As the new school year approached, families expected familiar guidance on vaccines. What they got instead was upheaval: Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—the body whose recommendations form the basis for state immunization mandates.

This fall, as families gear up to meet school immunization requirements, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. quietly launched a dramatic reshaping of U.S. vaccine guidance. Despite assuring senators he’d maintain the independence of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) during his confirmation, Kennedy dismissed all 17 expert members of the CDC’s ACIP in June 2025—a move widely criticized as political and destabilizing. He presented it, however, as necessary to “restore public trust” and rid the committee of pharmaceutical influence.

Just days later, eight new members were named—though one withdrew amid ethics concerns. Unlike their predecessors, this panel includes only one epidemiologist and one infectious disease specialist, with no virologists or immunologists. Many appointees lack peer-reviewed vaccine research altogether, and those who do have published, on average, 78% fewer vaccine-related papers than former members.

Within hours of the overhaul, leaders from nearly 100 medical groups—including the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics—warned that the dismissals could sow confusion among doctors and patients, ultimately increasing preventable illnesses.

Several states—including Colorado, New York, and Massachusetts—are now advancing legislation to ensure vaccine insurance coverage regardless of shifts in ACIP recommendations. At the same time, independent groups like the Vaccine Integrity Project and organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are stepping in with their own evidence-based guidelines.

List of RFK Jr.'s New Vaccine Advisory Panel Members

Here’s a closer look at the individuals now shaping the future of U.S. immunization guidance:

Robert W. Malone, MD – Physician and Biochemist

Dr. Robert Malone is widely recognized as a polarizing figure in the vaccine debate. A physician and biochemist, Malone has publicly claimed to have contributed to the foundational research that led to mRNA vaccine technology, though many scientists dispute the extent of his role. In recent years, he emerged as a prominent skeptic of COVID-19 vaccine safety and a central voice in misinformation campaigns during the pandemic.

His statements have repeatedly landed him in hot water with the medical community. Notably, he was criticized for publicly denying that Daisy Hildebrand, an 8-year-old girl, died of measles—despite confirmation from her family and medical professionals. Critics argue that his inclusion on the new panel undermines credibility, particularly given his history of promoting unverified claims through high-traffic media appearances and social media platforms.

Joseph R. Hibbeln, MD – Psychiatrist and Neuroscientist

Dr. Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and nutritional neuroscientist, spent nearly three decades at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where he led research on the role of omega-3 fatty acids in mental health. Though respected for his work in nutritional psychiatry, Hibbeln has no formal background in virology, immunology, or vaccine development.

His appointment raised eyebrows further after Reuters reported his involvement as an expert witness in a lawsuit against Merck over its human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine—litigation that also has ties to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s broader vaccine-critical advocacy efforts. While his clinical credentials are solid, his experience with vaccine policy is limited.

Martin Kulldorff, PhD – Biostatistician and Epidemiologist

Among the more experienced appointees, Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a biostatistician known for his role in developing vaccine safety surveillance tools at the CDC. He has previously served on the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and was part of the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group.

However, Kulldorff gained national attention—and sharp criticism—for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter that argued against pandemic lockdowns and supported herd immunity through natural infection. His outspoken opposition to school closures and COVID-19 mandates eventually led to his dismissal from Harvard’s faculty. Though undeniably experienced in data analysis and public health, his stance during the pandemic has made him a polarizing figure in vaccine discourse.

Retsef Levi, PhD – Operations Management Professor

Dr. Retsef Levi, a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, holds a doctorate in operations research and has worked extensively in systems optimization and supply chain logistics. However, he is not a medical doctor and lacks formal training in immunology or infectious disease.

Levi has been an outspoken critic of mRNA vaccines, publicly claiming in early 2023 that the technology posed "indisputable" risks—including death, especially in younger populations. He called for their immediate suspension, drawing widespread criticism from scientific institutions. His appointment to the committee suggests a shift toward elevating voices that challenge the scientific consensus, raising concerns about evidence-based decision-making.

