Since being appointed by President Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made a lot of unprecedented decisions while running the Department of Health and Human Services. Indeed, America’s newest health czar has largely thrown out all common wisdom when it comes to stuff like vaccines and whether you need a medical background to run the CDC.
Kennedy has rolled out countless bizarre and harmful policies at the HHS over the past year, including attacks on the agency’s vaccine program. Earlier this year, under his supervision, the agency fired thousands of staff. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention saw many prominent staffers (including its director) step down in protest of Kennedy’s policies.
As a result of RFK Jr.’s bizarre behavior and policy decisions, a large number of health professionals have publicly criticized him and called into question the legitimacy of his leadership. The latest voices to express concern are six former U.S. Surgeons General, who penned an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Tuesday. The article warns that Kennedy’s policies pose a “profound, immediate and unprecedented threat” to the nation, and that the HHS head is putting at risk. The letter reads:
Over recent months, we have watched with increasing alarm as the foundations of our nation’s public health system have been undermined. Science and expertise have taken a back seat to ideology and misinformation. Morale has plummeted in our health agencies, and talent is fleeing at a time when we face rising threats — from resurgent infectious diseases to worsening chronic illnesses.
The letter continues:
Repairing this damage requires a leader who respects scientific integrity and transparency, listens to experts and can restore trust to the federal health apparatus. Instead, Kennedy has become a driving force behind this crisis.
The letter stresses the bipartisan nature of the signees, noting that they represent a group of professionals “appointed by every Republican and Democratic president since George H.W. Bush.” The signees include Jerome Adams, Richard Carmon, Joycelyn Elders, Vivek Murthy, Antonia Novello, and David Satcher. Murthy served under both Biden and Trump during his first term.
The former health leaders point specifically to Kennedy’s attacks on vaccine science as a clear and present sign that he is not fit to lead the agency tasked with regulating vaccines. The letter notes:
More recently, Kennedy removed every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing its scientific experts with individuals who often lacked basic qualifications, some of whom are vaccine conspiracy theorists. The new committee has already begun casting doubt on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, despite decades of data affirming its effectiveness and strong safety profile.
The former health leaders are not alone. Over the past year, a variety of organizations have argued that Kennedy should be fired. Most recently, two separate psychiatric organizations said that RFK Jr. was unfit to serve, arguing that his decision to gut the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration had put lives at risk. Last month, over a thousand HHS staffers signed a letter to President Trump that stated that Kennedy had endangered “the nation’s health” and should be fired or forced to resign. Around the same time, 61 different health and advocacy organizations signed a separate letter similarly asking that Kennedy be let go. Earlier this year, nine former directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked that Kennedy be fired, noting that Kennedy’s activities “should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.” Gizmodo reached out to the HHS for comment.
(CNN) — The US Supreme Court will hear a case Tuesday that will determine whether a Colorado law that prohibits licensed mental health professionals from providing conversion “therapy” to minors is constitutional.
Conversion or reparative therapy promises to “convert” people from being gay, lesbian or bisexual to straight, or to change transgender and nonconforming individuals into people who identify with the sex they were labeled at birth. Research has found that the practice doesn’t work and can even be dangerous: It significantly increases a person’s risk of suicide and can cause other long-term health problems, such as depression, anxiety and high blood pressure. Children who undergo conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to run away.
Despite state bans, a 2023 report found more than 1,300 conversion therapy practitioners working in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The report, from the Trevor Project, a suicide prevention organization for LGBTQ+ youth, found 600 practitioners hold active professional licenses and 700 operate in an official religious capacity. The number is likely an undercount since, the report said, because conversion therapy is “increasingly underground and conducted in secret with many practitioners not publicly advertising their services in a way that can be documented.”
A 2023 national survey found that 1 in 20 LGBTQ+ young people had been subjected to conversion therapy in the US. Nearly 200,000 people who identify as transgender have gone through some form of conversion therapy, according to a 2019 study published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the therapy may become even more common as the Trump administration pushes health care providers to offer a version of this therapy as the only kind of care for children who identify as transgender.
“The government is paving the way for a lot of harm and a lot of damage,” said Dr. Meera Shah, a family medicine physician in New York and a national board member for the professional group Physicians for Reproductive Health.
Drew, an ICU nurse in Central Valley, California, who identifies as a trans man, believes that his parents inadvertently brought him to a conversion therapist when he was 9. He asked that CNN not use his last name for his safety.
When he was old enough to pick his haircut and clothes, Drew said, he knew what his gender identity was but didn’t have the words to explain. Choosing cowboy shirts and boots incorrectly signaled to his parents that he struggled with his gender identity.
“So they put me in therapy to fix that,” Drew said. “I don’t know if my mom understood what she was signing me up for.”
The experience still traumatizes Drew, he says, although the details of what happened in those sessions remain fuzzy. “Rather, I have traumatic flashbacks instead,” he said.
What happens in conversion therapy?
Professionals may have different methods to try to convince someone that they are not LGBTQ+. Some use traditional talk therapy, enforcing the idea that being transgender or being gay/bi is a pathology that can be “cured” and even arguing that peer pressure is to blame.
Counselors may also use behavioral modification therapy as they frame non-heterosexual or non-stereotypical gendered behavior as an “addiction” or a “compulsion.” They might encourage patients to avoid “triggers” like going to an LGBTQ+-friendly club or wearing a certain outfit and praise them for engaging in stereotypical gendered activity like wearing certain clothing or hairstyles.
They may also probe a patient’s past to determine whether an underlying issues like unprocessed trauma, abuse, mental illness or autism could have led to gender-nonconforming feelings.
There’s also a long history of documented aversion practices, including electric shock, ice baths, burning with metal coils or giving nausea-inducing drugs. Using these techniques, some may try to shame the patient about their gender or orientation, pray with them or even use exorcism as a “cure.”
When Dr. Morissa Ladinsky worked in Alabama, she said, trans patients told her that their parents put them in conversion therapy that tried to “turn the God that they loved against them.”
The approach was traumatizing, said Ladinsky, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Stanford Medicine. But there was one exception: a patient who said, “the God that I’ve grown to love would never make me this way only to turn around and marginalize me.”
Risks from conversion therapy
The process can create lasting damage and may lead to depression, anxiety, sexual problems, substance use, low self-esteem, self-blame and a lifetime of physical health problems, including high blood pressure and increased systemic inflammation, studies show.
Conversion therapy can also lead to suicide. A 2019 study found that trans people who experienced gender identity change efforts were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide than peers who had other therapy. For children under 10, the relative risk of attempted suicide was four times as high. And trans people were 1.5 times more likely than peers who went through other therapies to experience “severe psychological distress,” the study found.
A 2020 report from the Williams Institute, a public policy research center focused on sexual orientation and gender identity at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, found that lesbian, gay and bisexual people who experienced conversion therapy were almost twice as likely to think about suicide and attempt suicide compared with peers who hadn’t had undergone such counseling.
“Conversion therapy – which we know isn’t actually therapy – isolates and harms kids, it scapegoats parents, and it really does divide families through blame and rejection,” said Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project. “No amount of pressure or talk, including conversion practices, can make a transgender person not transgender.
“This is a debunked, discredited fringe ideology.”
Ahead of the Supreme Court argument, the Trevor Project, in conjunction with American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, filed a friend of the court brief presenting peer-reviewed data on the serious mental health harms that conversion therapy causes LGBTQ+ youth.
Drew, the California ICU nurse, doesn’t remember much about his therapy sessions. But he does remember sobbing every Monday and Friday when his grandfather picked him up for his appointment at 2 p.m. on the dot.
Even years later, Drew said, he’d shake uncontrollably when he’d visit his parents and drive past the building where his appointments had been.
“It took me a long time to recognize why that was,” Drew said, his voice catching and pausing for deep breathing exercises to calm his nerves.
“The experience was damaging beyond my ability to explain to you,” he said. “It was damaging in ways that, 40 years later, I’m still uncovering and working through with the help of a good therapist who is practicing a kind of therapy that is actually helpful and affirmative for myself as a whole human.”
Trump administration actions
The Supreme Court case is unfolding as President Donald Trump’s administration has put a new focus on LGBTQ people.
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a letter to health systems in May that they should not rely on science-based professional guidelines for transgender children but should instead follow a highly controversial HHS review of the evidence on current care practices for pediatric gender dysphoria — a term that mental health professionals use to describe the clinically significant distress that happens when a person’s sense of gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.
The Trump administration report essentially says the only kind of care that health systems should provide children who identify as transgender are psychotherapeutic approaches including gender exploratory therapy, which discourages gender affirmation in favor of exploring the pathological roots of the young person’s trans identity. The review describes such a practice as “trying to help children and adolescents come to terms with their bodies” and equates the distress they feel related to their gender with normal “discomfort with the sexed body or with societal based expectations is common during puberty and adolescence.”
