Latest news with #VaccineIntegrityProject
Axios
2 days ago
- Health
- Axios
Doctors mount vaccine safety review to rival feds'
An ad-hoc group of infectious disease doctors and health researchers on Tuesday held a public meeting to review recent studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID, RSV and flu vaccines, in the belief the data isn't being adequately considered by federal health officials. Why it matters: The unusual online gathering of the newly formed Vaccine Integrity Project was intended to provide an evidence base for doctors and public health officials as they update recommendations for kids, pregnant women and immunocompromised people. The agenda resembled those of a vaccine advisory board to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that's come under scrutiny since Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged its 17 members and replaced them with a handpicked roster that includes some known vaccine skeptics. What they're saying:"Over the last few months, we've seen policy changes by federal officials based on evidence that has been shown as flawed, analytically fraught, or flat-out wrong," said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota and a leader of the initiative. "It's vital that providers and the public continue to have vaccine information they can rely on," he said during the meeting. HHS didn't respond to a request for comment. What they did: The group of 24 doctors and researchers from across the countryexamined scientific studies published since mid-2024 for COVID and RSV vaccines, and mid-2023 for flu. The group reviewed more than 14,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles and extracted data from 590 studies, including 50 controlled trials, Osterholm said. The effort is being funded by Alumbra, a foundation established by philanthropist and Walmart heiress Christy Walton. The panel found that recent research shows flu, COVID and RSV vaccines remain safe and effective for kids, pregnant women and immunocompromised people. Data continued to show a possible increased risk of preterm birth associated with Pfizer's RSV vaccine. Osterholm said there is no scientific evidence to justify Kennedy's recent decision to no longer recommend COVID vaccines for healthy pregnant women or children. Zoom out: The American Academy of Pediatrics on Tuesday separately released its immunization guidelines for flu, RSV and COVID-19 ahead of the fall respiratory virus season. For the first time, the group's guidelines diverge from the federal government's. The pediatricians recommend COVID vaccines for all kids between six and 23 months old, and for kids over 2 years old at risk for severe disease. The Trump administration earlier this year said it would require new randomized clinical trials for COVID boosters before authorizing them for healthy individuals. The American College for Obstetricians and Gynecologists earlier said it would release its own guidelines for respiratory virus vaccines during pregnancy in coordination with the Vaccine Integrity Project. Reality check: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccine recommendations that get approved by the CDC must be covered by health insurers. That's not the case for vaccine recommendations from medical associations.
CNN
25-06-2025
- Health
- CNN
Why Kennedy's overhaul of a key CDC committee could lead to ‘vaccine chaos' in the US
Vaccines Federal agencies Children's healthFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will gather this week for its second regular meeting of the year, but this won't be a typical meeting. Two weeks ago, US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of vaccine skepticism, upended the independent advisory panel and its planned agenda. All 17 of the previous members were dismissed, and eight new ones were added. Presentation topics central to anti-vaccine activists' arguments were placed on the schedule, despite studies and data about safety. The swift changes — and concerns that the committee lacks expertise and has potential conflicts of interest — are so concerning that some public health experts and officials said the country risks shifting into 'vaccine chaos,' with different vaccine recommendations at work, inconsistent access and uncertain insurance coverage. 'This week's meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is likely to mark its end – for now – as a vaccine advisory body,' said the staff and advisers of the Vaccine Integrity Project, a group that's seeking to preserve access to vaccines in the event that the government throttles it, in a viewpoint posted Monday. Dr. Peter Hotez, a pediatrician and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, said that in its new form, 'the ACIP is devoid of any meaningful expertise in vaccines or infectious diseases. It is organized to pursue a pseudoscience agenda. