CDC Halts COVID Shots for Healthy Kids, Pregnant Women
'Today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from @CDCgov recommended immunization schedule.
Bottom line:
It's common sense and it's good science.
We are now one step closer to realizing @POTUS 's promise to Make America Healthy Again.'
Today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from @CDCgov recommended immunization schedule. Bottom line: it's common sense and it's good science. We are now one step closer to realizing @POTUS's promise to Make America Healthy Again. pic.twitter.com/Ytch2afCLP — Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) May 27, 2025
And cue the outrage… As we previously reported , Kennedy noted that established side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine include a form of heart inflammation called myocarditis and a related condition called pericarditis.
He also pointed out that 15 vaccinated participants in Pfizer's clinical trial died, compared with 14 participants who did not receive the company's vaccine
Three COVID-19 vaccines are currently available for use in the United States: one from Pfizer, one from Moderna, and one from Novavax.
Advisers to the CDC recommended in 2022 that the agency add COVID-19 vaccines to the schedule, concluding that the benefits of the shots outweighed the risks. The CDC in 2023 added them to the schedule.
According to the schedule, all children who have never received a COVID-19 vaccine should receive at least one dose, depending on their age, while those who have received a vaccine in the past should receive at least one additional dose. Unlike many vaccines on the schedule, the COVID-19 vaccine has not been made compulsory for school attendance in states.
Kennedy said during his confirmation hearings, 'I recommend that children follow the CDC schedule, and I will support the CDC schedule when I get in there if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.'
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician, who had been considering voting against Kennedy, said in a speech on the Senate floor that Kennedy committed to maintaining the vaccine schedule without changes. Cassidy later wrote on social media platform X that the commitment 'never precluded him from conducting sound scientific research' and that he was 'confident any reputable review will further confirm settled science of the safety and efficacy of the childhood vaccine schedule.'
Only 13 percent of children have received one of the COVID-19 vaccines with the 2024–2025 formula, according to CDC data.
Children could still get a COVID-19 vaccine if it is removed from the schedule, but insurance may not pay for it if the removal happens.
Also read: 'Razor Blade Throat': China Reports COVID-19 Resurgence With Painful Symptoms
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
18 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
American Academy Of Pediatrics Pushes COVID-19 Vax
In stark contrast to reality, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – which is heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, recommended on Tuesday that young children, including infants, receive the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that children are minimally impacted by the virus, the fact that the vaccine doesn't prevent one from contracting it, and that it largely only helps the elderly and medically fragile from severe cases. According to the organization, all children ages 6-23 months should receive the COVID-19 vaccine – regardless of whether they have natural immunity from prior infection, unless they have a contraindication such as a history of severe allergic reaction to a vaccine ingredient. While the recommendation is universal, the group said in a statement that their recommendation stems from infants and other children who are 'at high risk for severe COVID-19.' As the Epoch Times notes further, the organization pointed, in part, to a paper it published that found that among children hospitalized for COVID-19 from fall 2022 to spring 2024, the majority of those younger than 2 had no underlying conditions. Of note, the paper cited surveyed 2,490 children who were hospitalized with COVID-19, effectively a rounding error. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC's parent agency, told The Epoch Times in an email that the AAP, which receives funding from vaccine manufacturers, should strengthen its conflict-of-interest safeguards. 'By bypassing the CDC's advisory process and freelancing its own recommendations, while smearing those who demand accountability, the AAP is putting commercial interests ahead of public health and politics above America's children,' Andrew Nixon, the spokesman, said. The CDC used to recommend that all children, except for those younger than 6 months, receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In May, under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC stopped recommending the vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women. The CDC's schedule currently states that children with moderately or severely compromised immune systems should receive a vaccine, even if they've been vaccinated before. Children who do not have weakened immune systems 'may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances,' the schedule states. 'There's no evidence healthy kids need it today, and most countries have stopped recommending it for children,' Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said when the schedule was changed. Many countries, including the UK and Australia, no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for most or all children. The AAP, which previously recommended COVID-19 vaccination for all children 6 months and older, now advises the vaccine for people ages 2 to 18 who meet one of four criteria: they are at high risk of severe illness, live in crowded settings such as long-term care facilities, have never been vaccinated against COVID-19, or live with someone at high risk. Children who do not fall into any of those categories are not advised to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. At the same time, if a parent or guardian wishes, the child 'should be offered' a single dose, according to the recommendations. 