The latest vaccine advisory committee meeting under Robert F. Kennedy Jr’.s leadership took a chaotic turn, exposing deep rifts in Covid-19 vaccine policy. Newly appointed members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted against their own proposal to require prescriptions for Covid-19 vaccines, potentially limiting access for vulnerable populations.

The meeting, marked by confusion and questionable scientific assertions, highlighted the significant changes Kennedy has made since dismissing the previous committee members in June. With several new appointees holding anti-vaccine perspectives, the panel’s discussions deviated from established medical consensus.

Committee member Catherine Stein expressed concerns about prescription requirements, arguing that underinsured and healthcare-access-limited populations would be most negatively impacted. The vote ultimately resulted in a 6-6 tie, with chair Martin Kulldorff casting the deciding vote against the prescription mandate.

The FDA’s recent limitations on Covid-19 vaccine eligibility have already complicated vaccine access, restricting shots to individuals 65 and older or those with underlying health conditions. Some states, like Michigan, are taking proactive steps to preserve vaccination opportunities by broadly interpreting eligibility criteria.

During the meeting, committee members made several unsubstantiated claims, questioning vaccine safety and efficacy. Robert Malone, known for spreading vaccine misinformation, challenged the evidence of disease protection, while other members raised speculative concerns about potential side effects.

CDC scientists presented comprehensive data demonstrating the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness, but these scientific presentations seemed to have little impact on the committee’s skeptical members.

The panel’s actions reflect Kennedy’s ongoing skepticism towards Covid-19 vaccines, including previously canceling significant mRNA vaccine research and terminating contracts with vaccine manufacturers.

This unprecedented disruption of established vaccine recommendation processes raises serious concerns about public health policy and the potential consequences of politically motivated interference in medical decision-making.