Trump's team cited safety in limiting COVID shots
Larry Saltzman has blood cancer. He's also a retired doctor, so he knows getting COVID-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he's comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus. Until now, that is. Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to COVID shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump's first term and cost taxpayers about $13 billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the US. 'There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,' said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. 'For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren't enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that's protecting us. We're totally vulnerable.'
The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for COVID shots, described as a COVID-19 'vaccination regulatory framework,' that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them. The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall. Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves COVID vaccines for those populations. For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials. Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA's division overseeing vaccines, cited 'distrust of the American public' as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.
'We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,' he said, adding that 'we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.' The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube. The added limits on access aren't the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the COVID vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on COVID mRNA shots. Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 COVID vaccine formula.
It's a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the COVID shots. Trump called the vaccines the 'gold standard' and a 'monumental national achievement.'
The announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get COVID if people who aren't at risk don't get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA's restrictions go too far, because they don't provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a COVID booster for protection. The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA's new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in COVID vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development. 'For the public, it raises questions,' she said. 'If someone has concerns, I'd like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably COVID-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.'
Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of COVID emerge and they can't access COVID shots. 'It's not based on science,' said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. 'It's what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples' lives.' Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit. 'It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,' Prasad said.
The COVID vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC. On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA COVID vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with COVID vaccines. Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.
'The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. 'Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.'
The COVID booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of COVID mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause 'turbo' cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the COVID virus. There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The COVID vaccines debuted in 2021. Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don't recommend flu shots for the entire population. The US does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick. They also want more information. 'I think there's a void of data,' Makary told CBS News on April 29. 'And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I'd like to see some good data.'
A massive five-year study on COVID vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president's Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now. There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines' effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalisation, and death.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
10 hours ago
- The National
We should consume information like we eat our food
Before the advent of the digital age, for someone to be considered a well-informed person – knowledgeable about news, current affairs and events – was a hard-won status. It wasn't easy to have regular access to the full range of books, newspapers and periodicals we now have at our fingertips. We had to keep our daily appointment with the evening news simply to know what had happened that day. To be well-informed was, to some extent, an aspirational pursuit. The newspaper you bought would say a lot about that aspiration. Yet beyond acquiring facts or being 'in the know', it was also, at its purest, about cultivating judgment, enriching the inner life, and developing the wisdom to make decisions that might help us prosper and thrive. Today, access to information is no longer seen as a luxury but as a necessity, despite the heavy irony of it being in far more regular supply than ever before. Research from Pew, published this month, underscored this, suggesting that the questions of how 'closely Americans are following the news, where they get their news and how much they trust the news they see … are not as straightforward as they once were … as people are exposed to more information from more sources than ever before and lines blur between entertainment, commentary and other types of content'. 'People don't always like news, but they say they need it: while many express negative emotions surrounding news [such as anger or sadness], they also say it helps them feel informed or feel that they 'need' to keep up with it,' according to Pew. While it has always been true that few would readily admit to any kind of ignorance, these days you can inadvertently make such an embarrassing admission by revealing you know too much. This is because the idea that we 'need' information has led, by and large, to no longer consuming it to understand the world but instead consuming it just to consume. This claim isn't revolutionary – 'infobesity' has been around as a term for a while, for example. Like the overconsumption of fast food, many of us are gorging ourselves on information far beyond what we actually need for a healthy life. But the consequences of a data binge are subtler and perhaps more insidious. The deluge often gets in the way of making good decisions. Knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it At least with overeating, the signs of our bad choices are more immediately evident: typically weight gain and a direct correlation with health issues and the general sense of being unwell. With information overload, the links are not always obvious at first. We feel anxious, distracted and overwhelmed, but we often don't connect these feelings to our overconsumption of data. No one would argue anymore that the effects have been far-reaching, creating volatility and uncertainty across the political, economic and cultural landscape. A chief topic of interest at the moment – artificial intelligence – has us excitable and fretful as we hungrily absorb as much information about it as we can get hold of. In a sense, we are each of us behaving like large language models, rampantly ingesting vast quantities of data with abandon. But obviously, we are not machines and this isn't a sustainable state to be in. We do eventually learn to say enough is enough. Parents and teachers are advocating for limits on screen time for children and organising pledges to delay giving them devices in order to protect them from overuse. Beyond these efforts, the US state of Utah, for example, has tried to enact legislation to limit children's screen time, and many others have proposed similar moves. Digital detoxes and digital fasts are wise initiatives, and we should practise them often. But like with any resolution, we eventually we go back to our bad habits. The long-term solution might be found in a lifestyle change. Yes, we need to have access to information but not constantly. Just as we have intervals between meals to allow our bodies to digest, we need periods during each day when we take a break from consuming news and information, particularly from digital sources. This isn't only because we necessarily need a break from our screens, but because our minds need time to digest, reflect and synthesise what we've already taken in. My suspicion is that this will probably happen naturally anyway, over time. Subsequent generations are already highly media and technology-literate, and they are very aware of the risks of wanton consumption at younger ages. It won't be a straight line though. Look how we are still struggling with the consequences of obesity, despite how much we have learnt about nutrition and health. You see, knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it, more than we want to have unfettered access to information, to really experience a change for the better.
