
US medical groups fill gap with own vaccine guides amid ‘information crisis'
But Robert F Kennedy Jr, the HHS secretary, has not adopted two other votes from the advisory meeting: recommending annual flu vaccines for everyone over the age of six months and RSV shots for infants.
As science becomes increasingly politicized and federal officials change policies on vaccination, sometimes reportedly over the advice of their own scientists, independent scientific groups are now stepping into the gap for evidence-based recommendations.
Medical groups now plan to issue vaccine recommendations in the wake of changes to routine vaccine guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Recommendations like these may help the public – and health insurance companies – understand which shots should be part of the routine schedule, and why.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) announced this month that it will release new guidance for Covid, flu and RSV vaccination during pregnancy. The guidance will appear at the end of the summer, before the winter respiratory season.
Five other scientific groups – the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians – also plan to release vaccine guidance.
The news comes amid growing changes to how vaccines are recommended by US officials.
Kennedy and other officials have also announced new restrictions on Covid vaccines, and Kennedy framed vaccination with the measles, mumps, and rubella shot as a 'personal' choice during the worst US measles outbreak in three decades.
A new endeavor, the Vaccine Integrity Project, is now conducting a wide-ranging review of scientific studies on vaccines, due to wrap up in the next two to three weeks.
The volunteer-driven vaccine project is analyzing 16,400 publications on flu, Covid and RSV vaccines.
The scientific groups will then draw upon that review to issue guidance for the populations they serve, including children, high-risk people, pregnant people and healthy adults.
'We're not making recommendations ourselves. We're just providing them with the information,' said Michael Osterholm, the epidemiologist heading the project at the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (Cidrap).
It is an effort to take up the work done by the CDC's independent advisory group, the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), since 1964.
'For the past five-plus decades, we have looked at the CDC as the authoritative source for guidance and information related to vaccines,' said Scott Rivkees, associate dean for education in the Brown University School of Public Health and former surgeon general of Florida.
Now, 'the medical community very much disagrees with' the current approach from health agencies, he said, and it is quickly pivoting from relying on CDC recommendations to collaborating on their own.
Americans are facing an 'information crisis' as official guidance falters, Osterholm said. 'The CDC science has been corrupted'.
Changing official health guidance 'results in total confusion', Rivkees said. 'Who do you listen to? It really puts parents and families in an incredibly difficult situation.'
Parents 'have more questions now than before. We see more vaccine hesitancy than before. We see more vaccine refusal than before,' Rivkees continued.
'These changes that are happening now are the result of politics, not related to science.'
Organizations like the Vaccine Integrity Project and its collaboration with medical groups will be vital to 'preserve what we know works' when it comes to protecting people from infectious diseases and other health issues, said Rivkees.
The scientific groups already have expertise – and trust – in these areas, he said. Working together will help them make evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations.
Kennedy announced in May that the CDC would no longer recommend Covid vaccines during pregnancy, despite strong and consistent evidence that the vaccines are safe in pregnancy and that pregnancy is a major risk factor for severe illness and death from Covid.
'Immunization is especially important during pregnancy, when the risks of severe outcomes are heightened – and when vaccines can provide critical protection to the infant after birth,' Sandra E Brooks, CEO of ACOG, said in a statement.
The CDC also changed the pediatric Covid recommendation from 'should' to 'may' and FDA officials put greater restrictions on who may receive Covid boosters.
Yet Covid remains a major threat.
'This year, the number of hospitalizations, serious illnesses and deaths in kids from Covid exceeded that of influenza, and this was one of the worst influenza years in a decade,' Osterholm said.
Flu and RSV also pose major risks, and without recommendations from the CDC for annual boosters, those vaccines and preventives could face an uncertain future.
The respiratory vaccine guidance is only the beginning, Osterholm said. 'This was just the first effort, because it was the most immediate need right now.'
After this, the organization will focus on data for other routine vaccinations.
'The thought that we now have to care for more children with measles, more children with whooping cough than before, is really very unfortunate,' Rivkees said.
'I'm very afraid that this country is moving to a situation where some elements within our nation are going to accept children dying of measles, children dying of whooping cough, teenagers dying of meningitis, not getting vaccinated as the new normal. And the thought that we are going to now be able to think that this is acceptable is frankly terrifying.'
Outside guidance will help parents and providers navigate the evidence on vaccines, Rivkees said – and it may help insurers decide which vaccines to cover.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover vaccines recommended by ACIP.
'As ACIP makes changes to recommendations, then the question comes, are these vaccines going to continue to be covered or not? Whereas before insurance may pay for certain vaccines, maybe they won't in the future, which means families will have to pay out of pocket,' Rivkees said.
Decreases in vaccination could mean manufacturers make fewer vaccines or pull out of the market entirely. 'The other thing that we're also very worried about is what's going to happen to the vaccine supply,' Rivkees said.
Vaccines help insurers save money by preventing illness, Osterholm said. 'But they've got to have a basis for making the decision that 'we will support this,' and that's what we're trying to provide.'