'The AAP will continue to provide recommendations for immunizations that are rooted in science and are in the best interest of the health of infants, children and adolescents,' Dr. Susan Kressly, AAP's president, said in a statement. AAP has about 67,000 members, including pediatricians, in the United States and other countries. Its funders include Pfizer and Moderna, which manufacture two of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States. After the government narrowed its recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, the AAP and some other organizations said they were worried that insurers would stop covering vaccines for children and pregnant women. Many insurers, as well as Medicaid and Medicare, are required to cover vaccines in the CDC's schedule. 'As we navigate an evolving health care landscape, maintaining robust immunization coverage continues to be a top priority for protecting both individual and community health,' AHIP, a trade group for insurers, said in a joint statement after the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations were changed. 'We are committed to ongoing coverage of vaccines to ensure access and affordability for this respiratory virus season. We encourage all Americans to talk to their health care provider about vaccines.' Kressly said on Tuesday that the AAP is urging insurers to cover the vaccines in the organization's schedule. 'AAP is committed to working with our partners at the local, state and federal levels to make sure every child, in every community has access to vaccines,' she said. Some states have maintained universal COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. Other critics of the CDC's updated schedule also plan on releasing their own recommendations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for instance, said it will release recommendations on maternal immunizations at the end of the summer in collaboration with the Vaccine Integrity Project, an effort established this year by the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and led by Dr. Michael Osterholm, a former adviser to President Joe Biden. The project has a presentation scheduled for Aug. 19 titled 'From Data to Decisions: The Evidence Base for 2025 Fall/Winter Immunizations.' The AAP's recommendations largely align with the CDC's recommendations when it comes to influenza vaccination. Both advise one or two doses annually starting at 6 months of age, with a transition to one dose annually starting around age 11. The CDC, though, only recommends influenza vaccines that are free of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The CDC's vaccine advisory committee told the agency over the summer it should issue a recommendation against thimerosal-containing flu vaccines. Kennedy accepted the recommendation in July. Advisers and Kennedy said they wanted to act to prevent mercury accumulation in children. Studies have found links between thimerosal and health problems, such as a paper that found an association between thimerosal exposure and tics. The AAP was among the groups that opposed the move, stating that there were no health concerns with the amount of mercury present in the vaccines. The organization said in a policy statement that it recommends 'any licensed influenza vaccine product appropriate for age and health status and does not prefer one product over another.' It said that 'influenza vaccination should not be delayed to obtain a specific product, including a thimerosal-free product.' Also read: DHS Secretary Says Southern Border Wall Will Be Painted Black To Deter Illegal Crossings
Gulf Insider
09-08-2025
- Gulf Insider
Most COVID Lung Abnormalities Heal Over Time, New Guidelines Confirm
Up to half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung abnormalities on chest CT scans long after the acute infection is over. Many fear these changes mean lasting damage or worsening lung disease. However, new guidelines on treating long COVID confirm that lung abnormalities usually stabilize or even improve over time. 'The lungs are an organ, like skin, that are in constant contact with the environment. Because of that, they have a significant amount of stem cells in reserve and cells ready for healing,' Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times. Researchers found that in patients with lung damage following a COVID-19 infection, around 90 percent who continued to show lung abnormalities at the time of hospital discharge began to see improvements one to three years after infection. After a COVID-19 infection, roughly six in 100 people are estimated to develop persistent symptoms that can last for months to years—a condition known as long COVID. Common complaints include fatigue, joint and muscle aches, breathlessness, headaches, and difficulty concentrating, often called 'brain fog.' Symptoms typically improve over time—usually within four to nine months. Lung recovery tends to follow a similar trajectory. After infection, the lungs can show changes that resemble scarring—such as inflammation, collapsed air sacs, or temporary thickening of lung tissue—but these often heal on their own, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of Independent Medical Alliance, who is not one of the authors of the treatment guideline, told The Epoch Times. Based on Varon's clinical experience, most patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-related lung issues show improvement on scans and of symptoms within three to six months. However, he noted that some people, especially older adults or those who had severe illness, can have lingering lung changes or symptoms for a year or more. In COVID-19, the early lung damage is mostly due to inflammation, not permanent destruction, he said. Once the infection clears and inflammation goes down, the lungs can start to heal, absorbing fluid and repairing tissue, a process that can take several months. 