Is a prominent vaccine denier the best pick for Health & Human Services?
Jacksonville Florida Times-Union
Leaders must commit to proven science
President Donald Trump's inauguration speech promoted a healthy America. 'Together, we will end the chronic disease epidemic and keep our children safe, healthy and disease-free.' However, doing so demands that his administration commit to proven principles of health science.
Infectious diseases have challenged us throughout history. Smallpox, cholera, typhus and tuberculosis wiped out entire cities. Around 1800, Edward Jenner created an effective vaccine against smallpox, ushering in a new age. By the mid-20th century, vaccines had been developed against common childhood infections like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.
These diseases affect vision, hearing and fertility — they also kill. All have been controlled by universal vaccination.
The horror of polio converted the skeptics. During the 1940s, Jacksonville closed parks and swimming pools to control spread. I have friends who were permanently paralyzed. Two decades later, I worked at Boston Children's Hospital helping people my age on the polio ward. Daily survival required an iron lung (predecessor to the ventilator) to assist paralyzed breathing muscles.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
Desperate parents clamored for the new polio vaccines developed by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. Within years, polio cases disappeared.
Today, many parents have forgotten that horror or were born long after the eradication of polio. Childhood vaccines were once mandatory, but now, hundreds of thousands of school children are not protected against horrific but preventable infections. They are victims of vaccine-deniers who — without credible evidence — have eroded confidence and undermined the health of our communities.
So, the question for President Trump (and the Senate) is: Should the most prominent denier of established medical science head the Department of Health and Human Services?
Stephen Entman, M.D. (retired), Jacksonville
Don't close off refugee sponsorship
Last month, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending humanitarian parole programs and suspending refugee admissions, my mind flashed back to 2022. Moved by the devastation of the war in Ukraine, I decided to sponsor a refugee family through the Uniting for Ukraine program.
Using the Welcome Connect website, I met Grigory, a Ukrainian man looking for a safe place for his family while he remained in Ukraine to fight. My husband and our two friends decided to sponsor his wife, Inna; her sister Liudmyla; and their children, Margo and Max. We welcomed them in September 2022 and Grigory joined us later in January 2023.
We helped them secure housing, work permits, jobs and English lessons. In return, they enriched our lives, strengthening our ties to friends, neighbors and a new culture. We still celebrate birthdays and holidays together and both families are thriving in St. Augustine.
We had hoped to sponsor Liudmyla's husband and son, but with the recent policy changes, this door to safety has officially closed — not only for this family, but for thousands of Ukrainians simply wanting to reunite with their families.
Sponsorship profoundly changes the lives of both the sponsors and the families they welcome. When we close these pathways, we turn away from our core values and deny ourselves the contributions these newcomers bring.
America should be expanding, not eliminating, programs that uphold ideals we have always held as a country — the right to freedom and security for all who seek it through the legal pathways we create.
Elizabeth Langland, St. Augustine
Local support for Operation Christmas Child
The overwhelming generosity of the people of Jacksonville helped provide joy to children in need through Operation Christmas Child shoebox gifts this season. Across the U.S., the Samaritan's Purse project collected 10.5 million shoebox gifts in 2024. Combined with those collected from partnering countries last year, the ministry is now sending over 11.9 million shoebox gifts to children worldwide.
Shoebox packers brought joy and hope to children around the world through fun, personalized gifts. For many children, this is the first gift they have ever received. Each shoebox gift is a tangible expression of God's love, given to children in need around the world.
Since 1993, Operation Christmas Child has collected and delivered more than 232 million gift-filled shoeboxes to children in more than 170 countries and territories.
Across the region, shoebox packers often shop for deals on shoebox items throughout the year, and many serve at a deeper level by becoming a year-round volunteer. Information about more ways to get involved can be found at samaritanspurse.org/occ.
