It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Finland was the first country to offer the zoonotic avian influenza A(H5N8) vaccine manufactured by Seqirus to at-risk occupational groups following the extensive clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N1) outbreak affecting wild birds and fur farms in Finland in 2023.
A new study published in Nature Microbiology shows that the MF59-adjuvanted A(H5N8) vaccine induced strong immune responses, including both functional antibodies and memory T-cell responses, against the vaccine virus, as well as against H5 viruses that have caused recent outbreaks in Europe and the United States.
Robust immune responses after two doses
The observational phase IV study assessed antibody responses in 39 at-risk individuals and T-cell responses in a subset of 18 participants.
After two doses, the majority of previously unvaccinated individuals developed seroprotective antibody levels against the vaccine virus (A/Astrakhan/3212/2020, clade 2.3.4.4b). Seroprotection rates against the vaccine virus were 83% (95% CI 70–97%) by microneutralization assay (titer ≥20) and 97% (90–100%) by hemagglutination inhibition assay (titer ≥40). Importantly, the antibodies also recognized heterologous clade 2.3.4.4b H5 strains, including H5N1 viruses responsible for outbreaks on Finnish fur farms and dairy cattle farms in the United States.
“These findings show that two doses of the vaccine elicit strong humoral and cellular immune responses that are expected to confer protection against currently circulating clade 2.3.4.4b H5 viruses,” the authors report.
T-cell analyses further demonstrated an approximately five-fold increase in IFN-γ producing CD4⁺ T cells after the second dose, indicating activation of cellular immunity that may contribute to broader and longer-lasting protection.
A single dose strongly boosts immunity in previously vaccinated individuals
One of the most striking findings relates to participants who had received earlier H5 vaccines, many years or more than a decade earlier. In these individuals, a single dose of the current vaccine rapidly induced high levels of neutralizing antibodies, with no significant additional boost from a closely spaced second dose.
This indicates potent immunological memory and suggests that priming at-risk populations with currently available vaccines, followed by a booster during a future epidemic, could provide rapid and robust protection even if the circulating virus differs from the vaccine strain.
Low vaccination uptake among high-risk groups
However, vaccination experiences in Finland highlight a critical gap: vaccine uptake among the targeted high-risk groups was far lower than expected, based on data from national vaccination registries. Fewer than 10% of individuals in the estimated target occupational categories received the vaccine, and not all completed the two-dose series. This underscores the need for improved communication and engagement strategies in future preparedness efforts.
Despite the strong immunogenicity, the real-world impact is limited by very low participation among those eligible for vaccination. Crucially, no fur farm workers, who were the group with the highest exposure risk during the 2023 outbreak, participated in the study despite multiple outreach efforts.
Other eligible groups included laboratory personnel, bird ringers, veterinarians, and poultry workers. Laboratory employees constituted the majority of participants in the immunogenicity study.
Several likely reasons for the low vaccine uptake
In many wellbeing services counties, responsible for organizing social and health care services, access to the vaccine was limited. Some individuals may not have been aware that they were eligible for vaccination. There may have been uncertainty about personal risk. As there was no prelicensure data on humans prior to the introduction, the limited data about the vaccine’s benefits and safety may have left people uncertain about whether to be vaccinated.
“Even if a vaccine is highly immunogenic and well matched to circulating viruses, it can only protect those who receive it,” the authors emphasize.
Improved, tailored communication strategies will be essential for future vaccination campaigns.
Implications for global avian influenza preparedness
As countries prepare for a potential escalation of H5N1 transmission globally, the Finnish experience offers important guidance. The study shows that two doses generate strong antibody and T-cell responses in previously unvaccinated individuals, while a single dose triggers rapid, high-level immunity in those primed years or even decades earlier with any H5 vaccine.
This underscores the value of priming at-risk occupational groups now during the interpandemic period, so they can be boosted quickly and effectively if the epidemiological situation worsens. Successful preparedness will also require proactive engagement of target groups to ensure access, awareness, and trust.
A strategy that includes priming at-risk individuals with currently available H5 vaccines is both sustainable and forward-looking. Should the situation deteriorate rapidly, even a non-perfectly matched booster could still provide timely and meaningful protection.