Cody Meissner, MD – Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialist

Among the few on the panel with direct vaccine expertise, Dr. Cody Meissner is a well-respected pediatric infectious disease expert and professor at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. He has served as chief of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Division at Tufts Medical Center and held a seat on the prior ACIP panel, giving him insider knowledge of how immunization policies are formed.

Despite his qualifications, Meissner has also drawn criticism for his opposition to masking mandates and COVID-19 vaccine requirements for children during the pandemic. Still, he stands out as the panel’s most credentialed expert. Notably, he was the only member of the newly reformed committee to vote against rescinding recommendations for flu vaccines that contain thimerosal—a preservative that some skeptics claim is linked to autism, a theory repeatedly debunked by decades of research.

Vicky Pebsworth, RN, PhD – Registered Nurse and Vaccine Safety Advocate

Dr. Vicky Pebsworth brings over 45 years of nursing experience and has previously served on the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. She currently sits on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a controversial group known for promoting vaccine injury awareness and advocating for personal belief exemptions.

Pebsworth’s views are informed in part by personal experience: her son reportedly suffered serious long-term health issues following vaccination. Her role with the NVIC and emphasis on vaccine injury prevention raise questions about bias, though Kennedy has pointed to such perspectives as “essential for reestablishing balance” in vaccine discussions.

James Pagano, MD – Emergency Physician

Dr. James Pagano is an emergency room physician who has served on various hospital committees related to critical care and medical utilization. Unlike others on the panel, Pagano does not have a background in epidemiology, virology, or public health, nor does he appear to have any published research on vaccines.

His role on the advisory panel seems to reflect Kennedy’s broader strategy of diversifying input beyond traditional academic or government sources, though critics argue this risks sidelining science in favor of anecdote.

The previous panel's inaugural June meeting was marked by confusion and controversy. Key proposals under consideration included the removal of thimerosal from flu vaccines and a review of the cumulative childhood immunization schedule—topics long rejected by medical mainstream but popular among vaccine skeptics.

Presenters included anti-vaccine figures, such as Lyn Redwood of Kennedy’s own children’s health advocacy organization. Conflicts of interest and lack of published ethics reviews further marred the panel’s debut. The American Academy of Pediatrics even boycotted the meeting in protest.

• Why These Changes Are Coming At A Bad Time For US Healthcare?

The timing couldn’t be worse. The U.S. is battling its worst measles outbreak in decades, with 1,333 confirmed cases—of which 92% occurred among unvaccinated individuals.

Kennedy’s sweeping changes and public vaccine skepticism have emboldened parents to seek exemptions. Recent polls show nearly 60% of Americans are now inclined to skip COVID-19 vaccines, raising red flags for public health professionals.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ACIP overhaul isn’t just bureaucratic—it’s deeply political. His stated objective of restoring public trust mirrors his long-standing critique of pharmaceutical influence. But replacing experts with skeptics? That risks forfeiting trust altogether.

Like swapping plane pilots at takeoff, ACIP's dismantling invites more than concern—it threatens the foundation that has long kept Americans safe from disease.

It is no news that all appointments in the United States' Health Departments that have been made under RFK Jr are of the people who have been vaccine critiques. In a similar scenario, Dr Ralph Abraham, a state surgeon from Louisiana, who had ordered health officials to stop promoting mass vaccination will now serve as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) principal deputy director.

It was in February when Abraham instructed health department staff to stop promoting vaccines for preventable diseases.

He wrote in a February 13 internal memo that although patients should continue speaking with their providers about the risks and benefits of vaccination, the health department will stop promoting mass vaccination. The memo was issued on the same day Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn in as secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services. While his hiring has not been announced by HHS, but his new role has been confirmed. It was first reported by health newsletter Inside Medicine.

Who Are Part Of The CDC?

As of now the CDC does not have a permanent director. Kennedy ousted Dr Susan Monarez from the role in August. Jim O'Neill, who is serving as the deputy HHS secretary said this month that the agency has had "mission creep" and needs to focus on its original mandate.

“We want to … take the people we have and put them to their best use. And secondly, we are always recruiting. We are eager to hire wonderful scientists and data engineers and AI engineers and researchers and drug reviewers across the department, including CDC. If you are talented, you care about health or human services – please come work with us.”

