US officials delayed warning public about heart inflammation risk from COVID shot: report
U.S. health officials knew about the risks of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccines but downplayed the concern and delayed informing the public about the risks of taking the jab — that is according to a new Senate report released by Sen. Ron Johnson Wednesday.
Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has been investigating the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Earlier this year, he subpoenaed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for records relating to COVID-19 vaccine safety data and communications about the pandemic.
The interim report, spanning 55 pages, obtained and reviewed by Fox News Digital, revealed that Biden administration officials "withheld crucial health information from the Subcommittee and the public."
Since 2021, Johnson has sent more than 70 oversight letters, which he says were "either completely ignored or inadequately addressed."
The report highlights the records Johnson has obtained pursuant to the subpoena from the new, Trump administration-led health agency. Specifically, the report focuses on HHS' awareness of and response to cases of myocarditis—a type of heart inflammation—following COVID-19 vaccination.
Johnson's report says the 2,473 pages of records he obtained "contain evidence of the Biden administration's efforts to downplay and delay warning the public about the risks of myocarditis associated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines."
The report points to records from May 2021, in which health officials at HHS discussed whether to issue a formal warning about myocarditis.
According to the report, the formal warning about myocarditis was initially going to be distributed nationwide as a Health Alert Network message, which, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is CDC's "primary method of sharing cleared information about urgent public health incidents with public information officers; federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local public health practitioners; clinicians; and public health laboratories."
However, Johnson's report said that health officials at CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "ultimately decided against issuing a formal HAN and, instead, posted 'clinical considerations' on CDC's website about myocarditis."
"Based on the subpoenaed records the Subcommittee has received to date, as well as public FOIA documents, this interim report will highlight records and present a timeline showing U.S. health officials knew about the risk of myocarditis; those officials downplayed the health concern; and U.S. health agencies delayed informing the public about the risk of the adverse event."
The report also highlights the Israeli Ministry of Health notifying officials at the CDC in February 2021 of "large reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people, following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine."
The report also highlights documents showing CDC officials discussing "safety signals" for myocarditis with mRNA vaccines in April 2021 based on Defense Department and Israeli data, but "still not taking immediate steps to warn the public."
Documents obtained by Johnson also show CDC officials communicating with Moderna and Pfizer representatives about the risks.
Johnson also obtained "draft meeting notes from late May 2021 exchanged between U.S. public health officials which included the question: 'Is VAERS signaling for myopericarditis now?,' and the answer: 'For the age groups 16-17 years and 18-24 years, yes.'"
"VAERS" is an acronym for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
"Rather than provide the public and health care providers with immediate and transparent information regarding the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration waited until late June 2021 to announce changes to the labels for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines based on the 'suggested increased risks' of myocarditis and pericarditis," the report states. "Even though CDC and FDA officials were well aware of the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration opted to withhold issuing a formal warning to the public for months about the safety concerns, jeopardizing the health of young Americans."
The report added that the Biden administration's decision "to downplay the COVID-19 vaccine health risks and delay warning the public about cardiac-related adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines jeopardized the public's health."
According to the report, as of April 25, 2025, VAERS reported 38,607 deaths and more than 1.6 million "adverse events worldwide associated with the administration of COVID-19 injections."
Of the more than 38,000 deaths, the report said 25% occurred on Day 0, 1, or 2 following injection, compared to "2,663 deaths reported to VAERS associated with the flu vaccine over a period of 35 years."
"No other reports of adverse events associated with any other drug or vaccine even come close to these statistics," the report states. "And yet, those who oversaw the development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines continue to insist it is safe and effective, without providing the data to prove their claims."
Johnson's report demands that the "full extent" of the Biden administration's "failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed."
"The American people fund the federal health departments and agencies with their hardearned tax dollars," the report states. "The information developed by these departments and agencies belong to the American people, and should be made fully and transparently available."
