\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re doing that to generate evidence for a policy they have already implemented,\u201d Scott said. \u201cIt\u2019s clearly going to cause far more harm than any benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scott estimated that if the birth dose is successfully rolled back on a larger scale, it could lead to 1,400 additional chronic pediatric infections and nearly 500 preventable deaths annually.<\/p>\n
According to background information from the House Science Committee staff, the research group did not apply for an award through a standard competitive process; instead, staff said Kennedy specifically sought out the researchers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe typical way of going about it is to put out a request for proposal \u2026 and fund the most rigorous study,\u201d Arthur Reingold, a former professor of epidemiology at UC Berkeley and a former Chief of the Respiratory Diseases Branch at the CDC, said. \u201cObviously, that was not done in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n
Reingold added that without a detailed study protocol, it is impossible to know if the trial can actually measure the \u201cbroader health effects\u201d HHS claims to be looking for. He warned that if a study lacks the statistical power to answer important questions, it is a \u201cwaste of money.\u201d<\/p>\n
The House Science Committee stated it is considering all oversight options, though staff noted their authority is currently limited by their status in the Minority.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n