Although local Jacksonville drop‑off locations for shoebox gifts are closed until Nov. 17-24, 2025, anyone can still be a part of this life-changing project by packing a shoebox gift online in just a few simple clicks at samaritanspurse.org/buildonline.
These simple gifts, packed with love, remind children around the world that they are loved and not forgotten.
Molly Miller, Samaritan's Purse, Boone, N.C.
Tax cuts won't help our kids
Assume you have a friend who cannot control his spending. This friend is so reckless that he now has personal debt that is seven times his annual salary and the interest on said debt takes 20% or more of that income.
Would you tell your friend to cut his income? You would not. If you were a good friend you would probably suggest he find a way to make more money or just declare bankruptcy and start over.
That story is relevant because our national debt is currently $36 trillion, our 2024 tax revenue was $4.9 trillion and our interest cost was $1.1 trillion. The ratios are identical to those of your hypothetical friend. So, why is the current administration pushing to cut taxes?
Unlike your hypothetical friend above, our government does not have the option to default on debt. This means that the $36 trillion will be passed to future generations. Every child born today will start with a repayment schedule for roughly $100,000 in debt. Is this fair?
We must start paying our bills and stop acting like the national debt is not a problem. For no other reason, do it for the kids.
Scott Schleifer, Jacksonville
There goes the rule of law
Thanks to Donald Trump for again proving that America is no longer a country of law and order. It's bad enough that a 34-time convicted felon can manipulate the legal system, put himself above the law and avoid all accountability by being elected president.
But when convicted, violent insurrectionists from the Jan. 6 riots are given not only a complete pass on their abhorrent, criminal actions, but are also consoled for having suffered as 'hostages,' it showcases the stunning and perverse weakness of our entire justice system.
Where's the outrage from leading Republicans and police unions? Crickets. So much for the GOP 'backing the blue.' This reprehensible action was not surprising, but it is shockingly disgusting. See ya, Lady Justice — it was nice while it lasted.
Philip May, Jacksonville
'Robber barons,' 2.0
Donald Trump's propaganda promises us a new golden age, but we've seen all this before. In the late 19th century, the administration of Grover Cleveland was propelled by the same type of business interests. This was the world of Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie and their ilk.
At the recent inauguration, we saw their 21st-century counterparts flanking the new president and cheering him on for their benefit. Two of those tech titans, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, have been appointed to make our government into a business. So brace yourself to be dominated by a new outbreak of "robber barons.'
Sharon Scholl, Atlantic Beach
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage
President Donald Trump has promised not to cut Medicaid many times over the past decade, including in the tax-and-spending legislative package he has made a top priority in his second administration. But several provisions in the bill, which the House of Representatives passed in a largely party-line 215-214 vote in May 2025, could cause millions of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to lose their health insurance coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the states. The program provides nearly 80 million Americans, most of whom are low-income or have disabilities, with health insurance. The legislation, which advances Trump's agenda, faces a tough battle in the Senate despite the Republican Party majority in that chamber. Several GOP senators have either said they oppose it or have expressed strong reservations for a variety of reasons, including the trillions of dollars the package would add to the U.S. government's debt. As a scholar who researches access to health care, I am concerned about the possibility that millions of people will lose their health insurance coverage should this bill become law. In many cases, that could occur due to new bureaucratic obstacles the bill would introduce. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million in 2010. Most of this 46% decline occurred because of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides evidence-supported information to Congress, estimates that 10.9 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034 if the House of Representatives' version of that package were to become law. Of these, as many as 7.8 million would lose access to Medicaid. Another 2.1 million people who the CBO estimates would end up uninsured are Americans who today have coverage they bought in the marketplaces that the Affordable Care Act created. In addition to the measures in the tax-and-spending bill, other changes are looming. These include the expiration of some ACA-related measures adopted in 2021 that Trump does not intend to renew, and new regulations. All told, the number of Americans losing their health insurance by 2034 could total 16 million, according to the CBO. Other