US health officials urge Kennedy to stop spreading vaccine misinformation
In an open letter, the federal officials criticized Secretary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
-- a noted vaccine skeptic -- nearly two weeks after an armed attack on the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the main US health agency.
A gunman who blamed the
Covid-19 vaccine
for sickening him targeted several buildings at the Atlanta-based CDC on August 8, killing a police officer.
The attack "was not random," the signees of the open letter said, pointing to "growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization -- and now, violence."
Kennedy, who has repeatedly aired false information about vaccines and slammed the agencies he heads as corrupt, was accused of fueling the mistrust.
Kennedy "is complicit in dismantling America's
public health infrastructure
and endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information," the open letter said, imploring the health chief to change his stance.
Since taking office, the nephew of assassinated president John F. Kennedy has made numerous pronouncements that run counter to scientific consensus, particularly about vaccines.
This shift toward
vaccine skepticism
has been denounced by many experts. A petition calling on Congress to impeach Kennedy had gathered more than 12,600 signatures as of Wednesday.
The latest open letter from US civil servants, many of whom signed anonymously, comes on the heels of other similar texts backed by federal employees denouncing actions of the Trump administration.
Taking such a step was not without risk: nearly 140 staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency who spoke out publicly were placed on leave in last month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
RFK Jr's attack on mRNA technology endangers the world
DURING THE covid-19 pandemic new vaccines were rolled out with unprecedented speed. The fastest to arrive were jabs built from molecules of messenger RNA (mRNA) designed to teach the body how to fight off the disease-causing virus. By late 2021, mRNA vaccines had saved an estimated 7.7m lives globally, including most of the 3m Americans whom the Commonwealth Fund, an American health-care charity, estimates were saved by vaccines before 2023. President Donald Trump was one of the technology's many supporters. He launched Operation Warp Speed, a programme that started the race to deliver vaccines. He even received an mRNA shot and advocated (albeit gently) for their use. Yet today many Americans are suspicious of these jabs. The speed with which they were developed and approved, coupled with sweeping vaccine mandates and a political push by the Biden administration to give booster shots ahead of any decision being made by scientists at the drug regulator, caused anger and mistrust. Rampant disinformation has further stirred the pot, leading many to wrongly believe that mRNA vaccines have killed or harmed millions of people. Chart Robert F. Kennedy junior, Mr Trump's health secretary, is known for his opposition to vaccines in general and mRNA in particular. Earlier this month, citing safety concerns that scientists have discredited, his department terminated 22 mRNA-related contracts worth a total of nearly $500m across academia and industry. America, said Mr Kennedy, was moving beyond the 'limitations of mRNA and investing in better solutions'. The move is not an isolated one. In May Mr Kennedy's department cancelled $766m in funding for a late-stage human mRNA vaccine against bird flu and work on five subtypes of flu with pandemic potential. America also gave up the rights to purchase bird-flu shots from Moderna, a company with which it had previously collaborated to deliver these vaccines. Rick Bright, the former boss of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority—the division of the health department that had funded the grants—wrote in the New York Times that the latest decision undercut 'one of the most significant medical advances in decades…that could protect millions more people from the threats ahead'. This is no understatement. In the years since the pandemic, mRNA has emerged as a powerful new 'platform' technology; one that can be used not only to design new pandemic-busting vaccines, but also to create medicines for infectious diseases, rare genetic diseases and cancer. The rapidity with which mRNA can be designed and manufactured makes it ideally suited for creating a new generation of personalised medicines. The cuts risk making the world a more dangerous place. To assess the impact of the cuts, The Economist spoke to more than half a dozen experts. Most declined to be quoted on the record. 'Everyone is trying to do everything we can to avoid the glare of RFK,' said one source at a research-funding institution. He explained that his organisation was removing references to RNA wherever possible and trying to work out alternative ways of describing it. This is an infuriating task, he says. 