Then, at the start of Pride Month in June, the FBI encouraged whistleblowers to report health providers that offered other kinds of care.
The federal pressure on health systems worked. Among other programs, the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles announced in July it was shutting down. Children’s National in Washington, D.C, said in August that due to “escalating legal and regulatory risks” it would be “discontinuing the prescription of gender-affirming medications,” but would continue to offer mental health and other support services.
Research shows that exploratory therapy is far from neutral. The practice views a trans identity as maladaptive, pathological or simply wrong, experts said, and sees a cisgender identity — a gender identity that aligns with the sex assigned at birth — as normative, “healthier, preferable, and superior to a transgender or gender nonbinary identity,” according to the American Psychological Association, which is highly critical of the practice.
The 400+ page review that Kennedy cited, whose authors remain anonymous, says it “is not intended to serve as a clinical practice guideline and does not aim to issue treatment recommendations,” but it claims that current practices are not safe and lack a scientific basis.
Evidence about providing therapy alone is “of very low certainty,” the review says, but it lauds countries that use “exploratory” therapy alone and claims this practice is at least a “noninvasive invention” that carries “little risk” and takes a “neutral” stand that may “effectively resolve the condition noninvasively.”
“The concept of ‘noninvasive’ makes no sense here if we’re looking at mental health. What does that even really mean?” asked Florence Ashley, a Canadian law professor who wrote a book about laws banning transgender conversion practices. “If one of the things that we look at is suicidality, that’s pretty f**king invasive. You’re dead.”
Dr. Carl Streed, a clinical researcher specializing in LGBTQ+ health and an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, said it’s hypocritical of the Trump administration to say there isn’t enough evidence to justify the individually tailored care typically provided to transgender youth — which is backed by dozens of medical organizations and may include therapy, social and legal help, and for older patients, hormones or surgery — while acknowledging that therapy alone is “of very low certainty.”
“The report really provides no other alternative other than conversion therapy, and because it is from the HHS, it is essentially going to be a ‘legitimizing report.’ And it’s going to be used to eventually change policies around the provision of care,” Streed added.
HHS says in the report that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy. But because the aim of the practice is to “resolve” the issue of gender rather than resolve the distress the person feels about their gender, experts say it is conversion therapy by a different name.
“Honestly, whenever anybody says ‘gender exploratory therapy,’ they really are talking about conversion therapy,” Streed said. “They’re not talking about anything that acknowledges people’s full spectrum of gender.”
In California, Drew said that while he’s still working through the trauma he experienced in conversion therapy, it hasn’t held him back from having a successful career, a happy marriage and kids. And even though it’s difficult to talk about, he wants parents to know about his experience.
“I don’t want anybody else to go through what I went through, and if another parent out there can hear that conversion therapy will be harmful to their child and consider a different way to move forward, that Is worth any discomfort or pain that I have now talking about it,” Drew said.
Despite the trauma, he bears no ill will toward his childhood therapist.
“My parents eventually saw me for who I am, and they accepted me and loved me and had been extremely supportive of me,” Drew said. “So I’d like to give that therapist the grace that perhaps they could have learned and grown as a therapist and understood the harm that they were causing and learn to do better by trans youth.”
(CNN) — The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention signed off on a recommendation that patients must consult a health care provider to get a Covid-19 vaccine, although they don’t necessarily need a prescription.
The updated CDC recommendation — made by a new panel of vaccine advisers chosen by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — shifted away from a broader push in past years for most people to get an updated Covid-19 vaccine. It became final with signoff from Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill.
The new recommendations mean people ages 6 months and older can get Covid-19 vaccines after consulting with a qualified health care provider, which keeps the shots available but may also create more barriers to access than in past years.
Before the finalized recommendation this year, access to Covid-19 shots has differed from state to state as pharmacies and providers navigated new federal vaccine policies. CVS, which had previously limited access to Covid-19 shots in some places, said Monday that it was “updating our systems to be able to offer the updated COVID-19 vaccines to patients nationwide” and that “prescriptions from outside prescribers will no longer be required in any states.”
The signoff is also coming later than usual for the fall respiratory virus season. With the recommendation, the government can finally distribute Covid-19 vaccines through its Vaccines for Children program, which provides free inoculations to about half of US children.
The CDC’s independent vaccine advisers, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, voted unanimously last month that people who want a Covid-19 vaccine should consult with a health care provider, a process called shared clinical decision-making. However, they narrowly voted down a recommendation that a prescription should be required to get the shot.
In August, the US Food and Drug Administration moved to limit approval of Covid-19 vaccines to adults 65 and older as well as younger people who are at higher risk of severe illness because of other health conditions.
A study published last month in the journal JAMA Network Open found that a universal Covid-19 vaccine recommendation — as had been in place for the US in recent years — could save thousands more lives than limiting the recommendation to high-risk groups.
Experts said that even requiring shared clinical decision-making could make Covid-19 shots harder to get.
The recommendation “assumes health care and insurance,” said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who recently resigned as head of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “We do not have universal health care in this country, and we know millions of people are losing insurance.”
HHS said it was bringing back “informed consent” ahead of vaccination.
“CDC’s 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual COVID-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today,” O’Neill, who is also the deputy secretary of HHS, said in a statement.
Another new recommendation will mean toddlers get their first vaccines against measles and chickenpox separately, around their first birthdays. In this case, the ACIP guidance formalizes an existing recommendation, which is designed to reduce a very rare, slightly elevated risk of seizures when the two shots are combined into a single injection.
The CDC advisers said that the single-dose measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine was not recommended before age 4 and that younger kids should get the varicella vaccine, which protects against chickenpox, separately from the shot that protects against measles, mumps and rubella.
If you’ve never before heard of the national vaccine court, you’re hardly alone. It sits inconspicuously, a few hundred yards from the White House; and stands as a model of effective public policy, balancing the societal good of widespread vaccination with rare individual harm. Founded in the 1980s, the court has, with little fanfare, paid out billions of dollars to Americans who have claimed injury after getting a vaccine. Today, with vaccine skepticism rising and given voice in the highest ranks of government, we wondered: can this singular court block out the noise, withstand the political winds, and stay true to its mission?
Jacob Thompson is 13 years old. He loves airplanes, swimming and Chick-fil-A. But Jacob can speak only a handful of words and needs help walking more than a few yards.
Jacob was born in St. Louis on New Year’s Eve, 2011, rounding out a family of four, with sister Meili and parents John and Huali — he, a pilot for FedEx; she, a recent immigrant from China.
John Thompson: We had this perfectly normal, happy little baby. He would be able to jump up and down on my wife’s lap, and very alert, recognized who mom and dad was.
At his six-month checkup, Jacob received a combination shot that included the recommended childhood vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, or DTaP, all deemed safe and effective in clinical trials.
John and Jacob Thompson
60 Minutes
Hours later, Jacob began to seize. Doctors hoped it was a one-time reaction. It wasn’t.
John Thompson: Within I’d say six months or less, he didn’t know that we were mom and dad anymore, and he was slithering on the floor like a snake.
Jon Wertheim: Unrecognizable–
John Thompson: Un– yeah.
Jon Wertheim: –from the child you knew?
John Thompson: Yeah.
By age two, Jacob could suffer up to 700 seizures in one day. He was diagnosed with a rare and severe form of epilepsy.
The Thompsons became increasingly convinced that his condition could be traced back to his six-month vaccinations. And, they began to seek accountability. They took their case to attorney Renée Gentry.
She’s a leading vaccine injury litigator and director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.
Renée Gentry: I represent both vaccine-injured children and adults. All of my clients are vaccinated. Most of them will start the conversation by saying, “I’m not anti-vax.”
Jon Wertheim: Why do you think they need to tell you right off the bat they’re not anti-vax, but?
Renée Gentry: There’s a lot of public pressure when you say that you have a vaccine injury, that people think you’re some kind of a crazy person or you’re out there. And also, because most people have never heard of a vaccine injury. They’re rare.
So rare that, while hard to quantify precisely, the chances of serious vaccine injury have been likened to lottery odds, lightning strikes. Bear in mind, in total, global immunization has saved an estimated 154 million lives, six lives each minute.
But when an injury does occur, families can come to vaccine court, seen in this informational video.
Part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the court was established in response to a public health scare in the 1980s.
When families of injured children went to civil court and successfully sued the manufacturers of the DTP vaccine, an older version of DTaP, it caused all but one of those drug companies to pull out of the market, resulting in vaccine shortages.
Congress acted, crafting a bipartisan bill that partially shielded drug manufacturers from liability so they would continue to develop life-saving vaccines.
And, at the same time, Congress acknowledged that vaccines can cause injury. As bill sponsor Sen. Ted Kennedy described, when children are, “…the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate Government will assist them in their hour of need.”
