Covid.gov website content changed by Trump administration to promote 'true origins' of virus
The Brief
The website now touts the "lab leak theory".
The website used to feature information about COVID-19 vaccines, testing and treatments.
A federal website that used to be dedicated to sharing information about vaccines, testing, and treatment for COVID-19 has now been completely transformed into a page that supports the theory that the virus was leaked from a lab in China.
Dig deeper
The website now features a photo of President Donald Trump walking in between the words "lab" and "leak" under a White House heading.
It mentions that Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus first began spreading, is home to a research lab with a history of conducting virus research with "inadequate biosafety levels."
The web page also accuses Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of pushing a "preferred narrative" that COVID-19 originated in nature.
The website notes that the content on the page was sourced directly from the House Oversight Committee's Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
The covid.gov site used to include information on how to order free COVID tests and described how to stay up to date with your COVID-19 vaccine, saying it's "the best way you can protect you and your loved ones." It advised people how to get treatment right away if they get sick and added links to learn more information about long COVID.
Big picture view
The origins of COVID have never been completely proven.
Scientists are unsure whether the virus jumped from an animal, as many other viruses have, or came from a laboratory accident. A U.S. intelligence analysis released in 2023 said there is insufficient evidence to prove either theory.
By the numbers
About 325 Americans have died from COVID per week on average over the past four weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of April 5, less than a quarter of adults in the U.S. have gotten an updated COVID vaccine.
Millions worldwide have had long COVID, with dozens of widely varying symptoms, including fatigue and brain fog.
The Source
Information for this article was gathered from The Associated Press, the CDC website and previous reporting from LiveNOW from FOX. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most voters in favor of Trump's ‘most favored nation' drug price policy: survey
A new survey found that a majority of voters are in favor lawmakers and candidates who they believe will take on Big Pharma price-gouging with most saying they're in favor of President Trump's 'most favored nation' policy. In a survey commissioned by the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance and conducted by National Research Inc., 85 percent of voters said prescription medications have gotten more expensive and nearly the same percentage of participants said pharmaceutical companies carried the most blame for the high cost. When asked about their voting choices, 86 percent said they were more likely to support a candidate who 'wants to force Big Pharma to lower prescription medication costs for American consumers' while 78 percent said they were less likely to support a candidate who accepted donations from Big Pharma. Overall, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: 'Congressional candidates should stop taking large political donations from Big Pharma because it is a conflict of interest.' During the 2024 election cycle, pharmaceutical and health product political action committees donated over $16 million to campaigns. 'Americans are speaking loudly and clearly, so it's important for Congress to listen: the time to join President Trump in lowering prescription drug costs is NOW. From coast to coast, the American people are suffering from high prescription costs, and they rightly blame Big Pharma. Simply stated, it's time for Big Pharma to put America first…not last,' PRA spokesman and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. 'No doubt those currently serving on Capitol Hill are hearing the same message from their constituents. With the 2026 primary season ahead, those in the House and Senate need to take action. Voters are watching,' he added. The survey highlighted Trump's executive order that enacted 'most favored nation' drug pricing as an example of efforts to reduce prescription drug costs. The executive order directs the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to take 'all appropriate action' against 'unreasonable and discriminatory' policies in foreign countries that suppress drug prices abroad. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will set 'clear targets' for prescription drug and pharmaceutical price reductions within 30 days per the order. When asked about how they felt regarding the 'most favored nation' policy, 78 percent said they supported the policy, which included 61 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independent voters and 96 percent of Republicans. Republican participants were asked to pick between Trump; Kennedy and his 'make American health again' agenda; or Congress when it came to whom they trusted to 'force Big Pharma to lower their costs for prescription medicine.' Trump received the highest vote of confidence with 46 percent of GOP voters picking him, 14 percent picked Kennedy and only two percent picked Congress. Other changes that garnered support in the survey were restrictions on direct-to-consumer prescription medication ads and 78 percent agreed it was a conflict of interest for news networks to run such ads as they're covering health care issues. The survey was conducted from May 28 to June 1 and included 1,000 registered voters. The results have a margin or error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. Among participants, 35 percent were Republican, 33 percent were Democrat and 32 percent were independent.
