RFK Jr. reportedly plans to fire preventive care task force
Why it matters: About 100 million people get no-cost cancer screenings, counseling and other services under the ACA. But some conservatives have urged Kennedy to replace the current members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, saying they push race and gender ideology on doctors.
Kennedy postponed a meeting of the panel scheduled for earlier this month amid speculation in the public health community that he could fire its members.
The latest: Kennedy plans to dismiss all the members of the advisory panel because he views them as too "woke," the Wall Street Journal first reported, quoting people familiar with the matter.
The Supreme Court last month upheld the structure of the task force in a case surrounding coverage of HIV prevention drugs, ruling that the long-standing panel of volunteer scientists are accountable to the Health and Human Services secretary, who has the power to remove and replace members at will.
The case stemmed from a 2020 lawsuit by Christian-owned companies over a task force recommendation requiring them to cover no-cost HIV drugs in their employer-sponsored insurance.
Kennedy has already fired all members of the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, removing all 17 of its members and replacing them with handpicked successors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
16 minutes ago
- CNET
Whole Milk Is Popular Again, But Is It Right For You? We Asked Dietitians
In the 1990s, Got Milk? ads became popular because of a marketing campaign created by the California Milk Processor Board, encouraging people to drink more cow's milk through celebrity-packed ads and commercials. It was successful for a time, but eventually the interest dwindled and soon after plant-based milks started to gain popularity. Since the 2000s, we've seen every version of plant-based milks you can imagine, ranging from soy, oat, almond, pistachio, macadamia, pea -- you name it, and it probably exists in your supermarket aisle. Now it appears that whole milk is gaining popularity again with wellness influencers and others. I spoke to dietitians to better understand why this is happening, what benefits whole milk has and who should be cautious about drinking it. Why dairy is having a moment again A few factors could be contributing to whole milk regaining popularity: the concept that "natural" is better, people wanting fewer additives in their food and the current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" initiative. Clara Nosek, a non-diet registered dietitian, points out that cow's milk became less popular in the first place because it was disparaged by popular culture, blamed for any stomach issues and called inflammatory for a long time. "The shift back to dairy seems partly driven by rampant chemophobia," says Nosek, elaborating, "Many of those plant-based milks contained ingredients like gums and preservatives for stability and added sugars for palatability, which are also demonized." Chemphobia relates to being fearful of chemicals found in everyday life. Still, there is often a misunderstanding of how chemicals function and the importance of knowing their dosages, among other things. Chemphobia, along with the appeal-to-nature fallacy (the idea that something "natural" is better), makes cow's milk look more enticing because it has fewer ingredients compared to non-dairy milk. "Cow's milk started to look like the more 'pure' option and the appeal-to-nature logic pushed even further down the chemophobia spectrum, as seen in the growing popularity of raw cow's milk," Nosek explains. Raw milk is unpasteurized cow's milk, and interest in it has also risen thanks to a push by some wellness influencers and even the secretary of health and human services. Health officials have spoken out about the dangers of drinking raw milk and its risk of foodborne illnesses, especially after this past year when raw milk was recalled due to bird flu. Benefits of drinking whole milk Whether you drink cow's milk or not, there's no denying that milk has plenty of benefits. Whole milk, in particular, can provide you with lots of nutrients. Lauren Manaker, a registered dietitian and nutritionist, says, "It's a natural source of high-quality protein, calcium and it provides essential vitamins like B12 and D, which are hard to replicate in the same way with plant-based alternatives." Additionally, whole milk consists of fat, carbs and other micronutrients like potassium, B vitamins and vitamin A. "No one needs to drink whole milk, and the nutrients are easily available in other foods; however, it is an easy and affordable way to get those nutrients," explains Nosek. Other factors that may make whole milk more appealing are its flavor and taste, since it's creamier, and the higher fat content makes it taste richer compared to plant-based milks. Manaker points out that one eight-ounce glass of whole milk contains 16% of your daily recommended value of protein. "A growing body of research also suggests that whole-fat dairy is not associated with increased risk for obesity, diabetes or cardiovascular disease; in fact, this type of dairy may even help reduce the risk for these chronic diseases," she says. A downside to whole milk The downside to this is that the added fat and sugar in each serving can add up, and adults have to be more mindful of it if they're watching their saturated fat and carbohydrate intake. "I would recommend discussing the volume consumed with a dietitian to ensure meal and snack balance," advises Nosek. Parents who give their children cow's milk should follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For example, children ages 12 to 23 months get 1⅔ to 2 cups equivalents of dairy daily, while children two years and up should get two to three cups daily. You may also want to consider how these different milks impact the environment. What about other forms of cow's milk? Other forms of cow's milk