RFK Jr. has named himself the official arbiter of science
Just two weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Congress that his 'opinions about vaccines are irrelevant' and that nobody should 'take advice' from him about getting them. How quickly things change. In one decision after another, the Trump administration's recent actions have shown that Kennedy, with his poor understanding of basic medicine, has deemed himself the final arbiter of vaccine science in the U.S.
On Wednesday, Moderna announced that HHS canceled a $766 million contract with the company to develop potential pandemic influenza strains, including H5N1 bird flu. In the same statement, Moderna also announced that the new vaccine it had been developing against H5 influenza strains, mRNA-1018, had positive results after being tested in 300 adults.
As its name indicates, this developmental vaccine used messenger RNA, the same method that was used to develop the Covid-19 vaccine. Earlier this month, Kennedy announced that all new vaccines would need to be developed without using mRNA technology, despite its proven efficacy and safety. He has also demanded that new Covid boosters undergo more rigorous trials than previously required — including full placebo studies — to gain approval for the market.
The decision follows last week's announcement from the Food and Drug Administration that annual Covid boosters will be limited moving forward to people 65 and older and/or who have a high risk of severe Covid. According to the FDA, the eligible conditions for the latter range from asthma to pregnancy to diabetes and 'physical inactivity.' The FDA estimates that '100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner,' which calls into question the need to limit them at all.
In a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and vaccine chief Vinay Prasad cited the hesitancy of Americans to get the booster as a reason for pulling back who can access it. In a moment of extreme irony, the pair also blamed the booster program for declining vaccination rates more broadly:
There may even be a ripple effect: public trust in vaccination in general has declined, resulting in a reluctance to vaccinate that is affecting even vital immunization programs such as that for measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccination, which has been clearly established as safe and highly effective. In recent years, reduced MMR vaccination rates have been a growing concern and have contributed to serious illness and deaths from measles.
It is duplicitous at best to say more study is needed to reassure the public when the science isn't what's in question here. A more apt culprit would most likely be their boss, as Kennedy has been at the forefront of the movement to paint vaccines as unsafe. The anti-vax campaign has helped measles go from a disease of the past to a current concern as outbreaks pop up around the country.
Kennedy went even further Tuesday with a surprise announcement that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend including the Covid vaccine in its immunization schedule for 'healthy children and healthy pregnant women.' According to The Washington Post, the CDC itself was unaware that this change would be coming before Kennedy posted about it on X. Moreover, the video Kennedy posted, the guidance given internally to CDC staffers and the FDA's commentary last week all contradict one another about exactly who still qualifies for a Covid booster.
Kennedy's influence over what the scientists under him can say could strengthen even further in coming days. Earlier this week, he threatened to stop government researchers at the National Institutes of Health and other agencies from publishing their findings in major medical journals like the NEMJ and The Lancet. 'Unless those journals change dramatically, we are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing in them, and we're going to create our own journals in-house,' Kennedy warned in a podcast appearance.
It is the antithesis of science that predetermined outcomes be substituted for observation and analysis. It would likewise be naive to suggest that there has never been any sort of political influence on how science is practiced. But Kennedy's blatant positioning of himself as the ultimate judge of how to keep Americans healthy goes beyond the pale. He may say nobody should 'take advice' from him about vaccination — but he's not offering advice anymore. He's telling America how things are going to be from now on.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?
As promised, federal health officials have dropped longstanding recommendations that healthy children and healthy pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccines. "The COVID-19 vaccine schedule is very clear. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a post on X on Friday. In formal documents, health officials offer "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine, and ask that parents talk with a healthcare provider before getting the vaccine for their children. The decision was done in a way that is still expected to require insurers to pay for COVID-19 vaccines for children should their parents still want the shots for them. The new vaccine guidelines were posted to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday. It wasn't immediately clear whether insurers will still be required under federal law to pay for vaccinations for pregnant women. The Trump administration's decision came amid criticism from officials at the nation's leading organizations for pediatricians and obstetricians. Some doctors said there is no new evidence to support removing the recommendation that healthy pregnant women and healthy children should get the COVID vaccine. "This situation continues to make things unclear and creates confusion for patients, providers and payers," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday. Earlier in the week, the group's president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said the science hasn't changed, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and protects both the mom-to-be and their infants after birth. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic," Fleischman said in a statement. Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recommendation change as being rolled out in a "conflicting, confusing" manner, with "no explanation of the evidence used to reach their conclusions." "For many families, the COVID vaccine will remain an important way they protect their child and family from this disease and its complications, including long COVID," Kressly said in a statement. Some experts said the Trump administration should have waited to hear recommendations from a committee of doctors and scientists that typically advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, which is set to meet in late June. The California Department of Public Health on Thursday said it supported the longstanding recommendation that "COVID-19 vaccines be available for all persons aged 6 months and older who wish to be vaccinated." The changes come as the CDC has faced an exodus of senior leaders and has lacked an acting director. Typically, as was the case during the first Trump administration and in the Biden administration, it is the CDC director who makes final decisions on vaccine recommendations. The CDC director has traditionally accepted the consensus viewpoint of the CDC's panel of doctors and scientists serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Even with the longstanding recommendations, vaccination rates were relatively low for children and pregnant women. As of late April, 13% of children, and 14.4% of pregnant women, had received the latest updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. About 23% of adults overall received the updated vaccine, as