Renée Gentry
60 Minutes
Renée Gentry: It was hailed as such a unique accomplishment back in the day because you had these disparate groups, you had the parents of vaccine-injured children together in the room with, with the manufacturers and everybody agreed that this was the best-case scenario.
Jon Wertheim: Is that fair to the public? They think they have an injury caused by a vaccine, but they can’t sue the vaccine manufacturer directly?
Renée Gentry: You can still opt out of this program and sue a manufacturer. You have to just start in this program. But it’s a lower burden of proof in our program. So it’s an easier thing for vaccine-injured people to get compensation.
Drug companies are not only not being sued; they’re not part of the proceedings. Vaccine court is a “no fault” court, meaning in cases like Jacob Thompson’s, negligence does not need to be proven, just that the vaccine, more likely than not, caused the injury.
Vaccine court is not your typical court. There’s no jury. Cases are decided in front of one of eight judges called special masters. Since the program began in the late ’80s, 12,000 Americans have received almost $5 billion in payouts. There are no financial windfalls for lawyers — the court pays them by the hour. Where does all this money come from? A 75-cent tax, imposed on recommended childhood vaccines, goes into a trust fund earmarked for vaccine injury compensation.
In July the Thompsons received a judgment of $2.1 million based on the special master’s ruling that it was more probable than not that Jacob’s six-month vaccinations aggravated an underlying genetic mutation. Jacob also received a lifetime annuity to cover his future care.
Jon Wertheim: Is there any doubt that the vaccine caused Jacob’s injury?
Renée Gentry: We can’t ever prove scientific certainty on it.
Jon Wertheim: Does that not mean though that some cases are being compensated when in fact the science might not support it?
Renée Gentry: Sure. Sure. And that’s what Congress intended. There’s very clear indication that said it would be better to compensate somebody that wasn’t injured than to miss somebody who was.
Jon Wertheim: How do you feel about that?
Renée Gentry: I think that’s fine. While vaccines are critically important public health tools, they’re not magic. You know, you can have an allergic reaction to aspirin. So it’s a lot of different factors come into play to have a person be injured by a vaccine. Their genetics, their immune system. That’s why the no-fault part is critical. The vaccine caused it. But there’s no bad actor in this case.
The program is structured around a Vaccine Injury Table, basically, a conversion chart of vaccines and eligible injuries — if your child, for instance, got a rubella vaccine and developed chronic arthritis within seven and 42 days, you may be eligible for damages.
The most common compensation is for shoulder injuries suffered from a misplaced injection. You can file for an injury not on the table. Overall, half of all claims have been dismissed.
Today, vaccines on the table have jumped from the original six to 16, including the annual flu shot, though, notably notCOVID. As for the eligible injuries, autismis not one of them.
That decision did not come easily, as retired special masters Denise Vowell and George Hastings explained.
Denise Vowell and George Hastings
60 Minutes
Jon Wertheim: There’s been a lot of talk lately about a possible link between vaccines and autism. This has been litigated and decided in your court 15 years ago.
George Hastings: You know, I spent many, many years of my life, almost full-time looking at that issue.
In the early 2000s, cases alleging vaccinations caused autism flooded the court. Vowell, Hastings and a third special master oversaw what was a class action of sorts, a vaccine court proceeding that spanned almost a decade, incorporating testimony from dozens of medical experts and hundreds of scientific articles.
Jon Wertheim: What did you ultimately conclude?
Denise Vowell: Ultimately concluded there simply was not the evidence. I hoped there would be.
Jon Wertheim: Why?
Denise Vowell: Because the parents of children with autism go through so much.
But Vowell said she could not decide cases based on sentiment.
Denise Vowell: I had to apply the law. And the law was that if there is a preponderance of evidence of vaccine causation, I rule for them. If there isn’t, I rule against them.
All three special masters concluded there was no link between vaccines and autism. On appeal, eight additional federal judges unanimously upheld the vaccine court decisions.
This has not been persuasive to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
We wanted to know RFK, Jr.’s views about vaccine court, a court his uncle championed, because today, as secretary of Health and Human Services,, he is imbued with the authority to add or redefine injuries on the vaccine table.
He declined our request for an on-camera interview but said via email that, yes, he wouldlike to “expand the table,” which he hopes will create an easier path to compensation. In particular, he wants to broaden definitions for “seizures and encephalopathy,” two neurological conditions that can be associated with autism.
Although the original intent was “idealistic, compassionate, and sensible,” the court, RFK, Jr. told us, has become “a disaster for the families of injured children. Its effective function is delay, denial, and systematic cruelty.”
Vaccine court delays are something Ryan Farrell knows only too well.
Jon Wertheim and Ryan Farrell
60 Minutes
Husband to Angela and father of three, Ryan worked as a lineman for a Boston-area power company, hanging electrical wires 100 feet high.
On the job in 2017, Ryan cut his hand on rusty metal and got a tetanus shot. A few days later, the pain started.
Ryan Farrell: I felt like my– my back was just, like, being stabbed.
Angela Farrell: He would take a shower, he was like, “I feel like there’s razor blades hitting my skin.”
Over the next few years, Ryan was hospitalized multiple times. Doctors diagnosed him with a rare autoimmune disease.
Ryan Farrell: I didn’t wanna live for a long time, you know. That’s how I felt.
Jon Wertheim: When did you make the link that “I had this vaccine. Maybe there’s some correlation here?”
Angela Farrell: I made the correlation.
Like most Americans, Angela Farrell had never heard of vaccine court, but she stumbled upon it online and found a lawyer. They filed a case in 2019. And only in July, did the special master rule: the tetanus shot more likely than not led to Ryan’s illness.
Jon Wertheim: Do you feel like you were treated with compassion?
Ryan Farrell: I mean the special master was kind to me and my family when we were in the courtroom.
Jon Wertheim: [The] court was intended to compensate people for vaccine injuries. I want to quote this, “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.”
Ryan Farrell: That couldn’t be further from the truth. You know–
Jon Wertheim: What do you mean?
Ryan Farrell: I feel like they made it way too– way too long.
Ryan remains unable to work. Six years in, the court has yet to determine his damages.
The court acknowledges the delays. Citing a backlog of more than 3,000 cases, its chief special master has, in documents obtained by 60 Minutes, asked Congress for more resources four years running, saying, “… it becomes more difficult each year to resolve the huge number of case filings in the expedient fashion they deserve.” Congress has yet to act.
Our reporting suggests that this inaction is, in part, because vaccination has become such a loaded, heavily politicized issue that legislators are reluctant to wade in.
The Thompsons are not invested in the heavily-charged vaccine debate — they’re invested in their son, Jacob — an anguishing exception, harmed by what’s otherwise a public health force of good.
Jon Wertheim: I do wonder if people aren’t going to hear your story and be terrified of giving their kids vaccinations.
John Thompson: We’re definitely not anti-vaxxers. We think– and– I mean, vaccines are great. They’ve done a lot to help people. But I think that parents need to know what can happen.
Renée Gentry: If what you care about are vaccine-injured people, and them being compensated, then you want this court to work. And you want this court to be here.
Jon Wertheim: We have this program that incentivizes the manufacturing of vaccines, but also acknowledges that in some rare cases, there are injuries and damages.
Renée Gentry: Right. It’s bipartisan. It takes everyone’s views into account. And everybody compromises, which is a dirty word now. But that’s the goal of it. And it’s helped these people. Jacob will be taken care of for the rest of his life because of this program.
Produced by Denise Schrier Cetta. Associate producers, Elizabeth Germino and Arman Badrei. Broadcast associate, Mimi Lamarre. Edited by Warren Lustig.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired a top official with the National Institutes of Health who blew the whistle on internal clashes over vaccine research in the early months of the Trump administration.
On Wednesday, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo received a letter from Kennedy — which CBS News reviewed — informing her that her role leading NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, had been terminated. He did not cite a cause beyond his constitutional authority to do so. Last month, in an exclusive interview with CBS News, Marrazzo said she had been silenced when she and her colleagues pushed back against NIH officials appointed by President Trump who questioned the importance of childhood flu vaccines and canceled long-running clinical trials.
“My termination, unfortunately, shows that the leaders of HHS and the National Institutes of Health do not share my commitment to scientific integrity and public health,” Marrazzo wrote in a statement following her firing. “Congress must act to protect scientific research from those who would serve political interests first.”
Marrazzo had been in her role since August 2023, succeeding Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had served as NIAID director for nearly four decades. She was put on indefinite leave in March and filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in September, alleging illegal retaliation. In a statement, Marrazzo’s attorney alleged her firing is further “retaliation for her protected whistleblower activity.”
Despite following a well-established whistleblower process by filing a complaint with OSC, recourse for Marrazzo is far from certain. Mr. Trump fired the head of the independent agency in February and has since installed his top trade official Jamieson Greer to lead the agency on an acting basis.
