ASHEBORO N.C. (ACME NEWS) —Under Secretary Kennedy, HHS is citing scientific studies to justify dropping COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for kids and pregnant women — but many of those studies actually say the opposite of what the administration claims.
In May, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., issued a new FAQ explaining the decision to withdraw COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. The FAQ cites several major studies to support this move. However, a closer look reveals that in key areas, the FAQ lies or misrepresents the findings of these studies, effectively using them as a cover while contradicting their actual conclusions.
❌️ Misrepresentations
The FAQ repeatedly points to peer-reviewed research on miscarriage, preterm birth, and pregnancy complications. In each case, the studies concluded the vaccines were safe, but the FAQ claims they showed the opposite.
Click to view the full FAQ (Opens in new window)
Miscarriage (BJOG, 2023)
💉 FAQ claim: Higher fetal loss if vaccination occurred before 20 weeks.
📖 Study finding: No increased risk of miscarriage, even early in pregnancy.
❌ Reality: Far from supporting the FAQ’s claim, the study directly contradicted it — yet the FAQ cited it as though it validated their position..
Preterm birth (BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth, 2022)
💉 FAQ claim: Statistically significant increases in preterm birth.
📖 Study finding: No link between vaccination and preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age, or stillbirth.
❌ Reality: The FAQ asserted the exact opposite of the data.
Placental clotting (Vaccine, 2024, 99M global cohort)
💉 FAQ claim: Vaccinated mothers faced increased placental blood clotting.
📖 Study finding: No increased risk of clotting or pregnancy complications.
❌ Reality: The FAQ twisted a global safety confirmation into an alleged danger.
The FAQ doesn’t just bend the science — it cites studies and then claims they show the opposite of what they actually found. In three critical cases on miscarriage, preterm birth, and placental complications, the cited research confirms vaccine safety, yet the government presents it as proof of harm.
That’s not misinterpretation. It’s federal health guidance built on deliberate inversion of evidence. By using studies as cover while lying about their conclusions, HHS is eroding the very credibility public health depends on.
⚠ Accurate but missing context
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety (Rose et al. (2024))
💉 FAQ Claim: VAERS reports of myocarditis were 223× higher than historical averages, a 2500% increase.
📖 Study finding: Found elevated myocarditis reports in VAERS but emphasized limitations of passive surveillance and called for more rigorous study.
🟨 Partial alignment – Correct about increased reports, but the study did not establish causation.
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy (Takada et al. (2024))
💉 FAQ Claim: Vaccination significantly associated with myocarditis/pericarditis, especially in males under 30.
📖 Study Conclusion: Found a statistical signal in Japan’s adverse event database, most often in young men, but cautioned about limitations.
🟨 Accurate but incomplete – Association reported, but causation not proven.
A Pattern of Lies
RFK Jr.’s latest misrepresentation of vaccine studies fits a long-running pattern. Earlier this year, his office released the MAHA Report on U.S. health that cited multiple studies which turned out to be nonexistent, AI-generated, or misattributed. Investigations by journalists and lawmakers concluded the report likely relied on generative AI to fabricate evidence while presenting it as “gold-standard science.”
This wasn’t an isolated slip. RFK has repeatedly twisted or cherry-picked data — from misusing supplementary information in a Danish vaccine safety study to making false claims in Senate hearings about COVID deaths and vaccine effectiveness. His anti-vaccine activism stretches back years, including retracted articles linking vaccines to autism and false claims during outbreaks abroad. Taken together, these examples show a consistent pattern: presenting himself as rooted in science while bending or fabricating evidence to support predetermined narratives.
###