The outside recommendations are meant as a stopgap measure, Osterholm says.
'We need our old ACIP back. We need to have the kind of scientific expertise, based on the expertise in the community, to ensure the vaccine enterprise is healthy and exists,' Osterholm said.
'We're not, as the Vaccine Integrity Project, hoping that we exist for very long. We'd love to see us go away because of the return of ACIP and CDC leadership,' he added.
But, he said, 'we know that that's not going to happen, at least for the next few years'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
I have 'Ozempic penis'. It's a new side effect that men aren't even telling their doctors... but their wives are all discussing it online!
It's the miracle drug known to curb appetite, stimulate weight loss and even help kick unhealthy addictions like smoking. But some men have claimed that taking 'GLP-1' injections, more commonly known by brand names including Ozempic and Wegovy, have brought on another surprising - and welcomed - side effect.


BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Could RFK Jr's move to pull mRNA vaccine funding be a huge miscalculation?
mRNA vaccines were heralded as a medical marvel that saved lives during the Covid pandemic, but now the US is pulling back from researching them. US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has cancelled 22 projects - worth $500m (£376m) in funding – for tackling infections such as Covid and flu. So does Kennedy - probably the country's most famous vaccine sceptic – have a point, or is he making a monumental miscalculation? Prof Adam Finn, vaccine researcher at the University of Bristol, says "it's a bit of both" but ditching mRNA technology is "stupid" and potentially a "catastrophic error". Let's unpick why. Kennedy says he has reviewed the science on mRNA vaccines, concluding that the "data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu". Instead, he says, he would shift funding to "safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate". So are mRNA vaccines safe? Are they effective? Would other vaccine technologies be better? And another question is where should mRNA vaccines fit into the pantheon of other vaccine technologies - because there are many: Inactivated vaccines use the original virus or bacterium, kill it, and use that to train the immune system - such as the annual flu shot Attenuated vaccines do not kill the infectious agent, but make it weaker so it causes a mild infection - such as the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine Conjugate vaccines use bits of protein or sugar from a bug, so it triggers an immune response without causing an infection - like for types of meningitis mRNA vaccines use a fragment of genetic code that temporarily instructs the body to make parts of a virus, and the immune system reacts to that Each has advantages and disadvantages, but Prof Finn argues we "overhyped" mRNA vaccines during the pandemic to the exclusion of other approaches, and now there is a process of adjusting. "But to swing the pendulum so far that mRNA is useless and has no value and should not be developed or understood better is equally stupid, it did do remarkable things," he says.


The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why walking further and faster could cut your risk of heart attack and stroke
Walking further and faster could reduce the risk of heart attacks by almost a fifth – even if you don't reach the recommended target of 10,000 steps a day, a study has found. Analysis of more than 36,000 people with high blood pressure revealed walking more reduces the risk of major problems in the heart and blood vessels. The study published in the European Journal of Preventative Cardiology found that compared to a daily step count of 2,300 steps, every extra 1,000 steps was linked to a 17 per cent reduction in the risk of cardiovascular problems. This was the case up to a step count of 10,000 – walking more than this was associated with a lower risk of stroke. It's estimated that just over a quarter adults in the UK, around 14.4 million people, have high blood pressure, according to the British Heart Foundation. It increases the risk of heart disease, heart attacks, strokes and heart failure, according to the NHS. However, study authors say until now it has been unclear how much people with high blood pressure need to increase their physical activity to see a reduction in these risks. Professor Emmanuel Stamatakis, at the University of Sydney, Australia, who supervised the study, said: 'We found that, if you live with high blood pressure, the more you walk with greater intensity, the lower your risk for future serious cardiovascular events. 'These findings support the message that any amount of physical activity is beneficial, even below the widely recommended daily target of 10,000 steps.' Researchers analysed data from 32,192 people with high blood pressure who were part of the UK Biobank study – a cohort study of 500,000 people that collected data on diet, lifestyle, biomarkers, and health. As part of the study these participants agreed to wear an accelerometer on their wrist for seven consecutive days to measure how far and how fast they walked. The participants were followed up for eight years and during this time there were 1,935 cases of heart problems of stroke. After analysing this data researchers discovered for every 1,000 steps a day there was a 17 per cent reduction in overall risk, 22 per cent reduction in heart failure, 9 per cent reduction in risk of heart attack, and 24 per cent reduction in risk of stroke. Researchers also tracked how fast participants walked a day and recorded their fastest 30 minutes at an average of 80 steps a minute which was associated with a 30 per cent reduced risk of heart problems. However, it's not just people with high blood pressure that could benefit. Researchers also found similar results when they looked at 37,350 people without high blood pressure. Every 1,000-step increase in daily step count led to an average lower risk of overall heart problems (20.2 per cent), heart failure (23.2 per cent), myocardial infarctions (17.9 per cent) and stroke (24.6 per cent). Professor Stamatakis said: 'Clinicians should promote physical activity as standard care, especially in patients with high blood pressure. Our results can inform new, tailored public health recommendations for these patients.'