CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel Fired

You may have seen headlines about the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, called the ACIP, being fired this week. If you’re feeling confused, worried, or outraged, you’re not alone. Let’s break down what happened, why it matters, and how we can move forward together.

The panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is made up of independent doctors, scientists, immunologists, and public health experts who help determine which vaccines are recommended in the U.S. This week, all 17 voting members were let go. This move has many in the medical and public health community concerned.

So what does this mean for you?

Right now, your child’s vaccine schedule hasn’t changed. But the process behind those recommendations, which is supposed to be transparent, science-driven, and consistent, has just become less certain.

We’ll keep watching this unfold, and since it’s already sparked confusion, concern, and a lot of questions in the PedsDocTalk community, we wanted to offer some clarity and reassurance. This update is current as of June 11th, 10:00 am. Here’s what happened, what it could mean for the future, and what matters most right now.

What is the ACIP?

The ACIP is a group of 17 independent experts, mostly doctors and scientists, who help decide which vaccines are recommended in the U.S.

They’re not political appointees or industry insiders. They don’t work for pharmaceutical companies. They serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), meaning they’re volunteers in terms of salary, and they have deep expertise in pediatrics, infectious disease, public health, and/or immunology. To keep the process transparent, they’re also required to publicly disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Their job is to review the evidence and make science-based recommendations about vaccines, specifically what’s needed, when it’s needed, and for whom.

Established in 1964, ACIP’s guidance not only shapes the vaccine schedule but also influences what insurance covers and how pediatricians provide care.

During the pandemic, I sat in on the ACIP meeting for the COVID-19 vaccines for children and witnessed the most thorough scientific process I’ve ever seen. The brightest minds were at the table, rigorously questioning the data, weighing the evidence, and deciding whether this vaccine was needed. These recommendations were never rushed or blind. They emerged from tough, evidence-based discussions with a singular goal: to benefit the greater good.

ACIP doesn’t just rubber-stamp all vaccines for everyone. They grill, they challenge, and they even recommend against vaccines when the data doesn’t hold up. For instance, they advised against the live nasal flu vaccine in 2016 when it showed poor effectiveness and limited the use of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine after clotting concerns emerged. This is what science and oversight in action look like.

What just happened?

This week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Secretary, fired all 17 voting members of ACIP in one sweep. This has never happened in the committee’s 60-year history. His stated reason? “Conflicts of interest.” But the data he cited is old, cherry-picked, and lacks crucial context. The supposed 'conflicts of interest' Kennedy cited are 15-25 years old and lack context.

In reality, ACIP members must publicly disclose and recuse themselves from votes if needed. A 2009 review found that only 3% of votes across all CDC committees had potential conflicts, most minor paperwork errors, not serious bias. Recent reports find no conflicts at all for the ACIP. Kennedy’s talking points are deliberate misrepresentations, not fact.

And let’s be real, Kennedy himself has deep financial conflicts of interest in dismantling vaccine confidence, yet he’s the one pointing fingers. Kennedy himself has built a financial empire worth millions by opposing vaccines. From leading Children’s Health Defense, to profiting from lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, to speaking fees and supplement industry ties, he’s made far more money stoking vaccine fears than any ACIP member has ever made volunteering on that panel.

This isn’t just a staff shake-up. It’s a deliberate, politically charged move that bypasses decades of trusted, evidence-based decision-making and replaces it with… well, we don’t know what yet. 

But we do know it’s not normal. And that’s what’s so concerning.

To me, this has been the most concerning action RFK Jr. has taken as HHS, and that’s saying a lot.

Why is this concerning?

This kind of sweeping removal is highly unusual, and it bypasses the very structure that has helped protect vaccine decisions from political influence for decades.

Here’s why this matters:

• It sets a dangerous precedent. Never before has an administration fully disbanded an independent scientific committee like this. It risks turning evidence-based decisions into politically or personally driven ones.

• Loss of institutional knowledge. ACIP members rotate on staggered terms, ensuring continuity and a deep understanding of the process. Starting over from scratch wipes out years of procedural and historical context-knowledge that’s critical for making informed decisions in real time.

• It creates uncertainty. Without ACIP, there’s a real fear that future vaccine guidelines could become fragmented, leading to confusion for families and clinicians.

• It threatens vaccine access. ACIP’s recommendations are the basis for what’s covered by insurance and what’s required for schools. Removing them could create gaps, and that hits hardest in communities already facing barriers to care.

• It may lead to state-by-state fragmentation. Shifting vaccine decision-making to states risks further politicization, red state vs. blue state vaccine access, when these decisions should remain grounded in public health, not politics.

• It undermines global health leadership. ACIP’s work is recognized worldwide as a model of evidence-based, transparent vaccine policy. Replacing it with political appointees risks jeopardizing not just U.S. health, but global efforts to protect children from deadly diseases.

• It discourages scientific expertise and debate. If experts see they can be dismissed for challenging political narratives, it creates a chilling effect, discouraging honest debate and weakening the scientific process.

Major medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the American Medical Association (AMA), have issued strong warnings about the move. Their concern isn’t just about who was removed, but how it happened. Without preserving the transparency that ACIP is known for.

When a long-standing scientific process gets cut short without clarity, it doesn’t just weaken policy, it chips away at public trust (as Dr. Jessica Knurick pointed out in a recent reel, propaganda creates doubt, then pretends to be the answer).

