Correcting this week’s misinformation: week of August 27, 2026

HHS is asking if the current vaccine recommendation system should change. It is considering new types of recommendations, changes to when some vaccines are given, and more decisions made by families and health care providers together. HHS also wants to consider personal choice, religious freedom, public trust, and how strong the scientific evidence is when deciding how vaccines should be recommended.

• HHS is considering major changes to how vaccines are recommended, including timing, recommendation categories, and more individual decision-making.
• The strongest path forward is to keep vaccine recommendations based mainly on disease risk, safety, effectiveness, and the full body of scientific evidence.
• Questions about trust, consent, religious freedom, and mandates matter, but they should be handled separately from the scientific question of whether a vaccine is medically recommended

For many years, federal vaccine recommendations have followed a standard process. Experts look at how common and serious a disease is, how well a vaccine works, what side effects are known, and who is most likely to benefit. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, reviews this evidence and recommends who should get each vaccine and when. These recommendations are then added to the federal vaccine schedules.

Most vaccine recommendations fit into one of three groups:

• Routine recommendation: The vaccine is recommended for almost everyone in a certain age group, unless there is a medical reason not to get it.
• Risk-based recommendation: The vaccine is recommended for people who have a certain health condition, job, travel plan, or other risk.
• Shared clinical decision-making: There is not one answer that fits everyone. The patient or parent and health care provider talk about the person’s situation and decide together.

A vaccine recommendation is not the same as a vaccine requirement. Federal health agencies recommend vaccines. Requirements, such as vaccines needed to attend school, are usually set by states. Patients and parents still make decisions about vaccination and give consent, no matter which type of recommendation applies.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, is now asking whether this system should change. HHS is considering new types of recommendations, changes to when vaccines are given, and more use of individual decision-making. It is also asking whether issues such as personal choice, religious freedom, public trust, and different kinds of scientific evidence should play a larger role.

Some changes could make the system better. For example, recommendations could be easier to understand, and health officials could be clearer when there is uncertainty. But other changes could weaken vaccine recommendations that are supported by strong evidence if concerns that are not based on medical science are used to decide what doctors should recommend.

One proposed new category is “recommended, but not during infancy.” Many vaccines are given during infancy for an important reason: babies can become very sick from these infections. A vaccine should be delayed only when evidence about that vaccine and disease shows that waiting is safer or more helpful. Infancy by itself should not be a reason to delay a vaccine.

HHS has also raised concerns that not every vaccine has been studied using a randomized controlled trial, or RCT. In an RCT, people are randomly placed into different groups so researchers can compare what happens. This administration often calls RCTs the “gold standard” of research. RCTs are very useful, especially when a vaccine is first being studied. But they are not the best or most ethical study design for every question.

For example, once researchers know that a vaccine protects people from a serious disease, it may be unethical to purposely leave some people unprotected just to create a comparison group. Scientists can still study vaccines using large health databases, studies that follow people in the real world, disease tracking, vaccine safety monitoring, and other strong forms of evidence. RCTs should continue to be used when they are appropriate.

People can send comments to HHS until September 20, 2026. Comments should mention Docket No. HHS–OS–2026–0332. They can be submitted online following the instructions for public comments.

Comments can also be mailed to:

Cynthia Goss
200 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20201

HHS says comments submitted through the public docket will be posted online. This may include personal information included in the comment. People should avoid sharing anything they do not want made public.

Positive results from a cancer vaccine trial for melanoma have led some anti-vaccine activists to claim that mRNA vaccines actually cause cancer and make people with cancer die sooner.

• The study found a pattern, but it cannot prove vaccines caused worse cancer outcomes.
• Differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients may have skewed the results.
• The claim that IgG4 weakens the body’s ability to fight cancer is still unproven.

The study McCullough’s group is talking about looked back at medical records that had already been collected. This type of study can find patterns, but it cannot prove that the vaccines caused the worse outcomes.

The study also did not fully account for other differences between the groups. One example is the healthy vaccinee effect. People who are healthier and have more regular medical care may be more likely to get repeated vaccine doses. People who are very sick, dying, or in hospice care may be less likely to get boosters. That can make the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups look different even when the vaccine is not the reason.

The study also uses a type of antibody called IgG4 as a sign that cancer may be getting worse. But the idea that spike-related IgG4 weakens the immune system’s ability to fight cancer is still a theory. It has not been proven to cause cancer or make cancer outcomes worse.

Lastly, news reports that a personalized mRNA vaccine for melanoma helped keep cancer from coming back in a large clinical trial. The vaccine is made to match the unique mutations in each person’s tumor and trains the immune system to recognize the cancer. This research is exciting, and we must protect vaccine innovations from political whims.

RFK Jr.’s former organization has a viral post asking if a baby’s immune system can handle aluminum when it cannot handle honey.

• Aluminum in vaccines helps the immune system build strong protection.
• The amount of aluminum in vaccines is very small and far below harmful levels.
• The body removes most aluminum through the kidneys, and it does not build up to dangerous levels.

The reason we don’t give babies honey before the age of one is that honey can contain a bacterial spore called botulinum, which, because of a baby’s immature gut, including a lack of natural gut flora, can germinate and cause botulism.

Aluminum isn’t the same thing at all. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, and there is more aluminum in breastmilk and formula than in vaccines. Aluminum is sometimes added to vaccines as an adjuvant to help the body’s immune system respond better. This means children need fewer doses to get full protection.

Research has shown over and over that the tiny amount of aluminum in vaccines is far below levels that could be harmful. Our bodies already handle small amounts of aluminum because it’s naturally found in food, water, and even some medicines.

Most of the aluminum from vaccines leaves the body quickly through the kidneys. One study published in Vaccine found that the amount in vaccines is much smaller than what people take in every day from food and the environment.

The small amount that stays in the body for a short time does not build up to dangerous levels. Vaccines save millions of lives every year, and their benefits are much greater than the very small and disproven risks sometimes claimed.