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars that should be dissolved.' It's a startling shift for a group that has been meeting for more than 60 years, and whose recommendations are so trusted that they're often written into state laws. ACIP has played a pivotal role in how vaccines are used in the United States. Like an orchestra conductor, it keeps the vaccine delivery system playing well together: directing doctors and other providers on how to use vaccines, telling insurance companies when to cover vaccines, giving states guidance on which vaccines to purchase, helping cities and counties decide which vaccines are needed for school enrollment and cueing the federal government on which vaccines to purchase for low-income children. 'Those recommendations are made in harmony with the input of a lot of consultants from professional groups so that we all agree then on what the recommendations are,' said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who has been participating in ACIP meetings for 40 years, both as a voting member and as a liaison member. 'Then, those recommendations basically become the standard of practice,' Schaffner said. 'So that makes the delivery of vaccines very smoothly functioning. Everybody knows who ought to get the vaccines and then when they get them.' With new uncertainty around ACIP, several groups, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have taken steps to convene and shape evidence-based recommendations, even without such guidance from the CDC's advisers. Some states — such as Maine, which this year celebrated record-high immunization rates in school-age kids — have also begun to strip vaccine access laws of references to ACIP recommendations. But experts are worried that a cacophony of recommendations, however well-meaning, may be confusing to insurers, health care providers and the public. 'We would have certainly, for a period of time, vaccine chaos,' Schaffner said, 'Because it would be uncertain for the providers and uncertain for the public who would be receiving the vaccines, whether your children, adolescents or adults, what was covered and what was recommended.' Plus, these outside recommendations wouldn't have the force of federal law behind them to compel insurance coverage, said Dr. Fiona Havers, a medical epidemiologist and former senior adviser on vaccine policy at the CDC. Havers recently quit over Kennedy's changes to the committee, saying she no longer had confidence that the data she generated would be viewed objectively or with appropriate scientific rigor. 'If this process continues to completely fall apart and the professional societies like the American Academy of Pediatrics put out their own schedules, that's fine, and that may be where we're going,' Havers said. 'But I personally would not want to trust my child's access to vaccines or my elderly parents' access to vaccines to the goodwill of the insurance companies to follow those recommendations instead of ACIP's.' Here's what to know about the CDC's vaccine committee ahead of its two-day meeting this week. ACIP is a group of experts — typically with specialties in pediatrics, infectious diseases, public health or vaccines — who make recommendations to the CDC on the use of vaccines. They tend to come from universities or medical schools. Some have been doctors in private practice. There's also typically a consumer representative on the panel. Despite Kennedy's claims when he removed all 17 previous members of the panel this month, members of the committee are closely scrutinized for conflicts of interest, and any conflicts are publicly disclosed. Members also recuse themselves from a vote if they have a financial interest in its outcome. As of Tuesday evening, HHS had not posted updated ethics statements or conflicts of interest reports for the new incoming members. Although the US Food and Drug Administration decides whether immunizations are allowed to be used in the United States, it's the CDC's job to recommend how those products should be used. It does so based on recommendations from ACIP. After a vote, ACIP recommendations are forwarded to the CDC director for approval. The CDC isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but ordinarily follows it. The HHS secretary has the final signoff. The committee typically meets three times a year to vote on the use of vaccines in the US, and more frequently during emergencies like Covid-19, when they met as often as once a week to pore over data from around the world. These meetings, which are public and typically broadcast, can span two or even three days. Kennedy has accused ACIP of being a 'rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,' but the committee hasn't always recommended the use of vaccines, even when they've already gotten approval from the FDA. After data showed that the FluMist nasal spray vaccine had little to no effectiveness during the 2015-16 flu season, the committee said it shouldn't be used during the next two flu seasons. FluMist