Ancient miasma theory may help explain Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine moves
June 14, 2025
June 14, 2025
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
Rob Stein
NPR/PBS NEWS
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (R) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Martin Makary at the White House in May, when Kennedy released a Make America Healthy Again Commission report that blamed the rise in chronic illnesses on ultraprocessed foods, chemical exposures, lifestyle factors and excessive use of prescription drugs
Rob Stein
NPR/PBS NEWS
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (R) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Martin Makary at the White House in May, when Kennedy released a Make America Healthy Again Commission report that blamed the rise in chronic illnesses on ultraprocessed foods, chemical exposures, lifestyle factors and excessive use of prescription drugs
.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has upended medical research and public health in the U.S. in many ways. One of the ideas that could be influencing his overhaul of federal health agencies dates back to ancient Greece.
The miasma theory is one of the first ideas that civilization hatched to try to explain why people get sick.
"It goes back to Hippocrates," says Dr. Howard Markel, an emeritus professor of medical history from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "He wrote in a book called Epidemics, that epidemics came from some type of pollution – some pollution of the atmosphere, of the air that we breathe. And hence we got terrible infectious diseases."
This idea that, in essence, bad air caused illness was later championed by many others, including Florence Nightingale. It also led to some things that did help fight diseases, like cleaning up sewage.
But then came the germ theory — one of humanity's big eureka moments. Scientists like Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch discovered it wasn't some mysterious stench in the air from rotting garbage that spread diseases. Instead, it was living microscopic entities.
"They discovered what we know as germs – microbes," says Melanie Kiechle, a historian at Virginia Tech. "Bacteria and viruses and other microscopic materials were actually what caused illness and also explained the spread of illness from one person to another. So miasma theory is debunked, essentially."
The discovery of germs led to breakthroughs like antibiotics and vaccines.
But in a book Kennedy published about four years ago, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, the now- health secretary harkens back to the miasma theory.
"Miasma theory emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses," Kennedy writes.
But experts say one problem is how Kennedy defines miasma theory.
"I will categorically say that miasma theory, as historians of medicine and science understand it, is not what he is saying it is, period," says Nancy Tomes, a historian of germ theory at Stony Brook University, who wrote The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women and the Microbe in American Life.
But Kennedy's take may help explain some of his policies, especially about vaccines.
"The miasma theory is the notion that there are environmental poisons, not necessarily rotting organic matter," says Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "For him, those environmental poisons are electromagnetic radiation, pesticides, vaccines. Vaccines are, for him, a modern-day miasma."
And that's dangerous, many experts say.
"Can stress, air pollution, other things, make infections worse? Yes. But the cause of infections is a microorganism," says Dr. Tina Tan, who heads the Infectious Disease Society of America. "It's the microorganisms that are making people sick."
And vaccines have clearly been shown to safely and effectively protect people against dangerous microorganisms, Tan and others say.
"He's trying to give this false veneer of intellectualism by saying, 'Oh, the miasma theory,'" says Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security. "This all just obfuscation to support his idea that vaccines are not valuable."
But some other observers argue that Kennedy's ideas about the miasma and germ theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
"The real debate here is whether we can solve public health problems by developing treatments like vaccines, antibiotics, or other drugs? Or whether we will solve these problems by strengthening people's immune systems through healthier habits?" says Gregg Girvan, a resident fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a Washington think tank. "And my response is, 'Why can we not acknowledge that there is truth in both positions?'"
Kennedy's office did not respond to NPR's request for more information about his views about the miasma and germ theories.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has upended medical research and public health in the U.S. in many ways. One of the ideas that could be influencing his overhaul of federal health agencies dates back to ancient Greece.
The miasma theory is one of the first ideas that civilization hatched to try to explain why people get sick.
"It goes back to Hippocrates," says Dr. Howard Markel, an emeritus professor of medical history from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "He wrote in a book called Epidemics, that epidemics came from some type of pollution – some pollution of the atmosphere, of the air that we breathe. And hence we got terrible infectious diseases."
This idea that, in essence, bad air caused illness was later championed by many others, including Florence Nightingale. It also led to some things that did help fight diseases, like cleaning up sewage.
But then came the germ theory — one of humanity's big eureka moments. Scientists like Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch discovered it wasn't some mysterious stench in the air from rotting garbage that spread diseases. Instead, it was living microscopic entities.