In August, the office launched an ethics probe into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who indicted Mr. Trump before he returned to office for his actions around the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and for allegedly mishandling classified documents from his first term.
The allegations in Marrazzo’s whistleblower complaint focus on Dr. Matthew Memoli, who served as acting NIH director earlier this year before moving to the health agency’s No. 2 post.
Marrazzo claimed Memoli made statements downplaying the importance of vaccines that closely mirrored the views of Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic. In a series of meetings, Memoli argued that “vaccines are unnecessary if populations are healthy,” and that the NIH “should not focus on vaccines,” Marrazzo alleged in her complaint.
Marrazzo told CBS News it was like “hearing the echo of” the vaccine skepticism often promoted by Kennedy. “It was extremely alarming,” Marrazzo said.
An HHS spokesperson defended Memoli to CBS News, writing in a statement: “He remains fully aligned with this administration’s vaccine priorities and consistently champions gold-standard evidence-based science.”
In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Vaccine Practices, which makes vaccine recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control. He then handpicked their replacements, and the newly reconstituted panel recently voted to endorse splitting the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine into separate shots.
Michael Kaplan is an award-winning reporter and producer for the CBS News investigative unit. He specializes in securing scoops and crafting long-form television investigations. His work has appeared on “60 Minutes,” CNN and in The New York Times.
The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a recent letter to Republican state attorneys general.
Conservatives and anti-abortion groups have criticized the drug, particularly after the Biden administration in 2023 made it possible for women to receive mifepristone via telehealth and by mail. The majority of women who terminate pregnancies do so through medication abortions.
Republican attorneys general had written to Kennedy on the matter in July, and in response, Kennedy said the FDA is taking a look at the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. Kennedy in June asked FDA Commissioner Martin Makary to “review the latest data” on the drug, an FDA spokesperson confirmed at the time. The spokesperson did not respond to further questions about when the review would start or what specifically it was reviewing about the drug.
In their Sept. 19 letter to the states, Kennedy and Makary wrote, “HHS — through the FDA — is conducting its own review of the evidence, including real-world outcomes and evidence, relating to the safety and efficacy of the drug.”
“Recent studies — such as the study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), which you highlighted in your letter — indicate potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision,” the letter continued. “FDA’s own data collected between 2000 to 2012 indicated 2,740 adverse events, including 416 events involving blood loss requiring transfusions. Since then, safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced.”
According to EPPC, its study found nearly 11% of women “experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion,” but CBS News medical contributor Dr. Celine Gounder told “CBS Evening News,” “Other data sources show the rate of serious complications to be much lower, at less than 1 in 200.”
The EPPC study cited by Kennedy and lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, is one that says it focuses on “applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition” to public policy.
Asked whether the review could lead to a ban on mifepristone, Gounder suggested it would be difficult for the FDA to withdraw approval, an extraordinary step that would quickly draw legal challenges, but said depending on what the safety review finds, it could make access more difficult, limiting the drug’s availability through telehealth or by mail, or restricting the ability to prescribe it to doctors, rather than physician assistants or nurses who are also currently able to prescribe it.
Kennedy and Makary did not say when their review would be completed, but told the states, “We will keep you informed as the FDA’s review of mifepristone progresses.”
Advocates of access to the abortion pill insist it’s safe.
“More than 100 studies confirm mifepristone’s exceptional safety record,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement in response to the mifepristone safety review. “Today, medication abortion accounts for nearly two-thirds of abortions in the U.S, and the nation’s leading medical associations now stress mifepristone’s importance not only for abortion but for miscarriage care as well.”
Mifepristone is approved to terminate a pregnancy through 10 weeks of gestation. It was first approved by the FDA in 2000, and has, according to the ACLU, been used by more than 7.5 million women since then.
new video loaded: Trump Pushes Unproven Link Between Tylenol and Autism
By Azeen Ghorayshi, Claire Hogan, Theodore Tae and June Kim•
Top U.S. health officials urged pregnant women not to use acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, claiming it could cause autism, though studies have been inconclusive. Azeen Ghorayshi, a science reporter for The New York Times, explains.
[ad_2]
Azeen Ghorayshi, Claire Hogan, Theodore Tae and June Kim
For decades, the discussion around autism has been a hotbed of misinformation, misinterpretation, and bad science, ranging from the long-discredited link between the neurodevelopmental condition and vaccines, to newer claims that going gluten-free and avoiding ultra-processed foods can reverse autistic traits.
On Monday night, this specter arose again in the Oval Office, as President Donald Trump announced his administration’s new push to study the causes of autism with claims that the common painkiller Tylenol, otherwise known as acetaminophen, can cause the condition. The FDA subsequently announced that the drug would be slapped with a warning label citing a “possible association.”
David Amaral, professor and director of research at the UC Davis MIND Institute, was among those watching in dismay as the president launched into a diatribe about Tylenol, repeatedly warning pregnant women not to take it, even to treat fevers.
“We heard the president say that women should tough it out,” says Amaral. “I was really taken aback by that, because we do know that prolonged fever, in particular, is a risk factor for autism. So I worry that this admonition to not take Tylenol is going to do the reverse of what they’re hoping.”
The speculation surrounding Tylenol stems from correlations drawn by some studies that have touted an association between use of the painkiller and neurodevelopmental disorders. One such analysis was published last month. The problem, says Renee Gardner, an epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, is that these studies often reach this conclusion because they don’t sufficiently account for what statisticians describe as “confounding factors”—additional variables related to those being studied that might influence the relationship between them.
In particular, Gardner points out that pregnant women needing to take Tylenol are more likely to have pain, fevers, and prenatal infections, which are themselves risk factors for autism. More importantly, given the heritability of autism, many of the genetic variants that make women more likely to have impaired immunity and greater pain perception, and hence use painkillers like acetaminophen, are also linked to autism. The painkiller use, she says, is a red herring.
Last year, Gardner and other scientists published what is widely regarded within the scientific field as the most conclusive investigation so far on the subject, one that did account for confounding factors. Using health records from nearly 2.5 million children in Sweden, they reached the opposite conclusion to the president: Tylenol has no link to autism. Another major study of more than 200,000 children in Japan, published earlier this month, also found no link.
Doctors are worried that Trump’s claims will have adverse consequences. Michael Absoud, a pediatric neurodisability consultant and a researcher in pediatric neurosciences at King’s College London, says he fears that pregnant women will start using other painkillers with a less well-proven safety profile.
Gardner is concerned that it will also lead to self-blaming among parents, a flashback to the 1950s and ’60s, a time when autism was wrongly attributed to emotionally cold “refrigerator mothers.” “It’s making parents of children with neurodevelopmental conditions feel responsible,” she says. “It harks back to the early dark days of psychiatry.”
At last week’s hotly awaited meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes recommendations to HHS on which vaccines America’s children should take and insurance companies should cover, one of its newly appointed members, Dr. Cody Meissner, arguably the most qualified to be there, admitted that he was “still confused.” The committee was weighing whether the MMRV shot that bundles measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines into one injection should be covered by the government’s Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines at no cost to eligible children. Meissner concluded, “I’m going to abstain because I’m not quite sure what I’m voting for here.”
Just seven months into Secretary Kennedy’s tenure as the nation’s health secretary, the machinery of our public health infrastructure, with its advisory committees and carefully scrutinized research grants, has become so degraded that it’s becoming challenging for even a well-informed citizen to know what basic healthcare steps to take. When and how should they vaccinate their children? Should they get a COVID-19 booster, and will insurance cover it? Should they “tough it out” if pregnant with a fever and not take Tylenol, as Trump suggested?
Remarkably, even Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy as health secretary, said at a hearing last Wednesday that the recommendations of the newly constituted ACIP committee, now stacked with vaccine skeptics, could no longer be trusted and lacked legitimacy.
Secretary Kennedy swept into office with a pledge to use radical transparency and gold-standard science to overhaul America’s broken medical system, throwing aside precedent in favor of unbiased, clear-eyed decisions, free from conflicts of interest.
But a very different portrait of what drives his decision-making came into view last Wednesday, when Dr. Susan Monarez testified before the Senate Health Committee that she was fired as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 days after being confirmed, because she refused to preemptively approve every vaccine recommendation from the ACIP committee, regardless of scientific evidence. (Kennedy refuted the claim, telling the Senate that he fired her because she was “untrustworthy.”)
Cassidy asked Monarez, “Did [Kennedy] cite any data or science as relates to the potential ACIP recommendations to persuade you to support them?”
To which Monarez replied, “He responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule.”