The report states that as "the roadblocks are removed and more documents that have been hidden and withheld for years become available, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will provide transparency and let the American public see what is their right to see."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
Medicaid work rules' bureaucratic nightmare
Republicans insist that Medicaid work requirements will weed out people who shouldn't be on the safety net program's rolls in the first place. The reality is that the red tape and bureaucratic hoops to jump through will have far broader effects, according to health policy experts. Why it matters: Coverage losses stemming from work rules will be a key focus in the Senate this month as lawmakers debate the sweeping GOP budget bill that contains the most significant changes to Medicaid in the program's history. What's inside: The bill, which passed the House in May, includes a new federal requirement for those ages 19 to 64 to work or participate in 80 hours of community engagement per month to keep their Medicaid coverage. The requirement was supposed to take effect in 2029, but the House Freedom Caucus insisted the timeline be moved up to Dec. 31, 2026 — which would generate around $50 billion more in savings per year. Senate Republicans, even the more moderate members, have expressed support for the work requirements, including moving up the timeline. The White House contends that 4.8 million able-bodied adults are choosing not to work and said this week that work requirements "will strengthen the system to better help those most in need of assistance." House GOP leadership this week also cited recent statistics from the American Enterprise Institute that state Medicaid recipients who don't report working say they spend 4.2 hours watching TV and playing video games (compared with 2.7 hours for recipients who work). State of play: Most able-bodied Medicaid recipients work full or part time. Some states have already imposed work requirements, resulting in thousands of people either losing their coverage or finding it very difficult to sign up. Arkansas implemented a work requirement in 2018 that lasted less than a year and left 18,000 fewer people covered, or about 25% of the eligible population, per KFF. A court eventually ruled the program violated Medicaid law. Work requirements began in Georgia as part of a Medicaid expansion in June 2023, and as of January, only 6,500 adults had enrolled — a fraction of the 25,000 the state expected would sign up in the first year, KFF says. New Hampshire also tried to launch work requirements but stopped after a month, after only 8,000 of the 25,000 people subject to the requirement had complied. The Congressional Budget Office this week estimated that 4.8 million people could become uninsured by 2034 due to the Medicaid work requirements measure in the reconciliation bill. How it works: States would have to build systems to track all of the enrollees and their work statuses, likely adding significant costs to their program budgets. Then, enrollees would have to contact states, which could be required as often as once a month, to show that they're working or participating in another eligible activity like caretaking. Enrollees would have to submit paperwork proving a disability, substance abuse disorder or other criteria to qualify for an exemption. One concern is that the envisioned system doesn't account for informal arrangements, such as whether a person is paid in cash for domestic work, seasonal jobs in agriculture or even being self-employed. It also assumes that covered people would be aware of the work requirements and would try to comply. What they're saying: "The experience in Arkansas was that the people who lost coverage because of the work requirements for the most part became uninsured," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Medicaid program at KFF. "There was no increase in the share of those working." "In all of these states, we see time and again that the people hurt include workers who are supposed to be exempt, including people with disabilities who are supposed to be exempt," said Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. The bottom line: Work requirements don't appear to encourage people to work, and the large savings in the budget bill are likely to appear because of people losing their health coverage. "The argument is that this is about waste, fraud and abuse. That's not how this bill produces savings," said Ben Sommers, a health economist at Harvard who studies work requirements. "These are savings from kicking eligible people out of Medicaid who should have that coverage, who need it for their health care, because they can't navigate this big bureaucratic mess that the bill creates," he said.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Why millions of Americans would lose health insurance under House GOP megabill