"They discovered what we know as germs – microbes," says Melanie Kiechle, a historian at Virginia Tech. "Bacteria and viruses and other microscopic materials were actually what caused illness and also explained the spread of illness from one person to another. So miasma theory is debunked, essentially."
The discovery of germs led to breakthroughs like antibiotics and vaccines.
But in a book Kennedy published about four years ago, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, the now- health secretary harkens back to the miasma theory.
"Miasma theory emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses," Kennedy writes.
But experts say one problem is how Kennedy defines miasma theory.
"I will categorically say that miasma theory, as historians of medicine and science understand it, is not what he is saying it is, period," says Nancy Tomes, a historian of germ theory at Stony Brook University, who wrote The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women and the Microbe in American Life.
But Kennedy's take may help explain some of his policies, especially about vaccines.
"The miasma theory is the notion that there are environmental poisons, not necessarily rotting organic matter," says Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "For him, those environmental poisons are electromagnetic radiation, pesticides, vaccines. Vaccines are, for him, a modern-day miasma."
And that's dangerous, many experts say.
"Can stress, air pollution, other things, make infections worse? Yes. But the cause of infections is a microorganism," says Dr. Tina Tan, who heads the Infectious Disease Society of America. "It's the microorganisms that are making people sick."
And vaccines have clearly been shown to safely and effectively protect people against dangerous microorganisms, Tan and others say.
"He's trying to give this false veneer of intellectualism by saying, 'Oh, the miasma theory,'" says Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security. "This all just obfuscation to support his idea that vaccines are not valuable."
But some other observers argue that Kennedy's ideas about the miasma and germ theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
"The real debate here is whether we can solve public health problems by developing treatments like vaccines, antibiotics, or other drugs? Or whether we will solve these problems by strengthening people's immune systems through healthier habits?" says Gregg Girvan, a resident fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a Washington think tank. "And my response is, 'Why can we not acknowledge that there is truth in both positions?'"
Kennedy's office did not respond to NPR's request for more information about his views about the miasma and germ theories.
June 14, 2025
By Jackie Fortiér,
By Jackie Fortiér,
KFF Health News
A document the Department of Health and Human Services sent to lawmakers to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to change U.S. policy on covid vaccines cites scientific studies that are unpublished or under dispute and mischaracterizes others.
One health expert called the document “willful medical disinformation” about the safety of covid vaccines for children and pregnant women.
“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. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it’s just not there,” said Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine.
Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist before taking a role in the Trump administration, announced May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, bypassing the agency’s formal process for adjusting its vaccine schedules for adults and kids.
The announcement, made on the social platform X, has been met with outrage by many pediatricians and scientists.
The HHS document meant to support Kennedy’s decision, obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to members of Congress who questioned the science and process behind his move, according to one federal official who asked not to be identified because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The document has not been posted on the HHS website, though it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy’s announcement from the agency.
Titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ,” the document distorts some legitimate studies and cites others that are disputed and unpublished, medical experts say.
HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon told KFF Health News, “There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science.”
HHS did not respond to a request to name the author of the document.
‘RFK Jr.’s Playbook’
One of the studies the HHS document cites is under investigation by its publisher regarding “potential issues with the research methodology and conclusions and author conflicts of interest,” according to a link on the study’s webpage.
“This is RFK Jr.’s playbook,” said Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.”
Another study cited in the document is a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Under the study’s title is an alert that “it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” Though the preprint was made available a year ago, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The FAQ supporting Kennedy’s decision claims that “post-marketing studies” of covid vaccines have identified “serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis” — conditions in which the heart’s muscle or its covering, the pericardium, suffer inflammation.
False claims that the 2024 preprint showed myocarditis and pericarditis only in people who received a covid vaccine, and not in people infected with covid, circulated on social media. One of the study’s co-authors publicly rejected that idea, because the study did not compare outcomes between people who were vaccinated and those infected with the covid virus. The study also focused only on children and adolescents.
The HHS document omitted numerous other peer-reviewed studies that have shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after contracting covid for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone.
O’Leary said that while some cases of myocarditis were reported in vaccinated adolescent boys and young men early in the covid pandemic, the rates declined after the two initial doses of covid vaccines were spaced further apart.
Now, adolescents and adults who have not been previously vaccinated receive only one shot, and myocarditis no longer shows up in the data, O’Leary said, referring to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. “There is no increased risk at this point that we can identify,” he said.
