CDC denies Milwaukee's request for help with unsafe lead levels in public schools
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has denied a request from Milwaukee's public health department for assistance in managing unsafe lead levels in the city's public schools, citing the loss of its lead experts in mass firings last week across federal health agencies.
'I sincerely regret to inform you that due to the complete loss of our Lead Program, we will be unable to support you with this EpiAid request,' Aaron Bernstein, director of the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the CDC, wrote late last week to Milwaukee officials, according to a letter obtained by CNN.
EpiAid is a CDC program providing a short-term loan of an officer from the public health agency's Epidemic Intelligence Service, or EIS. These 'disease detectives' are sent to state and local health departments to investigate urgent public health problems.
In Milwaukee's case, the city requested the CDC's help March 26 with the investigation of lead exposure in its public schools, after the health department identified hazardous levels of lead contamination in multiple school buildings. CNN reported last week that Milwaukee's health commissioner, Dr. Michael Totoraitis, had been working with the CDC for two months to address the threat.
Lead is toxic to the brain, and no levels of exposure are considered safe. It can be present in buildings constructed before 1978, when it was still legal to use lead in paint.
On April 1 – the day about 10,000 federal health employees lost their jobs as part of a massive Reduction in Force across the US Department of Health and Human Services – Milwaukee officials received an email from a CDC epidemiologist telling them 'my entire division was eliminated today,' apologizing that she wouldn't be able to continue working with the city on the response and referring them to other points of contact within the agency.
'The new points of contact were essentially unable to say what level of support they would provide us moving forward,' Totoraitis told CNN at the time.
Two days later, asked about the cutting of the CDC's lead poisoning prevention and surveillance branch, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested that the program might be reinstated.
'There are some programs that were cut that are being reinstated, and I think that's one of them,' he said April 3, noting that 'there were a number of instances where … personnel that should not have been cut were cut.'
A spokesperson for HHS told CNN that day that 'HHS is planning to continue the important work of the lead poisoning prevention and surveillance branch that works to eliminate childhood lead poisoning under the Administration for a Healthy America,' a newly created organization within the agency.
But that same evening, Milwaukee received the email from the CDC denying its EpiAid request.
'While we're disappointed, [the Milwaukee Health Department]'s work has not stopped,' Caroline Reinwald, a spokesperson for the department, told CNN by email Friday. 'This only underscores the importance of the role local public health plays in protecting communities – and the challenges we now face without federal expertise to call on.'
A spokesperson for HHS didn't immediately return CNN's request for comment. CBS News first reported that the CDC had denied the request.
Milwaukee's health department, Reinwald said, 'remains committed to moving this work forward and finding solutions locally.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If we don't listen to young men about their mental health, this is the cost
Behind stoic expressions and casual small talk, too many young men are quietly drowning. They're your classmates, brothers, coworkers, and sons — fighting internal battles with depression, anxiety, and isolation, often with no one to tell and nowhere to turn. The time to confront the mental health crisis among young men is now. Despite growing awareness around mental health, men — especially younger men — continue to slip through the cracks. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicide remains one of the leading causes of death among males aged 15–24, with a rate of 21.1 per 100,000 — nearly four times higher than their female peers. In 2021, only 18% of men aged 18–44 received any form of mental health treatment, compared to nearly 29% of women. Letters: Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians don't respect or represent us These aren't just statistics; they are a collective alarm bell. Here in South Florida, our rich cultural diversity adds another layer, often reinforcing the message that vulnerability is weakness — that men must 'tough it out.' The results are devastating — silence, self-medication, and in worst cases, suicide. We must work together to end this stigma immediately. Mental health is not a character flaw or a gendered issue — it's a public health imperative. And for young men, that means rewriting outdated narratives that equate stoicism with strength. Real strength is admitting you need help. It's having the courage to talk about anxiety, loneliness, or trauma — and seeking support. This transformation has to start early and happen everywhere: in homes, schools, sports teams, places of worship, workplaces, and digital spaces. Normalize therapy. Encourage mental health days. Train educators and coaches to recognize red flags. And most importantly, let boys and young men know that their feelings are not only valid — they're human. Opinion: Florida seniors shouldn't have to deal with homelessness. They need our support. To the young men reading this: you're not broken. You're not alone. And asking for help is one of the bravest things you'll ever do. Let's stop asking men to suffer in silence. Let's start building a culture where mental health is strength, not shame. Brian McSwain is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and serves as Program Director for Beachway Therapy Center in West Palm Beach. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Men's mental health is worth talking about | Opinion
