Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the CDC recently announced a major change in vaccine guidelines. The number of recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children has been reduced from 17 to 11. This decision, made on January 5, 2026, has stirred quite a bit of debate.
The CDC has already implemented these changes in its immunization schedule. Critics argue these adjustments compromise years of research that ensures vaccine safety and effectiveness. One of Kennedy’s first moves was to overhaul the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing all 17 committee members, many of whom had longstanding backgrounds in vaccine science, with individuals linked to anti-vaccine groups.
In reaction, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued its own child and adolescent immunization guidelines for 2025, reinforcing its commitment to evidence-based practices and distancing itself from the changes made by the CDC.
In May 2025, the CDC also revised its guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations, stating that routine vaccination is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women.
While federal agencies like the CDC influence vaccination recommendations, it’s important to note that individual states decide on mandates. Demetre Daskalakis, the former CDC director, expressed concern over the lack of clear evidence supporting the new guidelines before his resignation.
Immunologist Morgan McSweeney warned about the consequences of this shift. He highlighted that the new panel lacks the expertise necessary to evaluate vaccine data properly. This opens the door to experimental approaches that could jeopardize public health.
Pharmacists play a crucial role in helping families stay informed about vaccines. They’re often the most accessible healthcare professionals, providing vaccinations directly in many communities. However, barriers remain, including confusing guidelines and access issues that hinder vaccination uptake.
Experts emphasize the importance of evidence-based recommendations. For instance, McSweeney pointed out that decades of data back the current vaccination protocols, aiming to protect against various diseases. He expressed concern that moving away from established practices could lead to adverse health outcomes.
Health organizations have spoken out against these changes, calling them alarming and a regression in disease prevention efforts. The Partnership to Fight Infectious Disease emphasized that the scientific base for prior recommendations remains solid and that no new evidence justifies narrowing the vaccine schedule.
In light of these developments, many parents are left wondering where to turn for trusted information. The conversation around vaccinations continues to evolve, focusing on the need for clear communication and reliable guidance to ensure the health and safety of children.
For further reading on these changes and their implications, visit The New York Times and Pharmacy Times.
