I Don't Like Established Science": New Vaccine Chief's Alarming Stance

When the nation's top vaccine advisor declares "I don't like established science," it's not just a provocative soundbite—it's a fundamental challenge to how America makes health policy.

Kirk Milhoan, the newly appointed chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), made this startling statement during a recent podcast appearance. For over an hour, the pediatric cardiologist systematically dismantled the evidence-based approach that has guided vaccine policy for decades, declaring instead that "science is what I observe."

The American Medical Association felt compelled to issue a rare public rebuke—a sign of just how alarming medical professionals found his comments.

When Personal Opinion Meets Public Policy

Milhoan's appointment by anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was already controversial. But his podcast remarks revealed the philosophical chasm between his approach and mainstream medicine.

The ACIP doesn't just offer suggestions—its recommendations become the backbone of America's vaccination strategy. When this committee speaks, pediatricians across the country listen. Insurance companies use their guidelines to determine coverage. Public health departments base their programs on ACIP recommendations.

Now, this influential body is led by someone who explicitly rejects the methodological foundation of modern medicine: large-scale clinical trials, peer review, and systematic evidence evaluation.

The Science of "What I Observe"

Milhoan's preference for personal observation over "established science" isn't just unorthodox—it's potentially dangerous. Individual clinical experience, while valuable, is notoriously unreliable for assessing interventions like vaccines.

Consider this: A single physician might see hundreds of patients annually, but vaccine effectiveness emerges from data on millions. Rare adverse events might occur in one in 100,000 doses—far beyond what any individual practitioner could observe.

This isn't academic hair-splitting. The difference between anecdotal observation and systematic evidence has life-and-death implications. The measles vaccine, for instance, prevents an estimated 21 million deaths globally each year—a benefit invisible to individual observation but crystal clear in population-level data.

A Global Domino Effect

America's vaccine policies don't stay within U.S. borders. The World Health Organization and health authorities worldwide look to CDC guidance when crafting their own recommendations. American pharmaceutical research sets global standards. U.S. vaccine hesitancy has already contributed to disease outbreaks internationally.

If the world's most influential health authority begins questioning established vaccine science, the ripple effects could be catastrophic. Countries with fragile health systems might see vaccine confidence collapse entirely.

We've already witnessed this dynamic during COVID-19, when American vaccine politicization contributed to global hesitancy. Now imagine that skepticism institutionalized at the highest levels of U.S. health policy.

The Trust Equation

Milhoan's stance reflects a broader crisis in scientific authority. In an era of information overload and institutional skepticism, many Americans trust personal experience over expert consensus. His "what I observe" philosophy resonates with those who feel disconnected from elite scientific institutions.

But public health requires collective action based on collective evidence. Individual choice informed by individual observation works for personal decisions—choosing a restaurant or a career path. It fails catastrophically for infectious disease control, where individual decisions affect community health.