RFK Jr.'s ‘Clean Sweep’ of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel

This month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ousted all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory panel. His reasoning? Kennedy claimed the panel “has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.”
 
But as Science Editor Jessica McDonald writes, there’s no evidence of problematic conflicts of interest or that the group inadequately scrutinizes vaccines.
 
“Allegations of conflicts of interest have no basis in fact,” Dr. Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, said in a video posted to X the day after Kennedy’s June 9 announcement.
 
As Jessie explains, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as it’s formally known, is a panel of independent medical and public health professionals with expertise in vaccines that provides guidance on who should get which vaccines and when. Its recommendations determine which vaccines are free to low-income children via the Vaccines for Children program and which vaccines most insurance companies must cover for no additional charge.
 
The panel’s rules say that only those without significant conflicts are eligible to be members. Panelists must file an annual financial disclosure report, and declare any conflicts at the beginning of each ACIP meeting. 
 
Kennedy provided a few examples of conflicts of interest among the panel, but Jessie found he had either misconstrued them or they were decades old.
 
As for being a “rubber stamp for any vaccine,” several experts objected to that characterization.
 
ACIP does often recommend vaccines because the vaccines have already undergone significant vetting by the Food and Drug Administration. Still, there are instances in which ACIP has either limited its recommendations or not recommended a vaccine. For instance, due to concerns about effectiveness, ACIP said that in both the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 influenza seasons, the live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist, should not be used.
 
For more, read the full story: “RFK Jr.’s Flawed Justifications for ‘Clean Sweep’ of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel.”

Reader: Is there an amendment in the "big beautiful bill" that if passed would give the president the right to delay or cancel elections? When the House passed their version I heard on local news that there was such an amendment among other crazy stuff.

FactCheck.org Staff Writer D'Angelo Gore: There is no provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would allow the president to "delay or cancel elections." We wrote about this claim when it was included in a viral social media graphic warning that if the House-passed reconciliation bill becomes law, “we won’t have another election,” among other things.

Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, which reviewed the legislation, told us in an interview that the bill "does not say anything about delaying or canceling elections."

As the Congressional Research Center has explained, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress and states — not the president — the authority to set the dates for federal elections. That doesn’t change under the bill.  

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "Trump, Gabbard Comments on Iran Nuclear Capability": President Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, appeared to be at odds over whether Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon, but Gabbard said the two leaders were saying “the same thing.” We’ll lay out the facts.
   
• "Lee, Others Spread Baseless Claims About Political Affiliation of Minnesota Gunman": Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and others posted unfounded claims on social media about the political affiliation of the gunman arrested in the June 14 fatal shootings of a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker and her husband and the wounding of another Democratic state lawmaker and his wife.
   
• "HHS Misleads on mRNA Vaccine Safety After Pulling Moderna Funding": The Department of Health and Human Services has defended cuts to vaccine research with statements that mislead on the safety of mRNA technology, despite an extensive history of testing.