logo
RFK Jr. fires ‘opening salvo' on vaccine status quo

RFK Jr. fires ‘opening salvo' on vaccine status quo

Yahoo2 days ago

Public health experts say Robert F. Kennedy Jr is exactly who they thought he was.
The Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary — who is also the nation's most well-known vaccine skeptic — is remaking the agency in his image, casting doubt on the benefits of vaccines, and erecting new barriers that will make it harder for people who want shots to get them, like requiring new vaccines to be tested against placebos.
During his confirmation hearings and other recent congressional testimony, Kennedy sought to distance himself from the anti-vaccine movement.
He argued he is simply seeking good data about vaccine safety. He assured lawmakers he would not take away anyone's vaccines and specifically pledged to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he would not make any changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine advisory panel.
While testifying at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on May 14, Kennedy said his views on vaccines were 'irrelevant.'
'I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive, but I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me,' he told lawmakers, after being asked whether he would vaccinate his own children today against measles.
Yet in the past week, Kennedy made an end run around the traditional process to change the recommendations about who should get a COVID-19 vaccine.
He threatened to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals, and his office revoked hundreds of millions of dollars pledged to mRNA vaccine maker Moderna to develop, test and purchase shots for pandemic flu.
Kennedy has been critical of mRNA vaccines, and HHS said the funding was canceled because of concerns about the safety of 'under-tested' mRNA technology.
Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said the public should take Kennedy at his word.
'He's right. We shouldn't trust him,' Benjamin said. 'He's unbridled. He's out of control, and so I am fearful that he will do more to undermine vaccine access and quality in the United States.'
Kennedy has a long history of opposition to vaccines. He petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021 to revoke the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 vaccines and threatened to sue the agency if it authorized COVID vaccines for children.
His latest moves to change the COVID vaccine recommendations on healthy children and pregnant women are raising serious concerns about the potential to pull back on even more vaccines.
'What I see is COVID has provided this natural starting point … to sort of have that opening salvo in a bigger, longer-term effort to reconstruct, undermine vaccine policy,' said Richard Hughes IV, an attorney at Epstein Becker Green and former vice president of public policy at Moderna.
The decision to change COVID vaccine policy was announced in a 58-second video clip shared on the social media site X.
'I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC-recommended immunization schedule,' Kennedy said.
Days after Kennedy's pronouncement, the CDC issued new guidance that removed the recommendation for pregnant women to get a COVID shot but kept the vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule.
The agency changed the recommendation from its previous wording of 'should' to say healthy children 'may' get the COVID vaccine after consulting with a health provider, an apparent contradiction to Kennedy's plan.
Despite the new wording, the changes buck the traditional method of making new vaccine recommendations.
The FDA decides whether to approve or authorize a vaccine, and the CDC's independent vaccine advisory panel convenes in an open public meeting to decide questions like who should get it, when and how often. It then sends recommendations to the CDC director, who can endorse or reject the recommendations.
The director nearly always defers to the panel.
The HHS secretary isn't typically involved in vaccine decisions, but there currently isn't an acting CDC director.
'We're seeing a total side-stepping of the nation's leading public health agency,' said Richard Besser, a former acting director of the CDC and president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Besser said doctors rely on the recommendations of federal health experts, which are supposed to be based on the best available science and evidence. But doctors can't be assured that's the case anymore, he said.
Both Hughes and Benjamin said other changes to HHS vaccine policy are likely to be more nuanced and subtle than the agency's actions on COVID.
'I would have said a couple months ago, obviously measles, obviously polio, those are childhood vaccines [that could be changed]. … But I think it's going to be a little more subtle [than banning a shot]. It's going to be a little more slow,' Hughes said.
In April, the CDC's vaccine advisers met after a two-month delay to vote on recommendations for chikungunya vaccines, meningitis vaccines and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines.
About a month later, Kennedy personally signed off on recommendations for the chikungunya shot.
He has not acted on the other recommendations from the panel's April meeting, including the use of a new meningitis vaccine and an expansion of RSV vaccines to high-risk adults ages 50-59.
The vaccine panel isn't scheduled to vote on COVID vaccine recommendations until late June. Experts said it'll be important to listen to what the panel members say, and whether they feel they have the freedom to discuss HHS's recent actions.
'You've got a committee of advisers who were cut out of the loop. How are they going to handle that in a public forum?' Benjamin said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army hits recruiting goal four months ahead of schedule
Army hits recruiting goal four months ahead of schedule

