Thank you, Dr. Higgins, for your insights on a path forward for vaccine policy. The dismantling of ACIP as a trusted institution will most assuredly lead to uncertainty and loss of trust among the American public. Developing a coalition of professional societies provides a promising short-term solution. As a member of the American Public Health Association, I am confident that our organization could serve as a beneficial partner in this effort. Coalition building, stakeholder analysis and involvement, and building consensus among all interest groups will be necessary to mitigate the damage to our current administration has caused.
Thank you for sharing! The APHA is an incredible partner and has been engaged in vaccine policy for more than a century. Organizations like APHA are essential because no single group can represent the full spectrum of public health and clinical perspectives. In fact, part of the reason ACIP was created was to bring together public health organizations alongside medical societies like the AAP, was the recognition that each serves different patient and provider populations. Comprehensive vaccine recommendations require that diversity of expertise and perspective.
This was excellent. One additional path worth consideration might be the formation of a multinational vaccine advisory group, or “international ACIP” that incorporates expertise from bodies such as the UK’s JCVI, Germany’s STIKO, Canada’s NACI, and WHO’s SAGE. Such a consortium could coordinate evidence reviews, share real-time data, and offer joint recommendations for high-priority and pandemic-related vaccines. This wouldn’t replace U.S. policy, but it could serve as a credible scientific reference point—especially when domestic systems become politicized or fragmented. Using recommendations in multinational expertise, particularly from countries with strong safety records and public trust, may help shift U.S. public perception back toward science rather than political ideologies. U.S. medical organizations like AAFP, AAP, ACP, and ACOG could play a crucial role in translating international guidance into clinical practice, helping ensure that such recommendations are relevant and trustworthy. Insurers and public programs could also align vaccine coverage decisions with this type of consensus-based guidance, reinforcing continuity and public confidence during "political transitions". In a climate of deepening distrust and misinformation, building visible scientific coalitions may ultimately be more effective than a go-it-alone approach.
Thank you, Dr. Higgins, for your insights on a path forward for vaccine policy. The dismantling of ACIP as a trusted institution will most assuredly lead to uncertainty and loss of trust among the American public. Developing a coalition of professional societies provides a promising short-term solution. As a member of the American Public Health Association, I am confident that our organization could serve as a beneficial partner in this effort. Coalition building, stakeholder analysis and involvement, and building consensus among all interest groups will be necessary to mitigate the damage to our current administration has caused.
Thank you for sharing! The APHA is an incredible partner and has been engaged in vaccine policy for more than a century. Organizations like APHA are essential because no single group can represent the full spectrum of public health and clinical perspectives. In fact, part of the reason ACIP was created was to bring together public health organizations alongside medical societies like the AAP, was the recognition that each serves different patient and provider populations. Comprehensive vaccine recommendations require that diversity of expertise and perspective.
Thank you Dr. Higgins,
This was excellent. One additional path worth consideration might be the formation of a multinational vaccine advisory group, or “international ACIP” that incorporates expertise from bodies such as the UK’s JCVI, Germany’s STIKO, Canada’s NACI, and WHO’s SAGE. Such a consortium could coordinate evidence reviews, share real-time data, and offer joint recommendations for high-priority and pandemic-related vaccines. This wouldn’t replace U.S. policy, but it could serve as a credible scientific reference point—especially when domestic systems become politicized or fragmented. Using recommendations in multinational expertise, particularly from countries with strong safety records and public trust, may help shift U.S. public perception back toward science rather than political ideologies. U.S. medical organizations like AAFP, AAP, ACP, and ACOG could play a crucial role in translating international guidance into clinical practice, helping ensure that such recommendations are relevant and trustworthy. Insurers and public programs could also align vaccine coverage decisions with this type of consensus-based guidance, reinforcing continuity and public confidence during "political transitions". In a climate of deepening distrust and misinformation, building visible scientific coalitions may ultimately be more effective than a go-it-alone approach.
---
• https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation
• https://www.rki.de/EN/Topics/Infectious-diseases/Immunisation/STIKO/standing-committee-on-vaccination-stiko-node.html
• https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci.html
• https://www.who.int/groups/strategic-advisory-group-of-experts-on-immunization