The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently restructured under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has sparked intense controversy following its meetings on September 19th and 20th. The panel's revised recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines and the MMRV vaccine have drawn sharp criticism from medical associations and scientific experts, who cite concerns about the panel's preparedness, data handling, and overall approach to vaccine policy.
Critics argue that the newly appointed ACIP members, many of whom have publicly questioned or opposed established vaccination policies, lack the necessary expertise to make informed decisions. The meetings were marked by apparent misunderstandings of key data, reliance on flawed studies, and the promotion of unsubstantiated claims linking vaccines to conditions like cancer and autism. Concerns were also raised regarding the panel's selective use of evidence to support pre-determined conclusions.
The panel's decisions, including a recommendation that individuals consult a clinician before receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and warnings about potential side effects, have raised serious concerns about potential impacts on public health. The chaotic nature of the meetings was further exemplified by conflicting votes on the MMRV vaccine recommendation, ultimately leading to reversals, and the postponement of decisions on the hepatitis B vaccine due to internal disagreements.
The ACIP's actions have been described as a threat to the integrity of the vaccine recommendation process, potentially undermining public trust in vaccines and eroding long-standing measures to control preventable diseases. The contentious atmosphere was punctuated by instances of disruptive behavior, including a panel member posting on social media during presentations and heated exchanges among panel members and outside observers.
Medical professionals, including past ACIP members and representatives of major medical organizations, have openly condemned the panel's procedures and conclusions. They emphasize that the panel's approach appears to disregard decades of established scientific consensus, prioritize anecdotal evidence over rigorous research, and potentially sow confusion and vaccine hesitancy among the public. The long-term implications of these decisions on vaccination rates and public health remain a major source of concern among experts and health officials.
---
Originally published at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/09/20/acip-vaccine-cdc-criticism-rfk/
