Credits: Canva and Reuters
The US childhood vaccination schedule has become the center of a heated debate and much attention is being drawn towards it after a Senate hearing revealed the possible changes to when critical shots like the hepatitis B vaccine are given. Susan Monarez, former director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing said that she was fired in August for refusing two demands by Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, which were: fire career agency officials and sign off vaccine recommendations without seeing any data.
“He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign,” she said. “I responded that I could not pre-approve recommendations without reviewing the evidence, and I had no basis to fire scientific experts.”
At stake is not just the timeline of immunization, but also health and safety of millions of children who rely on vaccines to protect them from life-threatening diseases.
“The concern is Robert F Kennedy [Jr.] is going to make America sicker again,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “They’re going to send us towards more disease, more death and more despair in our nation.”
The CDC, through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), sets the recommended vaccine schedule for children. While not mandatory, these guidelines strongly influence what health insurers cover and how doctors across the country advise parents.
For decades, the schedule has ensured that children are vaccinated against highly contagious diseases at the ages when they are most vulnerable. Changes to this timeline are not simply administrative, they have direct consequences on whether children remain protected against illnesses that once caused widespread suffering and death.
One of the most debated issues that has risen is the hepatitis vaccine. It is from 1991 that the CDC recommended that babies must receive the first dose within 24 hours of birth, followed by additional doses at one month and between six to eighteen months.
This timing is not arbitrary. Hepatitis B is a viral infection that attacks the liver and can lead to cirrhosis, cancer, and lifelong health complications. Critically, the risk of developing chronic hepatitis B depends on the age at which a person is infected. Babies infected at birth have up to a 90% chance of developing chronic infection. Adults, by comparison, have only about a 5% chance.
Because many mothers are unaware they carry the virus, the birth dose serves as a crucial safeguard. It blocks transmission at the earliest stage, preventing lifelong illness and premature deaths.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the committee’s chair, asked Monarez if Kennedy had told her he was going to change the childhood vaccination schedule. “He said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September, and I needed to be on board with it,” Monarez said.
What is being proposed contradicts the CDC recommendation of hepatitis shot being the first one for a child to receive within 24 hours of being born. Testimony at the Senate hearing suggested that the vaccine schedule could be revised to delay the first dose of the hepatitis B shot until age 4. Former CDC officials raised alarms that this proposal was not based on scientific data but rather political direction.
If implemented, such a shift would mean babies could go unprotected during the period when they are most at risk of contracting hepatitis B from their mothers or close contacts. Experts warned this would undo decades of progress in reducing infant infections, from 20,000 cases annually before 1991 to fewer than 20 per year today.
Delaying hepatitis B vaccination could open the door to a resurgence of preventable infections. Even if mothers are screened during pregnancy, screening isn’t perfect, and some may acquire the infection late in pregnancy or go undiagnosed. Without the immediate protection of the birth dose, babies would be vulnerable.
Moreover, shifting vaccines later in childhood carries another risk: missed doses. Studies show that adherence to vaccines is highest in infancy, when routine well-baby visits are frequent. Delaying could mean some children never get fully vaccinated at all.
The consequences are not minor. Untreated hepatitis B leads to chronic infection in most infants, setting them on a path toward liver damage, cirrhosis, and cancer later in life.
The hepatitis B vaccine isn’t the only one under review. The same advisory panel is expected to revisit recommendations for measles, chickenpox, and the updated COVID-19 shot.
Also Read: US Health Officials To Examine Covid Vaccine Effects In Pregnant Women And Kids
Critics worry that altering the established childhood schedule without thorough scientific review could destabilize public trust and increase preventable outbreaks.
The controversy comes at a time when confidence in public health agencies is already slipping. According to a recent KFF poll, trust in the CDC dropped from 63% in 2023 to 57% in 2025. Changes seen as politically motivated, rather than evidence-driven, could erode that trust even further.
Experts stress that vaccination decisions should be grounded in data, not politics. The success of public health in the U.S., from reducing measles deaths to nearly eliminating mother-to-child hepatitis B transmission—has hinged on science-led policymaking.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, a gastroenterologist, reminded lawmakers that the hepatitis B vaccine transformed infant health in America: “Before 1991, as many as 20,000 babies were infected with hepatitis B each year. Now, fewer than 20 babies annually get the virus from their mother.”
Such achievements highlight the life-saving role of evidence-based vaccination. Undoing or weakening these protections without compelling scientific justification risks reversing decades of progress.
The ACIP meeting will be pivotal in determining the future of the childhood vaccine schedule. If changes are recommended, they could reshape how millions of American children are immunized. However, for many experts, the principle remains clear: any adjustments must be backed by rigorous data and public health expertise.
RF Kennedy Jr, Health Secretary, Source: AP
The future of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. is suddenly in question. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s newly restructured vaccine advisory committee is set to vote this week in Atlanta on whether to alter long-standing recommendations for several critical vaccines, including shots against chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19.
The committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), plays a powerful role: its recommendations guide pediatricians nationwide and determine which shots are covered by the government-funded Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a safety net for low-income families.
