Brian H Mathison PhD (@allthingstox)

Thank you Dr. Higgins, This was excellent. One additional path worth consideration might be the formation of a multinational vaccine advisory group, or “international ACIP” that incorporates expertise from bodies such as the UK’s JCVI, Germany’s STIKO, Canada’s NACI, and WHO’s SAGE. Such a consortium could coordinate evidence reviews, share real-time data, and offer joint recommendations for high-priority and pandemic-related vaccines. This wouldn’t replace U.S. policy, but it could serve as a credible scientific reference point—especially when domestic systems become politicized or fragmented. Using recommendations in multinational expertise, particularly from countries with strong safety records and public trust, may help shift U.S. public perception back toward science rather than political ideologies. U.S. medical organizations like AAFP, AAP, ACP, and ACOG could play a crucial role in translating international guidance into clinical practice, helping ensure that such recommendations are relevant and trustworthy. Insurers and public programs could also align vaccine coverage decisions with this type of consensus-based guidance, reinforcing continuity and public confidence during "political transitions". In a climate of deepening distrust and misinformation, building visible scientific coalitions may ultimately be more effective than a go-it-alone approach. --- • https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation • https://www.rki.de/EN/Topics/Infectious-diseases/Immunisation/STIKO/standing-committee-on-vaccination-stiko-node.html • https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci.html • https://www.who.int/groups/strategic-advisory-group-of-experts-on-immunization