RFK Jr. visits West Texas as a second child is buried after dying from a measles-related illness
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. traveled to West Texas on Sunday after a second elementary school-aged child who was not vaccinated died from a measles-related illness.
RELATED COVERAGE >>> US sees third measles-related death amid outbreaks
Ahead of a 'Make America Healthy Again' tour across the southwestern U.S., Kennedy said in a social media post that he was in Gaines County to comfort the families who have buried two young children.
Kennedy said he was working with Texas health officials to 'control the measles outbreak.' Seminole is the epicenter of the outbreak, which started in late January and continues to swell — with nearly 500 cases in Texas alone, plus cases from the outbreak believed to have spread to New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Mexico.
The second young child died Thursday from 'what the child's doctor described as measles pulmonary failure,' and did not have underlying health conditions, the Texas State Department of State Health Services said Sunday in a news release. Aaron Davis, a spokesperson for UMC Health System in Lubbock, said that the child was 'receiving treatment for complications of measles while hospitalized.'
This is the third known measles-related death tied to this outbreak. One was another elementary school-aged child in Texas and the other was an adult in New Mexico; neither were vaccinated.
It's Kennedy's first visit to the area as health secretary, where he said he met with families of both the 6- and 8-year-old children who died. He said he 'developed bonds' with the Mennonite community in West Texas in which the virus is mostly spreading.
Kennedy, an anti-vaccine advocate before ascending to the role of the nation's top health secretary earlier this year, has resisted urging widespread vaccinations as the measles outbreak has worsened under his watch. On Sunday, however, he said in a lengthy statement posted on X that it was 'the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles.'
The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine has been used safely for more than 60 years and is 97% effective against measles after two doses.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention teams have been 'redeployed,' Kennedy added Sunday, although the nation's public health agency never relayed it had pulled back. Neither the CDC nor the state health department included the death in their measles reports issued Friday, but the CDC acknowledged it when asked Sunday.
The number of cases in Texas shot up by 81 between March 28 and April 4, and 16 more people were hospitalized. Nationwide, the U.S. has more than double the number of measles cases it saw in all of 2024.
Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, a liver doctor whose vote helped cinch Kennedy's confirmation, called Sunday for stronger messaging from health officials in a post on X.
'Everyone should be vaccinated! There is no treatment for measles. No benefit to getting measles,' he wrote. 'Top health officials should say so unequivocally b/4 another child dies.'
Cassidy has requested Kennedy to appear before his health committee Thursday, although Kennedy has not publicly confirmed whether he will attend.
A CDC spokesperson noted the efficacy of the measles vaccine Sunday but stopped short of calling on people to get it. Departing from long-standing public health messaging around vaccination, the spokesperson called the decision a 'personal one' and encouraged people to talk with their doctor. People 'should be informed about the potential risks and benefits associated with vaccines,' the spokesperson added.
Misinformation about how to prevent and treat measles is hindering a robust public health response, including claims about vitamin A supplements that have been pushed by Kennedy and holistic medicine supporters despite doctors' warnings that it should be given under a physician's orders and that too much can be dangerous.
Doctors at Covenant Children's Hospital in Lubbock, where the first measles death occurred, say they've treated fewer than 10 children for liver issues from vitamin A toxicity, which they found when running routine lab tests on children who are not fully vaccinated and have measles. Dr. Lara Johnson, chief medical officer, said the patients reported using vitamin A to treat and prevent the virus.
Dr. Peter Marks, the Food and Drug Administration's former vaccine chief, said responsibility for the death rests with Kennedy and his staff. Marks was forced out of the FDA after disagreements with Kennedy over vaccine safety.
'This is the epitome of an absolute needless death,' Marks told The Associated Press in an interview Sunday. 'These kids should get vaccinated — that's how you prevent people from dying of measles.'
Marks also said he recently warned U.S. senators that more deaths would occur if the administration didn't mount a more aggressive response to the outbreak.
