280 Characters of Chaos: How RFK Jr. Is Rewriting Vaccine Policy on X

From Peer Review to Public Posts: The Death of Scientific Process

A Note to Our Readers

We understand that several of our recent posts have focused on RFK Jr. and vaccine policy changes, and we don't want you to think that our channel has become solely a response-to-RFK feed. However, we are witnessing a cataclysmic shift in vaccine policy and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that dismantles decades of carefully established evidence-based public health practice. Given the magnitude of these changes and their potential impact on public health, we would be remiss if we didn't respond to the most egregious claims and policy decisions.

We can't respond to every single statement or policy change—everything is happening in rapid succession and seems to change by the second (we have whiplash). But when the very foundation of vaccine policy is being dismantled through misinformation and political maneuvering, we have a responsibility to provide scientific clarity.

The situation has escalated further: RFK Jr. has already announced 8 replacement ACIP members, and the appointments reveal deeply troubling red flags—clear conflicts of interest and well-documented anti-vaccine biases that have many of us in public health genuinely terrified and demoralized. We are watching the systematic replacement of scientific expertise with ideological opposition to vaccines, all conducted via social media posts rather than through established scientific and governmental processes. Let’s discuss…

---

The Unprecedented ACIP Purge

Earlier this week, in a disturbing shift from the established process, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally removed all 17 members of ACIP, the nation's foremost body for vaccine guidance, in a WSJ Opinion article. Kennedy justified the move as necessary to "restore public trust" in vaccine science. This unprecedented action, announced without prior consultation or public health review, bypasses decades of established scientific protocol and raises serious concerns about the future of vaccine policy in the United States.

The following day, he attempted to justify the decision in a lengthy and confusing tweet riddled with misinformation and flawed interpretations of scientific data. Follow along as we unpack the tweet's confusing claims and factual errors…

---

Dissecting the June 10 Tweet: Claim by Claim

X/Tweet Claim 1: ACIP Lacks Qualified Members

"Yesterday, I retired 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or ACIP, the @CDCgov external panel that wields the grave responsibility of adding new vaccines to the recommended childhood schedule. Over the coming days, I will use this platform to announce new members to populate ACIP. None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers. They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists who will make extremely consequential public health determinations by applying evidence-based decision-making with objectivity and common sense.

I will also be tweeting examples of the historical corruption at ACIP to help the public understand why this clean sweep was necessary."

The Reality: Members of the ACIP have always been highly credentialed physicians and scientists who voluntarily give their time and expertise to develop vaccine recommendations, whether that is adding new vaccines, removing unnecessary vaccines, or adjusting the recommended vaccine timeline. To suggest that the ACIP previously lacked highly qualified individuals undermines the 60 years of work the ACIP has done. The ACIP Committee Members regularly disclose their conflicts of interest.

We previously covered what the ACIP is and does in more detail.

X/Tweet Claim 2: Vaccines Lack Adequate Safety Trials

"The most outrageous example of ACIP's malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children. Today, a compliant American child receives between 69 and 92 routine vaccines (depending on brand/dictated dosage) from conception to 18 years of age. This is up from 11 shots in 1986. ACIP has recommended each of these additional jabs without requiring placebo-controlled trials for any of them. This means that no one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing. Many vaccine promoters have challenged this assertion. They are always wrong. Last week, @CNN, which has devolved into a shameless propagandist for Big Pharma, triumphantly announced that it had proof that my pronouncement that "there have been no placebo-controlled safety trials for any routine vaccines" was false. CNN gleefully proclaimed that it had found 257 placebo-controlled studies for routine vaccines."

False claim: “ACIP recommended new vaccines without adequate safety trials.”

This claim is grossly inaccurate. Even before ACIP reviews a vaccine, it must be approved or licensed by the FDA, which requires extensive clinical trials, including placebo-controlled when ethically appropriate. This process often takes years, and both safety and effectiveness needs to be demonstrated. The data undergoes rigorous scrutiny by independent experts.