was again recommended during the 2018-19 season after data demonstrated better effectiveness. In 2023, the first fall and winter season that the RSV vaccine was available for older adults, ACIP recommended it for adults 60 and older with shared decision-making, meaning it was available only after consultation with a health care provider on its risks and benefits. In 2024, ACIP removed the shared clinical decision-making requirement, making it easier to access. The panel recommended that adults 75 and older get one dose of any available RSV vaccine, while adults 60 to 74 needed one only if they were at higher risk of severe RSV infections. After Kennedy dismissed all 17 ACIP members who were appointed during the Biden administration, he replaced them with eight of his own picks. There can be up to 19 voting members, according to ACIP's charter. Most of the new members have little expertise in infectious diseases or vaccines, and some have served as expert witnesses in vaccine injury cases. One has been associated with a group that exaggerates the rare risks and harms of vaccines while casting doubt on their benefits. Another has done studies purporting to show the harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, reporting conclusions that run counter to most other evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these shots. Independent fact checks of these studies suggest that their conclusions may be based on flawed methods. Aside from voting members, there are two more tiers of membership. There are six 'ex-officio' members from government health agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the FDA. The meeting typically hears from these members about policy questions they can help answer. Ex-officio members don't typically vote, but they can do so if there aren't enough voting members to have a quorum – which is defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a majority, or one more than half. The last tier of membership includes the liaison members: non-voting members from the 30 nonprofits and professional groups that are spelled out in the committee's charter. Liaison members may be added by the HHS secretary. These members often speak up during discussions and after voting has taken place. As of Monday night, many of the liaison members had not been sent a video link to participate in the meeting, Schaffner said, when normally they would have gotten that already. Voting members can serve up to four-year terms. They are considered special government employees and subject to federal conflict of interest safeguards. They aren't paid for their service but are compensated for their travel to and from meetings and for their meals. In addition to regular meetings, members of ACIP convene outside of public meetings in 'work groups' that focus on a specific vaccine or disease of interest. These groups must include at least two voting members but may also consist of liaison and ex-officio members as well as outside experts. They often spend months making deep dives into medical research and present their findings to the voting members of the committee at each meeting. The working groups often look at vaccines that are nearing FDA approval, to be sure they are ready to issue advice shortly after that agency makes the determination that a vaccine is safe and effective. ACIP's recommendations are used in several ways: To guide patient care: ACIP sets what's known as the vaccine schedule, a table that charts out which inoculations should be given by what ages. Many states use these vaccines schedules to set their own policies for school enrollment, for example. To determine insurance coverage: Under the Affordable Care Act, when ACIP recommends a vaccine, it has to be covered by most insurance plans with no co-pays to patients. To determine which vaccines are purchased for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program: The CDC's Vaccines for Children program bulk purchases vaccines that are then distributed to states, which, in turn, distribute them to doctor's offices. It provides vaccines at no cost to children whose families wouldn't otherwise be able to afford the shots. Roughly half of children in the US get their vaccines through the VFC. To determine coverage by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: When ACIP recommends a vaccine for pregnant women and children, it is automatically added to the list of vaccines covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. As with many medical treatments, the benefits of vaccines come with rare risks. These risks, or adverse events, are maintained on a list by the program, which compensates people who've experienced them and can prove they are linked to a covered vaccine. Because the program shields vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits, it has come under fire from Kennedy, who has said that people should be able to file suit in court for their injuries.
