The Government Has Set up a New Vaccine Advisory Group and I’m Concerned About What They Might Do Next Week
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to have a vaccine advisory panel made up of respected experts. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP), met to vote on which vaccines the government should recommend. A positive ACIP vote meant that insurance companies would cover the vaccine. But the panel’s members were abruptly fired earlier this month, and their replacements are now scheduled to meet June 25 with scheduled votes on RSV, flu shots and, somewhat puzzlingly, thimerosal.
I’ll break down what all this means, why it’s likely very bad news, and what to expect when the group meets next week. And by the way, if you were planning on getting any vaccinations, I’d recommend getting them as soon as possible while we know they’re still protected, because you never know what’s going to happen.
What is (or was) ACIP?
ACIP is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It’s a group that the CDC convenes from time to time to decide whether to “recommend” certain vaccines. This isn’t the same as FDA approval — that’s handled by the Food and Drug Administration. Rather, it’s a decision about which vaccines people should get. For example, the flu shot is recommended for almost everyone ages 6 months and up.
It was ACIP that made the decision that health care workers should be the first to receive COVID vaccines. It is ACIP that schedules various vaccines for children . Vaccines recommended by ACIP are required by law to be covered by almost all insurance plans, with no copays or additional costs for the people for whom they are recommended.
Previously, ACIP members included experts in vaccinology, pediatrics, immunology, epidemiology, and public health. There was an extensive screening process for new members that included a conflict of interest check, and any members who had a conflict related to a particular vote were not allowed to vote.
I’ve watched quite a few ACIP meetings (they’re always livestreamed) to talk about COVID vaccines and others. The meetings and participants were always professional, focused on the facts, and making good judgments that took into account the big picture implications of any decisions they ultimately made. ACIP was highly respected among health care professionals and researchers. That doesn’t mean everyone always agreed with their decisions, but it was widely viewed as a well-functioning system that resulted in millions of Americans getting access to the vaccines they needed.
Notice how I use the past tense.
What the hell is going on with ACIP now?
That may all be history. Current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. founded an anti-vaccine advocacy group before becoming secretary of health and human services. He said at his confirmation hearings that he had no plans to take vaccines away from anyone , and has occasionally grudgingly acknowledged that vaccines work — usually while spreading or hinting at misinformation about vaccines.
But Kennedy and other political appointees who control the health branches of government certainly appear to be trying to limit access to vaccines. Kennedy tried to dismantle the ACIP on COVID vaccines , and now appears to be taking that strategy a step further by simply getting rid of all 17 ACIP members and filling the commission with eight hand-picked replacements. The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota has background information on the new nominees , some of whom already have reputations as “vaccine critics,” to use CIDRAP’s language.
Voting on several vaccines is coming soon
ACIP meetings are announced to the public, and you can see the agenda for the next meeting here . It’s a two-day meeting on June 25 and 26, 2025. Some of the agenda items look fairly typical, such as presentations that provide updates on the current COVID situation to better inform any decisions that may be made later regarding new COVID vaccines.
But there are a few confusing points to note. There is no vote on COVID vaccines after the COVID presentations. The Associated Press reports that several other expected agenda items are missing — proposals on HPV and meningococcal vaccine policies are also not on the agenda.
The planned votes concern maternal and child respiratory syncytial virus vaccines; respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and the Vaccines for Children program; influenza vaccines (i.e., flu shots); and “Recommendations for influenza vaccines containing thimerosal.”
RSV is a virus that can be especially dangerous to infants. There is a vaccine that can be given during pregnancy that protects the baby for several months after birth, and an antibody that can be given to infants. These are currently recommended by ACIP and are covered by insurance and the Vaccines for Children program. We don’t know from the agenda what exactly is being voted on, or whether the panel might try to overturn the recommendation.
Flu vaccines are also currently recommended, and voting on a flu vaccine seems to be a routine part of the ACIP agenda (it was on the agenda for last year’s June meeting , for example). Typically, decisions revolve around which flu shots to recommend, since the vaccines offered can change from year to year. Hopefully, this year’s vote will be as simple.
Finally, there’s that puzzling vote about thimerosal in flu vaccines. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that has been linked (without any hard evidence) to autism. Out of caution, it was removed from most vaccine formulas in 2001. Some vials of multidose vaccine still contain it, including the flu vaccine, which is also available in a single-dose version without the preservative. Study after study has shown that thimerosal is not linked to autism or neuropsychological problems. Scientists generally consider the case closed.
We can hope that the vote will be conducted properly and in line with the actual science surrounding these vaccines. But given that this meeting follows a questionable shakeup in ACIP’s membership, I’m not very hopeful.