After FDA approval, the ACIP examines all available trial data, including safety and efficacy results, before making its recommendations. Their process is transparent and evidence-based and includes public documentation.

Placebo-controlled trials are standard when no existing vaccine is available. When an effective vaccine already exists, testing against placebo (usually saline) is no longer ethical (see a longer response further down, or read our recent posts on this topic and the ethics of withholding existing interventions just so new vaccines are tested against placebo).

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

False claim: “American children receive vaccines starting at conception.”

Counting vaccines starting at conception is misleading. There are no routine vaccines given to fetuses before birth. Perhaps he was counting maternal vaccines - this artificially inflates the number of vaccines that children receive and misrepresents how and when vaccines are given to children.

False claim: “American children receive between 69-92 shots by age 18.”

The claim that an American child receives between 69 and 92 routine vaccines from conception to age 18 is not supported by the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule nor by credible public health sources. According to the CDC's schedule, a typical American child receives 13 routinely recommended vaccines, administered in multiple doses between birth and age 18 (not including the COVID-19 vaccine and the RSV shot). When you count every dose—including annual flu shots—the total number of vaccine doses is between 54 and 58, depending on vaccine brands and individual circumstances.

Even with the highest possible number of doses, the total does not approach the 69–92 figure cited by RFK Jr.

Many vaccines are given in combination and require multiple doses. Based on the latest CDC data (we are focused on the yellow-covered portions), here are the vaccines and the number of doses currently recommended:

Note that Dengue and Mpox vaccines were not counted as they are not received by all children.

• Hepatitis B: 3 doses

• Rotavirus: 2-3 doses

• Diphtheria, tetanus, & pertussis (DTaP/Tdap): 6 doses

• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib): 3-4 doses

• Pneumococcal conjugate: 4 doses

• Poliovirus: 4 doses

• Influenza: 18-19 doses

• Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR): 2 doses

• Varicella (chicken pox): 2 doses

• Hepatitis A: 2 doses

• Human papillomavirus (HPV): 2-3 doses

• Meningococcal ACWY: 2 doses

• Meningococcal B: 2 doses (based on shared decision-making with the family)

• COVID-19: The number of doses will depend on the child's age, health status, brand of vaccine, family choice, and evolving recommendations.

• Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV): 1-2 doses (not technically a vaccine, but rather a shot that contains antibodies to the virus)

Based on this data, the average ("compliant") American child receives a maximum of ~58 different shots (consisting of 13 different vaccines plus an antibody shot) from birth to 18 years old. It’s worth noting how loaded and frankly insulting the word ‘compliant’ can be when referring to the overwhelming majority of parents and families who choose to vaccinate their children.

In 1986, only 4 vaccines (DTaP, Hib, Polio, and MMR) were available to the public. Notably, the smallpox vaccine had been removed from the schedule over a decade earlier after the disease was eradicated worldwide!

False claim: “No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing.”

This claim is demonstrably false. Decades of rigorous clinical trials, ongoing safety monitoring, and large-scale epidemiological studies have consistently shown that vaccines prevent far more illness, hospitalizations, and deaths than any rare side effects they may cause. They save millions of lives each year and drastically reduce the incidence of deadly diseases like measles, polio, and COVID-19. As we mentioned previously, the U.S. vaccine safety system ensures that all vaccines undergo extensive testing for safety and efficacy before approval, and continuous monitoring confirms that their benefits vastly outweigh the risks. The fact that there are so many more vaccines available now than in 1986 means that we are capable of saving millions more lives than we were back then.

Additional resources on vaccine development and approval processes provide comprehensive details.

X/Tweet Claim 3: CNN's Evidence is Invalid

"So, allow me a moment to deconstruct CNN's claims. Warning: this post may only be sufferable for science geeks like myself.

CNN is wrong. No routine injected vaccine on CDC's schedule was licensed for children based on a placebo-controlled trial. In instances where a vaccine was used as a control, it too was never licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. That is not conjecture. It is a fact based on FDA's clinical trial data. (See sirillp.com/noplacebo). As Secretary of @HHSGov, acknowledging this lamentable truth is part of my promise of radical transparency.