The House tax and spending bill would push millions of Americans off health insurance rolls, as Republicans cut programs like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to fund priorities from President Donald Trump, including almost $4 trillion of tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan legislative scorekeeper, projects about 11 million people would lose health coverage due to provisions in the House bill, if enacted in its current form. It estimates another 4 million or so would lose insurance due to expiring Obamacare subsidies, which the bill doesn't extend. The ranks of the uninsured would swell as a result of policies that would add barriers to access, raise insurance costs and deny benefits outright for some people like certain legal immigrants. The legislation, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," may change as Senate Republicans now consider it. Health care cuts have proven to be a thorny issue. A handful of GOP senators — enough to torpedo the bill — don't appear to back cuts to Medicaid, for example. More from Personal Finance:How debt impact of House GOP tax bill may affect consumers3 key money moves to consider while the Fed keeps interest rates higherHow child tax credit could change as Senate debates Trump's mega-bill The bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over a decade, CBO estimates. That's after cutting more than $900 billion from health care programs during that time, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The cuts are a sharp shift following incremental increases in the availability of health insurance and coverage over the past 50 years, including through Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, according to Alice Burns, associate director with KFF's program on Medicaid and the uninsured. "This would be the biggest retraction in health insurance that we've ever experienced," Burns said. "That's makes it really difficult to know how people, providers, states, would react." Here are the major ways the bill would increase the number of uninsured. Federal funding cuts to Medicaid will have broad implications, experts say. "No population, frankly, is safe from a bill that cuts more than $800 billion over 10 years from Medicaid, because states will have to adjust," said Allison Orris, senior fellow and director of Medicaid policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The provision in the House proposal that would lead most people to lose Medicaid and therefore become uninsured would be new work requirements that would apply to states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, according to Orris. The work requirements would affect eligibility for individuals ages 19 to 64 who do not have a qualifying exemption. Affected individuals would need to demonstrate they worked or participated in qualifying activities for at least 80 hours per month. States would also need to verify that applicants meet requirements for one or more consecutive months prior to coverage, while also conducting redeterminations at least twice per year to ensure individuals who are already covered still comply with the requirements. In a Sunday interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said "4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid coverage unless they choose to do so," while arguing the work requirements are not too "cumbersome." The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the work requirements would prompt 5.2 million adults to lose federal Medicaid coverage. While some of those may obtain coverage elsewhere, CBO estimates the change would increase the number of people without insurance by 4.8 million. Those estimates may be understated because they do not include everyone who qualifies but fails to properly report their work hours or submit the appropriate paperwork if they qualify for an exemption, said KFF's Burns. Overall, 10.3 million would lose Medicaid, which would lead to 7.8 million people losing health insurance, Burns said. While states have used health care provider taxes to generate funding for Medicaid, the House proposal would put a stop to using those levies in the future, Orris noted. Consequently, with less revenue and federal support, states will face the tough choice of having to cut coverage or cut other parts of their state budget in order to maintain their Medicaid program, Orris said. For example, home and community-based services could face cuts to preserve funding for mandatory benefits like inpatient and outpatient hospital care, she said. The House proposal would also delay until 2035 two Biden-era eligibility rules that were intended to make Medicaid enrollment and renewal easier for people, especially older adults and individuals with disabilities, Burns said. States would also have their federal matching rate for Medicaid expenditures reduced if they offer coverage to undocumented immigrants, she said. More than 24 