Vox
an hour 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.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Nearly 700,000 Americans Lose Health Care Coverage in 2025
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Almost 700,000 Americans lost Medicaid coverage in one month at the start of this year, according to new enrollment data compiled by KFF. The significant drop in Medicaid enrollment in January from December 2024 is part of a long-term trend amid the continuation of the federal program's "unwinding" process, which began after pandemic-era protections ended. Enrollment was still higher in January than it was in February 2020. Why It Matters The data highlights the continued ripple effects of the Medicaid policy shift, with millions more likely to be affected in the months ahead—particularly low-income families, children, and older adults who rely on Medicaid for basic care access. Health care experts and advocates warn that the unwinding process is opening large gaps in the U.S. health care system, with many falling through the cracks due to administrative barriers or lack of communication, not because they no longer qualify. File photo: people block a street during a protest over proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. File photo: people block a street during a protest over proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Rick Bowmer/AP What to Know Data collected by KFF shows that from December 2024 to January 2025, Medicaid enrollment dropped by 669,938, bringing the total number of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to around 71.2 million. While this number remains high, it reflects a steady monthly decline that began in 2023 when states resumed redeterminations, where they checked whether enrollees were still eligible for benefits. The process had been paused during the COVID-19 public health emergency alongside an expansion to the federal protection available for vulnerable Americans with limited income and resources. When those protections were lifted following the pandemic, millions faced the risk of being disenrolled—not just due to income changes, but because of paperwork errors, missed deadlines, or outdated contact information. According to KFF's data, more than 16 million people have been disenrolled from Medicaid since the unwinding began in the spring of 2023. An April 2024 survey by KFF of 1,227 U.S. adults who had Medicaid coverage in prior to April 1, 2023, found that 28 percent of former enrolees found other forms of health coverage, while 47 percent were eventually re-enrolled to Medicaid. Around a quarter of enrolees reported as remaining uninsured. States like Montana, Tennessee and Colorado have seen some of the largest decreases in enrollment, with levels in January 2025 dropping below pre-pandemic levels. What People Are Saying William Schpero, assistant professor of population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, told Newsweek: "This is evidence that we are likely still seeing the effects of the end of the continuous coverage provisions in place during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency that paused redeterminations of Medicaid eligibility. During the 'unwinding' of continuous coverage through September 2024, close to 70 percent of those who lost coverage were disenrolled for purely procedural reasons—for example, they missed a required renewal form because of a change in address. Many of these people likely remained eligible for Medicaid." He added: "It would be particularly concerning if procedural terminations continue to underlie the latest reported decreases in Medicaid enrollment. It suggests that states can be doing more to prevent avoidable losses of coverage. Research has estimated that a large portion of individuals who have lost Medicaid in recent months have become uninsured or experienced gaps in coverage. We have consistent evidence that loss of Medicaid coverage interrupts access to care — without coverage, people forgo visiting the doctor or taking their prescribed medications due to cost. Ultimately this will hurt health outcomes." Kathleen Adams, professor of health policy and management at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health, Georgia, told Newsweek: "We are always concerned with the loss of insurance coverage, especially among the lower income and vulnerable groups traditionally served by Medicaid. If these individuals are not able to find a source of other coverage such as Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI) or through the subsidized exchanges, they will have lower access to needed health care, face higher costs if they obtain care and could impose costs on the health care system as they are forced to seek care in ERs or other publicly subsidized sources of care." She added: "The unwinding has taken place over a year and as the report notes, Medicaid enrollment is still higher now than in the pre-pandemic period. It is also important to note the differences seen across states. Some states that had not expanded Medicaid under the ACA did so recently and many of them show the largest increases in enrollment from their pre-pandemic levels. Currently, the concerns with Medicaid enrollment are with the administration's proposed changes to Medicaid eligibility which some states are already seeking to implement." What's Next Unless policies change, experts project that millions more Americans may lose health coverage through 2025, not just due to changes in eligibility requirements, but also because of bureaucratic hurdles.
