HHS and mRNA: Children, Pregnancy, and What’s Next

Speakers: Sen. Ron Johnson, Dr. David Martenson, Dr. Jordan Vaughn, David Mansdoerfer

Last week, IMA launched the Smart Moms Ask campaign—calling for the removal of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood schedule and pregnancy recommendations. And in just days, the campaign has helped lead the charge toward meaningful momentum.

For starters, the Senator Ron Johnson organized a landmark hearing on May 21 examining corruption within federal health agencies. Last week, a strategic leak to the Wall Street Journal hinted at major policy changes underway. And now, for the first time, decision-makers are openly debating the very policies that helped shield vaccine makers from liability and sidelined informed consent.

In this week’s IMA webinar, host Dr. Chris Martenson sat down with Senator Ron Johnson, Dr. Jordan Vaughn—fresh from testifying at the Senate hearing—and former HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary David Mansdoerfer. Together, they unpack the implications of this policy shift, the suppression of safety signals, and what it will take to restore transparency and accountability in public health.

“This is the first in what I hope to be many, many hearings.” —Senator Ron Johnson

This webinar served as a kind of lightning-round follow-up to the Senate testimony delivered just hours earlier. Our panelists know this issue inside and out—and they brought sharp, multifaceted insight to the table. Here are some of the key themes they explored regarding the current state of mRNA vaccine policy:

1. Myocarditis Suppression and the Corruption of Oversight
2. V-safe and the Design to Avoid Seeing Harm
3. Legal Implications: EUA, Liability, and the Childhood Schedule
4. Informed Consent and the Collapse of Public Trust
5. Smart Moms and The Road Ahead

1. Myocarditis Suppression and the Corruption of Oversight

At the heart of the May 21 Senate hearing was a paper trail: email after email showing that CDC, FDA, and DoD officials knew early on that myocarditis was occurring at elevated rates following mRNA vaccination—particularly in young males. Yet instead of issuing timely warnings or conducting rigorous analysis, federal agencies chose spin over science.

Senator Johnson’s report included internal CDC documents questioning whether a safety signal existed—and explicitly answering yes—but still opting against public alerts. Rather than warn physicians, the agencies circulated 17 pages of talking points designed to deflect concern.

In his testimony, Senator Johnson gives a number of examples pointing to suppression and corruption around vaccine safety issues, even quoting a DoD agent as stating, “If you do not ask, you will not see [any data]. But does that mean it does not exist?”

Of course, the data does exist—much of it from the FDA and CDC’s own databases. Senator Johnson highlighted records showing that, within just six months, COVID-19 vaccines were linked to more adverse events than any other medical intervention. He also contrasted this with the safety profiles of repurposed drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which were associated with only a handful of deaths compared to the thousands reported following COVID injections.

2. V-safe and the Design to Avoid Seeing Harm

While CDC leadership claimed the safety data didn’t show red flags, new revelations about the V-safe monitoring program suggest those systems were never intended to detect harm in the first place.

IMA Senior Fellow Dr. Jordan Vaughn explained how V-safe’s design omitted key symptoms like chest pain and palpitations—crucial signs of myocarditis. Only after FOIA lawsuits and court orders did redacted data emerge showing high rates of medical visits and work disruptions among vaccine recipients.

“They like to say there’s no evidence, but what they really mean is we’ve never looked for it.” —Dr. Jordan Vaughn

For the vaccine-injured, the system’s failure to even acknowledge their existence—let alone offer help—has been both painful and, for many, career-ending. React-19’s Dr. Joel Wallskog testified before the Senate about his own experience with vaccine injury and the stunning lack of support at every level:

“In my own battle to restore my health, I could not find a single reliable source of information from the CDC, from the FDA, or the NIH. Further, answers did not come from medical teams, the media, or even medical journals, but rather the answers were being pieced together by tens of thousands of vaccine injured patients.”

3. Legal Implications: EUA, Liability, and the Childhood Schedule

Beyond science and safety lies a structural question: Why were these vaccines kept on the CDC’s schedule despite growing concerns?

As Dr. Martenson noted, placement on the childhood schedule has enormous implications. It shields pharmaceutical companies under the PREP Act, guarantees payment through insurance models, and often becomes a de facto mandate for school attendance.

Removing the COVID shot from that schedule would send a powerful message—and dismantle one of the key legal frameworks that allowed unchecked promotion and coercion.

“Pulling any vaccine from the childhood schedule is, in some ways, the death knell of it.” —Dr. Jordan Vaughn

4. Informed Consent and the Collapse of Public Trust

Beneath the technical battles lies something deeper: a profound rupture in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients were never told the truth. Many were never given a real choice. And those who hesitated were branded as threats rather than respected for their concerns.

One expert at the hearing described the regulatory failures plainly—explaining how the erosion of informed consent damaged the foundation of ethical medicine itself.

“Informed consent is the foundation of a patient–physician relationship. Absent the regulators providing that information, that relationship is irreparably harmed and the practice of medicine will continue to suffer.” —Dr. Jordan Vaughn

Dr. Vaughn spoke at length about the many ways informed consent has been impossible with the COVID injections—from data obfuscation to pressure tactics. For those familiar with his research on clotting disorders linked to the shots, it’s hard to imagine any doctor fully disclosing those risks—and a patient still agreeing to proceed. The question practically asks itself: if true informed consent had been given, how many would have said no to the vaccine? And how many of them would still be here today?

5. Smart Moms and The Road Ahead

While no single hearing can reverse years of damage, the message is clear: We are gaining ground. The launch of Smart Moms Ask placed pressure where it was needed most. The May 21 hearing gave voice to the silenced. And the hope around RFK Jr.’s ongoing reforms at HHS suggest that the doors to transparency may finally be opening.

The path ahead will require persistence. But for the first time in years, families, doctors, and advocates are seeing movement—and momentum.

Ready to take action? Here are a few ways you can get informed, get involved, and make a difference today:

• Sign the Smart Moms Ask Petition to stop mRNA shots for kids and pregnant women.
• Check out the full panel videos from our recent conference in Atlanta, 100% free to watch.
• Download the 2nd issue of The Journal of Independent Medicine, also 100% free.
• Support the Independent Medical Alliance with a donation to help us continue the fight for Honest Medicine.