RFK Jr. taps allies and COVID vaccine critics among picks for CDC advisory panel. Here's who's on the list.
Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday he's naming eight new advisers to serve on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine recommendations committee, after firing the committee's entire previous roster of 17 advisers.
"All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense. They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations," Kennedy said Wednesday in a post on X.
Kennedy's picks circumvented the usual CDC process for selecting members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. In previous administrations, career agency officials — not political leaders — vetted potential experts before forwarding them to the department for the secretary's approval.
The panel's influential recommendations are closely watched because they are directly tied to federal policies, like which vaccines insurers are required to cover.
The picks announced by Kennedy include some close allies of the secretary and his inner circle. One of them, Dr. Robert Malone, worked on early research related to mRNA vaccine technology but was accused during the COVID-19 pandemic of spreading misinformation about the mRNA vaccines. He was with Kennedy and President Trump at the Trump election night celebration in Florida.
"On the basis of data from all over the world, approximately three years ago it was my impression that the risk/benefit ratio of these products did not merit continued use in any cohort," Malone posted last month on his Substack about the mRNA COVID vaccines.
Like Kennedy, Malone has questioned the benefits of measles vaccines during the recent record outbreak in Texas, which killed two children, and he has promoted unproven treatments for the virus.
Another member picked by Kennedy is Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist who co-authored the pandemic-era Great Barrington Declaration criticizing COVID-19 restrictions, along with now-NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya has described Kulldorff as a close friend.
Kulldorff previously worked with the CDC's outside vaccine advisers, before authoring an opinion piece in 2021 criticizing the agency's decision to pause use of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine over safety concerns.
He claimed he was fired from working with the committee over the opinion piece. Kulldorff later claimed he was fired from Harvard University for criticizing COVID-19 vaccine requirements.
Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrics professor who previously served as a member of the Food and Drug Administration's own vaccines panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – was also named to the committee.
Meissner opposed COVID-19 vaccine requirements for children. He also co-authored an opinion piece with now-FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary speaking out against masking of children during the pandemic.
Another former member of the FDA vaccines panel who was picked by Kennedy is Vicky Pebsworth, a regional director of the National Association of Catholic Nurses.
Pebsworth spoke at a 2020 meeting of the FDA vaccines committee, where she identified herself as the research director for the National Vaccine Information Center and "mother of a child injured by his 15-month well-baby shots in 1998." She said the center's position was that any "coercion and sanctions to persuade adults to take an experimental vaccine, or give it to their children, is unethical and unlawful."
Kennedy also praised another pick, MIT professor Retsef Levi, saying: "Dr. Levi has collaborated with public health agencies to evaluate vaccine safety, including co-authoring studies on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and their association with cardiovascular risks."
Levi previously called for more detailed data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials, suggesting that changes to how Pfizer's shot was produced may have caused side effects.
But Levi faced criticism for a paper co-authored with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, which was cited in the state's move to recommend that young men not get mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Experts condemned the paper for misleading methods that could inflate the risk.
The views on vaccines of several of Kennedy's other picks are less clear.
Kennedy said Dr. Michael A. Ross "contributed to national strategies for cancer prevention and early detection, including those involving HPV immunization," working with the CDC's breast and cervical cancer committee.
Ross is described by Kennedy as an obstetrics and gynecology professor at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, though his name does not appear on directories for either university. Spokespeople for the two institutions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dr. James Pagano, described by Kennedy as a "strong advocate for evidence-based medicine," appears to have published little about vaccines or medicine. Records from the Medical Board of California list Pagano as being retired.
Another Kennedy pick, Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, retired from the National Institutes of Health in 2020. His research portfolio previously covered nutritional intake of fatty acids like omega-3. Kennedy described him as bringing "expertise in immune-related outcomes, psychiatric conditions, and evidence-based public health strategies."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Judge promises quick ruling over Trump's use of National Guard in Los Angeles
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge said Thursday that he plans to rule quickly on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles against the governor's wishes. 'This country was founded in response to a monarch, and the Constitution is a document of limitations. I'm trying to figure out where the lines are drawn,' U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said before a packed courtroom.
