Ousted vaccine panel members say rigorous science is being abandoned
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly fired the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, accusing them of being too closely aligned with manufacturers and of rubber-stamping vaccines. He handpicked replacements that include several vaccine skeptics.
In a commentary published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the former panel members wrote that Kennedy — a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government's top health official — and his new panel are abandoning rigorous scientific review and open deliberation.
That was clear, they said, during the new panel's first meeting, in June. It featured a presentation by an anti-vaccine advocate that warned of dangers about a preservative used in a few flu vaccines, but the committee members didn't hear from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staffers about an analysis that concluded there was no link between the preservative and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The new panel recommended that the preservative, thimerosal, be removed even as some members acknowledged there was no proof it was causing harm.
'That meeting was a travesty, honestly,' said former ACIP member Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatric infectious diseases expert at Stanford University.
The 17 discharged experts last month published a shorter essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association that decried Kennedy's 'destabilizing decisions." The focus was largely on their termination and on Kennedy's decision in May to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women.
In the new commentary, the ousted committee members took it one step further and prescribed some steps that could be taken to maintain scientifically sound vaccine recommendations.
'An alternative to the Committee should be established quickly and — if necessary — independently from the federal government," they wrote. 'No viable pathway exists to fully replace the prior trusted and unbiased ACIP structure and process. Instead, the alternatives must focus on limiting the damage to vaccination policy in the United States.'
Options included having professional organizations working together to harmonize vaccine recommendations or establishing an external auditor of ACIP recommendations. There are huge challenges to the ideas, including having access to the best data, the authors acknowledged.
There's also the question of whether health insurers would pay for vaccinations that are recommended by alternative groups but not ACIP.
They might pick and choose which vaccines to cover, said the University of North Carolina 's Noel Brewer, another former ACIP member.
For example, they might pay for vaccines that offer more immediate cost savings for health care, like the flu vaccine.
'But maybe not ones that have a longer-term benefit like HPV vaccine,' which is designed to prevent futures cancers, Brewer said.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Bain Capital-backed Heartflow eyes $1.3 billion valuation in US IPO
Aug 1 (Reuters) - Cardiac diagnostic software maker Heartflow said on Friday it was targeting a valuation of up to $1.32 billion in a U.S. listing, more than three years after its previous attempt to go public fell through. The Mountain View, California-based company is aiming to raise up to $212.5 million by offering 12.5 million shares priced between $15 and $17 apiece in its initial public offering. A string of successful high-profile debuts in recent months has injected fresh momentum into the new listings market after a slowdown fueled by tariff-driven turmoil in April. Heartflow had earlier looked to go public through a merger with Larry Robbins-backed special purpose acquisition company at a $2.8 billion valuation. Those plans fell apart in 2022. A year later, it raised $215 million in a Series F funding round led by private investment firm Bain Capital. The company is also backed by asset managers Hayfin and Wellington. Heartflow's AI-enabled products help physicians to more effectively diagnose and treat heart disease. The company, founded in 2007, mainly generates revenue on a "pay-per-click" basis each time physicians use its products for diagnosing and managing coronary artery disease. It expects revenue to be between $42.9 million and $43.4 million for the three months ended June 30, a jump of 38% to 40% from a year earlier. Morgan Stanley and Piper Sandler are the lead underwriters for the offering. Heartflow will list on the Nasdaq under the trading symbol "HTFL". Heartflow plans to use the IPO proceeds to repay debt, fund sales and marketing efforts and for other purposes.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why the US is burning $10m worth of birth control
There are few better metaphors for the receding status of American women than one offered up by the Trump administration at a medical waste disposal facility outside Paris this week: rather than distribute nearly $10m worth of birth control, which had been purchased by USAID and was destined to be given to women in low-income countries, primarily in Africa, the Americans decided to burn it. The incinerated contraceptives included 900,000 birth control implants, 2m doses of injectable long-acting birth control, 2m packs of contraceptive pills, and 50,000 IUDs. The medicine is just the latest in the far-reaching fallout from cuts made by the so-called 'department of government efficiency,' or Doge, a project in which Elon Musk and a group of his very young, overwhelmingly male acolytes unilaterally slashed congressionally appropriated funding to government programs they did not like. The cuts have been devastating for non-profits that work to improve women's health and safety worldwide. Sarah Shaw, an associate director at the global family planning group MSI Reproductive Choices, says that the cuts will put women at risk as they strain their health with unplanned pregnancies and seek out illegal abortions; other women who are denied access to birth