IndigenousNetwork was able to attend this briefing on September 26 from American Community Media, where leading physicians spoke about new confusion surrounding vaccine guidelines in the United States.
The discussion followed the removal of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) members earlier this year and the following policy shifts that some public health experts say will undermine decades of progress. For Indigenous audiences, the debate carries particular relevance, touching on the trust between communities and public health institutions, and the risks of political interference in science.
Dr. Maurizio Bonacini, a hepatologist and clinical professor at UCSF, began by addressing the President’s claim that hepatitis B is primarily a sexually transmitted infection and that vaccination should occur at age twelve rather than at birth. Bonacini has trained at the University of Southern California and has published extensively on hepatitis B and liver fibrosis. “That statement is simply not supported by data,” he said. “The main route of infection is mother-to-child transmission. Without a birth-dose vaccine, about ninety percent of infected infants will carry hepatitis B for life.” He cited evidence from Alaska showing that, after implementing the birth vaccine, there were no new liver cancer cases in young adults. He added that lowering early childhood vaccination rates would reverse gains achieved in regions with historically high infection rates. “In Alaska Native communities, we saw liver cancer drop to zero after the vaccine,” he said. “That is a public health victory. Changing the timeline would undo it.”
Dr. Yvonne “Bonnie” Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and chief of infectious diseases at Stanford Medicine, expanded on the broader implications. She served as one of the seventeen ACIP members dismissed earlier this year and spoke about the committee’s long process of vetting and scientific review. “It took one to two years for each of us to be appointed and vetted,” she said. “The new members were appointed in two days.” Maldonado, who has advised the World Health Organization on vaccine-preventable diseases, emphasized that measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines remain among the safest and most effective public health tools available. “We have eliminated measles in the United States since 2000,” she said. “But our modeling shows that with current vaccination coverage, measles could return as a circulating virus within five years, and polio within ten. The diseases we think are gone are still out there. We are just immune right now.” Her remarks reflected both frustration and concern that science-based policy is being replaced by politically motivated decisions. And what could this point to in the years to come?
Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease specialist at UCSF who has led public communication efforts around COVID-19, called the moment a regression in health literacy and trust. “We are a global outlier now,” he said. “The United States was once a leader in science-based prevention. We’re losing that ground.” Chin-Hong described ongoing barriers for older adults, pregnant people, and immunocompromised patients seeking COVID-19 boosters. “These are the people I still see in the hospital,” he said. “Policies that make vaccination optional or confusing only put them at greater risk.” He also warned that uneven state policies and new requirements for “informed decision-making” would deter people without primary care access from getting vaccinated. “Thirty to forty percent of Americans don’t have easy access to a doctor,” he said. “When they hear that pharmacists might need prescriptions, they just stop trying.”
Dr. Ben Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University, framed the issue more directly with this hard hitting quote: “Scientists deal in reality. Lawyers deal in persuasion,” he said, referring to the Health Secretary’s decision to replace scientific advisors with political appointees. “What we’re seeing is myth-making. It’s not about what’s true but what sounds convincing.” He argued that the mRNA vaccine platform remains the most promising path toward eradicating diseases such as HIV and that defunding or discrediting that research will cause real harm. “Vaccines still work,” Neuman said. “They always worked. They remain the best thing you can do to protect loved ones in a dangerous world.”
For Indigenous audiences, these discussions parallel familiar tensions between science and sovereignty. Indigenous nations have long faced the consequences of federal mismanagement in health programs—from sterilization abuses to the uneven rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in remote areas. Many communities, such as Alaska Native regions Bonacini mentioned, are living proof of how culturally adapted vaccination campaigns save lives.
However, the erosion of scientific governance risks reversing those gains. It also complicates tribal and Indigenous-led health systems that depend on consistent federal standards to manage public health crises. Help us to keep our citizens informed with the science of health!
In the broader Indigenous news climate, this conversation underscores the importance of retaining decision-making power grounded in evidence rather than ideology. As Dr. Maldonado said in closing, “We are living longer and healthier than at any other point in human history. We should not dismantle the very systems that made that possible.”
For Indigenous reporters and communities, the challenge now is not only to track misinformation but to question how these policy reversals affect those whose trust in public institutions has already been tested.
Can we trust this type of health news dissemination?
Please let us know what you think by sending us an email! Info@indigenousnetwork.org