CNN
25-06-2025
- Health
- CNN
Why Kennedy's overhaul of a key CDC committee could lead to ‘vaccine chaos' in the US
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will gather this week for its second regular meeting of the year, but this won't be a typical meeting. Two weeks ago, US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of vaccine skepticism, upended the independent advisory panel and its planned agenda. All 17 of the previous members were dismissed, and eight new ones were added. Presentation topics central to anti-vaccine activists' arguments were placed on the schedule, despite studies and data about safety. The swift changes — and concerns that the committee lacks expertise and has potential conflicts of interest — are so concerning that some public health experts and officials said the country risks shifting into 'vaccine chaos,' with different vaccine recommendations at work, inconsistent access and uncertain insurance coverage. 'This week's meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is likely to mark its end – for now – as a vaccine advisory body,' said the staff and advisers of the Vaccine Integrity Project, a group that's seeking to preserve access to vaccines in the event that the government throttles it, in a viewpoint posted Monday. Dr. Peter Hotez, a pediatrician and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, said that in its new form, 'the ACIP is devoid of any meaningful expertise in vaccines or infectious diseases. It is organized to pursue a pseudoscience agenda. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars that should be dissolved.' It's a startling shift for a group that has been meeting for more than 60 years, and whose recommendations are so trusted that they're often written into state laws. ACIP has played a pivotal role in how vaccines are used in the United States. Like an orchestra conductor, it keeps the vaccine delivery system playing well together: directing doctors and other providers on how to use vaccines, telling insurance companies when to cover vaccines, giving states guidance on which vaccines to purchase, helping cities and counties decide which vaccines are needed for school enrollment and cueing the federal government on which vaccines to purchase for low-income children. 'Those recommendations are made in harmony with the input of a lot of consultants from professional groups so that we all agree then on what the recommendations are,' said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who has been participating in ACIP meetings for 40 years, both as a voting member and as a liaison member. 'Then, those recommendations basically become the standard of practice,' Schaffner said. 'So that makes the delivery of vaccines very smoothly functioning. Everybody knows who ought to get the vaccines and then when they get them.' With new uncertainty around ACIP, several groups, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have taken steps to convene and shape evidence-based recommendations, even without such guidance from the CDC's advisers. Some states — such as Maine, which this year celebrated record-high immunization rates in school-age kids — have also begun to strip vaccine access laws of references to ACIP recommendations. But experts are worried that a cacophony of recommendations, however well-meaning, may be confusing to insurers, health care providers and the public. 'We would have certainly, for a period of time, vaccine chaos,' Schaffner said, 'Because it would be uncertain for the providers and uncertain for the public who would be receiving the vaccines, whether your children, adolescents or adults, what was covered and what was recommended.' Plus, these outside recommendations wouldn't have the force of federal law behind them to compel insurance coverage, said Dr. Fiona Havers, a medical epidemiologist and former senior adviser on vaccine policy at the CDC. Havers recently quit over Kennedy's changes to the committee, saying she no longer had confidence that the data she generated would be viewed objectively or with appropriate scientific rigor. 'If this process continues to completely fall apart and the professional societies like the American Academy of Pediatrics put out their own schedules, that's fine, and that may be where we're going,' Havers said. 'But I personally would not want to trust my child's access to vaccines or my elderly parents' access to vaccines to the goodwill of the insurance companies to follow those recommendations instead of ACIP's.' Here's what to know about the CDC's vaccine committee ahead of its two-day meeting this week. ACIP is a group of experts — typically with specialties in pediatrics, infectious diseases, public health or vaccines — who make recommendations to the CDC on the use of vaccines. They tend to come from universities or medical schools. Some have been doctors in private practice. There's also typically a consumer representative on the panel. Despite Kennedy's claims when he removed all 17 previous members of the panel this month, members of the committee are closely scrutinized for conflicts of interest, and any conflicts are publicly disclosed. Members also recuse themselves from a vote if they have a financial interest in its outcome. As of Tuesday evening, HHS had not posted updated ethics statements or conflicts of interest reports for the new incoming members. Although the US Food and Drug Administration decides whether immunizations are allowed to be used in the United States, it's the CDC's job to recommend how those products should be used. It does so based on recommendations from ACIP. After a vote, ACIP recommendations are forwarded to the CDC director for approval. The CDC isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but