Kennedy's ACIP shown the data

Now what for COVID vaccines?

This report of the first of the 2-day ACIP meeting only covers the COVID session.

Without a vote scheduled on recommendations for the fall COVID vaccines, today’s ACIP meeting was only useful for gauging the potential influence of the Kennedy-reconstituted membership on future vaccine policy. It’s sort of like seeing if Supreme Court justices, or for that matter, HHS heads lied in their confirmation hearings. There was no mention of what will happen with COVID vaccines.

Their ACIP inexperience showed in what the committee asked about the presentations by CDC’s experts. Some of the questions were vague and seemed to be muted to not show an anti-vaccine bias.

---

• And then there were 7 Even before the meeting started, one of the members, Michael Ross, had to withdraw due to financial conflicts of interest (New York Times). This was not surprising: he had his hands in several tills (https://covidandvaccineupdate.substack.com/p/quick-pick-lottery-acip-replacement).

---

• “Evidence-based medicine” was the mantra of the day. M. Kulldorff (see link above on members), Kennedy’s ACIP chair, started the meeting by introducing himself as having been fired from Harvard for refusing to take the COVID vaccine as though that’s a qualification. He then affirmed that the committee will follow evidence-based medicine. He made the reference several times during the meeting and adjourned with the reminder that ACIP will restore public trust with evidence-based medicine. It’s unclear if he’s making some distinction between medicine and science.

---

• CDC career scientists presented the evidence from their research on the COVID topics: epidemiology, vaccine effectiveness, safety, and vaccine uptake. This was a review of data that were covered in the recent FDA VRBPAC meeting and in previous issues of Update. Of note, however, was that most of the usual expert presenters were absent, some having resigned recently. An important topic, evidence to recommendations, was curtailed because the leader of that work group had resigned, thus obviating any vote.

Without a vote on COVID vaccine recommendations today, we don’t know how the new committee will respond to the evidence in front of them in weighing benefit to risk.

---

• Did their questions reveal what they could decide? This again is sort of like judging how the Supreme Court could decide on a case based on their questions during oral arguments.

Kulldorff and Levi questioned the use of real-world case-control measurement of vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of being vaccinated between people testing positive for COVID (case) or negative (control) in a population with respiratory illness. They wanted to use randomized control trials like in the original development of the vaccines.

Malone and Levi questioned what they thought were brief time windows used to monitor safety.

Pebsworth focused on the many adverse events reported in VAERS after vaccination.

Meissner, a pediatrician, showed the most experience and expertise, including pointing out that doctors are taught to report all adverse events to VAERS regardless of potential cause. He also noted that the case-control method of measuring vaccine effectiveness is also used for flu shots.

Hibbein interpreted the data as showing that vaccines come with a lower risk for COVID and no increased risk for death.

Pagano was silent.

So you can do the potential math.

---

• New work groups were announced by Kulldorff, including one to reexamine all vaccines for kids, as part of evidence-based medicine.

---

• Public reamed ACIP in the comments session, in particular the firing of the previous members. There was also support for vaccines, especially from pediatricians. And one commenter railed against vaccines as bioweapons that should be abolished yesterday.

---

© 2025 Henry A. Choy. All rights reserved.