Influenza A(H5N8) vaccine induces humoral and cell-mediated immunity against highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N1) viruses in at-risk individuals
Article Publication Date
5-Dec-2025
Vaccines and the 2024 US presidential election
JAMA Health Forum
About The Study:
In this survey study, very few U.S. voters considered vaccines an important issue in the 2024 presidential election, but voters generally supported the government’s role in ensuring safe and effective vaccines and requiring children to be vaccinated for school. The partisan divide on vaccines reflects solid support among Trump voters compared to high support among Harris voters. A March 2025 poll showed that 68% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats support school vaccination requirements—similar to the present results.
Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, email joshua.sharfstein@jhu.edu.
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article
About JAMA Health Forum: JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports and opinion about national and global health policy; innovative approaches to health care delivery; and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity and reform. Its distribution will be solely digital and all content will be freely available for anyone to read.
Journal
JAMA Health Forum
Although public overwhelmingly supports hepatitis B vaccine for a newborn, partisan differences exist
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
On December 5, 2025, the Trump administration’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), whose members were handpicked by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and vaccination critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is scheduled to determine whether it should recommend that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) change the recommendation in place since 1991 that newborns be vaccinated against hepatitis B. Infection with hepatitis B can cause liver damage (cirrhosis), liver cancer, and even death. Kennedy fired the members of ACIP he inherited when he assumed his HHS position.
Although ACIP decisions are not legally binding, they play a role in decisions by insurance companies and government programs about whether they will cover vaccinations. ACIP recommends vaccination schedules to the director of the CDC, who in years past has usually accepted the ACIP recommendations. The CDC currently recommends that infants should be given a dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. At issue are both when the vaccine should be given (to newborns or later in life) and, if delayed, whether a dose at birth should remain the recommendation for infants whose mothers test positive for the virus.
In anticipation of ACIP’s deliberations, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) asked three items about hepatitis B in a national survey of 1,637 adults (November 17 to December 1, 2025).
Most Americans would be likely to recommend the hepatitis B vaccine for a newborn
The APPC survey asked, “The CDC recommends that all children receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. If a newborn in your household were eligible to get the vaccine, how likely, if at all, would you be to recommend that person get a hepatitis B vaccine?” More than three quarters (77%) indicate that they would be either very likely (52%) or somewhat likely (25%) to recommend that a newborn in their household be vaccinated against hepatitis B. A little more than a fifth (23%) say they would be unlikely to recommend the vaccine, split between “not too” (12%) and “not at all” likely (11%).
Party Differences: Large majorities of self-identified Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents (90%), Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (65%), and non-leaning independents (71%) indicate they would be likely to recommend the hepatitis B vaccine, but Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are least likely to say they would do so.
A third would recommend the vaccine be given at birth
When asked to indicate the youngest age they would recommend that a person in their household get the hepatitis B vaccine from a list of choices (birth, one month old, four years old, twelve years old, nineteen years old, would not recommend at all), roughly a third choose birth (35%). Sixteen percent (16%) say the youngest age they would recommend is one month, 14% say age 4, 11% choose age 12, and the youngest age for 7% is 19 years old. Sixteen percent say they would not recommend the vaccine at all.
Party Differences: Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents (47%) are twice as likely as Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (23%) to endorse the existing recommendation of vaccinating children for hepatitis B at birth. Non-leaning independents are in between at 31%.
A plurality knows that Hepatitis B vaccine protects against liver disease; many unsure
Four in 10 (40%) indicate that the hepatitis B vaccine protects against liver disease, when asked to choose among a number of diseases and ailments (liver disease, pancreatitis, diabetes, mononucleosis (mono), herpes, chronic kidney disease, Zika, or none of the above). A third (32%) say they are not sure and 13% choose “none of the above.” Herpes is chosen by 10% followed by chronic kidney disease (7%) as the disease which the vaccine protects against; 4% each say pancreatitis or mononucleosis; and 1% each say diabetes or Zika.
APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge survey
The survey data come from the 26th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,637 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded November 17, 2025 – December 1, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
APPC’s ASAPH team includes research analyst Laura A. Gibson; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.
This Viewpoint from infectious disease experts cautions about the consequences of rescinding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices policy to immunize all newborns against hepatitis B and estimates the number of perinatal infections that may occur under revised guidelines.
Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, email Rochelle.Walensky.MD@gmail.com.
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article
The percentage of the public that would be likely to accept the recommendations on vaccine safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Medical Association (AMA), including breakdowns by political party identification and age. Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center, from the SSRS Omnibus Survey Nov. 21-24, 2025.
