Back to News
Market Impact: 0.25

Exclusive: Kennedy's new vaccine adviser was expert witness against Merck vaccine

MRKTRI
Pandemic & Health EventsRegulation & LegislationLegal & LitigationHealthcare & BiotechManagement & Governance
Exclusive: Kennedy's new vaccine adviser was expert witness against Merck vaccine

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment of Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician who has testified as a paid expert witness against Merck's Gardasil vaccine, to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) raises conflict-of-interest concerns. Kulldorff earned thousands of dollars providing expert testimony for plaintiffs alleging Merck concealed Gardasil's risks. ACIP rules prohibit members from serving as paid litigation consultants involving vaccine manufacturers during their tenure, potentially requiring a waiver from the CDC and recusal from votes involving Merck and HPV vaccines.

Analysis

The appointment of Martin Kulldorff to the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduces a notable dynamic, given Kulldorff's recent history as a paid expert witness against Merck & Co., Inc. (MRK.N) concerning its Gardasil vaccine. Court records reveal Kulldorff earned $400 per hour, billing approximately $33,000, and received a $4,000 retainer for his testimony in litigation where plaintiffs accused Merck of concealing Gardasil's risks. This appointment comes as Kennedy replaced the entire previous 17-member ACIP, citing concerns over financial ties to drugmakers. However, Kulldorff's prior role directly contravenes ACIP rules, which prohibit members from serving as paid litigation consultants or expert witnesses in litigation involving a vaccine manufacturer during their tenure. This situation may necessitate a waiver from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kulldorff's recusal from votes pertaining to Merck and HPV vaccines. The Health and Human Services Department stated new members were thoroughly vetted, yet this appointment raises questions about potential conflicts, reflected in a slightly negative sentiment score (-0.2) for Merck. The development underscores themes of regulatory shifts, legal entanglements, and governance within the healthcare and biotech sectors, potentially impacting future vaccine recommendations and pharmaceutical industry oversight.