The Jimmy Kimmel show may seem like an unconventional venue for a serious debate about the First Amendment. It appears that the free speech rights of celebrities are prioritized over those of protesters opposing Israel’s actions.1 However, a more complex and ongoing conflict is unfolding between medical organizations and state public health officials who are challenging the current Administration, especially regarding its attempts to cast doubt on certain vaccines and medications while restricting access to some by ceasing their recommendations. As witnessed during the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, when the CDC discontinued its recommendation for annual shots, it didn’t just impact insurance coverage but also led major pharmacy chains to stop stocking them. Presently, the CDC has embraced a somewhat ambiguous “personal choice” position, leaving states to decipher its implications. That said, it appears that vaccines are becoming available at major pharmacies once again.2
Below, we will delve into a Wall Street Journal piece titled The Doctors Building a Public-Health Universe Outside the Government. This article highlights how several key medical associations and some states are deviating from new Federal recommendations, particularly concerning vaccines. More importantly, they aim to address a data void that the CDC has historically filled.
This initiative’s goal of serving as a data repository and potentially a distributor of treatment recommendations could help establish a parallel public health system, should it be executed effectively. We have previously critiqued CDC director Rochelle Walensky for lacking the requisite experience to manage an organization with 32,000 employees, especially given its primary function as a knowledge hub for clinicians. The CDC faltered during the COVID crisis by failing to provide essential guidance to front-line physicians, particularly regarding treatment strategies, a role it effectively fulfilled during the AIDS epidemic.
The second point of concern is how insurance companies might respond if states adopt different vaccination guidelines, which is already occurring. Instances abound where insurers refuse to cover procedures that state law mandates;3 they often struggle with implementing state-specific requirements adequately.
Additionally, the ongoing segmentation of medical care is increasingly influenced by social class and ideology. The growing trend in the medical field is driven by affluent, health-conscious patients—along with the doctors and product providers who cater to them—many of whom are enthusiastic about alternative medicine and meticulous about food quality, a level of access that many ordinary consumers cannot afford or obtain.4 Some of these individuals outright reject conventional medicine. For example, Steve Jobs declined standard treatment for his highly treatable pancreatic cancer, believing he could overcome it with “natural” methods.
It is essential to recognize that skepticism within this elite group has some basis, especially given the unsatisfactory data surrounding COVID vaccine injuries and the creation of vaccination policies that support informed choice.5 Overtreatment and unnecessary testing abound in American healthcare.
Tragically, this polarization of beliefs has fostered a black-and-white mentality, which is far from optimal. For example, as the CDC contemplates adjustments to the pediatric vaccine schedule, one potential removal is the hepatitis B vaccine administered right after birth. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, strongly advocated for this vaccination in recent hearings, leading an advisory committee that was initially expected to vote against it to postpone its decision instead.
The situation is not as straightforward as it might seem. As pointed out by The Conversation:
Prior to the United States initiating routine hepatitis B vaccination for all infants at birth in 1991, approximately 18,000 children contracted the virus annually before their tenth birthday, with around half of those infections occurring at birth. Nearly 90% of this group developed chronic infections.
In the U.S., 1 in 4 children who are chronically infected with hepatitis B will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.
However, the opposing argument suggests that obstetricians regularly test pregnant women, making it relatively simple to check for hepatitis B and vaccinate only those newborns at risk.
This argument, however, assumes that maternal care is adequate. The U.S. currently has the highest maternal mortality rate among affluent countries, with 7% of live births occurring to mothers who received late or no prenatal care. With over 3.6 million live births in 2024, this translates to around 252,000 births that may involve mothers who are inadequately tested.
In essence, I would take anti-vaccination advocates more seriously if they vigorously promoted the need for enhanced prenatal care and educated both doctors and mothers about hepatitis B testing. Nevertheless, I have yet to see any proponents of delaying the hepatitis B vaccine after birth actively making this case in public forums.
Going forward, it appears that the ideological divide in medical practice will only widen. This is likely to heighten patient distrust and confusion while increasing the potential for strife between patients and doctors due to conflicting Federal and state directives.
Next, we will highlight key sections from the Wall Street Journal article:
A growing number of physicians and policymakers are expressing distrust toward federal health advice since longtime vaccine skeptic Kennedy was appointed as Health and Human Services Secretary. They are working to create a parallel public health framework outside the U.S. government.
Professional medical associations are issuing guidelines that diverge from official government advice. Governors and state health officials are amending regulations to maintain vaccine access within their jurisdictions.
At the core of this initiative is the Vaccine Integrity Project, led by Dr. Daniel Crawford, who aims to analyze the latest research on vaccines.
The article discusses a focus on vaccines—and now, purportedly acetaminophen (Tylenol)—as arguments for RFK Jr. and his supporters. We have repeatedly emphasized that autism is not a condition that develops postnatally. The most probable explanation for the increase in autism cases is the changes in diagnostic criteria, resulting in more children being classified as autistic, which may correlate with an increase in maternal age at childbirth.