PHILADELPHIA – For decades, health-related statements by major professional health associations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) agreed with those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) because both relied on the same body of scientific knowledge, much of it funded by the federal health sector. However, the public can no longer assume that the CDC and major public health organizations are on the same page.
In late November 2025, for example, when the CDC website legitimized the discredited link between vaccination and autism, mainstream professional health organizations condemned the changes. Fueling the outcry were two additions to the CDC website, under the leadership of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first declared that “the claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” The second alleged that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” These claims now appear as the first two key points in a box at the beginning of the CDC’s Autism and Vaccines page.
“Despite recent changes to the CDC website, an abundance of evidence from decades of scientific studies shows no link between vaccines and autism,” declared an AMA statement. Casting the changes as “reckless and harmful,” the Infectious Diseases Society of America argued that “this change is not driven by science but by politics and will only serve to increase mistrust in science and medicine.” The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics called on the CDC to remove the false information and “stop wasting government resources to amplify false claims …”
To determine what the public is making of the controversy, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania engaged SSRS to survey a nationally representative sample of 1,006 adults online from November 21-24, 2025. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The survey, created by APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute (AHRCI), asks about the public’s confidence that the CDC is providing trustworthy information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, how people react to conflicting cues about vaccine safety from the AMA and the CDC, and public views about whether vaccines and autism are linked.
The Annenberg survey finds that:
By a 2-1 margin, the public would be more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendation on vaccine safety (35%) than the CDC’s (16%) if the two bodies issue conflicting advice;
Regardless of party, Americans would accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s;
Half of older Americans age 65+ (50%) would be more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s (13%); the only age group more likely to accept the CDC over the AMA are 18- to 29-year-olds, by 24% to 19%.
If the CDC and the AMA gave conflicting recommendations on the safety of a vaccine, Americans say they would be more likely to accept the recommendation of the AMA by a 2 to 1 margin over the CDC: 35% say they would take the recommendation of the AMA, while just 16% would take the recommendation of the CDC. In addition, 21% say they would take neither organization’s recommendation and 27% say they are not sure.
Party differences: Regardless of party, Americans would accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s. More than 4 in 10 (43%) self-identified Democrats say they would accept the AMA’s recommendation regarding the safety of a vaccine, while 18% would accept the CDC’s. Three in 10 (31%) self-identified Republicans indicate that they are more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendation over the CDC’s (13%). Similarly, among self-identified independents or those in other parties, 31% would accept the AMA recommendation, compared with 18% who say they would take the CDC’s.
When faced with differing recommendations about the safety of a vaccine, Republicans are more skeptical of both the AMA and CDC, compared with Democrats and independents. A third (32%) of Republicans say they would take neither organization’s recommendation, compared with 8% of Democrats and 23% of independents.
“Political party differences here are not surprising,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research. “The different willingness to rely on the AMA vs. the CDC, based on political party, is consistent with research showing that partisanship is now a clear factor in health perceptions. But it’s important to note that most independents, Democrats, and Republicans would accept an AMA recommendation over a CDC one about vaccine safety.”
Age differences: Half of U.S. adults age 65 and older (50%) are more likely to take the AMA’s guidance on vaccines than the CDC’s (13%). However, younger adults 18 to 29 are statistically just as likely to say they would accept the recommendation of the CDC as the AMA’s on vaccine safety. Nearly a quarter (24%) of those 18 to 29 would go with the CDC’s recommendation and about 1 in 5 (19%) would take the AMA’s. Similar to other age groups, most young people say they would take neither organization’s recommendation (20%) though more say they are not sure (37%). A greater proportion in each of the other age groups would clearly pick the AMA’s recommendation on vaccine safety over the CDC’s (32% AMA vs. 18% CDC among 30 to 49-year-olds; and 36% AMA vs. 12% CDC among 50 to 64-year-olds).
Just over half say CDC providing trustworthy information on vaccines
Just over half of adults (52%) are confident that the CDC is providing the public with trustworthy information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Just 16% are very confident and 36% are somewhat confident. One in five (21%) are not at all confident in the CDC and 27% are not too confident. There are no significant differences in overall confidence by party or gender.
Younger people age 18 to 29 are more likely to say they are confident in the CDC on vaccine safety and effectiveness (59%) than adults 65 and older (47%).
