“A coalition of industry-funded organizations went judge-shopping and found a willing partner to shut down the first ACIP in decades that dared to ask hard questions about vaccine safety, efficacy, and the conflicts of interest that have plagued this process for years. Reasonable people can disagree about vaccine policy, but no one benefits from a system that cannot function. Scientific questions should be debated through the established advisory process, not resolved by rendering that process inoperable.” — Dr. Joseph Varon
The Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), a national coalition of more than 12,000 independent physicians, researchers, and clinicians, and a named liaison advisor to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), today expressed its full support for Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to expedite its appeal of a March 16 district court order that has effectively paralyzed the nation’s federal vaccine advisory system.
The motion, filed June 12, comes after the administration’s April 29 appeal of U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s ruling, which stayed Kennedy’s ACIP member appointments and left the committee unable to function.
“A federal judge has done what no health agency, no administration, and no act of Congress ever intended: he has taken the nation’s vaccine advisory system entirely offline,” said Dr. Joseph Varon, IMA President and Chief Medical Officer. “A single district court has substituted itself for the independent scientific process that families, physicians, insurers, and public health programs have relied on for decades. This judge has stretched his authority beyond recognition, and he’s endangering public health.”
The March 16 order stayed Kennedy’s new member appointments to ACIP and froze the committee’s actions, leaving it without a quorum and unable to carry out its core mission. As Kennedy noted in filing the expedited motion, the committee currently cannot issue new vaccine recommendations, review newly approved vaccines, or complete its standard pre-season guidance ahead of the fall respiratory virus season. The paralysis also blocks implementation of a Trump executive order directing an updated review of the childhood vaccination schedule.
“The IMA was named to ACIP’s liaison roster precisely to bring the perspective of frontline, practicing physicians to this process,” continued Dr. Varon. “We cannot fulfill that role while the committee sits frozen. We urge the First Circuit to expedite this review and restore ACIP’s ability to function.”
Who is Judge Murphy?
- Overturned for “Rogue” Activism: In 2025, Judge Murphy attempted to block the Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy even after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay against his initial injunction. Even Justice Elena Kagan criticized Judge Murphy for his continued defiance of the Supreme Court stay, and the Solicitor General was forced to seek a rare clarification from the high court to stop his interference in executive branch authority.
- Political Backing from “Pharma-Funded” Senators: Murphy was recommended for his position by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. These senators have collectively received significant contributions from the “Pharmaceuticals/Health Products” industry, including nearly a quarter of a million dollars of campaign cash over the past several years. Critics argue this creates a “circular defense” where pharma-backed politicians appoint judges who then protect pharma-backed panels like the old ACIP.
- A Career in “Pro-Crime” and Far-Left Advocacy: Before his appointment by Joe Biden in late 2024, Murphy spent his career as a public defender and criminal defense attorney, earning a reputation among members of Congress as a “far-left activist” with more sympathy for those who break the law than for the public interest.
- Obstruction of the MAHA Mandate: Beyond vaccine policy, Murphy has issued a string of rulings designed to thwart the President’s agenda, including halting immigration enforcement and blocking the removal of funding from failing federal research programs.
The IMA believes the district court’s order has exceeded the traditional scope of judicial intervention by effectively preventing ACIP from functioning while the litigation proceeds.
Who is the AAP and what motivated them to bring this lawsuit?
- Big Pharma President’s Circle: The AAP lists big pharma staples Pfizer, Merck, Moderna, and Sanofi among its largest donors, among others. Is it any surprise they’re pushing for more vaccines and more prescription drug use? The case highlights broader concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the influence of pharmaceutical industry stakeholders throughout the vaccine policy ecosystem.
- Defending the excessive vaccine schedule: While HHS sought to create a streamlined, evidence-based schedule of 11 essential vaccines, the AAP fought to preserve a bloated 18-disease shot regimen, including ongoing mandates for COVID-19 and Hepatitis B for newborns, ignoring cumulative safety data demanded by parents and independent scientists.
- Promoting Transgender Irreversible Medical Interventions for Minors: The AAP remains a staunch advocate for what they deem “gender-affirming care,” including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children. This stance ignores the growing international medical consensus and the concerns of traditional families regarding the long-term biological impact on minors.
- Opposition to Choice and Religious Freedom: The AAP has doubled down on its demand to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions for school attendance, effectively seeking to strip parents of their fundamental right to make healthcare decisions for their children based on their conscience or faith.
- Fighting Transparency Initiatives: Rather than welcoming a “Data Pause” to verify safety signals and health outcomes, the AAP has used its massive lobbying apparatus to sue the federal government, attempting to block the very transparency that 80% of Americans now demand from health agencies.
The current impasse affects not only federal health agencies but also physicians, hospitals, insurers, state health departments, and families who depend on timely ACIP guidance. Regardless of one’s views on vaccine policy, an advisory system that cannot deliberate or issue recommendations serves no one.