In two instances, the HHS memo makes claims that are actively refuted by the papers it cites to back them up. Both papers support the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines for pregnant women.
The HHS document says that another paper it cites found “an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who took the vaccine.” But the paper doesn’t contain any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant women.
“I’ve now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere,” said Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor.
If he were grading the HHS document, “I would give this an ‘F,’” Turrentine said. “This is not supported by anything and it’s not using medical evidence.”
While members of Congress who are physicians should know to check references in the paper, they may not take the time to do so, said Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
“They’re going to assume this is coming from a scientific agency. So they are being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document,” Silverman said.
The offices of three Republicans in Congress who are medical doctors serving on House and Senate committees focused on health, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), did not respond to requests for comment about whether they received the memo. Emily Druckman, communications director for Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), a physician serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Schrier’s office did receive a copy of the document.
“The problem is a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they don’t have the expertise to be able to pick those references apart,” O’Leary said. “But this one — I’ve seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.”
C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic staff members of the committee received the document from HHS. In the past, he said, similar documents would help clarify the justification and scope of an administration’s policy change and could be assumed to be scientifically accurate, Young said.
“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,” Young said.
On June 4, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Schrier introduced a bill that would require Kennedy to adopt official vaccine decisions from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
Young said the motivation behind the bill was Kennedy’s decision to change the covid vaccine schedule without the input of ACIP’s vaccine experts, who play a key role in setting CDC policies around vaccine schedules and access.
Kennedy announced June 9 on X that he would remove all 17 members of ACIP, citing alleged conflicts of interest he did not detail, and replace them. He announced eight replacements June 11, including people who had criticized vaccine mandates during the covid pandemic.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.
KFF would like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.
A document the Department of Health and Human Services sent to lawmakers to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to change U.S. policy on covid vaccines cites scientific studies that are unpublished or under dispute and mischaracterizes others.
One health expert called the document “willful medical disinformation” about the safety of covid vaccines for children and pregnant women.
“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. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it’s just not there,” said Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine.
Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist before taking a role in the Trump administration, announced May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, bypassing the agency’s formal process for adjusting its vaccine schedules for adults and kids.
The announcement, made on the social platform X, has been met with outrage by many pediatricians and scientists.
The HHS document meant to support Kennedy’s decision, obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to members of Congress who questioned the science and process behind his move, according to one federal official who asked not to be identified because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The document has not been posted on the HHS website, though it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy’s announcement from the agency.
Titled “Covid Recommendation FAQ,” the document distorts some legitimate studies and cites others that are disputed and unpublished, medical experts say.
HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon told KFF Health News, “There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science.”
HHS did not respond to a request to name the author of the document.
‘RFK Jr.’s Playbook’
One of the studies the HHS document cites is under investigation by its publisher regarding “potential issues with the research methodology and conclusions and author conflicts of interest,” according to a link on the study’s webpage.
“This is RFK Jr.’s playbook,” said Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.”
Another study cited in the document is a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Under the study’s title is an alert that “it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” Though the preprint was made available a year ago, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The FAQ supporting Kennedy’s decision claims that “post-marketing studies” of covid vaccines have identified “serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis” — conditions in which the heart’s muscle or its covering, the pericardium, suffer inflammation.
False claims that the 2024 preprint showed myocarditis and pericarditis only in people who received a covid vaccine, and not in people infected with covid, circulated on social media. One of the study’s co-authors publicly rejected that idea, because the study did not compare outcomes between people who were vaccinated and those infected with the covid virus. The study also focused only on children and adolescents.
The HHS document omitted numerous other peer-reviewed studies that have shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after contracting covid for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone.
O’Leary said that while some cases of myocarditis were reported in vaccinated adolescent boys and young men early in the covid pandemic, the rates declined after the two initial doses of covid vaccines were spaced further apart.
Now, adolescents and adults who have not been previously vaccinated receive only one shot, and myocarditis no longer shows up in the data, O’Leary said, referring to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. “There is no increased risk at this point that we can identify,” he said.
In two instances, the HHS memo makes claims that are actively refuted by the papers it cites to back them up. Both papers support the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines for pregnant women.
The HHS document says that another paper it cites found “an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who took the vaccine.” But the paper doesn’t contain any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant women.
“I’ve now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere,” said Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor.