CDC’s prior advice on vaccines aligns better with public’s view than today’s advice
Until November 20, 2025, the CDC’s website said, “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism.” Then the website was revised to say, “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” When asked which of these two statements about vaccines and autism comes closer to their own views, a narrow majority (52%) chooses the statement saying there is no link between vaccines and autism. Nearly a third (30%), however, say their views are closer to the latest statement by the CDC that “the claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” Eighteen percent (18%) say they are not sure.
Party differences: There are significant differences by political party identification in acceptance of the debunked autism-vaccination link. Democrats (74%) and independents (52%) are significantly more likely than Republicans (33%) to endorse the view that there is no link between receiving a vaccine and autism. Nearly half of Republicans (48%) say that the claim is not evidence-based, over three times more than Democrats (14%). Independents are between those groups: about 3 in 10 (27%) say they are closer to the view that the vaccine-autism link has not been ruled out.
Young adults 18 to 29 years old are more likely than older adults to hold the view that there is no link between receiving a vaccine and autism. Nearly 7 in 10 (68%) adults age 18 to 29 say there is no link, compared with 48% of those age 30 to 49, 44% of those age 50 to 64, and 55% of those age 65 or older.
Most people unsure what CDC website now says on vaccines and autism
In a follow-up question, APPC researchers asked survey respondents which of the two statements noted above about vaccines and autism is currently on the CDC website. Most people (50%) say they are not sure which statement is on the website. The others are split, with 19% incorrectly saying the “no link” statement is currently on the site, and 20% correctly saying the “studies have not ruled out the possibility [of autism]” statement is on the site. Small groups say that both statements (7%) are on the site or that neither is on the site (4%).
“A possible source of confusion,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, “is the continuing presence on the CDC site of the header ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ which, according to an asterisk linked to it, ‘has not been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website.’ This crafty move has honored the letter but not the spirit of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pledge to Senator Bill Cassidy (R., LA) that the CDC would not ‘remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines no not cause autism.’ ”
Regardless of party identification, the most common response is that people are unsure which statement is on the CDC website, with 57% of Republicans, 43% of Democrats, and 50% of independents reporting that they are not sure. The remainder are generally split over which statement is on the site.
Decline in belief that vaccines are not linked to autism
A science-consistent public understanding about vaccinated and unvaccinated children and autism had been declining before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became HHS Secretary and before these CDC website changes were made.
In April 2021, nearly four years before Kennedy became Health Secretary, APPC began tracking the public’s understanding about vaccinated and unvaccinated children and autism. Since that time, there has been a decline in the proportion of people who say the claim “that increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days” is false. In April 2021, 71% said the statement was false, but that number dropped significantly to 65% in October 2023, two and a half years later. Similarly, the number who believe the statement to be true increased significantly over that time period, from 10% and 11% in April and June 2021, respectively, to 16% in October 2023.
“Even before Covid-19, our survey data were showing an increase in those who believe that either a particular vaccine or the number of childhood vaccinations cause autism,” said Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst. “If that sentiment leads to fewer life-saving vaccinations, there may be tragic consequences for some children and communities.”
Nearly half (47%) of those surveyed report believing that children who are fully vaccinated are about as likely to show signs of autism as children who are not fully vaccinated. The public is evenly divided on whether fully vaccinated children are more likely (12%) or less likely (12%) to show signs of autism. Nearly 3 in 10 people (29%) are not sure.
Democrats (57%) and independents (47%) are also more likely than Republicans (38%) to say fully vaccinated children are just as likely as children who are not vaccinated to show signs of autism. Nearly a quarter (23%) of Republicans say fully vaccinated children are more likely to show signs of autism, which is nearly six times more than Democrats (4%). Independents are between those groups, at 9%.
Methodology
Data from the survey come from a nationally representative sample of 1,006 U.S. adults, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company.
The sample was drawn from SSRS’s probability based online opinion panel and was fielded November 21-24, 2025, and has a margin of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) and separate national samples since April 2021. APPC’s health survey team includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, research analyst Laura A. Gibson, and Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The graphic shows the decrease in the percentage of people who believe it is false to say that "increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days." The change from April 2021 (71%) to October 2023 (65%) is statistically sigificant. Source: Annenberg Science and Public Health surveys from the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
.JPG)
