Just days before a pivotal meeting on the future of vaccine guidance in the United States, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the appointment of five new members to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) influential Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The decision, made public on September 15, 2025, comes amid heightened scrutiny and debate over national vaccination policy, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing questions about government oversight and scientific consensus.
According to Reuters, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a figure long associated with criticism of certain vaccine policies—has been actively reshaping the ACIP since June. That month, he made the controversial decision to dismiss all 17 sitting members of the committee, citing what he called “persistent conflicts of interest.” However, as reported by multiple outlets, Kennedy did not provide concrete evidence for this sweeping claim. In fact, a recent review by researchers at the University of Southern California found that conflicts of interest on the ACIP had been at historic lows for years, raising eyebrows among public health experts and former committee members.
The five new appointees are Dr. Catherine Stein, Dr. Evelyn Griffin, Dr. Hillary Blackburn, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, and Dr. Raymond Pollak. Their backgrounds are as diverse as they are controversial, with several having publicly questioned aspects of the nation’s COVID-19 response or vaccine mandates. This new cohort joins a panel that has been reduced in size from 17 to 12 members, a move that some see as a bid to streamline decision-making, while others worry it could limit the diversity of scientific perspectives represented.
Dr. Catherine Stein, an epidemiologist and professor at Case Western Reserve University, has not shied away from controversy. She co-authored a research paper for Health Freedom Ohio—an organization affiliated with Children’s Health Defense, which Kennedy himself founded—criticizing the models used in Ohio’s pandemic response. Stein has also argued against campus COVID-19 vaccine mandates, stating in 2022 that such policies infringed on individual rights and were not justified by the available data. According to Reuters, her stance has made her a prominent voice among those skeptical of sweeping public health interventions.
Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an obstetrician-gynecologist based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has also taken a public stand against COVID-19 vaccine mandates. At a Health Freedom Day event in 2024, she described mandates as “a line in the sand that should not have been crossed,” reflecting a broader national debate about the balance between personal liberty and collective safety. Griffin has also criticized the country’s overall response to the pandemic, arguing that the push for universal vaccination went too far and failed to account for individual circumstances.
Dr. Hillary Blackburn, a pharmacist and director of medication access and affordability at AscensionRx in St. Louis, brings a different perspective. While she has not made as many public statements on vaccine policy, her familial ties—she is the daughter-in-law of Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican—have drawn attention. Blackburn’s expertise in pharmacy and medication access is expected to inform discussions on vaccine distribution and affordability, key issues as the nation continues to grapple with disparities in healthcare access.
Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist who runs the For Hearts and Souls Free Medical Clinic in Hawaii, is perhaps the most outspoken of the new appointees regarding vaccine safety. He appeared at a 2024 panel led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, where he claimed that COVID-19 vaccines had caused heart-related deaths and disabilities. He cited a study from the Cleveland Clinic that he said showed a correlation between the number of vaccines received and the likelihood of contracting COVID-19. However, independent fact-checkers have determined that this interpretation misrepresents the study’s findings. Milhoan has also supported the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin—both unproven treatments for COVID-19—during the pandemic, according to a 2022 news report referenced by Reuters.
Dr. Raymond Pollak, a semi-retired transplant surgeon and immunobiologist, rounds out the new appointments. Pollak is no stranger to controversy himself; he was a whistleblower in a high-profile case at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he reported that the hospital was inflating patient diagnoses to boost transplant numbers. His experience with medical ethics and hospital administration may offer a unique perspective to the committee’s deliberations.
The revamped ACIP is set to meet on September 18 and 19, 2025, for a session that will review guidance on a range of vaccines, including those for COVID-19, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). As reported by both Reuters and ABC News, this meeting is expected to be closely watched, with the potential to reshape federal vaccination policy for years to come.
Notably, the process by which these new members were appointed has drawn criticism from former ACIP members and public health observers. Traditionally, a thorough vetting process—including a review of potential conflicts of interest—takes two to three months before new candidates are officially appointed. In this case, the appointments were made rapidly, with some candidates reportedly being considered only days before the announcement. According to ABC News, one candidate even withdrew during the vetting process due to financial conflicts of interest.
The changes to the ACIP have sparked a robust debate within the public health community and beyond. Supporters of Kennedy’s actions argue that the shakeup was necessary to restore public trust and ensure that the committee is free from undue influence by pharmaceutical companies. Critics, however, worry that the new appointments may undermine the scientific rigor and consensus that have traditionally guided the committee’s recommendations.
Some of the new members have made unproven claims about vaccines, including assertions that COVID-19 shots have caused “unprecedented levels of death and harm in young people”—a claim that is not supported by the current scientific consensus. These statements have fueled concerns that the ACIP’s future guidance might diverge from established best practices, potentially affecting vaccine uptake and public health outcomes.
Meanwhile, two other potential nominees—Joseph Fraiman and John Gaitanis—were named in an internal CDC document earlier this month but were not among those ultimately appointed. The reasons for their exclusion have not been made public, leaving some to speculate about the internal deliberations and criteria guiding Kennedy’s choices.
As the ACIP prepares for its upcoming meeting, all eyes are on the new members and the direction they will help set for U.S. vaccine policy. The stakes are high: the committee’s recommendations influence everything from school immunization requirements to insurance coverage and public messaging on vaccine safety. With a panel now composed of individuals who have publicly questioned aspects of vaccine science and policy, the coming months are likely to see continued debate—and perhaps, significant change—in the nation’s approach to immunization.
Whether these changes will build public trust or sow further division remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the decisions made by this newly constituted committee will have far-reaching implications for public health in America.