What More Do We Know About Ralph Abraham?

The news of his appointment comes days after the CDC changed its guidelines on vaccines on its website. The CDC website now links vaccines with autism and states that "vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim".

While Abraham has not outrightly been anti-vaccine, he had asked the health staff to not promote it for preventable diseases or infection and has long echoed Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) rhetoric. He had questioned trust in the pharmaceutical industry and public health institutions.

“The solution to increased spending and declining outcomes in our country is unlikely to come in the form of a pill or a shot,” Abraham said in a February statement. “Much of the solution will likely come down to the usual hard work of improving diet, increasing exercise, and making better lifestyle choices.”

Changes In CDC

Apart from the guidelines being changes on autism and vaccine link, in August, Kennedy dismissed all members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the body whose recommendations form the basis of state immunization mandates.

Just days later, eight new members were named—though one withdrew amid ethics concerns. Unlike their predecessors, this panel includes only one epidemiologist and one infectious disease specialist, with no virologists or immunologists. Many appointees lack peer-reviewed vaccine research altogether, and those who do have published, on average, 78% fewer vaccine-related papers than former members.

The long-standing practice of adding fluoride to community drinking water in the United States is now under sharp review as questions rise about whether its advantages continue to outweigh possible risks. A fresh set of findings pushes back against recent warnings about fluoride in water and suggests that it might offer added benefits.

This renewed national discussion began after a government report from the National Toxicology Program stated that high fluoride exposure was tied to lower IQ in children. That report, however, assessed fluoride amounts that were at least twice higher than federal recommendations and had limited information about what happens at lower, commonly used levels, as per CNN.

However, the latest study examined fluoride quantities that match the usual suggested range in drinking water. Researchers found strong evidence showing that children who grew up with water containing these lower levels of fluoride performed better on cognitive assessments than those who had no fluoride exposure.

Fluoride in US Public Water Faces Renewed Questions

Dr. Rob Warren, lead author of the study released in Science Advances, said he was surprised by the National Toxicology Program’s earlier conclusions and felt the need to produce evidence more suitable for public policy. He explained that he pursued the work because it was a major question without a clear answer.

The national debate has also intensified as US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has labeled fluoride an industrial waste and pointed to possible IQ loss while calling for a rollback of federal guidance. Utah and Florida have already moved to prohibit fluoridation of public water.

As per CNN, Warren compared the situation to testing a heart medication. If the advised dose is 100 milligrams, but a study measures reactions to nearly a million milligrams, the results do not reflect what happens at the normal dose. He said that this is how much of the fluoride research has been structured and that only extremely high doses have shown harmful effects, which is not helpful for policy decisions.

Warren directs a long-running program that began in the US Department of Education and has followed tens of thousands of Americans from their high school years in the 1980s through several decades.

Fluoride and Cognition: What The Study Found

For the current analysis, the team linked math, reading and vocabulary test scores from nearly 27,000 participants to the level of fluoride in their childhood drinking water. These measurements were based on older records from the US Geological Survey and the Department of Health and Human Services, as per CNN.

Researchers worked under the assumption that participants spent their entire upbringing near their high schools. They sorted people into three groups. One group had steady exposure to recommended fluoride levels either through natural sources or public water treatment. Another group never had fluoride in their water. A third group had mixed exposure because their community changed its water policy at some point.

Students who had fluoride for only part of their childhood scored higher on tests than peers who never had it. Those who grew up with fluoride throughout all their childhood years scored even better. Follow-up testing that continued up to 2021, when many had reached about 60 years of age, also showed no sign that fluoride contributed to cognitive decline.

Warren clarified that cognitive tests are not exact IQ scores, although they relate strongly. Test results reflect both mental ability and the learning opportunities a person receives. He is currently working on a follow-up project that will look more closely at fluoride and IQ with improved childhood location data.

Other studies this year suggested that removing fluoride from public water in the United States could lead to more than 25 million extra cavities among children and teenagers in five years along with nearly 10 billion dollars in dental treatment costs. Although the new study did not measure dental health, experts noted that pain from untreated cavities can interfere with a child’s ability to attend school or stay focused, which may influence academic scores.