did 27.8% of seniors age 65 and over. The CDC estimates that since October, there have been 31,000 to 50,000 COVID deaths and between 270,000 and 430,000 COVID hospitalizations. Here are some key points about the CDC's decision: Previously, the CDC's guidance was simple: everyone ages 6 months and up should get an updated COVID vaccination. The most recent version was unveiled in September, and is officially known as the 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine. As of Thursday, the CDC, on its pediatric immunization schedule page, says that for healthy children — those age 6 months to 17 years — decisions about COVID vaccination should come from "shared clinical decision-making," which is "informed by a decision process between the healthcare provider and the patient or parent/guardian." "Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the CDC says. The vaccine-skeptic secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., contended in a video posted on Tuesday there was a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." However, an earlier presentation by CDC staff said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides both children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert, said he would have preferred the CDC retain its broader recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get the updated vaccine. "It's simpler," Chin-Hong said. He added there's no new data out there that to him suggests children shouldn't be getting the updated COVID vaccine. A guideline that involves "shared decision-making," Chin-Hong said, "is a very nebulous recommendation, and it doesn't result in a lot of people getting vaccines." Kressly, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the shared clinical decision-making model is challenging to implement "because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks." Some experts had been worried that the CDC would make a decision that would've ended the federal requirement that insurers cover the cost of COVID-19 vaccines for children. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID-19 vaccine can reach around $200. In its adult immunization schedule for people who have medical conditions, the CDC now says it has "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccine. In his 58-second video on Tuesday, Kennedy did not explain why he thought pregnant women should not be recommended to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Chin-Hong, of UCSF, called the decision to drop the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women "100%" wrong. Pregnancy brings with it a relatively compromised immune system. Pregnant women have "a high chance of getting infections, and they get more serious disease — including COVID," Chin-Hong said. A pregnant woman getting vaccinated also protects the newborn. "You really need the antibodies in the pregnant person to go across the placenta to protect the newborn," Chin-Hong said. It's especially important, Chin-Hong and others say, because infants under 6 months of age can't be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they have as high a risk of severe complications as do seniors age 65 and over. There are some questions that don't have immediate answers. Will some vaccine providers start requiring doctor's notes in order for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to get vaccinated? Will it be harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated at a pharmacy? In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it "follows federal guidance and state law regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." The insurer Aetna, which is owned by CVS, is also monitoring any changes federal officials make to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility "and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed." Blue Shield of California said it will not change its practices on covering COVID-19 vaccines. "Despite the recent federal policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women, Blue Shield of California will continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines for all eligible members," the insurer said in a statement. "The decision on whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is between our member and their provider. Blue Shield does not require prior authorization for COVID-19 vaccines." Under California law, health plans regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care must cover COVID-19 vaccines without requiring prior authorization, the agency said Friday. "If consumers access these services from a provider in their health plan's network, they will not need to pay anything for these services," the statement said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When will Social Security checks be sent in June? What to know about 2025 payment schedule
Social Security checks will go out like normal in June, except for one small exception that some beneficiaries will notice. Most of the nearly 74 million who get Social Security benefits receive them on Wednesdays throughout the month. For instance, if your birthdate falls between the first and 10th of the month, you are paid on the second Wednesday of the month, which is June 11; between the 11th and 20th, you're paid on the third Wednesday (June 18), and if you were born after the 20th of the month, you get paid on the fourth Wednesday of the month (June 25), according to the Social Security Administration's calendar. Here's what to know about the Social Security payment for 2025 and when checks will go out in June. The Social Security Administration's yearly distribution schedules for 2025 and 2026 are available online so that you can use the calendar for budgeting purposes. Regular Social Security retirement benefits will be sent out on the SSA's usual schedule: June 11: Birth dates between the first and 10th of the month. June 18: Birth dates between the 11th and the 20th of the month. June 25: Birth dates between the 21st and the 31st of the month. Beneficiaries who get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) received two checks in May, meaning those people won't receive any checks in June. When the first of the month falls on a federal holiday or a weekend, SSI benefits are issued early. Since June 1 is a Sunday, the June check was sent out on May 30. About 7.4 million Americans who may be disabled or have limited resources get monthly SSI benefit payments. About half of those who get SSI also get Social Security. Supplemental Security Income checks will be sent out on the following dates in 2025, according to the SSA calendar. Tuesday, July 1, 2025 (Check for July 2025) Friday, Aug. 1, 2025 (Check for August 2025) Friday, Aug. 29, 2025 (Check for September 2025) Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2025 (Check for October 2025) Friday, Oct. 31, 2025 (Check for November 2025) Monday, Dec. 1, 2025 (Check for December 2025) Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2025 (Check for January 2026) There are more than a dozen Social Security offices in Arizona. To find the office nearest you, visit Apache Junction: 253 W. Superstition Blvd. Casa Grande: 1637 E. Monument Plaza Circle Chinle: Tseyi Shopping Center on Highway 191 Douglas: 600 E. 15th St. Flagstaff: 2715 S. Woodlands Village Blvd. Glendale: 5907 W Kings Ave Globe: 1405 E. Ash St. Mesa: 702 W. Jerome Ave. Nogales: 1760 N. Mastick Way Phoenix: 16241 N. Tatum Blvd. and 250 N. Seventh Ave. Prescott: 205 N. Marina St. Safford: 650 S. 14th Ave. Show Low: 2500 E. Cooley St., Suite 407 Tuba City: 1010 Main St. Tucson: 3808 N. First Ave. and 88 W. 38th St. Yuma: 325 W. 19th St., Suite 1 This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: When will Social Security checks be sent in June? What to know
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