While some experts say the agenda looks like a routine review, others worry it could open the door to unnecessary confusion, weaken trust, and reduce access to vaccines that have long protected children from serious disease.
Before the chickenpox vaccine was licensed in 1995, nearly every American child contracted the disease. While often dismissed as a rite of passage with itchy rashes and mild fevers, chickenpox could also lead to severe complications like pneumonia, skin infections, brain swelling, and in rare cases, death. The virus, varicella, also lingers in the body and can resurface decades later as shingles, a painful nerve condition.
The introduction of the vaccine dramatically reduced cases and hospitalizations. In 2005, regulators approved a combination shot called MMRV, which bundled measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines into a single injection. Initially, health officials recommended the combo as the preferred option for the first dose in toddlers.
However, studies soon revealed a catch: children who received the MMRV shot were more likely to develop fevers, rashes, and in rare instances, febrile seizures compared with those who got separate MMR and varicella injections.
In response, the ACIP in 2009 updated its guidance, recommending separate shots for the first dose (typically given between ages 12–15 months) but allowing the combo shot for the second dose in preschool years.
Today, most pediatricians follow that approach. Still, the evidence hasn’t changed in over a decade. That raises eyebrows about why the Kennedy-led committee is reopening the debate now.
Public health experts caution that limiting the combined shot could make vaccination less convenient for families and potentially reduce uptake. Pediatric advisors warn that even small barriers, like two shots instead of one, can mean some kids fall behind.
While much of the attention is on chickenpox, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine remains equally critical. Each of these viruses was once a common threat in childhood:
Before widespread vaccination began in the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. contracted these diseases every year. Outbreaks have returned in recent years when vaccination rates dip, underscoring the importance of reliable and consistent recommendations.
Revisiting guidance without new evidence, experts say, risks fueling skepticism among parents already facing a flood of misinformation online.
The COVID-19 shots are also on the table. Typically, ACIP renews recommendations annually for vaccines against respiratory viruses such as flu. But this June, Kennedy’s panel endorsed flu vaccines while staying silent on COVID-19.
Also Read: US Health Officials To Examine Covid Vaccine Effects In Pregnant Women And Kids
That silence matters. Earlier, Kennedy had already removed COVID-19 shots from CDC recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women, sparking lawsuits from pediatric groups who said the move endangered kids’ health.
The FDA recently narrowed the authorization of updated COVID-19 vaccines, limiting use for certain younger groups. If ACIP mirrors that without clarification, millions of children could lose federally funded access through the Vaccines for Children program. Experts warn this could leave families confused, especially since COVID-19 formulations update yearly, much like flu shots.
Hepatitis B presents a different set of challenges. The virus can cause chronic liver infection, cirrhosis, and cancer. While adults often acquire it through sexual contact or sharing needles, newborns face the highest lifelong risk if exposed at birth.
Since 2005, U.S. guidance has recommended that infants receive their first hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth. This approach significantly reduced cases of mother-to-child transmission, which often slipped through maternal screening programs. Studies show the newborn shot is safe and highly effective, preventing 85–95% of chronic infections.
Yet Kennedy’s committee has floated the idea of revisiting this recommendation, though experts note there is no new evidence suggesting safety concerns. Critics argue that questioning the birth dose now could reverse decades of progress.
Beyond the science, the politics surrounding these deliberations are unusual. Kennedy, once one of the nation’s most vocal vaccine skeptics, dismissed the 17-member ACIP earlier this year and replaced it with a panel that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Historically, ACIP’s recommendations are based on careful review by subcommittees made up of pediatricians, infectious disease experts, pharmacists, and public health officials. Those subgroups sift through peer-reviewed studies, track outbreaks, and balance risks against benefits. But this time, critics say the process appears less about science and more about ideology.
Even if the committee doesn’t overturn long-standing guidance, simply reopening settled debates may erode confidence. Parents who hear that vaccines are “under review” might delay or decline shots, leaving children vulnerable.
Perhaps most worrisome: a restrictive vote could block coverage of these vaccines under the Vaccines for Children program, which supplies nearly half of all childhood shots in the U.S. Without it, low-income families could lose access, widening gaps in protection.
The stakes of this week’s ACIP votes go far beyond the meeting room in Atlanta. At issue is not just whether a child gets one shot or two, but whether the nation maintains decades of progress against diseases once considered inevitable.
Chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19 vaccines have all proven their worth in protecting children from dangerous, sometimes deadly illnesses. Experts say undermining trust or restricting access now could reopen the door to outbreaks that public health worked so hard to shut.
Credits: Canva
Federal health officials are taking a closer look at the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women and children, while also weighing updates to recommendations for older adults.
According to U.S. News, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing reports of possible birth defects following vaccination during pregnancy and is preparing data on deaths in children after receiving COVID shots.
The review will be presented during a September 18-19, 2025, meeting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory committee, CNN reported. Experts emphasise that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), one of the primary tools being used in the review, is a monitoring system meant to detect potential safety signals. It does not establish that vaccines directly caused the reported health problems.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is designed to act as an early-warning tool, flagging potential safety signals that may warrant further study. “VAERS is a system that generates hypotheses,” explained Dr Demetre Daskalakis, who recently stepped down as director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in an interview with CNN.
