The recent changes to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have sparked significant controversy. On June 9, the health secretary dismissed all 17 members of the committee and appointed eight new ones. This move raised eyebrows, especially since one of the new appointees withdrew just hours before the first meeting.
At the meeting, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the newly appointed chair, revealed that he had lost his position as a Harvard professor for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine. He announced that the committee would form working groups to review vaccination schedules for children and examine vaccines that have been approved for seven years or more. Notably, he mentioned a reconsideration of the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, which is generally recognized as safe and effective.
Bill Hanage, an epidemiology professor at Harvard, expressed concern over the decision to review older vaccines. He questioned the rationale behind suggesting that the approval process for these vaccines might have been flawed. The committee was initially set to vote on recommendations for a vaccine against RSV, a virus that poses risks to infants, but that discussion has been postponed.
Another topic on the agenda is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that has not been used in most vaccines for years. Lyn Redwood, a former leader of an anti-vaccine group, is scheduled to present on this topic. Despite her new role in the CDC’s vaccine safety office, her involvement has raised eyebrows among experts.
Dr. Paul Offit, a former ACIP member, criticized the new appointments, suggesting they reflect an anti-vaccine bias. He noted that previous committee members had extensive vaccine expertise and rigorously evaluated recommendations. In contrast, the current group appears to lack that depth of experience.
Compounding the situation, Dr. Michael Ross, one of the new members, withdrew from the panel ahead of a financial review. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician, has also voiced his concerns about the new committee. He questioned the small size of the group and the absence of a CDC director to oversee their recommendations. Cassidy pointed out that while the appointees have scientific backgrounds, many lack significant experience in key areas like microbiology and immunology, particularly regarding new technologies like mRNA vaccines.
As this situation unfolds, the future of vaccine recommendations and public health policy remains uncertain, raising important questions about the direction of the ACIP under its new leadership.