Source: Children’s Health Defense

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is now scheduled to meet March 18-19, according to an updated listing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, following this month’s abrupt cancellation.

The Feb. 25-27 meeting fell through when the required Federal Register notice was not published in time — an unusual lapse that quickly set off speculation in Washington and across public health circles.

In the weeks before the disruption, ACIP vice-chair Dr. Robert Malone publicly suggested that significant changes to COVID-19 vaccine policy could be coming, urging observers to “stay tuned” ahead of the scheduled meeting.

Separately, he referenced the PREP Act — the federal law that provides liability protections during public health emergencies — prompting discussion about whether ACIP might try to remove COVID-19 vaccines from those protections.

At the same time, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups were pursuing legal action against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over recent vaccine policy changes and the restructuring of ACIP.

Some observers have speculated that the mix of potential policy shifts, lawsuits and political pressure may have played a role in the meeting’s derailment.

The session next month will mark the first time newly appointed members Adam Urato and Kimberly Biss formally take their seats.

Their appointments, announced in January, triggered immediate backlash. In a Feb. 12 letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dozens of Democratic lawmakers accused the administration of undermining ACIP.

They wrote that what had once been “a trusted panel of vaccine experts has become a hand-selected group of unqualified vaccine sceptics who have undermined years of scientific integrity and vetted public health practices.”

The letter described Urato and Biss as having a “well-documented history of anti-vaccine ideology” and warned that their addition would put “women and their children’s lives at risk.”

Lawmakers called on Kennedy to remove “vaccine sceptics” from the panel and reinstate the 17 members dismissed last year.

Urato rejected the characterization.

In a public post on X, he described the letter as “absurd,” saying it accused him of having a “history of anti-vaccine ideology” without evidence.

“I’m not anti-vaccine,” he wrote.

“My positions are clear — & they’re things we all agree on: Pregnant women deserve accurate counseling about vaccines. Vaccines carry risks & benefits. Pregnant women should be counseled properly & supported in their vaccine decisions.”

He added that these were “uncontroversial, common-sense positions supported by the overwhelming majority of the public” and said he was honored to serve on ACIP.

The criticism of ACIP hasn’t been limited to Congress.

A commentary published this month in the journal Vaccine accused the December 2025 ACIP meeting of “lack of transparency,” “substantial misinformation” and “poor decision processes.”

The paper, authored by a group of “dismissed ACIP members,” concluded that “the quality of ACIP deliberations continues to degrade” and that recent recommendations were “likely harmful to public health.”

In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) just announced it is withdrawing as a liaison organization to ACIP, stating that recent restructuring has eroded confidence in the committee’s scientific standards.

ACOG endorsed COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy despite pregnant women being excluded from the pivotal trials and went on to support mandate policies tied to those recommendations.

The scale of these attacks goes to show how much is riding on the direction of this ACIP panel — and the decisions now before it.

With the meeting restored to the calendar, attention now shifts to the agenda, which has yet to be released.

The March meeting will make clear whether the disruption was just a procedural lapse — or the prelude to something larger.

Originally published on Maryanne Demasi’s MD Reports Substack page.