Plus, an exclusive look at the slide deck an NCIRD scientist presented comparing the US pediatric vaccine schedule with those of peer nations. Spoiler: Denmark is the outlier.
Thank you for this extraordinary and deeply disturbing piece of reporting. This confirms what many of us feared but could not yet prove. That this overhaul occurred without NCIRD senior leadership ever seeing the revised schedule or its justification is not a procedural misstep. It is a fundamental breach of how public health governance is supposed to work.
What is especially infuriating is the continued reliance on vague assurances that “CDC experts were consulted” while avoiding any specificity about who was involved, when, and in what capacity. Providing data is not the same as participating in decision making. Being asked for a landscape comparison is not the same as endorsing a final policy.
Your reporting makes clear that the Denmark comparison was not only selectively invoked but contradicted by the very data NCIRD scientists presented. That information was then used as rhetorical cover to justify a predetermined outcome reached outside the ACIP process.
This is not about disagreement over vaccine policy. It is about the deliberate sidelining of expertise, the misuse of institutional credibility, and the erosion of transparency that public trust actually depends on. Thank you for bringing the facts into the open and for protecting the voices of career scientists who are being silenced precisely because they are principled public servants.
I would argue that it is fundamentally about vaccine policy. As I pointed out in my other comment, the old "institutional expertise" has created a regime in which "more and more vaccines are added to the schedule" without the study of increased risks from the cumulative additions.
Furthermore, the "old guard" has a culture of groupthink with out-dated notions like Dr. Paul Offit's "it is okay to give a baby 10,000 antigens" which is poor lip service for vaccine safety (arguably this comment set back our understanding of vaccine injury by decades).
It is time for something new. With the level of distrust aimed at traditional medical institutions, there can be no choice but change.
So who are the "CDC experts" they consulted? The ones brought in by Kennedy? That would leave a whole lot of truly career relevant experts who weren't consulted. It seems to me decisions are being engineered to fit Kennedy's anti-vax agenda. He's doing so much harm to government trust, which is probably the point. I'm afraid he'll ultimately stop all vaccines. The MRNA research defunded, the ongoing research to make vaccines better at how they protect in peril. There's nothing like making *polio* great again (*insert any nearly eradicated disease). Maybe I'm so disheartened because of my grandkids, one of whom has health issues. 🥺
A read of the tea leaves is needed here – the future is a diminished vaccine schedule that prioritizes only the most important vaccines built on a rationale of "public danger" and the rest of the vaccines relegated to "joint-decision making."
This is not a temporary change from RFK Jr. but a permanent shift that is reflective of the changing zeitgeist and backlash against authorities that started during the COVID pandemic. The distrust against the medical authorities has, not only continued to increase, but even HCW in droves are now refusing the COVID vaccine.
Transparency and joint-decision making here are the future. These are not built upon a "heavy-handed huge vaccine schedule* and such a schedule will be relegated to the past.
Thank you for this extraordinary and deeply disturbing piece of reporting. This confirms what many of us feared but could not yet prove. That this overhaul occurred without NCIRD senior leadership ever seeing the revised schedule or its justification is not a procedural misstep. It is a fundamental breach of how public health governance is supposed to work.
What is especially infuriating is the continued reliance on vague assurances that “CDC experts were consulted” while avoiding any specificity about who was involved, when, and in what capacity. Providing data is not the same as participating in decision making. Being asked for a landscape comparison is not the same as endorsing a final policy.
Your reporting makes clear that the Denmark comparison was not only selectively invoked but contradicted by the very data NCIRD scientists presented. That information was then used as rhetorical cover to justify a predetermined outcome reached outside the ACIP process.
This is not about disagreement over vaccine policy. It is about the deliberate sidelining of expertise, the misuse of institutional credibility, and the erosion of transparency that public trust actually depends on. Thank you for bringing the facts into the open and for protecting the voices of career scientists who are being silenced precisely because they are principled public servants.
I would argue that it is fundamentally about vaccine policy. As I pointed out in my other comment, the old "institutional expertise" has created a regime in which "more and more vaccines are added to the schedule" without the study of increased risks from the cumulative additions.
Furthermore, the "old guard" has a culture of groupthink with out-dated notions like Dr. Paul Offit's "it is okay to give a baby 10,000 antigens" which is poor lip service for vaccine safety (arguably this comment set back our understanding of vaccine injury by decades).
It is time for something new. With the level of distrust aimed at traditional medical institutions, there can be no choice but change.
So who are the "CDC experts" they consulted? The ones brought in by Kennedy? That would leave a whole lot of truly career relevant experts who weren't consulted. It seems to me decisions are being engineered to fit Kennedy's anti-vax agenda. He's doing so much harm to government trust, which is probably the point. I'm afraid he'll ultimately stop all vaccines. The MRNA research defunded, the ongoing research to make vaccines better at how they protect in peril. There's nothing like making *polio* great again (*insert any nearly eradicated disease). Maybe I'm so disheartened because of my grandkids, one of whom has health issues. 🥺
A read of the tea leaves is needed here – the future is a diminished vaccine schedule that prioritizes only the most important vaccines built on a rationale of "public danger" and the rest of the vaccines relegated to "joint-decision making."
This is not a temporary change from RFK Jr. but a permanent shift that is reflective of the changing zeitgeist and backlash against authorities that started during the COVID pandemic. The distrust against the medical authorities has, not only continued to increase, but even HCW in droves are now refusing the COVID vaccine.
Transparency and joint-decision making here are the future. These are not built upon a "heavy-handed huge vaccine schedule* and such a schedule will be relegated to the past.