RFK Jr. defends the modification of the calendar of vaccines coded in the note at Congress: NPR

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 called the “voluntary medical disinformation” document on the safety of hairstyle vaccines for children and pregnant women.

“It is so far from the left field that I find insulting for our members of the Congress that they would really give them something like that.

Kennedy, who was an anti-Vaccin activist before playing a role in the administration, announced on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend Cèvres vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, by bypassing the agency’s formal process to adjust its vaccine times for adults and children.

The announcement, made on the social media platform X, has encountered indignation 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, according to the Democratic staff of the Energy and Trade Committee of the Chamber and the Office of the Representative Kim Schrier, D-Wash.

Entitled “COVID Recommendation FAQ”, the document has not been published on the HHS website, although it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy’s announcement of the agency.

Medical experts who have examined all the quotes from the FAQ have said that it distorts certain legitimate studies and quote others that are disputed and unpublished.

HHS communications director Andrew Nixon told Kff Health News: “There is no study distortion in this document. The underlying data is talking about itself, and this raises legitimate security problems. HHS will not be aware of this or minimize it. We will follow data and science.”

HHS did not respond to a request to appoint the author of the document.

One of the studies that the HHS CITE document is under the study of its publisher, Sage Journals, concerning “potential problems with the methodology and research conclusions and conflicts of interest of the authors”, according to a link on the study web page.

“This is the RFK Jr. game book,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Deputy Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado. “Either Cherry -Cick of Good Science or take the science of junk food to support his premises – it’s his game book for 20 years.”

Obsolete and misinterpreted research on myocarditis and pericarditis

Another study cited in the document is a pre -impression that was made available online a year ago, and has still not been published in a journal evaluated by peers. As part of the study title is an alert according to which “he reports new medical research which has not yet been evaluated and should therefore not be used to guide clinical practice”.

A blue alert at the top of a preliminary study cited in the HHS document informs readers that the study was not evaluated by peers.

Screengrab of a preliminary study on medrxiv.org/kff

hide

tilting legend

Screengrab of a preliminary study on medrxiv.org/kff

The FAQ is based on pre -impression to assert that “post -marketing studies” of vaccines tank has identified “serious undesirable effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis” – of the conditions in which the muscle of the heart or its coating, the pericardium, suffers from inflammation.

Although research at the start of the pandemic found that new research not included in the memo indicates that the risk has fallen with new vaccine protocols.

And the HHS document has omitted many other studies evaluated by peers that have shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is higher after having contracted a coconut for vaccinated and not vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone.

One of the pre-printed co-authors of 2024 refuted the idea that their research has revealed that myocarditis and pericarditis have been caused by the cocovated plans, rather than by an infection coded, noting that the study does not compare the results between the people who have been vaccinated and infected with the virus coded.

The study also focused only on children and adolescents.

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 vaccinated previously receive only one blow, and myocarditis no longer appears in the data, said O’Leary, referring to the security of CDC vaccine safety data. “There is no increased risk at this stage that we can identify,” he said.

The congress is based on health agencies for specific advice

In two cases, the HHS memo makes demands on the dangers for pregnant women who are actively refuted by the papers he cites to support them. The two papers support the safety and efficiency of coastal vaccines for pregnant women.

The HHS document indicates that another article he cites has found “an increase in placental blood coagulation in pregnant mothers who have taken the vaccine”. But paper does not contain any reference to placental blood clots or pregnant women.

“I have now 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 the doctors should know to check the references in the document, they may not take the time to do so, said Dr. Neil Silverman, a teacher of clinical obstetrics and gynecology who directs the program of pregnancy of infectious diseases of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the UCLA.

“They will assume that it comes from a scientific agency. So they are deceived 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, including 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’s energy and trade committee, confirmed that the office of the Schrier representative had received a copy of the document.

“The problem is many legislators and even their employees, they do not have expertise in order to be able to separate these references,” said O’Leary. “”

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.

Kff Health News is a national editorial room that produces in -depth journalism on health problems and is one of the main operating programs in Kff.