A recent document sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to lawmakers has sparked significant controversy due to its apparent reliance on questionable scientific studies to justify a major change in COVID vaccine policy.
The document supports Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement on May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would cease recommending COVID vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children.
Kennedy’s decision, made through a post on the social media platform X, bypassed the CDC’s established processes for modifying vaccine schedules, leading to outrage from many pediatricians and scientists accustomed to a rigorous evidential framework.
Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, characterized the HHS document as “willful medical disinformation.”
Turrentine expressed his disbelief at the document’s content, stating it undermines the trust Congress places in health agencies to provide accurate information.
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.”
The HHS document titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ” has not been made publicly available on the HHS website. However, it represents the first detailed justification from the agency regarding Kennedy’s controversial announcement.
Sources, including Democratic staff members from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that the document was indeed shared with members of Congress.
Medical experts who scrutinized the HHS document highlighted a range of issues, including distortions of some legitimate scientific studies and reliance on others that are disputed or unpublished.
Seeking clarity, KFF Health News reached out to HHS for a response. HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon defended the document’s content, asserting that it does not misrepresent the studies and highlights valid safety concerns raised by the data.
However, critics identified that one of the cited studies is currently under investigation by its publisher, Sage Journals, due to noted issues in its methodology, conclusions, and potential author conflicts of interest.
Dr. Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, condemned the HHS document, remarking, “This has been his playbook for 20 years.”
O’Leary affirmed that the document either cherry-picked findings from reputable studies or utilized poorly conducted research to underpin Kennedy’s claims.
The HHS document also includes references to outdated and misinterpreted research concerning myocarditis and pericarditis associated with COVID vaccines.
One study cited in the FAQ is a preprint that remains unpublished in a peer-reviewed journal, raising concerns because it includes a disclaimer that it should not be used to direct clinical practice.
The FAQ erroneously claims that “post-marketing studies” have identified serious adverse effects linked to COVID vaccines, referring to an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.
Recent scientific data, which the document overlooks, indicates that the risk of these heart conditions has diminished due to new vaccine protocols, contradicting the claims made.
The findings are also put into perspective when considering that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater following a COVID infection than it is following vaccination, irrespective of vaccination status.
Furthermore, the study’s 2024 coauthors contested the interpretation that linked their findings to vaccine-induced myocarditis and pericarditis, underscoring the absence of direct comparisons between vaccinated and infected populations.
Despite initial reports of myocarditis cases among vaccinated adolescent boys and young men, Dr. O’Leary noted that the rates decreased after the spacing of doses in vaccination protocols became longer.
Current guidelines for adolescents and adults who have not been vaccinated call for a single vaccine dose, and recent data suggests that myocarditis is no longer an identifiable risk associated with this vaccination.
This shifts the focus back onto Congress’s reliance on health agencies for accurate guidance.
The HHS memo has also drawn flak for making claims about dangers to pregnant women that contradict both the findings of the papers it cites as support and verified research.
In one instance, the HHS document alleges that a specific paper found an increase in placental blood clotting in mothers who received the vaccine, a claim that appears unfounded according to Turrentine, who noted he could find no reference to such findings in the text.
Turrentine expressed his strong disapproval, saying, “If I were grading the HHS document, I would give this an ‘F.’ This is not supported by anything, and it’s not using medical evidence.”
Dr. Neil Silverman, an expert in obstetrics and gynecology from UCLA, remarked that many legislators and their staff lack the expertise required to properly assess the references and claims presented in the memo.
Given this situation, there is a risk that members of Congress may be misled by what they believe is reliable information stemming from a scientific agency.
C.J. Young, a deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, verified that Democratic staff on the panel received the same document from HHS, expressing concern over the lack of rigor in the material.
He noted that similar documents in the past typically clarified justifications and scopes surrounding policy changes, and thus should be expected to maintain a high level of scientific accuracy.
Young expressed unease, 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.”
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/06/13/nx-s1-5431935/rfk-hhs-covid-vaccine-schedule-faq
