By Peter C. Gøtzsche at Brownstone dot org.

fiction or faith. It is a major failure to give equal prominence to people presenting scientific facts and people talking about their feelings or beliefs with no evidence in their support, or to allow them to contradict unchallenged the most reliable evidence we have.

However, virtually every time I know something about a healthcare issue considered controversial, this is what I see in the news, and the hepatitis B vaccine controversy illustrates this abundantly.

On 5 December 2025, with a vote of 8 versus 3, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ended the recommendation that all newborns in the United States receive a hepatitis B shot at birth. The birth dose was recommended only if the mother had tested positive for the virus or if her infection status was unknown.

The change was very rational, and as in Western Europe, only Portugal recommends a universal birth dose, it would seem difficult to argue against it. But the media did and failed us badly. Two days after the vote, I downloaded news stories from 14 major media outlets, and they were all very negative. The media used three main tactics to support their beliefs:

They denigrated the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the members of ACIP he had selected, and some of the presenters at the meeting.

They gave undue prominence and praise to the three dissenting ACIP voices and outsiders, who were depicted as experts or scientists, as if to say that they must be right, and they were widely quoted for their remarks, which were rarely rational or evidence-based.

They didn't check if what the critics of the policy change claimed was correct.

The Denigration of Kennedy

Of the 14 news outlets, only Nature did not denigrate Kennedy.

Reuters started its press release by saying it was "a major policy win" for Kennedy that vaccine advisers named by him reversed a decades-long recommendation "that disease experts say will reverse decades of public health gains." So, Kennedy's advisers were not experts, and as the critics were experts, they must be correct, right?

Reuters noted that the CDC is "now run by a Kennedy-appointed acting head, Jim O'Neill, who is not a scientist;" that Kennedy founded the anti-vaccine group Children's Health Defense; fired ACIP's previous 17 "independent" experts and replaced them with a group that largely supports his views; dropped broad recommendations for the Covid vaccine and cut funding for mRNA vaccines.

The facts are that several of the previous experts at the ACIP were not independent but had conflicts of interest in relation to vaccine manufacturers and other drug companies; that recommending Covid vaccines only to high-risk groups brought the US on par with Europe; and that cutting funding for mRNA vaccine research was well motivated. Kennedy said that his team had reviewed the science and found that these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu. His department was therefore shifting the funding toward "safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate."

Reuters misrepresented the ACIP meeting entirely, claiming that "many of Kennedy's committee members criticized the vaccine as unsafe." What they said was that safety had not been adequately studied, which was correct.

The other media called Kennedy a vaccine sceptic (The Hill, Health Policy Watch, CBC), a vaccine activist (CNN, the Guardian), or an anti-vaccine advocate (PBS), who fired all 17 previous members of the ACIP, replacing them with people who largely shared his scepticism (New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, CNN, PBS, CBS News, Time, Health Policy Watch, CBC, BBC, the Guardian) with a "goal of upending vaccine policy" (New York Times), and the vote fulfilled a long-held goal of the anti-vaccine movement (The Hill).

The CBC, the largest news broadcaster in C...