ordinarily follows it. The HHS secretary has the final signoff. The committee typically meets three times a year to vote on the use of vaccines in the US, and more frequently during emergencies like Covid-19, when they met as often as once a week to pore over data from around the world. These meetings, which are public and typically broadcast, can span two or even three days. Kennedy has accused ACIP of being a 'rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,' but the committee hasn't always recommended the use of vaccines, even when they've already gotten approval from the FDA. After data showed that the FluMist nasal spray vaccine had little to no effectiveness during the 2015-16 flu season, the committee said it shouldn't be used during the next two flu seasons. FluMist was again recommended during the 2018-19 season after data demonstrated better effectiveness. In 2023, the first fall and winter season that the RSV vaccine was available for older adults, ACIP recommended it for adults 60 and older with shared decision-making, meaning it was available only after consultation with a health care provider on its risks and benefits. In 2024, ACIP removed the shared clinical decision-making requirement, making it easier to access. The panel recommended that adults 75 and older get one dose of any available RSV vaccine, while adults 60 to 74 needed one only if they were at higher risk of severe RSV infections. After Kennedy dismissed all 17 ACIP members who were appointed during the Biden administration, he replaced them with eight of his own picks. There can be up to 19 voting members, according to ACIP's charter. Most of the new members have little expertise in infectious diseases or vaccines, and some have served as expert witnesses in vaccine injury cases. One has been associated with a group that exaggerates the rare risks and harms of vaccines while casting doubt on their benefits. Another has done studies purporting to show the harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, reporting conclusions that run counter to most other evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these shots. Independent fact checks of these studies suggest that their conclusions may be based on flawed methods. Aside from voting members, there are two more tiers of membership. There are six 'ex-officio' members from government health agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the FDA. The meeting typically hears from these members about policy questions they can help answer. Ex-officio members don't typically vote, but they can do so if there aren't enough voting members to have a quorum – which is defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a majority, or one more than half. The last tier of membership includes the liaison members: non-voting members from the 30 nonprofits and professional groups that are spelled out in the committee's charter. Liaison members may be added by the HHS secretary. These members often speak up during discussions and after voting has taken place. As of Monday night, many of the liaison members had not been sent a video link to participate in the meeting, Schaffner said, when normally they would have gotten that already. Voting members can serve up to four-year terms. They are considered special government employees and subject to federal conflict of interest safeguards. They aren't paid for their service but are compensated for their travel to and from meetings and for their meals. In addition to regular meetings, members of ACIP convene outside of public meetings in 'work groups' that focus on a specific vaccine or disease of interest. These groups must include at least two voting members but may also consist of liaison and ex-officio members as well as outside experts. They often spend months making deep dives into medical research and present their findings to the voting members of the committee at each meeting. The working groups often look at vaccines that are nearing FDA approval, to be sure they are ready to issue advice shortly after that agency makes the determination that a vaccine is safe and effective. ACIP's recommendations are used in several ways: To guide patient care: ACIP sets what's known as the vaccine schedule, a table that charts out which inoculations should be given by what ages. Many states use these vaccines schedules to set their own policies for school enrollment, for example. To determine insurance coverage: Under the Affordable Care Act, when ACIP recommends a vaccine, it has to be covered by most insurance plans with no co-pays to patients. To determine which vaccines are purchased for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program: The CDC's Vaccines for Children program bulk purchases vaccines that are then distributed to states, which, in turn, distribute them to doctor's offices. It provides vaccines at no cost to children whose families wouldn't otherwise be able to afford the shots. Roughly half of children in the US get their vaccines through the VFC. To determine coverage by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: When ACIP recommends a vaccine for pregnant women and children, it is automatically added to the list of vaccines covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. As with many medical treatments, the benefits of vaccines come with rare risks. These risks, or adverse events, are maintained on a list by the program, which compensates people who've experienced them and can prove they are linked to a covered vaccine. Because the program shields vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits, it has come under fire from Kennedy, who has said that people should be able to file suit in court for their injuries.