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Army hits recruiting goal four months ahead of schedule

The Army has hit its annual recruiting goal of 61,000 new active duty soldiers, four months ahead of the end of fiscal 2025 in September, the service announced Tuesday. The Army said the goal – 10 percent higher than the 55,000 recruits it sought last year – 'represents a significant turning point for the Army and indicates a renewed sense of patriotism and purpose among America's youth,' according to a statement. The surge in new potential troops comes as the Army has significantly ramped up its recruiting efforts over the past several years in response to its struggle with number shortfalls over the past decade. That outreach included loosening certain rules and restrictions to target young Americans who historically have been unqualified to serve due to tattoos, prior medical conditions or drug use. In 2023, the Army fell about 11,000 people short of its 65,000-person goal but rebounded in 2024 to meet its goal of 55,000, though just barely. The U.S. military as a whole struggled to entice young people to serve in the midst of and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as during periods of low unemployment across the country and the emergence of more attractive job opportunities within the private sector. It is unclear exactly why the uptick in enlistments occurred after the service struggled to meet its goals across the finish line last year, but the Trump administration has insisted that the recruiting momentum is a sign of renewed excitement to serve following the presidential election. 'I want to thank the commander in chief, President Trump, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth for their decisive leadership and support in equipping, training and supporting these future Soldiers as they face a world of global uncertainty and complex threats,' Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said in the statement. 'Putting Soldiers first is having a tangible impact and shows that young people across our country want to be part of the most lethal land fighting force the world has ever seen.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Cash-strapped consumers push at-home cooking to highest level since 2020: Campbell's
Cash-strapped consumers push at-home cooking to highest level since 2020: Campbell's

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cash-strapped consumers push at-home cooking to highest level since 2020: Campbell's

This story was originally published on Food Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Food Dive newsletter. The Campbell's Company said consumers are preparing meals at home at the highest level since early 2020 when COVID-19 forced many consumers to forgo visiting restaurants and other establishments. The food manufacturer said consumers are favoring ingredients that stretch their tighter food budgets. This is providing a tailwind for Campbell's condensed cooking soups, broths and Italian sauces. While its meals and beverages operations remain strong, Campbell's continues to face pressure in snacks, most notably chips and crackers. The same inflationary pressures that have pushed consumers to cook more have also led to a decline in snacking, according to the Goldfish maker.. As consumers look to save a few bucks amid inflation and uncertainty over the broader economy, foods that can be prepared at home have proven to be a major beneficiary. Sales in Campbell's meals and beverages segment surged 15% to $1.5 billion during the third quarter, benefitting from the acquisition of Rao's owner Sovos Brands in 2024. Campbell's soup businesses 'continued its strong performance' during the quarter, with its wet offerings benefitting from younger individuals who are increasingly cooking at home, Campbell's CEO Mick Beekhuizen, said in prepared remarks. The company estimated six of its eight top meals and beverages brands, including Pace, Pacific and Swanson, grew or held share in the third quarter, with consumption increasing by 2%. 'We are seeing improved consumption across all consumer income groups' for meals and beverages, Beekhuizen said in a statement. Consumers are 'turning to our brands for value, quality, and convenience.' As inflationary pressures have led to a renaissance in home cooking, it's become a dual-edged sword for food companies that also are seeing a decline in snacking consumption. Beekhuizen said the snack space remains soft as consumers become more selective and the category continues to be 'increasingly competitive.' Campbell's said snack sales slipped 8% to $1 billion in the third quarter. The company singled out its Goldfish cracker brand, noting 'we have more work to do to reinvigorate this brand and get it back on its historical growth trajectory.' 'While we are not satisfied with the results of our Snacks division, we remain confident in the strength of our Snacks portfolio and continue to take steps to regain our momentum,' Campbell's CFO Carrie Anderson said in prepared remarks. Campbell's also said it is closely watching to see how tariffs will impact its business. The company, which imports tinplate steel for cans and canola oil for chips, noted trade headwinds could cut into its fiscal-year earnings by 3 cents to 5 cents a share. Beekhuizen said the company is 'actively work[ing] to mitigate as much of the potential direct impact of tariffs as possible.' Anderson added that these steps include inventory management, pursuing alternative sourcing and 'where absolutely necessary, consideration of surgical pricing actions.' Recommended Reading Snacking takes a hit as consumer spending shifts to food staples Sign in to access your portfolio