Sharjah 24
2 days ago
- Sharjah 24
US drops COVID vaccine recommendation for pregnant women
Kennedy, FDA commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya said in a video that the shots have been removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended immunization schedule. The changes come a week after they unveiled tighter requirements for COVID shots, effectively limiting them to older adults and those at risk of developing severe illness. Traditionally, the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices would meet and vote on changes to the immunization schedule or recommendations on who should get vaccines before the director of the CDC made a final call. The committee has not voted on these changes. Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic whose department oversees the CDC, has been remaking the U.S. health system to align with President Donald Trump's goal of dramatically shrinking the federal government. "Last year, the Biden Administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of clinical data to support repeat booster strategy in children," Kennedy said in the video. The CDC, following its panel of outside experts, previously recommended updated COVID vaccines for everyone aged six months and older. Insurers said they are reviewing the regulatory guidance to determine their policies, which typically follow the ACIP recommendations.
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Gulf Today
Boost SNAP to make healthy eating easier
Vijay Das, Tribune News Service Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to make it harder for poor Americans to buy unhealthy food. Together with Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, he is asking some 15 states to submit waivers to bar beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using those funds to buy soda and other specific items. Unfortunately, this approach is unproductive, in part because it does nothing to make it easier for Americans to buy healthy food. The nation does face an obesity crisis. But banning SNAP beneficiaries from buying a Hostess cake at Safeway will not address it in any significant way. Families on SNAP purchase approximately the same amount of unhealthy food as those not enrolled in the program. Restricting SNAP is about stigmatizing people living in poverty, not helping them. A 2023 Cleveland Clinic study found that almost half of survey respondents considered the cost of healthy food to be the largest barrier to healthier diets. President Donald Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of groceries even further, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. SNAP is already inadequate to pay for the rising cost of groceries. SNAP provides only about $6 per person per day in food assistance. To make better food purchases more feasible for recipients, we need to increase SNAP payments, not cut them by imposing new rules and shifting responsibility to the states, as some Republican members of Congress are now looking to do. Evidence supports this strategy: When the child tax credit was expanded following the pandemic, low-income parents bought more healthy food with their extra cash. Poorer Americans (like richer ones) do buy too much junk food and consume too much ultra-processed crap — but the reasons are just as important as the facts. Poor families often lack access to stores that sell healthy fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, billboards for fast food restaurants blanket poorer neighbourhoods, with images of attractive people savoring deep fried treats and pounding highly caffeinated sugary drinks. Studies show poverty leads to increases in illness due to factors including the stress and financial strain of surviving with a shrinking safety-net and a lack of decent, stable paid work. With less access to healthy food and crafty ad campaigns targeting low-income youth, it's no wonder poor families dedicate a large portion of their spending to sugary and sodium-enriched junk. One model for expanding SNAP recipients' access to better, healthier food is already in place. The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, distributed more than $73 million to local SNAP incentive projects between 2015 and 2018. The program is now known as the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). In 2019, Congress set aside $250 million to fund GusNIP. Allocations since have varied but the program continues. GusNIP has a competitive grant program that funds state and local non-profit organisations to provide financial nutrition incentives that subsidise purchases of fruits and vegetables for SNAP customers. Less than 1% of SNAP beneficiaries can access GusNIP, however. We must expand the programme. SNAP's 'Double Bucks' programme, now operating in more than 25 states, also helps local farmers and families. This program provides SNAP participants with matching funds to purchase locally grown produce. Congress should also pass the Supporting All Healthy Options When Purchasing Produce (SHOPP) Act, a bipartisan bill backed by Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville, R-AL, that increases SNAP incentives to buy frozen fruits and vegetables. If Kennedy wants to boost healthy eating, he should address nationwide poor nutrition at its root by boosting programs that drive consumption of whole foods, fruits and vegetables. We should teach healthier cooking practices. We should reduce the sticker shelf price tags of healthy groceries while encouraging buying fresh and frozen vegetables. As Kennedy and Rollins tour the nation, they'll learn that good jobs are scarce. Child care is difficult to find. Grocery stores with decent produce are not on most corners. Life is tough already, and we should help families in need leverage wide use of SNAP.