In this era of vibes-based medicine, government recommendations can be built on the thinnest reeds of evidence and do not need to rest on boring stuff like lengthy research studies and grueling searches for proof. At the autism press conference, Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, characterized it as an “aggressive approach…demanded by the president and by the secretary.”
But as the Coalition of Autism Scientists said in their statement, given that acetaminophen use during pregnancy has not increased over the last two decades alongside rising autism case rates, “It’s clearly not the cause of the increased diagnoses of autism.” It further pointed out, “Fevers during pregnancy are known to increase risk for autism, and that’s why mothers take acetaminophen in the first place.”
At the press conference, President Trump noticeably struggled to pronounce the word acetaminophen, which led several commentators on X afterward to question whether he should be dispensing medical advice about something he can’t even correctly say.
President Trump on Monday suggested a possible link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and an increased risk of autism in children. Dr. Ann Bauer, co-author of a study that examined acetaminophen use during pregnancy, explains why more research is needed. Then, Dr. Veronica Gillispie-Bell, a board-certified OBGYN, joins to unpack the news.
President Trump made a major health announcement on Monday, claiming the use of Tylenol during pregnancy may be linked to autism. Dr. Shoshana Ungerleider, a board-certified internal medicine physician, joins CBS News with her reaction.
Ahead of an expected announcement from the Trump administration that Tylenol use in pregnancy is linked to an increased risk of autism in children, the drugmaker and medical experts are pushing back on the claims.
According to a report from the Washington Post, officials on Monday plan to tie autism to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, while also promoting a lesser-known drug called leucovorin, which is used as a treatment for some symptoms in children with autism. The Wall Street Journal previously reported the announcement was in the works, which the Department of Health and Human Services called “speculation” at the time.
On Sunday, Mr. Trump seemingly confirmed the plans, telling reporters “we’re going to do it tomorrow” when asked about the reports.
“I think it’s a very big factor. I think you’ll see what it is tomorrow. We have various things, but you’ll see what it is tomorrow,” the president said.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing Monday that she didn’t want to scoop Mr. Trump or HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the announcement later today, but said, “They are paying attention to studies and the gold standard of science and research that many in this city for far too long have turned a blind eye to.”
Autism has become more prevalent in children born in the U.S. over the past 25 years, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But there is no scientific consensus on the reasons why. Most experts say it is likely due to a combination of factors, including changes in the way the condition is diagnosed.
Tylenol maker responds to autism claims
In a statement to CBS News, Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, said “independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism.”
“We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise,” the statement continues, highlighting what the company says is the greater health risk for expecting mothers from other conditions if they give up on taking the drug. “Acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their entire pregnancy. Without it, women face dangerous choices: suffer through conditions like fever that are potentially harmful to both mom and baby or use riskier alternatives.”
“The facts are that over a decade of rigorous research, endorsed by leading medical professionals and global health regulators, confirms there is no credible evidence linking acetaminophen to autism,” the company said, adding that it “will continue to explore all options to protect the health interests of American women and children.”
Medical experts on Tylenol and autism research
In a statement to CBS News when reports of the administration’s plans first surfaced, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said, “There is no clear evidence that proves a direct relationship between the prudent use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and fetal developmental issues.”
In a major study published last year, researchers followed nearly 2.5 million children in Sweden over 25 years and found acetaminophen use during pregnancy did not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
The study, which used sibling comparisons to account for genetic factors, found no increase in risk of autism, ADHD or other intellectual disabilities when women used the medication during pregnancy.
“The best evidence does not show an association between Tylenol and autism,” said Dr. Céline Gounder, CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News. “The medical community, the scientific community has the same consensus, which is that Tylenol, acetaminophen, is safe in pregnancy.”
Gounder said acetaminophen is considered the safest option for treating issues like pain and high fever during pregnancy.
“If you have a high fever during pregnancy, that can cause neurodevelopment issues in the baby, so you don’t want to let that fever go untreated,” Gounder explained, adding she’s worried that expectant mothers may turn to other options that would be less safe.
“Will women end up taking other medications like aspirin or ibuprofen during pregnancy? Those actually can be dangerous, especially in the third trimester, you can end up with kidney issues, cardiac issues in the baby,” she said.
While some previous research suggested there could be a possible association between acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders, those studies involved relatively small groups and did not prove a link. Larger and more robust studies have found no connection.
In response to a question from CBS News’ Ed O’Keefe about whether the announcement could create confusion for pregnant women, Leavitt said women are confused about the chronic disease epidemic and “that’s exactly what this administration is focused on finding (answers for).”
“As a mother myself, I believe for many mothers across the country who really want answers to what is happening to our nation’s children,” she added.
What is leucovorin?
Leucovorin, an inexpensive, generic drug derived from folic acid (also known as folate or vitamin B9), is expected to be touted as an autism treatment in the administration’s announcement, the reports said. Leucovorin is currently prescribed to ease the side effects of cancer chemotherapy.
Pregnant women are prescribed multivitamins with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. The neural tube develops into the brain and spinal cord.
Specialists say leucovorin can be helpful in treating some autism cases, but it is not a universal remedy.
“You can have a perfectly normal folate level in your blood, but it may not be getting into the brain, and so there’s a defect in the transport of folate into the brain. Leucovorin works around that,” Gounder explained. “Not all children with autism have this defect, so there’s a test you can do to assess whether that’s what’s at play. For those kids, leucovorin has been shown to help, particularly with speech, getting kids to be more verbal than they were before.”
Leucovorin isn’t a cure for autism, but “it could really have a substantial impact on a very good percentage of children with autism,” Dr. Richard Frye, a pediatric neurologist, told CBS News earlier this year.
Sara Moniuszko is a health and lifestyle reporter at CBSNews.com. Previously, she wrote for USA Today, where she was selected to help launch the newspaper’s wellness vertical. She now covers breaking and trending news for CBS News’ HealthWatch.
Kennedy has frequently been the subject of criticism for his comments on autism, long before his time in the Trump administration.
In April, the secretary held a press conference in which he called autism a “preventable disease,” alleging there was an environmental cause for the disorder, which he referred to as an “epidemic.” Kennedy said his department would assemble top scientists to research a cause, setting a September timeline for answers.
Kennedy was excoriated for his remarks on autistic children when he said autism “destroys families” and painted a bleak picture for the future of children diagnosed with autism. Kennedy ultimately had to walk back his remarks following backlash from the families of autistic children and other advocates.
“These are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date,” Kennedy said. “Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children, and we need to put an end to it.”
Prior to his time as HHS secretary, Kennedy has cast doubt on the efficacy of vaccines and even promoted theories linking autism rates to vaccine usage.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices concluded its two-day meeting on Friday, with significant updates to vaccine recommendations. Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, joins CBS News to discuss.
In another vote, advisers recommended adding language on the shot’s risks to the vaccine’s information sheet, which is already required by law.
The committee’s focus on Covid-19 vaccines reflects Kennedy’s long-held suspicion of them. Since taking office in February, Kennedy has canceled a half-billion dollars in mRNA vaccine research and separately ended a major contract with Moderna, one of the Covid vaccine manufactures, for work on a pandemic bird flu vaccine.
During Friday’s meeting, CDC scientists presented extensive data on the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines. They also explained in detail how the agency tracks Covid hospitalizations and said the agency has a “rigorous and standardized process” to determine whether hospitalizations are classified as being due to Covid-19.
During the discussion portion of the meeting, committee members made several unfounded claims. Robert Malone, a former mRNA researcher who has spread vaccine misinformation, questioned whether there is actually evidence of disease protection from the Covid shots. “Are there any well-defined, characterized correlates of protection for Covid, yes or no?” he demanded.
Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Dartmouth College, responded that there is “a reasonable measurement of neutralizing or binding antibodies that correlate with protection against symptomatic infection in the first few months” after vaccination.
At one point, Hillary Blackburn, a pharmacist on the committee, questioned whether the Covid vaccine could be connected to her mother’s lung cancer diagnosis, which occurred two years after receiving a Covid vaccine. She said she is aware of four other individuals in her small hometown diagnosed with the same kind of cancer. “Is it related to the vaccine?” she asked.
In a tense exchange about potential birth defects associated with the Covid vaccines, some ACIP members pressed manufacturer Pfizer about eight birth defects that occurred in a group of pregnant women who received the company’s vaccine and two birth defects that occurred in an unvaccinated group. Alejandra Gurtman, who heads vaccine clinical research and development at Pfizer, replied that those rates are comparable to rates of congenital abnormalities seen in the general population.
Carol Hayes, a liaison with the American College of Nurse-Midwives who was present during the meeting, clarified that most birth defects arise during the first trimester of pregnancy, and in the cited study, mothers received the vaccine at 12 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
At Friday’s meeting, the committee also reversed a decision it made just a day before. On Thursday, advisers voted to no longer recommend the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine to children under age 4. Yet puzzlingly, it voted to maintain coverage of that vaccine through the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to low-income children and those without insurance. On Friday, they voted that the program should not, in fact, cover it.
