COVID‑Shot Policy Shift Could Cut Kid Uptake 60 %—Costing $840 M

Why fewer mandates could be a win for medical choice and a loss for vaccine makers

From Left to Right: FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD.

I’m an observer. As you all know, when it comes to politics, I don’t vote for federal offices, and the most I’ll consider is supporting local policies.

As an adult, as long as I am not harming anyone, I will do as I see fit—which includes paying as little taxes as possible.

With that being the case, when good things happen, I believe they should be called out —even though it may not be what we want. A step in the right direction is still a positive step.

That being said, when I first heard the news about mNexspike, I was going to write about how RFK and Jay Bhattacharya were in the wrong, but when I researched the topic, I found out that both events (RFK and Jay’s news with the mNEXSPIKE) were unrelated.

• On May 27th, RFK and Jay Bhattacharya removed the routine recommendation of the covid vaccines for healthy children and pregnant mothers. Four days later,

• On May 31st, the FDA approved Moderna’s mNEXSPIKE, which was all I saw discussed on Substack, making me think the two were interconnected.

This scenario shows how headlines create narratives that become realities and points to why research is needed. So, when I looked into the directive made by my RFK and team, one must say that it’s a step in the right direction.

Here’s why.

The Impact Of This Decision

For background, here’s what happened. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya announced in late May that COVID‑19 shots would no longer be “routinely” urged for healthy children or for uncomplicated pregnancies.

They reframed federal policy from a “one‑size‑fits‑all” mandate to what they deem a “risk‑based option aimed mainly at seniors and people with serious medical conditions.”

Now, I want to stop right there and remind everyone that I do not recommend vaccines, support vaccines, or would ever take a vaccine. I rejected the covid vaccine with religious exemptions here, and I’ve written about how vaccines cause autism here and infant death here.

However, from an observer’s perspective, just seeing the landscape of how this is playing out, I think this is a positive.

Going back to the decision from RFK, what occurs is that the covid shots would no longer be routine but rather be a “shared-decision.”

Sasha Latypova

has done an excellent breakdown of what that means here.

From her work, we read the definition of “shared-decision”:

• Shared clinical decision-making vaccinations are individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian.

• Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances.

Further in her article from the ACIP (who we will mention later), we read:

• For shared clinical decision-making recommendations, there is no default—the decision about whether or not to vaccinate may be informed by the best available evidence of who may benefit from vaccination; the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences.

From my perspective, yes, I do see how this definition of “shared-decision” can muddy the waters. Still, I would argue that this change from routine to shared-decision can cause a tremendous decrease in the uptake of the covid vaccines — the only vaccine in the scope of this analysis.

In point one, we see that shared decisions are no longer limited to health providers only but also to parents (I know, it should be basic, but having this on paper is a step in the right direction and can lead to precedence).

Point two states if the parent desires for vaccination—meaning that parents can also choose not to vaccinate as well.

Lastly, point three states that the decision should be informed by the best available evidence— which we’ve discussed here how vaccines make children sicker.

So, yes, there are some minute details here, but ultimately, we can see what can lead to a massive decrease in vaccinations and sales.

Let’s keep going.

The Decline of Vaccines and Sales

I worked with ChatGPT to model a couple of scenarios of what this subtle change would look like. The goal was to compare year-over-year data and project what could occur with this new ruling based on historical data.

Below is what was delivered.

• As of April 26th this year, uptake in those two groups was already modest: only 13 percent of U.S. children aged 6 months‑17 years were “up‑to‑date” with the 2024‑25 formulation, and 14.4 percent of pregnant women had received a dose during their current pregnancy.

• To translate those percentages into doses, start with the 72.8 million Americans under 18 and the 3.62 million births recorded in 2024. At today’s coverage levels that works out to roughly 9.5 million child doses and 520,000 maternal doses each season.