'It is a bit you can't use the word carbon.' mRNA is similarly fundamental to biology. It is the specific type of RNA that acts as a messenger carrying instructions from a cell's DNA to protein-production units known as ribosomes. The ability to harness mRNA—as well as related molecules in the cell—has given medicine an enormously powerful tool. Scientists can now instruct the body to manufacture therapeutic proteins; train the immune system to fight diseases, including cancers; and even silence harmful signals in cells, such as faulty instructions caused by a genetic disease or genetic information from a virus seeking to use the cell's machinery to replicate itself. Mr Kennedy has implied his department's cuts are limited to mRNA vaccines for respiratory infections. But this does not appear to be the case. Biospace, an online publication, reports that research into filoviruses such as Ebola—which are not respiratory but cause haemorrhagic fevers through direct contact with bodily fluids—has also lost funding. Other cuts target treatments rather than vaccines. One such casualty is ModeX, a biotech firm based in Massachusetts, which is developing therapeutic antibodies. An antibody infusion—which is distinct from a vaccine—can be lifesaving for patients struggling to fight off a virus. ModeX is engineering mRNA that, when introduced into the body, instructs it to create antibodies able to attach to more than one location on a given virus, which should make them more potent. Some affected research appears to have nothing to do with mRNA at all. Fierce Biotech, another online outlet, noted that Tiba Biotech in Cambridge, Massachusetts, had been developing a flu treatment based on RNA interference (RNAi)—a different technology altogether—when it lost funding. It sought to create a tiny RNA molecule that would interfere with the production of viral proteins in the body, potentially blocking the virus from replicating. But perhaps the most significant impact of the cuts will be on the world's ability to produce vaccines against a future pandemic. America is the global leader in mRNA-vaccine research; according to Airfinity, a life-sciences data firm, it is currently home to trials for almost 40% of mRNA vaccine candidates (see chart). In the years prior to the pandemic the government spent $337m funding research related to mRNA technology that would lead to the covid-19 vaccines, a figure unmatched by any other country. Some hope that investors will work around the government's disdain for respiratory mRNA vaccines and continue to invest in RNA therapeutics more broadly. But there are already signs of trouble: one industry source says that the administration's hostility—particularly in the form of inaccurate comments made about the safety of mRNA vaccines—is already having a chilling effect. The cost of manufacturing mRNA will probably rise and young talent and seasoned experts could leave the field, hampering innovation in an area of biology rich in applications. This may in particular hurt the development of personalised cancer vaccines, a promising mRNA-based technology to treat tumours. OncoDaily, an online publication, suggests that the funding cuts could increase per-patient manufacturing costs by 20-40% and extend production timelines by two to six weeks. Slower speeds of delivery can give a tumour time to spread and may, therefore, reduce the efficacy of a vaccine. Trials may also be forced to slow down or move abroad. There are few precedents for such a sequence of events. When George W. Bush's administration restricted funding for embryonic stem-cell research in 2001, some scientists did eventually move abroad. Britain benefited; it became a global hub for research on embryonic stem cells. The cuts also pushed American researchers to innovate in other areas, leading to the advancement of pluripotent stem cells. The current administration hopes to repeat the trick by advancing conventional whole-vaccine platforms to tackle pandemics. But it seems unlikely that these could ever be developed as quickly as mRNA jabs, which some experts reckon could be turned around in 100 days. As for where mRNA expertise may go, there are whispers of interest from Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates. Britain is actively competing for it, says one British source. Peter Piot, a professor of global health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and, until recently, an adviser to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, thinks that the European Union should launch a special initiative to pick up the ball that America has dropped. One can only hope that his call is heeded before the next pandemic arrives.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Senior citizens double down on super top-ups, drive 61% rise in portability