If he were grading the HHS document, “I would give this an ‘F,’” Turrentine said. “This is not supported by anything and it’s not using medical evidence.”
While members of Congress who are physicians should know to check references in the paper, they may not take the time to do so, said Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
“They’re going to assume this is coming from a scientific agency. So they are being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document,” Silverman said.
The offices of three Republicans in Congress who are medical doctors serving on House and Senate committees focused on health, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), did not respond to requests for comment about whether they received the memo. Emily Druckman, communications director for Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), a physician serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Schrier’s office did receive a copy of the document.
“The problem is a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they don’t have the expertise to be able to pick those references apart,” O’Leary said. “But this one — I’ve seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.”
C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic staff members of the committee received the document from HHS. In the past, he said, similar documents would help clarify the justification and scope of an administration’s policy change and could be assumed to be scientifically accurate, Young said.
“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,” Young said.
On June 4, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Schrier introduced a bill that would require Kennedy to adopt official vaccine decisions from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
Young said the motivation behind the bill was Kennedy’s decision to change the covid vaccine schedule without the input of ACIP’s vaccine experts, who play a key role in setting CDC policies around vaccine schedules and access.
Kennedy announced June 9 on X that he would remove all 17 members of ACIP, citing alleged conflicts of interest he did not detail, and replace them. He announced eight replacements June 11, including people who had criticized vaccine mandates during the covid pandemic.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.
KFF would like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.
Kennedy appoints vaccine deniers to vaccine advisory committee
Until last week, the ACIP included vaccine scientists and public health experts who reviewed the scientific data to determine which vaccines were safe and effective for American children and adults. ACIP was respected across the world for providing information on how best to protect everyone from dangerous infectious diseases.
Now this has all disappeared with the eight new appointees to ACIP representing what can be described as mostly anti-vaccine opinions and viewpoints. Kennedy tried to gaslight us with the “scientific” backgrounds of these appointees, but with just a little digging, we can easily find their anti-vaccine points of view.
So that you are up-to-speed on each of the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members appointed by Kennedy, this post will review each of them and their anti-vaccine credentials.
The Kennedy anti-vaccine committee members
I will go through each Kennedy appointment to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and discuss their public anti-vaccine viewpoints. If you were worried that vaccine recommendations would be harmed by Kennedy’s actions, you now have more reason to worry.
Joseph R Hibbeln, MD
Hibbeln retired from the National Institutes of Health in 2020. His research portfolio previously covered the nutritional intake of fatty acids, including omega-3. He has no experience in vaccine research, but co-authored a study probing whether mercury exposure during pregnancy was linked to autism, which is a big issue for RFK Jr.
He is probably not an anti-vaxxer at the level of other Kennedy appointees to the vaccine committee, although he has had zero experience in vaccine research.
Martin Kulldorff, PhD
Kulldorff was a co-author of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which advocated for an approach to the COVID pandemic with few or no public health mitigation measures. They wanted them instituted only for those at high risk for severe disease and death (such as the elderly or diabetics). He believed that we could create herd immunity to COVID through his radical “public health” measures.
He was probably dismissed as a professor of medicine at Harvard because of his public health views, along with his refusal to get the COVID vaccine.
Kulldorf also served in the past as an “expert witness” in litigation against Merck’s Gardasil (HPV vaccine). He is currently still an expert in another large HPV vaccine case.
There is simply no way to consider Kulldorff a real vaccine scientist who examines the science to come to his conclusions. Instead, he has anti-vaccine beliefs and looks to find evidence that supports his beliefs.
Retsef Levi, PhD
He is a risk analytics professor at MIT. He considers mRNA vaccines unsafe and urged an “immediate suspension” of them, citing cardiac death signals, which have been debunked. His “research” on COVID vaccines has been criticized by many others.
He is another vaccine denier.
Robert W Malone, MD
Malone has made a name for himself by claiming that he invented the mRNA vaccine, which is just not true. He uses that claim to cast doubt on the safety and effectiveness of mRNA-based COVID vaccines.
Recently, he has passed on misinformation about the recent measles outbreak and states that the MMR vaccine has the same dangers as measles itself.
Malone brings nothing but anti-vaccine credentials to ACIP.
H Cody Meissner, MD
Meissner is a pediatric infectious disease specialist, and he is probably the most pro-vaccine of all of the new appointees. He has relevant experience in pediatric infectious diseases and analyzing the illnesses and deaths prevented by vaccines.