million people have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They're a "critical" source of coverage for people who don't have access to health insurance at their jobs, including for the self-employed, low-paid workers and older individuals who don't yet qualify for Medicare, according to researchers at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. The House legislation would "dramatically" reduce ACA enrollment — and, therefore, the number of people with insurance — due to the combined effect of several changes rather than one big proposal, wrote Drew Altman, president and chief executive of KFF, a nonpartisan health policy group. "Many of the changes are technical and wonky, even if they are consequential," Altman wrote. ACA enrollment is at an all-time high. Enrollment has more than doubled since 2020, which experts largely attribute to enhanced insurance subsidies offered by Democrats in the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and then extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. Those subsidies, called "premium tax credits," effectively reduce consumers' monthly premiums. (The credits can be claimed at tax time, or households can opt to get them upfront via lower premiums.) Congress also expanded the eligibility pool for subsidies to more middle-income households, and reduced the maximum annual contribution households make toward premium payments, experts said. The enhanced subsidies lowered households' premiums by $705 (or 44%) in 2024 — to $888 a year from $1,593, according to KFF. The House Republican legislation doesn't extend the enhanced subsidies, meaning they'd expire after this year. About 4.2 million people will be uninsured in 2034 if the expanded premium tax credit expires, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "They might just decide not to get [coverage] because they simply can't afford to insure themselves," said John Graves, a professor of health policy and medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Coverage will become more expensive for others who remain in a marketplace plan: The typical family of four with income of $65,000 will pay $2,400 more per year without the enhanced premium tax credit, CBPP estimates. More than 3 million people are expected to lose Affordable Care Act coverage as a result of other provisions in the House legislation, CBO projects. Other "big" changes include broad adjustments to eligibility, said Kent Smetters, professor of business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. For example, the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month, to Dec. 15, instead of Jan. 15 in most states. It ends automatic re-enrollment into health insurance — used by more than half of people who renewed coverage in 2025 — by requiring all enrollees to take action to continue their coverage each year, CBPP said. The bill also bars households from receiving subsidies or cost-sharing reductions until after they verify eligibility details like income, immigration status, health coverage status and place of residence, according to KFF. Graves says adding administrative red tape to health plans is akin to driving an apple cart down a bumpy road. "The bumpier you make the road, the more apples will fall off the cart," he said. Another biggie: The bill would eliminate repayment caps for premium subsidies. Households get federal subsidies by estimating their annual income for the year, which dictates their total premium tax credit. They must repay any excess subsidies during tax season, if their annual income was larger than their initial estimate. Current law caps repayment for many households; but the House bill would require all premium tax credit recipients to repay the full amount of any excess, no matter their income, according to KFF. While such a requirement sounds reasonable, it's unreasonable and perhaps even "cruel" in practice, said KFF's Altman. "Income for low-income people can be volatile, and many Marketplace consumers are in hourly wage jobs, run their own businesses, or stitch together multiple jobs, which makes it challenging, if not impossible, for them to perfectly predict their income for the coming year," he wrote. The House bill also limits marketplace insurance eligibility for some groups of legal immigrants, experts said. Starting Jan. 1, 2027, many lawfully present immigrants such as refugees, asylees and people with Temporary Protected Status would be ineligible for subsidized insurance on ACA exchanges, according to KFF. Additionally, the bill would bar Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients in all states from buying insurance over ACA exchanges. DACA recipients — a subset of the immigrant population known as "Dreamers" — are currently considered "lawfully present" for purposes of health coverage. That makes them eligible to enroll (and get subsidies and cost-sharing reductions) in 31 states plus the District of Columbia.