Woman Cleared in Abortion Trial as MPs Push for Law Reform
Woman Cleared in Abortion Trial as MPs Push for Law Reform

Epoch Times

time35 minutes ago

  • Epoch Times

Woman Cleared in Abortion Trial as MPs Push for Law Reform

The recent acquittal of Nicola Packer, a 45-year-old woman prosecuted for inducing an abortion beyond the legal limit, comes as MPs push to reform UK abortion laws. Packer, who took abortion pills during the COVID-19 lockdown believing she was within the permitted gestational period, was found not guilty by a jury at Isleworth Crown Court on May 8. The legal limit for taking medication at home to terminate a pregnancy is 10 weeks, while the outer limit for abortions in England, Scotland, and Wales is 24 weeks, apart from in certain circumstances. Packer maintained she was unaware of her true gestation, which was approximately 26 weeks. The trial heard she took prescribed abortion medicine at home in November 2020 and later brought the foetus to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in a backpack. The telemedicine abortion, also known as the It allows women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to receive abortion medication at home after a remote consultation. Related Stories 9/18/2024 11/27/2023 Supporters Critics, including the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), The pro-life organisation has argued the policy enables abusers to coerce women into abortions and allows women to misrepresent their gestation timelines over the phone. Proposed Changes Abortion complications become more likely as pregnancy progresses, no matter the method used. A Right to Life UK campaigners have warned that changes to the abortion law could put more women at risk. Commenting on the The amendment seeks to remove women from criminal law related to abortion. It means that women acting in relation to their own pregnancies would no longer face arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment, regardless of gestation. 'The proposed change to the law would also lead to an increased number of viable babies' lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb,' said Right to Life UK. It noted that the amendment does not outline circumstances in which it would continue to be an offence for a woman to perform her own abortion, highlighting the case of In 2020, Foster aborted her child at 34 weeks with illegally-obtained abortion pills. She was jailed in 2023 after the court found she lied to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—a leading abortion provider—about how far along in her pregnancy she was. Foster was sentenced to jail, though she was later suspended on appeal. Despite the criticism, Antoniazzi Representatives from the whole pro-life movement and their supporters gather to demonstrate in Parliament Square in London on May 15, 2024.'Full Decriminalisation' A separate It would extend legal safeguards to medical professionals who assist women with consent, provided the pregnancy is under 24 weeks. It also introduces an additional layer of protection by requiring that any prosecution—whether of a woman or a doctor—must first be personally approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Criticising the proposals, SPUC 'This would in effect mean full decriminalisation of abortion, up to birth, for any reason … including the sex of the baby,' it said. The government has said any changes to abortion laws are 'a matter of conscience for parliamentarians.' 'All women have access to safe and legal abortions on the NHS,' a government spokesperson said, adding that decisions to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service and are 'incredibly rare.' Abortion Law Abortion is still technically a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. But under the Abortion Act 1967, there are exceptions that legalise it under specific circumstances, including sign-off by two doctors. This framework applies in England, Scotland, and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal in the early stages of pregnancy (up to 12 weeks) without needing to give a reason. A change to the law is being supported by professional bodies including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Royal College of General Practitioners. In a The groups called for women to no longer be prosecuted under the 1861 and 1929 acts for ending their own pregnancies, bringing the law in England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland. Public Opinion Public opinion polling by Overall, 74 percent support enshrining abortion rights in law, though opinion is evenly split on keeping the pills-by-post policy. Support is much lower for further loosening abortion rules, such as allowing abortion pills to be sold over the counter without a prescription. Just 33 percent of people back the idea, while 53 percent are opposed. Opposition is consistent among both men and women across all age groups. PA Media contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store