In the past two months, historic changes that have profound implications for the nation’s children have reshaped the public health landscape under the Trump administration, receiving only sporadic attention in the mainstream news while largely remaining hidden from parents.

These changes concern the childhood immunization schedule which the Center for Disease Control (CDC), heeding a presidential order from President Trump, has updated to align with the prevailing vaccine schedule of other developed nations.

The new policies end America’s long-standing role as an outlier in childhood vaccine mandates, where children previously received more than 70 immunizations by late adolescence—far exceeding the totals seen in other developed countries.

Under the new guidance, the CDC will no longer broadly recommend vaccines for influenza, rotavirus, RSV, hepatitis A and B, and meningococcal disease for infants and children.

These immunizations, however, will remain available to parents who request them and will continue to be covered by most insurance plans, including Affordable Care Act insurance plans and programs such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Vaccines for Children program.

Based on advice from federal immunization advisers, the CDC had already significantly narrowed its Covid-19 recommendations after the vaccine had remained on the childhood schedule for three years.

In May 2025, citing multiple risks that even the most left-leaning medical journals no longer disputed, the CDC ended its recommendation for infants, children, adolescents, and pregnant women.

“I’d love to see the evidence that shows that giving young, healthy children another Covid shot would help them. But that evidence does not exist,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said at the time the new policy was put in place. The move reversed the Biden administration’s decision to add the Covid shot to the childhood vaccine schedule.

Illumination from Denmark

The Danish childhood vaccination schedule that has influenced this new U.S. schedule is “far simpler, slower, and gentler” than that of the U.S. CDC schedule, explains immunologist and biochemist Dr. Robert Malone, current head of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

“Denmark begins immunization at three months of age, giving only about a dozen total injections by adolescence, focused on serious diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, and meningitis,” Malone wrote.

“The U.S. begins vaccination the day a child is born, in some cases with a hepatitis B shot, and continues frequently through infancy, totaling around sixty doses by the end of adolescence,” the ACIP director detailed.

“The Danish program avoids vaccines for mild illnesses like chickenpox, rotavirus, and hepatitis A, and it does not recommend annual flu or early Covid inoculations for healthy children. It therefore introduces far fewer antigens, adjuvants (components meant to stimulate the immune system), and chemical additives, giving the immune system more time to mature between doses.

“The U.S. system, by contrast, compresses numerous injections into the first year of life,” Dr. Malone continued, “creating heavy antigen and aluminum exposure during a critical developmental window.”

Denmark’s approach reflects a minimalist “target the serious diseases” philosophy built on transparency and trust, while the U.S. program embodies a maximalist “vaccinate for everything” model.

“That policy is driven by liability avoidance, and a cult-like belief that all vaccine products are “safe and effective” and therefore above questioning,” the immunologist said.

Both countries maintain high vaccine coverage, but Denmark achieves comparable disease control with a fraction of the biochemical and immunological load imposed on young children in the United States.

The new schedule brings the U.S. closer to countries such as Denmark, Germany, Japan and many other European governments whose rates of immunization and disease control are comparable to that of the United States with fewer childhood immunizations.

Concerns over Harm to Immune System

“What many people don’t realize is that by the time children turn 6, they’ve received over 50 doses of vaccines—often before their immune systems are developed. By age 18, they’ve received 70 doses, explained Fox News medical consultant Dr. Sogol Ash.”

“These shots are not “bio-individualized,” Dr. Ash noted. There is presently no mechanism to determine “the possible side effects on children who may be auto immune or those whose systems are more sensitive, and might have adverse reactions to a vaccine. The new leadership at HHS wants to change that, to see what the long-term effects are, and to learn which vaccines are right for which children.”

Experts have noted that vaccines are intended to ‘train the immune system,’ but increasingly, research suggests they may overwhelm or misdirect it—especially in the case of infants, whose immune systems are still in critical stages of development.

Research suggests that multiple vaccines, especially those given simultaneously, may make an infant more prone to certain types of infection and disease.

This claim has been hotly disputed by some medical authorities who say the research does not support this theory. For example, a 2002 article by leading pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit, published in the journal Pediatrics, claims that infants can “theoretically” receive up to 10,000 vaccines at once without posing a health risk.

Pediatricians have been known to cite the 10,000 vaccines figure with a straight face when parents express concern over their infant receiving multiple immunizations.

Among the five vaccines no longer recommended for infants is the Hepatitis B shot, which, since 1991, has been routinely given to newborns on the first day of their life. This shot will no longer be required for babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus.

The Hepatitis B shot is perhaps the least justifiable mandatory vaccine in the pharmaceutical repertoire. Experts agree that the vast majority of infants cannot contract this disease. It is transmitted in only one of two ways: either by infected intravenous drug needles or through morally degenerate behavior.