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
New England voters strongly disapprove of Kennedy's performance and polices as health secretary, according to new Globe/Suffolk poll
On one front, Kennedy does draw wide support from across the spectrum with his move to phase out artificial food dyes. But his most recent move this week served to underscore how polarizing his agenda can be: On Monday, Kennedy Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The move stunned and alarmed many in the medical community — as well as New Englanders who participated in the Suffolk/Globe survey, which was conducted before Kennedy fired the officials. Advertisement Logan Snierson, a 26-year old aircraft mechanic and registered Democrat from Rochester, N.H., spoke to the Globe having just seen the news that Kennedy had gutted the CDC vaccine board and was disturbed by the implications. Advertisement 'I mean, it just feels like we're regressing as a country in health care,' he said. Related : His poll numbers probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise. New England is not only more liberal than the country as a whole but has a high concentration of well-educated professionals who work in the region's nation-leading universities and hospitals, and the local economy is heavily dependent on the medical, pharmaceutical, and health care industries — all of which have been hit hard by federal budget cuts and the administration's oressure campaign on elite schools. A national survey conducted by Pew Research in April and May found more favorable results for Kennedy: 43 percent of those polled disapproved of his performance, while 36 percent approved and 21 percent were not sure. The opposition to Kennedy here is deeply felt. The single largest group of respondents, by far, were those who said they strongly disapproved of the job he's doing. By contrast, only 14 percent of those surveyed strongly approved. In the Globe poll, Kennedy's popularity broke along familiar partisan lines. Ninety-one percent of Democrats disapproved of Kennedy; 80 percent of them strongly disapproved. While just 15 percent of Republicans approve of Kennedy, that was a larger share than the 4 percent of Democrats who did. Seventy-six percent of Republicans favor Kennedy overall. The splits among independent voters closely mirrored the overall results. Sixty-two percent disapprove of Kennedy while 29 percent approve. Many of those displeased with Kennedy's performance said they haven't been surprised by his actions, given his Advertisement 'I was shocked by his appointment and therefore everything has been concordant with that,' said Craig Franz, a 72-year old retiree and registered Democrat from Narragansett, R.I. 'It's a terrible time for health in the country and for science and research.' Related : Clear majorities disagreed with several of Kennedy's most significant policy decisions and views. Sixty percent disagreed with his belief that fluoride should be removed from public water supplies, for instance, compared to 31 percent who agreed. Kennedy's most unpopular move, the survey found, was the decision of his Food and Drug Administration to limit COVID-19 booster shots to those over 65 years old or at risk of serious illness. Sixty-two percent disagreed — almost all strongly so — while 32 percent agreed. The survey did underscore the broad appeal of one staple of Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' platform: his push to Kennedy has not pursued any ban just yet, but in April, he announced a suite of actions designed to curb use of the dyes, which have been increasingly linked to health risks like cancer. The secretary's focus on food dyes and addressing food safety in general united poll respondents who otherwise expressed a wide range of views on Kennedy. Anna Morrison, a 44-year old barber and independent voter from Falmouth, said Kennedy was 'doing a very good job' overall and pointed first to his steps on tackling chemicals in food; she agrees with Kennedy that those chemicals are contributing to a chronic disease epidemic in the country. Advertisement On the other end of the spectrum, Margot Critchfield, a 69-year old retired Episcopal priest and Democrat from Cape Cod, believes Kennedy is unqualified for the job and that his views are 'dangerous,' especially when it comes to vaccination. But she agreed with his stance on food dyes, though she noted it was not an endorsement of his leadership in any way. 'I agreed with that but I felt like it was almost like a trick question, because it was hard to believe I'd agree with him on anything,' she said. David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said the results show there's only one issue Kennedy should be talking about — 'mandating the removal of synthetic dyes from the food supply.' 'If he leads with that and he goes aggressively on that issue, even among the people who hate him, even in the most liberal areas of the nation, people overwhelmingly agree,' Paleologos said. 'That's a gift-wrapped issue for him. And for Trump, too.' Though Kennedy is polarizing in New England, some voters are still conflicted about his overall impact. Ellen, a 71-year old retiree and independent voter from Sturbridge, who declined to give her last name, approves of Kennedy's moves on food additives and fluoride but disagrees with him on vaccines. She said that he wouldn't have been her first choice as health secretary but said 'he means well' even if 'he's misguided in a lot of ways.' 'I think personally, he's a bit out there,' she said. 'But isn't everybody in this administration?' Sam Brodey can be reached at