estimates suggest that the number of Americans losing their coverage could run even higher. The House bill would reduce incentives the federal government provides states to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the ACA. Eliminating these incentives would make it even less likely that Texas and the other nine states that still have not expanded Medicaid eligibility would do so in the future. The bill would also make it harder for states to come up with their share of Medicaid funding by limiting 'provider taxes.' These taxes are charged to hospitals, doctors and other medical providers. The revenue they raise help pay for the state's share of Medicaid costs. And the legislative package would also reduce federal funding to cover Medicaid costs in states that provide coverage to unauthorized immigrants using only their own funds. Threatened with billions in losses, the states that do this are unlikely to maintain these programs. In California alone, this would jeopardize the coverage of 1.6 million of its residents. Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Other proposed changes in the House bill would indirectly cut Medicaid coverage by forcing people to deal with more red tape to get or keep it. This would happen primarily through the introduction of 'work requirements' for Medicaid coverage. When enrolled in the program, applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old would need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service. Work requirements specifically target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than the other people eligible for this benefit. Arkansas gave Medicaid work requirements a try during the first Trump administration. Researchers who studied what happened found that 1 in 4 of the Arkansans enrolled in Medicaid affected by the policy lost their health insurance coverage. They also found that in most cases, this occurred because of bureaucratic obstacles, and that the policy didn't lead to more people getting jobs. By some estimates, the work requirements provision alone would lead to close to 5 million people of the 7.8 million being denied Medicaid coverage. At the same time, the bill would increase how often Medicaid beneficiaries have to reapply to the program to keep their coverage from once every 12 months to twice a year. It also would delay or reverse several policies that made it easier for Americans to enroll in Medicaid and maintain their coverage. Many of those who aren't kicked out would also face either new or higher co-payments for appointments and procedures – restricting their access to health care, even if they don't wind up without insurance. There is ample evidence that obstacles like these make it hard to remain enrolled in safety net programs. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income, people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well. The bill would also affect the more than 24 million Americans who get health insurance through Affordable Care Act Marketplace plans. Changes in the House version of the bill would make it harder to get this coverage. This includes reducing the time Americans have to enroll in plans and eliminating certain subsidies. It also makes the enrollment process more complicated. Combined with other changes the Trump administration has made, experts expect Marketplace premiums to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office expects more than 2 million beneficiaries to lose coverage due to these new policies. Americans buying their own insurance on the ACA marketplaces may also face higher premiums. Increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Combined with Trump regulatory decisions, this may lead to more than 5 million Americans losing coverage – whether or not the GOP's tax-and-spending package is enacted. The effects of the bill would also be compounded by further changes by individual states. This could include the introduction of monthly premiums that people with Medicaid coverage would have to pay, in Indiana and other states. Some states may also reduce eligibility for certain groups or cover fewer services, as states seek to reduce their Medicaid costs. And some states, including Iowa and Utah, are already pursuing work requirements on their own whether or not they become mandatory across the nation. If fewer Americans have health insurance due to changes the Trump administration is making and the policies embedded in the pending tax-and-spending legislative package, the health of millions of people could get worse due to forgone care. And at the same time, their medical debts could grow larger. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Simon F. Haeder, Texas A&M University Read more: US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians There's no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill Work requirements are better at blocking benefits for low-income people than they are at helping those folks find jobs Dr. Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The FDA Wants AI To Speed Up Health Care Decisions — Here's Why Experts Are Concerned