NBC News
22-06-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Outside groups organize to form unbiased, independent vaccine panel
In the wake of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to shake up a key federal vaccine advisory committee, outside medical organizations and independent experts are looking for alternate sources of unbiased information and even considering forming a group of their own. A leading contender is a new group led by Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert and the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm is launching the Vaccine Integrity Project at CIDRAP as a potential alternative to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 'We've always just taken for granted that routine child immunizations and other vaccines would be readily available and that they would be supported by the public health system,' Osterholm said. 'Now that's in question.' Earlier this month, Kennedy fired all 17 members from ACIP, appointing in their place eight new members, many of whom have expressed vaccine-skeptical views or questioned pandemic restrictions. Kennedy himself has a long history of anti-vaccination activism. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the new ACIP members a ' radical departure' from the committee's mission of protecting kids. ACIP holds a significant amount of influence over vaccinations in the U.S.; the panel is responsible for setting the childhood vaccination schedule and determining what vaccines are given free of charge under the Vaccines for Children Program. Its recommendations guide what vaccinations are required for attending public school and what shots insurance covers. 'The real risk is that families and patients may not have access to vaccines' if the panel makes changes to their recommendations, said Dr. Molly O'Shea, a pediatrician in Michigan. 'The ramifications are deep,' said Dr. Michelle Taylor, a pediatrician and the director of the Shelby County Health Department in Memphis, Tennessee. 'Any school system that is requiring immunizations for school entry is looking for those ACIP recommendations, either directly from the CDC, from the Department of Education, if they are filtered there, or from their local or state health departments.' CIDRAP is now consulting with multiple medical organizations and public health groups — including the AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Pharmacists Association, the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, as well as insurance providers — to discuss vaccine recommendations. Insurance companies rely on ACIP's guidance on which vaccines to cover. But if enough reputable public health groups come up with recommendations different from ACIP's, Osterholm said those groups could sway insurance companies on which shots to cover. Although vaccination rates have been slipping in recent years, the vast majority of American families do vaccinate their kids. The CDC reported that 92.7% of kindergartners in the 2023-24 school year had received their routine childhood vaccines. Parents depend on guidance from pediatricians on which shots to give and when. Those pediatricians rely on CDC guidance. 'Pediatricians have one goal, and that's to keep every child healthy and safe in every community. That is what we wake up every morning thinking about. That is what we go to sleep thinking about at night,' said Dr. Susan Kressly, the president of the AAP. 'If pediatricians are not standing up for what children and families deserve and need, then who?' Some major medical organizations are voicing their concerns about Kennedy's anti-vaccine actions. The American Medical Association has asked Congress to investigate Kennedy's handling of ACIP. States are also taking action. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services defied the HHS declaration that the federal government would no longer recommend Covid shots for healthy children and pregnant women. 'The recent changes in CDC guidance were not made based on new data, evidence, or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes,' the state's department of health wrote in a press release. The Illinois Department of Public Health criticized Kennedy's gutting of ACIP, saying on X that the secretary had a 'misunderstanding of how vaccine trials work.' ACIP's approach ACIP was formed in 1972 as an independent panel of experts to educate the federal government on vaccines. The committee —composed of experts including pediatricians, geriatricians, infectious disease doctors, immunologists and vaccinologists — has three regular meetings a year to pore over the evidence for new or updated vaccines. All meetings are open to the public and are streamed online. The panel may also be convened outside of those regular meetings. During the Covid pandemic, for example, the committee reviewed rare reports of a heart problem called myocarditis in some young men who'd had the Covid shot. The committee also recommended against the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine after it was linked to rare but potentially deadly blood clots. Recommendations from ACIP are usually adopted by the director of the CDC. But there isn't any CDC director at the moment. President Donald Trump's pick for the job, Susan Monarez, has a scheduled confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25 — the same day Kennedy's new ACIP members will meet for the first time. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy is the ultimate authority and has the ability to override ACIP recommendations. He flexed this rarely used muscle in May by announcing — without any input from ACIP — that the Covid vaccine would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. ACIP members have historically gone through an extensive vetting process to ensure their expertise. If members have conflicts of interest, they recuse themselves from votes. An HHS spokesman said its eight new ACIP members were thoroughly vetted, but not did not offer specifics. Two members, Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Dr. Robert Malone, were previously paid experts in trials involving Merck vaccines. Another, Vicky Pebsworth, served as an expert witness in a federal lawsuit brought by activists who sought to outlaw childhood vaccination mandates. The case was dismissed in 2021. Vaccine skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. 'True scientists ask critical questions in a way that doesn't presume the answer,' the AAP's O'Shea said. 'What has made America great, however, is our medical and scientific innovation. To undermine that is gravely concerning to me.'
