Top NIH researcher resigns claiming RFK Jr.'s aides stopped him talking to media about ultra processed foods
Dr. Kevin Hall told CBS News that aides to RFK Jr blocked him from speaking to The New York Times about a new study into the addictive nature of ultra-processed foods.
The research in question 'just suggests that they may not be addictive by the typical mechanism that many drugs are addictive,' Dr Hall told the network.
'But even this bit of daylight between the preconceived narrative and our study was apparently too much.'
On Wednesday night, Dr Hall announced his resignation in a post on LinkedIn.
'After 21 years at my dream job, I'm very sad to announce my early retirement from the National Institutes of Health,' Dr Hall wrote
'Given recent bipartisan goals to prevent diet-related chronic diseases, and new agency leadership professing to prioritize scientific investigation of ultra-processed foods, I had hoped to expand our research program with ambitious plans to more rapidly and efficiently determine how our food is likely making Americans chronically sick.
'Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science,' he continued.
'Specifically, I experienced censorship in the reporting of our research because of agency concerns that it did not appear to fully support preconceived narratives of my agency's leadership about ultra-processed food addiction.'
Dr Hall continued: 'I was hoping this was an aberration. So, weeks ago I wrote to my agency's leadership expressing my concerns and requested time to discuss these issues, but I never received a response.'
'Without any reassurance, there wouldn't be continued censorship or meddling in our research, I felt compelled to accept early retirement to preserve health insurance for my family.'
He later alleged that Kennedy's spokesperson Andrew Nixon had downplayed the findings and subsequently sent edited versions of his written answers back to the NYT without Hall's consent.
His claims have since been denied by the HHS, which stated in a press release that it was 'disappointing that this individual is fabricating false claims.'
It continued: 'NIH scientists have, and will, continue to conduct interviews regarding their research through written responses or other means.
'We remain committed to promoting gold-standard research and advancing public health priorities.
'Any attempt to paint this as censorship is a deliberate distortion of the facts.'
Dr Hall further told CBS that he had been blocked from presenting his research at a conference and ordered to comply with edits made by officials to a manuscript he had worked on, or to remove himself as its co-author.
'I was hoping this was an aberration. So, weeks ago, I wrote to my agency's leadership expressing my concerns and requested time to discuss these issues, but I never received a response,' he said.
RFK Jr has been on a national speaking tour this week, discussing his 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative and highlighting research into rising autism statistics by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a significance that his own experts have downplayed.
The upheaval also coincides with the publication of new findings by the University of Amsterdam that reveal that distrust in science is currently rampant among American conservatives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
A professor had a $2.4m grant to study Black maternal health. Then Trump was elected
Jaime Slaughter-Acey was in a state of shock and anger when she learned that her National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study on birth outcomes in Black families was cancelled this spring. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill associate professor in epidemiology said that she felt like 'the rug was pulled out from under us' when the university called her to share the news. The termination notice said that the study no longer met the agency's priorities and didn't promise to increase life expectancy. 'It was heartbreaking,' Slaughter-Acey told the Guardian, 'and honestly, infuriating given the high rates of maternal and infant mortality in this country.' The cancellation came as the Trump administration terminated 1,902 NIH grants totalling more than $4.4bn between his January inauguration and the end of July, according to Grant Witness data. NIH followed guidance from the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) and Trump's executive orders to cut costs. Additionally, in April, the Trump administration let go of a majority of the staff at the federal Division of Reproductive Health, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) office that collects data on maternal experiences. It also surveils pregnancy-related deaths in an effort to reduce infant mortality and improve health outcomes for mothers and their children. Slaughter-Acey's several-year study funded by a more than $2.4m NIH grant aimed to look at how social and biological factors affect outcomes for more than 500 Black women in Detroit. The grant termination froze the team's more than $581,000 remaining funding. Through blood samples and surveys of Black mothers and grandmothers, Slaughter-Acey and her team aimed to understand if social environments accelerated how bodies physiologically age, otherwise known as biological ageing, which may lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes for Black women. She said that the research is 'designed to tell us how social environment and the pathways that social environment affects us physiologically, to then increase this risk that Black moms and Black babies have with respect to pregnancy'. While most studies that look at racism only focus on one point in time, Slaughter-Acey said that hers was 'the first study to comprehensively examine how exposure to structural, cultural and intergenerational racism throughout a Black woman's life impacts her epigenome and her child's birth outcomes.' It was also innovative because Black women are underrepresented in epigenomic studies, a field where researchers look at how environment and behavior impacts a person's genes, said Slaughter-Acey, due to medical mistrust and experiences of racism in the healthcare system. The NIH-grant cancellation in late March followed the release of data from the CDC revealing that Black women were the only race or ethnic group who didn't experience a decline in deaths from pregnancy related causes in 2023. Out of every 100,000 live births, 50.3 Black mothers died, compared with 14.5 deaths for white people, 12.4 for Latinos and 10.7 for Asians. The NIH didn't respond to a request for comment. Slaughter-Acey fears that the grant-cancellation signals that research and efforts to close the maternal death gap are at risk of coming to a standstill under the Trump administration. Other NIH grants that have been terminated include one that looked at prenatal exposure to public drinking water contaminants and a study that analyzed why women of color die of cervical cancer at a disproportionate rate. On Thursday, the Trump administration froze UCLA research grants from federal agencies including NIH and the National Science Foundation totaling nearly $200m, accusing the university of antisemitism and discrimination in admissions. 