Infectious Diseases in Reproduction
This article was first published as a CHR Opinion in the July-August double-issue of the CHR VOICE and was updated for this publication on August 29, 2025.
ON BEHALF OF THE CHR
The CDC no longer recommends the COVID vaccine before and during pregnancy and, therefore, by implication during infertility treatments and breastfeeding – THE CHR DISAGREES!
So here we are: As the JAMA on July 11 in a News article by Rita Rubin, lead senior staff writer for Medical News at JAMA, put it straight into the headlines, “The CDC No Longer Recommends COVID-19 Shots During Pregnancy – Now What?”
And here is the suggested answer from The Center for Human Reproduction (CHR), first published in the July/August issue of The VOICE!
The JAMA article noted that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, on May 27, 2025, for the first time announced in a 58-second-long video posted on X.com (formerly Twitter) that he had withdrawn the CDC’s recommendation for vaccination of healthy children and pregnant women with the recommended immunization schedule of the CDC. Rubin also noted that Kennedy, in this short video, was flanked by the heads of NIH and FDA, but by nobody from the CDC, the obviously responsible federal agency for vaccine recommendations. Interestingly, just days earlier, the head of the FDA and co-workers had included a current and/or recent pregnancy as an important risk factor for Long COVID. This change in recommendation of COVID vaccines, in timing alone, therefore appeared somewhat strange.
Though the CHR does not pretend to have expertise in neonatology or pediatrics, we, in principle, understand why healthy children, as they usually only develop mild disease, may not need these vaccines. The CHR, however, completely fails to understand the rationale for recommending against vaccinations before and during pregnancy. Moreover, it must also be stated that the American Academy of Pediatrics, only a few days ago, published a policy statement that quite aggressively contradicted the CDC’s opinion on pediatric vaccinations.2
Infections by flu and/or COVID viruses in pregnancy—indisputably—carry with them significantly higher risks for mother as well as offspring than in the non-pregnant state. This fact alone, therefore, in the CHR’s opinion, calls for a vaccination recommendation for every woman planning on conceiving or already pregnant. Similarly, evidence for passive transfer of maternal immunity to offspring also supports prenatal and in-pregnancy vaccination against COVID, as a very recent study once again reaffirmed.3 The CHR, therefore, cannot agree with the policy change announced by Kennedy and maintains, as of this moment, its recommendation for preemptive maternal vaccination against COVID as well as the seasonal flu.
It will be interesting to see how insurance companies will react to this CDC edict. It, of course, offers an almost ideal opportunity to refuse coverage for the vaccines. And, obviously, the government will no longer cover the expense. For further details, we refer our readers to the JAMA article by Rubin.1
It does not happen often that the CHR would agree with an Opinion article in JAMA—or, for that matter, any other medical journal—that contradicts government guidelines; but, just as we have during the COVID pandemic disagreed with several government policies, so we find ourselves this time again in opposition. The reason is obvious: there is no place for ideology in medical decision-making. Medical decision making must always be fact-based, following best–of–the–time available evidence. And until we see such evidence for the updated CDC position, we will continue to recommend to our patients planning on pregnancy or already pregnant the offered vaccinations against COVID and the relevant flu strains. ACOG also shares this opinion in pregnancy and during lactation.4
This, of course, does not mean a vaccination mandate for COVID and/or influenza at the CHR. Very much to the contrary, it is a continuation of our aversion to all mandates for patients. The CHR never mandates anything because nobody at the CHR feels qualified to tell other people how to live their lives. But patients will rarely find in the infertility field providers who are as well qualified as the CHR’s physicians in making treatment recommendations.
And on a side note, ACOG recently also noted that the season for administration of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine to pregnant patients starts around September 1, and this vaccine should be administered to pregnant women between weeks 32 and 36 weeks and 6 days (RSV season is September 1 through January 30.5
References
Rubin R. JAMA 2025; doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.11889. Online ahead of print.
Committee on Infectious Diseases, American Academy of Pediatrics. August 19, 2025. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2025-073924/203222/Recommendations-for-COVID-19-Vaccines-in-Infants
Munoz et al., Pediatrics 2025;e2024070175.
ACOG. Updated August 2025. https://www.acog.org/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-and-pregnancy-conversation-guide-forclinicians#:~:text=The%20American%20College%20of%20Obstetricians,19%20vaccine%20or%20%E2%80%9Cbooster.%E2%80%9D
ACOG. August 22, 2025. https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2025/08/acog-releases-updated-maternal-immunization-guidance-covid-influenza-rsv
Surprising and totally unexpected data about herpes zoster vaccinations
This is really surprising and totally unexpected news, but—based on a study in Wales—it appears that getting a herpes zoster vaccination reduces the risk for dementia.1 The data, indeed, are surprisingly strong and suggest a causal connection because they were, more or less, a natural experiment based on the date-of-birth eligibility threshold for the vaccine in Wales (November 2, 1936). This created likely very similar comparison groups born shortly before and after the date-of-birth eligibility threshold, with the one difference of having received the vaccine or not.1
Those born after the eligibility date demonstrated decreased probability of having a new dementia diagnosis during 7.4 years by 1.8% (P=0.01). Other chronic conditions were not affected by the vaccine.
The observed effect is obviously quite small, but clearly at a significant level and, therefore, raises several interesting questions, among those, why and how this vaccination may be causing such an effect? It, moreover, raises the additional question, whether other vaccines may have similar effects?
Reference
1. Pomirchy et al., JAMA 2025;333(23):2083-2092
The surging measles epidemic
According to a report in The Daily Beast1 and in many other news outlets as well as medical publications, measles cases in the U.S. have reached a 33-year high. As of July 7, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Outbreak Response Innovation (CORI), the country by that date had experienced 1,277 confirmed cases across 38 states, very likely a significant understatement.
The U.S. has been measles-free since the year 2000, and only three people died of complications of the disease between 2001 and 2024. The good news is that certain areas are such as Texas, are starting to report first declines. Hopefully, this means the beginning of the end, but – as we are already talking about vaccinations, this epidemic clearly demonstrates the benefits of many vaccines, even—or should we say in this case especially—in children.
Reference
1. Kimmins L. The Daily Beast. July 7, 2025. https://www.thedeailybeats.com/american-measles-cases-just-broke-a-dark-record-as-outbreaks-surged/