Kennedy’s ACIP purge EXPOSED systemic and arrogant conflicts of interest governing the CDC

As the U.S. health system faces growing scrutiny over corporate influence, a sweeping purge of federal vaccine advisors has exposed years of unchecked conflicts of interest—and raised urgent questions about who truly controls America’s immunization policies. In a dramatic yet necessary move, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. terminated 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) after investigations revealed repeated failures to recuse themselves from votes tied to their pharmaceutical industry funding. The dismissed members, many of whom held lucrative ties to vaccine manufacturers, issued a defiant public letter claiming full compliance with ethics rules. But meeting records tell a different story: for nearly two decades, ACIP’s so-called “independent” advisors routinely shaped vaccine mandates while accepting research money, advisory fees, and institutional grants from the same companies profiting from their decisions.

Key points:

• ACIP, the CDC’s vaccine policy arm, has long been stacked with researchers financially tied to pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, Merck, and Moderna.
• Despite federal ethics rules requiring recusal, members voted on vaccines produced by companies funding their clinical trials, advisory roles, and university labs.
• Examples include Dr. Cody Meissner (Tufts Medical Center) voting on Pfizer and AstraZeneca-linked vaccines, and Dr. Tamera Coyne-Beasley (UNC) pushing Merck’s HPV shot without abstaining.
• Recent appointees like Dr. Bonnie Maldonado (Stanford/Pfizer) initially recused—then reversed course, voting on policies affecting their own industry-backed studies.
• The 2025 dismissals mark a rare enforcement of conflict rules, but critics in the medical freedom movement warn that ACIP’s structure still incentivizes corporate alignment over impartial science.

A committee built on corporate partnerships

ACIP’s power is immense: its recommendations dictate which vaccines are mandated for schoolchildren, which shots are covered by federal programs and injected into millions annually. Yet its membership has historically overlapped with Big Pharma’s payroll. Meeting minutes from 2006 to 2024 show advisors disclosed ties to vaccine makers—then proceeded to debate and vote on those same products. Dr. Janet Englund, for instance, took institutional funding from Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis while voting on their flu shots. Dr. Robert Atmar and Dr. Sharon Frey, both leading COVID-19 trial investigators for Moderna and Janssen, participated in key discussions about mRNA vaccine schedules despite clear professional stakes.

The CDC’s ethics policy explicitly bars such conduct, stating members must avoid “any action that could create the appearance of bias.” However, ACIP’s culture treated conflict of interest disclosure as a mere checkbox, and HHS leadership did not take these matters seriously. As one 2012 transcript revealed, a member quipped during a Merck-related debate: “I’ve taken their money, but I promise I’m objective.” These experts were nothing more than a front for the vaccine industry, playing in a roll that would never allow for independent thought. Even if there would have been an independent thinker amongst the cult, the pressure to c onform with the scientific consensus and group think would be too great, forcing members to fall in line with the cult.

From disclosure to recusal: Why transparency wasn’t enough

Financial disclosures alone failed to curb influence. Dr. Paul Hunter, an ACIP member during the COVID-19 era, abstained from Pfizer’s December 2020 vote—only to help shape later recommendations for competing vaccines he was testing for AstraZeneca. Similarly, Dr. Bonnie Maldonado’s June 2024 recusal on Pfizer boosters collapsed by October, when she voted on nearly identical policies. Such inconsistencies highlight a systemic flaw: ACIP relied on voluntary recusals while rewarding members whose research budgets depended on pharmaceutical patronage.

Academic medicine’s reliance on industry grants further muddied ethics. As Dr. Coyne-Beasley’s Merck-funded UNC trials showed, institutional money flows directly to prestige, promotions, and lab funding—creating indirect yet powerful incentives to favor sponsored products. “Disclosure doesn’t erase the bias,” noted a 2023 BMJ analysis. “It just makes it legal.”

The ousted members framed their dismissal as political interference, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Their conflicts weren’t incidental; they were foundational – a common occurrence taking place in plain sight. Yet their recommendations were used at the state level to take away parental rights and coerce parents into giving up their kid to the altar of this never-ending vaccine experiment.

ACIP’s 2025 overhaul aims to restore trust by barring advisors with active industry ties—a standard already enforced in drug approval panels. Yet skeptics argue real reform requires dismantling the committee’s revolving door entirely. “When advisors profit from the products they regulate, public health becomes a subsidiary of Pharma,” said Kennedy in a June press briefing.

For parents and patients, the scandal underscores a harsh truth: vaccine mandates were often crafted by experts with skin in the game. As the new ACIP forms, its test won’t be expertise—but independence. Vaccine skepticism should be the common ground from which these experts begin their pursuit for the truth. A restoration of parental rights and a real risk vs benefit analysis should be the ethical basis that guides ACIP members going forward.

Sources include:

Brownstone.org

NaturalNews.com

Enoch, Brighteon.ai