Peter Marks cites RFK Jr.’s “misinformation and lies,” as a reason for his resignation : Shots

Peter Marks Cites RFK Jr.’s “Misinformation and Lies” as a Reason for His Resignation

March 29, 2025

Washington, D.C. – In a bold move that has captured the attention of political and public health circles, Peter Marks, a prominent official at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has announced his resignation, citing concerns over the spread of “misinformation and lies” from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), a vocal public figure and environmental advocate. Marks’ decision to step down has brought the spotlight back to the ongoing debates around the dissemination of public health information, misinformation, and the influence of high-profile figures in shaping public opinion.

In a statement released late Thursday, Marks, who served as the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, explained that his resignation was a direct response to the increasing “falsehoods” propagated by RFK Jr., particularly regarding vaccine safety and public health policy. Marks specifically cited RFK Jr.’s controversial anti-vaccine stance, which has garnered significant attention in recent years, as one of the key factors contributing to his decision.

A Disagreement Over Public Health Misinformation

Marks’ resignation letter criticized RFK Jr. for using his platform to spread misinformation about vaccines, a stance that Marks described as “harmful to public health efforts” and “undermining the trust in science.” He pointed to RFK Jr.’s repeated claims linking vaccines to autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence disproving such connections.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has continued to use his platform to propagate lies about vaccines, despite clear, unequivocal evidence from the scientific and medical communities that vaccines are safe and effective,” Marks wrote. “These lies contribute to public fear, drive misinformation, and put the health and safety of the American public at risk.”

Marks emphasized that his decision to resign was not based solely on his disagreements with RFK Jr. but also on the broader consequences of allowing such misinformation to thrive unchecked. He expressed deep concern that the spread of anti-science rhetoric could lead to vaccine hesitancy, posing a significant threat to the progress made in the fight against preventable diseases.

“With the rise of misinformation, we are seeing a decline in vaccination rates, and this endangers not just individuals, but entire communities,” Marks said in his statement. “As a public servant and someone who has spent my career working to protect the health of the American people, I can no longer remain in a position where such dangerous misinformation is allowed to flourish.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Controversial Anti-Vaccine Stance

RFK Jr., the son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has long been a polarizing figure in American politics and public health. While he has been a staunch advocate for environmental protection and has made significant contributions to raising awareness about toxic chemicals and pollution, his outspoken opposition to vaccines has sparked controversy, particularly in recent years.

Kennedy has used his high-profile family name and platform to amplify concerns about vaccine safety, particularly linking the use of certain vaccines to autism—a claim that has been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies. His anti-vaccine advocacy has garnered support from a segment of the population skeptical of vaccines and government health recommendations, but it has also drawn sharp criticism from the scientific community, public health experts, and even members of his own family.

In response to Marks’ resignation, RFK Jr. issued a statement defending his stance, claiming that his position is rooted in concern for public safety and individual rights. He reiterated his belief that “the vaccine industry has been allowed to operate with too little accountability” and accused the pharmaceutical companies of having undue influence over regulatory bodies like the FDA.

“My mission has always been to protect the health and freedom of the American people,” Kennedy said. “I will continue to speak out against corporate greed and the unchecked power of pharmaceutical companies that prioritize profits over the health and well-being of our children.”

Despite his defense, Kennedy’s statements have been widely criticized by health professionals who argue that his rhetoric has contributed to vaccine hesitancy, which has led to outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles, mumps, and whooping cough.

The Broader Debate Over Misinformation

Marks’ resignation comes at a time of growing concern about the role of misinformation in shaping public attitudes toward science and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the issue of vaccine misinformation into sharp focus, as false claims about the virus, its origins, and the safety of vaccines spread rapidly across social media platforms. In the aftermath of the pandemic, many public health officials have expressed alarm over the lasting impact of these falsehoods on vaccine confidence and overall public health.

The spread of misinformation is not limited to the anti-vaccine movement, but also extends to other areas of science and health policy, including climate change, nutrition, and mental health. The rise of social media and the ability for individuals to spread unchecked information has created an environment in which falsehoods can be amplified and accepted as truth by large segments of the population.

Marks’ resignation underscores the challenges faced by public health officials and scientists who are tasked with combating misinformation while maintaining public trust. It also highlights the tension between scientific authority and the right to free speech, particularly when individuals with large followings use their platforms to challenge established scientific consensus.

Implications for Public Health Policy

Marks’ departure from the FDA is likely to have broader implications for public health policy moving forward. His resignation reflects the deep frustration that many public health experts feel about the growing power of misinformation and the challenges of countering it in an age of social media-driven narratives. It also serves as a stark reminder of the vital role that trusted institutions like the FDA play in shaping public health policies and ensuring that accurate, science-based information is communicated to the public.

As Marks noted in his resignation letter, the consequences of allowing misinformation to go unchecked are profound. “When lies become accepted as truth, lives are put at risk,” he warned.

In the wake of his resignation, questions have arisen about how regulatory agencies like the FDA will address the challenge of misinformation moving forward. Will future efforts be made to hold individuals who spread harmful falsehoods accountable? And what role can social media companies play in combating the spread of misinformation that harms public health?

While Marks’ resignation is a personal decision, it is emblematic of a larger struggle facing the scientific and medical communities today—a struggle to protect truth, evidence, and public trust in the face of misinformation.

As the debate over public health misinformation continues to unfold, one thing is certain: the stakes are higher than ever.