Health Line
2 hours ago
- Health Line
What to Know About High Functioning Schizophrenia
When a person's schizophrenia symptoms do not appear to interfere with their daily life, their condition may be referred to as high functioning schizophrenia. But this is not an official diagnosis. Schizophrenia is a complex and varied psychiatric disorder that affects each person differently. Some people have relatively mild symptoms that come and go. Others experience more severe, persistent symptoms that interfere with their daily lives. When a person with schizophrenia is able to live a mostly independent life, hold a job, and maintain relationships, their condition is often referred to as 'high functioning.' Language matters The term 'high functioning' doesn't have a clear medical definition. Some clinicians use it to refer to people who require a lower level of assistance for daily activities. But terms like 'high functioning' and 'low functioning' don't account for people's unique life circumstances, abilities, and strengths. It's best to avoid using this kind of language outside of a conversation with your healthcare professional. What is high functioning schizophrenia? High functioning schizophrenia is a term used when people with schizophrenia are able to function well in daily life despite their diagnosis. They may have milder symptoms, or they may have developed good coping mechanisms despite having more severe symptoms. It's important to note that 'high functioning' is a subjective term and not a clinical diagnosis. And the label doesn't necessarily reflect the severity of a person's symptoms. People with high functioning schizophrenia may still experience significant challenges and need continuous treatment and support. A person's level of functioning can be influenced by a range of factors, including: Symptom severity: People with fewer or less severe symptoms may be able to function better in daily life than those with more severe symptoms. Treatment response: Those who get timely, appropriate treatment are more likely to maintain good functioning. Research from 2020 suggests that early intervention may be linked to better long-term outcomes. Personal coping strategies: Some people develop strong coping strategies that allow them to effectively manage their symptoms and prevent those symptoms from having a major effect on their daily life. Strong support network: Those with very supportive family and friends may be able to function better in daily life than those who don't have this support. Lack of other mental or physical health conditions: Many people with schizophrenia have other mental or physical health conditions that make it more difficult to function in daily life. People who don't have another condition may appear higher functioning. Symptoms of high functioning schizophrenia Any person with schizophrenia, whether it's considered 'high' or low' functioning, can experience the same types of symptoms. Schizophrenia symptoms are divided into positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms. Positive symptoms are those that 'add' to your personality (in other words, they weren't there before the condition). These symptoms include those of psychosis, such as: hallucinations delusions disorganized thoughts and speech atypical motor behavior (e.g., catatonia) Negative symptoms 'take away' from your personality and involve five key areas: alogia (reduction in the number of words spoken) anhedonia (reduced experience of pleasure) asociality (reduced social activity) avolition (reduced goal-directed activity, due to decreased motivation) blunted affect (difficulty expressing emotions, such as diminished facial expressions) Cognitive symptoms may include issues with: focus and attention span working memory executive functioning The negative symptoms of schizophrenia are often more challenging to treat than the positive symptoms. For some people with schizophrenia, these negative symptoms persist, even when positive symptoms are well managed. Research from 2020 suggests that negative symptoms are associated with poorer outlook and long-term disability. While many people with high functioning schizophrenia do have negative symptoms, these symptoms may be less severe. Diagnosing high functioning schizophrenia In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. text revision (DSM-5-TR), schizophrenia is now listed as a spectrum disorder. This more accurately represents the condition's wide range of symptoms that can change over time. It's important to note that high functioning schizophrenia is not a clinical diagnosis. So, whether a person exhibits a higher or lower level of functioning, they still have to meet the same diagnostic criteria. A diagnosis of schizophrenia must include at least two of the following symptoms, with one of these symptoms being among the first three: delusions hallucinations disorganized speech severely disorganized or catatonic behavior negative symptoms The symptoms must occur frequently for at least 1 month, with some symptoms lasting for more than 6 months. In addition, you'll need to have experienced reduced functioning in one or more important areas of life, such as personal relationships, work, or self-care. Treating schizophrenia Schizophrenia is typically treated with antipsychotic medication as well as various types of therapies and skills training. Schizophrenia may be treated with the following: Atypical antipsychotics: Atypical, or second-generation, antipsychotics are the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. These medications lower dopamine levels in the brain, which helps target symptoms of psychosis. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT): CBT helps people with schizophrenia identify and fix unhelpful thought processes and behaviors. Social skills training: Social skills interventions help people with schizophrenia learn social and independent living skills. These may include classes covering interpersonal skills and medication management. Cognitive remediation: This intervention focuses on skills such as attention, memory, and flexible thinking. Social cognition training: This intervention targets skills such as social perception (understanding social cues or body language), emotion perception (identifying others' emotions), and theory of mind (identifying and understanding another person's mental state). Some people with high functioning schizophrenia may have achieved symptom remission after responding well to treatment. Symptom remission means that your symptoms are mild enough to not significantly interfere with your life. Research from 2018 suggests that symptom remission is possible in 20% to 60% of people with schizophrenia, but this depends on many complex factors.