The 257 studies cited by CNN unwittingly reflect the lack of safety trials underpinning CDC's schedule. Despite CNN's worldwide effort to crowdsource trials with a placebo control (per @US_FDA/@CDCgov, an "inert substance"), this list, on its face, reflects that 236 of the studies clearly did not use an "inert" safety comparator in a trial to license an injected routine vaccine for children on CDC's schedule."

Not a "science geek" like RFK Jr.? Let's break down these claims using FDA Clinical Data and not a context-less list compiled by a random law firm (we can't fault RFK Jr. for being a lawyer 🤷🏻‍♀️). His citation? sirillp.com/noplacebo - a law firm website rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature.

False claim: “No routine injected vaccine on the CDC's schedule was licensed based on placebo-controlled trials.”

This statement is false. As mentioned above, saline placebos are typically used in initial trials where no effective prior vaccine exists. For example, the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) was tested against a saline placebo in its original trial, as there was no existing vaccination. Another example is the DTaP vaccine. It was tested against the original DTP vaccine (to show increased effectiveness) AND a placebo (to determine if the new acellular technology was safe). Other vaccines that were tested against saline placebos include those against polio (IPV), varicella (VARIVAX), and the original components of the MMR vaccine. Also, as mentioned above, once a vaccine is proven effective, new brands or combinations are typically compared to the existing vaccine rather than saline, for ethical reasons.

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

False claim: “Vaccines used as controls were never licensed via placebo-controlled trials.”

This is false again. Vaccines used as active controls (e.g., older versions of DTaP) were originally licensed through rigorous trials, often against placebos or earlier versions of the vaccine (which had itself been tested against a placebo). For example, the original DTP vaccine (1950s) was tested against placebos. Later iterations (DTaP) were tested against DTP to demonstrate improved safety.

False claim: “CNN's 257 studies reflect a lack of safety trials...236 of the studies clearly did not use an ‘inert" safety comparator.”

First, let's define a few terms:

• Inert comparator: a substance used to compare results that does not produce an immune response or biological effect (e.g., saline)

• Adjuvant: a drug/substance(s) used to increase efficacy/boost immune response (e.g,. aluminum)

In clinical research, a placebo is typically defined as an "inert substance," meaning it has no therapeutic effect and does not provoke an immune response—examples include saline injections or sugar pills. RFK Jr. is claiming that 236 studies in CNN's list did not compare new vaccines they were testing to inert substances. These studies likely used active controls (e.g., existing vaccines) or placebo solutions containing vaccine components (like adjuvants) to isolate specific effects. For example, aluminum-containing placebos are used in some trials to distinguish vaccine side effects from the adjuvant (aluminum) itself.

Safety is multi-layered. As we have explained, when a safe and effective vaccine already exists, it is unethical to withhold it from participants in the trial. Therefore, new vaccines are usually tested against the existing vaccine or sometimes against an adjuvant (something that boosts the immune response). This ensures that trial participants are not left unprotected against serious disease. This does NOT mean they did not undergo safety trials. Those 236 studies did in fact undergo safety testing, as all vaccines do.

X/Tweet Claim 4: Analysis of 21 Studies

"For the remaining 21 studies CNN's list claims used an inert injection, 9 plainly did not:

- RCT 251, 252 (Varivax) injected an antibiotic, neomycin -- not inert. - RCT 84, 97 (HPV-16 and 16/18) injected aluminum adjuvant -- not inert. - RCT 215 (Almevax) injected another vaccine -- not inert. - RCT 55 (Lyophilized PedvaxHIB) injected lactose, aluminum adjuvant, and thimerosal -- not inert. - RCT 197 (Salk vaccine) injected 199 solution, synthetic tissue culture, ethanol, phenol red, antibiotics, and formalin -- not inert. - RCT 168 (Dow's MMR) injected full vaccine minus virus, including all stabilizers, antibiotics, diluent, preservative, and buffers -- not inert. - RCT 189 (Menveo) injected Tdap+saline or Menveo+saline -- not inert."