The vaccine isn’t even intended to control epidemics. It’s just for personal protection against the virus—which the vast majority of babies obviously don’t need.

One can easily imagine how profitable the Hepatitis B vaccine market has been, given that every single American has been required to receive at least three doses. Only GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck manufacture this vaccine—and they were able to do so with full liability immunity.

Until now.

Medical Groups Sue to Revoke CDC’s Changes

CDC’s rolling back decades of vaccine practices stunned many observers. It triggered fierce backlash from parts of the medical establishment who have long regarded vaccines as a special category of medicine, almost an untouchable article of faith, exempt from the safety evaluation expected of other drugs.

Critics argue the CDC’S changes to the childhood vaccine schedule lack evidence, increase disease risk, might reduce vaccine uptake and confuse parents.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest pediatric group in the U.S., routinely cited by liberal news outlets as the final word on pediatric health, has aggressively attacked the CDC’s revised vaccine schedule.

Last month, the group filed a lawsuit against the HHS and its director Robert F. Kennedy, seeking to have all vaccines that were relegated to the “high-risk-only” category reinstated in the childhood schedule. An AAP spokesman darkly predicted that if Hepatitis B for newborns is ended, “children will die.”

New York Governor Kathy Hochul chimed in with an overheated allegation that “the Trump Administration is willing to let babies and children die.”

Ignoring federal advice, the AAP released its own immunization schedule in late 2025 that mirrored the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) schedule as it existed before federal recommendations were scaled back.

More than 20 states have adopted the AAP’s version, invoking their authority to set school vaccine requirements independently of federal guidance. In doing so, however, they made a costly miscalculation.

By moving ahead of the federal government’s revisions, the AAP and the states that embraced its schedule effectively shot themselves in the foot. Under the National Vaccine Injury framework, manufacturers, physicians, and medical facilities are shielded from liability only for vaccines recommended by the federal government. Once the CDC formally ended its recommendation for certain vaccines, that liability waiver no longer applied.

As a result, vaccines that remain on the AAP-backed schedules—but are no longer recommended by the CDC—fall outside the federal liability shield. This exposes manufacturers and medical providers to potential lawsuits the AAP and adopting states assumed would never materialize.

Children’s Health Defense Fires Back

In a counter lawsuit filed last month in federal court, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused AAP of running a decades-long “racketeering scheme” to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.

The suit alleges that the AAP has consistently made “fraudulent” claims about the safety of CDC’s childhood immunization schedule under past administrations, while receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.

The lawsuit highlights the alleged financial relationships AAP maintains with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi Pasteur, the companies that produce virtually every vaccine on the CDC’s childhood schedule.

However, the group doesn’t disclose these relationships in its policy statements and public safety assurances, according to the complaint.

It also alleges that the AAP and previous CDC leadership have used their positions of authority to mislead the American public, “pushing commercial interests disguised as medical guidance.”

The complaint asserts that the AAP and CDC conspired to suppress data, intimidate whistleblowers, and falsely represent the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule over decades. They have systematically used “false claims and omission of critical safety data to ensure compliance with an ever-expanding vaccine schedule,” the complaint alleges.

Both the AAP’s lawsuit against the HHS and the Children’s Health Defense lawsuit against AAP are pending.

Failure to Monitor Vaccine Complications

One issue that is generally agreed upon by all sides is that few of the updated vaccines given to children have undergone rigorous safety testing. The majority are deemed “safe” merely because they’re supposedly very similar to older vaccines.

Based on that similarity, costly and time-consuming placebo testing (comparing outcomes from vaccinated children against those injected with an inert saline solution), should not be required, critics say.

An article in The National Academy of Medicine published in 2013 sharply disagreed. It criticized the CDC for ignoring two decades of warnings to conduct cumulative safety studies to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Experts argue that it isn’t wise to assess a vaccine’s safety based solely on whether it’s ‘similar’ to a previous one—especially when the earlier vaccine’s side-effect profile may be totally unknown.

“The reason it’s unknown is due to the failure of the CDC under past administrations to monitor vaccine complications adequately,” HHS director RFK said. [See Sidebar, “We Have No Data”]

“The CDC’s former practice of suppressing information about vaccine injuries has badly eroded trust in our public health agencies,” Kennedy said. “Its own research has shown that its surveillance system, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) captures less than 1 percent of vaccine injuries. It’s a system that was designed to fail.”

From Immune Stimulation to Immune Dysregulation

Vaccines are intended to ‘train the immune system,’ but increasingly, research suggests they may overwhelm or misdirect it—especially in the case of infants, whose immune systems are still in critical stages of development.

Experts say adjuvants like aluminum, included to provoke a stronger immune response, are not passive ingredients. They are neurotoxic compounds that can travel through the bloodstream, breach the blood-brain barrier, and lodge in the brain, as documented in animal and human studies.