Experts and local health officials expect the outbreak to go on for several more months if not a year. In West Texas, the vast majority of cases are in unvaccinated people and children younger than 17.
With several states facing outbreaks of the vaccine-preventable disease — and declining childhood vaccination rates nationwide — some worry that measles may cost the U.S. its status as having eliminated the disease.
Measles is a respiratory virus that can survive in the air for up to two hours. Up to 9 out of 10 people who are susceptible will get the virus if exposed, according to the CDC. The first shot is recommended for children ages 12 to 15 months, and the second for ages 4 to 6 years.
Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill Cassidy Blew It
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. It's easy to forget that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assault on vaccines—including, most recently, his gutting of the expert committee that guides American vaccine policy—might have been avoided. Four months ago, his nomination for health secretary was in serious jeopardy. The deciding vote seemed to be in the hands of one Republican senator: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. A physician who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income kids in his home state, Cassidy was wary of the longtime vaccine conspiracist. 'I have been struggling with your nomination,' he told Kennedy during his confirmation hearings in January. Then Cassidy caved. In the speech he gave on the Senate floor explaining his decision, Cassidy said that he'd vote to confirm Kennedy only because he had extracted a number of concessions from the nominee—chief among them that he would preserve, 'without changes,' the very CDC committee Kennedy overhauled this week. Since then, Cassidy has continued to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt. On Monday, after Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Cassidy posted on X that he was working with Kennedy to prevent the open roles from being filled with 'people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' [Read: The doctor who let RFK Jr. through] The senator has failed, undeniably and spectacularly. One new appointee, Robert Malone, has repeatedly spread misinformation (or what he prefers to call 'scientific dissent') about vaccines. Another appointee, Vicky Pebsworth, is on the board of an anti-vax nonprofit, the National Vaccine Information Center. Cassidy may keep insisting that he is doing all he can to stand up for vaccines. But he already had his big chance to do so, and he blew it. Now, with the rest of America, he's watching the nation's vaccine future take a nosedive. So far, the senator hasn't appeared interested in any kind of mea culpa for his faith in Kennedy's promises. On Thursday, I caught Cassidy as he hurried out of a congressional hearing room. He was still reviewing the appointees, he told me and several other reporters who gathered around him. When I chased after him down the hallway to ask more questions, he told me, 'I'll be putting out statements, and I'll let those statements stand for themselves.' A member of his staff dismissed me with a curt 'Thank you, sir.' Cassidy's staff has declined repeated requests for an interview with the senator since the confirmation vote in January. With the exception of Mitch McConnell, every GOP senator voted to confirm Kennedy. They all have to own the health secretary's actions. But Cassidy seemed to be the Republican most concerned about Kennedy's nomination, and there was a good reason to think that the doctor would vote his conscience. In 2021, Cassidy was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump on an impeachment charge after the insurrection at the Capitol. But this time, the senator—who is up for reelection next year, facing a more MAGA-friendly challenger—ultimately fell in line. Cassidy tried to have it both ways: elevating Kennedy to his job while also vowing to constrain him. In casting his confirmation vote, Cassidy implied that the two would be in close communication, and that Kennedy had asked for his input on hiring decisions. The two reportedly had breakfast in March to discuss the health secretary's plan to dramatically reshape the department. 'Senator Cassidy speaks regularly with secretary Kennedy and believes those conversations are much more productive when they're held in private, not through press headlines,' a spokesperson for Cassidy wrote in an email. (A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) At times, it has appeared as though Cassidy's approach has had some effect on the health secretary. Amid the measles outbreak in Texas earlier this year, Kennedy baselessly questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In April, after two unvaccinated children died, Cassidy posted on X: 'Everyone should be vaccinated! There is no treatment for measles. No benefit to getting measles. Top health officials should say so unequivocally b/4 another child dies.' Cassidy didn't call out Kennedy by name, but the health secretary appeared to get the message. Later that day, Kennedy posted that the measles vaccine was the most effective way to stave off illness. ('Completely agree,' Cassidy responded.) All