control will lose out on the opportunities for education, professional development or remunerative work that can help them escape abuse, rise out of poverty, pursue their talents and ambitions and better provide for the children they already have. When MSI attempted to buy the contraceptives, the administration would only accept full price, which the organization couldn't afford, she said. Several non-profits, including MSI, had offered to pay to ship and repackage the supplies, according to another representative. But the Trump administration refused, partially due to federal rules the prohibit the US from providing such goods to groups that perform, provide referrals for or offer education about abortions. In addition to the cost of purchasing the contraceptives, American taxpayers will now be on the hook for about $167,000 for the cost of burning them. It's just the latest in a series of signs that the Trump administration is turning against the provision of birth control, particularly the safe, effective and woman-controlled hormonal methods that have been a cornerstone of healthcare policy for decades and which were a precondition of women's advancement in work and education over the past 60 years. In April, the Trump administration abruptly announced that it was suspending a large swath of the domestic service grants distributed under Title X, the program meant to help low income Americans access birth control, STD treatment and other sexual and reproductive healthcare. Of the 86 Title X grants awarded for fiscal year 2024, nearly 25% were 'temporarily withheld', mostly based on highly suspect allegations that the grant-receiving institutions – including 13 Planned Parenthood affiliates – had failed to comply with Trump executive orders banning things like DEI programs. Eight states now receive zero Title X dollars: California, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee and Utah. Alaska, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania have also lost most of their contraception funding. The domestic cuts – along with the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from Medicaid reimbursements – mean that American women, too, are now facing dramatically greater obstacles to accessing birth control. Clinics that relied on Title X funding are now set to close: 11 Planned Parenthood clinics already have, including in Democratically controlled states like California. Planned Parenthood says that cumulatively, the cuts could lead the organization to close about 200 of its 600 clinics nationwide – a devastating cut to abortion providers in particular that will make a wide range of reproductive services inaccessible to women regardless of where they live. But the Trump administration is not merely forcing these programs for women's health and dignity go up in flames. They are redirecting them to better suit their preferred cultural outcome: one in which women's lives, ambitions and talents are all subordinated to the task of childbearing. The New York Times reported last month that the White House is redirecting Title X funds that once went to birth control to instead fund an 'infertility training center' and programs in something called 'restorative reproductive medicine'. If Title X's original aim was to help American women control their fertility so as to build healthier families and to enable them to pursue other aims – like learning or work – in the new administration's version, the program exists mainly to encourage women to have more children. But the switch should not be seen as a genuine investment in infertility, an often devastating condition with which many Americans struggle. Because the new Title X priorities do not, by and large, direct more money to IVF. Trump promised, on the campaign trail, to make IVF free. But the procedure, which has opponents on the Christian right, is not included in the administration's new priority of 'restorative' reproductive medicine, a practice that avoids controversial fertility treatments; instead, doctors seek the 'root cause' of a woman's infertility, which may involve telling them they can conceive with proper diet and exercise. In government, money allocation is a statement of values. With its dramatic cuts to contraceptive funding at home and abroad, the Trump administration is making its values clear. It does not value women's health; it does not value their dignity, their control over their own lives, their aspirations, their earning potential, their desire to be freed from ignorance, or poverty, or the abuse they suffer under the hands of husbands and fathers. It does not value their ability to control their own bodies, and by extension, it does not value their ability to enter the public sphere. It does not value their dreams, their gifts, their hard work or invention or aspiration to anything other than making babies. American women, like women everywhere, depend on birth control to live lives of freedom and to pursue their dreams. But because of the Trump administration, those dreams are going up in smoke. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
New 10-question test reveals if your heart is ageing faster than your body – and if you need to take action now
