noted, “The problem is a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they don’t have the expertise to be able to pick those references apart. But this one — I’ve seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.”
In remarks by C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he confirmed that Democratic staff members also received the document. He highlighted that historically, such documents would clarify the scientific basis behind policy changes but noted the unusual sloppiness in this instance. “This feels like it’s breaking new ground. I don’t think that we saw this level of sloppiness or inattention to detail or lack of consideration for scientific merit under the first Trump administration,” Young stated.
In response to Kennedy’s decisive policy change without consulting vaccine experts from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Schrier proposed a bill on June 4 that would mandate Kennedy to adhere to official ACIP vaccine recommendations. Following this, Kennedy announced on June 9 his intention to remove all ACIP members, citing unspecified conflicts of interest, and subsequently appointed eight new members, some of whom have been vocal against vaccine mandates during the pandemic.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that focuses on in-depth health journalism and is one of the primary programs of KFF, an independent entity dedicated to health policy research and reporting.