Currently, we see an ongoing struggle:
Resistance has been on the rise since Trump appointed Kennedy, who stated he urged him to “go wild on health.” In May, Kennedy posted a video on X announcing the withdrawal of a COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for pregnant women and healthy children.
In June, Kennedy replaced all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with a team including vaccine skeptics. Distrust peaked in late August when Kennedy’s administration ousted the newly appointed CDC director, Susan Monarez, following disputes over vaccine policy.
The new ACIP team, appointed shortly before the recent meeting, moderated the government’s robust recommendation for the COVID vaccine, instead promoting “individual decision-making” in consultation with healthcare providers. They also removed the recommendation for a combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) vaccine for children.
The varicella vaccine is a live virus vaccine that may result in stronger reactions, including heightened vulnerability to short-term infections. Generally, the U.S. tends to administer multiple vaccines simultaneously for the convenience of healthcare providers, so proposing to space them out isn’t unreasonable. Yet, no groundwork for this suggestion was established.
Consequently, inconsistency in responses from insurers and growing resistance are emerging:
Typically, private insurance plans base their coverage on ACIP recommendations. Some insurers have indicated they will continue to cover vaccines that were recommended prior to the recent changes.
Healthcare professionals protested the voting results and the new ACIP’s deviation from standard procedures that evaluate evidence through rigorous research.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued an immediate response, stating that “scientific evidence continues to strongly support broad COVID-19 vaccination,” and warned that “.@SecKennedy presents a clear and present danger to the American people and their families.”
This month, several states distanced themselves from CDC vaccine policies. Some have formed coalitions to develop their own public health guidelines.
“We must take proactive measures as governors since the federal government is currently not a trusted ally,” said Oregon’s Gov. Tina Kotek, one of the participants in the newly established West Coast Health Alliance. They released guidelines for COVID, RSV, and flu vaccines a day prior to the ACIP meeting.
Interestingly, the leaders of the Vaccine Integrity Project include Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP, known for its credible COVID information, and Rochelle Walensky, presumably to bolster confidence among supporters. This approach may backfire, especially if she is utilized as a spokesperson, but the Journal emphasizes Osterholm’s role as the initiative’s driving force.
Christy Walton has provided initial funding of $246,000. So far, the mission is:
Osterholm and his team consulted with health organizations, medical societies, and hospital systems, asking: If the CDC and ACIP were fundamentally compromised, what could they do to assist with vaccine recommendations?
They analyzed the feedback alongside a steering committee composed of public health leaders, including former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and a former Republican congressman. Ultimately, they concluded that their best course of action would be to conduct the type of research typically managed by the CDC.
The article elaborates on the qualifications and efforts of senior members contributing to this initiative, which is already making strides:
In August, a virtual audience attended a webinar revealing the research findings regarding fall vaccinations. Doctors and researchers shared their insights.
“What you are about to hear is an analysis usually conducted by the CDC,” emphasized Osterholm. The webinar has since garnered over 9,000 views.
It is premature to assess how effectively this initiative will bridge the gaps created by the CDC’s information deficits. While I am hesitant to invoke libertarian rhetoric, I ask those opposing the counter-response to the mainstream medical establishment, how can you oppose competition in the market of ideas?
____
1 Legal experts may articulate this more precisely, but the issue at hand was not Kimmel’s free speech limitations. Kimmel, acting as an employee of Disney/ABC, is bound by contractual responsibilities that inherently impose limitations on his content. The real pressure was directed at ABC, which ultimately yielded to that pressure.
2 While it is not pleasant to weigh in, neglecting to do so could lead to unnecessary backlash in comments. I personally have reservations about mRNA vaccines, as their immunity enhancement is often short-lived and rendered ineffective by the constant mutation of the virus. Regrettably, the conflict surrounding this technology has inadvertently strengthened the ongoing resistance against using Novavax, which employs an older and safer technology that provides more lasting immunity.
It is also important to note that the emphasis on vaccination has contributed to persistently high COVID rates in the U.S. due to the lack of alternative preventative strategies such as improved ventilation and masking. Furthermore, the disdain towards mRNA as a vaccine format may lead to bias against its application in cancer therapies, which represent a distinct use case.
3 For example, during the COVID era, New York State mandated insurance reimbursement for COVID testing. Recall that airlines at one point required a recent negative COVID test for travel. Cigna denied numerous claims, prompting me to engage the state insurance regulator numerous times.
4 For instance, one can visit the farm where the beef you’re going to eat is sourced from, even specifying its diet.
5 I know of two individual cases of vaccine injuries that were never reported to VAERS. An IM Doctor also described multiple instances, including severe cases and even a death, where his reports were frequently dismissed. My understanding is that roughly one-third of submissions were accepted, making the VAERS database an unreliable gauge for assessing the level of COVID vaccine injuries.
