The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has officially announced its withdrawal as a liaison organization to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) due to significant concerns over recent changes within the committee. ACOG expressed that these developments undermine the scientific integrity and evidence-based approach that have traditionally guided vaccine policy.
In a statement, ACOG President Dr. Steven J. Fleischman emphasized the organization’s long-standing commitment to ensuring that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous scientific evidence. He pointed out that recent alterations to ACIP, including the removal of ACOG experts from workgroups and unilateral changes to vaccine recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), signify a departure from the scientific rigor that has characterized the committee for over six decades.
Last year, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Replaced the entire ACIP to restore public confidence in vaccine science. Following this overhaul, new members with critical views of COVID-19 vaccines were appointed, leading to decisions that alarmed many health experts. These included overturning the previously universal recommendation for hepatitis B vaccination at birth and recommending shared decision-making instead, as well as voting against the use of thimerosal in flu vaccines and the combination measles and chickenpox vaccine.
ACOG’s Position on COVID-19 Vaccination
While the CDC has ceased to universally recommend COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant women, suggesting that vaccination should be based on shared decision-making, ACOG continues to advocate for universal prenatal COVID-19 vaccinations. This discrepancy highlights a significant difference in the stance of ACOG compared to the current recommendations from the CDC.
Impact on Professional Relationships
This withdrawal marks a further strain in the relationship between federal health agencies and medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians, which have also faced restrictions from participating in ACIP meetings. A recent three-day ACIP meeting was canceled by HHS with no rescheduled date announced.
Concerns Over Data Integrity
ACOG raised concerns about ACIP’s recent presentations, alleging that they included “cherry-picked data” lacking appropriate scientific context, and disregarded peer-reviewed reports on vaccine safety. According to ACOG, these actions threaten to undermine public confidence in immunizations, which have historically played a crucial role in preventing diseases and saving lives.
Dr. Fleischman reiterated that ACOG’s withdrawal does not reflect a lack of commitment to advancing vaccine science or protecting patient health. instead, it emphasizes the necessity of basing clinical recommendations on the best available scientific evidence. ACOG has been involved in developing evidence-based clinical guidance on immunization during pregnancy for years, ensuring that expert opinions and unbiased knowledge are represented in the discussion.
Future Directions and Initiatives
Going forward, ACOG plans to continue its engagement with ACIP as a public member while collaborating with the University of Minnesota’s Vaccine Integrity Project (VIP). This initiative aims to maintain a rigorous evidence-based approach to vaccine use. Members of VIP are set to conduct an evidence-based review of vaccine effectiveness and safety ahead of the 2026-2027 respiratory virus season, a move that reflects the growing concern over the integrity of vaccine recommendations.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar from Johns Hopkins, supported ACOG’s decision to withdraw from ACIP, characterizing the current state of the committee as problematic and unworthy of further collaboration. ACOG has indicated that it may reconsider its position if ACIP returns to its traditional processes for notification, agenda-setting, and expert involvement in decision-making.
Conclusion
The landscape of vaccine policy continues to evolve amidst ongoing debates about the integrity of advisory committees and their recommendations. As ACOG, along with other medical organizations, navigates this complex environment, it remains dedicated to ensuring that clinical guidance is firmly rooted in scientific evidence. The implications of these changes could have lasting effects on public trust in vaccination programs and the health of communities nationwide.
As discussions around vaccine policies progress, ACOG’s actions will be closely monitored by healthcare professionals and the public alike. Comments and discussions on this topic are encouraged to foster a comprehensive understanding of the evolving vaccine landscape.
