The American Medical Association announced Tuesday it is launching an AMA independent vaccine review in collaboration with the University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP, citing concerns about federal advisory changes ahead of the next respiratory virus season.
The American Medical Association said its new evaluation process will examine immunizations for influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, commonly known as RSV. The effort will be conducted with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
The organization described the initiative as a way to ensure vaccine decisions remain grounded in science amid ongoing debate about federal guidance. Respiratory viruses hospitalize and kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, according to public health officials.
“Respiratory viruses hospitalize and kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, and vaccine decisions must be guided by facts, not politics or ideology,” said Michael Osterholm, CIDRAP director. He added that the goal is to restore confidence among clinicians and patients through transparent, evidence-based evaluation.
AMA Partners With CIDRAP To Assess Flu, COVID-19 And RSV Vaccines
The AMA independent vaccine review will involve collaboration with with leading medical societies and public health organizations to develop policy questions and guide the review.
Officials said the process is intended to provide clinicians with timely analysis before the upcoming respiratory virus season, when vaccination strategies typically receive heightened attention.
“Our goal is to build on our efforts to restore peace of mind for clinicians and patients by ensuring that experts are continuously evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness using transparent, evidence-based methods,” Osterholm said.
The announcement signals a growing willingness among major medical groups to issue independent guidance when they believe federal processes are in flux.
Leadership Changes To CDC Panel Spur Medical Groups To Act
In its statement, the AMA independent vaccine review sharply criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert panel that votes on federal vaccine recommendations.
Last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed the committee’s sitting members and appointed new ones, several of whom have expressed skepticism about vaccines.
Since the overhaul, the panel has voted to delay or discontinue recommendations for several childhood immunizations, including the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine and shots protecting against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.
“That system has now effectively collapsed,” the AMA said in its announcement.
The move reflects a broader trend. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics released its own childhood immunization schedule that included vaccines the CDC had dropped earlier.
“They are filling a void that the government created because it’s not doing a scientifically based analysis of impending infections. It’s just that simple,” said Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and former member of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 advisory board. “This is a testament to the problems we’ve had over the last year.”
Federal Officials Reject Claims That Advisory System Has Failed
Following the February 10, 2026, AMA independent vaccine review launch, federal officials defended the advisory committee’s role and challenged the AMA’s characterization of the current vaccine policy system.
“The claim that ACIP’s evidence-based process has collapsed is categorically false,” said Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services.
“ACIP continues to remain the nation’s advisory body for vaccine use recommendations driven by gold standard science,” Nixon said. “While outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses and confuse the American people, those efforts do not replace or supersede the federal process.”
Following the February 10, 2026, AMA independent vaccine review launch, the association clarified it won’t issue competing recommendations. Instead, it will provide evidence briefs to support informed clinical decision-making for healthcare providers. The AMA did not indicate when its first findings would be released but said the review would be ongoing as experts monitor vaccine performance and emerging respiratory threats.
Public health observers say the parallel reviews could influence how clinicians interpret guidance ahead of the next virus season, even as federal recommendations remain the official standard.