On Friday, advisers also voted 11 to one in favor of tabling a decision on whether to delay the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine until one month of age. The committee had discussed that vaccine extensively on Thursday, though it’s unclear why the committee was asked to look into the potential change at all, as the hepatitis B vaccine has been given to newborns in the US since 1991.
Infants get the vaccine before leaving the hospital because the virus can be passed from an infected mother to the baby during birth. Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that can lead to cirrhosis and cancer. The vaccine is highly effective at preventing infection in newborns.
Chari Cohen, president of the Hepatitis B Foundation, tells WIRED there is no scientific rationale for delaying the hepatitis B vaccine until one month after birth, and she worries about an increase in hepatitis B infections if the panel eventually recommends delaying the immunization.
“We will likely see more babies and young children who become infected,” Cohen says. “From a public health infrastructure perspective, we are concerned that this risk-based approach will miss preventing infection to babies born to infected moms.”
Up to 16 percent of HBV-positive pregnant women don’t get tested for hepatitis B, so screening doesn’t capture all infected mothers.
“We do not understand the motivation or rationale for this debate,” Cohen says.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced new action to reform the nation’s organ transplant system, as well as a move to decertify an organ procurement organization. Omar Villafranca has details.
A federal vaccine advisory committee made up of members hand-picked by Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recommended in an 8-3 vote on Thursday that the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine should not be given before age 4, citing long-known evidence that shows a slightly increased risk for febrile seizures in that age group.
Experts say that while frightening, febrile seizures—which are uncommon after vaccination—are usually short-lived and harmless, and removing the option for parents could cause a decline in immunization rates against measles, mumps, and rubella, some of the most dangerous childhood diseases.
Known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group provides recommendations to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine usage. These recommendations are typically adopted by CDC and have an impact on state vaccine requirements for school, insurance coverage of vaccines, and pharmacy access—something at least one member of the panel seemed to be unaware of.
Thursday’s vote is part of a new shift in vaccine policy being spearheaded by Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist. In his short time as HHS secretary, Kennedy has implemented restrictions on who can receive Covid-19 vaccines and dismissed all 17 sitting members of ACIP, replacing them with 12 new members—some of whom were installed just this week. Several of the new advisers have a history of criticizing vaccines or denouncing public health measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic. Kennedy said a “clean sweep” of ACIP was necessary to build back public confidence in vaccine science.
On Thursday, committee members were asked to evaluate whether to recommend against the combined MMRV vaccine before age 4, as well as whether to delay the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine until the child is at least one month old.
Currently, parents have two options for vaccinating their children against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, also known as chickenpox. They can choose the combined shot, known as MMRV, or two separate shots—one for MMR and another for chickenpox. About 85 percent of children get separate shots.
In the US, the hepatitis B vaccine is given in the hospital shortly after birth, because the virus can be transmitted to children during delivery. A serious liver infection, hepatitis B can lead to cirrhosis and cancer. Each year in the US, an estimated 25,000 infants are born to women diagnosed with the hepatitis B virus. Without vaccination, up to 90 percent of them would develop chronic infections. The World Health Organization advises a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
The topics of discussion at Tuesday’s meeting were not based on new data or evidence, and in fact, two ACIP members, Joseph Hibbeln and Cody Meissner, as well as several representatives from professional medical organizations who were in attendance, questioned why these changes were up for consideration.
Robert Malone, one of the more controversial new ACIP members, offered an explanation: “It’s clear that a significant population of the United States has significant concerns about vaccine policy and about vaccine mandates.” Malone is a former mRNA researcher who rose to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic by spreading falsehoods about the disease and the vaccines; he abstained from Thursday’s vote because he previously served as an expert witness in a lawsuit over the mumps vaccine.
As part of its efforts to strengthen the country’s organ transplant system, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says it is moving to decertify a major organ procurement organization – essentially shutting it down and removing it from the nation’s network of organ donation groups.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the move a “clear warning” to other groups that also work to coordinate organ donations.HHS officials are moving to close the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency, a division of the University of Miami Health System, after an investigation uncovered unsafe practices, staffing shortages and paperwork errors, Kennedy said Thursday.“We are acting because of years of documented Patient Safety Data failures and repeated violations of federal requirements, and we intend this decision to serve as a clear warning,” he said.The Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency is one of 55 organ procurement organizations that are federally designated nonprofits responsible for managing the recovery of organs for transplantation in the United States, in which they focus on specific geographic regions and work with hospitals.The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO) said in a statement Thursday that the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency serves 7 million people across six counties in South Florida and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.“Through this process, AOPO pledges that we and our members will keep saving lives nationwide. We will continue to support the team at Life Alliance to ensure South Florida organ donors, transplant patients and their families have access to organ donation and transplantation services,” AOPO President Jeff Trageser said in a statement, while thanking federal health officials for recognizing the importance of organ donation.“Because there is only one OPO per donation service area, it’s critical for CMS/HHS to manage the situation carefully and work with Life Alliance, hospitals & the wider donation community to ensure there are no lapses in donation during this process so lives can continue being saved,” he added in an email.There is a process by which the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency could appeal the decertification. Neither the organization nor the University of Miami Health System immediately responded to CNN’s request for comment.“The Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency based in Miami, Florida, has a long record of deficiencies directly tied to patient harm,” Kennedy said Thursday.“Staffing shortfalls alone may have caused – it was a 65% staffing shortage consistently across the years – and may have caused as many as eight missed organ recoveries each week, roughly one life lost each day,” he said. “Our goal is clear: Every American must trust the nation’s organ procurement system. We will not stop until that goal is met.”Kennedy also plans to direct organ procurement organizations to appoint full-time patient safety officers to monitor safety practices, report incidents and ensure that corrective actions are implemented, among other responsibilities.“This officer will be responsible for coordinating responses across clinical operational teams, ensure compliance with federal priorities and take corrective action whenever patients are at risk,” Thomas Engels, administrator of the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, said Thursday.These moves are part of an ongoing initiative to reform the organ transplant system after a federal investigation earlier this year found what Kennedy called “horrifying” problems, including medical teams beginning the process of harvesting organs before patients were dead.‘We are sending a tough message’Each year in the United States, more than 28,000 donated organs go unused and are discarded because of inefficiencies in the system, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said Thursday.“We are sending a tough message to all the other nonprofit organ procurement agencies, organizations, so they know we’re serious,” Oz said. “We want them to know there’s a new sheriff in town, and we’re coming for them if they don’t take care of the American people.”Organ transplant programs are certified under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and they must meet certain requirements to be approved by Medicare.“We’re going to crack down on noncompliance with Medicare requirements,” Oz said, adding that more action could be coming.“We’re going to be tougher than ever before, because if we lose trust in the organ transplantation system of this country, tens of thousands of people are going to die yearly whose lives could be saved,” he said.Public trust of the organ donation system is essential since the system relies on people to volunteer to donate their organs when they die. Most sign up when they’re getting their driver’s license.As of 2022, about 170 million people in the U.S. have signed up to donate their organs, but there is always more demand than there are organs available.Last year, there were more than 48,000 transplants in the U.S., but more than 103,000 people were on waiting lists. About 13 people in the United States die every day waiting for a transplant, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.Investigations into organ procurementIn July, HHS announced its intention to fix the nation’s organ donation system. The agency directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the public-private partnership that runs the complex donation system in the United States, to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level and to find ways to strengthen safety protocols and transparency.An investigation by the Health Resources and Services Administration – detailed in a hearing in July and a memo from March – found problems with dozens of transplant cases involving incomplete donations, when an organization started the process to take someone’s organs but for, some reason, the donation never happened.The cases were managed by a procurement organization that handles donations in Kentucky and parts of Ohio and West Virginia; formerly called Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, it has merged with another group and is now called Network for Hope.Network for Hope said on its website in July, “We are equally committed to addressing the recent guidance from the HRSA and we are already evaluating whether any updates to our current practices are needed.”Of the 351 cases in the federal investigation, more than 100 had “concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation,” HHS said in a July news release.The investigation was launched after one Kentucky case came to light during a congressional hearing last year. In that case, 33-year-old TJ Hoover woke up in the operating room to find people shaving his chest, bathing his body in surgical solution and talking about harvesting his organs. Staffers had been concerned that he wasn’t brain-dead, but the concerns were initially ignored, according to the federal investigation.Staff told CNN that the procedure to take Hoover’s organs stopped after a surgeon saw his reaction to stimuli.The federal investigation found “concerning” issues in multiple cases, including failures to follow professional best practices, to respect family wishes, to collaborate with a patient’s primary medical team and to recognize neurological function, suggesting “organizational dysfunction and poor quality and safety assurance culture” in the Kentucky-area organization, according to a federal report.Since the federal review, the Health Resources and Services Administration said, it has received reports of “similar patterns” of high-risk procurement practices at other organizations.
