A pediatric cardiologist from Maui who promoted controversial COVID-19 treatments has been appointed to the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the federal body that guides vaccine policy. The appointment was announced by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday.
The new appointee, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, is a children’s physician and pastor of Calvary Chapel South Maui. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he offered house calls to residents of Maui in which he used treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, both drugs that have not been approved for preventing or treating COVID in this way.
Dr. Milhoan has been a controversial figure in Hawaiʻi due to these practices. He and his wife co-operate a nonprofit medical ministry, For Hearts and Souls, which provides cardiac care for children in underserved areas. He is also a senior fellow at the Independent Medical Alliance, a group formed in early 2020 that has advocated for the use of treatments that many medical authorities consider dubious.
Local health authorities and former state leaders in Hawaiʻi have strongly criticized his promotion of unproven therapies during the pandemic. The Hawaiʻi Medical Board filed a complaint against him and another physician, Dr. Lorrin Pang, in 2021. That complaint was dropped eight months later without any disciplinary actions.
Dr. Milhoan joins four other new members named to the ACIP by Kennedy. The full slate of new members includes an epidemiologist, an obstetrician-gynecologist, a transplant surgeon, and another expert in medication
This reconstituted panel comes after Kennedy dismissed all 17 prior ACIP members in June, saying such a change was needed to restore public trust in vaccine policymaking. The next ACIP meeting is set for later this week, where discussions are expected on vaccine guidance for COVID-19, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox.
The decision to include Dr. Milhoan has sparked debate. Supporters argue his presence brings alternative perspectives to public health debates. Critics warn that giving prominent positions to those who promoted unproven treatments could further erode trust in vaccines and undermine evidence-based public health guidance.
