An internal FDA memo relied on unverified VAERS entries to claim COVID‑19 vaccines were linked to at least 10 child deaths, a conclusion denounced by 12 former FDA commissioners. The episode highlights broader shifts in leadership and policy across HHS, where critics say contrarian figures have displaced evidence‑based experts. The article traces these trends to political strategies that elevated fringe medical voices during the pandemic, warning that further regulatory moves against mRNA vaccines could erode public confidence and harm public health.
How a Right‑Wing Backlash After COVID Pushed the FDA Toward an Anti‑Vaccine Stance
How the right-wing backlash to the Covid pandemic led to the FDA’s anti-vax turn
An internal Food and Drug Administration memo circulated last month asserted—based on unverified entries in the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—that COVID‑19 vaccines were associated with at least 10 child deaths. The document supplied no corroborating clinical evidence, and its conclusions were publicly denounced by 12 former FDA commissioners.
What the Memo Means
The memo is the latest signal that parts of the FDA may be shifting away from conventional, evidence‑based vaccine policy. Its claims relied on raw VAERS reports, which are a passive reporting system that can include unverified information and cannot establish causation without further investigation. Critics argue that presenting such data without context risks misleading the public and undermining confidence in vaccines that have saved millions of lives.
Leadership Changes and Agency Direction
The memo was authored by Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. The VAERS compilation cited in the memo was prepared by Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, who now serves as director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Dr. Marty Makary leads the agency overall. Observers note that a number of senior officials have been replaced under the current leadership, and some appointees are viewed as contrarian to mainstream public‑health consensus.
Similar personnel and policy shifts have been reported across the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health, now led by Jay Bhattacharya, has been described by critics as reducing certain research programs and staff. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine guidance has also faced changes after the selection of advisory members with views skeptical of mainstream vaccination policy; a recent, controversial decision ended a long‑standing recommendation that all newborns receive hepatitis B vaccination, a move that alarmed many pediatric and infectious‑disease experts.
How This Shift Emerged During the Pandemic
Analysts trace these developments to political and strategic responses to the COVID‑19 pandemic. The pandemic's economic disruption alarmed key conservative backers and threatened Republican prospects in an important census year. In this environment, right‑wing activists and political operatives sought to minimize restrictions and accelerate reopening, sometimes by elevating medical voices who argued against strict mitigation measures.
On a private May 2020 call, members of the Council for National Policy discussed mobilizing trusted physicians to lend credibility to reopening messages, noting that doctors typically enjoy high public trust.
Playbook: Contrarian Experts and Manufactured Legitimacy
The strategy of amplifying contrarian scientists and clinicians is not new; similar tactics were used historically by industries that sought to cast doubt on established science. During COVID‑19, groups such as America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) and figures like Dr. Simone Gold and others promoted unproven therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and argued against broad vaccination strategies. Several contrarian physicians who rose to prominence during the pandemic—named in public debate and reporting—have since moved into influential positions or been amplified by right‑leaning media, advocacy groups, and wealthy backers.
From Pandemic Tactics to Anti‑Vaccine Mainstreaming
As contrarian messaging proliferated, the idea of ‘‘natural immunity’’ and the promise of alternative treatments were presented by some as substitutes for vaccination. Over time, alliances formed between conservative political actors, policy institutes, and longstanding anti‑vaccine advocates. Critics warn that this melding of political and anti‑vaccine forces has normalized skepticism about vaccines within segments of the political mainstream.
Consequences and Stakes
If regulatory agencies begin to restrict access to mRNA and other COVID vaccines on the basis of unverified or poorly contextualized reports, public confidence in vaccination broadly could suffer. That outcome would have significant public‑health consequences, potentially reversing gains in preventing infectious disease and eroding trust in institutions tasked with protecting population health.
What Needs To Happen Next: Independent, transparent reviews of the VAERS reports and any related safety signals are essential. Public agencies should clearly communicate the limits of passive reporting systems and base policy decisions on rigorous investigation and peer‑reviewed evidence to maintain public trust.
