CDC vaccine committee meets despite bipartisan criticism
June 25 (UPI) -- A key vaccine-focused committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention met Wednesday despite bipartisan protestations and controversy that surrounds the group's membership.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, began at 10 a.m. EDT to discuss vaccination policy in regard to COVID-19 and RSV before its adjournment at 5:30 p.m. The panel will reconvene Thursday to discuss vaccines and vaccination recommendations for flu, chikungunya, anthrax, MMRV and the use of thimerosal in inoculations.
The panel had consisted of eight members, who replaced the 17 people who were terminated by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this month, but Dr. Michael Ross stepped down Tuesday night as two United States senators recently suggested the ACIP meeting be postponed.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Monday that the new members of the panel selected by Kennedy "lack experience studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines, and may even have a preconceived bias against them," and declared that Wednesday's meeting should not happen.
"The meeting should be delayed until the panel is fully staffed with more robust and balanced representation-as required by law-including those with more direct relevant expertise, Cassidy wrote. "Otherwise, ACIP's recommendations could be viewed with skepticism, which will work against the success of this administration's efforts."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., put out an X post late Tuesday that also took umbrage with the new ACIP panel.
"RFK Jr. fired all of the experts at CDC's vaccine advisory committee," Murray said. "He installed [eight] unvetted people, including anti-vaxxers who should have zero role in deciding which vaccines insurance should cover."
"The committee's next meeting must be postponed," she added.
The American Academy of Pediatrics also spoke against the ACIP meeting in an announcement on its social media platform Wednesday.
"Today's ACIP meeting is usually a time where experts come together to inform the future of vaccines," the post stated. "That is not what today will be. That is not what we can stand behind."
The AAP concluded its post by sharing that it "will continue to recommend its own childhood vaccine schedule."
Wednesday's ACIP meeting, which can be viewed online, opened with a preamble from the ACIP chair Dr. Martin Kulldorff, in which he stated that "Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine when making vaccine recommendations. And that is what we will do."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya claims the federal government recently cancelled millions of dollars' worth of mRNA research contracts because the general public does not trust the technology. Bhattacharya explained the reason behind the abrupt contract cancellations, first, during an episode of Republican political strategist Steve Bannon's podcast 'War Room' last week and again in an opinion piece recently published in The Washington Post. In the article, Bhattacharya called the mRNA platform a 'promising technology' and acknowledged that it may lead to breakthroughs in treatment for diseases like cancer. 'But as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust,' he wrote. 'No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission.' Bhattacharya's explanation for the administration's pivot away from mRNA technology differs from that of his boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy announced last week the agency would wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and cancel $500 million worth of contracts related to the technology. He said that mRNA technologies funded during the pandemic failed to meet current scientific standards and that the federal government would shift its focus to whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. Scott Hensley, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, told STAT that these are also issues with vaccines that use live but weakened viruses like the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, which federal health agencies have deemed safe and effective. 'This is why we complete human clinical studies before vaccines are widely used in humans,' he told the outlet. 'The mRNA and live attenuated vaccine platforms have both proven to be safe and effective in clinical trials.' He blamed public distrust in mRNA on the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates during the pandemic. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where the mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. 'Science isn't propaganda,' he wrote. 'It's humility. And when public health officials stopped communicating with humility, we lost much of the public, an absolute necessity for any vaccine platform.'