James Pagano, MD
Pagano is a retired emergency medicine physician with no background in vaccine science. He did advocate for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID pandemic, so he’s not exactly science-based.
Vicky Pebsworth, PhD, RN
Pebsworth is a long-time research director for the anti-vaccine National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). She has said that any “coercion and sanctions to persuade adults to take an experimental vaccine, or give it to their children, is unethical and unlawful.”
Pebsworth has also stated:
In particular, [The Control Group American Survey] strongly suggests that increases in the number of vaccines in the CDC schedule may be causally related to increases in the rates of chronic illness, and as a result, the unvaccinated would be healthier than the vaccinated as shown by the pilot survey results.
She is definitely anti-vaccine.
Michael A Ross, MD
Kennedy described Ross as an obstetrics and gynecology professor at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University. However, Ross does not appear in the directories for either university. The investment firm Havencrest Capital Management lists Ross as a partner and describes Ross as a pediatrics professor.
Like some others, Ross has no background in vaccine science research, but he criticized research on ivermectin that it was useless for the treatment of COVID.
CitationsGolding J, Rai D, Gregory S, Ellis G, Emond A, Iles-Caven Y, Hibbeln J, Taylor C. Prenatal mercury exposure and features of autism: a prospective population study. Mol Autism. 2018 Apr 23;9:30. doi: 10.1186/s13229-018-0215-7. PMID: 29713443; PMCID: PMC5914043.
Help the Skeptical Raptor keep writing RFK Jr’s attacks on vaccines
There are four ways you can help contribute to keeping this website running at full speed:Sharing this article on Social Media.
GoFundMe.
Contributing via Patreon.
Buying on Amazon.
Michael Simpson
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!
by Michael Simpson
2025-06-15
Skeptical Raptor
As I previously wrote, HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr fired all of the vaccine scientist members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replaced them with what appears to be a complement of anti-vaccine activists. Who would have predicted this?
As I previously discussed, ACIP recommendations are crucial for parents and physicians in determining which vaccines are recommended at various ages throughout adulthood. Moreover, ACIP recommendations are used by health insurance companies and the Vaccines for Children Program to determine what vaccines will be covered for children and adults.
2025-06-15
Skeptical Raptor
As I previously wrote, HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr fired all of the vaccine scientist members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replaced them with what appears to be a complement of anti-vaccine activists. Who would have predicted this?
As I previously discussed, ACIP recommendations are crucial for parents and physicians in determining which vaccines are recommended at various ages throughout adulthood. Moreover, ACIP recommendations are used by health insurance companies and the Vaccines for Children Program to determine what vaccines will be covered for children and adults.
Until last week, the ACIP included vaccine scientists and public health experts who reviewed the scientific data to determine which vaccines were safe and effective for American children and adults. ACIP was respected across the world for providing information on how best to protect everyone from dangerous infectious diseases.
Now this has all disappeared with the eight new appointees to ACIP representing what can be described as mostly anti-vaccine opinions and viewpoints. Kennedy tried to gaslight us with the “scientific” backgrounds of these appointees, but with just a little digging, we can easily find their anti-vaccine points of view.
So that you are up-to-speed on each of the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members appointed by Kennedy, this post will review each of them and their anti-vaccine credentials.
Photo by Artem Podrez on Pexels.com
The Kennedy anti-vaccine committee members
I will go through each Kennedy appointment to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and discuss their public anti-vaccine viewpoints. If you were worried that vaccine recommendations would be harmed by Kennedy’s actions, you now have more reason to worry.
Joseph R Hibbeln, MD
Hibbeln retired from the National Institutes of Health in 2020. His research portfolio previously covered the nutritional intake of fatty acids, including omega-3. He has no experience in vaccine research, but co-authored a study probing whether mercury exposure during pregnancy was linked to autism, which is a big issue for RFK Jr.
He is probably not an anti-vaxxer at the level of other Kennedy appointees to the vaccine committee, although he has had zero experience in vaccine research.
Martin Kulldorff, PhD
Kulldorff was a co-author of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which advocated for an approach to the COVID pandemic with few or no public health mitigation measures. They wanted them instituted only for those at high risk for severe disease and death (such as the elderly or diabetics). He believed that we could create herd immunity to COVID through his radical “public health” measures.
He was probably dismissed as a professor of medicine at Harvard because of his public health views, along with his refusal to get the COVID vaccine.