'The body has the capacity to heal,' Dr. Pierre Kory, founder of Leading Edge Clinic, which treats long COVID patients, told The Epoch Times. COVID is typically an acute illness that heals over time rather than a chronic inflammatory condition—though in some cases, lingering lung inflammation or fibrosis can persist, he said. Many post-COVID lung changes seen in scans are not signs of permanent damage. They often reflect the lung's natural healing process after inflammation, similar to what's seen in other viral pneumonias or recovery from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Over time, these abnormalities often fade as the tissue repairs itself. Unlike chronic conditions such as interstitial lung disease, which involve ongoing triggers and progressive scarring, post-COVID changes are typically non-progressive. However, older patients who had been on mechanical ventilation or had severe or critical initial infection were more likely to have persistent lung changes, possibly due to the extent of initial lung injury. Chest CT scans often reveal lung changes long after COVID-19 infection that may look severe on imaging. These include ground glass opacities, which are hazy areas suggesting inflammation, or fibrous strands, thin bands of tissue left over from healing. However, many of these findings are residual effects from the infection, not signs of irreversible damage. 'Radiologic findings often lag behind clinical recovery and must be interpreted within a broader clinical framework,' said Varon, 'I have seen patients that have 'white lungs' for months and are doing well.' The disconnect between imaging and the actual patient condition may lead to confusion, unnecessary follow-up, or even overtreatment of long COVID. 'Some patients report persistent symptoms despite near-normal imaging,' Varon said, likely due to lingering viral effects or nervous system issues rather than actual lung damage. 'The key takeaway is that both lung damage and symptoms often improve—but not always in synchrony, and not always completely,' he said. That's why an individualized, symptom-based follow-up approach remains essential in managing long COVID patients. The new guidelines specifically address the tendency to over-interpret nonspecific findings as signs of progressive lung disease. The new consensus advises using CT only when clinically indicated, such as in patients with persistent or worsening respiratory symptoms. Mislabeling can also lead to costly treatments, repeated imaging, and even affect life insurance or disability claims. 'These medications can cost up to $60,000 per year—and patients may not really need them,' Varon said. The new guidelines suggest providers request follow-up chest CT only in patients whose respiratory symptoms persist or worsen three months after infection, with those symptoms lasting at least two months and with no other identifiable cause. They also recommend low-dose protocols for follow-up imaging to reduce radiation exposure. CT was invaluable early in the pandemic, especially when RT-PCR testing was unreliable, Varon said, but its continued use in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic long COVID patients is often unnecessary. The guidelines also urge radiologists to avoid using terms such as 'fibrosis' or 'interstitial lung disease,' which often imply progressive or permanent scarring, when describing nonspecific residual findings. The bigger concern, Kory said, is the tendency to over-label nonspecific findings, like ground-glass opacities or mild fibrotic changes, as definitive signs of fibrotic interstitial lung disease. 'I see this in my practice every single day,' he said. 'These interpretations can trigger unnecessary anxiety, inappropriate referrals, and misguided treatment plans.' Kory takes a symptom-focused approach, monitoring patients clinically and repeating imaging only if conditions worsen. 'My experience in general is that yes, most things in medicine are overused, including imaging,' he said.
Daily Tribune
08-08-2025
- Daily Tribune
Taiwan Reports First Chikungunya Case Amid China's Historic Outbreak
Taiwan has confirmed its first chikungunya fever case for 2025, linked to a large outbreak sweeping southern China. The virus, transmitted by mosquitoes, has infected over 8,000 people in China's Guangdong province, particularly in the manufacturing city of Foshan. The infected individual, a Taiwanese woman, had recently traveled to Foshan and returned to Taiwan on July 30. Taiwan's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) promptly identified the case and raised the travel advisory for Guangdong to level 2 out of 3, recommending travelers take enhanced precautions to avoid mosquito bites. Chikungunya virus symptoms typically include high fever, rash, headache, nausea, fatigue, and muscle and joint pain that can last for several weeks. Experts say the outbreak in Foshan is unprecedented in scale, driven by a population with limited immunity and favorable environmental conditions for the virus-carrying Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Chinese authorities have responded aggressively to contain the spread. Measures include household inspections, enforced use of bed nets, drone-assisted fogging to kill mosquitoes, and fines for residents who maintain stagnant water — a common mosquito breeding ground. Foshan residents can be fined up to 10,000 RMB (around $1,400) for violations. This outbreak follows heavy monsoon rains and a series of typhoons in southern China, which have created ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes. Despite the surge, recent reports from China's state media indicate the outbreak may have peaked, with new case numbers declining in Guangdong. The spread of chikungunya to Taiwan highlights the ongoing regional health risks posed by mosquito-borne diseases and underscores the need for vigilance, especially for travelers returning from affected areas.
