Washington: U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s abrupt removal of all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has cast a spotlight on potential pharmaceutical industry influence over national vaccine policy. The move has ignited debate about conflicts of interest, transparency, and the broader integrity of public health decisions in America.
Kennedy justified the dismissal by stating the advisory board was “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest,” alleging that most members had received “substantial funding” from drug manufacturers. However, he provided no specific examples or evidence that any individual committee member’s advice had been compromised by such financial ties.
Committee members counter that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has strict rules requiring recusal from votes involving any company or rival product with which members have a financial connection. In fact, the CDC website documents at least one instance where a panel member abstained due to such a conflict.
“To determine that the whole (advisory board), all 17 members, have conflicts of interest, that has not been shown by the evidence,” said Dr. Oliver Brooks, one of the ousted members.
“However, the decisions that have been made (by Kennedy) undermine confidence in the process and in vaccines.”
A Reuters investigation into the Open Payments federal database found that six dismissed members received a total of $80 or less from drug companies between 2017 and 2023. Another seven received between $4,000 and $55,000 in the form of consulting fees, travel, or meals. Two were involved in research collaborations funded by the pharmaceutical industry worth millions of dollars.
Dr. Brooks, a retired chief medical officer at Watts Healthcare and former president of the National Medical Association, was reported to have received nearly $44,000 from Sanofi between 2017 and 2018, with no subsequent payments after 2020. He joined the vaccine panel in 2021 and stated that no conflicts disqualified him from voting.
“The panel’s sole aim is to prevent vaccine-preventable illness,” Brooks emphasized. Sanofi declined to comment.
At least three removed vaccine advisers were not tracked by Open Payments due to not being practicing clinicians, making a full accounting of financial ties more complex.
Kennedy’s Own Conflict
Kennedy, who has long questioned vaccine safety and efficacy despite overwhelming scientific consensus, came under congressional scrutiny himself during his confirmation hearing. He pledged to divest a financial interest in litigation against Merck related to its Gardasil HPV vaccine, transferring it to his adult son.
In recent posts on X, Kennedy vowed to release “examples of the historical corruption at ACIP” and introduced eight new committee members. According to federal records, four of them had minimal meal reimbursements from drugmakers, while the others had no listed payments or were not tracked by Open Payments.
A 2009 report from the Office of the Inspector General had previously faulted the CDC for weak enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules. However, recent research indicates that industry ties among ACIP members have sharply declined in the past two decades.
“People are more aware of these issues on advisory committees, so they’re facing greater scrutiny there,” said Dr. Genevieve Kanter, an associate professor at the University of Southern California who has studied government health panels. Her research shows that in 2000, around 43% of members declared conflicts during vaccine votes, compared to just 5% over the past decade.
Still, Kanter cautioned that Kennedy’s new appointees must also be subject to rigorous review.
“We don’t want to replace one conflict with another set of conflicts,” she said.
“If someone has a financial interest in treatments that are believed to be alternatives to vaccines for certain conditions, we want to know that.”
Disclosures and Vetting Under the Microscope
ACIP members are barred from owning stock in vaccine manufacturers, engaging in consulting, or accepting any form of travel, food, or royalties from such companies. These rules extend to family members. They may, however, participate in industry-funded vaccine trials, provided all conflicts are disclosed annually and voting recusals are enforced.
“ACIP members … are carefully screened for major conflicts of interest and selected through a lengthy process,” said the California Department of Public Health, defending its immunization chief, Dr. Robert Schechter, who was among those dismissed.
Dr. Bonnie Maldonado, another fired panel member and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, led global vaccine research partially funded by Pfizer. From 2021 to 2023, her projects received $4.65 million from Pfizer, and she also received general payments totaling $26,465 from the company, and nearly $7,000 from Merck. She recused herself from a vote on COVID-19 vaccines in June 2024 due to these ties, but participated in another COVID-related vote in October. Maldonado did not respond to requests for comment.
Dr. Noel Brewer of the University of North Carolina, also removed, is not a clinician and thus exempt from Open Payments. He previously disclosed receiving research funding and advisory fees from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK in 2017.
Spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies mentioned declined or were unavailable for comment.
As the newly reconstituted ACIP prepares to meet in late June, the spotlight remains on how Kennedy’s appointees will be vetted, and whether the reshuffle will truly improve transparency—or simply replace one form of influence with another.
