The American Medical Association (AMA) and the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota are launching a joint initiative to independently evaluate vaccine science, a function traditionally held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This move comes as the CDC faces increasing criticism over recent policy shifts under the current administration.
Context of Growing Distrust
The decision reflects a broader trend of declining trust in public health institutions, particularly regarding vaccine recommendations. The CDC has significantly altered its childhood vaccine schedule since the return of the Trump administration, reducing the number of routinely recommended vaccines from 17 to 11 in December 2025.
This rollback, overseen by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a well-known vaccine skeptic, has sparked outrage among public health experts who warn of increased disease risk for children. The AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project state their effort is “to ensure a deliberative, evidence-driven approach to produce the data necessary to understand the risks and benefits of vaccine policy decisions for all populations.”
Avoiding Direct Recommendations
Unlike the CDC, this partnership will not issue vaccine recommendations. Instead, it will provide doctors and families with science-backed guidance, filling a void created by the CDC’s controversial changes. This independent review aims to restore confidence in vaccine science by offering transparent, data-driven analysis.
Implications for Public Health
The move signals a significant challenge to the CDC’s authority and a growing demand for more robust and independent evaluation of vaccine policies. It also raises questions about the future of public health decision-making and the role of political influence in scientific guidelines.
The AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project hope to re-establish trust in science-based recommendations, but the long-term impact on public health remains uncertain.
This initiative underscores the need for clear, evidence-based communication about vaccines, especially in an era where public trust is eroding and political agendas can undermine scientific consensus.