As part of its efforts to strengthen the country’s organ transplant system, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says it is moving to decertify a major organ procurement organization – essentially shutting it down and removing it from the nation’s network of organ donation groups.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the move a “clear warning” to other groups that also work to coordinate organ donations.
HHS officials are moving to close the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency, a division of the University of Miami Health System, after an investigation uncovered unsafe practices, staffing shortages and paperwork errors, Kennedy said Thursday.
“We are acting because of years of documented Patient Safety Data failures and repeated violations of federal requirements, and we intend this decision to serve as a clear warning,” he said.
The Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency is one of 55 organ procurement organizations that are federally designated nonprofits responsible for managing the recovery of organs for transplantation in the United States, in which they focus on specific geographic regions and work with hospitals.
The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO) said in a statement Thursday that the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency serves 7 million people across six counties in South Florida and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
“Through this process, AOPO pledges that we and our members will keep saving lives nationwide. We will continue to support the team at Life Alliance to ensure South Florida organ donors, transplant patients and their families have access to organ donation and transplantation services,” AOPO President Jeff Trageser said in a statement, while thanking federal health officials for recognizing the importance of organ donation.
“Because there is only one OPO per donation service area, it’s critical for CMS/HHS to manage the situation carefully and work with Life Alliance, hospitals & the wider donation community to ensure there are no lapses in donation during this process so lives can continue being saved,” he added in an email.
There is a process by which the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency could appeal the decertification. Neither the organization nor the University of Miami Health System immediately responded to CNN’s request for comment.
“The Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency based in Miami, Florida, has a long record of deficiencies directly tied to patient harm,” Kennedy said Thursday.
“Staffing shortfalls alone may have caused – it was a 65% staffing shortage consistently across the years – and may have caused as many as eight missed organ recoveries each week, roughly one life lost each day,” he said. “Our goal is clear: Every American must trust the nation’s organ procurement system. We will not stop until that goal is met.”
Kennedy also plans to direct organ procurement organizations to appoint full-time patient safety officers to monitor safety practices, report incidents and ensure that corrective actions are implemented, among other responsibilities.
“This officer will be responsible for coordinating responses across clinical operational teams, ensure compliance with federal priorities and take corrective action whenever patients are at risk,” Thomas Engels, administrator of the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, said Thursday.
These moves are part of an ongoing initiative to reform the organ transplant system after a federal investigation earlier this year found what Kennedy called “horrifying” problems, including medical teams beginning the process of harvesting organs before patients were dead.
‘We are sending a tough message’
Each year in the United States, more than 28,000 donated organs go unused and are discarded because of inefficiencies in the system, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said Thursday.
“We are sending a tough message to all the other nonprofit organ procurement agencies, organizations, so they know we’re serious,” Oz said. “We want them to know there’s a new sheriff in town, and we’re coming for them if they don’t take care of the American people.”
“We’re going to crack down on noncompliance with Medicare requirements,” Oz said, adding that more action could be coming.
“We’re going to be tougher than ever before, because if we lose trust in the organ transplantation system of this country, tens of thousands of people are going to die yearly whose lives could be saved,” he said.
Public trust of the organ donation system is essential since the system relies on people to volunteer to donate their organs when they die. Most sign up when they’re getting their driver’s license.
As of 2022, about 170 million people in the U.S. have signed up to donate their organs, but there is always more demand than there are organs available.
Last year, there were more than 48,000 transplants in the U.S., but more than 103,000 people were on waiting lists. About 13 people in the United States die every day waiting for a transplant, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Investigations into organ procurement
In July, HHS announced its intention to fix the nation’s organ donation system. The agency directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the public-private partnership that runs the complex donation system in the United States, to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level and to find ways to strengthen safety protocols and transparency.
An investigation by the Health Resources and Services Administration – detailed in a hearing in July and a memo from March – found problems with dozens of transplant cases involving incomplete donations, when an organization started the process to take someone’s organs but for, some reason, the donation never happened.
The cases were managed by a procurement organization that handles donations in Kentucky and parts of Ohio and West Virginia; formerly called Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, it has merged with another group and is now called Network for Hope.
Network for Hope said on its website in July, “We are equally committed to addressing the recent guidance from the HRSA and we are already evaluating whether any updates to our current practices are needed.”
Of the 351 cases in the federal investigation, more than 100 had “concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation,” HHS said in a July news release.
The investigation was launched after one Kentucky case came to light during a congressional hearing last year. In that case, 33-year-old TJ Hoover woke up in the operating room to find people shaving his chest, bathing his body in surgical solution and talking about harvesting his organs. Staffers had been concerned that he wasn’t brain-dead, but the concerns were initially ignored, according to the federal investigation.
Staff told CNN that the procedure to take Hoover’s organs stopped after a surgeon saw his reaction to stimuli.
The federal investigation found “concerning” issues in multiple cases, including failures to follow professional best practices, to respect family wishes, to collaborate with a patient’s primary medical team and to recognize neurological function, suggesting “organizational dysfunction and poor quality and safety assurance culture” in the Kentucky-area organization, according to a federal report.
Since the federal review, the Health Resources and Services Administration said, it has received reports of “similar patterns” of high-risk procurement practices at other organizations.
Some ACIP members clash in discussion on hep B risk evidence
After all presentations on the potential risks of hepatitis B vaccination, some members of the ACIP clashed on what the data meant for the vote they would be taking later today.
Member Vicky Pebsworth, a regional director of the National Association of Catholic Nurses, said “there are gaps in what we know and understand about the effects of hepatitis B, particularly on very young infants, and I think that the conclusion that it is safe is perhaps premature.”
Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrics professor who previously served as a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccines panel, however, called the vaccine “safe” with “no evidence of harm.”
If the recommendation changes, he added, it would “increase the risk of harm based on no evidence of benefit, because there will be fewer children who will get the full hepatitis B vaccine series.”
Changing hep B recommendation could put more infants at risk of infection, presenter says
In the first presentation for the hepatitis B vaccine, presenter Dr. Adam Langer with the CDC outlined how changing the current recommendation for a first dose within 24 hours of birth could put more children at risk, even those born to mothers who test negative for the disease.
Langer gave examples of situations where unvaccinated infants are at risk of HBV infection, including:
They live with a person who has chronic hepatitis B, not necessarily their mother
People who have an HBV infection come to visit their homes
They go to daycare or other places where even “minuscule amounts of infectious blood or fluids might be present.”
“About half of people with HBV infection are unaware of their infection so they could unknowingly expose infants that are in their care,” he said.
Additionally, he said there is “no evidence that the risk of already rare adverse events is any greater among newborns than among older infants.”
The only potential benefit to rescinding the current recommendation is a potential reduction in rare cases of adverse effects from the birth dose vaccine, according to the presentation.
“When they do occur, these adverse events tend to be mild. The worst adverse event you could imagine, anaphylaxis has been very rarely reported at only 1.1 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered,” Langer said.
Hepatitis B presentations, discussions begin after break
After the lunch break, presentations and discussions shifted to the hepatitis B vaccine.
ACIP chair Martin Kulldorff reminded the group that the proposed recommendation changes concern only the hep B birth dose — the dose given to babies within 24 hours of birth — to mothers who test negative for the disease.
“So if the women test positive for hepatitis B, or if it’s unknown, we are not considering any changes for that population,” he said.
Recommendation change would take away parents’ choice, ACIP member says
Just before the group paused for lunch, ACIP member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln brought up the impact the proposed recommendation change for MMRV vaccines would have on parents who want the single, combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella shot for their children, since they would no longer be covered by the Vaccines for Children program which helps pay for immunizations.
“So that implies that the parents’ choice, unless they want to pay for it themselves, the parents’ choice is taken away,” he said, adding even if parents wanted the single shot, understood the benefits and risk, or even had a hard time accessing clinical care, “that option is basically taken away from them.”
Andrew Johnson, a representative with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, added that the change would also have coverage implications in the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program as well as individual and group markets.
American College of Physicians president says “this was not a thoroughly vetted discussion”
Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, shared his concerns about the MMRV presentation at the meeting following a recent change in the ACIP process that removed top medical organizations from the committee’s working groups.
“You do not have those subject matter experts with the real-world experience to understand the implementation of these vaccines and the concerns of the patients,” Goldman said. “You don’t have the voice of the patients we take care for. You’re not looking at all of the aspects of how we evaluate vaccine implementation. You’re looking at very small data points and misrepresenting how it works in the real world and how we take care of our patients. So no, this was not a thoroughly vetted discussion”
Other medical organization leaders chimed in to echo his concern and message.