Rather than supporting immune resilience, repeated vaccinations may create a condition known as immune dysregulation, where the body becomes confused about what constitutes a threat.

This dysregulation underlies many of today’s autoimmune epidemics: asthma, eczema, food allergies, Type 1 diabetes, and neuro-inflammation, experts say.

Autoimmune disease results when the body’s system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body itself (auto is Greek for self).

“Imagine the immune system as a well-organized beehive, immunologist Dr. Robert Malone writes. “Vaccination, when done excessively or in poorly timed clusters, is like kicking the beehive repeatedly while wearing a disguise. The hive doesn’t get smarter about its antagonist; it gets chaotic, aggressive, and confused.”

“Soon, the bees start stinging anything that moves—including the queen, the worker bees, even the hive itself. There’s no assurance of targeted recognition—only widespread inflammation, panic, and self-harm.”

In the same vein, an article published in The GreenMedInfo quotes fascinating research by immunologist Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer.

Shoenfeld’s research shows that components like aluminum can trigger autoimmune responses long after administration of the vaccine, particularly in genetically susceptible individuals, which may lead to overt autoimmune disease.

In analyzing who might be at risk, the paper describes four categories of people: those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine, as well as anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity. In addition, people with a history of allergic reactions, or who have a family history of autoimmunity are considered at higher risk.

***

‘We Have No Data’

At a 2018 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), members convened to vote on whether to recommend a Hepatitis B vaccination for 18-year-olds.

As the discussion unfolded, one committee member pressed the presenters on a critical issue: was the “adjuvant” used in the proposed injection—described as immune-boosting components such as aluminum—ever administered alongside other vaccines given to children and adolescents?

The answer was strikingly candid. “We have no data to recommend either for or against it.”

Another member asked whether this newer Hepatitis B formulation was used in European countries. The response from one of the experts recommending the vaccine? “Not to my knowledge.”

Despite these admissions from the vaccine presenters—that no data existed on possible side effects, and that exposure to multiple adjuvants lay outside the norm of international vaccine practice—the committee approved the recommendation unanimously, without a single objection or even an abstention.

Critics argue that ACIP’s pattern of unanimous approvals, even when key safety data is missing, reflects a culture of rubber-stamping recommendations from medical authorities alleged to have profitable financial relationships with drug companies.

In one blatant example, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest and most powerful pediatric group in the U.S., is often represented at ACIP meetings in the role of one of the foremost medical authorities in the United States.

Yet, in a recent lawsuit, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused the AAP of making “false and fraudulent” claims about the safety of the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule.

The lawsuit alleged that AAP maintained a steady campaign of misinformation while it was receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers, and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.

The complaint highlighted AAP’s alleged financial relationships with vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi Pasteur—its most significant donors—all the while “failing to disclose these relationships in its public safety assurances.”

***

Landmark Study Raises Doubts About Safety of mRNA Platform

The historic changes at the CDC have come at a time when one sees a great unraveling of what were once considered unquestioned truths about Covid vaccines being “safe and effective.”

First, an article in the December issue of the left-wing Atlantic magazine admitted that at least 10 babies were found to have died from Covid-19 vaccination exclusively. A few years back, any acknowledgement in the mainstream media about deathly harm from Covid shots would have been unthinkable.

Then, a week later, Stanford Medicine News ran a feature article about a landmark study headlined, “Stanford Medicine Study Shows Why mRNA-based Covid-19 Vaccines Can Cause Myocarditis.”

The study, authored by 16 members of Stanford’s elite cardiology institute, and funded partly by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), qualifies as undisputed gold-standard science by any yardstick.

The paper identified a plausible biological pathway between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. The injurious process begins with a potential immune overreaction to the presence of foreign proteins, including the lipid nanoparticles and the spike protein produced by the mRNA vaccine.

An immune system overreaction can then damage the heart muscle, sometimes leading to myocarditis. Even asymptomatic myocarditis can cause permanent scarring in the heart, which can lead to very serious problems years later, experts say.

Observers say this study is bad news for the entire mRNA platform, not just the Covid shots.

Until now, the “scientific consensus” was that the lipid nanoparticles (tiny globs of fat carrying the mRNA) can safely travel around the body without causing harm. But the Stanford study found that the mRNA platform itself could trigger an immune response —sometimes a serious one— independent of the spike protein.

The UK Telegraph highlighted this discovery in its own report on the groundbreaking study: “The University of Stanford has found that the immune system can lock onto the foreign mRNA from the vaccine, which triggers a fierce response and in some cases, can inflame heart cells,” the paper wrote. “It is likely to pose a problem with other mRNA jabs, they warn.”