Major Medical Groups Launch Independent Vaccine Review as Trust in CDC Guidance Falters

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota announced they are creating an independent system to review vaccine safety and effectiveness data, signaling deep concerns about the current state of federal vaccine guidance. The effort will focus first on vaccines for flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) ahead of the fall respiratory virus season.

Why Are Major Medical Groups Stepping In?

For decades, vaccine recommendations in the United States came from a CDC advisory panel called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This group reviewed large amounts of safety and effectiveness data before deciding which vaccines should be recommended and for whom. While the guidance was not legally binding, it was widely followed by doctors, schools, and insurers.

That system changed dramatically earlier this year. U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 members of the panel and replaced them with a new group that includes several vaccine skeptics. Officials also blocked several medical groups from participating in the analysis of vaccines for the committee.

Since then, the panel has made decisions that many public health experts strongly oppose. Most notably, the committee voted to end the long-standing recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine—a move that bypassed CDC experts and the advisory panel altogether.

What Does the Independent Review Actually Do?

The AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project say their goal is not to issue vaccine recommendations, but to provide trusted, science-based reviews that doctors, state health officials, and others can use when making vaccination decisions. In a joint statement, the organizations said the CDC's vaccine review process has "effectively collapsed," making an independent review necessary.

The Vaccine Integrity Project has already conducted evidence reviews of COVID-19, flu, and RSV vaccines in 2025 and is now reviewing data on the HPV vaccine. This represents a significant expansion of independent scrutiny into vaccines that millions of Americans rely on each year.

Why Is the AMA Getting Involved in This?

The AMA's involvement is especially notable because the organization has traditionally focused on physician reimbursement, billing, and medical practice issues—not large-scale public health evidence reviews. Leaders say the change reflects how serious this situation has become.

"It is our duty as health care professionals to work across medicine, science and public health to make sure the U.S. has a transparent, evidence-based process by which vaccine recommendations are made," said Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an AMA trustee and the organization's liaison to the CDC vaccine panel. "Together, we are committed to ensuring the American public has clear, evidence-based guidance that inspires confidence when making important vaccination decisions".

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told The Washington Post that the initiative is about filling "a huge black hole in public health and medical practice". This language underscores how significant experts view the gap left by the changes to the federal process.

What Are the Key Concerns About the Current System?

Multiple infectious disease experts have expressed alarm about the direction of vaccine policy. The concerns center on several key issues:

• Loss of Expert Input: The removal of all 17 ACIP members and replacement with vaccine skeptics has raised questions about whether scientific evidence will continue to drive recommendations.
• Exclusion of Medical Groups: Officials have blocked several medical groups from participating in vaccine analysis, limiting the diversity of expert perspectives in the decision-making process.
• Bypassing Standard Procedures: Recent decisions, like ending hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for newborns, were made without following the established evidence review process.
• Public Confidence: The changes have created confusion among doctors and the public about which vaccines are truly recommended and why.

"It shows the considerable concern around where we are going with evidence-based recommendations," said Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, CEO of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

What Does the Government Say About These Concerns?

The HHS has pushed back against criticism of the new system. Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for HHS, said the "claim that ACIP's evidence-based process has collapsed is categorically false. ACIP continues to remain the nation's advisory body for vaccine recommendations driven by gold standard science".

However, Nixon also acknowledged that "outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses," suggesting that the government recognizes the independent review effort is happening in parallel to the federal process. The HHS maintains that the federal process "guides vaccine policy in the United States," but the creation of independent reviews signals that many medical professionals no longer have full confidence in that guidance.

The emergence of independent vaccine reviews from major medical organizations represents an unprecedented moment in American public health. Whether this parallel system will restore confidence in vaccine guidance or further complicate the landscape remains to be seen as the respiratory virus season approaches.