New York Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
13 Ways to Save Health and Science
The early months of Donald Trump's presidency have brought sweeping changes to the country's scientific and medical landscape. Deep cuts to research funding and widespread layoffs have threatened progress in medicine, energy, climate science and other key fields — areas where the United States has long been a global leader. The future is uncertain, but decline isn't inevitable. Times Opinion asked experts across disciplines to share concrete ways that individuals, organizations and local leaders can keep science and health efforts moving forward. Here are their ideas. 1. Protect vaccination. Dr. Margaret Hamburg, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner: As the Trump administration moves to halt areas of vaccine research, drops funding for vaccine clinics and deletes vaccine information from government websites, it's crucial to find ways to ensure that vaccine availability and use remains grounded in the best available science. The Vaccine Integrity Project is a new initiative that will be making recommendations about how to continue vaccination programs to avert death, disability and hospitalizations from preventable diseases. We see it as a precaution against potential threats, including the politicization of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory committee, an unchecked expansion of the measles and whooping cough outbreaks or the loss of state and local immunization program support. 2. Get creative with state policies. Josh Green, governor of Hawaii: In May, Hawaii became the first state to pass a climate impact fee that will enable us to protect ourselves against future climate-related disasters like the devastating Maui fires. A small 0.75 percent increase in the hotel tax for all travelers to Hawaii will generate $100 million per year, which may also be used to bond $1 billion annually. These resources will fund new research, development and deployment of strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions, protecting and restoring ecosystems and building climate-resilient infrastructure and communities. This is just one example of how state and local governments can take control of their own fates and survive harsh federal cuts. 3. Get mad in public. Dr. Kate Marvel, climate scientist: Scientists are trained to support conclusions with evidence, not emotion. But rational arguments can't stop irrational decisions. The people firing scientists and erasing data will tell you coal is clean, the climate isn't changing and weather forecasting is unimportant. They are lying. In response, scientists can tell the truth. Not just in papers and talks but in the media, in our communities and on the streets. The fear of retaliation is real, and not everyone can speak up. But those of us who can should get angry, get loud, and show that mad scientists are a force to be reckoned with. 4. File a lawsuit. Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, Doctors for America board member: Days after the Trump administration purged thousands of pages from federal public health agency websites, Doctors for America, an advocacy organization of over 27,000 physicians and medical students, filed a lawsuit to restore and protect these essential sources. The websites contain critical resources for treating patients, data to improve medical practices and public health and guidance to ensure that clinical trials for new treatments are designed to reflect demographics in the real world. We were successfully granted a temporary restraining order that has led to the restoration of several of these websites, and we continue to fight in court for access to them. 5. Lean on other scientists. Brandon Jones, president of the American Geophysical Union: Scientific societies — professional organizations that represent researchers in specific fields — have a long history of stepping in when politics interferes with research. After the Trump administration suspended work in April on the U.S. government's flagship report on the impacts of climate change, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society partnered with plans to publish some of the research so the public can still access the findings. We've also surveyed our membership to document the erosion of scientific expertise in government, and we are legally challenging executive actions that threaten research. As the government terminates studies on environmental risks, we're helping local communities do the work themselves. 6. Donate effectively. Zachary Robinson, chief executive of the Center for Effective Altruism: Recent cuts of over $1 billion toward global health initiatives could result in hundreds of thousands to millions of excess deaths each year, according to some estimates. It's easy to feel powerless in the face of these numbers — but we aren't. Those of us earning $62,000 a year post-tax are in the top 1 percent of the world's wealthiest. Not only do many of us have the means to help, we also have access to research from organizations like GiveWell to identify the most effective way to direct donations. GiveWell estimates it costs between $3,500 and $5,500 to save a life through organizations working on malaria prevention, nutrition and vaccinations. By donating 10 percent of their take-home pay, an American household can save a life every single year. 7. Create a mini N.I.H. Andrew Marks, professor of physiology at Columbia University: We need a new funding model for science research. I propose the creation of the American Research Collaborative, a kind of mini-National Institutes of Health that could provide funding for universities. The A.R.C. would be led by a governing board elected by member organizations like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Universities could opt in, and the collaborative's tax-exempt status would attract private donors. Research groups could apply for grants with a short proposal and selection of their recent publications. Artificial intelligence could help rank the most promising applications and send off the top quarter for expert review. This system could provide stable, nonpolitical research support that complements the N.I.H. and help keep the system afloat during dry spells in funding. 