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
FDA considers revoking Pfizer COVID vaccine for children under 5
The Food and Drug Administration is considering revoking the authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children under 5 years old, a move that would add another barrier for parents who want to vaccinate healthy children ahead of the respiratory virus season. Pfizer's three-dose shot for children between 6 months and 5 years old has long been available under an emergency use authorization (EUA). But according to the company, the FDA is weighing ending that authorization. 'We are currently in discussions with the agency on potential paths forward and have requested that the EUA for this age group remain in place for the 2025-2026 season,' Pfizer told The Hill. 'It is important to note that these deliberations are not related to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine which continues to demonstrate a favorable profile,' the company added. Pfizer expects the FDA to approve its vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 with the same limitations as Moderna and Novavax. The FDA in July approved Moderna's shot for children 6 months and older, but only if they have a health condition that puts them at increased risk for severe COVID-19. Novavax has never been approved for children under 12. Pfizer has had full FDA approval for its COVID-19 vaccine for individuals age 12 and older since 2022. It's not unusual for the FDA to revoke emergency authorization on a product if a competitor gains approval for an alternative, and Pfizer has not yet applied for full approval of its COVID-19 vaccine for the youngest age group. All COVID-19 vaccines were initially available only under emergency use authorizations— effectively special permissions given during an emergency if there are no FDA-approved alternatives available. But given the limitation on the Moderna shots, if Pfizer's authorization is pulled, healthy children under 5 years old will have no official options if their parents want to get them vaccinated. 'Parents already were struggling. We had parents, even last year, they had to drive two to three hours to get [COVID] vaccines for their kids. So already, access was an issue. Now it's just going to be abysmal,' said Fatima Khan, co-founder of the group Protect Their Future, which advocates for vaccine access for children. 'You're abandoning children right now … this is something that's so safe and so easy for them to just administer to our kids. Why can we not get it?' Khan said. In a statement to The Hill, the Department of Health and Human Services said it wouldn't comment on potential changes. 'The COVID-19 pandemic ended with the expiration of the federal public health emergency in May 2023. We do not comment on potential, future regulatory changes. Unless officially announced by HHS, discussion about future agency action should be regarded as pure speculation,' HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said. In May, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children or pregnant women. The CDC then updated its immunization schedule to reflect that children with no underlying health condition 'may receive' COVID-19 vaccines after consulting with a health care provider. Kennedy has expressed personal antipathy towards the Moderna and Pfizer shots, calling them dangerous and unreliable. HHS also just announced it was pulling back on funding research involving the mRNA technology that was used to develop the vaccines in record time. State health officials said they have been told Moderna is ramping up supplies of its vaccine for the fall and will be able to meet demand if Pfizer's vaccine is no longer available for the youngest children. Providers who already pre-ordered Pfizer shots for the coming season will likely be able to switch to Moderna. But since the Moderna vaccine is only licensed for kids at risk of severe infection, pediatricians will have to offer them 'off label' for healthy kids with no guarantee it will be covered by insurance. 'We're hopeful that the clinical decision making allows them to request the vaccine and get it and have it covered by insurance. But it's just complicated,' said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials. 'The FDA just sort of went outside of the recommendation process in the way that it licensed the Moderna vaccine, and so there's a lot of confusion, and we're just sort of waiting for guidance from CDC on the ordering,' Hannan said. Infectious disease experts have said, and CDC data show, children under age 2 are at risk for severe COVID-19 infection even if they are otherwise healthy. Ayanna Bennett, director of the District of Columbia's Department of Health, said healthy kids should be able to live their best lives. If vaccination will keep them from getting seriously ill, it shouldn't be a question, she said. 'I want kids to not miss two weeks of school. I want kids not to be hospitalized, or in urgent care and miserable. We want them to be able to live their lives when there's no reason why they shouldn't,' Bennett told reporters during a briefing Wednesday. 'If I can prevent something, I should do it, and this is something where we absolutely have prevention available.'
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID
The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, a new study says. File Photo by Shou Sheng/EPA Do you suspect you have long COVID, but aren't sure? The answer you get will largely hinge on whom you ask, a new study says. The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, researchers reported Tuesday in JAMA Network Open. The definition of long COVID varies so widely that the percentage of people identified as having the ailment can differ dramatically, making it harder to properly diagnose and treat patients, researchers said. "The findings highlight the need for a standard definition for long COVID," lead researcher Lauren Wisk, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a news release. A number of major organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have advanced their own definitions for long COVID, but none has stuck and all feature some flaws, researchers said in background notes. For example, the National Academies' definition, released in 2024, is extremely broad and does not require lab confirmation that a person actually had an initial COVID-19 infection, researchers said. For the study, researchers applied five published long COVID definitions from previous studies to a group of more than 4,500 COVID patients being tracked as part of an ongoing research project. The prior studies took place in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Sweden and Puerto Rico. The five definitions differed by symptom duration, ranging from four weeks to six months, researchers said. The definition also varied by the number of potential symptoms, from nine to as many as 44. The percentage of patients with long COVID varied from 15% to 42%, depending on which definition had been used, results showed. These differences can lead doctors to miss legitimate long COVID cases while misdiagnosing others who actually don't have the syndrome, said senior researcher Dr. Joann Elmore, a professor at David Geffen School of Medicine. "Without a shared definition, we risk mislabeling patients and misguiding care," she said in a news release. "This is more than an academic debate -- it affects real people." These differences are also hampering medicine's ability to figure out long COVID, Wisk said. "If every study on long COVID uses a different definition for identifying who has it, the scientific conclusions become harder to compare across studies and may lead to delays in our understanding of it," she said. "In the absence of an objective measure, like a blood test, or a uniform standard for measuring long COVID, researchers and clinicians will need to decide which definition is best suited for their scientific question and be more transparent about the potential limitations of using a more versus less restrictive definition," Wisk added. More information The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on long COVID. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
