Robert F. Kennedy fires entire US vaccine panel, citing conflicts of interest
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday announced he was dismissing all current members of a key federal vaccine advisory panel, accusing them of conflicts of interest -- his latest salvo against the nation's immunization policies.
The removal of all 17 experts of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was revealed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and an official press release.
Kennedy, who has spent two decades promoting vaccine misinformation, cast the move as essential to restoring public trust, claiming the committee had been compromised by financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.
"Today we are prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda," he said in a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services.
"The public must know that unbiased science -- evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest - guides the recommendations of our health agencies."
In his op-ed, Kennedy claimed the panel was "plagued with persistent conflicts of interest" and had become "little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine."
He added that new members were being considered to replace those ousted -- all of whom were appointed under former president Joe Biden.
ACIP members are chosen for their recognized expertise and are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
"RFK Jr. and the Trump administration are taking a wrecking ball to the programs that keep Americans safe and healthy," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in response.
"Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion," Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor who expressed concern about Kennedy's track record during his Senate nomination but ultimately voted in his favor, wrote on X.
"I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case."
'Silencing expertise'
The decision drew sharp criticism from Paul Offit, a pediatrician and leading expert on virology and immunology who served on the panel from 1998 to 2003.
"He believes that anybody who speaks well of vaccines, or recommends vaccines, must be deeply in the pocket of industry," Offit told AFP. "He's fixing a problem that doesn't exist."
"We are witnessing an escalating effort by the Administration to silence independent medical expertise and stoke distrust in lifesaving vaccines," added Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in a statement.
Once a celebrated environmental lawyer, Kennedy pivoted from the mid-2000s to public health -- chairing a nonprofit that discouraged routine childhood immunizations and amplified false claims, including the long-debunked theory that the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism.
Since taking office, he has curtailed access to Covid-19 shots and continued to raise fears around the MMR vaccine -- even as the United States faces its worst measles outbreak in years, with three reported deaths and more than 1,100 confirmed cases.
Experts warn the true case count is likely far higher.
"How can this country have confidence that the people RFK Jr. wants on the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices are people we can trust?" Offit asked.
He recalled that during US President Donald Trump 's first term, several states formed independent vaccine advisory panels after the administration pressured federal health agencies to prematurely approve Covid-19 vaccines ahead of the 2020 election.
That kind of fragmentation, Offit warned, could happen again.
ACIP is scheduled to hold its next meeting at the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta from June 25 to June 27.
Vaccines for anthrax, Covid-19, human papillomavirus, influenza, Lyme disease, respiratory syncytial virus, and more are on the agenda.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
9 hours ago
- France 24
Democrats assail 'erratic' Trump over Iran strikes
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives argued that US intelligence had not shown an imminent threat from the Middle Eastern country that justified Trump's unilateral action. "President Trump's actions in bombing Iran puts the US on the brink of a wider war in the Middle East, all without constitutionally required Congressional approval," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said in a statement. Democrats were divided between those demanding a vote on a war powers resolution to constrain Trump's authority to launch further action and a smaller group, who maintained that the strikes were grounds for the Republican leader's impeachment. They included Illinois moderate Sean Casten and New York leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who accused the president of having "impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respectively, said Trump had "dramatically increased" America's risk of becoming embroiled in a new Middle Eastern conflagration. "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy," Schumer said. The Democrats have foreign policy hawks in their ranks and many were quick to point to the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose --- while still upbraiding Trump for acting without consulting lawmakers. "The Constitution makes clear that the power to authorize war lies with Congress... The American people deserve more than vague rhetoric and unilateral decisions that could set off a wider war," said Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. The loudest Democratic voice in support of the strikes was staunchly pro-Israel Senator John Fetterman, who singled out Trump for praise -- something even party colleagues who support the strikes have avoided. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by (Trump)," the Pennsylvania centrist posted on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities." Republicans have been lining up since the strikes to praise Trump and endorse his decision to hit three Iranian nuclear facilities -- with little dissent among the ranks. But Kentucky conservative Thomas Massie accused Trump of escalating the conflict between Israel and Iran. "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war," said Massie, who introduced a bipartisan resolution earlier this month to require any military action to be approved by lawmakers. "I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war... so they can make war."
