“I’m still puzzled by why this came back as a point of discussion,” he said. “The only thing I can think of is it’s another strategy to scare parents.”
Kennedy has spent decades promoting vaccine misinformation, including the widely debunked claim that the MMR shot causes autism.
After his appointment to the federal Government, he sacked every person from Acip, and replaced them with figures whose anti-vaccine views track more closely with his own.
That scepticism bled into today’s discussion: the committee’s methods were scrutinised by medical professionals in attendance who can’t vote but can offer input.
“You’re not looking at all of the aspects of how we evaluate vaccine implementation,” said Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians.
“You’re looking at very small data points and misrepresenting how it works in the real world and how we take care of our patients.”
‘Illegitimate’
Following much head-scratching over language, the committee voted that the combination shot would still be covered under the Vaccines for Children federal programme – which helps fund many immunisations in the US – even though they were no longer recommending that shot for kids under-4.
A couple of members abstained – because they said they weren’t sure what they were voting for.
The decision means some federal programmes will cover the shot but others won’t, creating a patchwork system that public health experts fear could sow widespread confusion among parents.
“Parents like me depend on a childhood vaccine schedule built on science and trust. Every change should strengthen, not weaken, the safety net – that keeps our kids healthy,” epidemiologist Syra Madad told AFP.
She said the committee discussions “risk eroding protections we know work”.
Committee members put off until tomorrow a closely watched vote on whether to scrap the longstanding standard of immunising newborns against Hepatitis B within the first 24 hours of life.
That move has been met with widespread alarm by public health experts, including from some voices on the panel.
Swift vaccination has proven the best way to prevent any maternal transmission of the incurable, highly contagious disease that can cause severe liver damage and cancer later in life, said Adam Langer, a CDC scientist who presented to the panel.
Amending the advice could amount to a “devastating decision”, said O’Leary of the AAP, a body that did not attend the committee meeting despite a past history of collaboration.
“This is in the midst of a growing wave of what we’re seeing with rumours, falsehoods, inaccurate information surrounding our country’s immunisation efforts,” he said.
“This committee is illegitimate.”
In opening the two-day meeting, Acip chairman and biostatistician Martin Kulldorff insisted that the panel was, despite much criticism and fear to the contrary, “pro-vaccine” and will “welcome scientific critique of any of our votes, as there are grey areas”.
But Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease physician, cast that defensiveness as disingenuous.
“They do not intend to debate using sound, rigorous, reproducible science; they are echoing poor and falsified information,” he told AFP.
Along with the Hepatitis B vote, the committee will reconvene and consider this season’s Covid-19 shot, including who should get it and who should pay for it.
-Agence France-Presse