things considered, that's a small victory. Despite Kennedy's claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer, he has enacted a plainly anti-vaccine agenda. Since being confirmed, he has pushed out the FDA's top vaccine regulator, hired a fellow vaccine skeptic to investigate the purported link between autism and shots, and questioned the safety of childhood vaccinations currently recommended by the CDC. As my colleague Katherine J. Wu wrote this week, 'Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization.' [Read: RFK Jr. is barely even pretending anymore] The reality is that back channels can be only so effective. Cassidy's main power is to call Kennedy before the Senate health committee, which he chairs, and demand an explanation for Kennedy's new appointees to the CDC's vaccine-advisory committee. Cassidy might very well do that. In February, he said that Kennedy would 'come before the committee on a quarterly basis, if requested.' Kennedy did appear before Cassidy's committee last month to answer questions about his efforts to institute mass layoffs at his agency. Some Republicans (and many Democrats) pressed the secretary on those efforts, while others praised them. Cassidy, for his part, expressed concerns about Kennedy's indiscriminate cutting of research programs, but still, he was largely deferential. 'I agree with Secretary Kennedy that HHS needs reform,' Cassidy said. Even if he had disagreed, an angry exchange between a health secretary and a Senate committee doesn't guarantee any policy changes. Lawmakers may try to act like government bureaucrats report to them, but they have limited power once a nominee is already in their job. Technically, lawmakers can impeach Cabinet members, but in American history, a sitting Cabinet member has never been impeached and subsequently removed from office. The long and arduous confirmation process is supposed to be the bulwark against potentially dangerous nominees being put in positions of power. Cassidy and most of his Republican colleagues have already decided not to stop Kennedy from overseeing the largest department in the federal government by budget. Now Kennedy is free to do whatever he wants—senators be damned. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Seed oils are toxic, says Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – but it's not so simple
Before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump Administration, he joined a whole host of health influencers in proclaiming that widely used cooking oils such as canola oil and soybean oil are toxic. T-shirts sold by his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign now include the slogan, 'make frying oil tallow again' – a reference to the traditional use of rendered beef fat for cooking. Seed oils have become a mainstay of the American diet because unlike beef tallow, which is comprised of saturated fats that increase cholesterol levels, seed oils contain unsaturated fats that can decrease cholesterol levels. In theory, that means they should reduce the risk of heart disease. But research shows that different seed oils have varying effects on risk for heart disease. Furthermore, seed oils have also been shown to increase risk for migraines. This is likely due to their high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. These fats can increase inflammation, a heightened and potentially harmful state of immune system activation. As a family physician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, I translate the latest nutrition science into dietary recommendations for my patients. When it comes to seed oils, the research shows that their health effects are more nuanced than headlines and social media posts suggest. Seed oils — often confusingly referred to as 'vegetable oils' — are, as the name implies, oils extracted from the seeds of plants. This is unlike olive oil and coconut oil, which are derived from fruits. People decrying their widespread use often refer to the 'hateful eight' top seed oil offenders: canola, corn, soybean, cottonseed, grapeseed, sunflower, safflower and rice bran oil. These oils entered the human diet at unprecedented levels after the invention of the mechanical screw press in 1888 enabled the extraction of oil from seeds in quantities that were never before possible. Between 1909 and 1999, U.S. consumption of soybean oil increased 1,000 times. This shift fundamentally changed our biological makeup. Due to increased seed oil intake, in the past 50 years the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids that Americans carry around in their fatty tissue has increased by 136%. Omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients that control inflammation. While omega-6s tend to produce molecules that boost it, omega-3s tend to produce molecules that tone it down. Until recently, people generally ate equal amounts of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, over the past century, this ratio has changed. Today, people consume 15 times more omega-6s than omega-3s, partly due to increased consumption of seed oils. In theory, seed oils can cause health problems because they contain a high absolute amount of omega-6 fatty acids, as well as a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Studies