France 24
16 hours ago
- France 24
US bombs Iran: what will happen now?
07:38 22/06/2025 Iran says that the US and Israel crossed a 'big red line' Middle East 22/06/2025 Will Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran divide the Republican party? Middle East 22/06/2025 Are Israelis united behind Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the war on Iran? Middle East 22/06/2025 The US inserts itself into Israel-Iran war and strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites Middle East 22/06/2025 Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran puts US military in the region at risk Middle East 22/06/2025 Iranian FM says US 'responsible for the consequences of its act of aggression' Middle East 22/06/2025 Extremist ministers in Israeli cabinet block foreign media from sites hit by Iranian missiles Middle East 22/06/2025 Is Donald Trump right to believe that Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'completely obliterated'? Middle East 22/06/2025 Why did Donald Trump insert the US in Israel's war with Iran? Middle East
LeMonde
18 hours ago
- LeMonde
The Middle East subjected to the primacy of force
When it comes to the Middle East, History is replete with premature victory announcements. This reminder is necessary after Donald Trump claimed a "spectacular military success" just moments after the United States bombed the three main Iranian nuclear sites on the night of Saturday, June 21. Yet just 10 days earlier, the US president had been advocating for diplomacy to halt Iran's unacceptable and dangerous nuclear program, which the regime in power started decades ago. This about-face can be explained by an unexpected reversal in the balance of power between the US and Israel, its ally. Trump, after being confronted with a fait accompli by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who chose to go to war against Iran on June 13, resigned himself to following suit, lending Washington's firepower to Israel, notably with bunker-buster bombs, which only the US possesses. The situation is unprecedented. The Middle East now finds itself in the grasp of an Israeli-American duopoly, which is, in reality, based on Israel's military hegemony. The brutality of this reversal is as questionable as its long-term effectiveness. After the attack, Trump issued a warning to Tehran: "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days." The Iranian regime, which survives by repressing its own people, is weaker and more isolated than ever, still has real disruptive capabilities. As a result, the US wanted to warn it against conducting any retaliation targeting the many American interests in the region. Such reprisals would drag the region into a devastating spiral of escalation. Yet that is not the only option available to Tehran. 'Unconditional surrender' As Trump himself acknowledged, the American bombings are, by nature, not likely to put a definitive end to Iran's nuclear ambitions, even if those goals have likely been severely degraded. To achieve a total and lasting halt to Iran's nuclear program, the American president has just deprived himself of a tool – diplomacy – that had proven effective with the previous Iran nuclear deal, concluded between several countries in 2015. Today, who could believe that the Iranian regime would still be willing to engage in talks with the US? The Americans had already broken their word in 2018, by withdrawing, at Trump's initiative, from the treaty they had signed three years earlier. Recently, American officials claimed to want to negotiate, all while they gave the green light to Israel for its campaign of strikes and assassinations targeting senior regime officials. What would Washington do if Tehran decided to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory, unlike Israel, an unofficial nuclear power? That would deprive the International Atomic Energy Agency of access to Iran, access that it has always had to win through great struggle, and which remains essential. Would the US bomb Iran again? Seek to topple a regime that is, undeniably and justly, despised, despite the risk of pushing Iran to implode, a risk that has, in the past, been tragically confirmed by the situations of many other countries in the region? A few days earlier, in a message published on his social media platform, the US president gave his definition of peace: "unconditional surrender." The American bombings, a culmination of the law of the jungle and the primacy of brute force in the stead of international law, now seen as a relic of the past, have darkened the horizon, rather than cleared it.
