AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project Launch Parallel Vaccine Review System to Complement CDC, CIDRAP Expert Explains

Science Friday host Ira Flatow speaks with Dr. Michael Osterholm about the American Medical Association's partnership with the University of Minnesota to launch the Vaccine Integrity Project, an independent vaccine review system designed to summarize and vet vaccine data outside the CDC ACIP framework. Osterholm explains the need to keep medical societies, payers, and clinicians up to date with the expanding scientific literature on vaccines, including influenza, COVID-19, and RSV. The conversation covers how this parallel process could provide a transparent, science-based information base and help ensure vaccine safety and effectiveness are understood by providers and the public, while acknowledging potential public confusion if policies diverge from CDC guidance.

Context and Introduction

In this Science Friday episode, Ira Flatow covers a period of turmoil within public health agencies related to vaccine science and policy. The discussion centers on an unconventional move: the American Medical Association (AMA) partnering with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota to create an independent vaccine review process. The goal is to provide a transparent, science-based body of information that can be used by medical societies, payers, clinicians, and public health professionals while the traditional ACIP framework at the CDC is described as compromised.

Joining Ira is Dr. Michael Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) and Executive Director of the Vaccine Integrity Project in Minneapolis. Osterholm outlines the historical context and the need for an alternative information pipeline to connect the vast and evolving data on vaccines with the medical community and payers. He notes that ACIP has long served as the heavy-lift behind vaccine recommendations, and its current status leaves a gap that this new initiative aims to fill, at least temporarily, by summarizing and translating scientific information for the medical societies and the wider clinical community.

Quote placeholder 1 appears here as a key idea: "transparency, it's science-based" - Michael Osterholm, Director CIDRAP

Rationale for an Independent Vaccine Review

Osterholm emphasizes the volume and velocity of vaccine research, citing examples like the HPV vaccine where thousands of papers have been published in the last year alone. He argues that the ACIP’s position has become scientifically vulnerable in the current political environment, and there is a real need to maintain a credible synthesis of data that clinicians and medical societies can rely on when making recommendations to patients and when payers consider coverage. The project, he says, is not about recreating ACIP or replacing federal responsibilities but about filling the gap left by a weakened national advisory structure by providing a summarized, rigorous, and up-to-date evidence base.

To illustrate the project’s practical impact, Osterholm points to a detailed recommendation document published in the New England Journal of Medicine last fall, which summarizes data on influenza, COVID, and RSV vaccines and outlines the basis for current guidance. This work has already influenced how medical societies present information to practitioners and funders, helping to justify vaccine recommendations and reimbursement decisions.

Quote placeholder 2 appears here as a key idea: "transparency, it's science-based" - Michael Osterholm, Director CIDRAP

AMA Partnership and Implementation

Osterholm explains that the AMA’s collaboration is essential for legitimacy and convening power. While his group handles the heavy scientific review, the AMA provides the convening platform with medical societies and professional groups, ensuring that the output is aligned with the needs of clinicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other vaccine providers. The aim is to deliver new and updated vaccine recommendations well before the fall vaccine season, covering issues such as vaccination in pregnant women and other high-priority populations. The collaboration seeks to create a credible, widely accepted source of information that can support payer decisions and clinical practice even as the ACIP remains unsettled.

The conversation highlights that this approach is not intended to undermine federal agencies but to minimize the disruption caused by political changes and to protect the integrity of vaccine science during a turbulent period. Osterholm stresses that the work will be done transparently and in conjunction with medical societies to maximize trust and uptake among clinicians and families.

Public Health Communications and Potential Conflicts

Flatow and Osterholm address the practical challenges of communicating conflicting guidance. They acknowledge that it is possible for the new review system to disagree with the CDC’s current recommendations, which could create confusion among the public and clinicians. Osterholm cites specific examples, such as changes to hepatitis B vaccination at birth, arguing that some policy shifts risk leaving children more vulnerable. He asserts that the new independent reviews will provide the best available data to support decisions and to help clinicians explain the reasoning behind recommendations to patients and parents. The discussion underscores the need for clear, fact-based information to counter misinformation and political spin.

Quote placeholder 3 appears here as a key idea: "this is not science, it is somewhere between magic and craziness" - Michael Osterholm, Director CIDRAP

Optimism for the Future

Despite the turbulence, Osterholm expresses a determinedly hopeful outlook. He frames the initiative as part of a broader effort to preserve and later restore confidence in vaccines and public health, with an emphasis on keeping science at the center of decision-making. He frames the work as a building block for a longer-term goal of rebuilding trust and improving the system, suggesting there is a path to better, more robust processes that could emerge on the other side of the current challenges. He closes with a personal note of resilience, signaling that failure is not an option and that the medical and scientific communities can emerge stronger by learning from the present difficulties.

Quote placeholder 4 appears here as a key idea: "failure is not an option" - Michael Osterholm, Director CIDRAP