Fast Company
16 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Health is not a matter of instant gratification
In a time where almost anything you could want is just a tap away—AI-powered answers in seconds, groceries delivered within the hour, endless content streamed instantly, and real-time validation through likes and shares—it's no surprise that we've come to expect that same level of immediacy from our health. GLP-1 drugs promise rapid weight loss. Telemedicine provides patient care from the comfort of your own couch. At-home diagnostic tests deliver near-instant health insights. Social media and on-demand culture have rewired our brains to crave this kind of instant gratification, trapping many of us in a dopamine loop—that endless cycle of seeking out short-term rewards at the expense of long-term well-being. The consequences of this mindset are much deeper than we realize. In fact, the ripple effect is reshaping how we view our bodies, our health, and what it means to feel good. And it's taking a toll on our physical and mental health. The health and wellness industry, which should be offering a counterpoint to this culture, has too often played into it, promising overnight results, quick fixes, and immediate transformations. The truth is, our bodies don't operate on the same timeline as our screens. The disconnect between instant gratification and whole-body health Biological transformation is a slow and intuitive process, one that unfolds over months and years, not overnight. Yet we've been conditioned to feel like we're failing if we don't see instant results. This gap has real consequences: People abandon solutions that could meaningfully improve their health simply because they haven't delivered fast enough. In the chasing of short-term wins, we're ignoring the foundational systems that fuel long-term well-being: our stress response, hormone health, gut microbiome, and the delicate balance of nutrients that power our bodies. The rise of quick-fix wellness has only reinforced this cycle. The common thread? They all offer a dopamine hit—a fleeting sense of progress—without addressing the root causes of why we don't feel good in the first place. The problem is, quick wins rarely translate to lasting health. When we expect instant results from our bodies, we're setting ourselves up for disappointment, and that disappointment breeds distrust. We start to believe that our bodies are failing us, when in reality, it's our expectations that need recalibrating. What's more concerning is that this mindset is compounding the very issues we're trying to solve. Stress, fatigue, thinning hair, breakouts, brain fog—these are all signals that our bodies are out of balance, not problems to be hacked. But in the dopamine loop, we treat the symptoms, not the root causes. So the cycle continues. A new mindset: Longevity over quick fixes The most profound health transformations happen when we work with our bodies, not against them. This requires a radical mindset shift—one that prioritizes optimization over instant gratification and rewires the way we measure progress. What if the question wasn't 'How quickly will this work?' but instead 'How will this support the future version of me?' This is the mindset of whole-body longevity—the belief that how we feel today is deeply connected to how we'll feel five, 10, or 20 years from now. It's about setting your body up to not just feel good right now, but to stay strong and thrive for the long haul. As an industry, we have a responsibility to lead this shift. That means telling the truth about what it really takes to transform your health—that lasting change happens over months, not days. It means designing products that address the root causes of how people feel, not just surface-level symptoms. And it means empowering people to celebrate progress, not perfection, and to understand that feeling better is a journey, not a destination. The future of health is whole-body True wellbeing doesn't come from quick fixes; it comes from lasting habits. While treatments and medications can offer short-term relief, sustainable transformation requires a deeper, long-term commitment to how we live every day. Whole foods, regular movement, quality sleep, stress management, and mindful choices like reducing alcohol—these aren't trends; they're the foundation for clarity, resilience, and longevity. When these habits are supported by science-backed clinical tools, they create the conditions for real, lasting change. Health becomes something we cultivate, not hack. Imagine if we shifted the focus from fast results to long-term vitality. If success was defined not by how quickly we feel better, but by how well we're preparing our bodies and minds to thrive for decades to come. This is the future of health: slow, intentional, science-driven, and whole-body, because no part of us functions in isolation. As leaders, aligning with this vision means building not just better businesses, but a healthier world.
