RFK. Jr Threatens Pediatricians Over Vaccine Recommendations and Liability

probinson · Mar 17, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal
US based Covid vaccine guidance for children and pregnant people on ideology instead of evidence, critics say

This first sentence tells me all I need to know about this article. "Pregnant people", and apparently we're only citing what "critics say". Boy. I bet this is a fair and balanced analysis.

^_^

loveofourlord · Mar 18, 2026

you know h

probinson said:
This first sentence tells me all I need to know about this article. "Pregnant people", and apparently we're only citing what "critics say". Boy. I bet this is a fair and balanced analysis.

Not sure on covid, but here is the thing, it's better for pregnant woman to get the flu vaccine then not, as the flu in pregnant woman is linked to misscariages and developmental issues.

probinson · Mar 18, 2026

loveofourlord said:
Not sure on covid, but here is the thing, it's better for pregnant woman to get the flu vaccine then not, as the flu in pregnant woman is linked to misscariages and developmental issues.

In substantial agreement with the Cochrane reviewers16,17, I think that further RCTs with appropriate study designs are needed for influenza vaccination in pregnancy. They should be carried out by independent bodies and researchers, and safety concerns should be dispelled before promoting universal seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Current evidence from valid studies is insufficient and not reassuring.

Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women? So far the less biased evidence does not favour it - PMC

Pregnant women are a WHO priority group for influenza vaccination, but evidence from observational studies in pregnancy is subject, among others, to the healthy-vaccinee bias, overestimating the vaccine effectiveness and safety. An USA survey adds ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

loveofourlord · Mar 18, 2026

probinson said:
In substantial agreement with the Cochrane reviewers16,17, I think that further RCTs with appropriate study designs are needed for influenza vaccination in pregnancy. They should be carried out by independent bodies and researchers, and safety concerns should be dispelled before promoting universal seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Current evidence from valid studies is insufficient and not reassuring.

Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women? So far the less biased evidence does not favour it - PMC

Pregnant women are a WHO priority group for influenza vaccination, but evidence from observational studies in pregnancy is subject, among others, to the healthy-vaccinee bias, overestimating the vaccine effectiveness and safety. An USA survey adds ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

yes...because 300 studies isn't enough as it doesn't agree with your ideas of how it should be, thats how we do science now!!!.

probinson · Mar 19, 2026

loveofourlord said:
yes...because 300 studies isn't enough as it doesn't agree with your ideas of how it should be, thats how we do science now!!!.

From the link:

The available evidence about the adverse effects of influenza and influenza vaccinations in pregnant women and their babies relies almost exclusively on observational studies.

A systematic review of safety outcomes (fetal death, spontaneous abortion, congenital malformation) associated with influenza vaccination during pregnancy6 included 1 case-control, 1 cross-sectional and 17 cohort studies, but no randomized trials (RCTs), though citing one of them.

...

Observational studies are prone to bias, specifically to confounding-by-indication and to healthy-vaccinee bias. The former concerns patients with underlying diseases, who are more likely to be vaccinated than healthy people; this bias leads to underestimate the vaccine effectiveness, because the less healthy population is inherently at higher risk of unfavorable health outcomes. The second bias refers to an opposite situation, where patients in worse health conditions (eg with functional impairment, other comorbidities, or the elderly with a short life expectancy) are less likely to adhere to the influenza vaccination. This is a variant of the so called “healthy-adherer effect”, a bias associated with patient behaviour. It can affect health outcomes, that may be incorrectly attributed to the presence or absence of a treatment.

The fact is that there is very little data to suggest flu vaccines provide any real benefit to ANYONE, much less pregnant women. For example, a Cochrane Review on flu vaccination found the following:

We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

We were uncertain of the protection provided to pregnant women against ILI and influenza by the inactivated influenza vaccine, or this was at least very limited.

The administration of seasonal vaccines during pregnancy showed no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but the evidence set was observational.

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

I know it's easier to make vacuous disparaging remarks than it is to actually address the issues with the confounded data in the "300 studies" you referenced, but it's not very compelling,

essentialsaltes · Mar 26, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal
US based Covid vaccine guidance for children and pregnant people on ideology instead of evidence, critics say

The memos overlooked hundreds of studies on the benefits and safety of Covid vaccination and set the precedent for making changes to vaccine recommendations based on ideology instead of evidence, critics say.

Here's one more.

Yep, a mom's COVID shot during pregnancy protects her baby, a large study finds

[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] reaffirmed that guidance [for vaccination during pregnancy] last week, and a new study of more than 140,000 infants further confirms the protection that COVID vaccination during pregnancy offers babies in their first few months of life. The journal Pediatrics published the study Friday.