The use of truly inert controls (e.g., saline placebos) in vaccine trials is a complex issue shaped by ethical, methodological, and practical considerations.

In some clinical trials, particularly vaccine trials, the "control" group doesn't always receive a truly inert placebo (like saline). Instead, it may receive an injection that contains components also found in the vaccine, excluding the antigen (the part that triggers an immune response).

This is often done to isolate the effect of the antigen itself while keeping the overall experience similar between groups (e.g., injection site reaction, appearance, etc.). This also helps to ensure that there are no adverse reactions to other vaccine ingredients (which seems like a pretty good control to us).

Vaccines often contain stabilisers, preservatives, adjuvants (a compound(s) used to increase efficacy), as well as the antigen.

Ethical and Methodological Trade-offs

1. Blinding and Validity:

   • Inert placebos (e.g., saline) help isolate vaccine-specific effects from background reactions (e.g., injection pain). However, active controls (e.g., adjuvants like aluminum or other vaccines) are often used to maintain blinding when the vaccine's side effects (e.g., soreness) would otherwise reveal group allocation.

2. Ethical Imperatives:

   • Withholding proven vaccines from control groups can be unethical in high-risk populations. Trials for diseases like malaria in endemic regions often use active controls (e.g., non-target vaccines) to provide some benefit to participants.

   • The WHO framework allows placebo use in vaccine trials only when risks are mitigated (e.g., close monitoring and treatment access) and the research addresses local health needs.

3. Historical and Regulatory Context:

   • Polio and rotavirus vaccines were tested against inert placebos in large-scale trials, demonstrating efficacy and safety. However, modern trials increasingly use active controls due to ethical norms and regulations..

X/Tweet Claim 5: Analysis of Final 12 Studies

"For the remaining 12 listed studies which may have had an inert injection, none was a trial relied upon to license a routine vaccine on CDC's childhood schedule:

- RCT 170, 171, 172 (MMR VaxPro), 228 (PCV11), 136 (Vaxigrip), 242 (Antitetanus), and 122 (Chinese flu shots) trialed vaccines never licensed in the U.S. nor relied upon to license a U.S. vaccine. - RCT 124 (Fluzone IIV3), 102 (WVV/SPV), and 188 (Menveo) trials occurred after each respective vaccine was licensed, hence were not relied upon for their licensure. - RCT 176 (Mumps vaccine) was not relied upon by the FDA to license the current MMR vaccine. (See MMR-II clinical trial report in link above.) - RCT 53 (PRP-D) was for a vaccine withdrawn soon after its introduction and not relied upon by the FDA to license any U.S. vaccine.

While these 12 studies were not relied upon to license a routine vaccine on the CDC's schedule, they do reflect that a placebo-controlled trial of a vaccine is possible. They also reflect what can be learned when a placebo trial is performed. For example: RCT 136 found the vaccine ineffective; RCT 122 found that "severe adverse effects occurred in 69 (0·6%, 95% CI 0·5--0·8) recipients of vaccine compared with one recipient (0·1%, 0--0·2) of placebo."; and RCT 124 found "the rate of hospitalization was actually higher in the [Fluzone IIV3] vaccine group than in the placebo group."

The unfortunate reality is that placebo-controlled trials, however, do not occur and have not been relied upon when FDA licenses vaccines for injection during childhood or ACIP recommends the shot for addition to the CDC's routine schedule."

A placebo-controlled trial sounds like a smart idea based on what we are taught in school about the scientific method. Scientists would agree with you!

Sounds confusing? Let's give an example of why it can be unethical to conduct a placebo-based trial.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Lesson in Ethics

• In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began a 6-month study on syphilis involving 600 Black men in Macon County, Alabama. At this time, there was no treatment for syphilis.

• In 1943, penicillin was determined to treat syphilis.

• In 1947, penicillin became the standard treatment for syphilis. Researchers withheld penicillin from both the control (men without syphilis) and experimental (men with syphilis) treatment groups.

