HHS⁣ Vaccine Policy Under Fire for Misleading Data

⁤ Updated June 15, 2025
⁤

A⁤ U.S. Department of Health and​ Human Services (HHS) document sent‌ to members of Congress to justify changes in COVID-19 vaccine policy is facing scrutiny for citing ⁢unpublished or disputed‌ scientific studies. critics also allege mischaracterizations of ​other ⁣sources.

The document supports Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to alter the Centers for disease⁤ Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, bypassing the⁣ agency’s ‍standard procedures for vaccine schedules. Kennedy‌ announced May 27 on X that COVID-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for pregnant women or healthy children.

mark Turrentine, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, described the ‌HHS document as “willful medical disinformation” regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for children and pregnant women.

According to turrentine,the material is an insult to members of Congress who⁢ rely on these agencies for accurate facts.

Several lawmakers have ​weighed in on the controversy. Rep. ⁣Kim ‌Schrier, D-Wash., a physician on the House Energy ‍and Commerce Commitee, ⁣confirmed her office received the document. C.J. Young, deputy communications ⁤director for⁣ the same ‌committee, noted that Democratic staff members also received the document from HHS. Young added that such documents typically ‌clarify policy changes and are ⁢assumed to be scientifically sound.

Paula Silverman,who directs the Infectious Diseases in⁣ Pregnancy Program at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine,said legislators⁢ might assume the information comes from a scientific agency and be misled.

O’Leary said many legislators and their staff ⁣lack the ​expertise to dissect the references,⁣ adding that he has ⁤seen⁢ much better anti-vaccine propaganda.

Young said the current situation breaks new ground, citing a level of sloppiness and inattention to detail‍ not seen during the first⁣ Trump governance.

Reps. ⁣Frank⁣ Pallone, D-N.J., and ⁤Schrier introduced‌ a ⁣bill June⁢ 4 that would require Kennedy to adopt official vaccine decisions ‌from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). the bill was motivated by ‍Kennedy’s ‍decision ​to⁤ change the COVID vaccine ‌schedule without ACIP input.

Kennedy announced on X June 9 that he ‍would remove all 17 ACIP members, citing unspecified conflicts of interest, and replace them. On June 11, he announced eight replacements, ‍including⁤ individuals who had⁢ criticized vaccine⁢ mandates during the COVID pandemic.

What’s next

The bill introduced by Pallone and Schrier seeks to‌ ensure that⁢ future vaccine policy decisions are based on the recommendations of vaccine experts,possibly curbing the HHS secretary’s ‌ability to unilaterally alter vaccine ⁣schedules.