NEW YORK — All 17 experts recently dismissed from a government vaccine advisory panel have published an essay condemning recent decisions by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The dismissed panelists express concern that Kennedy’s actions could lead to a rollback of immunization achievements and increase the risk of preventable diseases.
Kennedy announced plans to retire the entire panel and quietly removed Dr. Melinda Wharton, a senior CDC official who coordinated the committee’s meetings. Following these actions, Kennedy appointed eight new members, including critics of COVID-19 vaccines, pandemic restrictions, and members associated with vaccine misinformation.
The former panelists criticized these moves, stating that they were made without clear rationale and could impact access to lifesaving vaccines. They also raised concerns about the CDC’s ability to function effectively, citing recent staff reductions and resignations of key experts.
Among notable resignations was Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, who left after 12 years at CDC, citing internal disagreements over vaccination recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women—a decision made unilaterally by Kennedy.
The upcoming meeting of the new committee is scheduled for next week, with reported agenda items including vaccination policies for flu, COVID-19, HPV, RSV, and meningococcal bacteria.
The CDC has not publicly responded to the criticism, with a spokesperson pointing to Kennedy’s previous comments criticizing the committee’s perceived closeness to vaccine manufacturers and its tendency to rubber-stamp recommendations.
Created in 1964, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) plays a crucial role in guiding vaccine policy in the U.S., influencing healthcare decisions nationwide. Despite policies requiring transparency about conflicts of interest among members, Kennedy has dismissed some of these safeguards.
This recent upheaval highlights ongoing debates about vaccine policy and the influence of various stakeholders in public health decisions. As the new panel prepares to meet, the implications for future immunization strategies remain a subject of public and professional interest.
Comments are closed