• In the 40 years of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 28 men died from syphilis itself, 100 men died from syphilis-related complications, 40 women (wives of the participants) were infected, and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis. These are all people who could have lived if researchers had not withheld penicillin.

• Details of this study were leaked to the public in 1972, a full 40 years since the beginning of the study and 39.5 years after the study was supposed to have ended.

It is unethical to deny patients effective treatment or prevention if it already exists. So why would we conduct placebo-based trials for vaccines when there are treatments available? This is the reason why many new vaccines are tested against older versions of the vaccines - no one is denied effective treatment (old vaccine) while a new, and hopefully more effective, vaccine is tested. Simply put, placebo-controlled trials are not always the right choice.

Learn more about the Tuskegee study, its historical context, and the CDC's timeline of events.

X/Tweet Claim 6: Multiple False Assertions About Vaccine Policy

"CNN would have reached the same conclusion had it reviewed the FDA documentation for each vaccine, instead of relying upon a random, crowd-sourced list from the internet. CNN's list ironically proves the lack of adequate safety trials for routine childhood vaccines.

It is time to stop playing games, such as CNN's false gotcha. We have gone from 3 routine injections by age one in 1986 (the year the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed) to 25 routine injections by age one in 2025 (which now does not include Covid-19 vaccine). Because of the 1986 Act, every one of these products, save one, was developed by companies knowing they would almost never be liable for serious harm. During this same period, chronic diseases in our children exploded, most of which are caused by immune system dysregulation. If we are to identify the exposures that are causing this epidemic of autoimmune diseases, we need to rule out products given dozens of times to young children, specifically to modify the immune system, as potential culprits."

False claim: "We have gone from 3 routine injections by age one in 1986 to 25 routine injections by age one in 2025 (which now does not include the Covid-19 vaccine)."

The number of recommended vaccines has indeed increased since 1986, but the number of injections is often misrepresented. Combination vaccines (e.g., MMR, DTaP, Hib, PCV, HepB) have reduced the number of injections needed. "25 routine injections by age one" is inaccurate. For example, the CDC's current schedule (2024) for a healthy child includes about 14–15 separate vaccine doses by age two, not all by age one, and not all are injections (some are oral, like rotavirus). By age one, a typical child receives about 7–10 vaccine doses (not injections), with some being combination vaccines. The claim of "25 routine injections by age one" is a significant exaggeration.

False claim: “Because of the 1986 Act, every one of these products, save one, was developed by companies knowing they would almost never be liable for serious harm."

The NCVIA (1986) created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to provide a no-fault compensation system for rare vaccine injuries. Manufacturers are not "immune" from liability. They are still subject to strict FDA regulations and must conduct rigorous safety and efficacy trials before licensure. If negligence or fraud is proven, manufacturers can be sued. The VICP is designed to ensure compensation for rare adverse events and to maintain vaccine supply, not to shield manufacturers from responsibility.

False claim: "During this same period, chronic diseases in our children exploded, most of which are caused by immune system dysregulation."

While it’s true that there has been an increase in diagnoses of chronic conditions such as asthma, allergies, and autoimmune diseases, correlation does not equal causation. Many factors contribute to the rise in chronic diseases, including better diagnosis, environmental changes, genetics, diet, and lifestyle. Large, well-designed studies have found no evidence that vaccines cause chronic diseases or immune dysregulation. Vaccines are rigorously monitored for safety before and after licensure.

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

False claim: "If we are to identify the exposures that are causing this epidemic of autoimmune diseases, we need to rule out products given dozens of times to young children, specifically to modify the immune system, as potential culprits."

Vaccines do not cause autoimmune diseases. They are designed to stimulate the immune system to protect against infectious diseases. These are two very different processes. Extensive research has found no credible evidence linking routine childhood vaccination to the development of autoimmune conditions. Vaccines are among the most studied medical interventions. Safety monitoring continues throughout their use. Ruling out vaccines as a cause is not only unnecessary but contradicted by scientific evidence. The benefits of vaccines in preventing serious diseases far outweigh any theoretical risks.

