I do not know much about vaccines. But this EO does seem rather dodgy to me. I fully support the use of them, and this EO does seem to be a dog whistle to the conspiracists.
Here is the EO.
Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans – The White House
My first alarm bell is this.
Sec. 2. Recommendations for Childhood and Adolescent Vaccines. (a) Based on consultation with my advisors and review of available scientific evidence, it is hereby declared that the United States recognizes Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations informed by the three distinct categories of childhood immunization recommendations identified in the scientific assessment, as specified below:
Because I do not see the study referenced linked. What study is he on about ? Always a red flag to me. Saying " A study says....", but not linking the study. That is conspiracists playbook for sure.
A bit of hunting on the "related documents" on the WH web, got me this : This appears to be the study.
Assessment of the U.S. Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule Compared to Other Countries (hhs.gov)
And my first thought was, what countries did they review ? All of them ? I know he mentioned " peer countries". Here is a list of countries, page 9. There is not many countries on that. Attached below.
On the grab below, I have underlined this. I picked that because when I see a table, I want to see what it says about it. And check footnotes.
"It is generally considered contrary to basic medical ethics to coerce or require a medical intervention, and informed consent is a cornerstone of medical care in the U.S. and abroad.55"
There is a claim. Where did that come from ? Footnote 55. This will be a good study backing up the claim ?
That footnote 55 is this :
ICNCode-of-EthicsEN_Web.pdf
Ethics for nurses. So not a study that backs up the claim made.
Now the alarm bells are going. Lets check what other works are cited. Scanning through, and I got this.
Vaccines (skyhorsepublishing.com)
A consumer book about vaccines. "Vaccines Truth, Lies, and Controversy
"
As I say, I am not a medic. And I might be flamed for this. But I am getting a feeling that this study was very much a " We have a conclusion, we need a study to support it" type of thing.
Cherry picking what countries are used. Claims made with citations that do not match the claims directly.
Yeah. I am happy to be proven wrong of course. And that this is a medical led thing and not a political dog whistle.