RFK Jr. Just Fired All Members of a CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee

Why this decision may prove to be extremely costly

On June 9, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made headlines by firing all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he claimed the committee was plagued with conflicts of interest, had never voted against a vaccine, and failed to adequately scrutinize vaccines for babies and pregnant women. While the move was framed as a bold reform to restore public trust, a closer look reveals that these claims are misleading, factually inaccurate, and dangerously oversimplified.

First, let’s address the claim of “persistent conflicts of interest.” ACIP members are subject to strict federal ethics rules. They are required to publicly disclose financial ties, and those with significant conflicts are recused from voting on relevant issues. In fact, government watchdogs and independent reviews, including a detailed investigation by Science magazine, found no systemic evidence of improper influence by pharmaceutical companies. The suggestion that ACIP members are just industry shills is a tired trope of anti-vaccine rhetoric, not a conclusion supported by data.

Second, RFK Jr. claimed that ACIP has never voted against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety concerns. This is demonstrably false. In 1999, for example, ACIP voted to remove the original RotaShield vaccine (a rotavirus vaccine) from the childhood schedule after it was linked to intussusception, a serious bowel obstruction in infants. That decision was made swiftly, less than a year after the vaccine’s approval. Similarly, the ACIP voted to suspend the use of a nasal influenza vaccine called FluMist during the 2016-2017 influenza season due to concerns about poor effectiveness. ACIP has also reversed or revised guidance in response to evolving safety data, such as temporarily suspending recommendations for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 due to rare clotting events and adjusting dosing schedules for HPV vaccines based on long-term efficacy data. These examples reflect a process that is responsive, cautious, and evidence-based—not rubber-stamped or automatic.

RFK Jr. also alleged that ACIP failed to adequately scrutinize vaccines for pregnant women and infants. Yet the process for evaluating these recommendations involves more than just ACIP. It includes reviews by the FDA, post-marketing surveillance through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and other independent monitoring bodies. Recommendations for pregnant individuals—such as for the flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccines—were made after extensive safety evaluations, with numerous studies demonstrating reduced risks of maternal and infant illness. In contrast to Kennedy’s implication, these are among the most studied and carefully monitored populations in vaccine science.

What’s especially concerning is that Kennedy made sweeping policy changes—such as ending the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women and healthy children—without input from ACIP or the usual transparent deliberation process. This sudden decision even led to the resignation of Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, a senior CDC vaccine official who cited irreconcilable concerns over abandoning evidence-based practices. The American Medical Association has criticized the dismissal of ACIP as reckless and politically motivated.

ACIP’s role is not to promote vaccines at all costs, but to weigh their risks and benefits for the public in a transparent and accountable manner. It is composed of independent experts from pediatrics, internal medicine, epidemiology, and public health, many of whom are unpaid or minimally compensated for their time. Meetings are open to the public, minutes are published, and conflicts are disclosed. If anything, it’s one of the more transparent and deliberative bodies in U.S. healthcare.

RFK Jr.’s decision to dismantle ACIP on the basis of misinformation undermines public health and replaces science with spectacle. If we want to build trust in vaccines, the answer isn’t to gut the expert committee tasked with ensuring their safety—it’s to support their independence, demand transparency, and correct misinformation when it arises.

In short, ACIP isn’t perfect, but the evidence shows it acts when safety concerns emerge and updates recommendations as new data become available. To claim otherwise is not just misleading—it’s dangerous.

---

Although not required, any support is greatly appreciated.