This headline would have meant something entirely different a few years ago, so it’s important to examine this in context.
From the article:
When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, many people, including the three of us, were deeply concerned about the repercussions for our public health system. We feared potential policy changes affecting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization guidelines, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, and approved by the CDC director. Now, the worst has happened.
In one fell swoop, Kennedy fired all 17 members of ACIP, and appointed eight new members, several of whom have a record of vaccine skepticism. Nearly two dozen national public health and professional health care organizations immediately criticized the action.
To be clear, Kennedy’s move to retire former ACIP members was geared specifically towards removing people just like Bresnitz - who have made lucrative careers of peddling vaccines - from making the CDC’s vaccine recommendations and policies. (You can read his WSJ opinion piece here.)
Because this is how the vaccine approval process looks when they get to decide:
Q: Is there any comment on using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvanted vaccines?
CDC: We have no data to make a recommendation one way or another.
CDC (Amanda Cohn): So, just to sort of put this in context of other vaccines, while pre-clinical studies were not done using these vaccines simultaneously, our general approach to immunizations is that they should be given, that they can be given at the same time in different limbs.
Dr. Hunter: Are adjuvanted, multiple adjuvanted vaccines used in Europe or other markets?
CDC/Nana Bennett: Dr. Ward, do you want to comment?
Dr. Ward: Not to my knowledge.
CDC/Nana Bennett : Ok. Unless I think there’s any further discussion, we will take a vote… on this recommendation (Hepislav B)…
And thank you very much. Ok, voting is completed and it is unanimous to support this recommendation. I want to thank you all.
CDC/Amanda Cohn: And does anybody around the table… does anybody have any comments they wish to make about their vote?
Dr. Stephens: So just a slight reservation. I think this is a huge advance and a step forward. I am concerned about that signal. That myocardial infarction signal. I am concerned about the use of this new adjuvant and certainly urge us to continue to look at this post-marketing data carefully.
Dr. Hunter: Just a question about that. How soon would we be getting that post-marketing update here?
??: There’s two kinds of data. The vaccine safety datalink will require people to be using the vaccine to develop substantive database. And, Dr. Sun, do you want to comment on the post-marketing data that the FDA is requiring?
Dr. Sun: Um, I think for the myocardial infarction study, we’re… seeing that date is for likely for May 31, 2020. There will also be studies looking at autoimmune diseases as well as herpes zoster. And there will be a pregnancy registry as well. That’s all included in the post-marketing surveillance.
And if by vaccine skepticism, he means skepticism of this process. Then yes. We hope.
Back to the OpEd…
And in the absence of an official ACIP recommendation and a CDC director, Kennedy changed the immunization recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine in children and pregnant women, despite overwhelming evidence of the vaccine’s safety and efficacy — and, again, over the objections of the medical and public health communities.
No link to that overwhelming evidence. Notice that the authors, representing public health, ignore the will of the public, who overwhelmingly ignored Covid vaccine recommendations. According to the CDC, only 13% of children were up to date on Covid vaccines as of April 2025 and only 14.4% of pregnant women took the shots despite recommendations.
Bresnitz, Howard and Schwimmer continue to regurgitate the script:
Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of the modern era. These federal actions risk undermining vaccine confidence, increasing vaccine-preventable diseases and death, and eroding long-established scientific processes. Studies have shown that in the past 50 years vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives.
They link to a WHO press release that refers to a modelling study that uses statistical gymnastics that would NEVER be deemed science if it came to any other conclusion.
In this modelling study, we used a suite of mathematical and statistical models to estimate the global and regional public health impact of 50 years of vaccination against 14 pathogens in EPI. For the modelled pathogens, we considered coverage of all routine and supplementary vaccines delivered since 1974 and estimated the mortality and morbidity averted for each age cohort relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. We then used these modelled outcomes to estimate the contribution of vaccination to globally declining infant and child mortality rates over this period.
This isn’t science. Aaron Siri addresses the problems with the mathematical models used to tell us that vaccines save millions of lives here. Results of this modeling study are more akin to the “hope” that Deborah Birx was relying on when she convinced Americans the vaccine would protect them.
Jim Jordan: When the government told us that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit (Covid), was that a lie or a guess?
Deborah Birx: I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.
Meet Eddy Bresnitz
The message makes more sense when you understand the messenger.
Dr. Eddy Bresnitz, former State Epidemiologist and currently Consultant to the State Dept of Health, on a webinar strongly recommended against taking supplemental medications to try to prevent infection, since none have been shown to work.
