By Carolyn Bick
NORTHWEST ASIAN WEEKLY
A leading infectious disease expert and one of the nation’s foremost COVID-19 researchers has voiced deep concerns about the recent overhaul of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Following her abrupt removal from the panel on June 9, Dr. Helen Chu fears that the new members, many of whom have a history of anti-vaccine rhetoric, could undermine the integrity of U.S. vaccine policy and public health guidance at a critical moment.
As one of the first to identify COVID-19 in the U.S., Chu—an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington—played a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s response to the virus. Her research provided critical data for the development of the Moderna mRNA vaccine and monoclonal antibody therapies, helping save countless lives.
Chu and Sen. Patty Murray held an emergency briefing last Thursday to address Robert F. Kennedy’s abrupt purge of ACIP.
Chu said that she had to go through a two-year vetting process to sit on the panel.
Murray expressed grave concern over the new committee members, who have a history of anti-vaccination stances, particularly COVID vaccines, promote unfounded and dangerous therapies, and push misinformation.
For instance, Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new ACIP members, suggested, without evidence, that the current measles outbreak’s pediatric death toll is simply due to medical error.
While Kennedy claimed that the former vaccine panel was simply a “rubber stamp” for all new vaccines, Chu gave an example that directly refuted Kennedy’s statement.
Chu briefly discussed how the panel had come up with the best method for administering respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, which had only recently been developed. RSV causes severe illness and death in infants and elders.
“When we reviewed the data, we saw a safety signal for something called Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is a very rare neurologic event,” Chu explained. “And we also saw more cases in people who received the vaccine.”
After several hours of discussion, Chu said, the panel opted to only recommend the vaccine for use in adults who are at high risk for severe RSV, and not recommend it for use in healthy adults, “because the risk of Guillain-Barre could outweigh the benefit of protection against RSV in this group.”
“I think this example really illustrates the approach that the ACIP takes—that what we do is rooted in science, and that the decisions we make do not necessarily benefit the companies that have invested heavily to develop these vaccines,” she said.
But, she continued, “if we can’t trust the national recommendations made by ACIP, we do have to start turning to other sources.”
She said that she has been telling people who have asked to turn to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
“These groups are still working to review the evidence and to put out science-based recommendations,” Chu said. “My fear is that we are going to turn into a country where each state is going to have to make its own decisions.”
Both Murray and Chu said they are worried that the current panel will ultimately make advisories and suggestions that will harm the public. Fewer people will get vaccinated, Murray said, if ACIP’s recommendations reflect the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience of its new members.
In Washington, Asians had the highest vaccination rates as recently as 2023. But, if those vaccines are made inaccessible or people fall prey to misinformation, those rates could sharply decrease.
Moreover, without the federal support, wanted vaccines will become inaccessible to low-income populations, because insurance companies can choose not to cover the cost of vaccines. This will further lower the rate of vaccinations.
“ACIP is used for people who provide insurance to know which vaccines to cover and are required to cover,” she explained. “And if they are not covered by your insurance, no matter where you live, it’s going to be really hard for parents and people to be able to afford these.”
This will ultimately increase mortality and severe illness outcomes amongst children, especially in vulnerable populations.