Kulldorf also served in the past as an “expert witness” in litigation against Merck’s Gardasil (HPV vaccine). He is currently still an expert in another large HPV vaccine case.
There is simply no way to consider Kulldorff a real vaccine scientist who examines the science to come to his conclusions. Instead, he has anti-vaccine beliefs and looks to find evidence that supports his beliefs.
Retsef Levi, PhD
He is a risk analytics professor at MIT. He considers mRNA vaccines unsafe and urged an “immediate suspension” of them, citing cardiac death signals, which have been debunked. His “research” on COVID vaccines has been criticized by many others.
He is another vaccine denier.
Robert W Malone, MD
Malone has made a name for himself by claiming that he invented the mRNA vaccine, which is just not true. He uses that claim to cast doubt on the safety and effectiveness of mRNA-based COVID vaccines.
Recently, he has passed on misinformation about the recent measles outbreak and states that the MMR vaccine has the same dangers as measles itself.
Malone brings nothing but anti-vaccine credentials to ACIP.
H Cody Meissner, MD
Meissner is a pediatric infectious disease specialist, and he is probably the most pro-vaccine of all of the new appointees. He has relevant experience in pediatric infectious diseases and analyzing the illnesses and deaths prevented by vaccines.
James Pagano, MD
Pagano is a retired emergency medicine physician with no background in vaccine science. He did advocate for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID pandemic, so he’s not exactly science-based.
Vicky Pebsworth, PhD, RN
Pebsworth is a long-time research director for the anti-vaccine National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). She has said that any “coercion and sanctions to persuade adults to take an experimental vaccine, or give it to their children, is unethical and unlawful.”
Pebsworth has also stated:
In particular, [The Control Group American Survey] strongly suggests that increases in the number of vaccines in the CDC schedule may be causally related to increases in the rates of chronic illness, and as a result, the unvaccinated would be healthier than the vaccinated as shown by the pilot survey results.
She is definitely anti-vaccine.
Michael A Ross, MD
Kennedy described Ross as an obstetrics and gynecology professor at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University. However, Ross does not appear in the directories for either university. The investment firm Havencrest Capital Management lists Ross as a partner and describes Ross as a pediatrics professor.
Like some others, Ross has no background in vaccine science research, but he criticized research on ivermectin that it was useless for the treatment of COVID.
Summary
Other than one or two, these new members appointed by Kennedy to the ACIP vaccine committee are best categorized as anti-vaccine activists.
With their anti-vaccine tilt, they will change the longstanding independent scientific discussion that supported the fact that vaccines were safe and effective. And they will probably start changing recommendations for vaccines for children and adults, and they could even remove key vaccines from the CDC recommendations.
I hope physicians ignore whatever may come out of ACIP these next few weeks — they should give the vaccines necessary to protect children and adults from infectious diseases.
I’m also worried about future vaccines. For example, there is a Lyme disease vaccine in clinical trials, and it is a vaccine we need. What if this new ACIP decides not to recommend it? I can’t even imagine that.
Other than one or two, these new members appointed by Kennedy to the ACIP vaccine committee are best categorized as anti-vaccine activists.
With their anti-vaccine tilt, they will change the longstanding independent scientific discussion that supported the fact that vaccines were safe and effective. And they will probably start changing recommendations for vaccines for children and adults, and they could even remove key vaccines from the CDC recommendations.
I hope physicians ignore whatever may come out of ACIP these next few weeks — they should give the vaccines necessary to protect children and adults from infectious diseases.
I’m also worried about future vaccines. For example, there is a Lyme disease vaccine in clinical trials, and it is a vaccine we need. What if this new ACIP decides not to recommend it? I can’t even imagine that.
CitationsGolding J, Rai D, Gregory S, Ellis G, Emond A, Iles-Caven Y, Hibbeln J, Taylor C. Prenatal mercury exposure and features of autism: a prospective population study. Mol Autism. 2018 Apr 23;9:30. doi: 10.1186/s13229-018-0215-7. PMID: 29713443; PMCID: PMC5914043.
Help the Skeptical Raptor keep writing RFK Jr’s attacks on vaccines
There are four ways you can help contribute to keeping this website running at full speed:Sharing this article on Social Media.
GoFundMe.
Contributing via Patreon.
Buying on Amazon.
Michael Simpson
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!
