The Wall Street Journal ran a letter co-authored by Charley Hooper and me today (print version tomorrow). I have hesitated to quote more than 2 paragraphs, but I think my contract that allows full quotation only after 30 days applies to my paid work, not my free work. So I’ll take the chance and quote the whole thing.
As you note in your editorial “RFK Jr. Conducts His Vaccine Purge” (June 11), HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices over a charge of conflicts of interest. He’s provided no evidence of such entanglements, settling instead for the claim that the “public must know that unbiased science guides the recommendations from our health agencies.”
Yet we have evidence of this from a related case. Like ACIP, the Food and Drug Administration uses outside experts on advisory committees. The FDA has tried to exclude members with ties to industry, which has slowed the approval of drugs for rare conditions because the few experts all have such ties. Fortunately, the effects of committee conflicts of interest have been evaluated and shown to be nonexistent.
In 2006 the physician Sidney Wolfe and several colleagues published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that drew on 76 meetings of FDA advisory committees that involved “yes” or “no” votes on individual drugs. They found that if voters with conflicts of interest had been excluded, none of the 76 outcomes would have changed. The participants with conflicts, moreover, were more likely than those without to vote for drugs that would compete with “their” company’s product.
In other words: Until proven otherwise, we have no reason to think ACIP had such a problem before Mr. Kennedy’s purge.
David R. Henderson
Hoover Institution
Pacific Grove, Calif.
Charles L. Hooper
Objective Insights, Inc.
Grass Valley, Calif.
Thanks to Charley for providing the backup link for the JAMA article. I got a request from the letters editor to provide the link and some screenshots backing up our claim. I was about to leave with my wife to celebrate Father’s Day.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jun 17 2025 at 2:33pm
I think it’s OK to always keep in mind that the large pharmaceuticals may have different interests than the general public at times and that it can be harmful. Purdue Pharma is a good example. However, the large majority of the time interests align as consumers and producers both want better drugs/therapies. The very large majority of time you need input from industry experts or experts who have worked with industry when making decisions about drugs and therapies. Just like any other area of the economy most of the actual experts will have either worked in industry or done research that has been financed by industry.
It’s best to have a mix of industry and non-industry and make sure that all interests are disclosed. Then monitor, as has been done, the results. Anyway, this is all BS. RFK just wants to name people who agree with his views. Probably pt a couple fo real experts on just so he can pretend it’s legit.
Steve
Mark Brophy
Jun 19 2025 at 11:00am
The CDC pressed Covid shots on healthy children and adults years after most other developed countries had stopped. Even now, the CDC is openly defying Kennedy and refusing to say healthy kids should not receive the shots. Obviously, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices cares more about vaccine vendors than about the public.
Mark Brophy
Jun 19 2025 at 11:06am
The childhood vaccination schedules in Denmark and the United States reflect distinct approaches to public health, shaped by differing priorities, risk assessments, and cultural attitudes toward immunization. While both countries aim to protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases, the U.S. schedule is notably more extensive, recommending vaccinations against a broader range of diseases with a higher number of doses, whereas Denmark adopts a more selective and cautious approach, focusing on diseases deemed to pose significant risks to children.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) outlines a schedule that targets 18 diseases, administering approximately 68 doses by age 18. This begins at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine, followed by a series of vaccinations in the first year, including those for rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DTaP), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), polio, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV), and influenza. By 12 months, U.S. children receive around 43 doses covering 16 diseases, with additional vaccines like varicella (chickenpox), hepatitis A, measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), and meningococcal introduced later. The schedule also includes annual influenza shots, COVID-19 vaccines, and RSV immunization for infants, alongside boosters for diseases like tetanus and pertussis (Tdap) in adolescence. Notably, vaccines such as hepatitis B and varicella are mandated in some states, reflecting a proactive stance on diseases that may not always pose immediate risks to healthy children but could have population-level impacts.
In contrast, Denmark’s childhood vaccination program, overseen by the Danish Health Authority and Statens Serum Institut, targets 10 diseases with a total of about 18 doses by age 12. The schedule begins at three months with a pentavalent vaccine covering DTaP, Hib, and polio, alongside PCV, rather than starting at birth like the U.S. Denmark does not routinely offer the hepatitis B vaccine to infants or children unless they are in high-risk groups, such as those born to hepatitis B-positive mothers. Similarly, vaccines for rotavirus, varicella, hepatitis A, influenza, COVID-19, and RSV are not included in the routine schedule for healthy children, though they are available for high-risk groups or upon request for a fee. The MMR vaccine is administered in two doses at 15 months and four years, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is offered to both boys and girls at age 12. Denmark’s program is voluntary, emphasizing informed choice, and focuses on vaccines for diseases that can cause severe illness in children, avoiding those perceived as less critical to reduce the risk of vaccine hesitancy.
The difference in scope is stark: by age 12 months, a U.S. child receives more than twice as many doses as a Danish child. This reflects the U.S.’s broader public health strategy, which prioritizes herd immunity and protection against diseases that may have low incidence but high potential impact, such as hepatitis B or varicella. Denmark, however, weighs the risk of overwhelming parents with too many vaccines, believing this could erode trust in the program. The Danish approach is supported by high vaccination coverage—over 97% for infants—suggesting that a streamlined schedule does not necessarily compromise uptake. Additionally, Denmark’s health authorities have cited studies showing no link between vaccines like MMR and autism, and they avoid combining live and non-live vaccines in ways that might increase non-specific health effects, a consideration less emphasized in the U.S.
These variations raise questions about necessity and outcomes. For instance, the U.S. includes vaccines for diseases like varicella, which Denmark omits, yet both countries maintain low rates of these illnesses. Some critics of the U.S. schedule point to Denmark’s lower autism prevalence as a potential correlation with fewer vaccines, though rigorous studies, including Danish register-based research, have found no causal link. Others argue that Denmark’s approach benefits from a homogeneous population and robust healthcare system, allowing for a leaner schedule without sacrificing public health. Conversely, the U.S.’s diverse population and higher disease exposure risks may justify its more aggressive strategy.
Ultimately, the differences underscore a trade-off between comprehensiveness and simplicity. The U.S. casts a wide net to maximize protection, while Denmark prioritizes trust and necessity, tailoring its program to diseases with clear, severe risks. Both achieve high immunization rates, but their paths reflect distinct philosophies on balancing science, policy, and public perception.
Comments are closed.