Kennedy Governance Clashes with Medical Journal Over Vaccine Safety Study
A major rift has emerged between the Biden administration and a leading medical journal, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls for the retraction of a extensive Danish study affirming the safety of aluminum ingredients in vaccines.The dispute underscores a broader pattern of the new health secretary challenging established scientific consensus.
The Danish study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed data from over 760,000 Danish children and found no evidence linking aluminum in vaccines to increased risks of autoimmune, allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders. This research is considered by many experts to be the most robust evidence to date on the topic.
“It’s solid,a massive dataset and high-quality data,” stated a childhood vaccination expert from the University of Bristol,who was not involved in the study.
However, kennedy has long been a vocal critic of vaccines, and has repeatedly questioned their safety and efficacy. In an opinion piece published August 1 on TrialSite News, an independent website focused on clinical research, Kennedy dismissed the danish study as “a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry,” alleging that researchers “meticulously designed it not to find harm.” He demanded the Annals immediately retract the findings.
Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine and a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, firmly rejected Kennedy’s call. “I see no reason for retraction,” she said in an interview. The journal intends to address criticisms of the article on its website but will not directly respond to Kennedy’s piece, as it was not submitted for peer review.
The lead author of the study, Anders Peter Hviid, head of the epidemiology research department at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark, vigorously defended his team’s work. In a response posted to TrialSite, Hviid asserted that Kennedy’s critiques were unsubstantiated and categorically denied any intentional deception.
“I am used to controversy around vaccine safety studies – especially those that relate to autism – but I have not been targeted by a political figurehead in this way before,” Hviid stated in an emailed response. “I have confidence in our work and in our ability to reply to the critiques of our study.”
Kennedy raised several specific concerns, including the study’s lack of a traditional control group and the claim that researchers deliberately excluded certain groups of children to avoid detecting a link between aluminum and adverse health outcomes. Hviid countered that a control group was impractical in Denmark, where only 2% of children are unvaccinated – a sample size too small for meaningful comparison. He also confirmed that the study data is available for independent analysis, though individual-level data is protected by Danish law.
Notably, Kennedy cited a previous study led by Matthew Daley, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, which did suggest a potential link. hviid explained that his team’s study design was actually based on Daley’s work.
The controversy has drawn criticism from other prominent figures. A former surgeon general under the Trump administration publicly condemned kennedy’s cuts to mRNA vaccine funding,warning that “people are going to die.”
Adding to the debate, other vaccine skeptics, including those associated with Children’s Health Defense – an organization Kennedy previously led – have echoed his criticisms on the Annals website. TrialSite staff,however,defended the study’s methodology,transparency,and funding,a view shared by several outside scientists.
Dr. Laine emphasized that while Kennedy’s points may highlight acceptable limitations of the study, “they do not invalidate what they found, and there’s no evidence of scientific misconduct.”
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered no additional comment beyond Kennedy’s public statements. This ongoing dispute signals a important shift in the federal government’s approach to vaccine policy and highlights the growing tension between scientific consensus and political ideology.