The research also shows that the vaccine does not increase the risk of other infections in children whose mothers got the COVID shot during pregnancy, contradicting claims by at least one member of the vaccine policy committee appointed by Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The findings are also helpful, Nguyen says, in rebutting claims made by Robert Malone, who Kennedy appointed as chair of the CDC committee that makes vaccine policy for the country. A federal judge ruled last week that Malone's role on the committee, like those of other members appointed last year, is not legally valid because Kennedy did not appear to follow federal law when he replaced the members he dismissed from the committee.

rambot · Mar 26, 2026

probinson said:
In substantial agreement with the Cochrane reviewers16,17, I think that further RCTs with appropriate study designs are needed for influenza vaccination in pregnancy. They should be carried out by independent bodies and researchers, and safety concerns should be dispelled before promoting universal seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Current evidence from valid studies is insufficient and not reassuring.

Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women? So far the less biased evidence does not favour it - PMC

Pregnant women are a WHO priority group for influenza vaccination, but evidence from observational studies in pregnancy is subject, among others, to the healthy-vaccinee bias, overestimating the vaccine effectiveness and safety. An USA survey adds ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What's interesting is reading how infrequently the author of that study gets cited. He's had these critical papers out now for almost 6 years some of them and only 1 or 2 times have they been used in subsequent research. IT suggest his opinion and research is not as common within the rest of the community doing the same research; it certainly hasn't been impactful. And also, then of course, it probably hasn't been other scientists coming to the same conclusions and looking for other research to support their

rambot · Mar 26, 2026

This is the guy who said said "your gut biome is basically plants", right? The head of all things health in the USA.

And we're supposed to expect that his organization is credible under his leadership?

Challenge: See if you can address this question WITHOUT referencing COVID era leadership.

probinson · Mar 26, 2026

rambot said:
What's interesting is reading how infrequently the author of that study gets cited. He's had these critical papers out now for almost 6 years some of them and only 1 or 2 times have they been used in subsequent research. IT suggest his opinion and research is not as common within the rest of the community doing the same research; it certainly hasn't been impactful. And also, then of course, it probably hasn't been other scientists coming to the same conclusions and looking for other research to support their

It's interesting to me that when someone reads a study that doesn't arrive at their preferred conclusion, the first thing they do is jump straight to ad hominem. There's no attempt to address the findings. Just, "this guy hasn't been cited very often", as if that has any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the study's results.

The converse is not true. Joe Schmo can publish a study that says COVID vaccines saved the world, and no one would care one whit how much he had been cited. The media would lap it up and trumpet it from the rooftops. The double-standard is glaring.

It's near impossible to get a study published that doesn't arrive at the preferred conclusion. The authors of the Cochrane Review on masking have chronicled their struggles with trying to publish their review that stated masking probably provided no benefit in the spread of respiratory disease. And that study had been published with the same findings since 2007. But, because it was not politically expedient, their review was delayed multiple times when they were trying to publish at the beginning of the pandemic.

rambot · Mar 26, 2026

probinson said:
It's interesting to me that when someone reads a study that doesn't arrive at their preferred conclusion, the first thing they do is jump straight to ad hominem. There's no attempt to address the findings. Just, "this guy hasn't been cited very often", as if that has any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the study's results.

Lol. Seriously? That's surprising? And you think the number of times a paper is cited does NOT actually speak to the veracity of a study's results?
Huh. Interesting.

What's happenning is that NO other studies are showing the same results to support his results. That's not an Ad hominem. That's a statement of fact.

Ad hominem:a logical fallacy where someone attacks an opponent's character, motive, or personal attributes instead of addressing the substance of their argument.

I'm not attacking the person at ALL.

I'm talking about how relevant the data and conclusion they drew would have to be if literally NOBODY is quoting the study. That means essentially nobody is getting the same results (or conclusions) and then creating a case for the veracity of the claim.

probinson · Mar 26, 2026

rambot said:
Lol. Seriously? That's surprising? And you think the number of times a paper is cited does NOT actually speak to the veracity of a study's results?
Huh. Interesting.

What's happenning is that NO other studies are showing the same results to support his results. That's not an Ad hominem. That's a statement of fact.

Ad hominem:a logical fallacy where someone attacks an opponent's character, motive, or personal attributes instead of addressing the substance of their argument.

I'm not attacking the person at ALL.

I'm talking about how relevant the data and conclusion they drew would have to be if literally NOBODY is quoting the study. That means essentially nobody is getting the same results (or conclusions) and then creating a case for the veracity of the claim.

What you're not doing is addressing its findings.

You're also failing to acknowledge that there is a lack of incentive for such studies to be completed. Since the vast majority of funding for these studies is provided by pharmaceutical companies, what makes you think they would fund a study that didn't support vaccination during pregnancy? This is a major issue with scientific research. There are immense financial conflicts of interest. Industry-funded studies ALMOST ALWAYS find benefit because it's beneficial to the bottom line.

probinson · Mar 26, 2026

I asked ChatGPT:

How are the odds of a scientific study finding benefit affected by funding? Specifically, cite examples of industry-funded studies that found benefit vs. those that did not. Compare to independently-funded studies and show the delta between the results.

