Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Health Secretary and a prominent vaccine sceptic, has dismissed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr Kennedy claimed that 'retiring' the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) was necessary to help rebuild trust in vaccines and ensure 'unbiased' health recommendations.
'The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,' he said, adding that he wanted to 'ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible'.
The move – which some committee members found out about via the media – has been widely criticised by public health experts and scientists, who point to Mr Kennedy's long track record questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines, sometimes based on dubious science.
'We have just watched politics bury science,' said Dr Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota.
'If you look at [Kennedy's] accusation that he's doing this because of growing problems with vaccine trust – well, that's kind of like an arsonist complaining that so many houses are on fire,' Dr Osterholm said. 'He's the one that's been seeding these doubts for the last decade.'
Since he became the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr Kennedy has taken a number of controversial decisions related to vaccines – including from bypassing ACIP to issue new Covid vaccine guidance, to stopping adverts for seasonal influenza shots and cancelling a $766 million contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu jab for humans.
Now, Mr Kennedy has claimed the ACIP needs a complete overhaul because members have too many conflicts of interest, and are immersed 'in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy'.
But his move appears to directly contradict promises given during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, said he only voted for the appointment after Mr Kennedy committed to maintain ACIP 'without changes'.
'Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Mr Cassidy wrote on X on Monday. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.'
In a statement, Dr Bruce A Scott, executive director of the American Public Health Association, added that Mr Kennedy's move would help drive an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, at a time when vaccine coverage is declining across America.
'Today's action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives,' Dr Scott said.
The committee is attached to the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and included 17 experts – including epidemiologists, infectious disease doctors, vaccine experts and paediatricians – who typically serve overlapping four-year terms. Eight of the members were appointed in January 2025.
But it has been in flux since Mr Kennedy assumed office, with its first meeting delayed by the department, before the Health Secretary announced new Covid-19 recommendations in a video posted on social media – unilaterally changing the guidance without an ACIP consultation.
Still, retiring all panellists – and deleting a webpage listing the members – has come as a shock to some. Dr Noel Brewer, a professor in public health at the University of North Carolina who was a member of the ACIP, told the Telegraph his removal was 'very unexpected,' given he was meant to serve for three more years.
He added that he heard about it only when 'received a copy of the Wall Street Journal article from a journalist', and later received an email confirming it at 5:48pm.
'The most immediate impact of this action is to destroy trust among healthcare providers in ACIP,' said Dr Brewer, a behavioural scientist who specialises in research about why people do or don't get vaccinated.
'The top priority right now is to restore trust in ACIP recommendations. If that is not possible, then it is time for medical organisations to create an alternative vaccine advisory committee for the nation.'
On this, there has already been some progress. Earlier this year, CIDRAP launched the Vaccine Integrity Project, which aims to facilitate conversations and offer advice about US vaccine policy – almost like a version of ACIP that's not aligned to the government.
'When I started the vaccine integrity project, there were a lot of doubters that anything of major consequence would happen… [especially after] Kennedy promised in his Senate hearings that he would not take vaccines away from anyone,' said Dr Osterholm. 'Well, look at all this change.
'We are watching the very rapid destruction of critically important vaccine evaluation oversight efforts of the US government, both at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and the CDC. These are committees that have performed marvellously well.'
He added: 'It's terribly significant. The real victims are the public, specifically young children, who are going to face a very different world of vaccine preventable diseases than even a decade ago… I don't know what happens next, but it doesn't bode well.'
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rubio congratulates Russians on Russia Day: US supports "aspirations for a brighter future"
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has congratulated Russians on Russia Day and stated that the US is seeking "constructive engagement with the Russian Federation to bring about a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine". Source: Rubio's statement on the website of the US Department of State Quote: "On behalf of the American people, I want to congratulate the Russian people on Russia Day. The United States remains committed to supporting the Russian people as they continue to build on their aspirations for a brighter future. We also take this opportunity to reaffirm the United States' desire for constructive engagement with the Russian Federation to bring about a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine. It is our hope that peace will foster more mutually beneficial relations between our countries." Background: The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported that Russian losses in the war had exceeded one million soldiers killed and wounded since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

9 minutes ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Controversial Illinois ‘sanctuary' law at center of Pritzker's testimony in Washington
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker prepares to testify before a Congressional committee on Thursday morning, he'll face questions about the state's TRUST Act. The controversial law limits the degree to which local police can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The backstory In 2017, Illinois enacted the TRUST Act under Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. The law bans local police from complying with federal requests to detain or arrest a person in the country illegally, unless ordered by a judge. Local law enforcement also cannot stop, search, or arrest anyone based solely on their immigration or citizenship status. In 2021, the state legislature passed laws expanding protections for immigrants in Illinois. Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center helped craft the bill and said the point is to keep immigration enforcement in the hands of federal agents. "State and local governments are making a decision not to participate in civil immigration enforcement," Fleming said. Fleming said that doesn't mean local law enforcement can't help out in some cases. "We're not allowed to ask where you're from. They made that part of the act," he said. The other side DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick, who recently announced a run for governor as a Republican, said the Trust Act has forced police officers to choose between conflicting sets of state and federal laws. "They've got the cops scared to death," Mendrick said. "Cops are worried that if they take action, they're gonna get sued." Mendrick believes Illinois communities would be safer if police shared immigration status of criminal suspects right away, so ICE could apprehend them while in custody – as opposed to raiding homes, schools and businesses. But Fleming says the idea is to allow residents to come out of the shadows without fear of being deported by local police. "Every study that has looked at it has uniformly found that TRUST Act doesn't diminish community safety, and that in areas like domestic violence laws like the TRUST Act enhance community safety," Fleming said. But Mendrick says he believes the TRUST Act violates federal law and is calling for the Department of Justice to investigate. "You can't shield them from detection," Mendrick said. "Giving them housing and putting 44 million into housing, sounds like shielding to me, sounds like harboring, sounds like participating." Fleming says the courts have already spoken and ruled in favor of the state's implementation of the law. "Frankly, this issue has been litigated over and over first in the first Trump administration and now in the second Trump administration," he said.