'It's part of a larger pattern of political interference in science that puts the health of all people at risk, especially vulnerable populations,' Slaughter-Acey said. The study 'is about understanding the root causes of poor maternal and infant health in this country – something that affects all of us, regardless of race or background. When science is silenced, communities suffer'. Still, Slaughter-Acey and her team are hopeful that the study will continue for years to come as they search for alternative funding sources, including donations. On Slaughter-Acey's LinkedIn page, she called upon her followers to donate to the University of North Carolina Department of Epidemiology, and to include a note that they support Slaughter-Acey's work, or the name of the study, 'LIFE-2'. 'The voices of these 500 plus moms and babies should not die or be silenced with the termination of this grant,' she told the Guardian. The pull in funding 'is an example of erasure of black mothers and infants'. There has been some temporary relief. This June, Slaughter-Acey's team received short-term funding from Michigan State University to continue their study over the next few months. Now nearly 600 moms are enrolled in the study, but without additional funding, it will probably pause again at the end of the year. The nearly 600 women who have joined the study were recruited from local delivery hospitals in Detroit, Michigan, in the day or two following childbirth. Slaughter-Acey chose Detroit since she completed her post-doc at the University of Michigan, where she researched the influence of social environments on Black maternal health. Participants for her study, which began in 2021, completed a post-delivery survey where they answered questions about social determinants of health including housing and food insecurity throughout their life. Along with collecting their blood through a finger prick, researchers also collect the babies' and mothers' birth certificates from the state health department as well as the mothers' blood that was collected at birth and stored in a biobank. About 20% of the babies' grandmothers are also participating in the study by answering questions about the social environment during their pregnancies and their daughters' early childhoods. The multilevel data collection allows the researchers to create 'this robust and triangulated dataset that includes social determinants of health, like information about food and housing insecurity', Slaughter-Acey said. 'It's capturing a more holistic view than what's been captured previously for moms in terms of maternal and infant health.' After the moms are discharged from the hospital, the researchers also follow up with a majority of the women eight to 10 weeks after they give birth to ask about their adjustment to motherhood, whether they've received support for breastfeeding, a postpartum healthcare visit, or if they've experienced discrimination from their healthcare providers. At the time of the funding termination, the research team was in the process of creating a 12-month postpartum checkup with the mothers to help define maternal thriving. 'When we are talking about maternal morbidity and mortality, we're defining maternal health by the absence of disease, by mom not dying, by mom not having a severe morbidity,' Slaughter-Acey said. 'But the field in general does not have a good understanding or even definition of, 'what does maternal thriving look like?' And we need to get past this conversation of maternal survival, and move to thriving.' More than two years of funding remained in the NIH grant, during which her team had planned to recruit more mothers and to conduct data analysis. They also aimed to create a website for participants to read about the study's findings. But the data that the team has analyzed thus far has revealed that mothers with a lot of adverse childhood experiences were more likely to have conflict with the father of the child. The finding, Slaughter-Acey said, 'underscores the importance of understanding how the social environment influences relationship dynamics and maybe perinatal outcomes. We know that social support is key during pregnancy'. The team also found that one in five study participants experienced housing insecurity during their pregnancy, a factor that she said greatly affects perinatal health and is rarely documented in hospital records. They also created a tool to measure racial microagressions from healthcare providers and in the mothers' everyday life, since many in the cohort said that they experienced harmful interactions that Slaughter-Acey said may explain why they felt unsupported. For Slaughter-Acey, the study findings 'highlight how structural inequities – across housing, healthcare, and personal history – intersect to shape maternal and infant outcomes. And they underscore why we need research that listens to and reflects the full complexity of Black women's experiences.' NIH research funding will probably continue to take a hit under the Trump administration. A new Trump administration policy requiring that multiyear grants be paid upfront lowers the odds that a research proposal will be accepted. As a result, university labs may close.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
Trump administration blocks funding for CDC health programs, WSJ reports
Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is blocking funding for a swath of public-health programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources. These include youth violence prevention programs, research on preventing gun injuries and deaths and efforts targeting diabetes, chronic kidney disease and tobacco use, according to the report. The money withheld could not be determined, but it could be as high as $200 million, the WSJ reported, citing a person familiar with the matter. The CDC did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The White House has previously stated its intention to reduce U.S. health spending by more than a quarter next year, with the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention facing the brunt of billions of dollars in cuts. Earlier this week, Susan Monarez was confirmed as CDC director to lead a downsized agency as the White House moves to slash its budget by nearly $3.6 billion, reducing it to about $4 billion. The cuts follow a layoff plan enacted by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that eliminated 2,400 positions in CDC, though roughly 700 of those workers have since been rehired.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Sorry America, but it's not Australia's fault that your healthcare system is failing you
If I were president of the United States, I would certainly be concerned about the cost and performance of the country's healthcare system. The grim statistics are well known. As of 2022, the US spent $12,555 per person on healthcare, almost twice as much as other wealthy countries, including Australia. That gap alone cancels out about half of the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to World Bank estimates. Higher expenditure on healthcare would not be a problem if it delivered a healthier population. But this is not the case. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies of any rich country. And even though more Americans die young, those who survive have worse health than elsewhere. Americans suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and depression at around twice the (age-adjusted) rate of other rich countries. This gap is too large to be accounted for by specific causes like gun violence or drug overdoses, or even unequal income distribution. The US has worse health outcomes at every point on the income distribution scale than other rich countries, even though those at the upper end have much higher incomes. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the problem is getting worse. The US saw declining life expectancy in the years after 2014 and, unlike other countries, saw a late, limited recovery from the increased death rate after the onset of the Covid pandemic. There's not much hope for rapid progress in US health outcomes. The destruction of US public health infrastructure through budget cuts, the gutting of key agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and the appointment of notorious anti-vaxxer RFK Jr as secretary of health and human services will only make matters worse. It's unsurprising then that President Donald Trump is looking at the cost side of the equation. As might be expected he has raised, again, the perennial grievances of US health policy. This is the fact that Americans pay far more for prescription medicines than do citizens of other countries where prices are controlled through mechanisms like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). And, given his grievance-based approach to the world in general, it is no surprise that his latest statement on the topic describes Australia and other countries as 'freeloaders' on the US. The US government is, of course, entirely within its rights to set its own policy regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs already has a program similar to the PBS, under which it pays about half as much of the typical US price. There is no reason this couldn't be extended to the entire US Medicare system, except that the result would be to close down 1,000 or more private plans, each with their own lobbyists. And with a bit more effort, the US could establish its own version of the PBS, covering all Americans. Quite possibly, faced with lower prices in the US, pharmaceutical companies might demand higher returns from other countries including Australia. But a systematic reform of this kind is beyond the capacity of the Trump administration. Instead we have seen the typical Trumpian claim that other countries are benefiting unfairly from medical research done in the US. This was arguably true in the second half of the 20th century when the US was the undoubted centre of global medical research, most notably through the National Institutes of Health. But funding for the NIH (adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2004, and has suffered from decades of financial stringency. Meanwhile, the US share of genuine innovations, measured by 'new molecular entities' has declined and is no longer notably larger (relative to GDP) than that of leading European innovators. The development of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) treatments for obesity and diabetes by Danish firm Novo Nordisk is a notable example of a drug of particular importance to the US being developed in Europe. More generally, if Trump wants to import ideas like the PBS into the US system, Australia has plenty to offer. Australia's Medicare system, combining a single-payer universal scheme for standard healthcare with private insurance and fee-for-service medicine as an upper tier, could provide a politically palatable way of delivering the US demand for 'Medicare for all' without destroying the private sector. But of course, this isn't the Trump way. What we will doubtless see, as in the recent tariff negotiations, is a series of bullying demands, resulting in triumphant announcements of magnificent deals, which turn out, on closer inspection, to be largely illusory. The bigger lesson for Australia in all of this is that, as with China, we need to treat the US not as an ally or friend but as a trading partner which will seek to push us around whenever possible. The correct response, again as with China, is to stand our ground until the other side sees the pointlessness of bullying and the mutual benefits of free exchange. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
