Lead: The American Medical Association (AMA) announced on 11 February 2026 that it will lead a monthly, independent review of the safety and effectiveness of influenza, Covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for the coming fall. The move follows a series of policy shifts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which critics say left a gap in federal vaccine guidance. The AMA will partner with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (Cidrap) to review evidence and produce recommendations that states, clinicians and the public can use.
Key Takeaways
- The AMA announced a partnership with the Vaccine Integrity Project on 11 February 2026 to review flu, Covid-19 and RSV vaccine evidence for fall policy planning.
- The Vaccine Integrity Project published an August review of more than 16,000 studies benchmarking safety and effectiveness of these vaccines.
- The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — long the federal forum for vaccine guidance — has seen recent meetings marked by misinformation and vote changes, including ending the universal newborn hepatitis B birth dose recommendation.
- In January 2026 HHS stopped fully recommending about one-third of routine childhood vaccines, a change made without a full public ACIP process, according to public statements and reporting.
- Public-health figures note that even with effective vaccines the US still records roughly 30,000–40,000 influenza deaths annually; nearly 300 children died of flu last season.
- The AMA called the move a necessary response to what it described as a collapse of the prior federal evidence-review system, and plans to convene other professional groups to set evaluation questions.
Background
For decades the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met regularly to review clinical evidence and advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its recommendations have informed state policy, clinical practice and public messaging, creating a consistent national baseline for immunization schedules and seasonal vaccine guidance. The ACIP process includes external expert presentations, deliberation and formal votes; providers, state health departments and parents historically relied on that procedural rigor for trust in vaccine recommendations.
This framework has shifted rapidly in 2026 after multiple high-profile decisions and changes at HHS and other federal bodies. Reports indicate the ACIP’s recent meetings included a surge in false or misleading statements and several votes to change longstanding recommendations, including cautions about thimerosal-containing flu vaccines and the combination MMRV product. At the same time, HHS actions in January 2026 to scale back full recommendations for a subset of routine childhood vaccines have prompted concern among clinicians and public-health advocates over the future of standardized federal guidance.
Main Event
The AMA’s announcement on 11 February 2026 said the association will work with the Vaccine Integrity Project — housed at Cidrap — to assemble a transparent, evidence-based review process ahead of the 2026 fall respiratory virus season. The group plans monthly meetings, invited expert input, and a framework to answer targeted questions such as whether additional RSV booster doses will be needed for specific populations. The stated aim is to provide clinicians, state officials and the public with clear, up-to-date assessments of vaccine performance.
Speakers at the AMA’s press briefing included Ezekiel Emanuel, vice-provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, who said independent review is necessary because the federal system has stepped back from routine evidence synthesis. AMA trustee Sandra Adamson Fryhofer framed the review as a professional obligation to ensure the public can access an evidence-based process for continual vaccine assessment. The Vaccine Integrity Project’s prior August review of over 16,000 studies — which the partnership cites as foundational work — concluded that flu, Covid-19 and RSV vaccines have strong safety records and meaningful protective benefits.
Organizers said the effort will bring in other professional societies, set specific evaluation questions, and publish conclusions intended to be usable by state health departments and clinicians. The timing responds to both the policy vacuum critics identify and to operational needs: states and providers typically finalize annual vaccine protocols months before the fall season begins.
Analysis & Implications
Policy fragmentation between federal agencies and professional organizations risks creating uneven guidance across states and health systems. If the AMA-led reviews are adopted unevenly, patients could face different vaccine offerings or messaging depending on local health department decisions. That variation could reduce public confidence and complicate supply-chain and procurement planning for manufacturers and providers.
Independent reviews led by major medical societies can partially restore a credible, expert-led assessment process, but they lack the statutory role and implementation mechanisms that federal bodies exercise. States often rely on CDC/ACIP formal recommendations to trigger funding, school-entry rules and immunization requirements; absent coherent federal direction, those administrative links may weaken, affecting vaccine uptake and program logistics.
The review initiative also signals potential long-term changes in how vaccine evidence is vetted. If professional bodies produce high-quality, transparent syntheses, they could supplement or pressure federal agencies to resume formal reviews. Conversely, persistent disagreement between scientific groups and federal policymakers could fuel politicization and public confusion, particularly around childhood immunizations and seasonal booster campaigns.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Recent value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated US influenza deaths (annual) | 30,000–40,000 | Range cited even with available vaccines; underscores seasonal burden |
| Pediatric influenza deaths (last season) | Nearly 300 children | Heightened concern about pediatric protection and vaccination coverage |
| Studies in Vaccine Integrity Project review | 16,000+ | Comprehensive literature synthesis released in August 2025 |
These figures frame why clinicians and public-health groups warn that a lapse in coordinated vaccine guidance could have measurable effects on morbidity and mortality. The Vaccine Integrity Project’s large literature review is presented as a starting evidence base for the AMA’s forthcoming deliberations.
Reactions & Quotes
Public-health experts and advocacy groups reacted quickly to the AMA announcement, framing it as an attempt to fill a vacated federal role.
“They are filling a void that the government created.”
Ezekiel Emanuel, University of Pennsylvania
Emanuel’s comment was made at the AMA press briefing on 11 February 2026 and was offered to explain why independent, professional review was necessary after recent federal policy shifts.
“Think about what happens if we have none. That is a threat when you have a health secretary that is so hostile to evidence and science.”
Shaughnessy Naughton, 314 Action
Naughton, speaking at the same event, linked recent policy changes to broader risks for vaccine-preventable disease burden, citing the recent pediatric influenza deaths to underline urgency.
“The AMA has a duty to ensure the public has an evidence-based process for regular vaccine review.”
Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, AMA trustee
Fryhofer framed the association’s action as a professional responsibility to preserve transparent, science-based assessment even if federal structures are in flux.
Unconfirmed
- Reports that Vinay Prasad directly overruled FDA scientists on Covid and flu vaccine reviews are described in press accounts but have not been released as formal agency transcripts for independent verification.
- The extent to which ACIP will be prevented from making or publishing future vaccine recommendations remains unclear pending the committee’s February 2026 meeting and any subsequent administrative actions.
Bottom Line
The AMA’s decision to lead an independent review reflects professional concern that federal vaccine-evidence processes have weakened following policy decisions in early 2026. By partnering with the Vaccine Integrity Project and convening other societies, the AMA aims to recreate a transparent, expert-led assessment mechanism that clinicians and states can use to guide fall vaccination programs.
However, independent reviews cannot fully substitute for the regulatory and implementation roles that federal agencies perform. Policymakers, state health departments and professional societies will need to coordinate quickly to translate any new recommendations into procurement, distribution and public messaging to avoid fragmented responses this fall.