BMJ’s Coverage of Kennedy’s Vaccine Reforms Amounts to Character Assassination

 

Peter C. Gøtzsche


DOI: https://doi.org/10.70542/rcj-japh-art-17qokzv

Abstract

The reactions to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiatives to improve vaccine safety have been almost uniformly negative. I studied how the narratives were framed in a cohort of 33 articles in the BMJ of which 30 were written by journalists or the editor. I focused on whether the reporting was balanced and informative, and whether the articles saw any merit in Kennedy’s reforms in his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services or supported the status quo.

The reporting in the BMJ was highly biased. Much of the information provided in Kennedy’s disfavour was misleading, and some was wrong. All initiatives at improving vaccine safety were condemned, without any analysis of their merits in an evidence-based fashion. Instead, the BMJ cited people who had their own agendas and who condemned Kennedy without providing any evidence in their favour while expressing faith in vaccines, with the industry mantra that they are safe and effective, although all drugs will harm some people.

The BMJ did not take any interest in the widespread and lethal corruption in US healthcare institutions – one of Kennedy’s focus points - but toned it down.

Despite the constant ad hominem attacks, Kennedy has succeeded to introduce important changes and plans related to vaccine safety, guidance about how vaccines are used, and about avoiding neurotoxic metals in vaccine adjuvants.

Disclosures, Funding & Conflicts of Interest

I have no conflict of interest and my research was not funded.

https://publichealth.realclearjournals.org/literature-syntheses/2025/11/bmj-s-coverage-of-kennedy-s-vaccine-reforms-amounts-to-character-assassination/