In an already polarized media landscape, the Guardian article published on March 10, 2026, entitled “ RFK Jr.’s pick to review Covid vaccines authored misleading research, experts say, ”perfectly illustrates how a report presented as factual can easily veer into partisan opinion . Written by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, deputy head of investigations at the Guardian US, based in Washington, D.C., the article harshly criticizes Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s (RFK Jr.) nomination of Retsef Levi, a professor at MIT, to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Levi is portrayed as a biased researcher whose work is “misleading” and driven by a “predetermined agenda.” Yet, a closer analysis reveals glaring omissions, an imbalance of sources, and an alarmist tone that violate fundamental journalistic principles. Kirchgaessner, without scientific training or expertise in public health, amplifies a pro-institutional narrative without questioning his own biases , thus contributing to information pollution and the erosion of public trust – a phenomenon well documented by recent surveys.
This article, categorized under “US News” rather than “Comment is Free” (opinions), feigns objectivity while ignoring essential elements such as American healthcare reforms, the recognized side effects of vaccines, and the conflicts of interest of its sources. By highlighting these flaws, we demonstrate how this type of journalism, far from informing, fuels division and explains why 64% of French people distrust the media , according to a November 2025 MIS Group poll.
The duties of the journalist and their importance
Journalism rests on clear ethical principles, set forth in the Munich Charter (1971) and the UNESCO Code: objectivity (presenting all facts without distortion), balanced reporting (giving a voice to all sides), transparency (declaring conflicts of interest), and a strict separation between facts and opinions. These duties are crucial in public health, where misinformation can cost lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of balance amplified polarization, as demonstrated by scandals of scientific fraud (e.g., Lancetgate, where an anti-hydroxychloroquine study was retracted due to falsified data) and a lack of government transparency (e.g., the “defense secret” classification of documents from the Health Defense Council in France).
Positive examples exist, such as the balanced reporting on the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) reforms initiated by RFK Jr. in February 2025, which aim to eliminate conflicts of interest at the NIH, CDC, and FDA, promote data transparency, and prioritize the prevention of chronic diseases. Similarly, the Restore Reference Science initiative , led by Jay Bhattacharya since May 2025, imposes gold standards for reproducibility and scientific integrity at the NIH . These reforms address growing public distrust, ignored by articles like the one in The Guardian, which perpetuate a one-sided narrative instead of fostering informed debate.
Analysis of the flaws in the Guardian article
Kirchgaessner’s article fails on all ethical fronts , transforming a news report into a pro-vaccine consensus plea. First, the lack of balanced sources is glaring: more than a dozen critical experts (such as Sharon Alroy-Preis, former head of Israeli public health, and Nadav Davidovitch, an epidemiologist) dominate the text, calling Levi’s work “ misleading “ and “ not rigorous .” Conversely, defenses of Levi (his papers are “ factual , balanced, and rigorous,” with over 20 years of experience in risk analysis) and of the HHS ( politically motivated criticisms ) are relegated to the end of the article and downplayed . There are no interviews with figures considered dissidents, such as RFK Jr., Bhattacharya, Robert Malone, or Martin Kulldorff, who are involved in reforms to restore “standard science.”
Furthermore, omissions regarding conflicts of interest among cited sources undermine credibility. For example, Lonni Besançon, presented as a “ research integrity detective ,” calls a Levi paper “ shameful ” for its impact on vaccine hesitancy. Yet, Besançon faces controversy for his use of inflammatory language on social media (insults, threats) and his lack of medical legitimacy, as revealed by investigations into his online harassment . A prime example is Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, cited as a neutral expert criticizing Levi for his lack of familiarity with the data. However, as revealed by Professor Norman Fenton , a Bayesian statistician and risk analysis expert, Alroy-Preis is bound by a contractual agreement between Pfizer and the Israeli Ministry of Health , obligating her to promote vaccines positively through joint publications. Fenton, who personally challenged an Alroy-Preis article in The Lancet for methodological flaws , calls this choice of source “ unbelievable “ and points to a clear conflict of interest. Kirchgaessner omits this, as well as the potential links of other experts to pro-vaccine institutions (e.g., undisclosed pharmaceutical funding, as in the Wellcome Trust scandal in the UK).
Furthermore, the article ignores the broader context of the loss of public trust . It downplays vaccine hesitancy as unfounded, failing to mention surveys like Rasmussen’s (November 2025) : among vaccinated Americans (68%), 36% reported side effects (10% major), potentially affecting 63 million people, including 17 million severely. In France, a MIS Group poll for France Soir ( November 2025 , confirmed by the February 2026 wave ) revealed 81% rejecting the new COVID campaign , 37% of vaccinated individuals reporting side effects (9% serious), and 47% losing confidence due to “government lies .” 56% accuse the media of spreading misinformation about the risks, illustrating a “ circle of distrust “ (74% distrustful of the government).