False claim: "It is time to stop playing games, such as CNN's false gotcha."

The reference to CNN is vague, but the implication is that media or public health agencies are misleading the public. Public health agencies and reputable media outlets rely on scientific evidence and expert consensus. Misinformation about vaccines is widespread, but the scientific community consistently supports vaccine safety and efficacy.

---

The Troubling Reality of New ACIP Appointments

RFK Jr. has since unilaterally announced eight new appointments to ACIP. This highly unusual move bypassed the standard vetting and nomination process. He also removed the roles of career CDC staff who typically screen nominees for conflicts of interest. RFK Jr. indicated that in addition to these new members attending the ACIP meeting in 2 weeks, this new committee would review the existing vaccine schedule, raising concerns that long-standing, evidence-based vaccine recommendations may now be at risk.

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

While some observers initially viewed some of the appointments as reasonable, a closer examination reveals deeply troubling patterns, including:

• Complete lack of relevant vaccine expertise

• Serious conflicts of interest

• Deeply contrarian or cynical views on vaccines

• Affiliations with organizations that actively promote vaccine misinformation

Among the appointees are individuals with no background in immunology, health policy, or vaccine science. One appointee does have prior ACIP and FDA advisory experience, but has aligned himself with controversial public health positions and, ironically, is listed among the former ACIP members with the most disclosed conflicts of interest. Several others are prominent figures in the anti-vaccine movement, each with a history of spreading misinformation, questioning vaccine safety, or aligning closely with RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense.

While we are not calling out details about individual appointees (we will let the press do that, and that is not what Unbiased Science is about), we do support healthy scrutiny of any individual who is charged with making science and health policy decisions that affect the health of millions of Americans. We find these appointments combined with the dismantling of longstanding public health norms to be a dangerous politicization of vaccine policy that could undermine public confidence and evidence-based immunization efforts for years to come.

---

Our Children Deserve Better

"Our infants and children deserve the best safety trials possible to keep them safe. We should care as much about every child who could be injured by one of these products as we do every child who could be injured by an infectious disease. We must protect all children."

We find this statement especially ironic given that RFK Jr. recently told Fox News that "only very, very sick kids should die from measles" while blaming the CDC for not telling doctors that "no kid should die from measles". We are just as confused as he is.

---

Conclusion

The assertion that routine childhood vaccines have not been subjected to adequate safety trials, or that they were never tested against placebos, is not supported by scientific evidence or regulatory practice. The U.S. vaccine schedule is based on robust, ongoing safety and efficacy evaluations, and the use of active comparisons is a scientifically and ethically justified standard in many cases. Claims to the contrary misrepresent the science and the regulatory process.

What we are witnessing is not a restoration of scientific integrity, but rather its deliberate dismantling through politically motivated appointments and the systematic spread of misinformation. The replacement of evidence-based vaccine policy with ideology-driven decision-making represents a profound threat to public health that will have consequences for generations to come.

---

Important Notes and References

Regarding Placebo Definitions: The FDA defines placebos as "inert substances with no pharmacologic activity" commonly used in double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials, and describes placebo control design as including "a group that receives an inert treatment." The CDC similarly defines a placebo as "a substance or treatment that has no effect on living beings, usually used as a comparison to vaccine or medicine in clinical trials."

Regarding Non-Injected Vaccines: While the above addresses injected vaccines, CNN's cited list also includes 10 trials for rotavirus vaccine (given by oral drops), but none of these trials used saline-only drops. Instead, various trials contained different inactive ingredients including dextran, sorbitol, amino acids, and other stabilizing compounds. The list also included trials of inhaled flu vaccines with similarly complex control formulations.

Historical Context on Polio Vaccines: The current polio vaccines used in the U.S. are different products than the original Salk vaccine developed in the 1950s, which was discontinued in the 1960s. Current polio vaccines are"grown in vero cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells," rather than the original methodology, so historical Salk trials were not relied upon to license current vaccines.

Stay Curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support our work? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our content. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on public health and science topics. Thank you for considering it!