DID you know your heart could age quicker than the rest of your body? Many adults' hearts are up to a decade older than their chronological age, putting them at risk of heart attack, stroke and heart failure, scientists have warned. Calculating your "heart age" doesn't sound particularly doable for most without specialised equipment, but researchers from Northwestern University have put together a free online tool that does just that. Using routine health data such as blood pressure, cholesterol levels and whether you have diabetes or smoke, the 10-question quiz can calculate your heart age based on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Being a smoker and having cholesterol, diabetes or high blood pressure can all make heart health issues more likely. Traditionally, heart disease risk is calculated as a percentage. For example, your doctor may say 'eight out of 100 people with your profile may have a heart event in the next 10 years". Researchers wanted to find a less abstract and more relatable way to convey the risk of heart disease. The new online calculator - which used criteria from the American Heart Association - hopes to make heart disease risk easier to understand by reframing it as heart age. Dr Sadiya Khan, the Magerstadt professor of cardiovascular epidemiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, who led the development of the tool, said: 'Many people who should be on medicine to lower their risk for heart attack, stroke or heart failure are not on these medications. 'We hope this tool helps doctors and patients discuss risk for heart disease more effectively so we can better inform what therapies can prevent heart attacks, stroke or heart failure events from ever happening." But researchers stressed that the quiz shouldn't replace medical care and advised people use it in consultation with a doctor. High blood pressure, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes are all dubbed 'silent killers' - should we really be that worried? Dr Khan and her team put the tool to the test using data from more 14,000 "nationally representative" US adults, aged between 30 to 79. All participants had no prior history of CVD. On average, they found that women had a heart age of 55.4, compared to a chronological age of 51.3. Men had a wider gap, with an average heart age of 56.7 compared to an average chronological age of 49.7. How to reduce your risk of heart attacks and stroke You can reduce your risk of heart attack and stroke with many of the same methods. Heart attacks and strokes, although affecting different organs of the body, are both what we call cardiovascular events. Both arise from similar underlying conditions, such as atherosclerosis —a buildup of fatty deposits in the arteries. According to the American Heart Association, the risk factors for heart attacks and strokes are largely the same: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, obesity, physical inactivity and diabetes. Therefore, addressing these risk factors can simultaneously reduce the risk of both conditions. Here are ways you can prevent the two: Healthy diet More fruit and veg: The DASH, which emphasises fruit, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins, has been shown to reduce blood pressure and improve heart health. Less fats: Too much saturated and trans fats can raise cholesterol levels and increase the risk of atherosclerosis. Go for healthier fats like those found in olive oil, nuts, and avocados. Limit salt: High salt intake is linked to high blood pressure, a major risk factor for both heart attack and stroke. The NHS recommends no more than 6g of salt per day for adults. Fibre: Foods high in soluble fibre, such as oats and beans, can help lower cholesterol levels. Exercise Walking, running, cycling, swimming - whatever you like, do it! Aerobic exercise can strengthen the heart and improve circulation. The NHS advises at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity each week. Strength training exercises can help control weight, improve cholesterol levels, and reduce blood pressure. It is recommended twice a week by the NHS. Manage blood pressure Healthy diet and exercise can help keep your blood pressure in check. But it is worth monitoring it yourself after the age of 40, at least, when the NHS invites adults for a check-up every five years. High blood pressure often has no symptoms but significantly increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. Quit smoking One of the best ways to quit smoking is to use resources provided by NHS Smokefree. Support groups, medications, and other tools to help quit smoking such as vapes could be what you need to kick the habit for good - and it's free. Limit booze Excessive alcohol consumption can increase blood pressure and contribute to weight gain, which can snowball and become a heart health risk. The NHS recommends not regularly drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week. Nearly a third of men who'd left school at 16 or earlier had a heart age more than 10 years older than their actual age. Black and Hispanic were also more likely to have older hearts. Dr Khan said the heart age calculator could be particularly useful for younger adults who either want to get a head start with protecting their ticker or might need to be on preventative medication. Heart disease is one of the biggest killers worldwide. There are over 7.6 million people living with heart and circulatory diseases in the UK, with numbers projected to rise in the next couple of decades. They cause more than 170,000 deaths a year, according to the British Heart Foundation - that works out to about 480 a day. How to use the tool - and when to be concerned Dr Khan told that the heart age tool can be used as a "forecast" someone's risk of CVD over the next decade. While "it's probably not that meaningful if your age is off by one or two years", she said, the authors recommend getting concerned if the gap is five years or more. If you're seeing a large gap between your heart and actual age, this "likely points to worsening cardiovascular disease risk", even if you're young. 'The important thing is that we have very good options available in our toolbox to help slow that ageing down if we can identify it," Dr Khan noted. "This may be even more important in younger people who don't often think about their risk for heart disease." If your heart age is actually lower than your chronological age - what Dr Khan called the "the Holy Grail" - that's likely thanks to genetics. She suggested using the tool as motivation to boost your heart health, whatever your score. If you're a smoker, quitting the habit is a good place to start, as reducing your consumption of saturated fat if you have high cholesterol, and trying to keep your blood pressure in check. The Northwestern research team now plan to study whether presenting heart disease risk as an age improves outcomes and helps people better understand their need for preventive therapies.
