Denmark’s Model of Fewer Shots Means Smarter Science

Updated

By Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

When President Trump recently directed HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and the CDC to review Denmark’s childhood vaccine schedule in December, he touched a third rail in American public health. The regular detractors called it dangerous. Others said it was anti-science. The truth? This move may be the most rational, measured, and child-centered directive in years. And long overdue. Specifically, Denmark vaccinates its children against ten diseases. The United States? Sixteen—until last week, when the CDC quietly dropped Hepatitis B from its universal childhood recommendations. The shift reflects a growing awareness that one-size-fits-all medicine might not be the best fit for the most vaccinated generation in human history, right here in the United States of America.

Make no mistake, Trump’s review has nothing to do with being anti-vaccine. First and foremost, it’s about being transparent and, most importantly, protecting our kids. Remember, we are a nation burdened with unhealthy kids. With that in mind, what the Denmark model represents is not ignorance or negligence. Instead, it is a model based on solid, practical, and much-needed discernment. Denmark’s public health system is tasked with protecting the health of its people by asking what children actually need based on local risks, data, and long-term outcomes. And then being strong enough to make decisions accordingly.

Critics of Trump’s call for review point to studies, like one recently published by CIDRAP titled “Viewpoint: The myth of an over-vaccinated America: The US DOES follow global consensus.” The study argues that the U.S. schedule aligns with global consensus and isn’t excessive. Nevertheless, a quick look at the visual of how many jabs American kids receive proves that notion wrong. A closer look reveals that the consensus is even murkier, as Denmark doesn’t administer routine vaccines for chickenpox, rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease, or hepatitis A. However, in the U.S., these shots are routine. Critics argue this is because Denmark has lower disease burdens, better surveillance, and more uniform healthcare access. Fine. But isn’t that exactly the point of reevaluating the U.S. vaccine schedule? Vaccine schedules should reflect the actual risk environment rather than a blanket assumption. Let’s be smart about our kids’ health.

Indeed, the answers are there when we look closer. A December 2025 CDC presentation by Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg made the contrast between Denmark and the U.S. much easier to understand. She explained that Denmark’s practical approach focuses on trust, reversibility, and individualized benefit-risk analyses. Importantly, when COVID data changed, Denmark adjusted pediatric recommendations. A wise move, no doubt. They observed and listened, rather than doubling down to protect Big Pharma. That scientific humility is rare in a politicized environment where questions can spark enormous backlash and unprecedented censorship, while pharmaceutical giants make billions.

Along with being practical, following the sinister vaccine game exposed by the pandemic, there’s also the issue of aluminum exposure in the US vaccine schedule—a concern that has been important to RFK Jr. for decades, and is rarely discussed in today’s mainstream media. Denmark’s simpler schedule, with fewer injections and less adjuvant use, results in much lower cumulative aluminum exposure in its children. In the U.S., standard combination shots keep dangerous aluminum levels high. This isn’t an extremist concern. It’s biochemistry. We should know by now that sometimes less is more.

Of course, the rebuttals to this potentially significant shift are loud. Some public health advocates insist that reducing the number of vaccines risks a resurgence of disease. But this argument is often based on fear (and profit margins) rather than facts. For example, take Hepatitis B. It’s a bloodborne illness, primarily transmitted through sexual contact or needle use. Newborns in low-risk households face virtually no exposure, and Denmark knows this. Thus, they vaccinate selectively. Until last week, the U.S. gave the shot to every newborn within hours of life. Why? Because they insist it’s easier to universalize than to screen and personalize. But easier isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just lazier and more profitable.

There’s a reason why this debate is intentionally overlooked and feels so loaded. Remember, the hugely profitable vaccine schedule has become a sacred text in American medicine. Any attempt to edit it, question it, or—God forbid—compare it to another country’s version is wrongly scandalized as a crime against our children. But science is supposed to evolve. If nothing else, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed that in great detail. Moreover, isn’t comparative data at the very heart of evidence-based healthcare?

In their noble quest to protect our kids, Trump and Kennedy aren’t randomly throwing darts in the dark. Instead, they’re pointing to a country—Denmark—that is often ranked among the best in the world for health outcomes, trust in government, and pediatric care. Denmark isn’t anti-vax. They’re selective, transparent, and data-driven. And they’re unapologetically pragmatic. That outlook is incredibly refreshing.

This essential examination, which isn’t about importing Denmark’s model, seeks to understand why their kids do just fine with fewer shots. Importantly, it aims to reintroduce nuance into a conversation that has for decades been bulldozed by propaganda and fear. It is past time that America prioritizes choosing honesty over dogma, even if it makes Big Pharma and the pharmaceutical lobby uncomfortable.

If recent years have taught us anything, it’s that public health cannot succeed without public trust. A nation can’t shame or browbeat parents into compliance. But, under the direction of Trump and Kennedy, a nation can earn confidence through transparency, humility, and a willingness to revise policy. That’s what Denmark does. The U.S. can—and should—embrace the example set forth by Denmark, which chooses trust, transparency, and genuine scientific rigor as the foundation for a healthier future for its children.

 

Generic avatar

Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist, Editor-in-Chief of UncoverDC, and host of the daily With Beanz podcast. She gained recognition for her in-depth coverage of the COVID-19 crisis, breaking major stories on the virus’s origin, timeline, and the bureaucratic corruption surrounding early treatment and the mRNA vaccine rollout. Tracy is also widely known for reporting on Murthy v. Missouri (Formerly Missouri v. Biden), a landmark free speech case challenging government-imposed censorship of doctors and others who presented alternative viewpoints during the pandemic.