• What happens when a vaccine slides from “routine” to “shared decision‑making”? The meningococcal experience is instructive: in 2022, ≈89 % of 17‑year‑olds had received the routine MenACWY shot, but only 29 % had accepted the optional MenB series—a 67 percent relative gap driven almost entirely by the softer recommendation. cdc.gov

• Applying a similar 60 percent relative decline to COVID‑19 means next season’s coverage could drift to about 5 percent of kids and 6 percent of pregnancies. That would erase ≈6.1 million U.S. doses, the bulk of them pediatric. At the manufacturers’ list price of $120–$130 a dose—set when the shots moved to the commercial market—those lost injections represent roughly $735 million in foregone revenue (mid‑point estimate). reuters.com

• Several forces make a rebound unlikely. Once a product drops off the standard visit checklist, many pediatricians simply stop stocking it; insurers follow suit; and parents read the absence as a safety or necessity signal (emphasis here is mine). The MenB precedent shows coverage can hover in the low 30s—or, for an already controversial vaccine like COVID‑19, potentially the single digits—for years.

• For public‑health planners, the new strategy concentrates resources on high‑risk adults, but it also concedes that large swaths of the population will skip annual boosters. For manufacturers—especially Moderna, which depends heavily on U.S. sales—the decision removes a predictable slice of demand worth nearly three‑quarters of a billion dollars a year. And for families, it shifts the burden of choice from a default school‑entry requirement to an individual risk calculation—one that many will now answer with a simple “no, thanks.”

Closing Thoughts

Again, I want to reiterate that I do not support vaccines for anyone. As stated earlier and expounding now, vaccines are based on pseudoscience—the same pseudoscience that believes in dinosaurs and space travel.

If it were up to me—and many others in this truth movement—we’d wish vaccines were removed entirely from even being recommended.

Heck, we’d also wish the Federal Reserve was abolished.

We’d also wish we’d no longer have to pay taxes.

And we could go on and on.

But you see how we’re wishing here? It’s very wishful — not very realistic.

I just finished the article on reality inertia, and I mentioned that the key to accomplishing goals and solutions is understanding the reality of the terrain. Without a clear understanding, you’re dealing with fantasies.

Fantasies are simply that—fantasies; with no basis in reality.

The reality is that we did not adopt vaccines overnight. It was a slow propaganda-based agenda to take over our health. That’s the reality to things.

And so, since it was a slow build, it will be a slow destruction. Slow and steady will always beat fast and unstable.

We’re already seeing a decline in vaccine use overall, and we can continue to ride this positive momentum to eradicate them once and for all.

Also, even though this law is currently effective, we may not be out of the woods yet. From ChatGPT, we read:

• Under the Public Health Service Act the ACIP is an evidence‑review body that votes on vaccine use and then forwards its recommendation to the CDC director, who almost always adopts it; the secretary of HHS is not a voting member. 

• The committee is still scheduled to meet in late June and could, in principle, vote to keep a universal recommendation for kids and pregnant women, effectively contradicting Kennedy’s directive. 

• Such a clash would be unprecedented: the CDC director could either side with ACIP and restore the advice or defer to the secretary and let the new “optional” wording stand. 

• In short, the policy is live today because the CDC complied with the secretary’s order, but ACIP retains the authority to recommend against it—and the final outcome will hinge on whether the CDC director chooses ACIP’s scientific advice or the secretary’s directive.

To close, as I opened this piece, as long as I am not harming anyone, I can do as I please and am protected by the laws of the constitution for additional support. Recommendations by federal agencies to inject vaccines into my body don’t affect me — and don’t affect you either.

What we need to do is spread the truth about the dangers of vaccines far and wide so more people will awaken to their right to say “no” and feel comfortable that there is legal support for them to do so.

This is the world we live in, and the sooner we come to terms with the reality of things, the sooner we can actually change it into what we’d like to see.

As always, thank you for the time and attention. Have a wonderful rest of your day.

Ashe,

Franklin O’Kanu

---

Call To Action

If this article opened your eyes, there’s more behind the paywall. Exclusive, in-depth pieces that go deeper, challenge more, and reveal the truths they don’t want us to see.

🔑 Become a paid member and gain access to premium and archived articles, exclusive podcasts, and thought-provoking chats you won’t find anywhere else.

📖 Prefer a comprehensive take? My book, An Unorthodox Truth, is a fact-based journey through 200 years of deception—a must-read for those seeking clarity in a manipulated world.

☕ Feeling generous? Leave a simple tip to support this work—every bit helps me continue creating meaningful content.