**
In a significant pivot, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in the United States is re-evaluating its vaccine recommendations, a move that could alter the landscape of childhood immunisation. Kirk Milhoan, chair of ACIP, has publicly questioned the necessity of mandatory vaccinations for school attendance, suggesting that decisions regarding vaccinations should be made on an individual basis between patients and their healthcare providers. This change reflects a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has adopted a more sceptical stance towards established vaccination protocols.
A Shift in Vaccine Philosophy
Milhoan’s recent comments mark a departure from the long-standing principles that have guided ACIP’s recommendations for decades. In interviews, he has characterised vaccination requirements as an infringement on personal autonomy, framing the debate as one of individual choice versus public health. “There’s always going to be a tension between what is supposedly good for all and what is good for the individual,” he remarked in a podcast discussion. This perspective raises concerns about the implications for community health, as vaccinations not only protect individuals but also form a critical barrier against the spread of infectious diseases.
The committee is currently considering revisions to the childhood immunisation schedule, which could lead to more vaccines being viewed as optional. Milhoan indicated that while not all vaccine recommendations may become discretionary, a comprehensive review of their risks and benefits is underway. This approach could intensify fears surrounding vaccine hesitancy and lead to a decline in immunisation rates.
The Impact of Vaccine Hesitancy
As vaccination rates begin to fall, health experts warn of the potential resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows a notable increase in measles cases, with 416 confirmed instances reported within just three weeks of 2026. This figure is alarming, particularly following last year’s record of 2,255 cases—the highest in three decades. Polio, once nearly eradicated in the United States, could also see a resurgence if vaccination coverage continues to decline.
Milhoan has suggested that the current measles outbreak presents an opportunity to assess the consequences of decreased vaccination. “What we’re going to have is a real-world experience of when unvaccinated people get measles,” he stated. Critics argue that this perspective is reckless, equating it to a dangerous experiment on the population.
Reassessing Parental Choices
Amidst the shifting narrative, Milhoan has described existing vaccination mandates as a form of “medical battery,” arguing that they leave families with little choice. It is crucial to clarify that, while ACIP provides recommendations, actual vaccination mandates are determined at state and local levels, often requiring legislative action. The majority of states allow for medical exemptions, and a growing trend allows philosophical exceptions, which could further undermine herd immunity.
Experts in public health, such as Jason Schwartz from Yale, caution against conflating individual rights with public health responsibilities. He emphasises that the benefits of vaccines extend beyond personal protection, contributing significantly to community immunity. “What about the rights of vaccinated kids to be in playgrounds and camps and schools where their risks of vaccine-preventable diseases can be increased through unvaccinated children?” questioned Schwartz, highlighting a critical aspect of the vaccination debate.
Understanding Established Science
Milhoan’s scepticism towards established scientific consensus has raised eyebrows among health professionals. He has expressed discomfort with the term “established science,” suggesting that vaccine safety can only be observed rather than proven. However, decades of research robustly support the efficacy and safety of vaccines, which have dramatically reduced the incidence of diseases that once claimed countless lives.
As the ACIP prepares for its next meeting in February, the implications of its evolving stance on vaccines could resonate throughout the health community. Experts predict that the committee may continue to amplify doubts regarding vaccine benefits while minimising perceived risks, potentially leading to a more restrictive set of federal recommendations.
Why it Matters
The reconsideration of vaccine recommendations by ACIP is not merely a policy shift; it poses a profound challenge to public health. With rising vaccine hesitancy and the potential for renewed outbreaks of preventable diseases, the stakes are incredibly high. Effective public health strategies rely on collective immunity, and any erosion of trust in vaccines could jeopardise the health of communities nationwide. As we navigate these changes, it is essential to uphold the principles of evidence-based medicine while ensuring that the rights of all children—both vaccinated and unvaccinated—are respected.
