One might have to walk through it like this to quickly get the couple of ways it might seem arse-backward to reflexive commonsense...
Since RFK Jr is anti-vaccine oriented, why in the world would his CDC want to dose 7,000 newborns in Guinea-Bissau with hepatitis B vaccine, while not giving it to the other 7,000 members of the trial? The former half of it seems a contradiction.
"The aim is to try to find alleged vaccine harms from the newborn dose—despite the fact that the newborn dose has been proven safe and effective after decades of global use and is the current standard of care."
Hepatitis B is already rampant in the population of the country. The 7,000 newborns not given the vaccine in the trial would thereby normally be at risk, anyway. As also would be the 7,000 that would receive vaccination.
"Guinea-Bissau has a high burden of hepatitis B in its population, and newborns who are not vaccinated at birth are at risk of acquiring a chronic, life-threatening infection. Authorities in Guinea-Bissau want newborns to be vaccinated and intend to begin universally administering birth doses in 2028. The country, which experienced a coup in November 2025, does not currently have the resources or infrastructure to provide those routine vaccinations."
So why is there moral outrage across the global establishment about the CDC proposal?
"Stabell Benn and Aaby have argued that the trial is not unethical because newborns in Guinea-Bissau are currently not routinely given a dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. But outside experts point to ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, which requires trials to provide the 'best proven intervention'—which is a birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine—regardless of whatever the current standard is in the country hosting the trial. Placebos may only be used when there is no proven intervention or there is 'compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons' to withhold a proven intervention. In a scathing rebuke in February, the World Health Organization laid out a bullet-point list of 'why withholding the vaccine is unethical.'"
But by prohibiting the trial on the grounds of unfairness, none of the total 14,000 newborns in the submitted experiment would receive protection from hepatitis B. In terms of oppression theory justice, it boils down to if the "non-special social class" does not get rescued from the impending disaster, too, then the "special social class" will not be permitted to do so, either.
Of course, there is the character shadiness of the Danish researchers and RFK Jr, too, but that's not what this ethical indignation is primarily revolving around.
If the trial moves forward, it would be funded by the US but run by Danish researchers, who have separately been accused of misconduct. In December, the CDC announced the award of an unsolicited grant for $1.6 million to a research group at the University of Southern Denmark, led by married couple Christine Stabell Benn and Peter Aaby. The pair have produced numerous studies that have been promoted by anti-vaccine advocates, drawing concern and criticism from researchers. Stabell Benn and Aaby are currently under investigation by Danish authorities over allegations of “falsification” and “scientific misconduct” related to previous vaccine research.
[...] According to the Rolling Stone report, the trial’s design has been revised to now ask mothers if they are infected with hepatitis B—which can pass from mother to infant during birth—and test a small fraction of them for the infection. But the changes have not eased concerns that having an unvaccinated group as part of the trial is fundamentally unethical. For now, the trial is still on hold, pending final authorization from Guinea-Bissau officials. But the CDC, under anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears eager to move forward with it once it is approved.