The ACIP Shake‑Up — Expertise vs. Ideology
Why RFK Jr. Appointment to the vaccine panel means less expertise and more agendas
Introduction
In June, RFK Jr. dismissed 17 vaccine experts from the CDC’s ACIP and replaced them with individuals—some with no formal vaccine or medical science experience—who push ideological agendas. This isn’t just personnel rearrangement, it’s a fundamental shift in how we prioritize science vs. public opinion.
I’ve already discussed Dr. Paul Offit -
🔬 Pillars of Vaccine Science Removed
Peter Marks, MD, PhD
Over 100 peer-reviewed studies, including pivotal trial and regulatory science papers
Previously led FDA’s vaccine approval efforts—Oversaw channels from clinical stages through public rollout.
Fiona Havers, MD, MHS
75–82 studies on COVID‑19, RSV, and respiratory surveillance published in JAMA, MMWR, and NEJM
Built national hospitalization-tracking systems influencing real-time vaccine policy decisions.
Camille Kotton, MD
Authored ~200 publications, with high citations (~9,360) in transplant infection and immunocompromised-vaccine response
Led guidelines for CMV, BK virus, and transplant-patient RSV responses.
These are not just prolific—many are in top-tier journals, shaping pandemic response frameworks and vaccine safety monitoring.
🧑🔬 Removed ACIP Members with Strong Vaccine Science Expertise
These individuals brought decades of proven expertise in vaccine efficacy, safety monitoring, and regulatory oversight.
🔄 RFK Jr.’s Appointees: Public Views & Scientific Gaps
Martin Kulldorff, PhD
Biostatistician, co‑author of the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating against lockdowns and child vaccinations.
Criticized universal measures: “children should not wear face masks…don’t need it,” opposed COVID vaccine mandates
Came from fringe epidemiology; previously fired from Harvard in 2024 over vaccine refusal.
Retsef Levi, PhD
MIT professor in operations research; no formal training in immunology.
Described mRNA vaccines as causing “serious harm, including death, especially among young people”
Publications focus on logistics/math, not clinical vaccine science.
Robert W. Malone, MD
Self-identified inventor of mRNA vaccine technology; now a vocal anti-mRNA advocate.
Known for promoting COVID‑19 misinformation; credibility questioned, with no solid track record in clinical vaccine evaluation
🧠 Contrasting the Scientific Foundations
Domain expertise: Removed members like Marks and Havers have decades of peer-reviewed work directly in vaccinology, regulatory science, and epidemiology.
Appointees’ strengths lie elsewhere: Kulldorff (statistics/epidemiology), Levi (operations research), Malone (medical claims but now activist). These areas do not substitute for established clinical vaccine R&D experience.
Public skepticism vs. peer-reviewed rigor: The appointees have made public statements doubting vaccine safety or broad use—highlighting a shift away from evidence grounded in clinical trials and surveillance programs.
⚖️ Why This Matters
ACIP guides vaccine use—and insurance coverage—for millions. Replacing deeply published experts with ideologically driven appointees risks:
Missing nuanced vaccine-safety signals.
Undermining public trust in vaccine recommendations.
Steering policy based on opinion instead of data.
🚨 This move doesn't just reshape a committee—it shakes the foundation of evidence-based immunization policy.
🌍 The Wrong Team for the Right Now
All of this is happening as COVID-19 cases quietly begin to climb again, Yellow Fever looms with expanding mosquito ranges, and the threat of bird flu jumping from human to human becomes increasingly real. In a world where the next pandemic is just one international flight away, we don’t need vaccine skeptics second-guessing mRNA science from behind podiums—we need immunologists, virologists, and public health experts who’ve actually fought disease in the trenches.
Instead, we’ve replaced them with theorists, contrarians, and influencers. It’s like replacing a fire department with climate change deniers right before wildfire season.