CDC official in charge of Covid data resigns ahead of vaccine meeting
The scientist responsible for overseeing the CDC team that collects data on Covid and RSV hospitalizations resigned on Monday.
Dr Fiona Havers told colleagues in an email that she no longer had confidence the data would be used 'objectively or evaluated with appropriate scientific rigor to make evidence-based vaccine policy decisions', according to Reuters.
She resigned before a planned meeting of a new vaccine panel put in place by Robert Kennedy Jr after he fired all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory panel. Kennedy also dropped a recommendation to get the Covid shot for healthy children and pregnant women.
Havers, leader of the Resp-Net hospitalization surveillance team, did not respond to requests for comment.
Her resignation follows moves by Kennedy, the health secretary, to abruptly fire all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory panel and drop a recommendation for administering Covid shots to healthy children and pregnant women.
Kennedy, who has long sown doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, replaced the advisory board with eight members of his own choosing, some of whom have histories of objecting to Covid shots or vaccines in general.
Havers said in her email that the Covid and RSV data collected by her team had been used in more than 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 15 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports issued by the CDC.
The newly installed vaccine panel, known as the advisory committee on immunization practices, is expected to meet 25-27 June to vote on the use of Covid-19 boosters and other vaccines by the American public.
A Health and Human Services spokesperson told Reuters that the agency is committed to 'gold standard science' and that the vaccine policy will be based on objective data, transparent analysis and evidence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
What parts of RFK Jr.'s MAHA agenda are resonating? See poll results
Public opinion of Kennedy Jr. is also divided: 51% of the respondents said it was favorable and 48% picked unfavorable for the former 2024 presidential candidate who ran as a Democrat and then as an independent before dropping out to endorse Trump. More: RFK Jr. suspends campaign; endorses former President Trump A majority of Democrats (82%) say their opinion of Kennedy is either strongly "unfavorable" or "somewhat unfavorable," while 84% Republicans view Kennedy as either "strongly favorable" or "somewhat favorable." Among independents, 52% have a favorable view of Kennedy, the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy. The poll was conducted online from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults age 18 and up. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. Among the poll participants, 37% described themselves as Democrats, 37% as Republicans and 26% as "Independent or something else." Asked about the use of vaccines to prevent diseases, 69% of Republicans, 93% of Democrats and 76% of independents responded to the NBC poll that they support immunizations to protect public health. Kennedy has repeatedly called into question the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Earlier this month, he fired the entire committee that advises the federal government on vaccine safety, implying that it was not conducting "adequate safety trials" before recommending new vaccines to children. Kennedy later appointed to the panel a physician criticized for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories. Vaccine experts widely dispute Kennedy's characterizations. More: RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement is coming to a state near you NBC's pollsters also asked who deserved the most blame for America's chronic health problems, including obesity and heart disease. A majority at 35% blamed the food industry, followed closely by the "choices of individuals" at 32%. Kennedy has been a big critic of Big Food and Big Pharma, blaming them for Americans' high rates of chronic ailments like Type 2 Diabetes and accusing the industries of profiting by keeping Americans sick. In April, he announced that eight artificial dyes will be eliminated from medications and the nation's food supply by the end of 2026, including those found in candy, ice cream, soft drinks and jams. Only 6% of respondents blamed environmental toxins - which Kennedy has blamed a host of ailments on - as a reason for chronic diseases. The MAHA Commission report released by Kennedy last month identifies various toxins and environmental factors as potential contributors to chronic disease in American children. He has also announced a series of studies aimed at studying possible environment causes behind autism, which scientists continue to push back on. Last month, the right-leaning think tank Foundation for Government Accountability released a poll showing a similar pattern to NBC's results. It found more than 80% of Democrats and Republicans said they were in support of a U.S. prohibition on certain dyes and chemicals from foods in the same way they were banned in some European countries. Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House Correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Breakthrough blood test detects cancer years before symptoms appear
Scientists have developed a 'highly sensitive' blood test that could detect signs of cancerous tumours years before the first symptoms appear, an advance that could lead to better treatment outcomes for patients. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins University in the US found that genetic material shed by tumours can be detected in the bloodstream much before patients get their first diagnosis. The study, published in the journal Cancer Discovery, found that these genetic mutations caused by cancer, can be detected in the blood over three years in advance for some patients. 'Three years earlier provides time for intervention. The tumours are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable,' said study co-author Yuxuan Wang. In the research, scientists assessed blood plasma samples collected from participants of a large NIH-funded study to investigate risk factors for heart attack, stroke, heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. Researchers developed highly accurate and sensitive genome sequencing techniques to analyse blood samples from 52 of the earlier study's participants. Twenty-six of the participants were diagnosed with cancer within six months after sample collection, and 26 who were not diagnosed served as the control group for comparison. Eight of the 52 participants scored positively in a multicancer early detection (MCED) laboratory test conducted at the time their blood samples were taken. The MCED test is designed to detect multiple cancers in their early stages from a single blood sample by analysing cancer-signature molecules in the blood, including DNA and proteins. All eight were diagnosed with cancer within four months following blood collection. For six of these 8 participants, additional blood samples were collected about 3 to 3.5 years before cancer diagnosis. In four of these cases, mutations linked to tumour growth could be identified in their earlier blood samples. The findings point to 'the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early', researchers say. It may lead to more standardised blood tests to screen people either annually or every two years, which could boost early detection and prevent cancers from becoming treatment-resistant tumours. 'These results demonstrate that it is possible to detect circulating tumour DNA more than three years prior to clinical diagnosis, and provide benchmark sensitivities required for this purpose,' scientists wrote. 'Detecting cancers years before their clinical diagnosis could help provide management with a more favourable outcome,' said Nickolas Papadopoulos, another author of the study. Scientists hope the findings can be validated in a larger-scale trial involving more participants.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge deems some of Trump's National Institutes of Health grant cuts illegal
Donald Trump's administration broke the law when it terminated more than $1 billion in medical research grants the president claimed were linked to "DEI", a federal court has ruled. In a blistering judgement issued on Monday, District Judge William Young — a Reagan appointee — said he had "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable" in his 40 years as a jurist. He ordered the government to immediately reinstate numerous National Institutes of Health research grants canceled as part of Trump's war against any program perceived to favor people of color, transgender people, or other minorities. "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," Young told the defendants. "The Constitution will not permit that... have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?' The lawsuit blocks a small portion of the 2,100 research grants that Trump has canceled — representing a total of about $9.5bn in funding — with other grants to be decided later. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH's parent agency, said it was "exploring all legal options" and might appeal the judgement. "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,", the spokesperson said. Judge Young's ruling concerned two separate lawsuits that were heard together, one by a coalition of academic researchers and unions led by the American Public Health Association and one by a group of Democrat-led states. The scientists' lawsuit argued that NIH had violated its usual science-based review process, as well as federal regulations and specific orders from Congress to fund research into health disparities. The grants varied widely in topic, from cardiovascular health through alcohol abuse in minors to the differing impact of certain medications on different racial groups. The Trump administration has claimed that it is slashing "DEI" initiatives because they discriminate against other Americans by unfairly privileging minorities. In court, Trump's lawyers said that the NIH's grant cuts were "sufficiently reasoned" and that the agency has "broad discretion" to offer or rescind grants "in alignment with its priorities". But Judge Young held that although the Trump administration had a legal right to "extirpate affirmative action" if it saw fit, the grant cancelations had been "arbitrary and capricious" and broken government rules.
