In a week marked by surprise reversals, confusion, and contentious debate, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory panel—now newly reconstituted by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—postponed a major decision on the hepatitis B birth-dose vaccine, reversed course on measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine coverage for children, and voted to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccines for many Americans. The two-day meeting, held September 18-19, 2025, at CDC headquarters in Chamblee, Georgia, left both public health experts and the broader medical community grappling with the implications for vaccine policy and public trust.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which crafts recommendations for the CDC, found itself at the center of national attention and controversy. Many of its members were attending their first or second meeting, a fact not lost on ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorff, who opened Friday’s session by admitting, “We are rookies.” According to NPR, with only one exception, the entire panel was new to the process, having been appointed after Kennedy dismissed the previous committee earlier this year and replaced them with his own selections—including several vaccine skeptics.
On Thursday, the panel initially voted to allow the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program to cover the MMRV vaccine for children under four, despite not recommending the shot for this age group. But confusion over the vote’s wording led to a rare redo on Friday. The committee reversed itself, stripping the MMRV vaccine from the program and aligning the policy: not recommended, not covered. This move, as reported by The New York Times, means the government will no longer pay for the combination vaccine—protecting against measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox—for uninsured and underinsured children under four.
The hepatitis B vaccine decision proved even more fraught. For decades, the U.S. has recommended that all infants receive their first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth—a policy credited with cutting pediatric hepatitis B cases from 20,000 annually to just 20, according to Senator Bill Cassidy, a liver specialist and member of the Senate HELP committee. “We have decreased from 20,000 kids a year getting hepatitis B to 20 kids a year. That’s exponential decline,” Cassidy told reporters, as quoted by NPR.
However, the new ACIP panel considered a proposal to delay the vaccine’s first dose until one month of age, except for newborns whose mothers are known to be infected. The idea was met with strong resistance from medical experts, who cited overwhelming data on the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and former CDC and FDA vaccine advisor, stated, “If we change the recommendation for neonatal administration, we will increase the risk of harm, with no evidence of benefit. This is an extremely safe, pure vaccine. We will be creating new doubts in the public that aren’t justified.”
Ultimately, the committee voted 11-to-1 to postpone any decision on changing the hepatitis B vaccine schedule, with only Chair Kulldorff dissenting. Dr. Robert Malone, an ACIP member and close Kennedy ally, had moved to table the question indefinitely, citing ongoing ambiguity and the need for further discussion about safety and timing. Many in the medical community, including liaisons from major organizations and public health experts, expressed relief at the postponement. Dr. Noele P. Nelson, a former CDC hepatitis vaccines leader, told The New York Times, “Tabling the vote is appropriate and a relief. This discussion should not be rushed and would benefit from a more comprehensive evaluation of the public health impact.”
Behind the scenes, the meeting was marked by tension and, at times, outright acrimony. A hot microphone caught one panelist calling another “an idiot,” and public disputes erupted over the process. Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians and a committee liaison, accused Chair Kulldorff of silencing debate: “You want debate and discussion, but you’re muting people and silencing them. If you could respectfully tell the public how you are going to be analyzing all of these vaccine decisions, we can have confidence in this committee.”
The committee’s inexperience contributed to the confusion, with several members admitting they were unclear about what exactly they were voting on during key moments. Dr. Kulldorff himself acknowledged the group’s lack of familiarity with ACIP’s traditional methods, saying on Friday, “The panelists have ‘enormous depth and knowledge’ about vaccines, but are ‘rookies’ when it comes to the ways in which the committee typically makes decisions.”
Meanwhile, the meeting also tackled COVID-19 vaccine policy. On Friday, the panel voted unanimously to recommend that adults 65 and older receive the latest COVID-19 vaccine only after discussing risks and benefits with a healthcare provider. For those aged 6 months to 64 years, the committee said vaccines could be given after similar consultation, though this recommendation may conflict with the FDA’s authorization, which limits eligibility to adults over 65 and those with certain health conditions. The New York Times noted that these decisions could complicate Americans’ ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccines at pharmacies—a major shift, as two-thirds of last year’s recipients got their shots at such locations.
Some panelists pushed for even stricter requirements, such as a doctor’s prescription for the vaccine, but this was voted down amid concerns about access, particularly in rural areas. Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, former CDC COVID vaccine work group leader, warned, “There will be preventable deaths that result from these decisions. Having people without vaccine and clinical expertise having the power to harm so much of the public is unbearable.”
The panel’s skepticism toward established vaccine science was on full display. During a heated exchange, Dr. Robert Malone challenged CDC scientist Dr. Natalie Thornburg’s assertion that vaccine-induced antibodies are protective: “There is no established correlative protection for Covid period, full stop, and stop saying otherwise.” This prompted dismay from former CDC staff and outside experts alike, who lamented the personal attacks and lack of professionalism.
Health Secretary Kennedy’s influence over the proceedings was unmistakable. Since taking office, he has fired the CDC’s previous leadership, limited access to COVID-19 vaccines for healthy pregnant women and children, and appointed ACIP members critical of vaccines. His advocacy group, Children’s Health Defense, has long questioned the necessity and safety of routine vaccinations such as the hepatitis B birth dose.
Looking ahead, ACIP announced the formation of two new working groups—one to review vaccines recommended during pregnancy and another to examine the timing of shots in the vaccine schedule. While some see this as a step toward greater scientific rigor, others fear it signals ongoing challenges to long-standing, evidence-based public health practices.
As the dust settles from this chaotic week, the stakes for the nation’s vaccination policies have rarely felt higher. The decisions made—and those left unresolved—by this new ACIP panel will shape not only the future of immunization in the U.S., but also the level of public confidence in science, medicine, and government itself.
