EXCLUSIVE: Independent vaccine review seen as “stabilizing force” amid CDC turmoil, GeoVax chief says

The American Medical Association is moving into unfamiliar territory: not lobbying over reimbursement or the economics of medical practice, but helping stand up an independent system to review vaccine safety and effectiveness at a moment when confidence in the federal process is under unusually direct strain.

The AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota say they are building the parallel effort because the CDC’s vaccine review process has “effectively collapsed.” The new initiative will operate outside the federal government and will initially focus on influenza, COVID-19 and RSV ahead of the coming fall respiratory season. It will not issue vaccine recommendations, but will produce evidence reviews for state health officials, clinicians and others who have to make practical vaccination decisions in real time.

That design choice matters. If the goal is to rebuild trust, the project is positioning itself as a technical anchor: a place to show the work, not simply announce conclusions.

David Dodd, chief executive of the US-based vaccine developer GeoVax, told the Wyoming Star that the core value of such a body is not drama or disruption, but credibility built on distance from politics.

“From a vaccine developer’s standpoint, the most important function of an independent scientific review body is credibility through separation. Public confidence erodes not simply because of scientific disagreement, but when scientific assessment is perceived to be intertwined with political pressure, institutional inertia, or opaque decision-making,” he said.

In other words, the problem is not that people suddenly forgot what vaccines are. The problem is that they stopped believing the process that certifies them.

Dodd argued that a review mechanism backed by the AMA could help reset the tone by putting evidence and uncertainty in the open, rather than asking the public to trust a black box.

“An independent review group, particularly one supported by the American Medical Association, can help restore trust by re-anchoring vaccine evaluation in transparent evidence review, clearly articulated assumptions, and openly debated uncertainties,” he said. “That kind of process does not replace regulators, but it complements them by demonstrating that scientific conclusions can stand on their own merits, independent of federal agencies.”

This is the political tightrope the AMA and the University of Minnesota group are walking: independence without turning the project into an anti-government crusade. Dodd made that distinction explicit.

“Importantly, independence does not mean being anti-CDC. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has historically played a critical role in public health,” he said. “But when institutional processes are strained or politicized, parallel scientific review can act as a stabilizing force, showing the public that evidence is being examined rigorously, even when trust in institutions is under stress.”

The “strained or politicized” part is not abstract. The CDC’s long-standing outside advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, once functioned as the central venue where vaccine benefits and risks were debated in public, then translated into guidance that schools, insurers and clinicians broadly followed. But the federal system has been rattled by a sequence of changes that critics say weakened expertise and transparency, while the administration has insisted the process remains sound.

The new review project is, in effect, a workaround for decision-makers who still need answers while the legitimacy of the traditional pipeline is being contested.

And that brings the story down from Washington to the places where vaccine policy becomes real: state health departments and exam rooms.

“State health officials and frontline clinicians are ultimately the ones who translate national guidance into real-world decisions,” Dodd said. “In recent years, many of them have found themselves navigating conflicting signals, evolving recommendations, and heightened public skepticism.”

For influenza, COVID-19 and RSV, the stakes are not evenly distributed. One-size-fits-all messaging struggles when the risk profile changes radically depending on whether the patient is elderly, immunocompromised or otherwise healthy. Dodd said a parallel review effort can help if it leans into that complexity rather than smoothing it over.

“A credible parallel review effort can provide additional clarity rather than confusion – especially if it focuses on clearly defining risk-benefit tradeoffs for specific populations,” he said. “For respiratory viruses like influenza, COVID-19, and RSV, those tradeoffs look very different for an elderly patient, an immunocompromised adult, or a healthy child.”

That emphasis on tradeoffs also hints at why public messaging has been so brittle. People can tolerate uncertainty. What they react to is being told there is none, then watching recommendations shift.

“When clinicians are equipped with independent, evidence-based assessments, they are better positioned to have nuanced conversations with patients – conversations that acknowledge uncertainty without undermining confidence,” Dodd said. “At the state level, this can support more tailored immunization policies that reflect local risk profiles rather than one-size-fits-all messaging.”

The hardest part, though, is not producing reviews. It is competing with the emotional momentum of misinformation and the deeper problem beneath it: distrust.

“Independent review initiatives can help counter misinformation, but it’s important to be realistic: hesitancy is not primarily a knowledge deficit,” Dodd said. “Many people distrust the process, not the concept of vaccination itself.”

This is where the AMA’s entry into the space is significant. It is not a niche advocacy group; it is the largest physician organisation in the country. Its brand carries a certain institutional weight, and weight is what the federal process has been losing.

Still, Dodd argued that credibility is rebuilt by showing how decisions are made.

“What these initiatives can do is rebuild trust by modeling how scientific disagreement is handled responsibly by showing the data, explaining limitations, and avoiding absolutist claims,” he said. “That approach is particularly important for high-risk populations, where the consequences of both disease and missed vaccination are greatest.”

He added that if the United States wants to protect uptake among vulnerable groups, parallel review is only one part of a broader repair job.

“Beyond independent review, additional structural changes are needed,” Dodd said. “These include clearer population-specific guidance, greater inclusion of immunocompromised patients in clinical research, and improved communication that distinguishes between preventing severe disease and preventing infection. Protecting uptake among vulnerable groups ultimately requires aligning scientific rigor, regulatory transparency, and patient-centered communication, rather than relying on authority alone.”

The AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project are essentially betting that the public still respond to visible, methodical reasoning. It is a bet that evidence can become persuasive again, provided the process is credible, transparent and honest about what it can and cannot prove.

In 2026, it may be the one the vaccine system needs if it wants to stop losing the argument before the science even enters the room.