Associated Press
16 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Most US adults say Trump's military parade is not a good use of money, a new AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Washington prepares for a military parade this weekend to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, a new survey finds that U.S. adults are more likely to approve than disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to hold the festivities, which officials have said will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. But about 6 in 10 Americans also say that Saturday's parade is 'not a good use' of government money, including the vast majority of people, 78%, who neither approve nor disapprove of the parade overall, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey found that about 4 in 10 U.S. adults 'somewhat' or 'strongly' approve of the parade, while about 3 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' disapprove. About 3 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove. Carol Sue Quillen, 69, of Live Oak, Florida, said she sees the parade as a way to honor the country's service members, who she said include her late father — an Air Force test pilot killed on a helicopter training mission when she was a baby — and her son-in-law, who serves in the special forces. 'I don't necessarily think we appreciate our military as much as we should,' said Quillen, a retiree who described herself as a Trump supporter — although she said the Republican president's personality 'can be a bit overwhelming.' 'All branches should be celebrated for what they do,' Quillen said. 'That just boosts morale.' Democrats and independents say parade is not good use of money Featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, the celebration on Saturday, which also happens to be Trump's birthday, has grown extensively in scope and size since Army planners started working on a festival two years ago to mark the military branch's anniversary. Besides a military parade — which Trump had unsuccessfully pushed for during his first term — there will also be concerts, fireworks, NFL players, fitness competitions and displays all over the National Mall for daylong festivities. The Army expects as many as 200,000 people could attend and says putting on the celebration will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million. Most Republicans, around two-thirds, approve of the event, and a similar share sees it as a good use of money, but about one-third say it's not a good use of government funds. Democrats overwhelmingly say the parade is not a good use of public money, as do independents. And while about half of Democrats disapprove of the parade, about half of independents neither approve nor disapprove, suggesting that they may have heard less about it or have less strong feelings about it generally. Matt Wheeler, 40, called the display 'extremely wasteful' and 'a bit of a performance' that 'just sends a bad message' in terms of the overt military display. 'The only other time I can think about this, it's been in old throwbacks to the USSR or things you see out of North Korea,' said Wheeler, who works in nonprofit fundraising in Los Angeles and described himself as a lifelong Democrat. 'It's a direction this administration is inclined to move in that isn't in line with what I thought our country really was.' Few think military spending is too low Sam Walters, 45, who works in restaurants in Fort Worth, Texas, described himself as a former conservative who now has more libertarian leanings. Walters, who voted for Trump in last year's election, said he appreciated that Trump had 'really kind of stuck to his guns' concerning many of the issues on which he campaigned, assessing his second term so far as 'a pretty good job.' But when it comes to the military parade, Walters said he was concerned about why so much additional funding was needed for military-adjacent activities, given the country's overall defense spending price tag. 'When they're getting hundreds of billions a year for funding, more than for anything else, it seems kind of hard to justify them spending extra for that,' Walters said, referencing the parade. Americans are generally divided on whether the government is devoting too much money to the military. About 3 in 10 say the government is spending 'too much' on the military, while a similar share says the government is spending 'too little.' About 4 in 10 say the government is spending 'about the right amount.' Those numbers are largely unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Trump's approval is unchanged About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, which is unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted last month. The poll was conducted June 5-9, meaning the field period began before protests started in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration crackdown and ended after the National Guard was deployed but before active-duty Marines arrived in the city. It did not include questions about the protests or military deployment. Approval of his handling of immigration, at 46%, continues to be higher than approval of his handling of the economy or trade negotiations with other countries, which both landed at 38%. Andrew Thomsen, 31, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, said that he has voted for Trump in general elections and that he would 'generally approve' of the direction in which the country is headed. Thomsen, who works in education, said that, while he appreciates any intent of the parade and associated events 'to celebrate those who have given of themselves to the service of our protection,' he wasn't a fan of attempts to show off U.S. military might. 'If it is a march of rows and rows of members from our different branches while showboating our tanks, missile systems, and other equipment to show how strong we are, then I don't support that,' he said. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___ Kinnard reported from Chapin, S.C., and can be reached at
