I've got my Saturday finest on (that's a matching fuzzy cheetah robe and pajama set for those who don't know). My bottlecap glasses are on, but they're crooked because I fell asleep on them. My beautiful feral children are demanding homemade waffles (because the frozen ones won't do—"we want fancy waffles for the weekend") and I am online writing about day two of the ACIP meeting... and it's only because I love you all so much.

As I watched Day 2 unfold, I realized I was experiencing the full emotional spectrum of the Seven Dwarfs, sometimes all at once. Let me take you on this journey through vaccine policy chaos, one dwarf at a time.

Subscribe now

Grumpy: "We Are Rookies"

The day started with me as Grumpy when ACIP reversed their own vote from Day 1 on the MMRV vaccine. Chair Martin Kulldorff opened by admitting, "We are rookies... With one exception, this was either our first ACIP meeting or our second."

Watching committee members admit they were too confused by their own wording to vote correctly the first time was... something. These are the people making decisions about our children's health, and they couldn't figure out what they were voting on. My children have more clarity when voting on whether we should have pizza or tacos for dinner.

Dopey: The Headline Confusion

Speaking of confusion, I morphed into Dopey trying to make sense of the headlines. Look at this beautiful chaos:

The "It's More Restrictive" Camp:

• Washington Post: "Vaccine panel advances more restrictive approach"

• NBC News: "CDC panel votes to limit Covid vaccine eligibility"

• NPR: "CDC's vaccine advisers add COVID vaccine rules in contentious meeting"

The "It's Personal Choice Now" Camp:

• ABC News: "CDC panel abandons COVID vaccine recommendation, saying it's a personal choice"

• HHS.gov: "ACIP Recommends COVID-19 Immunization Based on Individual Decision-making"

The "You Need to Talk to Someone First" Camp:

• CNN: "Patients must consult a health care provider"

These aren't exactly contradictory—they're all describing the same confusing elephant from different angles. Some outlets saw restriction, others saw liberation, still others saw bureaucracy. The fact that professional journalists can't agree on whether this makes vaccines more or less accessible tells you everything about how chaotic the meeting was.

And no, this wasn't a good outcome just because it could have been worse. Many of us went in expecting even more restrictive measures, but "not as bad as we feared" isn't the same as "good." It's still chaos.

Doc: When Real Doctors Spoke Up

My heart swelled, and I channeled Doc every time a real physician stood up to speak. These brave souls, voices filled with concern for their patients, reminded everyone why we have vaccines in the first place. Dr. Meissner was a voice of reason, patiently explaining that febrile seizures, while "frightening" for families, have an "excellent prognosis"—basic medical knowledge that somehow needed explaining.

The American Medical Association's Dr. Sandra Fryhofer deserves recognition for maintaining her composure while pointing out that "ACIP is meant to provide concrete vaccine recommendations, but today's votes on COVID-19 vaccines were vague and outside of the usual role of the committee."

Bashful: The Science That Made Me Blush

I turned full Bashful watching committee members resurrect zombie science we thought was dead and buried.

I tuned in to both days with a team of brilliant scientists (The Evidence Collective) who helped put together a detailed technical summary if you want the full science breakdown—special shoutout to the amazing Ed Nirenberg, who is a total rockstar and did this on his birthday!

But here are just a few of the claims that made me want to hide under my fuzzy cheetah robe:

• DNA contamination in vaccines (in 2025? Really?)

• Claiming insufficient evidence means vaccines are unsafe (that's... not how evidence works)

• Suggesting vaccines cause "dangerous" anti-idiotype antibodies (these are actually normal parts of immune regulation)

• Mouse brain changes should guide human vaccine policy (the changes were temporary and, well, in mice)

• Subclinical myocarditis causing sudden death (Levi claimed this based on a study where 21 out of 44 million people died—a 0.000048% rate. Meanwhile, myocarditis from actual COVID infection is both more common and more severe)

When Retsef Levi compared vaccines to antibiotics, someone had to explain the basic difference: antibiotics treat illness after you're sick, vaccines prevent illness before you get sick. That's why you don't need a prescription for prevention. The Evidence Collective lost count after clocking at least 50 falsehoods across both days. AT LEAST FIFTY.

Happy: Small but Important Victories

I briefly became Happy when:

• The hepatitis B vote was delayed (giving time for more thoughtful consideration)

• The prescription requirement for COVID vaccines failed by the narrowest margin—Kulldorff had to break a 6-6 tie

• Committee members themselves pointed out that requiring prescriptions would create barriers for those who need vaccines most

• Insurance companies committed to covering vaccines through 2026 regardless

That last point about prescriptions is crucial. As one speaker reminded the committee, requiring prescriptions creates yet another barrier for people—especially those at highest risk—who don't or can't access primary care. Imagine needing to find and pay for a doctor's visit just to get permission for a vaccine that used to be available at any pharmacy.

Sneezy: The Spreading Confusion

Like Sneezy spreading germs, this committee spread confusion about basic public health concepts. The bewilderment about pharmacist rights had everyone sneezing out different interpretations. Can pharmacists give vaccines under "shared clinical decision-making"? Do they need prescriptions? What exactly does this mean at your local CVS?

Professor Dorit Reiss, who specializes in vaccine law, posted: "Nobody quite understands what shared clinical decision making is... It will create substantial confusion."

Sleepy: The Marathon of Misunderstanding

By hour six of Day 2, I was full Sleepy. Watching committee members struggle through basic concepts was exhausting. At one point, there was a heated back-and-forth about who knows more about mRNA technology, with voices raised and fingers pointed. It felt less like a scientific advisory meeting and more like a very confused academic conference where half the attendees showed up to the wrong session.

The mysterious absences of certain committee members during chunks of Day 2 made me wonder if they were Sleepy, too—or perhaps strategically avoiding the chaos they helped create. Even more exhausting was watching CDC staff repeatedly try to explain basic epidemiological concepts, only to have their explanations dismissed or misunderstood.

The confusion about pharmacist rights alone could have been its own comedy special. Can pharmacists administer vaccines under "shared clinical decision-making"? What about in states with different rules? Does anyone actually know? By the end, I'm not sure anyone—committee members, liaisons, or observers—fully understood what had been decided or how it would work in practice.

The Real Tragedy: Health Inequity

But beneath all this Disney metaphor lies something genuinely concerning: the fundamental misunderstanding of health inequity. When committee members suggest "shared clinical decision-making" without acknowledging practical realities, they're creating real barriers.

Consider these facts:

• 12-16% of pregnant women receive inadequate prenatal care

• Nearly a third of Americans lack regular healthcare providers

• About two-thirds of COVID vaccines ar