The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has long maintained a dedicated work group focused on reviewing the latest scientific findings regarding COVID-19 vaccines. This group has typically assessed the risks and benefits associated with these vaccines. However, a significant change is on the horizon as a newly constituted group will undertake a comprehensive review of the vaccines, led by a controversial figure who has publicly opposed COVID vaccines.
On August 22, the Brownstone Institute reported that Dr. Retsef Levi, who has a doctorate in operations research and serves as a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, has been appointed to lead this new review. His appointment was made by US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he is one of seven members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee's role is crucial as it shapes vaccination policies across the country.
In an update posted by the CDC on August 20, the terms of reference for this COVID vaccine work group were made public, outlining an extensive range of topics for review. These include the impacts of repeated vaccine boosting and a comparison of vaccination policies in other countries. Notably, Dr. Levi lacks a biomedical degree or direct clinical experience, which raises questions about his qualifications to lead such a vital review.
Dr. Levi indicated to the Brownstone Institute that the work group is still in the formation phase. It will include other ACIP members, such as Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. James Pagano. Dr. Malone is a known vaccinologist and scientist who was involved in the early development of mRNA vaccines but has since become a prominent critic of them. Dr. Pagano, on the other hand, is a retired emergency medicine physician.
The newly released terms specify that CDC staff will not serve as members of the work group. Instead, they may offer administrative or technical support when necessary. This change aims to prevent any undue influence from the CDC or special-interest groups, which is particularly significant given the growing scrutiny of vaccine policies.
The reorganization of the COVID vaccine work group appears to align with broader efforts to incorporate viewpoints advocated by anti-vaccine groups. At the inaugural meeting of this newly appointed group in June, leaders hinted at forthcoming alterations in ACIP work groups. They announced the addition of two new groups: one focusing on the cumulative effects of vaccines on the recommended CDC vaccine schedule for children and adolescents, and another reviewing long-standing vaccines, such as the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine for children under five years old.
A month later, HHS declared that nonvoting liaison groups from medical and public health organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, would be barred from participating in ACIP work groups. This decision was justified by concerns that these groups might exhibit bias based on their affiliations, potentially skewing the review process.
Experts are raising alarms about the potential rigor and integrity of the new COVID vaccine review. Critics point out that Kennedy and his associates have previously engaged in selective data representation to support their anti-vaccine positions. Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician and clinical associate professor at Stanford University, expressed concerns that the review may lack scientific rigor and could involve "statistical manipulation."
Dr. Scott, who is associated with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), has actively responded to Kennedy's critiques. He noted, “I'm concerned that it won't be rigorous science, that it's going to be more statistical manipulation.”
In response to these concerns, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon assured the public that while individual members may have personal views, the task force's work would be guided by data, transparency, open-mindedness, and thorough deliberation—rather than any single opinion.
