POLITICS

Who's In Charge of Your Shots Now?

Washington, USATue Jun 17 2025
The U. S. vaccine program just got a major shake-up. Seventeen experts who advised on vaccines were suddenly let go. They believe this move has weakened the program. These experts had been part of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. Their job was to look at the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They also decided who should get which shots and when. The person behind this change is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's the head of the U. S. Health and Human Services. He claimed the old committee had conflicts of interest. He wants to rebuild trust in vaccine science. So, he replaced the 17 members with eight new ones. Some of these new members have ties to Kennedy. A few have even questioned vaccines before. But Kennedy insists they are qualified and will follow the science. The former experts are worried. They think Kennedy's decisions could undo years of progress. They point out that most kids in the U. S. get the recommended shots. This has prevented millions of illnesses and saved lives. The former experts also highlight the cost savings from vaccinations. They add up to trillions of dollars. The new committee will soon vote on recommendations. These include shots for COVID-19, HPV, flu, meningococcal disease, and RSV. The old members had already voted on some of these. But Kennedy didn't adopt their decisions. So, it's unclear what the new committee will do. This situation raises important questions. Who should decide what shots we need? How do we balance science with public trust? And how will these changes affect people's health? Only time will tell how this shake-up will play out. But one thing is clear: the future of the U. S. vaccine program is uncertain.

questions

    What criteria were used to select the new ACIP members, and how do they ensure a diverse range of expertise?
    How will the new ACIP members, some with ties to Kennedy, ensure objectivity in their recommendations?
    What evidence supports the claim that the previous ACIP panel was plagued by conflicts of interest?

actions