HHS Document on COVID Vaccine Policy Sparks Controversy and Outrage

Controversy Surrounds HHS Document on COVID Vaccine Policy Shift

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testifies during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Recent developments from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have sparked significant debate over the credibility of a document intended to justify a policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations. The document, which was supposed to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to alter vaccine guidelines, has been criticized for citing studies that are either unpublished, disputed, or mischaracterized.

Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine, described the document as “willful medical disinformation” regarding vaccine safety for children and pregnant women. He 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.”

The controversy began when Kennedy, previously known for his anti-vaccine stance, announced on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children. This decision bypassed the usual formal processes for updating vaccine recommendations, leading to backlash from the medical community.

The HHS’s document, titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ,” was obtained by KFF Health News and distributed to Congress members. It has not been made publicly available on the HHS website. Medical professionals who reviewed the document noted that it distorts some legitimate studies and references others that are under investigation.

Andrew Nixon, the 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.” However, HHS did not disclose the document’s author.

One referenced study, under investigation by Sage Journals for issues related to research methodology and author conflicts, has been cited in the document. Experts like Dr. Sean O’Leary from the University of Colorado, criticize the approach, stating, “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.”

Outdated and Misinterpreted Research on Myocarditis and Pericarditis

A preprint study cited in the document has not undergone peer review and still carries a disclaimer that it should not guide clinical practice. The document claims that post-marketing studies have identified “serious adverse effects” such as myocarditis and pericarditis linked to COVID vaccines. However, recent studies not included in the document have shown that the risk of these conditions is higher after contracting COVID-19 than from vaccination.

Furthermore, claims in the HHS document about vaccine-related risks to pregnant women are directly contradicted by the cited studies, which support the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines during pregnancy. Dr. Turrentine expressed disbelief at these inaccuracies, stating, “I’ve now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere.”

Dr. Neil Silverman from UCLA noted that Congress members might not have the expertise to scrutinize such documents thoroughly and could be misled by the information.

C.J. Young from the House Energy and Commerce Committee confirmed that Democratic staff received the document and highlighted the unusual nature of its content, stating, “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.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.