have linked an increased omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to a wide range of conditions, including mood disorders, knee pain, back pain, menstrual pain and even preterm birth. Omega-6 fatty acids have also been implicated in the processes that drive colon cancer. However, the absolute omega-6 level and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in different seed oils vary tremendously. For example, safflower oil and sunflower oil have ratios of 125:1 and 91:1. Corn oil's ratio is 50:1. Meanwhile, soybean oil and canola oil have lower ratios, at 8:1 and 2:1, respectively. Scientists have used genetic modification to create seed oils like high oleic acid canola oil that have a lower omega-6 to 3 ratio. However, the health benefit of these bioengineered oils is still being studied. Part of the controversy surrounding seed oils is that studies investigating their inflammatory effect have yielded mixed results. One meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of seed oils on 11 inflammatory markers largely showed no effects – with the exception of one inflammatory signal, which was significantly elevated in people with the highest omega-6 intakes. To complicate things further, genetics also plays a role in seed oils' inflammatory potential. People of African, Indigenous and Latino descent tend to metabolize omega-6 fatty acids faster, which can increase the inflammatory effect of consuming seed oils. Scientists still don't fully understand how genetics and other factors may influence the health effects of these oils. A review of seven randomized controlled trials showed that the effect of seed oils on risk of heart attacks varies depending on the type of seed oil. This was corroborated by data resurrected from tapes dug up in the basement of a researcher who in the 1970s conducted the largest and most rigorously executed dietary trial to date investigating the replacement of saturated fat with seed oils. In that work, replacing saturated fats such as beef tallow with seed oils always lowers cholesterol, but it does not always lower risk of death from heart disease. Taken together, these studies show that when saturated fats such as beef tallow are replaced with seed oils that have lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratios, such as soybean oil, the risk of heart attacks and death from heart disease falls. However, when saturated fats are replaced with seed oils with a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, such as corn oil, risk of death from heart disease rises. Interestingly, the most highly purchased seed oil in the United States is soybean oil, which has a more favorable omega-6 to 3 ratio of 8:1 – and studies show that it does lower the risk of heart disease. However, seed oils with less favorable ratios, such as corn oil and safflower oil, can be found in countless processed foods, including potato chips, frozen dinners and packaged desserts. Nevertheless, other aspects of these foods, in addition to their seed oil content, also make them unhealthy. A rigorous randomized controlled trial – the gold standard for clinical evidence – showed that diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in omega-6 fatty acids, hence low in seed oils, significantly reduced the risk of migraines In the study, people who stepped up their consumption of omega-3 fatty acids by eating fatty fish such as salmon experienced an average of two fewer migraines per month than usual, even if they did not change their omega-6 consumption. However, if they reduced their omega-6 intake by switching out corn oil for olive oil, while simultaneously increasing their omega-3 intake, they experienced four fewer migraines per month. That's a noteworthy difference, considering that the latest migraine medications reduce migraine frequency by approximately two days per month, compared to a placebo. Thus, for migraine sufferers — 1 in 6 Americans — decreasing seed oils, along with increasing omega-3 intake, may be even more effective than currently available medications. Overall, the drastic way in which omega-6 fatty acids have entered the food supply and fundamentally changed our biological composition makes this an important area of study. But the question of whether seed oils are good or bad is not black and white. There is no basis to conclude that Americans would be healthier if we started frying everything in beef tallow again, but there is an argument for a more careful consideration of the nuance surrounding these oils and their potential effects. 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: Mary J. Scourboutakos, University of Toronto Read more: Ultraprocessed foods – like cookies, chips, frozen meals and fast food – may contribute to cognitive decline How Crisco toppled lard – and made Americans believers in industrial food Migraine sufferers have treatment choices – a neurologist explains options beyond just pain medication Mary J. Scourboutakos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley. Related Articles Warning Of Global Birth Rate 'Crisis' After Study Of 14 CountriesChina Makes Childbirth Change Amid Falling Birth RateTrump Administration To Give $1,000 Boost to All Newborn BabiesMore Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