As medical costs rise, senior citizens are changing how they buy health insurance. More such citizens are purchasing policies earlier in their lives; they are adding top-ups, and even switching insurers for better value, according to data provided by Policybazaar. Almost six of 10 health insurance policies are bought by people aged 60 to 65, making it the most active bracket. The 66-70 segment is also seeing steady growth. About 65 per cent of policies bought by senior citizens were renewed in FY5 and one in three purchases were fresh, pointing to expanding coverage among families. Cost-saving strategies To manage premiums, senior citizens use tools like: 15-20 per cent opt for deductibles of Rs 2-3 lakh. Top-up purchases have almost doubled in three years, with one in three senior citizens choosing such offers to expand insurance cover Around 12 per cent shift to co-pay options at renewal, paying a small share of bills while insurers bear the bulk. Seniors seek flexible cover and add-ons Senior citizens prefer features that offer immediate and relevant insurance protection: Over 40 per cent now want cover for pre-existing conditions without waiting. Women lean towards OPD and wellness riders, while men prefer critical illness add-ons. Demand for domiciliary treatment has risen, especially after Covid-19. Portability rising As many as 61 per cent senior citizens have changed their insurers in two years for cheaper premiums or better service, according to Policybazaar. This shows growing financial awareness in evaluating long-term value, not just price. Urban-rural divide Insurance penetration is better in cities like Delhi, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, where seniors buy higher covers of Rs 10-25 lakh. Coverage in villages and towns is largely driven by government schemes, though Tier-II cities are slowly bridging the gap. Premium payment Nearly three in four premiums are funded by children or family members of senior citizens. Of these, 11 per cent come from children living abroad, highlighting the role of overseas support in ageing parents' healthcare. About 27 per cent of seniors, however, still pay premiums on their own. 'We're witnessing a significant shift in how India's senior citizens approach health insurance. Seniors are insuring earlier, buying larger covers and making smarter choices, whether through super top-ups, portability or Day-1 coverage,' said Siddharth Singhal, business head, health insurance, at Policybazaar.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
12 reasons to remind your boss why working extra hours is bad for both of you
Across industries, working late has long been seen as proof of commitment. Yet experts warn that the habit often does more harm than good, draining energy, straining relationships, and reducing long-term productivity . With conversations around work-life balance becoming more urgent, professionals are now challenging the belief that staying past office hours is a measure of success. Adding to this discussion, London-based entrepreneur Dan Murray outlined twelve reasons why leaving on time benefits not only employees but also their organisations. Taking to LinkedIn, Murray argued that while work will always remain, the time spent on family, self-care, and personal pursuits cannot be regained. He described overwork as an unsustainable habit that may initially appear productive but ultimately reduces efficiency and erodes quality of life. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Murray's 12 Reasons to Leave on Time In his post, Murray outlined twelve reasons why employees should not sacrifice personal time for extended office hours. His list emphasised that: Work is a continuous process and will never be fully completed. Mental and physical health must remain a priority. Time with family and friends is invaluable. Rest and recovery are essential for productivity. Setting boundaries protects personal space. A balanced lifestyle enhances overall well-being. Burnout is real and damaging. Hobbies and passions provide fulfilment. Exercise and self-care strengthen resilience. A job does not define identity. Life is too short to spend solely at work. True happiness comes from safeguarding well-being. He concluded that employees who take care of themselves outside work return more motivated and contribute more effectively to their teams. You Might Also Like: Long duty hours, night shifts but she still cracked UPSC. Meet doctor-turned-IAS office Dr Anjali Garg, from Delhi Safdarjung Hospital Online Reactions to the Post Murray's reflections quickly gained traction, drawing thousands of views and hundreds of comments within days. Many professionals echoed his views, agreeing that long hours are often mistaken for dedication but, in reality, diminish creativity and energy. One user wrote that boundaries and rest are what sustain enthusiasm and innovation at work. Another described protecting personal time as one of the smartest long-term investments in both career and life. Others noted that balance helps regulate mental and physical health, making individuals more effective in the long run. Some described Murray's post as more than just advice, calling it a practical manifesto for sustainable success. A commenter noted that leaving on time should not be seen as laziness but as an example of leadership and healthy ambition. You Might Also Like: Boss refuses WFH amid Mumbai rains. But employee's two-word reply shuts him down Who Is Dan Murray? According to his LinkedIn profile, Murray studied English and Art History at the University of Nottingham after completing his schooling at University College School. He co-founded a fashion-focused mobile app that ran for more than four years before moving on to other ventures. Over the years, he has launched or co-founded several start-ups, building a reputation as a founder who advocates both professional innovation and personal balance.
