logo
RFK Jr. says COVID-19 shot isn't recommended for healthy kids

RFK Jr. says COVID-19 shot isn't recommended for healthy kids

Japan Times28-05-2025

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the COVID shot has been taken off of the country's recommended vaccine list for healthy children and pregnant women, a seismic shift in the government's approach to the virus.
The decision to back the immunization only for adults and those with existing health conditions reverses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's earlier stance that everyone six months of age and older get vaccinated.
"With the COVID-19 pandemic behind us, it is time to move forward,' the Department of Health and Human Services said in an emailed statement.
The move underscores the profound impact Kennedy is exerting on immunizations in the U.S., a polarizing topic that has long galvanized his base of vaccine critics. His social media announcement also leapfrogged a planned meeting of medical experts who guide the CDC on vaccine policy to evaluate which Americans would benefit most from the shots.
"This is really a concerning decision because it goes outside the normal process,' said Sean O'Leary, pediatrician and a liaison to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The decision is especially concerning for children under two years old who are at higher risk from the virus and babies under six months old who rely on their mothers for antibodies, he said.
But the announcement also came as a relief to investors, who were expecting Kennedy, a longtime vaccine critic, to stop recommending the vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax for a greater number of Americans.
Shares in Moderna were up 2.8% at 1:21 p.m. in New York. Novavax rose 3%, while Pfizer gained 1%.
Most Americans who get COVID shots each year are 65 or older, or have underlying conditions, Novavax said. Pfizer and Moderna didn't immediately comment. The two companies are seeking full U.S. approval for their COVID shots for younger children, after years of selling them on an emergency basis granted during the pandemic.
Continued decline
Vaccine experts struggled to recall another time when the nation's top health official undid the CDC's earlier recommendation. Still, it's a continuation of what's been happening in the country.
Since before Kennedy was in his role, ACIP had been looking into whether the vaccines should target only high-risk children and adults, and the group was expected to vote on the issue at a meeting in June. Under Kennedy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it will no longer approve COVID booster shots for healthy adults and children without new studies confirming the safety and effectiveness of repeat exposures.
And parents have largely ignored vaccine recommendations as memories of the pandemic fade. Just 13% of children were immunized against COVID last season, according to the CDC. That's about half the rate of adults, which is still well below universal coverage.
But children do still face serious risks. More than 150 kids under age 18 died from COVID in the year ended August 2024, according to the CDC. A COVID infection can increase a child's chances of developing Type 2 diabetes, and researchers estimate about 6 million American children may have long COVID.
The U.S. vaccine schedule guides doctors on when to give shots to children, and helps insurers decide which to cover. While parents can still pay for the vaccines, the move likely eliminates the requirement that private insurance pay for the shots for children. It may also end access for some 38 million low-income children who get free immunizations through the Vaccines for Children program, experts said.
Vulnerable families
"We don't know how this will impact insurance coverage and it could be taking away choice for families,' O'Leary said.
Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the group was extremely disappointed that COVID vaccines won't be recommended during pregnancy.
"It is very clear that Covid infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families,' he said.
Making it harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated against COVID also could put vulnerable family members at risk, said Dorit Reiss, a professor at UC Law San Francisco.
"It's sending a message to the public that these are not a good idea and that's obviously problematic,' Reiss said. "It's very conceivable that people will die because of this decision.'
No health secretary has changed vaccine recommendations before in this way, said Richard Hughes, a health lawyer at the firm Epstein Becker Green and former drug company executive. It's a "legal gray area,' he said.
Details of the CDC's new approach remain unclear. The agency didn't provide any additional information about its recommendations, which appear to conflict with the FDA's demand for more studies in some patient groups. Pregnant women, for example, still qualify for COVID boosters under the FDA's rules, though they're no longer recommended by the CDC.
Welcomed news
Allies of Kennedy who have criticized the COVID vaccine celebrated the announcement and said they would like to see a reevaluation of the childhood vaccine schedule go further than COVID vaccines.
Mary Holland, chief executive officer of Children's Health Defense, the organization critical of vaccines where Kennedy worked before moving into government, said a change to the childhood schedule that excludes COVID boosters will prevent injuries and deaths.
The FDA has determined that the benefits of existing COVID vaccines for children outweigh the risks. In April, it asked the drug companies to warn about myocarditis and pericarditis, a type of inflammation around the heart, in young men age 16 to 25. It cited insurance data showing 38 cases per million doses in the group, while overall there are eight cases per million doses. It's not clear whether the inflammation results in long-term health complications, the agency said.
Del Bigtree, who served as Kennedy's presidential campaign spokesman and founded the nonprofit Informed Consent Action Network that amplifies criticism of vaccine safety, said he wants the recommendation that all infants get a hepatitis B shot revisited as well.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Europeans are facing an existential choice
The Europeans are facing an existential choice