What this could mean, but doesn’t yet

It makes sense to have questions right now, and many families do. But while this change is significant, a lot of the “what ifs” haven’t actually happened.

We don’t know who else will be appointed and their credentials.
We don’t know how future recommendations will be developed.
And we don’t know whether insurance coverage could shift if national guidance becomes unclear.

But here’s what we do know:

• The current immunization schedule still stands.

• Vaccines are still available and covered by insurance.

• Pediatricians and public health experts are still relying on decades of data and evidence to guide decisions.

• There’s no need to get vaccines earlier than scheduled, unless your provider recommends it for a specific reason, like measles vaccination for international travel or in response to an outbreak.

So yes, there’s reason to stay tuned. But there’s no reason to panic or to rush.

Who’s being considered and why it matters

Some possible replacements for ACIP have already been floated, and let’s just say, it’s a mixed bag. Not all are problematic, but several raise serious red flags about credibility, transparency, and commitment to public health.

Here’s a quick breakdown:

Qualified and Potentially Experienced Picks

Not everyone being considered is cause for concern:

• Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and former ACIP member, has a long-standing history of careful, evidence-based analysis.

• Dr. Michael Ross and Dr. James Pagano bring clinical experience in OB/GYN and emergency medicine, respectively, and have served in respected advisory capacities.

• Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, while not a vaccine expert, has decades of NIH research experience in nutritional neuroscience.

These names reflect expertise across disciplines and could contribute to meaningful, science-based discussions if chosen.

But Some Picks Are Deeply Concerning

• Dr. Robert Malone, despite playing a minor role in the early development of mRNA technology, has become a central figure in the anti-vaccine movement. Just earlier this year, he falsely claimed that recent measles deaths were due to medical errors-not the virus itself. That’s not just misinformation, it’s dangerous.

• Dr. Martin Kulldorff, once a respected biostatistician became widely known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which promoted a strategy of "focused protection," arguing against broad public health measures like lockdowns and in favor of allowing COVID-19 to spread through the population in order to build natural herd immunity. 

• Retsef Levi is not a physician, yet his pinned tweet on X from 2023 claims-without credible evidence-that mRNA vaccines cause “indisputable” harm and should be halted immediately.

• Vicky Pebsworth brings public health training and advisory experience but currently sits on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, one of the most prolific sources of anti-vaccine propaganda online.

Is this a balanced approach?

A balanced approach doesn’t mean appointing “both sides.” It means appointing people who may have differing perspectives but who share a commitment to science, transparency, and public health.

A balanced panel should include individuals who:

• Rigorously evaluate data

• Disclose conflicts of interest

• Haven’t built platforms by spreading vaccine misinformation

• Recognize the harm of pseudoscience on public trust

Unfortunately, appointing individuals like Malone, Levi, Kulldorff, and Pebsworth doesn’t do this. People who have promoted disinformation and conspiracy theories tip the scale not toward balance, but toward erosion of public health integrity.

So where do we go from here?

I’m not going to sugarcoat it, this is one of the most reckless moves we’ve seen in public health in years. It’s a gut punch to the trust we’ve built in vaccine safety and access. But it’s not the end of the story.

Here’s how we keep moving forward:

• Stay informed without spiraling. Ask questions, but avoid getting stuck in “what ifs” that haven’t happened yet.

• Stick to the current schedule. Nothing has changed. Your child’s routine vaccines are still recommended and available.

• Download the current CDC vaccine schedule. This is useful in case anything changes in terms of recommendations that aren’t evidence-based.

• Don’t rush vaccines early unless your provider says it’s needed. For example, an early MMR shot for travel or exposure risk.

• Keep using credible sources. Misinformation thrives in uncertainty. Stick to evidence-based updates from trusted medical voices.

• Keep talking with your pediatrician. Your child’s doctor knows your family best and can help you navigate any concerns.

• Keep an eye on the June 25 panel. With the first meeting with the new group just two weeks away, I’m skeptical, but I'm waiting to see what happens.

• Stay engaged. Push for transparency and accountability. Science works best when it’s in the open, not behind closed doors. Call your legislators, senators, and representatives (using the script below) and urge them to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accountable for his dangerous overreach, both now and since he assumed this position. If he cannot uphold evidence-based leadership, it’s time for him to resign.

Final thoughts: stay grounded and stay informed

It’s okay to feel outraged. What builds trust in vaccines isn’t just the shots themselves, but also the knowledge that the process behind them is science-based and transparent. When that process is hijacked, everyone feels it.

But let’s hold both truths:

• This moment is unsettling and infuriating.

• The science behind vaccines remains rock solid, and the immunization schedule hasn’t changed.

If you want a reliable reference for what’s currently recommended, you can download the PedsDocTalk Childhood Vaccine Guide to keep on hand. It’s an easy way to stay grounded in facts, even as the headlines shift. I will be updating this document this summer to continue to provide this free and thorough resource for all parents, especially in this extremely volatile public health climate. 

So we’ll keep watching, keep calling out misinformation, and keep fighting for evidence-based care that keeps your kids safe, no matter who tries to stand in the way.

Because your family deserves nothing less.

Ask Dr. Mona

An opportunity for YOU to ask Dr. Mona your parenting questions!

Dr. Mona will answer these questions in a future Sunday Morning Q&A email. Chances are if you have a parenting concern or question, another parent can relate. So let's figure this out together!