RFK Jr’s sick ‘Drain the Science’: War on Vaccine Experts, Guidance for Children and Pregnant Women Scrapped

First, what the actual F*?

Firing the world’s top vaccine experts and replacing them with conspiracy influencers is like grounding airline pilots and handing the controls to flat-earthers—the unhinged decision will be measured in lives. The real agenda? Power, plain and simple. When you can’t win the argument with evidence, you just fire the people who have it. More on this lunacy [here].

Claim: Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for children <12 and pregnant women have not been established by manufacturers 🙄🌀🗣️💩

The recent decisions regarding vaccine guidance for children and pregnant women are alarming and warrant further discussion.

Deeply Misleading

• Misleading framing: The statement cherry-picks language from regulatory documents meant to reflect evolving data rather than lack of efficacy or safety.
  • Regulatory language such as “not established” often reflects age-specific ongoing studies and does not mean the vaccines are unsafe or ineffective. It may mean initial trials had limited subgroup sizes, especially early in the rollout.
• Evidence contradicts this: Multiple real-world studies, including large post-authorisation observational data, have demonstrated safety and effectiveness in both groups.
  • Example: CDC, UKHSA, and Scandinavian registry studies have shown a significant reduction in maternal COVID-19 complications and hospitalisation after vaccination.

Claim: Adverse events (myocarditis, pregnancy loss, etc.) are widespread and support repeal 🤥📈📉

Bullshit

• Overstated and selective: While there is a known signal for myocarditis in adolescent males, particularly after the second mRNA dose, it is:
  • Very rare (e.g., ~12–30 cases per million doses in adolescent males).
  • Typically mild and self-resolving.
  • Far less common than myocarditis from COVID-19 infection itself.
• Pregnancy data: Numerous high-quality studies and global reviews (e.g., from V-SAFE, UK NHS, and GVDN) do not support claims of increased fetal loss or placental abnormalities. Some cited studies have been misrepresented.

Use of VAERS for risk estimates 🤦🏻‍♀️ 🤦🏽‍♂️ 🤦🏿 🤦🏼‍♀️ 🤦🏾‍♂️ 🤦🏻 🤦🏽‍♀️ 🤦🏿‍♂️ 🤦🏼 🤦🏾‍♀️

• Flawed: VAERS is a passive surveillance system and cannot be used to calculate incidence or risk.
  • The cited claim that “myocarditis reports were 223x higher” ignores the lack of a denominator and the influence of reporting bias following media attention.
  • VAERS accepts unverified reports from anyone and is designed as a signal-detection tool, not a causal inference platform.

Use of authority

• Correct but ethically concerning: It is true that ACIP is advisory and that HHS has the legal authority to accept or reject recommendations. However:
  • Historically, secretaries have never overridden ACIP recommendations in a way that so starkly contradicts international consensus and real-world data. – This is because they are normally topic experts.
  • Doing so without transparent expert review raises serious ethical, public health, and trust concerns.

---

📑 Reference check

Seriously… these are their ten references at the bottom of the page!!!!

i–iv. Moderna and Pfizer Package Inserts

• These do contain statements indicating that data in some subgroups (e.g., <12 years or pregnant women) are evolving. But they do not say the vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.
• Inserts reflect regulatory language meant to guide providers—not statements of lack of benefit.

v. Rose et al. (2024)

• Highly problematic: Jessica Rose is a known purveyor of vaccine misinformation, with multiple retracted or unpeer-reviewed publications.
  • This article was published in Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, but the credibility of this paper is suspect due to author conflicts and methodological flaws (e.g., gross misuse of VAERS).

vi. OpenSAFELY Preprint (2024.05.20.24306810)

• The preprint by Andrews et al. evaluates vaccine effectiveness. The claim that myocarditis “only occurred in vaccinated children” is a misreading. The actual study compares background rates and does not claim exclusivity of vaccine-associated events.
  • Additionally, real-world myocarditis also occurs in unvaccinated children after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

vii. Takada et al. (2024, Japan)

• This is a valid study from a Japanese adverse event database. It confirms a higher incidence of myocarditis in younger males, aligning with global surveillance data.
  • However, the study does not argue against vaccination—rather, it supports transparent risk–benefit assessment and surveillance.

viii. Velez et al. (2023, BJOG)

• This study found no increased risk of miscarriage associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Citing it as evidence for harm is a clear misrepresentation.

ix. Dick et al. (BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth)

• Actually concluded that COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes. Again, misused.

x. Faksova et al. (2024, Vaccine)

• This GVDN study used a multinational dataset of 99 million people. It investigated adverse events of special interest, including clotting disorders. It did not find safety concerns warranting removal of vaccine recommendations. In fact, the authors conclude the findings support ongoing vaccine safety.
• The study did not even assess placental bleeding so even more remarkable it is being used. This is where I wonder if the people who prepared the HHS document used AI and accepted its hallucinations instead of actually checking them.
• Here is the link, check for yourself.

---

The real scientific evidence on COVID-19 vaccines and pregnancy🔬📚✅

Read about the actual scientific evidence on this topic [here], compiled by Dr Viki Male, reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London. Her living document summarises the evidence and provides links to the evidence.

Conclusion

The justifications presented by Secretary Kennedy are scientifically weak, rely on distorted or misrepresented data, and use selective citation from regulatory language and flawed analyses. The document:

• Ignores the overwhelming real-world data on vaccine safety and benefit in children and pregnant women.
• Misuses surveillance systems like VAERS.
• Cherry-picks quotes and studies while ignoring the broader scientific consensus and context.

This narrative appears to be driven by ideology rather than science. A genuine commitment to “gold standard” science would involve engaging with expert panels (like the previous ACIP members before firing them), using rigorous data synthesis, and avoiding reliance on debunked or fringe sources.