American Medical Association Launches Its Own Vaccine Review Process

The American Medical Association (AMA), a medical trade advocacy association, is partnering with a vaccine research group to launch what it describes as an independent, “evidence-based review process” for respiratory vaccines for the next flu season—a role traditionally carried out by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).^{1 2}

According to a prepared statement released on Feb. 10, 2026, the AMA initiative is being developed in collaboration with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP). The review will focus on influenza, COVID-19, and RSV vaccines and is intended, AMA officials say, “to ensure a deliberative, evidence-driven approach to produce the data necessary to understand the risks and benefits of vaccine policy decisions for all populations.” ²

The AMA says the initiative is a response to what it describes as the effective “collapse” of “evidence-based vaccine policy,” which it says had long been the foundation of recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—the panel of doctors who make vaccine recommendations to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)—which was fully reconstituted with new members under Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in 2025.³

“They are filling a void that the government created,” Ezekiel Emanuel, vice-provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview about the AMA-CIDRAP collaboration. Emanuel alleged that the U.S. government, under Secretary Kennedy has “abdicated” its responsibility in this area.³

In 2025, Kennedy implemented a “clean sweep” of ACIP members, stating that the overhaul was necessary to restore public trust and remove individuals with financial or political conflicts of interest. “Today we are prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda,” Kennedy said in a June 9, 2025 statement. “The public must know that unbiased science—evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest—guides the recommendations of our health agencies.”⁴

Kennedy stated that the restructured ACIP would “no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,” and cited what he described as an erosion of public trust during the previous administration and throughout the COVID pandemic. “Only through radical transparency and gold standard science will we earn it back,” he said.⁴

AMA Spent $24 Million Lobbying in 2025

The joint AMA–CIDRAP statement emphasizes that “participants in the evidence review process will disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and the Vaccine Integrity Project’s review work will be independently funded through philanthropy.” However, federal disclosures indicate the AMA remains politically active in public policy advocacy. According to OpenSecrets, the AMA spent nearly $24 million on lobbying in 2025, ranking it among the top 10 organizations seeking to influence legislators and health agencies making federal health policy. The organization also reported $546 million in profits in 2024.^{2 5 6}

Some critics argue that the scope of the AMA’s lobbying activity and institutional influence complicates its position as a neutral professional trade association. In the same joint statement, CIDRAP director Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, said that “vaccine decisions must be guided by facts, not politics or ideology.” He added that the project aims to “restore peace of mind for clinicians and patients” through transparent, evidence-based evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness.²

AMA Promoted Elimination of Nonmedical Exemptions in 2021 COVID Publication

In its 2021 publication, AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation, the AMA outlined nine “key messages” physicians were encouraged to emphasize when discussing COVID. These included supporting the elimination of nonmedical (religious and conscientious belief) vaccine exemptions, reinforcing the importance of influenza and COVID vaccination despite the lack of long-term post-marketing data, and expressing confidence in the vaccine development process that was accelerated under emergency authorization years before FDA approval.⁷

The guide also offered health communication recommendations, including suggested language substitutions intended to improve the public’s response to messaging about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Examples included referring to “deaths” rather than “hospitalization rates” in certain contexts and replacing references to “Operation Warp Speed” with “standard process.” Critics argue that such framing strategies function more as advertising and persuasive messaging rather than providing strictly neutral information and raises questions about whether the AMA operates solely as an impartial medical trade association or also as an organization advancing government health policy agendas.⁷

ACIP Tethers to “Gold Standard Science” HHS Secretary Says

HHS Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard said in a recent interview that the claim that ACIP’s evidence-based process has collapsed is “categorically false.” She said, “ACIP continues to remain the nation’s advisory body for vaccine use recommendations driven by gold standard science. While outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses and confuse the American people, those efforts do not replace or supersede the federal process that continues to guide vaccine policy in the United States.”⁸

Cardiologist Peter McCullough, MD, MPH outlined what he described as the first year of progress under Kennedy’s leadership as the most consequential restructuring of federal health policy in decades, arguing that changes to vaccine scheduling, food standards, water fluoridation, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchasing rules reflect a broader attempt to redefine what constitutes preventive health care.⁹

The AMA and CIDRAP say the medical organizations will meet monthly, engage additional professional groups, and develop a structured framework for evaluating evidence about vaccines. Planned discussions include policy-related questions, such as whether additional RSV vaccine doses may be warranted and how best to assess evolving safety and effectiveness data. ²

Notably, the Vaccine Integrity Project managed by University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP declined a request for a list of donation amounts and names of any individual donors associated with the project criticizing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services vaccine policymaking process.⁸

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.