The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently endorsed vaccine recommendations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), meningococcal, and chikungunya diseases.
Published on the CDC’s website on June 25, 2025, these recommendations were adopted by the U.S. HHS Secretary.
As the conclusion of last month’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, the members issued the following statement, which is inserted below:
‘Honesty, transparency, and compassion with regard to public health. These are the three pillars that we, the new ACIP members, are guided by. Our central duty is to protect public health, and we understand that we must answer the call for reestablishing confidence in the scientific examination process. This committee strongly supports the use of vaccines and other countermeasures, predicated on evidence-based medicine, including rigorous evaluation and expansive, credible scientific data, for both safety and efficacy.
All stakeholders, including healthcare providers, parents, children, schools, nursing homes, insurance providers, public health agencies, manufacturers, and the rare few who may be harmed by recommended interventions, need to have understandable, digestible, scientifically correct information. This group is committed to providing that information, and in order to do so, we must have data representing large populations. Data collection is a central question that may require constructing a broad risk-benefit analysis. The committee will endeavor to assess the status of programs that are intended to collect data from large populations that have, or have not, received vaccines. These data are needed in order to assess both adverse short- and long-term side effects and to evaluate the magnitude of side effects.
We came to this meeting with no predetermined ideas and will make judgements as if we are treating our own families. Unbiased scientific thinking is fundamental to the committee’s charge. Our votes are recommendations, but we know that some may perceive them as mandates, so we take this responsibility very seriously. We pledge not to hold a vote if there is not sufficient information to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits.
This committee is not in competition with other committees, organizations, or each other – we are all in competition with the infectious diseases, and we will work together to ensure the best outcomes for public health.’