Read on Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy's war on health care in the U.S. Earlier this week, Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Association and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association about the FDA's plans to use artificial intelligence to accelerate decision-making in a realm of health-related fields. Exactly what AI use at the FDA will look like is still to be determined, but the article stated that AI could be used to: accelerate the approval of drugs and devices reduce animal testing address 'concerning' ingredients in food. Many people within the health and science world (and beyond) are concerned by this move, including Elisabeth Marnik, a scientist and science communicator based in Maine, who is particularly worried about the shift to AI after fake citations made their way into a Make America Healthy Again report just a few weeks ago, likely due to unsystematic AI use. There are other concerns, too. 'The FDA's move to explore AI for accelerating drug and device approvals and for food ingredient oversight marks a critical inflection point in regulatory innovation, but it also introduces a series of legal, ethical and structural tensions that can't be glossed over,' Stacey B. Lee, a professor of law and ethics at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and Bloomberg School of Public Health, told HuffPost via email. The Department of Health and Human Services didn't immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Below, experts share more thoughts on the FDA's AI implementation. 'It's a bit disorienting because it feels like they are doing the thing that they are also criticizing in that they're on this big agenda of almost re-litigating all processes established by our public health agencies to ensure 'safety and efficacy' and yet they're also wanting to expedite things,' said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist. Moving quickly through processes while guaranteeing 'safety and efficacy' generally don't go hand-in-hand. 'That feels like you can't have both things at the same time,' she added. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants to put many vaccines through longer trials, and while the FDA's AI use hasn't been pegged for vaccine trials, 'they are still saying that they want to shorten review times and speed up the delivery of treatments to people who need them,' Malaty Rivera said. Kennedy also repeatedly promises 'radical transparency' in health care, yet AI threatens that transparency, experts say. 'I haven't been able to find great, transparent information about exactly where and how they're using AI. They talk about using it for review, but in what way?' said Marnik. 'The law doesn't prohibit innovation, but it does demand accountability,' said Lee. 'Any AI implementation must be subject to clear statutory authority, rigorous oversight and published methodologies to preserve public trust,' she added. This goes back to transparency. 'The core concern is opacity. AI tools, especially proprietary or black-box models, can obscure how decisions are made. If a drug is greenlit or a food ingredient is flagged based on an algorithm that the public can't scrutinize, it erodes due process and patient safety,' Lee said. 'This move also raises critical structural questions: If an AI system contributes to a faulty approval or missed red flag, who's accountable? The software developer? The FDA staffer who relied on the tool?' There is currently a large liability gap, she noted — 'and the regulatory framework hasn't caught up.' When it comes to using AI to look at the 'concerning' ingredients in food in the U.S., Malaty Rivera has concerns. 'MAHA and Marty Makary, in particular, continue to spread misinformation about the safety of food,' she said. 'They continue to malign things that are not harmful to people, like seed oils, they continue to misrepresent even the ingredients of baby formula.' Many of the words used to vilify certain foods and certain ingredients are wellness marketing gimmicks, 'things like non-GMO and organic and pushing things like beef tallow and raw milk,' she added. She also voiced concerns about the data and language that could be used to inform the AI systems when it comes to food regulations. 'I don't trust the people that are in charge of these decisions to make evidence-based decisions on food ingredients. I really don't,' she said. 'We also need to consider bias in training data. If the AI is trained on historically biased data — say, clinical trials that underrepresent women or communities of color, we risk automating disparities in approvals or warnings,' Lee said. Research shows that AI itself is biased and even is known to prop up racist stereotypes. More, how would AI handle the so-called 'DEI-related' words that are currently banned from science research by the Trump administration? 'I don't even know if, because of all these banned words, if applications that even have words that have been considered banned would even pass through these AI models designed by people creating the word bans,' added Malaty Rivera, who added that she wants to know how equity and unbiased review will be ensured in the AI process. 'I would love to see the methodology. I would love to see the ways in which it's not going to cause further harm,' she said. Many people are leery of AI, and for good reason. It's taking jobs, has plagiarism issues, is linked to privacy concerns and, as mentioned above, it's known to be biased. But, when used properly, there are pros to AI both at the FDA and in everyday life. 