Kirchgaessner’s opinionated tone is evident: phrases like “ undermine public trust … without any factual basis “ or » predetermined agenda » imply judgment , without exploring contrary evidence such as the November 2025 FDA email admitting at least 10 pediatric vaccine-related deaths , or the December 2025 Stanford study confirming post-mRNA vaccine inflammatory heart risks in young people. This approach sparked immediate reactions online, such as this tweet from March 13, 2026, by @JMePromeneIci , which dismissed as a “ joke “ the fact that a non-peer-reviewed paper criticizes a revised article published by Springer Nature for an alleged lack of rigor, without providing any evidence: “ A non-peer-reviewed paper criticizes a normally peer-reviewed article… with the hypothetical argument that it was published ‘potentially without rigorous peer review ‘ (without any evidence of it). What a joke. @guardian .” This post illustrates the perceived double standards , amplifying the public distrust that the Guardian ignores.
These omissions are reminiscent of the Figaro article debunked by France Soir for institutional propaganda: no contradictory voices, alarmist tone, and placement in the “news” section, rather than opinion, to feign objectivity.
Finally, Kirchgaessner’s background raises questions: lacking scientific training and publications in health, she focuses on investigations into digital surveillance and foreign affairs. How does she assess technical debates such as Levi’s methodological flaws? This raises a confirmation bias , amplifying criticisms aligned with the consensus without independent verification.
The impact is clear: this article contributes to information pollution, by ignoring systemic frauds (e.g., Dana-Farber, $15 million for falsifications) and by fueling division.
A balanced perspective on Levi and vaccines
For the sake of balance, let’s acknowledge the Guardian’s strengths: the criticisms of Levi’s methodological flaws (e.g., the correlation/causality confusion in his 2022 study on cardiac calls in Israel) are valid, leading to a correction in Scientific Reports. These risks of vaccine hesitancy are real; however, the question of vaccine evaluation remains: they may not have saved millions of lives, as the 2022 Lancet study (20 million in one year) suggests. This is demonstrated by the numerous biases in the Epi-Phare study, which supposedly suggests the effectiveness of vaccines in saving lives, yet this study is the subject of numerous “comments” and calls for retraction because the biases are likely to affect public health decisions and further erode trust in authorities.
However, Levi raises legitimate concerns: his work, while controversial, highlights recognized side effects , such as myocarditis (1 in 32,000 in young people, higher in men under 30, according to Stanford). His appointment to ACIP is part of the MAHA and “ Restore Reference Science “ reforms, aiming for greater transparency without being anti-vaccine. Bhattacharya promotes a “ culture of respect for scientific debate ,” while Malone (inventor of mRNA technology) criticizes institutional biases.
Polls show that 49% of French people believe in the secrecy surrounding vaccines , calling for open debate rather than censorship.
Conclusion
The Guardian, by failing to fulfill its duties, illustrates why 53% of French people avoid mainstream media : pollution by omission and amplification of bias. Kirchgaessner does not practice objective journalism ; she produces a disguised opinion, contributing to the crisis of confidence (81% reject vaccination campaigns in France). To rebuild trust, the media must adopt total transparency, interview all voices, and explore reforms like MAHA. A balanced follow-up, including Levi and Bhattacharya, would be a first step toward responsible journalism.
Kirchgaessner, contacted by France-Soir, was unavailable to respond (1)
- Why did you choose not to interview figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jay Bhattacharya, Robert Malone, Martin Kulldorff, or other medical specialists who are involved in ACIP reforms and could provide a counter-perspective on vaccination and research policies?
- In your research, did you contact Retsef Levi to obtain a more detailed response to the specific methodological criticisms of experts such as Lonni Besançon or Sharon Alroy-Preis, beyond the statement provided? If so, what additional context did he provide that was not included?
- Have you investigated or disclosed any potential conflicts of interest among the experts you cited, such as links to pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, or pro-vaccine institutions? If not, why was this not addressed in the article?
- Were you aware of the controversies surrounding some of your sources , such as Lonni Besançon’s alleged use of inflammatory language on social media or his lack of medical expertise regarding vaccines? How did this influence your decision to quote him extensively?
- Your article focuses on criticisms of Levi’s research, but why didn’t he address public opinion data, such as the Rasmussen poll (November 2025) showing 36% of vaccinated Americans reporting side effects, or other similar French surveys indicating widespread distrust of vaccines? How might this context have influenced the narrative?
- The article mentions concerns about a rollback of vaccination recommendations but doesn’t discuss recent US reforms such as the MAHA decree or Bhattacharya’s “Restore Reference Science” initiative. Was this intentional, and if so, why?
- Given revelations such as the FDA email acknowledging at least 10 pediatric deaths linked to COVID vaccines or studies on cardiac risks linked to mRNA (e.g., Stanford research), why were these revelations not included to give a more complete picture of the debates on vaccine safety?
- As a journalist without a scientific background, how did you assess the technical aspects of Levi’s studies and the counter-arguments from experts? Did you consult independent scientists for verification?
- The article is published in the “US News” section rather than in “Comment is Free” (opinions). Do you consider it a purely factual report, or does it contain elements of analysis that could be perceived as opinions?
- In light of broader issues such as scientific fraud scandals (e.g., Dana-Farber or Lancetgate) and lack of transparency during the pandemic, how do you respond to claims that your article contributes to media distrust by not exploring these systemic problems?