Committee shares proposed MMRV vaccine recommendation ahead of vote
The proposed recommendation language, which will later go to a vote, was presented as follows:
“The pediatric vaccine schedule should be updated to reflect the following change:
For measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines given before age 4 years, the combined MMRV vaccine is not recommended.
Children in this age group should receive separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V).”
Currently, the CDC says the MMRV vaccine may be used in that age range if preferred by parents or caregivers to reduce the number of shots.
Measles vaccine presentations wrap with questions about febrile seizure risk
After presentations on the background and potential risks of febrile seizures with an MMRV vaccine — which combines the MMR and varicella shots — versus separate MMR and varicella shots, members discussed whether guidance should be changed.
Some members were satisfied with the current recommendations, which make clear the slightly higher risks of febrile seizures with the combined shot.
“I think the current wording is appropriate,” Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrics professor who previously served as a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccines panel, said.
Others were not assured, saying there were too many assumptions being made. Some also pointed out that even if there are no worries about the physical impact of febrile seizures, the mental impact the event can have on children and families could affect vaccine compliance.
Dr. Richard Haupt, the head of global medical and scientific affairs, vaccines and infectious diseases at Merck, the vaccine’s manufacturer, noted the recent decline in vaccination rates among kindergarten children and highlighted the need to make guidance clear for the public.
“Considering these trends, any policy decision that compromises the clarity or consistency of vaccination guidance has the potential to further diminish public confidence,” he said.
ACIP chair says he was never contacted by ousted CDC director about vaccine concerns
During Thursday’s meeting, ACIP chair and biostatistician Martin Kulldorff noted the removal of CDC Director Dr. Susan Monarez and other members of CDC leadership, including former chief medical officer Dr. Debra Houry — both of whom testified a day prior about their removal.
“On vaccines, this committee is the key adviser to the CDC director, but during her short tenure, she never contacted me as the ACIP chair about any of her questions or concerns, which would have been natural if she had such concerns, neither was I contacted by any of the three CDC leaders, who subsequently resigned,” he said.
Kulldorff said the CDC leadership left citing divergent opinions about vaccines, but Monarez said she was also pressured by Kennedy to fire career experts without cause and approve vaccine recommendations without scientific evidence.
Kulldorff also said the American Academy of Pediatrics ended its participation with the committee and ignored invitations for open discussion about vaccines.
Last month, for the first time in 30 years, the AAP shared guidance that differed from the U.S. government. The organization said it is “strongly recommending” COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years old. Under Kennedy, the CDC doesn’t recommend COVID-19 shots for healthy children of any age. Instead, it says parents may get their kids vaccinated in consultation with physicians.
ACIP members highlight vaccine views during meeting roll call: “I’m not anti-vax”
As the meeting kicked off Thursday with a roll call, ACIP members presented some of their career backgrounds — and some took the time to highlight their views on vaccines.
Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an obstetrician and gynecologist based in Louisiana who was added to the panel earlier this week, said she would call herself “pro-informed consent.”
“Because of medical ethics, for discussing risk benefits and alternatives with the patient,” she said. “During the pandemic, I myself was COVID vaccinated.”
An earlier Kennedy pick, Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who is retired from the National Institutes of Health, said he has a “neutral mind towards vaccines” and is “approaching this with a scientific equity.”
Dr. James Pagano, described by Kennedy as a “strong advocate for evidence-based medicine,” disclosed that he’s been vaccinated numerous times against various diseases.
“So I’m not anti-vax,” he said. “I am pro-intelligent and informed utilization of these potentially life-saving medications in a manner that reflects the current state of the art regarding their benefits, the target populations, optimal dosing and timing and, yes, of their potential adverse effects in some people.”
Science, politics and the future of vaccination in spotlight
The ACIP is convening under an unaccustomed spotlight. The committee usually attracts little attention as it deliberates vaccine schedules and eligibility, but suddenly finds itself navigating political scrutiny, public skepticism and internal upheaval.
The stakes extend well beyond the technical details of dosing intervals or eligibility cutoffs. The panel’s decisions could reshape public trust in childhood vaccines, restrict access to vaccines through Medicaid and Medicare, and signal whether scientific consensus or political pressure will steer the nation’s vaccination strategy.
To protect against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (or chickenpox), there are two options: a combo MMRV vaccine or separate MMR and varicella vaccines.
The CDC currently recommends a two-dose series beginning at age 12 to 15 months. However, the combination vaccine contains certain risks for younger age groups; specifically, the combo shot carries a slightly higher risk of fever-related “febrile” seizures when used as the first dose in young toddlers aged 12-23 months.
“For dose 1 in children age 12–47 months, it is recommended to administer MMR and varicella vaccines separately,” the CDC says, but adds MMRV may be used if preferred.
Former CDC director said she is “very nervous” about the upcoming childhood vaccine panel recommendations
While testifying at a Senate hearing Wednesday about why she was ousted as CDC director, Dr. Susan Monarez said she’s “very nervous” about the newly appointed ACIP members and what their recommendations might be.
“I know that the medical community has raised concerns about whether or not, again, they have the commensurate backgrounds to be able to understand the data, the evidence, and to evaluate it appropriately, but I certainly will be watching,” she said.
In another part of the hearing, Monarez said she refused to rubber-stamp vaccine recommendations without seeing the evidence behind them because she “built a career on scientific integrity.”
“My worst fear was that I would then be in a position of approving something that would reduce access to lifesaving vaccines to children and others who need them,” she said.
Monarez added she is not aware of any scientific evidence to support changing the childhood vaccination schedule for measles, chicken pox and hepatitis B.
Kennedy’s newly appointed ACIP members include allies and vaccine critics
Kennedy appointed the new members directly, breaking with the past practice of agency officials vetting potential experts before sending them to the secretary for approval.
Just this week, the group gained five new members, the HHS announced. The latest additions include some who have questioned established medical research on immunizations and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Panel to consider COVID vaccine recommendations Friday as West Coast states move ahead
A day before the ACIP meetings kicked off, a group of four West Coast states recommended that all adults and children in those states who want them can receive the COVID-19 vaccine and other common shots.
The announcement was made in a joint statement from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, all Democrats, saying they were putting safety before politics.
The guidance, which aligns with mainstream medical groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians and American Academy of Pediatrics, comes amid confusion over the CDC’s messaging on vaccinations.
Debra Houry, former chief medical officer and deputy director for program and science at CDC, who was one of several agency officials to resign in the wake of Monarez’s firing, also testified during Wednesday’s hearing.
“I resigned because CDC leaders were reduced to rubber stamps, supporting policies not based in science, and putting American lives at risk. Secretary Kennedy censored CDC’s science, politicized its processes, and stripped leaders of independence. I could not and in good conscience, remain under those conditions,” Houry said.
She also accused Kennedy of halting flu campaigns despite the severity of the 2024-2025 flu season, as well as spreading misinformation and promoting unproven treatments for measles.
Houry said she learned that Kennedy had changed the CDC’s Covid-19 vaccine guidance from a social media post on X. “CDC scientists have still not seen the scientific data or justification for this change. That is not gold-standard science,” Houry said, referring to a statement in May that HHS will no longer recommend the vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women
Monarez said Secretary Kennedy had not communicated his plans to change the childhood vaccination schedule to her until their meeting on August 25. Monarez said she told Kennedy that she would be open to changing the childhood vaccine schedule if the evidence or science supported those changes. Kennedy responded that there was no existing science or evidence and elaborated that CDC had never collected that data, according to Monarez.
Monarez said she could not agree to approving ACIP recommendations before knowing what they were. “I have built a career on scientific integrity, and my worst fear was that I would then be in a position of approving something that would reduce access to life-saving vaccines to children and others who need them,” she said.
This Thursday, ACIP is set to discuss the hepatitis B vaccine, which has been recommended for newborns within 24 hours of birth since 1991. But the committee is expected to vote on removing that recommendation and delaying the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine until age 4.
Each year in the US, an estimated 25,000 infants are born to women diagnosed with the hepatitis B virus, or HBV, a serious liver infection that can lead to cirrhosis and cancer. Before the vaccine was introduced, nearly 20,000 babies and children were infected with HBV each year in the US. Now, fewer than 20 get the disease from their mothers.
“Now that we’ve controlled it, do we let the genie out of the bottle? If the recommendation goes away, and a parent does want the vaccine, insurance will no longer cover it free of charge. She’ll be forced to pay out of pocket,” Senator Cassidy said at the conclusion of the hearing. Vaccine coverage is typically tied to ACIP recommendations.
Cassidy was initially hesitant about Kennedy’s nomination as HHS secretary, given his prior statements about vaccines, but he supported him after, he has said, Kennedy promised to maintain vaccine availability and not undermine public trust in them.
ACIP is slated to discuss Covid-19 vaccines on Friday.