So far, large-scale studies have continued to show that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in pregnancy. The CDC has tracked outcomes in more than 23,000 pregnant women through one registry and more than 45,000 in another database, finding no increased risk of miscarriage, major birth defects, or other complications. Similarly, Pfizer reported that rates of birth defects in vaccinated participants during a clinical trial were comparable to those in the general population.
The CDC advisory committee is also expected to discuss whether vaccine guidance for older adults should be revised. While COVID vaccines are currently approved for adults 65 and older, as well as younger adults at high risk of severe illness, the panel may consider recommending them mainly for those 75 and older, or for younger individuals with underlying conditions.
ALSO READ: Is 'Stratus' COVID Variant The Pandemic’s Next Chapter In 2025 With New Symptoms?
COVID-19 activity remained high across the United States during the first week of September, according to fresh data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Despite the confusion around emerging strains, shifting vaccine guidelines, and cuts to vaccine development funding, the agency continues to track cases, hospitalisations, and deaths on a weekly basis.
For the four weeks ending August 30, projections show that a new variant called XFG. nicknamed “Stratus” accounted for 78 percent of infections nationwide. The next most common strains were NB.1.8.1 at 14 percent and LP.8.1 at 3 percent.
ALSO READ: Ozempic Users Found To Age Back By More Than 3 Years, Finds New Trial; Peer Review Pending
XFG is a late-summer Omicron offshoot and a recombinant strain, formed by blending two earlier lineages: F.7 and LP.8.1.2. Scientists say the variant may carry mutations that help it slip past parts of the immune system more effectively, though there is no evidence yet that it spreads faster than previous strains.
The CDC advises people to watch for familiar COVID-19 symptoms, which continue to include:
Credits: Canva
Every year on September 17, the world pauses to reflect on one of the most pressing challenges in healthcare, patient safety. Since its launch by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019, World Patient Safety Day has become a global campaign calling for stronger collaboration, awareness, and action to prevent avoidable harm in healthcare systems.
In 2025, the theme is “Safe care for every newborn and every child”, with the slogan “Patient safety from the start!”. The message is clear: children are not just fragile as they do not have the same levels of immunity as adults, they require special attention, protection, and tailored medical care from the very beginning of life.
Patient safety is not an isolated goal; it is the very foundation of healthcare. Without safe practices, no system can achieve universal health coverage or progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The WHO emphasizes that unsafe care remains one of the top ten causes of death and disability worldwide, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as newborns and children.
Children are particularly vulnerable to risks in healthcare. Unlike adults, they cannot decide which clinic to visit or which treatment to accept. They must rely entirely on parents, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Their smaller bodies, developing immune systems, and emotional needs mean they often respond differently to illness and medical interventions.
The German Coalition for Patient Safety (APS) stresses that children should not be treated through an “adult lens.” Its slogan for 2025: “Patient safety from childhood onwards, an investment for life", captures the long-term importance of safe care for the youngest patients. APS is also encouraging parents, pediatricians, obstetricians, and nurses to share their experiences and identify both strengths and gaps in healthcare delivery.
The urgency of this year’s theme is evident in global statistics. WHO’s Regional Director for Africa, Dr. Mohamed Janabi, recently highlighted that poor quality care, rather than lack of access, accounts for 60% of maternal deaths and 56% of neonatal deaths in low- and middle-income countries.
While access to hospitals has improved in many regions, unsafe practices, such as inadequate infection prevention, misdiagnosis, or insufficiently trained staff, continue to harm patients. Encouragingly, 21 African countries have already introduced National Quality Policies and Strategies that include patient safety measures like infection control, but more progress is needed.
World Patient Safety Day campaigns in previous years have focused on areas such as safe childbirth, medication safety, health worker safety, and diagnostic safety. This year’s emphasis on paediatric and newborn care builds on those efforts, recognizing that safety at the start of life shapes long-term health outcomes.
World Patient Safety Day 2025 is not just about raising awareness, it is also about mobilizing concrete action. Governments, hospitals, professional associations, and civil society organizations are being urged to implement sustainable strategies to safeguard children’s health. Parents and caregivers, too, are encouraged to actively participate in their child’s medical journey by asking questions, understanding treatment plans, and advocating for safe care.
Around the world, awareness activities will include advocacy campaigns, technical discussions, and the illumination of landmarks in orange, the signature color of the campaign. These symbolic gestures serve as powerful reminders that safe healthcare is a universal right, not a privilege.
This year’s slogan, “Patient safety from the start!”, underscores that ensuring safe care from birth is not optional, it is essential. Protecting children from avoidable harm is both a moral responsibility and an investment in healthier societies.
World Patient Safety Day 2025 is a reminder that safe care is achievable when everyone, from policymakers to frontline nurses, and from parents to international organizations, works together. After all, safeguarding the health of children today ensures a stronger, healthier world tomorrow.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited