Voters in Aurora area to weigh in on referendum questions during April 1 election
Voters in the Aurora area will cast ballots April 1 on a number of referendum questions.
Kane County voters will be asked whether they support a 0.75% sales tax increase meant to boost funding for the county's public safety services.
A sales tax increase of 0.75% means buyers would pay 75 cents more in tax on every $100 they spend on items covered by the tax in Kane County. The county has said there are exemptions for essential items like groceries and prescription medications, which are determined by Illinois tax law.
Proponents said the referendum proposes a sales tax, rather than a property tax, so as to share costs with visitors to Kane County.
According to the county, services that would receive revenue from the successful passage of the referendum question include the offices of the sheriff, state's attorney, public defender, coroner and circuit clerk; KaneComm 911; Public Health and the Office of Emergency Management.
The proposed 0.75% sales tax hike is expected to generate upwards of $50 million annually, county officials have said. If voters don't approve the referendum question, the county would have to dip into its 90-day reserve funds to balance the 2026 budget, according to past reporting, provided spending remains about the same as 2025. That would leave the county with only about $8 million above the required 90-day reserves, Kane County Finance Director Kathleen Hopkinson has said.
Another referendum question will be voted on by residents in Kaneland School District 302. They will decide whether to approve a $140 million bond issue for infrastructure and facility needs at all campuses across the district.
Voters in 2023 rejected a $57.5 million bond issue to make improvements to Kaneland High School, which was originally built in 1958.
The school board decided for this referendum on a 'comprehensive plan' to address 'critical infrastructure needs' on all campuses rather than just focus on the high school, officials said.
The 'guiding principles' for a more comprehensive referendum question were critical infrastructure needs, safety concerns, long-term needs, fiscal responsibility and more, according to board documents.
The referendum question — the last one was passed 17 years ago — is asking for the issuing of bonds in the amount of $140,274,000, which would restructure and extend the district's current loan, but unlike the failed 2023 referendum, would not raise taxes, officials have said.
In Sugar Grove, a non-binding referendum question on the April 1 ballot will provide residents an opportunity to express their support or opposition to the controversial Crown Community Development project called The Grove planned at Interstate 88 and Route 47.
The project, approved by the village in 2024, is a 760-acre mixed-use development planned to include nearly 400 acres of residential properties, over 120 acres of commercial development and about 240 acres for a business park, according to past reporting. According to its website, the project could hold as many as 1,500 residential units.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
17 hours ago
- New York Times
Can Donors Fill the Major Budget Holes That Colleges Face Under Trump?
The T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard has not been disguising its plight. 'With Harvard's federal funding frozen, we are relying on philanthropy to power our research and support our educational programs,' the school's donation website says. 'Your ongoing engagement is vital to keeping our mission on track.' The Trump administration's decision to block billions of dollars in research money to certain colleges is forcing administrators and their fund-raising teams to scrounge for cash. As schools across the country contemplate layoffs, lab shutdowns and other drastic steps, they are weighing how much the gaps can be plugged by private philanthropy — and how pointedly political their pleas for donations ought to be. A handful are wagering that the financial rewards of trying to leverage donors' concerns about the federal cuts will outweigh the risk of antagonizing the White House. In an April 30 note to alumni, Christina H. Paxson, the president of Brown University, said about three dozen of its grants and contracts had already been canceled, and that the government had stopped funding many research grants. She said news reports stated that the Trump administration had threatened an additional $510 million in grants and contracts to the university. The moves, she wrote, represented 'a significant threat to Brown's financial sustainability.' She urged alumni to lobby lawmakers about the issue, and included links for making donations to the university, including to support research whose federal funding was canceled or delayed. (Brown said data was not yet available for release about whether giving had increased as a result.) Many other institutions have opted for more caution. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and a former leader of Occidental College, suggested that some schools may be worried about turning off right-leaning donors who may agree with President Trump's opinion that academia has tilted too far to the left. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
2 days ago
- CNN
Unusual pushback, ‘dangerous precedent': What the first meeting of Kennedy's CDC advisers reveals about the future of vaccines in America
Vaccines Federal agencies Children's health Respiratory virusesFacebookTweetLink Follow A startling new vision of vaccination in America is becoming clearer — one likely to involve fresh scrutiny of established science and practices, and limits on vaccines that have been studied for decades. The first meeting of new vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrapped up Thursday after days of discussions that rankled mainstream scientists, public health experts and major medical associations. The committee's votes could bring an end to the use of a robustly studied preservative in flu shots, a shift that may ultimately limit access to vaccines for some people. Even before Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, was confirmed to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services, many public health advocates and politicians worried that he would target the advisory committee in an effort to undermine confidence and restrict access to vaccines. When he removed all 17 previous members of the panel about two weeks ago and replaced them with eight of his own picks – many of whom had stated objections to vaccines – some considered it a step too far. Questions about the panel dominated hearings with Kennedy and President Donald Trump's pick to lead the CDC this week. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor and the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee who cast a key vote for Kennedy's confirmation, said the advisory meeting should be postponed until the panel had more members with 'direct relevant expertise.' The new members were a sharp contrast to their predecessors in terms of expertise and experience, and it made for an erratic, sometimes contentious meeting — often delayed by technical and procedural snafus — where CDC experts pushed back on advisers' or presenters' theories and interpretations of data. 'This meeting was clearly orchestrated to sow distrust in vaccines,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Colorado who has been a liaison member to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the American Academy of Pediatrics, after Thursday's meeting. 'The process today also set a very dangerous precedent going forward. This committee is making important policy decisions based on pseudoscience, and ultimately, this is going to harm us all.' Kennedy's influence was felt at the meeting more than once. Last-minute presentations were added to the advisers' agenda for two topics that have long been fodder for vaccine skeptics: thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was largely phased out of vaccines more than two decades ago; and a rare risk of febrile seizures after some kinds of combination measles vaccines. The thimerosal presentation deviated sharply from long-held ACIP standards. It wasn't presented by a CDC expert or a member of the advisory committee's work group but rather by Lyn Redwood, a registered nurse who has long worked in partnership with Kennedy through his anti-vaccine group, Children's Health Defense, and before that as founder of the World Mercury Project. Unlike most ACIP presentations, Redwood's was not vetted by experts in vaccine science before the vote took place. A version of the presentation posted online this week cited a study that doesn't exist and was later replaced. 'The type of presentation that she's giving is usually given by the CDC official after a lot of clearance, and the fact that she is presenting in a very well-respected – previously well-respected – public forum is just yet another example of RFK Jr.'s interference in the vaccine policy process,' Dr. Fiona Havers, a former senior adviser on vaccine policy at the CDC who recently resigned from her position over the changes to ACIP, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. The committee – now down to seven members after one of the new appointees resigned – also announced plans to launch studies of established vaccine guidelines, including the child and adolescent vaccine schedules. 'Our central duty is to protect public health, and we understand that we must answer the call for reestablishing confidence in the scientific examination process,' the members said in a statement Thursday. 'Our votes are recommendations, but we know that some may perceive them as mandates, so we take this responsibility very seriously. We pledge to not hold a vote if there is not sufficient information to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits.' ACIP's recommendations have played a pivotal role in how vaccines are used in the United States for decades. They guide doctors, insurance coverage, manufacturers' plans, school requirements and purchasing decisions. In some states, ACIP's recommendations are so trusted that they've been written into law. That may be changing now: Some states are writing it out of laws, and influential medical groups say they'll take their own steps to ensure vaccine access and clarity about how to use them. 'Recent changes to federal immunization review processes raised concerns across the medical and public health community. In this moment of uncertainty, physicians must align around clear, evidence-based guidance for patients,' dozens of major medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians – wrote in an open letter about the meeting. 'We commit to working together to promote public understanding and confidence in the use of vaccines to avoid another severe respiratory virus season and resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses and deaths. We call on our partners – from insurers to hospitals to public health agencies – to ensure vaccines remain available to patients without cost sharing.' The American Academy of Pediatrics announced this week that it would no longer participate in ACIP meetings because of the changes to committee membership and what's being discussed. It will continue to publish its own schedule of recommended vaccinations, which harmonized with the CDC's for decades until Kennedy's tenure. 'As an organization, we remain committed to the health of children, and as a result, we will continue to publish an evidence-based, science-based schedule that is designed to protect as many children and adolescents as possible in as safe a way as possible,' O'Leary said of the group. The American public, he said, should no longer trust the CDC panel's decisions. 'Over the last few days, we've heard a troubling amount of misinformation about vaccine policy specifically aimed at sowing distrust,' O'Leary said, calling the committee and its discussions 'an embarrassment.' Although the US immunization system is a 'model for the rest of the world,' he said, that may not be the case for long. 'Sadly, at this point, a lot of the world is looking at us, at what's happening here in the US with ACIP, in horror.' Here are more takeaways from the first meeting of Kennedy's vaccine panel. The advisers made a number of new recommendations this week. On Thursday, they reaffirmed a previous ACIP recommendation that everyone 6 months and older receive an annual flu vaccine, then voted to endorse flu vaccines that are free of thimerosal, although there's no evidence of harm from the preservative and it was used in only about 4% of flu vaccines given in the US last year. Members also voted to recommend the use of a new shot that can protect babies from respiratory syncytial virus, the most common cause of hospitalization in infants. Clesrovimab, which will be sold under the brand name Enflonsia, is an antibody made by Merck that joins two other interventions on the market to protect babies against severe disease from RSV. Although some members of the group disagreed on whether the antibody should be recommended for babies, the advisers voted unanimously that the Merck shot should be included in the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines to children whose families may not be able to afford them. There was initially some consternation about the Vaccines for Children vote, typically a routine step after the recommendation of a new vaccine. It went on without incident after explanations for the new panel about the role of the program in ensuring access. But these decisions aren't finalized: ACIP's recommendations now go to the CDC director to be finalized. However, as CDC nominee Dr. Susan Monarez is still awaiting Senate confirmation, the recommendations may go to Kennedy. Although some parts of the ACIP agenda were planned long ago, last-minute changes put fresh attention on matters that anti-vaccine groups have focused on for decades. Thimerosal, a preservative that anti-vaccine groups have falsely blamed for neurodevelopmental issues such as autism, became a major point of this week's meeting. It was removed from most shots decades ago because of concerns that it contains a form of mercury. Subsequent studies showed that thimerosal wasn't linked to neurodevelopmental issues, including autism. Nonetheless, it became a focus for groups including Children's Health Defense. After the advisers voted to recommend only single-dose flu vaccines, which do not contain thimerosal, doctors and public health officials were swift to respond. 'Re-examining the childhood vaccine schedule and the use of thimerosal are both politically motivated actions that are not based on science,' Dr. Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement. 'Raising questions without adequate data casts doubt on vaccination, which can further drive down confidence in vaccines. More than any other medications, vaccines are extensively and constantly reviewed and evaluated. Vaccination saves lives.' O'Leary also denounced the presentation on thimerosal. 'This selective use of data and omission of established science undermines public trust and fuels misinformation,' he said in a statement on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The advisory panel also gave a glimpse of what could be on the agenda next. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the new ACIP chair, announced plans to create three work groups that will study well-establishes vaccines and guidelines: the cumulative effects of vaccines on the childhood and adolescent schedules; vaccines that have not been reviewed in more than seven years, including whether the hepatitis B vaccine should be universally recommended for newborns; and vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, or chickenpox. Kulldorff said the committee may reevaluate the combination MMRV vaccine for 1-year-olds, investigating a higher risk of febrile seizures when the four-vaccine combination is given to children between ages 1 and 2 – a risk that the CDC notes is 'very low for both options.' Dr. Paul Offit, a former ACIP member and current member of the US Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory committee, said the plans from the new committee are 'just a purely anti-vaccine agenda springing to life in public policy.' Dr. Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan and co-editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine, expressed concern on her blog about the new focus on the MMRV vaccine. 'If the public accepts having the MMRV withheld for invented or exaggerated safety concerns, then it's not much more of a stretch to do the same thing for the MMR,' she wrote Thursday. 'With no vaccines against these deadly viruses available for parents to protect their kids, child mortality will soar.' The CDC scientists who normally generate and interpret data to inform the vaccine advisers' votes were in an unusual position at this ACIP meeting: answering questions and countering statements that cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of approved vaccines. In Wednesday's session, the agency experts answered polite but atypical queries about Covid-19 illnesses and vaccines, many focused on whether data could have been biased or misinterpreted, and whether patients counted as going to the hospital for Covid-19, might actually have had mild infections, but really been hospitalized for something else. At the meeting, Redwood's thimerosal presentation faced broad pushback from ACIP liaison members — experts from certain health and medical groups who do not vote but often advise and weigh in on discussions. 'I am wondering if we will have an actual scientific presentation with peer-reviewed literature, strong evidence to actually discuss this issue, as many statements have been made here today without support of science or evidence, but merely opinion,' Dr. Jason Goldman of the American College of Physicians said during the meeting. 'Will there be an actual CDC presentation done by staff, scientists, physicians and those who are subject matter experts with accurate, peer-reviewed scientific data for the ability for the committee to review?' Earlier in the week, CDC experts had posted their own evidence reviews, labeled as background briefing material, on both thimerosal and the MMRV seizure risk online. 'Considering the breadth of evidence and consistency in results from multiple population-based studies conducted in several countries with various study designs, the evidence does not support an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism spectrum disorder or other neurodevelopmental disorders,' that document said. But the CDC's thimerosal document was removed Wednesday, before the vote, because it had not gone through the 'appropriate process to be posted,' a US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said. When a liaison member of the committee asked if it could be reposted, committee member Dr. Robert Malone responded 'that article was not authorized by the office of the secretary and has been removed consequent. I'm sure that the office of the secretary will make note of your comment and direct the CDC as necessary.' The vote on the new RSV immunization was also closely watched as a first signal of how the new committee would proceed. To many, the group's discussion on the newly approved antibody against severe RSV infections should have been brief and uncomplicated: In clinical trials, the new therapy looked safe and very effective, cutting the risk of hospitalization for RSV in babies by almost 85% compared with a placebo. The conversation took an unexpected turn. Committee member Dr. Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at MIT, asked about serious adverse events, including deaths, that seemed to be imbalanced in the trials and whether babies who were immunized seemed to stay longer in the hospital after birth, which he said could suggest 'immune-enhanced disease.' 'I would like to hear maybe from our colleagues at the CDC, should we not be concerned that maybe there are some … potential safety signals?' asked Levi, who eventually voted against recommending the antibody. Representatives from Merck, the drugmaker, and the FDA detailed how the studies were conducted and analyzed to search for potential safety issues. Committee member Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth University who serves on ACIP's 60-member work group for RSV, reassured Levi that the group had closely scrutinized all the events and felt comfortable with the results of the trials. He added that some of the studies included premature infants, 'a very fragile group.' 'As a pediatrician, I mean, people need to understand what a spectacular accomplishment these results are,' Meissner said at Wednesday's meeting. They 'will have an enormous influence on public health.' Havers, the former CDC vaccine policy adviser, told Blitzer that some of the questions and comments from the new members demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topics they were discussing. 'There were a number of questions from this committee that really revealed a lack of basic understanding of methodology,' she said. In its statement after the meeting, the newly appointed committee said it 'strongly supports the use of vaccines' where there's 'rigorous evaluation and expansive credible scientific data, for both safety and efficacy.' 'We came to this meeting with no pre-determined ideas and will make judgements as if we are treating our own families,' the members said. 'Unbiased scientific thinking is fundamental to the committee's charge.' CNN's Meg Tirrell and Jen Christensen contributed to this report.
CNN
2 days ago
- CNN
Unusual pushback, ‘dangerous precedent': What the first meeting of Kennedy's CDC advisers reveals about the future of vaccines in America
A startling new vision of vaccination in America is becoming clearer — one likely to involve fresh scrutiny of established science and practices, and limits on vaccines that have been studied for decades. The first meeting of new vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrapped up Thursday after days of discussions that rankled mainstream scientists, public health experts and major medical associations. The committee's votes could bring an end to the use of a robustly studied preservative in flu shots, a shift that may ultimately limit access to vaccines for some people. Even before Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, was confirmed to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services, many public health advocates and politicians worried that he would target the advisory committee in an effort to undermine confidence and restrict access to vaccines. When he removed all 17 previous members of the panel about two weeks ago and replaced them with eight of his own picks – many of whom had stated objections to vaccines – some considered it a step too far. Questions about the panel dominated hearings with Kennedy and President Donald Trump's pick to lead the CDC this week. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor and the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee who cast a key vote for Kennedy's confirmation, said the advisory meeting should be postponed until the panel had more members with 'direct relevant expertise.' The new members were a sharp contrast to their predecessors in terms of expertise and experience, and it made for an erratic, sometimes contentious meeting — often delayed by technical and procedural snafus — where CDC experts pushed back on advisers' or presenters' theories and interpretations of data. 'This meeting was clearly orchestrated to sow distrust in vaccines,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Colorado who has been a liaison member to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the American Academy of Pediatrics, after Thursday's meeting. 'The process today also set a very dangerous precedent going forward. This committee is making important policy decisions based on pseudoscience, and ultimately, this is going to harm us all.' Kennedy's influence was felt at the meeting more than once. Last-minute presentations were added to the advisers' agenda for two topics that have long been fodder for vaccine skeptics: thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was largely phased out of vaccines more than two decades ago; and a rare risk of febrile seizures after some kinds of combination measles vaccines. The thimerosal presentation deviated sharply from long-held ACIP standards. It wasn't presented by a CDC expert or a member of the advisory committee's work group but rather by Lyn Redwood, a registered nurse who has long worked in partnership with Kennedy through his anti-vaccine group, Children's Health Defense, and before that as founder of the World Mercury Project. Unlike most ACIP presentations, Redwood's was not vetted by experts in vaccine science before the vote took place. A version of the presentation posted online this week cited a study that doesn't exist and was later replaced. 'The type of presentation that she's giving is usually given by the CDC official after a lot of clearance, and the fact that she is presenting in a very well-respected – previously well-respected – public forum is just yet another example of RFK Jr.'s interference in the vaccine policy process,' Dr. Fiona Havers, a former senior adviser on vaccine policy at the CDC who recently resigned from her position over the changes to ACIP, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. The committee – now down to seven members after one of the new appointees resigned – also announced plans to launch studies of established vaccine guidelines, including the child and adolescent vaccine schedules. 'Our central duty is to protect public health, and we understand that we must answer the call for reestablishing confidence in the scientific examination process,' the members said in a statement Thursday. 'Our votes are recommendations, but we know that some may perceive them as mandates, so we take this responsibility very seriously. We pledge to not hold a vote if there is not sufficient information to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits.' ACIP's recommendations have played a pivotal role in how vaccines are used in the United States for decades. They guide doctors, insurance coverage, manufacturers' plans, school requirements and purchasing decisions. In some states, ACIP's recommendations are so trusted that they've been written into law. That may be changing now: Some states are writing it out of laws, and influential medical groups say they'll take their own steps to ensure vaccine access and clarity about how to use them. 'Recent changes to federal immunization review processes raised concerns across the medical and public health community. In this moment of uncertainty, physicians must align around clear, evidence-based guidance for patients,' dozens of major medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians – wrote in an open letter about the meeting. 'We commit to working together to promote public understanding and confidence in the use of vaccines to avoid another severe respiratory virus season and resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses and deaths. We call on our partners – from insurers to hospitals to public health agencies – to ensure vaccines remain available to patients without cost sharing.' The American Academy of Pediatrics announced this week that it would no longer participate in ACIP meetings because of the changes to committee membership and what's being discussed. It will continue to publish its own schedule of recommended vaccinations, which harmonized with the CDC's for decades until Kennedy's tenure. 'As an organization, we remain committed to the health of children, and as a result, we will continue to publish an evidence-based, science-based schedule that is designed to protect as many children and adolescents as possible in as safe a way as possible,' O'Leary said of the group. The American public, he said, should no longer trust the CDC panel's decisions. 'Over the last few days, we've heard a troubling amount of misinformation about vaccine policy specifically aimed at sowing distrust,' O'Leary said, calling the committee and its discussions 'an embarrassment.' Although the US immunization system is a 'model for the rest of the world,' he said, that may not be the case for long. 'Sadly, at this point, a lot of the world is looking at us, at what's happening here in the US with ACIP, in horror.' Here are more takeaways from the first meeting of Kennedy's vaccine panel. The advisers made a number of new recommendations this week. On Thursday, they reaffirmed a previous ACIP recommendation that everyone 6 months and older receive an annual flu vaccine, then voted to endorse flu vaccines that are free of thimerosal, although there's no evidence of harm from the preservative and it was used in only about 4% of flu vaccines given in the US last year. Members also voted to recommend the use of a new shot that can protect babies from respiratory syncytial virus, the most common cause of hospitalization in infants. Clesrovimab, which will be sold under the brand name Enflonsia, is an antibody made by Merck that joins two other interventions on the market to protect babies against severe disease from RSV. Although some members of the group disagreed on whether the antibody should be recommended for babies, the advisers voted unanimously that the Merck shot should be included in the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines to children whose families may not be able to afford them. There was initially some consternation about the Vaccines for Children vote, typically a routine step after the recommendation of a new vaccine. It went on without incident after explanations for the new panel about the role of the program in ensuring access. But these decisions aren't finalized: ACIP's recommendations now go to the CDC director to be finalized. However, as CDC nominee Dr. Susan Monarez is still awaiting Senate confirmation, the recommendations may go to Kennedy. Although some parts of the ACIP agenda were planned long ago, last-minute changes put fresh attention on matters that anti-vaccine groups have focused on for decades. Thimerosal, a preservative that anti-vaccine groups have falsely blamed for neurodevelopmental issues such as autism, became a major point of this week's meeting. It was removed from most shots decades ago because of concerns that it contains a form of mercury. Subsequent studies showed that thimerosal wasn't linked to neurodevelopmental issues, including autism. Nonetheless, it became a focus for groups including Children's Health Defense. After the advisers voted to recommend only single-dose flu vaccines, which do not contain thimerosal, doctors and public health officials were swift to respond. 'Re-examining the childhood vaccine schedule and the use of thimerosal are both politically motivated actions that are not based on science,' Dr. Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement. 'Raising questions without adequate data casts doubt on vaccination, which can further drive down confidence in vaccines. More than any other medications, vaccines are extensively and constantly reviewed and evaluated. Vaccination saves lives.' O'Leary also denounced the presentation on thimerosal. 'This selective use of data and omission of established science undermines public trust and fuels misinformation,' he said in a statement on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The advisory panel also gave a glimpse of what could be on the agenda next. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the new ACIP chair, announced plans to create three work groups that will study well-establishes vaccines and guidelines: the cumulative effects of vaccines on the childhood and adolescent schedules; vaccines that have not been reviewed in more than seven years, including whether the hepatitis B vaccine should be universally recommended for newborns; and vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, or chickenpox. Kulldorff said the committee may reevaluate the combination MMRV vaccine for 1-year-olds, investigating a higher risk of febrile seizures when the four-vaccine combination is given to children between ages 1 and 2 – a risk that the CDC notes is 'very low for both options.' Dr. Paul Offit, a former ACIP member and current member of the US Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory committee, said the plans from the new committee are 'just a purely anti-vaccine agenda springing to life in public policy.' Dr. Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan and co-editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine, expressed concern on her blog about the new focus on the MMRV vaccine. 'If the public accepts having the MMRV withheld for invented or exaggerated safety concerns, then it's not much more of a stretch to do the same thing for the MMR,' she wrote Thursday. 'With no vaccines against these deadly viruses available for parents to protect their kids, child mortality will soar.' The CDC scientists who normally generate and interpret data to inform the vaccine advisers' votes were in an unusual position at this ACIP meeting: answering questions and countering statements that cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of approved vaccines. In Wednesday's session, the agency experts answered polite but atypical queries about Covid-19 illnesses and vaccines, many focused on whether data could have been biased or misinterpreted, and whether patients counted as going to the hospital for Covid-19, might actually have had mild infections, but really been hospitalized for something else. At the meeting, Redwood's thimerosal presentation faced broad pushback from ACIP liaison members — experts from certain health and medical groups who do not vote but often advise and weigh in on discussions. 'I am wondering if we will have an actual scientific presentation with peer-reviewed literature, strong evidence to actually discuss this issue, as many statements have been made here today without support of science or evidence, but merely opinion,' Dr. Jason Goldman of the American College of Physicians said during the meeting. 'Will there be an actual CDC presentation done by staff, scientists, physicians and those who are subject matter experts with accurate, peer-reviewed scientific data for the ability for the committee to review?' Earlier in the week, CDC experts had posted their own evidence reviews, labeled as background briefing material, on both thimerosal and the MMRV seizure risk online. 'Considering the breadth of evidence and consistency in results from multiple population-based studies conducted in several countries with various study designs, the evidence does not support an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism spectrum disorder or other neurodevelopmental disorders,' that document said. But the CDC's thimerosal document was removed Wednesday, before the vote, because it had not gone through the 'appropriate process to be posted,' a US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said. When a liaison member of the committee asked if it could be reposted, committee member Dr. Robert Malone responded 'that article was not authorized by the office of the secretary and has been removed consequent. I'm sure that the office of the secretary will make note of your comment and direct the CDC as necessary.' The vote on the new RSV immunization was also closely watched as a first signal of how the new committee would proceed. To many, the group's discussion on the newly approved antibody against severe RSV infections should have been brief and uncomplicated: In clinical trials, the new therapy looked safe and very effective, cutting the risk of hospitalization for RSV in babies by almost 85% compared with a placebo. The conversation took an unexpected turn. Committee member Dr. Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at MIT, asked about serious adverse events, including deaths, that seemed to be imbalanced in the trials and whether babies who were immunized seemed to stay longer in the hospital after birth, which he said could suggest 'immune-enhanced disease.' 'I would like to hear maybe from our colleagues at the CDC, should we not be concerned that maybe there are some … potential safety signals?' asked Levi, who eventually voted against recommending the antibody. Representatives from Merck, the drugmaker, and the FDA detailed how the studies were conducted and analyzed to search for potential safety issues. Committee member Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth University who serves on ACIP's 60-member work group for RSV, reassured Levi that the group had closely scrutinized all the events and felt comfortable with the results of the trials. He added that some of the studies included premature infants, 'a very fragile group.' 'As a pediatrician, I mean, people need to understand what a spectacular accomplishment these results are,' Meissner said at Wednesday's meeting. They 'will have an enormous influence on public health.' Havers, the former CDC vaccine policy adviser, told Blitzer that some of the questions and comments from the new members demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topics they were discussing. 'There were a number of questions from this committee that really revealed a lack of basic understanding of methodology,' she said. In its statement after the meeting, the newly appointed committee said it 'strongly supports the use of vaccines' where there's 'rigorous evaluation and expansive credible scientific data, for both safety and efficacy.' 'We came to this meeting with no pre-determined ideas and will make judgements as if we are treating our own families,' the members said. 'Unbiased scientific thinking is fundamental to the committee's charge.' CNN's Meg Tirrell and Jen Christensen contributed to this report.
