in a June town hall<\/a> hosted by NewsNation. \u201cIt\u2019s really a profit motive.\u201d\n <\/p>\n\n On Thursday, ACIP members considered whether the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine should be given at birth or when babies are a month old, if their mothers tested negative for the virus.\n <\/p>\n
\n Babies born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B would still be vaccinated right away, as would those whose mothers\u2019 hepatitis B status was unknown.\n <\/p>\n
\n But delaying a baby\u2019s vaccination also increases the risk they won\u2019t get their shot at all. Even if a baby\u2019s mother is negative, other members of their household may carry the virus, and vaccinations at 1 month of age can leave them unprotected for those first few weeks.\n <\/p>\n
\n Hepatitis B is highly contagious \u2013 about 100 times more contagious than HIV \u2013 and can survive on surfaces for up to seven days. It can potentially be transmitted through contact with tiny amounts of blood on razors or toothbrushes or even bites from another child in day care.\n <\/p>\n
\n Some of the CDC committee members felt that the potential change ignored the possibility of this kind of transmission.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cThis assumes implicitly that all the infections are coming from moms, whether they\u2019re positive or negative, and this is obviously not the case. So the most prudent thing would be to vaccinate and protect as many people as possible,\u201d said Hibbeln, a psychiatrist.\n <\/p>\n
\n Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Louisiana who joined ACIP this week, felt that the birth dose was a matter of informed consent.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cIf half the people don\u2019t know that they\u2019re hepatitis B-positive, how can you get informed consent?\u201d Hibbeln countered.\n <\/p>\n
\n Since most mothers stay in the hospital for at least 24 hours after birth, Griffin said, there is time to test the mother and let her know her status before a decision is made to vaccinate the baby\n <\/p>\n
\n Although the forthcoming ACIP vote wouldn\u2019t be a complete overhaul of vaccine policy, waiting to vaccinate could do damage, some experts said.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cThis still misses the most highly vulnerable window for protection of infants,\u201d said Dr. Ravi Jhaveri, who heads the division of pediatric infectious disease at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children\u2019s Hospital of Chicago. \u201cThe first recommendation is one we have had in place and is the standard of care.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n It was already unusual for ACIP to revisit longstanding vaccine recommendations without new evidence. Thursday\u2019s meeting also opened in an unusual way, with the recently installed committee chair inviting several of the agency\u2019s former directors to \u201ca live public debate on vaccines.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n In his remarks, Kulldorff said that only through debate could members of the public know who to trust for scientific advice.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cWe are currently experiencing heated controversies about vaccines, and a key question is: Who can you trust? Here is my advice. When there are different scientific views, only trust scientists who are willing to engage with and publicly debate the scientists with other views,\u201d he said.\n <\/p>\n
\n Kulldorff pushed back on perceptions of the committee as anti-vaccine after Kennedy rapidly named new members, many of whom lack expertise on vaccines or have made unproven claims or criticisms about them.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cThe fact is that we are honest vaccine scientists that let the data speak whether the results go in one direction or the other. That is always how science should operate,\u201d Kulldorff said. \u201cThe members of this ACIP committee are committed to reassuring the public and restoring public confidence by removing unnecessary risks and harms whenever possible. That is a pro-vaccine agenda.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n Kulldorff, a Swedish epidemiologist and biostatistician who was a prominent early critic of the US government\u2019s coronavirus response, invited debate from nine former CDC directors or acting directors who wrote a New York Times op\/ed<\/a> criticizing Kennedy\u2019s vaccine moves \u2013 Dr. Richard Besser, Dr. Mandy Cohen, Dr. William Foege, Dr. Tom Frieden, Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, Dr. William Roper, Dr. David Satcher, Dr. Anne Schuchat and Dr. Rochelle Walensky \u2014 as well as recently departed officials Monarez, Dr. Debra Houry, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis and Dr. Dan Jernigan.\n <\/p>\n\n In the op\/ed, the former directors wrote that Kennedy\u2019s decisions and impacts are \u201cunlike anything we have ever seen at the agency, and unlike anything our country has ever experienced.\u201d They said that they worried about the \u201cwide-ranging\u201d health security impacts and said Kennedy had stacked CDC advisory committees with \u201cunqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n Besser, who is now president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said in response to Kulldorff\u2019s comments that \u201cACIP should not be reduced to political theater or gamesmanship\u201d and said its recommendations for physicians and families \u201care no longer reliable.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cIf the committee continues down this path, the health repercussions for our nation will be severe,\u201d Besser warned. \u201cI urge the ACIP chair and its members to approach their work with the seriousness of purpose and commitment to science that this responsibility demands. Lives are at stake.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n CNN\u2019s Meg Tirrell, Jamie Gumbrecht, Tami Luhby and Katherine Dillinger contributed to this report.<\/em>\n <\/p>\n\n Correction<\/em><\/strong>: A previous version of this report misspelled Dr. Hillary Blackburn\u2019s name.<\/em>\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n