Is Kennedy’s new CDC vaccine panel the end of the rubber-stamp era?
They questioned the narrative. Now they’re shaping the policy.
Today, US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the names of eight new members who will join the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—a slate he describes as “highly credentialed physicians and scientists” committed to evidence-based decision-making, transparency, and common sense.
This marks the first time in decades that the committee—long stacked with establishment figures who rarely questioned the expanding childhood vaccine schedule—has been thoroughly overhauled.
The move follows Kennedy’s decision earlier this week to retire all 17 of the previous members of ACIP, many of whom had longstanding ties to pharmaceutical companies.
Instead of shying away from the inevitable criticism from the media, Kennedy leaned in.
“All of these individuals,” he wrote on X, “are committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.”
In fact, he’s gone one step further—the newly appointed ACIP will not only examine vaccines moving forward, but also re-examine the existing schedule, a revolutionary move in itself.
“The committee will review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule,” he wrote.
And while mainstream media outlets continue to hyperventilate, the rest of us should be heartened that it’s a serious line-up of scientists, doctors, policy experts and patient advocates—many who have demonstrated intellectual courage and a deep commitment to public health.
Here’s a snapshot of who they are—and why it matters.
Dr Retsef Levi, a faculty member at MIT with 20 years of experience in risk analysis and healthcare systems, was one of the first researchers to highlight a rise in post-vaccination myocarditis in Israel—data the CDC would later be accused of burying. In 2023, Levi called for a halt to mRNA vaccines altogether, citing “indisputable evidence that they cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”
Dr Robert Malone, a physician and early pioneer of mRNA technology with his name on nine patents, rose to prominence during the pandemic after he spoke about his own adverse reaction to Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine. His early work on lipid-mediated mRNA delivery in the late 1980s laid the groundwork for the technology used today. Since his injury, Malone has advocated for enhanced safety monitoring, early treatment options, and has been critical of vaccine mandates—positions that, in today’s climate, make him widely viewed as Kennedy’s most contentious pick.
Dr Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician formerly at Harvard and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which questioned lockdowns, is a man unafraid to challenge consensus narratives. He developed the CDC’s own vaccine safety surveillance tools—SaTScan and TreeScan—but was pushed out of academia after speaking up about natural immunity and arguing that vaccine mandates were unnecessary and harmful, particularly for young people. Kulldorff brings an exceptional mix of technical skill and moral clarity.
Dr Cody Meissner is no radical. A professor of paediatrics at Dartmouth and a long-standing member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC), Meissner was cautious from the beginning about Covid-19 vaccines for children. I spoke with him in 2022, when he raised concerns about repeated boosters and the risk of “immune imprinting”—where repeat exposure to the same viral antigen may impair the immune system’s ability to adapt to new variants. He’s thoughtful and measured.
Dr Vicky Pebsworth, a former critical care nurse turned public health researcher, has decades of experience in healthcare, policy and ethics. She served as a voting consumer representative on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee and is currently Pacific Region Director of the National Association of Catholic Nurses. According to NVIC, her son suffered a serious vaccine injury after receiving “seven live-virus and killed-bacterial vaccines” during a single well-baby visit—an event that shaped her focus on vaccine policy, chronic illness, and safety research.
Dr Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist formerly with the NIH, has conducted influential research into the links between nutrition, mental health, neurodevelopment, and immune function—especially in maternal and child health. His work has helped shape public health guidelines, and he brings a nuanced, systems-based lens to vaccine safety and population-level impacts.
Dr Michael Ross, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynaecology with a long history in women’s health policy. He has served on CDC committees for cancer prevention and has advised leading professional bodies. Ross’s experience with HPV vaccine policy and immunologic research offers important insight as ACIP revisits some of its most controversial recommendations.
Rounding out the list is emergency physician Dr James Pagano brings over 40 years of frontline clinical experience. He has worked across trauma centres, rural hospitals, and emergency departments, treating patients of all ages. During the pandemic, doctors like Pagano saw firsthand how rigid bureaucratic protocols often clashed with clinical judgement. His appointment hopefully signals a return to common-sense medicine and a grounded, patient-centred approach (no photo).
Together, this group marks a decisive shift—from rubber-stamping liability-shielded products to demanding real evidence on safety, necessity, and transparency.
Some in the media have already labelled them “anti-vaxxers” or “well-known critics of vaccines,” but in truth, they’re pro-science, pro-accountability, and committed to rebuilding public trust.
For years, ACIP operated more like a formality than a forum for scientific scrutiny—approving dozens of vaccines without requiring inert placebo trials or long-term safety data.
As Kennedy noted, “We’ve gone from three routine injections by age one in 1986 to 25 in 2025.” Many of those approvals were based on incomplete or inadequate evidence.
That era may finally be ending.
The new-look ACIP will meet on June 25. And for the first time in years, there’s reason to believe the public might actually have a voice at the table—through independent experts unafraid to challenge orthodoxy.
Let the media sneer. Let them call these appointees “controversial” or “dangerous.” But give these new members the space—and the grace—to do their job.
Because what’s truly dangerous is continuing a vaccine policy built on blind trust, financial entanglements, and manufactured consensus.
It’s time for something better. And this just might be it.
thank you Dr Demasi,
.. this one line has made my day:
"the newly appointed ACIP will not only examine vaccines moving forward, but also re-examine the existing schedule, a revolutionary move in itself"
that just there - "also re-examine the existing schedule"
this is a new day for what appears to be, indeed .. a new era
Bonne chance ! .. to this stellar new ACIP
I hope this is a new world as far as vaccines. Many of the present ones cause more problems than the disease.
The practitioner who injected Dr. Pebsworth's son is guilty of malpractice. There is no way that many vaccines at one time were ever tested in any way.