8. Use opioid settlement funds for addiction care. Maia Szalavitz, journalist covering addiction: The Trump administration canceled around $1 billion in grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which funds essential addiction treatment and overdose prevention measures. (Mr. Trump's proposed budget would eliminate funding to the agency.) Medicaid, which covers a large proportion of addiction treatment, is also facing huge cuts. Now, with $50 billion from the opioid lawsuit settlements on its way to states, advocates must push to ensure that money fills funding gaps and supports approaches including 12-step programs, peer counseling, syringe exchanges and distribution of the overdose antidote naloxone. They can also keep pressuring the government to restore federal funding. 9. Support patient-led research. Fiona Lowenstein, writer, editor and founder of Body Politic: When health agencies fracture, we shouldn't forget the power of patients. Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, a strained health care system and confusing messages left those of us developing long Covid without guidance. So we built our own resources and infrastructure. The Body Politic Covid-19 support group grew to over 14,000 members in over 30 countries — a space for support and patient-led research, including surveys of our experiences and symptoms. The work helped secure recognition that our illness is real, leading to updated C.D.C. symptom lists, funding for N.I.H. research and the creation of long Covid clinics. Peer-to-peer support is always important, but it becomes vital during new disease outbreaks. 10. Join a humanitarian aid organization. Dr. Craig Spencer, Doctors Without Borders physician during the 2014 Ebola outbreak and other crises: As a frontline medical worker, I've seen what happens when the world turns its back on global health: Clinics go without supplies, communities go without health care and lives hang in the balance. As the United States slashes support for global health, humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders are often all that remain. They need more people willing to deliver emergency medical aid to people in crisis. Joining isn't just about providing care. It's about standing with those the world has left behind. It's about recognizing our shared humanity and responding to malnutrition emergencies, displacement and disease outbreaks with action. Even if our government won't show up, we still can. 11. Build new alliances. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, co-founder of United by Nature: In January, over 100 scientists outside the federal government were struggling to come to grips with the administration's cancellation of years of work on what would have been the first ever federal assessment of nature. We refused to quit. So we created a new path to deliver the report and show why the information matters. The initiative, called United by Nature, will have a governing body, advisers and partners, independent peer review and extensive public engagement. It's a phoenix rising from the ashes: a new alliance of scientists, engineers, economists, health experts, policy experts, funders, businesses, conservation organizations and artists, all determined to deliver what the federal government should be doing but isn't. 12. Replace research into vulnerable groups. Dr. Jack Turban, pediatric psychiatrist and scientist: The G.O.P.'s approach to transgender youth is incoherent. On the one hand, they say there isn't enough science in this area. On the other, they canceled grants for transgender health research and refuse to issue new ones — a recent Times report found that nearly half of recent N.I.H. grant cancellations were for L.G.B.T.Q.-health-related research. States should fund health research for vulnerable groups the Trump administration has abandoned. California Senate Bill 829, which would create the California Institute for Scientific Research, is model legislation that replaces funding cuts from the federal government, potentially including areas like transgender health research. It's essential other states establish similar institutes. 13. Call your senator. Really. Kathleen Sebelius, former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services: While there are many ways states and organizations can and should take action, there is no replacement for the direct involvement of the federal government in research. The grants to universities for bench science in labs throughout the country, combined with the cutting-edge research at the N.I.H., have returned huge economic and health benefits to Americans. Federal budget cuts to this infrastructure cannot be replaced by the private sector, and will also encourage a brain drain of scientists and researchers. We will be relegated to importing blockbuster medications from other countries. This is preventable if Congress refuses to accept these devastating cuts. Americans must directly implore their representatives and senators to take action. These calls make a difference.