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
RFK Jr.‘s mass firing of the government's vaccine experts, explained
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. For the past 60 years, a committee of independent experts has advised the federal government on vaccine policy, providing guidance on which shots people should get and when. Government public health officials have almost always followed the panel's recommendations, all but making it the final word on public health policy in the US for most of its existence. And over those decades, the United States has made tremendous health gains over that time through mass vaccination campaigns. But on Monday, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired every sitting member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a move that stunned doctors and scientists across the country. And it means that the CDC's days as the clear and unchallenged authority on US vaccine policy appear numbered. 'Up until today, ACIP recommendations were the gold standard for what insurers should pay for, what providers should recommend, and what the public should look to,' Noel Brewer, a health behavior professor at the University of North Carolina, who was a member of the panel until this week, told the Associated Press. 'It's unclear what the future holds.' Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. New committee members will be announced at some point, but as of Tuesday morning, even top US senators did not know who the replacements would be. The panel is supposed to hold one of its periodic public meetings in late June to discuss the Covid-19 vaccine, as well as shots for RSV and HPV, among others. This is a watershed moment in US public health, one that seems sure to sow confusion among patients and health care providers. The deepening divide between Kennedy's Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and mainstream medicine could make it harder for people who want vaccines to get them, while encouraging more doubt about the value and safety of shots among the general public. Here's what you need to know. Why is Kennedy doing this? The vaccine advisory committee was first convened by the surgeon general in 1964, but it is not enshrined in federal law. That means that Kennedy — as the top official at the US Department of Health and Human Services, which contains the CDC — can change its membership or dissolve the panel entirely if he so desires. Kennedy framed his decision to clear out the members as necessary to restore public trust in the government's vaccine recommendations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy asserted the committee 'has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.' As health secretary, he has made overhauling vaccine policy a centerpiece of his agenda, both through his rhetoric and policy. Over the past few months, while the worst measles outbreak in 30 years has spread through the US, Kennedy has equivocated in public comments on the value of the measles vaccine, which doctors say is far and away the best tool to combat the disease. He directed an anti-vaccine researcher to scour federal data for evidence of a vaccine-autism link. His department's recent MAHA report on childhood chronic disease named vaccines as one example of how the US overmedicalizes its children and exposes them to artificial agents that could do harm to their body. Then in late May, Kennedy oversaw a revision of the federal government's Covid-19 vaccine guidance, limiting the shots to elderly people and those who are immunocompromised. He ended the recommendation that pregnant women and kids get a Covid vaccine shot, even though studies have shown they help confer immunity to infants, who are at a higher risk from the virus and cannot be vaccinated until they are 6 months old. The move plainly circumvented ACIP's accepted role in setting vaccine policy, presaging this week's mass firing. Whatever his intentions, Kennedy's gutting of the federal vaccine committee seems likely to sow even more distrust — and certainly more confusion. People are reasonably left to wonder whether they can trust forthcoming CDC guidance on vaccines, and just what vaccines they'll be able to get. How will I know which vaccines to get? In the past, ACIP would typically meet a few times a year to discuss any additions or changes to the country's vaccine schedule. Their recommendations have usually been adopted without alterations by the CDC director, and then became the standard for state and local health departments across the country. Importantly, most health plans are required to cover any shots that the