The response:

The sources cited:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327146249_Industry_sponsorship_and_research_outcome_systematic_review_with_meta-analysis

Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials - PubMed

Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's pretty astounding that there is an 80-90% higher chance that an industry-funded study will find favorable results compared to an independently-funded study. And it answers the question why no one is citing studies that don't find industry-favorable results. Follow the money. The industry has no interest in funding studies that are not favorable to them. So if you're a researcher and you want the industry to fund you, their message is clear: find results that are favorable to our bottom line.

rambot · Mar 26, 2026

probinson said:
What you're not doing is addressing its findings.

It's true.

But that's mostly because all the other scientists who DEFINITELY know better than me have shied away from doing so too.

rambot · Mar 26, 2026

probinson said:
What you're not doing is addressing its findings.

You're also failing to acknowledge that there is a lack of incentive for such studies to be completed. Since the vast majority of funding for these studies is provided by pharmaceutical companies, what makes you think they would fund a study that didn't support vaccination during pregnancy? This is a major issue with scientific research. There are immense financial conflicts of interest. Industry-funded studies ALMOST ALWAYS find benefit because it's beneficial to the bottom line.

It's none in 6 years.

probinson · Mar 27, 2026

rambot said:
It's none in 6 years.

Why would anyone want to examine this question? Industry-funded studies are 80-90% more likely to find favorable results. If you're a researcher looking for funding, the worst thing you could do is run a study that finds unfavorable results. There is a very real and confirmed issue with financial conflicts of interest.

And again, you're not addressing the findings in the study, which highlights numerous reasons how and why they observational studies of vaccination during pregnancy are biased toward finding favorable results, and states that the evidence is low quality because of it.

Do you disagree with that finding? If so, why?

rambot · Mar 27, 2026

probinson said:
Why would anyone want to examine this question? Industry-funded studies are 80-90% more likely to find favorable results. If you're a researcher looking for funding, the worst thing you could do is run a study that finds unfavorable results. There is a very real and confirmed issue with financial conflicts of interest.

And again, you're not addressing the findings in the study, which highlights numerous reasons how and why they observational studies of vaccination during pregnancy are biased toward finding favorable results, and states that the evidence is low quality because of it.

Do you disagree with that finding? If so, why?

If Scientists were doing the research and their results contradicted their hypothesis, they would cite this research.

probinson · Mar 27, 2026

rambot said:
If Scientists were doing the research and their results contradicted their hypothesis, they would cite this research.

Right. No one wants to do this research, because no one wants to be the one to definitively conclude that there is no benefit to vaccination during pregnancy. That is a surefire way to lose your funding.

rambot · Mar 27, 2026

It's so interesting to me that any discussion that addresses the capacity of RFK to do his job you insist on turning into an attack on pharmaceutical companies.

I've kinda just realized it and I've said all I need to say on the specific matter of this scientist's research.

Good luck.

probinson · Mar 27, 2026

rambot said:
It's so interesting to me that any discussion that addresses the capacity of RFK to do his job you insist on turning into an attack on pharmaceutical companies.

Why do you call it an "attack"? You really should read those studies above that demonstrate that an industry-funded study is 80-90% more likely to find favorable results. That's not an "attack". It's a verifiable fact. Why is that relevant to this discussion? Because when drugs and vaccines are granted regulatory approval, they are often based on industry-funded studies that are biased to find favorable results.

It's surprising to me that more people don't see a problem with this.

rambot said:
I've kinda just realized it and I've said all I need to say on the specific matter of this scientist's research.

Thanks for your input.

rambot · Mar 27, 2026

probinson said:
Why do you call it an "attack"? You really should read those studies above that demonstrate that an industry-funded study is 80-90% more likely to find favorable results. That's not an "attack". It's a verifiable fact. Why is that relevant to this discussion? Because when drugs and vaccines are granted regulatory approval, they are often based on industry-funded studies that are biased to find favorable results.

[my emphasis] But here guy.

Look at the thread title.
Look what you now want to discuss.

And you, with no irony, ask "why is that relevant to this discussion"?

I'm just returning to point out that, yes, this thread WAS about RFK's capacity (in regards to his decision making on the topic presented in the OP) and yes, you did take it off topic, and that yes, this is a behaviour pattern for you.

RFK. Jr Threatens Pediatricians Over Vaccine Recommendations and Liability

Legend

Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal​

Newbie

Legend

Newbie

Legend

Fact-Based Lifeform

Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal​

Yep, a mom's COVID shot during pregnancy protects her baby, a large study finds​

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Legend

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Similar threads

Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal

Officials ‘missed 99% of data’ before ending Covid vaccine recommendation, memos reveal

Yep, a mom's COVID shot during pregnancy protects her baby, a large study finds