ATLANTA — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed his intention to enlist a carefully selected advisory panel focused on vaccines, aiming to restore the waning public trust in vaccination.
This vision was vividly demonstrated during a two-day session this past Thursday and Friday. The twelve-member committee, comprising several scientists and researchers known for their skepticism or dissemination of misinformation about vaccines, questioned the safety and efficacy data presented by experts from the CDC. They introduced various theoretical or unsupported issues and revisited long-standing vaccine policies based on concerns they claimed were articulated by parents and patients, rather than public health data or critical new findings.
Ultimately, the committee’s actions appeared somewhat limited, yet they reflected the broader agenda of Kennedy, a recognized vaccine skeptic, and his team to limit access to established vaccines since taking up their roles. Furthermore, these developments highlighted a notable shift away from a robust, science-informed decision-making framework that ACIP has utilized for over ten years when evaluating vaccine risks and benefits.
The panel opted to limit the administration of the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccination to children older than four, citing increased risks of febrile seizures. They also withdrew previous endorsements for the widespread use of Covid shots (while ensuring insurance coverage remains intact). After prolonged discussions, members decided to postpone a vote on delaying the hepatitis B vaccination schedule for newborns, pending further deliberation. Any final recommendations from ACIP require approval from Jim O’Neill, acting director of the CDC.
“I commend the committee for facilitating overdue scientific discourse on vaccination with the American public,” O’Neill stated in a release.
During the intense debates surrounding the hepatitis B vaccine, Jason Goldman, a liaison with the American College of Physicians, frequently interrupted to request additional data, much to the dismay of committee chair Martin Kulldorff. “This is why the evidence recommendation framework was established—to ensure a standard evaluation of all vaccines. If you could clarify your analysis process for the public, it would enhance our confidence in this committee,” Goldman urged.
A Vaccine Meeting Amid Broader CDC Turmoil
The ACIP meeting was held against a backdrop of turmoil at the CDC, following Kennedy’s dismissal of Director Susan Monarez just a month into her position over vaccine policy disagreements. Monarez testified to Congress that Kennedy exerted pressure on her to approve ACIP’s recommendations regardless of the underlying evidence.
Moreover, she cautioned that Kennedy plans to alter the childhood vaccine schedule without providing data or scientific rationale. Senator Bill Cassidy, who invited Monarez to testify, expressed skepticism regarding any proposed alterations from ACIP. Cassidy, a physician himself, indicated that delaying decisions on the hepatitis B vaccine was prudent.
In addition to these concerns, the lead-up to ACIP convening deviated from established protocols. Former CDC Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry disclosed in the Senate hearing that she harbored “significant concerns” about the meeting, underscoring that the proposed recommendations and associated documentation had not been made publicly available in advance.
Prominent medical organizations typically providing feedback and expert insights had been excluded from the discussions. At the meeting’s outset, the panel chair proclaimed the need for increased public dialogue on vaccinations, even as committee members appeared distracted and out of their seats during public commentary periods.
Further compounding these issues, staff from the CDC’s vaccination center were reportedly excluded from the meeting preparations. Although CDC experts presented data and fielded questions during the sessions, this departure from customary practice raised eyebrows among observers.
Advisers and Outside Experts Weigh in on Vaccine Trust
Panel member Robert Malone, who has claimed to be an inventor of mRNA technology while simultaneously denouncing it, articulated a core aspect of the panel’s rationale for reconsidering the hepatitis B vaccine. “The signals we’re seeing aren’t about safety; they’re about trust,” Malone noted. “Parents feel uneasy about this medical procedure being conducted at birth without adequate informed consent, especially amid rising mistrust in public health and vaccines overall.”
In contrast, Stanford University infectious disease specialist Jake Scott warned that the panel’s actions might backfire. “When parents suddenly see a vaccine being restricted without any underlying safety concerns, it can severely undermine confidence in our entire immunization program,” he remarked.
The meetings filled liaison members—those without voting rights but possessing expertise and authority— with confusion and frustration, as many implored the committee to explain their reconsideration of established decisions. By Friday, Sandra Fryhofer from the American Medical Association expressed alarm regarding the “erosion of the committee’s integrity,” raising fears that advertisements and biased conclusions might be undermining the objectivity of vaccine guidance. “This lack of transparency complicates trust, fosters bias, and casts doubts about the reliability of the community’s vaccine recommendations,” she commented, only to be interrupted by Kulldorff as she affirmed the AMA’s support for vaccines.
Many Panelists Questioned the CDC’s Presentations
Throughout the course of the meeting, inconsistencies were evident in how committee members responded to data presented by the CDC. During the hepatitis B vaccine dialogue, Retsef Levi, an operations management professor at MIT, openly challenged CDC representatives’ assertion that the birth dose significantly decreased hepatitis B cases.
“When I analyze your own data,” Levi remarked, “I struggle to understand why universal vaccination of newborns, irrespective of maternal status, is critical.”
In further examinations, a panelist expressed concerns over the vaccine’s safety, citing increased irritability and fussiness in vaccinated infants as potential precursors to neurological issues, advocating for additional long-term follow-up data on affected children.
The discourse on Covid vaccines mirrored these tensions, as Malone and pediatrician Cody Meissner openly scrutinized CDC data on Covid hospitalization rates. They challenged the reliability of the presented information, as members cross-examined CDC staff and representatives from Pfizer and Moderna, expressing doubts regarding the vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Levi later voiced dissatisfaction, indicating that the responses provided by the CDC and vaccine manufacturers were unsatisfactory.
Some discussions leaned heavily on theoretical aspects; for instance, uncertain claims were put forth concerning mRNA vaccines lingering in bodily systems, potentially leading to adverse effects. Drew Weissman, a Nobel Prize laureate in medicine for his role in developing Covid vaccines, stated that these concerns were “absolutely impossible.”
Despite certain presentations being grounded in empirical data, including an analysis of myocarditis rates presented by a pediatrician and geneticist, tensions persisted within the group. Conflicts between committee members arose as they interrogated statistics regarding birth defects in children of vaccinated mothers, with Pfizer asserting that there was no causal link to the vaccine.
In an overall sense, the committee faced an uphill battle, grappling with their credibility and the nuances of vaccine recommendations. Kulldorff attempted to clarify the committee’s approach, yet questions loomed large over the integrity of their future recommendations.
With the committee scheduled to reconvene next month, the lingering question remains: which vaccines will be critically reexamined next? Levi indicated that ACIP would periodically review all vaccines, stating, “Although there may be drama surrounding our every decision, we remain dedicated to our mission, pursuing it with extensive engagement and a science-oriented focus.”
Matthew Herper and Anil Oza contributed reporting.
