Dr. Robert Malone Named To CDC Panel Amid Push For Accountability In Vaccine Policy

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. truly is making America healthy again.

After ousting all 17 members of the CDC’s longstanding Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Kennedy appointed a new slate of eight advisers this week. The move has, unpredictably, drawn criticism from the media, but for many Americans who’ve lost faith in the health system over the last few years, this is the reset they’ve been waiting for.

These appointments come after years of growing distrust in the CDC and pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, both of which have reportedly prioritized corporate relationships over public transparency. Kennedy has made it clear that this overhaul isn’t about pushing an anti-vaccine agenda (despite the predictable headlines) but about demanding rigorous data, independent minds, and freedom to question without being discredited.

“We’re going to bring great people onto the ACIP panel – not anti-vaxxers – bringing people on who are credentialed scientists,” Kennedy said Tuesday.

Among those named is Dr. Robert Malone, who played a pivotal role in early mRNA vaccine research and gained traction during the pandemic for voicing concerns that few in his field were willing to speak publicly. While corporate media painted him as fringe, millions of Americans found his willingness to question government messaging refreshing, even necessary. He told the Associated Press he intends “to serve with unbiased objectivity and rigor.”

Malone's critics are quick to point to his statements on mass formation psychosis and vaccine injury, but rarely engage with the core of his argument: Shouldn't public health be grounded in open debate, not coordinated PR? The pushback against his questions reveals more about the system’s defensiveness than anything about Malone.

The panel also includes biostatistician Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration that challenged lockdown orthodoxy; Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatric infectious disease expert who previously served on both the FDA and CDC vaccine panels; and MIT operations management professor Retsef Levi, who’s been outspoken about safety concerns with the Covid-19 vaccines.

Levi said he hopes to inform “public health policies with data and science, with the goal of improving the health and wellbeing of people and regain the public trust.”

For years, ACIP operated with little public attention despite playing a critical role in shaping U.S. vaccination schedules. Its recommendations all but determine who receives which vaccines and when, often influencing insurance coverage and access. Kennedy has openly criticized the committee for operating too closely with vaccine manufacturers and rubber-stamping approvals with limited scrutiny. He argues that conflict-of-interest disclosures are no substitute for true independence.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Monday, Kennedy called the committee “little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.”

He also said the shake-up was necessary to prevent political entrenchment: “If I had waited, President Trump would not have been able to appoint a majority on the panel until 2028.”

As expected, some health organizations have pushed back. Critics argue the new members lack traditional immunization credentials or are associated with groups that challenge mainstream narratives. Vicky Pebsworth, for instance, has been targeted for her involvement with the National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit accused of spreading misinformation. Whether fair or not, it reveals how quick the medical establishment is to equate doubt with danger.

What’s often left out of the discussion is that several of Kennedy’s appointees do have extensive medical and scientific credentials. Dr. Meissner, for instance, was part of the FDA’s Covid-19 vaccine advisory panel in 2021. He voted against blanket boosters for all adults, a position later validated when questions arose about waning efficacy and side effects.

Still, the idea that vaccine policy should be insulated from critics is a strange one, especially given how public trust cratered during the pandemic. For Kennedy, the mission is clear, and it’s ultimately in the public’s interest: challenge legacy systems that have relied more on corporate partnerships and consensus than on transparency and public input.

He framed the shakeup as a “major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines” and not removing them as liberals suggest. 

If there's one thing the last few years have proven, it's that public health can't afford blind spots. Nor can it afford to silence voices like Malone’s simply because they’re inconvenient. Questioning power should be normalized, especially when it’s tied to billion-dollar pharmaceutical contracts.

Dr. Malone addressed the backlash directly in a post on X, thanking supporters and making it clear he’s not backing down. “I am getting overwhelmed with congratulations, and cannot keep up with responding to all of them,” he wrote. “Many thanks to all sending support and encouragement. It makes it easy to disregard the hate and attacks coming from corporate media.”

He added, “Not my first rodeo with corporate media hate, and will not be my last.”

Malone said the encouragement he’s received, along with the support of his wife and friends worldwide, is what keeps him grounded. “I am well aware that this will not be ‘fun,’ but it is necessary. Public trust in the ‘public health enterprise’ must be restored with honesty, integrity, and transparency.”

He ended with a reminder of who this work is for: “I will always keep in mind the young couple with a small child facing hard decisions regarding vaccinations. As well as the vaccine-injured.” He continued, “A fundamental truth and core principle is that no drug is entirely safe. Stratified risk/benefit analysis combined with informed consent and respect for individual rights must guide decision making.”

Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.