Jeremy Faust, editor-in-chief of MedPage Today, has described how the former Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) operated before Robert F. Kennedy Jr replaced its members in June 2025.
During a recent interview with Jeanne Marrazzo, chief executive of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Faust said recommendations from the traditional ACIP followed “a long process behind closed doors.”
By the time the committee met publicly, he said, votes were “almost always unanimous” because “the decisions were really made in meetings.”
Faust’s remarks were notable because they appeared to substantiate the very criticism Kennedy had made of the old ACIP.
Kennedy had described the committee as a “rubber stamp” for decisions already settled behind closed doors, citing concerns about conflicts of interest and public trust.
Robert Malone, a former vice-chair of Kennedy’s reconstituted ACIP, interpreted Faust’s remarks as confirmation of longstanding concerns.
“I am glad to see that this is finally being acknowledged,” he told The Defender. “I have known that this was the case for literally decades.”
Retsef Levi, an MIT professor who chaired the reconstituted ACIP’s Covid vaccine workgroup, took a similar view, calling Faust’s remarks a “striking disclosure.”
Speaking with MD Reports, Levi said that if voting decisions had been settled privately before public meetings, this would, in his view, have breached the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
“When we were trained as new ACIP members on what the FACA rules stipulated,” Levi explained, “the one thing that was emphasised again and again was that we could not privately discuss our future votes as a group or in subgroups, other than during public meetings.”
Dr Kirk Milhoan, who chaired Kennedy’s reconstituted ACIP, described his committee’s approach.
“Yes, I agree with Retsef,” Milhoan told MD Reports. “We never knew how the votes would turn out before the public vote.”
He added, “We were constantly asking for clarification of the FACA requirements so we would not be in violation.”