Earlier this week, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – flanked by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and CMS Director Mehmet Oz — publicly announced—that the federal government would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children or pregnant women.

Now, hot off the press is the CDC’s updated immunization schedule reflecting that shift (sort of).

here is the relevant language:

“Shared clinical decision-making
Ages 6 month –17 years who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised.
Shared clinical decision-making vaccinations are individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian. Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances. https://www.cdc.gov/acip/vaccine-recommendations/shared-clinical-decision-making.html

In short, The COVID shot is still on the schedule for children ages 6 months and older, but the nature of the recommendation has changed. For the first time since the pandemic began, it’s no longer classified as a routine vaccine for children. Instead, it is now a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” for children (who are not immunocompromised).

Here’s what that means, straight from the CDC’s own guidance:

“Shared clinical decision-making vaccinations are individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian.”

“Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances.”

CDC Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/vaccine-recommendations/shared-clinical-decision-making.html

This shift came from the top. It did not come from ACIP, which was bypassed after its handwringing non-action in its April, 2025 meeting. It was not scheduled to meet again until the end of June.

This demotion of ACIP is welcome (and called for from our side), but has and will continue to upset the fanatical vaccine orthodoxy. This policy course correction is likely a response to growing pressure, (I’d like to think our Cardenas lawsuit wasn’t completely irrelevant, but more about that later) and a common sense scientific reassessment. The public has lost interest in Covid. Most people don’t get the booster, and only vaccine fanatics are recommending for it for anyone, and especially for kids, since there is no BLA (biological license) for it.

But the shot is still on the schedule, sort of. So what exactly has changed?

What This Means for Physicians and Families

Under the new framework:

The vaccine is no longer recommended by the CDC for all children.

And actually, it is no longer recommended by the CDC for any children, is the way I read it. Instead, it is available for all non-immunocompromised children based on the shared decision-making process. I think that means that the CDC is not in the business of recommending the shot for kids, which from our perspective is a very good thing since there is no evidence that the shot confers a clinical benefit to kids.

That should mean that Medicaid pediatrician providers should no longer be forced to order the Covid shot, and VFC inspectors should no longer target providers for not ordering it. I hope that will be the case, but we will have to see how it shakes out.

HOWEVER, the shot remains available to families who want it. Insurers should continue to cover it, since it is still technically on the schedule. (And let me give my personal view that this was a very slick move by the new team.)

But providers who decline to offer it—for sound medical reasons—should no longer be punished. Again, that’s the hope.

Why the Cardenas Lawsuit Still Matters

Dr. Samara Cardenas, a pediatrician who served nearly 2,000 disadvantaged children in Anaheim, lost her entire practice because she refused to order the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children. Her judgment was grounded in clinical evidence, ethical practice, and the undeniable fact that COVID poses negligible risk to that population.

Yet, for declining to participate in an investigational vaccine regime that she did not believe benefited her patients, Dr. Cardenas was terminated from the VFC program. That, in turn, caused CalOptima to cancel her Medicaid contract, leaving her patients stranded and her career in tatters. Here is the amended complaint. filestampedcomplaint

The government’s new guidance should prevent that from happening again. But policy language is only half the battle. The other half is enforcement—and enforcement remains a question mark.

Will the VFC program revise its inspection protocols? Will Medicaid contractors like CalOptima stop requiring providers to stock and offer the shot? Will frontline bureaucrats get the memo?

Those are the questions we’ll be monitoring. Until we have clarity—and compliance—the Cardenas lawsuit remains necessary.

A Step Forward, Not the End of the Road

To be clear: we are not seeking to block access to the CVID vaccine. Families who want the shot for their children should be able to get it, (at least until there is greater recognition that the shot is too dangerous for kids (and anyone else), and I think that day will come, perhaps sooner than most people think).

But surely no physician should be forced to recommend or administer a product that, in their professional judgment, is unnecessary or potentially harmful—especially now when the government itself has withdrawn its routine endorsement. And that is what this policy change seems to do. So we welcome it, but we are not done yet. This isn’t a full retraction. It’s a strategic retreat. And like all retreats, it’s temporary unless we hold the ground.

We intend to.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.