Are previous vaccine recommendations tainted?

In a video produced by Epoch Times, a website owned by the Falun Gong cult, which is also responsible for the Shen Yun dance troupe, newly appointed ACIP advisors Retsef Levi and Dr. Robert Malone claim that the committee has held hidden power, relied on shaky safety data, and did not allow open debate and better long-term studies. They suggest that families could not trust its recommendations.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, is a team of independent vaccine experts who meet at the CDC. Once a new vaccine is licensed by the FDA, ACIP reviews all the data and provides guidance on how a vaccine should be used. Their advice is what ultimately lands a vaccine on the schedule your provider uses to make sure you are up-to-date and protected.

ACIP’s voting members are mostly pediatricians, epidemiologists, and infectious disease doctors. One seat is set aside for a consumer advocate. They apply through an open process run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Dozens of nonvoting liaisons from medical societies and federal agencies also sit in, which keeps the conversation broad and transparent.

The ACIP has operated under some of the strictest conflict‑of‑interest rules in the federal government, and ACIP’s charter forbids anyone with more than a token stake in a company from voting on that company’s products. Members serve as Special Government Employees, must file public financial‑disclosure forms, and are required at every meeting to declare, and, when necessary, recuse themselves for any relevant ties. Meeting minutes, member disclosures, and all supporting materials are posted online, and every session is webcast with time for open public comment. These safeguards were put in place precisely to keep vaccine policy transparent and insulated from commercial pressure.

RFK Jr. himself was required to resolve his own conflicts of interest regarding an agreement with the law firm WisnerBaum, under which he receives 10% of the funds awarded in referred vaccine litigation cases.

Despite Malone’s claims, firing the previous members did not clear conflicts. Instead, a well‑vetted process was interrupted, removing years of collective expertise and creating a political opening for advisors whose views and financial ties have not yet been probed.