Synopsis
Robert F. Kennedy Jr , retired all sitting members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or ACIP on June 10th, 2025. The ACIP is a federal advisory board established in 1964, to provide recommendations on the use of vaccines in the US. The CDC uses this board to determine guidance for healthcare providers. Insurance companies also rely on the ACIP to determine which vaccines to include for coverage. The board normally has 15 members with expertise in various medical fields. Rules prohibit any members from being employed or involved with employees of vaccine manufacturing companies or holding a patent for a vaccine.
RFK alleged that conflicts of interests of the current board members compromised public trust. He relied on a 2000 investigation conducted by the House that, he states, reported that the conflict of interest rules were weak to non-existent. The report focuses on conflicts of interest specific to a 1997 rotavirus vaccine that was revoked after 13 months due to adverse reactions reported.
He cited a 2009 investigation done by the HHS Inspector General on all special government employees that worked on advisory committees. The report states that 97% of the conflict of interest forms had omission. This is easily refuted by the interviews from members at the time which state that nearly all issues were clerical, and only 3% of those errors were issues that should have warranted recusal.
RFK also stated that since many were nominated by Biden, late into his term, that there would not be an opportunity for Trump to nominate any until 2028. However, there was one member whose term ended in 2023, three members with terms ending in 2025, and three members with terms ending in 2027.
RFK did not provide any specific examples of how members of the ACIP had conflicts of interest. There have been no reports of any financial relationships between vaccine providers and current ACIP members. While several members had prior affiliations with manufacturers, these were disclosed, and recusals were documented in meeting minutes as required by committee policy. As an example, Yvonne Maldonado, recused herself from COVID-19 votes involving Pfizer in the June ‘24 meeting, as it overlapped with her research trials at Stafford. That relationship ceased by the October ‘24 meeting, where she discloses the connection during roll call, but continues to participate in votes on those vaccines.
Dr. Robert Malone, one of RFK’s recent appointees and notorious vaccine
skeptic, in his office. (Steve Helber/AP Photo)
RFK announced replacement members that he describes to be credentialed scientists, not anti-vaxxers, that will bring the appropriate amount of skepticism needed to rebuild public trust. Critics state many of the proposed members are proponents of vaccine misinformation that will further erode public trust.
It should be noted that the ACIP does not approve vaccines for use, but simply provides recommendations for who should receive vaccines already approved by the FDA.
How the media reports the issue
Depending on the media you frequent, you may only get one perspective. This can leave people perplexed about why other people have the beliefs or reactions they do to what may seem like an obvious story.
|
Left wing perspective |
Right wing perspective |
|---|---|
|
Confirmation bias |
|
|
There actually isn’t much confirmation bias in left wing articles. These articles are more likely to delve into the conflicts of interest claims or other accusations against the prior ACIP or vaccines in general. Articles that do, highlight vaccine misinformation and prior skepticism expressed by people like RFK without going into why they have those concerns. |
These articles are much more likely to focus on the claims of conflict of interest without considering the process that was in place to account for these issues. They also present RFK’s claims uncritically and omitting counter arguments or evidence of existing oversight. |
|
Framing bias |
|
|
The story uses terminology that frames RFK’s decision as abrupt and or medically irresponsible. Some stories also portray this as an attack on science that will lead to a rise in preventable illness and death. |
These articles frame this as a correction to a corrupt system. They focus on the conflicts of interest and present the prior board as an overreach body imposing vaccines on healthy portions of the populace by rubber stamping vaccines instead of critically considering the need. |
|
False consensus |
|
|
These articles focus on interviews from industry experts or recently removed ACIP members, who report the removal as extreme. |
RFK’s perspective is presented as credentialed and justified after a series of mishaps by experts. |
|
Authority bias |
|
|
Relies on established experts, like the former ACIP members, and presents the more obscure beliefs of their critics while defending their work. |
Presents RFK as an authority looking to reform and improve the corrupt system. Also provides other well known critics, like Robert Malone and Venay Prasad to present a more credentialed group that are concerned by the vaccine approval process. |
Right wing media focuses on times when the system has made a mistake, the new experts that have questioned the current system, and processes in place. Due to the lack of trust in authority structures in place, perceived gate keeping of information and access to prominent positions, right wing media has finally been able to position itself in the highest rungs of leadership to prioritize its goals.
Left wing media largely focuses on established experts and reports that, while mistakes have been made, there are constant improvements being made to address concerns from the public. Even as figures that misrepresent the complicated matters are growing more prominent.
My (very biased) take
Vaccine skepticism has existed as long as vaccines have, usually flaring up whenever the government promotes or mandates one. These movements were generally not successful because the diseases being combatted were severe. Smallpox had a 30% mortality rate and often left survivors scarred. The mortality rate for polio was only 2%-5% but the country was gripped by images of people placed in iron lungs to aid breathing and 1 in 200 infections led to irreversible paralysis.
These early vaccine campaigns earned broad public trust because the stakes were visible and terrifying, but until recently, we lived in a time where deaths from diseases like measles weren't part of living memory. From 2006-2017, no one died from measles, mumps, or rubella, yet 120 claims were awarded for MMR vaccine injuries. The HPV vaccine combats a cancer diagnosis that people would not see for years or decades. Because vaccination is so widespread and effective, some risks of vaccination—however rare—feels more tangible than the diseases themselves.
Of course, these numbers are only possible because vaccines are so successful. Without vaccines, thousands of people would have died from measles, mumps, and rubella. Cervical cancer kills 4,000 women a year even though nearly all cases are preventable if women avoid the very contagious HPV virus. The math is clear—but people often hate and avoid math. If understanding a policy requires statistics or probabilities, many will simply opt out.
People like RFK are right about one thing: public trust in medical institutions has eroded. It is also true that people like RFK have helped erode it. But the problem is bigger than misinformation. We have become victims of our own success. Public apathy is the cost of a job too well done—when you’ve never seen the disease, you do not see the need for the shot.
Trust in institutions matters. If the public cannot do all the science themselves—which they cannot—we need experts we can believe. RFK’s new team does not offer that. They have spent years sowing distrust. Now we are supposed to believe they will rebuild it?
One of the replacements named for the ACIP is Robert Malone, a known vaccine skeptic that became prevalent during COVID questioning the vaccine while claiming he invented the technology that was used to develop it. Many others named to the panel have denounced the COVID vaccine or made a name as leading sources of misinformation on vaccines. RFK has stated there are no safe and effective vaccines and that HIV doesn’t cause AIDs.
This new panel doesn’t look like a repair crew—it looks like a hostile takeover. They have not earned the public’s trust. They have weaponized its absence. They will not be able to win over skeptics any more than Trump could—remember, he was booed by his own supporters for backing the COVID vaccine.
Trump booed by his own crowdPhotograph: Robin Rayne/ZUMA Press
Wire/REX/Shutterstock
These people do not trust the system because it is complicated and they do not understand it, but it does not become any simpler when it comes out of RFK’s mouth. He is just making it angrier. In the process, he is turning off the very people who still believe in our institutions.
If I am honest, at this point, I hope the system blows up. Not because I do not believe in it, but because some people need to see the consequences to understand why we had vaccines in the first place. Moving into a world where vaccines are optional, will make those consequences visible again, and probably thin out some of the anti-vax crowd dragging all of us down.