committee recommends. Now there is far more uncertainty. Will doctors follow the CDC guidance, even if it changes under a new advisory panel staffed by Kennedy loyalists, or will they stick with the earlier vaccine schedule? Will health insurance plans cover the cost of a vaccine that professional medical organizations support but the CDC does not? Once-unthinkable questions could soon be something doctors and patients must deal with every day. Some doctors already believed, before the firings at ACIP, that the CDC was no longer trustworthy under Kennedy's leadership; his unilateral change to the Covid vaccine guidance in May was enough to convince them. In a media call last week, experts from the Infectious Disease Society of America urged patients and providers in the short term to consult with professional medical societies — not the CDC — on vaccine recommendations. They considered those groups, as well as guidance from European health authorities, the best substitutes we currently have for information on vaccines if the CDC's recommendations can no longer be taken at face value. 'It's been a confusing several days, confusing last two weeks, and I'm not sure that confusion is going to be abated in the near future,' John Lynch, an infectious disease doctor at the University of Washington, said on the call. 'These are evidence-based guidelines developed by experts in the field using transparent methods and published publicly,' Lynch said. Kennedy, in explaining his change to the Covid vaccine guidelines, said he wanted to encourage shared decision-making between providers and their patients. The CDC guidance would be only one consideration in the decision whether to vaccinate, rather than a firm recommendation. The doctors from the IDSA said that such conversations are already to be considered best practice among physicians — and noted Kennedy's undermining of trust in the federal vaccine policy would now make them more important. 'I would just emphasize the need to have a good source of information when this situation occurs. If indeed shared decision making is going to occur, we always do our research,' Dr. Flor Muñoz-Rivas at Baylor College of Medicine said. 'But go to the proper sources.' What are the long-term risks? There is a lot we don't know right now: Who will be named to the new panel? Will they change existing vaccine recommendations? Will they approve new ones? But the experts warned that Kennedy's rhetoric alone risks undermining people's confidence in vaccinations. 'All health care decisions are shared decision-making; this is not a special concept that's only rolled out for conversations like vaccination,' Lynch said on the IDSA call. 'As an infectious disease doctor, when I talk to a patient about treatment or diagnostics, it is a conversation. It is shared decision-making.' Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. Anyone who watched the sometimes contentious ACIP meetings during the pandemic saw the members grappling with genuinely vexing questions about who should be prioritized for vaccination in a public health emergency. The pandemic featured rare examples of Biden CDC director Rochelle Walensky overruling the panel in certain cases in which the experts actually recommended against more vaccinations. (Walensky said she overrode the guidance to align the CDC with a separate recommendation from the FDA's advisory committee, and cited the narrow 9-6 vote against the recommendation.) Those scenes should have helped dispel the notion that they were acting as a rubber-stamp for any new shot Big Pharma produced. But the nation's top health official is now telling Americans that they should never have trusted the ACIP, which risks pushing more people to skip routine immunization. Shortly after the country declared measles eradicated in 2000, 94 percent of adults said childhood immunizations were extremely or very important. But that consensus has since weakened: 69 percent of Americans said the same in 2024. If changing opinion leads to declining vaccination rates, diseases that we successfully stamped out through vaccines to rebound — which is exactly what we are seeing now with measles. The US is experiencing its highest number of measles cases since the 1990s, nearing 1,200 as of this writing. One outbreak that accounts for most of those cases took off in a small Texas community where vaccination rates had fallen far below the 95-percent threshold that is considered necessary to stop the virus's spread. Other knock on effects could hurt Americans who still want to get vaccinated. Pharma companies, the target of so much of Kennedy's criticism, could decide to stop pursuing new vaccines if they believe the federal government will limit access as much as possible, shrinking the world's biggest pharmaceutical market. Vaccines are not big moneymakers for drug companies, and they have often relied on the US government's support to develop new ones. Kennedy, however, has canceled major vaccine development contracts during his first few months as health secretary, including a $700 million contract with Moderna, one of two companies that produced the mRNA Covid vaccines, to work on a universal flu shot. Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. For now, the best reaction is, oddly enough, for patients and providers to take him at his word when he says people should not take medical advice from him — and make their own decisions in collaboration with their doctors.