Dr. Eddy Bresnitz thinks that HPV vaccines should be added to the list of required vaccines for children to attend school…
This position becomes less surprising as you scroll down to his bio:
Eddy Bresnitz is a physician and former deputy commissioner for Public Health Services in the New Jersey Department of Health, where he was also the state’s chief epidemiologist. From 2008 to 2020, he was the global medical director for adult vaccines at Merck, during which time Merck’s position was to be neutral on state mandates. He retired from Merck several years ago and no longer owns individual stocks in the company.
Bresnitz is currently working independently as a healthcare consultant…
I provide consultation services to biotech companies to develop a strategy to obtain favorable vaccine policy recommendations.
He is also on the commercial advisory board of VBI Vaccines, a biopharmaceutical company that “is committed to targeting and overcoming significant infectious diseases, including hepatitis B, COVID-19 and coronaviruses, and cytomegalovirus (“CMV”), as well as aggressive cancers including glioblastoma (“GBM”)” via vaccines that use virus-like particles (VLPs).
Here is Dr. Bresnitz reassuring the public of the safety and efficacy of the COVID shots.
The public should have confidence in the efficacy and the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines because of the intensive work and effort that was done by the manufacturers to do an appropriately conducted clinical trial with stringent requirements for how that trial was done by the Food and Drug Administration… We had independent scientific reviews from a data safety monitoring board, a vaccine advisory committee to the FDA and an advisory committee to the CDC, all looking at the data and evaluating it for safety and efficacy.
So, to review… A former global medical director for adult vaccines at Merck, who championed vaccines as state epidemiologist and consultant to the State Dept of Health in NJ, who currently provides consultation services “to obtain favorable vaccine policy recommendations” and is on the commercial advisory board of a vaccine company that is making vaccines for cancer…believes it’s time for an HPV vaccine mandate.
Got it.
Now go back and revisit why RFK Jr. chose to replace ACIP members. You can read his OpEd here.
https://x.com/twp459/status/1932254276891340880
UPDATED: I forgot to discuss what the authors proposed!
Now is the time to ensure that New Jersey will be guided by the best scientific evidence around immunization schedules and vaccine safety…
On the regulatory front, the New Jersey Department of Health is in the process of considering amendments to portions of its communicable disease regulations, which include the immunization requirements for school and day-care attendance. Today, these regulations refer to and rely on ACIP recommendations. These regulations can and should be amended to include other guidance sources, including specific trusted professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians… Adding these organizations as sources to rely upon would give the Department of Health the flexibility it may need to protect New Jersey residents….
As for legislative action, New Jersey could quickly follow Colorado’s lead and pass legislation to allow, but not require, New Jersey to rely upon these other trusted organizations rather than only the ACIP. By expanding the department’s options to seek guidance from other expert bodies, the Legislature could ensure that New Jersey will always have sound medical evidence to guide critical vaccine recommendations.
In other words, New Jersey wants to the option of following the settled science (where the $$$ is).
A new op-ed in NJ Spotlight urges New Jersey to codify federal vaccine policy, no matter what changes come.
🔍 Translation? If the CDC or ACIP updates its guidance under HHS Secretary Kennedy’s reforms, New Jersey could still be locked into outdated or controversial mandates, even as national science moves forward.
💥 This is a preemptive strike by those clinging to centralized control.
🧬 At NJPHIPAC, we say: Science evolves. Policy must too. Public health decisions should be transparent, responsive, and grounded in informed consent, not bureaucratic
Pretty much.
Let’s keep an eye on this and make sure public health officials don’t simply choose to follow the advice they want to hear.
How to prevent anyone from possibly considering taking vitamins and other natural supplements to strengthen their immune systems thus reducing the likelihood of getting sick with diseases they are spending millions on drugs for and hopefully making billions in profits - “it’s easy, just say there’s never been adequate studies. And if anyone ever asks why we haven’t done them, we just say it’s because they’ve never been proven to work.
After all people are so gullible and stupid. They’ll believe anything we tell them. After all we are the experts.”
And they wonder why so many people no longer trust public health authorities.
How to prevent anyone from possibly considering taking vitamins and other natural supplements to strengthen their immune systems thus reducing the likelihood of getting sick with diseases they are spending millions on drugs for and hopefully making billions in profits - “it’s easy, just say there’s never been adequate studies. And if anyone ever asks why we haven’t done them, we just say it’s because they’ve never been proven to work.
After all people are so gullible and stupid. They’ll believe anything we tell them. After all we are the experts.”
And they wonder why so many people no longer trust public health authorities.