Officials from the Health and Human Services Department dispatched a document to legislative members in order to justify Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to modify existing COVID vaccine policies. Surprisingly, the document borrows from scientific research that has not been published or is currently under consideration, and inaccurately presents others. A health professional labeled the material as ‘deliberate medical misinformation,’ especially in regards to the safety of COVID vaccines explicitly for pregnant women and children.
Dr. Mark Turrentine, a distinguished professor in the field of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, voiced his distress at the report. He criticized its agenda because it is significantly divergent from the standards followed by health experts; it so crudely misrepresents the facts that it’s offensive to legislators who depend on these departments for accurate data. The information they’re looking for is simply absent.
Kennedy has a known history of opposing vaccinations, which adds an unexpected twist given his current role in the administration. On May 27, he stated that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will no longer advise COVID vaccinations for healthy children or pregnant women. This announcement circumvented the CDC’s standard procedure for updating their vaccine schedules for adults and children.
The highly debated announcement was made on a popular social media platform, and has drawn criticism from numerous scientists and pediatricians. Kennedy’s justification for the major policy shift was supported by a Health and Human Services Department document sent to Congressional members. This document, codenamed ‘Covid Recommendation FAQ’ remained unlisted on the department’s website, even though it offers the first comprehensive explanation for Kennedy’s policy shift within the agency’s policies.
Medical experts who analyzed the citations included in the FAQ pointed out that the document distorts the evidence provided by some legitimate studies while including references to those under dispute and not yet published. The Health and Human Services Department’s director of communications retaliated against these accusations. They claimed there was no manipulation in the studies referenced in the document, and that the bottom-line data raised genuine safety issues.
One of the studies mentioned in the document has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal despite being posted online a year before. The title of the study includes a warning that it contains new medical findings that haven’t been evaluated yet, and are thus unfit to guide clinical practice. The same caveat, labelled in blue at the top, is found on a non-peer-reviewed study referenced in the HHS document.
The non-peer-reviewed study is used to argue in the FAQ that ‘post-marketing studies’ of COVID vaccines found ‘serious adverse effects,’ potentially increasing the risk of pericarditis and myocarditis. These are conditions where the muscular tissue of the heart or its protective membrane, the pericardium, become inflamed.
Earlier research at the beginning of the pandemic confirms this, however, recent studies that are not included in the department’s memo reveal that the risk has decreased with adjustments to vaccine protocols. Furthermore, the department’s document lacks references to several other peer-reviewed studies that indicate the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following a COVID infection for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals is higher than after vaccination alone.
The cited study in the document focuses solely on adolescents and children. It references the Vaccine Safety Datalink maintained by the CDC. ‘At this stage, we are unable to identify any increased risk’, reads the statement from the director of communications for the Health and Human Services Department.
In two incidences, the HHS memo makes unsubstantiated claims about threats to expectant mothers, directly contradicted by the papers it cites. Both of these research documents advocate for the safety and efficiency of COVID vaccines in pregnant women.
The HHS document also refers to a study claiming to find ‘an elevated incidence of placental blood clotting in expectant mothers vaccinated against COVID.’ However, that referenced study makes no mention of either placental blood clots or expectant mothers. This was noted by Dr. Turrentine, saying he’d reviewed the document thrice and failed to find such a claim.
Lambasting the document’s misrepresentation of medical data, Dr. Turrentine said that, if he were to grade the HHS document, it would earn an ‘F’. In his eyes, the document completely lacks support and does not accurately reflect the medical evidence.
Attempts to get commentary on whether they received the memo from medical doctors serving on House and Senate committees focused on health were unfruitful. Yet, the overarching concern remains: how crucial it is for health agencies to present accurate and objective information, especially in matters that can have far-reaching effects on public health.
Overall, transparency and fact-based communication are imperative. Health agencies are placed in positions of trust and authority, and it is vital that they uphold these responsibilities to ensure public safety. Relying on unsubstantiated or misrepresented data can lead to confusion, mistrust, and potentially harm.
We often turn to these institutions for guidance during times of crisis and uncertainty. Therefore, it is crucial that they present information that is based on credible research and reflects a broad consensus within the scientific community. Decisions that can drastically impact public health such as those related to vaccines should always be rooted in the latest and most comprehensive scientific data available.