include 1% milk, skim and fat-free milk. The only difference between these milks and whole milk is the fat content. "When the fat is removed from milk, the fat-soluble vitamins (A and D) availability is lowered, but they're usually added back by way of fortification," explains Nosek. Manaker adds that you still get the same 13 essential nutrients, like high-quality protein, calcium, vitamin D and B12 and iodine, with these milks. "The fat in whole milk does contribute to its creamier texture and slightly higher calorie count, but when it comes to the vitamins and minerals, you're not missing out by choosing a lower-fat option," Manaker says. What if your stomach can't handle dairy? Realistically, not everyone can handle cow's milk. If you're lactose intolerant or have a milk allergy, chances are you opt for a dairy-free milk instead. Keep in mind that there are certain nutrients you may be missing out on with plant-based options. "Real milk is a complete protein, whereas most plant-based proteins are incomplete, meaning they are missing some of the essential amino acids, or building blocks, our bodies need," explains Manaker. She also points out that the protein in dairy, known as whey and casein, keeps you feeling fuller longer while providing energy to fuel your day, and helps with muscle recovery-even while you sleep. If you're not a fan of plant-based milks, but still want to get the benefits of cow's milk without the upset stomach, Nosek recommends trying out lactose-free options. Some brands that make lactose-free milks include: Fairlife, Lactaid, Horizon Organic and Organic Valley. Keep in mind, lactose-free options are best for those with lactose intolerance (the inability to digest lactose, the natural sugar in milk) and are not suitable for those with milk allergies (an immune reaction to the proteins in milk) because they still have milk proteins. If you're allergic to cow's milk, it's best to stick to plant-based milk options instead. "While supplements can help fill some gaps, like calcium, vitamin D and B12, it's always better to get nutrients from whole foods whenever possible," explains Manaker. She recommends adding allergy-friendly protein options like eggs, meat, fish or plant-based sources like beans and lentils to your diet, and for iodine, seafood or iodized salt. Takeaway The sudden popularity surrounding dairy shows that people are starting to show more interest in food options without additives. While this isn't inherently a bad thing, it's important to remember that cow's milk may not be the right fit for everyone based on dietary restrictions. But if you're interested in adding cow's milk into your diet (and dairy agrees with you), you can reap the benefits of the many vitamins and nutrients it provides. If you're allergic to milk, you may not have the option to drink cow's milk, but you can still try your best to get the same nutrients through other foods in your diet. If you'e planning on making changes to your diet or aren't sure if adding cow's milk is right for you, it's best to consult with a registered dietitian or your doctor first.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
RFK Jr.'s plans for preventive health panel spark "deep concerns" from American Medical Association
The American Medical Association is expressing "deep concern" after a report that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy may be planning to remove all members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The task force, also known as the USPSTF, is a panel of independent medical experts whose recommendations help guide insurance companies and doctors' decisions about a range of preventive health measures, like cancer and diabetes screenings as well as HIV and cholesterol drugs. In a letter posted on Sunday, the AMA — the largest association of physicians in the U.S. — addressed Kennedy over a report published Friday in The Wall Street Journal. The WSJ story cited sources familiar with the matter as saying Kennedy plans to dismiss the task force members because he views them as too "woke." "USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians' efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services," the AMA's letter said. "As such, we urge you to retain the previously appointed members of the USPSTF and commit to the long-standing process of regular meetings to ensure their important work can continue without interruption." In a statement to CBS News Friday, an HHS spokesperson said, "No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again." on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again." The task force was created more than 40 years ago, but its work took on added significance after passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The law requires health insurers and group health plans to provide preventive services that are recommended by the task force without imposing co-pays, deductibles or other cost-sharing charges on patients. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the structure of the task force, but ruled that its members are "inferior officers" that can be "removable at will" by the HHS secretary. As the case played out, nonprofit organizations warned the Supreme Court that eliminating cost-sharing for services like breast cancer screenings or HIV-prevention medications would dissuade patients from seeking medical care. Last month, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practice, also known as ACIP, a separate government panel of that makes vaccine recommendations. He later named eight new advisers, including several allies he has worked with closely over the years and some members with a history as vaccine critics. Read the AMA's full letter below:Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump may rue the day he sued Murdoch for libel over Epstein's birthday card
President Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones — the Wall Street Journal's parent company — and two of the paper's reporters for $10 billion over the Journal's story about a lurid birthday card that Trump allegedly sent to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump claims that the card, which contains arguably compromising statements, was fabricated by unnamed Democrats. He posted about 'a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, The Wall Street Journal.' Murdoch and Trump have had an off-again-on-again relationship over the years. Murdoch's media outlets, principally the Journal and Fox News, after largely opposing Trump during the 2016 Republican primary, have been credited with helping propel him to the White House. According to the Journal's story, a letter bearing Trump's name 'contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.' 'Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person,' the paper reported. It reportedly contained a joking reference that 'enigmas never age' and ended with the words, 'A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied writing the note after the article was published, posting, 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures.' The birthday note, if authentic, hints at Trump's contemporaneous awareness of Epstein's criminal behavior — as might Trump's comment to a reporter less than a year earlier that Epstein 'likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Dow Jones said it would 'vigorously defend' itself against the lawsuit. 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.' And so the issue is joined in court as well as the court of public opinion. Libel suits have historically been gravely dangerous not only for defendants but for plaintiffs as well. Such a suit often serves only to magnify the allegedly defamatory statements. Roy Cohn advised his clients never to sue for libel. He knew that Oscar Wilde and Alger Hiss sued for libel, and the truth, which is always a complete defense in a libel suit, led to criminal prosecution, conviction and jail. Gen. William Westmoreland sued CBS over defamatory statements about his conduct of the Vietnam War. Israeli Gen. Ariel Sharon sued Time Inc. over its reporting about his actions in Lebanon. Both came up essentially empty-handed. Trump will have a steep uphill climb to make out his complaint against Murdoch. The venerable New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is still good law, despite Justice Clarence Thomas's stated desire to overrule it. A public official suing for libel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statements were published with actual knowledge of their falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. In this case, we are talking about the Wall Street Journal, not the National Enquirer. It is very unlikely that the Journal knew the birthday card was a fabrication or that they proceeded recklessly, knowing that the source of the document was unreliable. More likely than not, the document came from the files of the Justice Department. Indeed, Trump, apart from lashing back at Murdoch, may have sued mainly to unearth via discovery the source of the leak. Trump claims that he relishes discovery in the case. 'I hope Rupert and his 'friends' are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case,' the president stated. Trump's lawyers have asked the court to expedite Murdoch's deposition while he is still alive because Murdoch is '94 years old' and 'has suffered from multiple health issues.' But those 'many hours' may prove more harmful than helpful to Trump. Murdoch's lawyers will be able to bring out just where the Journal obtained the birthday card, as well as all the torrid details of the 15-year relationship between Epstein and Trump, including such undisclosed gems as how the friendship began; how close was it; whether it involved under-age women; whether, and, if so, when Trump learned that Epstein was trafficking teenagers; when Trump learned that Epstein was engaged in criminal acts; and when there was a severance of the relationship and why. Reports have suggested Trump and Epstein had a rift in 2004 over competing bids on a Palm Beach mansion, but there may be more to the story. Peggy Noonan reminds us that Trump's mantra is 'fight, fight, fight,' and he will do so even when it hurts him. 'There is no way on earth that [the lawsuit] will be a net positive for him. Which surely he knows,' she writes. 'He fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.' Trump is essentially libel-proof. What are his damages? His reputation for sexual misconduct is well known. A civil jury in New York found him liably for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room. A New York jury convicted him of 34 counts of felony document falsification to cover up a tryst with pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels. It is too early to tell, but Trump may not have the sort of walk in the park he's had in his recent media lawsuits. He settled with ABC shortly after his reelection for $15 million, arising from George Stephanopoulos carelessly saying Trump was convicted of rape instead of sexual assault. Trump's recent settlement with CBS for $16 million, arising out of the claim that '60 Minutes' left unfavorable footage of former Vice President Kamala Harris on the cutting-room floor, seemed influenced more by parent company Paramount's need for FCC approval of its corporate merger than by the merits of the case. The Murdoch libel lawsuit, if pressed, may be full of booby traps and surprises for Trump. It could result in disclosure of many of the documents in the possession of the Justice Department, which the Journal reported subsequently were riddled with references to Trump himself. People in a position to know tell me that Murdoch will never settle. But he did appear to blink a little with a front-page 'exclusive' Journal article Friday under the headline: 'Jeffrey Epstein's Birthday Book Included Letters From Bill Clinton, Leon Black.' The article was singularly uninformative.
