Former FDA commissioners criticize Trump administration's vaccine plan

On Wednesday, twelve former heads of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly condemned recent vaccine policy changes introduced by the Trump administration, warning that these adjustments could endanger public health. In a piece for the New England Journal of Medicine, they stated, We are deeply troubled by sweeping new FDA claims regarding vaccine safety and initiatives that could weaken the regulatory framework designed to ensure vaccines are safe, effective, and accessible when the public requires them most.

The ex-commissioners, representing appointments from both Democratic and Republican administrations, emphasized that while reevaluating vaccine standards can be appropriate, such actions must be preceded by open and transparent scientific discussion. They criticized the recent policy adjustments, which were linked to ten child deaths allegedly associated with COVID-19 vaccines, stating that these incidents alone do not justify a complete overhaul of vaccine regulation.

The letter explained that the policy modifications, outlined in a memo from FDA vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad, would fundamentally alter vaccine regulation based on a selective interpretation of evidence. According to the memo obtained by The New York Times, Prasad attributed the child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

The former FDA leaders further stressed, Rebuilding public confidence does not mean discarding scientific principles, suppressing debate and oversight, or replacing expert evaluation with unilateral decisions by a small group. Confidence is restored through open discussion, rigorous evidence, and transparent procedures that the public can trust.

The signatories of the letter included Robert Califf, Andrew von Eschenbach, Scott Gottlieb, Mark McClellan, Jane Henney, Margaret Hamburg, Brett Giroir, and David Kessler, along with former deputy commissioners Michael Friedman and Stephen Ostroff, and acting commissioners Norman Sharpless and Janet Woodcock.

According to reporting from The Washington Post, the new rules would also compel pharmaceutical companies to conduct larger studies, potentially delaying vaccine development. Additionally, Stat News reported that Prasads memo suggested staff who failed to adhere to his core principles should resign, a point the former commissioners strongly opposed. They argued that public health depends on open review of evidence and the ability of staff to raise concerns, challenge leadership, and collaborate with external scientists without fear of retaliation.

Prasad, reinstated to his role in August after being temporarily removed following conservative criticism, also recommended that randomized studies include all population subgroups and criticized the annual flu shot framework as relying on low-quality evidence, according to The New York Times.

Author: Ava Mitchell