'In food regulation, especially, this could be a breakthrough. AI can scan molecular structures and evaluate safety profiles at a scale no human team could match,' said Lee. 'But the system has to be designed to prioritize health, not convenience,' 'I do think eventually AI will be a useful tool in helping streamline things and potentially even helping analyze big data sets,' Marnik said, 'but I think that there's a lot of steps we have to go through to make sure that's actually happening correctly before it's used on such a federal level. Malaty Rivera noted that AI isn't going anywhere and while it could be useful to review thousands of pages of information, it would be a mistake to completely remove humans from the process. No matter what AI is used for at the FDA, processes must be in place to ensure fairness and accuracy, experts say. 'If this is going to be what you want to eventually use, there should be essentially a scientific process to establish that the system is actually working as well as you think it's working and is actually working as well as a human review process,' Marnik said, adding that without systems (and people) to make sure AI is functioning properly, there can be major issues. Lee noted informed decisions need to be reviewed, explained and equitable for patients, researchers and policy makers. 'AI in health care is not just a tech issue; it's a trust issue,' Lee said. Otherwise, more people could be led to distrust the medical system. And levels of distrust are already high, with roughly two-thirds of Americans expressing a lack of faith in the medical establishment. 'The FDA's AI pilot comes at a moment when public trust in health institutions is already fragile. Getting this right means building the right guardrails now, not after the first high-profile failure,' Lee said. 'That includes independent audits, transparent reporting, human oversight and clear legal responsibility.' Malaty Rivera said if she believed in the scientific rigor and integrity of the people at the helm of the FDA, the use of AI in health and science would be one thing. 'But I don't. And so I don't trust these decision makers to be designing and/or navigating these tools,' she said. Malaty Rivera also added that the people appointed under the MAHA regime have an agenda that isn't evidence-based science. 'The agenda is this alternative, contrarian version of health and wellness that is often spreading a lot of harmful misinformation,' she said. Marnik added that she doesn't think AI is currently able to do rigorous scientific reviews or find limitations associated with scientific data, which is crucial for the FDA when it comes to medical approvals. 'AI is only as good as the prompts and the directions that you give it, and what it's been trained on,' Marnik said. 'So, ultimately, I think this is too soon, and I would like to know more about exactly how they plan to use it.' RFK Jr. Went Swimming In Sewage Water — Health Experts Beg You Not To Do That. If RFK Jr. Actually Gave An F About Health, Here's What He'd Focus On Instead RFK Jr.'s Stunning Claim About Black People And Vaccines Sparks Concern From Medical Experts
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
US lawmakers pass tougher penalties for fentanyl traffickers
The US Congress on Thursday passed a bill imposing harsher penalties on fentanyl traffickers, with lawmakers from both parties anxious to crack down on an opioid that has driven an epidemic of deadly overdoses. The Senate-passed bill -- which delivers on a key election pledge of President Donald Trump to get tough on drug smuggling -- was rubber-stamped by the House on a 321-104 vote, with Democrats providing all but one of the no votes. The Justice Department says 75,000 Americans die each year because of fentanyl, making it the number one cause of death for people between the ages of 18 and 34 in the United States. The synthetic opioid is more potent than heroin and much cheaper to produce. "More Americans die of drug overdoses each year than the number of Americans who died in the entirety of the Vietnam War," Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said ahead of the vote. The HALT Fentanyl Act places copycat variations of fentanyl -- often sold by traffickers -- on the government's list of most dangerous "Schedule 1" drugs alongside the original substance. Lab-created fentanyl alternatives were reclassified to "Schedule 1" on a temporary basis seven years ago but the vote makes the change permanent. Trump has made halting the flow of fentanyl one of his priorities, even announcing it as a justification for import tariffs on Mexico and Canada. But opponents said the new law -- rather than tackling overdoses -- would simply repeat the mistakes of the so-called "War on Drugs." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 US rights organizations, said in a statement the measure would "exacerbate pretrial detention, mass incarceration, and racial disparities in the prison system." "Beginning in the 1980s, draconian drug laws with harsh mandatory minimums and their resulting enforcement under the banner of the 'war on drugs' fueled skyrocketing prison populations," it said. ft/acb
