Bold warning: the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel has once again postponed a crucial vote on hepatitis B vaccines amid a meeting marked by confusion and contentious claims. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) delayed the decision on Thursday, moving the vote to Friday morning after running into disputes over the voting language and a flurry of misinformation. This followed a prior delay in September over the hepatitis B vaccine schedule.
This meeting diverged sharply from usual practice. Traditionally, ACIP evaluates new vaccines or new indications for vaccines. Here, the panel considered changing a long-standing policy: the CDC has recommended that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth for 34 years. Now, some are proposing that mothers who test negative for hepatitis B decide, in consultation with a clinician, whether their baby should receive the birth dose. If accepted, this would run counter to the broad public health consensus supporting the birth-dose approach.
The venue itself sparked commentary. The session took place in the CDC’s broadcast studio, under bright studio lighting and in front of cameras, rather than in a standard conference room where scientific deliberations normally occur. A spokesperson from the Department of Health and Human Services described the setting as a response to heightened public interest.
The proceedings were replete with claims that many observers deemed misleading and data points that appeared selectively chosen. Several presenters and panel members asserted limited evidence for the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety or effectiveness, despite decades of supportive data. Historically, CDC medical experts have presented comprehensive risk-and-benefit analyses; this meeting featured inputs from anti-vaccine advocates and a climate scientist associated with anti-vaccine publications, which many viewed as a departure from the committee’s core mission.
Among the safety presentations, anti-vaccine activist Mark Blaxill argued that certain infant symptoms following vaccination—such as fatigue, weakness, diarrhea, or irritability—might be linked to encephalitis. Medical experts on the panel, including Dr. Cody Meissner, refuted these claims, with Meissner noting that those symptoms are not evidence of encephalitis and should not be described as such by physicians.
By mid-afternoon, several ACIP members admitted confusion about what exactly was being voted on, citing problems with the voting language. One member lightheartedly quipped about the redundancy of the wording. The chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, was reportedly unavailable for the vote, with vice chair Dr. Robert Malone explaining Milhoan’s travel plans to Asia.
Critics inside and outside the committee characterized the proceedings as political theater and a waste of taxpayer dollars if rigorous, science-based discussion on vaccine policy is sidelined. Notably, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) had already described the panel as discredited and said it failed to protect children before the meeting began, given his own experience as a physician treating hepatitis B patients.
Hepatitis B remains a serious, preventable infection that can cause liver disease, cancer, and death. Transmission from mother to child at birth underscores the public-health importance of timely vaccination, though not all pregnant women are tested for hepatitis B. Delays or changes to the birth-dose policy could potentially lead to more infections, according to public health experts.
The prevailing view across public health and medical organizations is that hepatitis B vaccines are safe, supported by decades of real-world data. A CDC analysis covering births from 1994 to 2023 found that vaccination prevented more than 6 million infections and nearly 1 million hospitalizations.
In addition to the hepatitis B vote, ACIP was expected to revisit the entire childhood immunization schedule and review the safety profile of aluminum salts used in many vaccines as adjuvants. Critics from anti-vaccine circles often argue that children receive too many vaccines and that aluminum-based adjuvants pose autoimmune or neurodevelopmental risks—claims that lack robust scientific backing.
Aaron Siri, an attorney known for anti-vaccine positions who has represented Kennedy, was slated to present on Friday. His involvement has previously prompted criticism, including from Senator Cassidy, who publicly called out Siri. Siri has even challenged regulators to reconsider polio vaccine approvals in other contexts.
As the day progressed, observers and outlets continued to debate the implications of the shifting governance around ACIP’s discussions, and the public discussion surrounding vaccines and policy remained highly polarized.
Reported by Aria Bendix in New York City and Erika Edwards at CDC Headquarters in Atlanta, with Bendix serving as NBC News Digital’s breaking health correspondent and Edwards covering health and medical news for NBC News and TODAY.