Japan Times

time24 minutes ago

  • Japan Times

The Europeans are facing an existential choice

For years, I have taken every opportunity to urge the European Union and its member states to invest more in defense. When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I repeatedly asked (as a member of the European Parliament) what further proof we would need to recognize the threats facing all of Europe. What would we — as Europeans — do if our security was threatened while our closest ally, the United States, was otherwise engaged? Today, we confront that very situation. U.S. officials are openly stating that they do not intend to devote most of their time or resources to dealing with what they deem European issues. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the U.S. has 'other priorities to focus on.' I agree. The global superpower has global responsibilities and the number of flash points that might demand the U.S. government's attention seems only to be growing. In addition to challenges in the Western hemisphere, instability in the Middle East and severe tensions between two nuclear powers — India and Pakistan — there is also the paramount goal of redefining relations with China. Moreover, according to the official U.S. Defense Department planning doctrine, the U.S. can no longer fight more than one major war at a time. The new U.S. administration has been communicating its position plainly. 'We're here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in Brussels this February. And U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was even more direct, stating that 'Europe's entire security infrastructure ... has been subsidized by the United States of America,' even though it is neither in Europe's nor America's interest 'for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.' President Donald Trump himself has repeatedly accused Europe of 'freeloading' and 'taking advantage' of the U.S.. Europeans may not like what we hear, but we cannot pretend not to hear it. We must be prepared for the U.S. to wash its hands not only of Ukraine, but even of Europe. Le Monde's Sylvie Kauffmann recently argued, 'Preparing for the worst is a safer bet than hoping for the best.' We can and should do both — hope and prepare. Trust but verify. Ever since Trump announced his presidential candidacy back in 2015, there have been two schools of thought on interpreting his words. Some argue that we should take him seriously but not literally, whereas others urge us to do the opposite: treat him literally but not always seriously. I believe that the most reasonable and respectable approach is to treat whatever the U.S. president says both literally and seriously. Given the current state of the world, this implies that Europe faces an existential choice. We can enter the global game united as a heavyweight competitor or we can condemn ourselves to marginalization. Much has been done already to become a heavyweight contender. Since 2016 — just before Trump's first term — NATO members, excluding the U.S., have increased their annual defense spending by 98%, from $255 billion to $506 billion. Moreover, after three years of Putin waging war on Ukraine, the EU and its member states have proven willing to spend even more and to embrace a more cooperative, rational and effective approach to defense planning and procurement. The new joint defense agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom is another step demonstrating this new strategic solidarity. Deterring Russia is not beyond our means. We don't need to match U.S. military capabilities; rather, we just need enough to force Putin to reconsider his chances of winning in a confrontation with a united European community of democratic nation-states. The people of Europe are clearly demanding that we develop a revitalized European defense posture. According to the European Commission, 71% of EU citizens believe that the bloc must strengthen its ability to produce military equipment, while 77% support a common defense and security policy. This gives European leaders a mandate to think and act boldly. But how long will it take to restore peace to Ukraine and stability to Europe? I believe we must act on the basis of three assumptions. First, we should view this as a war of a former imperial metropole against what it regards as a mutinous colony. History suggests that colonial wars usually take about a decade to end. Anything less than that should be considered a bonus. Second, we should accept that for the invading country to start negotiating in good faith, it must conclude that the invasion was a mistake. It must acknowledge that the costs of war and of keeping the former colony subjugated are greater than whatever benefits the colony can possibly yield. Third, given the above, we should remember that colonial wars are usually finished by a different group of leaders than those who started the fighting. Yes, boosting European defense capabilities while supporting Ukraine will cost money. Since the start of Russia's war of aggression, the EU and its member states have provided more than $165 billion in support for Ukraine and its people. That is a significant amount, but it is still less than 1% of the combined gross domestic product of the EU's member countries (some $19 trillion). We can certainly do more. And as we reinvigorate Europe's defenses, we must not lose sight of why we are doing it: we are acting for our own safety, not to undermine transatlantic relations but to improve them. To avoid a strategic dilemma, we Europeans must be able to help the U.S. defend its allies by taking on our fair share of the security burden. Radosław Sikorski is foreign minister of Poland. © Project Syndicate, 2025

Higher US tariffs kick in on steel, aluminum imports
Higher US tariffs kick in on steel, aluminum imports

NHK

time6 hours ago

  • NHK

Higher US tariffs kick in on steel, aluminum imports

The US doubled additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50 percent from Wednesday. President Donald Trump announced the higher levies on Friday during a rally at a US Steel plant in Pennsylvania and signed the order on Tuesday. He said the move will further secure the future of the steel industry in the United States. However, imports of the metals from the UK will not be affected by the higher duties after the two countries agreed to a trade deal last month. The trump administration had already imposed a 25-percent additional tariff on steel and aluminum on March 12. The European Union has criticized the higher duties, saying the move undermines ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution. The EU has indicated it may respond with countermeasures.

Musk calls Trump's budget bill 'disgusting abomination'
Musk calls Trump's budget bill 'disgusting abomination'

NHK

time6 hours ago

  • NHK

Musk calls Trump's budget bill 'disgusting abomination'

Elon Musk has slammed Trump's signature tax-cut and spending bill, calling it "a disgusting abomination." Musk had been tasked with finding and cutting waste in the federal bureaucracy until he left the post late last month. The bill has passed the House of Representatives. It includes extending personal-tax cuts implemented in Trump's first term and also exempts taxes on tips and overtime pay earned by restaurant workers. Musk has described the package on X as a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill." He claimed that the bill "will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit, and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed his comments. She said, "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it." Musk formerly headed the US Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, as a special government employee with a limited term. This is not the first time he has spoken out on the bill. He said in an interview last month that it "undermines the work that the DOGE team was doing."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store