Why Experts Still Differ on Fluoride Policy

Fluoride occurs naturally in some groundwater and foods. It protects teeth by strengthening enamel, which can be damaged by acids formed from bacteria, plaque and sugar. Communities in the United States started adding fluoride to water systems in 1945 to improve oral health in a cost-effective way.

The American Dental Association and numerous specialists continue to support community water fluoridation. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also kept its recommendations unchanged. The agency does not have authority to require fluoridation, but it considers 0.7 milligrams per liter the ideal amount.

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration restricted the use of prescription fluoride supplements. The agency noted that unapproved fluoride products may alter the gut microbiome and that better options exist to protect teeth.

In a written response published with the new research, Dr. David Savitz from Brown University argued that before ending a decades-long public health practice, there must be clear proof of harm at commonly used fluoride levels. He wrote that there is still no convincing evidence that fluoridation lacks benefit or causes damage at recommended doses.

He quoted a well-known saying, noting that if something is not broken, there is no reason to fix it. He said the new study suggests that fluoridated water remains on the side of being effective and safe.

The Neuralink chip is a piece of technology that’s hoped will one day allow people to operate devices like phones and computers using their thoughts. Its creator, tech mogul Elon Musk, describes it as a “Fitbit in your skull with tiny wires.” Elon Musk's brain implant company Neuralink said recently that 12 people worldwide have received its chips. The device is meant to have several applications, from restoring motor functionality within people to enabling a brain-computer interface. The question now is whether it will be able to reverse paralysis in the future or not.

Neuralink: What Is Neuralink, And What Does It Do?

Neuralink is a neurotechnology company Musk set up in 2016. The device is roughly the size of a coin and is implanted into the skull, with hair-thin threads placed inside specific parts of the brain to form a working brain-computer interface.

The implant records brain signals and transfers them to an external device, such as a smartphone, through Bluetooth. Its first product, Telepathy, is designed to let a person operate their phone or computer through intention alone. By placing the chip in regions that manage movement, Neuralink believes it could help people living with neurological conditions. Musk has said that early users would likely be people who cannot use their limbs.

Neuralink: What Testing Has Neuralink Carried Out In The Past?

As per Reuters, the company has run trials using monkeys and pigs. Demonstrations have featured monkeys moving a cursor or playing simple on-screen games using the implant. Neuralink maintains that no monkey died because of the device itself, though reports have circulated describing complications in some animals, including paralysis, seizures and swelling in the brain.

Neuralink: Can Neuralink Cure Paralysis?

The human brain contains millions of neurons responsible for movement, emotion and thought. These neurons send electrical signals down pathways that run from the brain to the rest of the body. If a person tries to stand up, the brain sends electrical instructions to the legs, and the reaction is instant. Paralysis develops when pathways in the spinal cord are damaged or blocked, according to the description on Neuralink’s website.

Because the Neuralink implant reads the brain’s signals, it can forward those signals to the limbs even when the spinal cord no longer relays them. This would require one implant in the brain and another placed below the injured area of the spinal cord. With steady training, a person could regain movement, raising the possibility that Neuralink may one day help restore mobility.

Neuralink Ethical Concerns

Experts have questioned the company’s experiments on animals and the general risks linked to brain operations, which can include seizures or bleeding. They have also pointed to worries about data privacy and long-term surveillance, since there is limited detail on how much control users will have over their neural information.

Earlier this year, the US Department of Transportation fined the company for failing to register as a carrier of hazardous biological material, including implants removed from primates, according to agency records reviewed by Reuters.

Neuralink Is FDA Approved

In late May 2023, the FDA granted Neuralink permission to start human testing. The company said on Twitter that the approval marked the beginning of its first clinical study in people, calling it a vital step toward making the technology accessible in the future.

Neuralink has continued to share updates, and in July 2025, it announced that it had completed two brain-implant procedures on the same day. Both individuals are said to be recovering well. Musk responded soon after, expressing confidence in what the technology might achieve in the coming years.