logo
RFK Jr.'s halt to U.S. funding for Gavi vaccine alliance a "travesty and a nightmare," experts warn

RFK Jr.'s halt to U.S. funding for Gavi vaccine alliance a "travesty and a nightmare," experts warn

CBS News2 days ago

Johannesburg — Every four years, representatives to the global alliance of governments, pharmaceutical makers, United Nations agencies and philanthropic organizations known as Gavi, which helps get vaccines to people who need them, meet to lock in new funding pledges. Just as this year's meeting in Brussels was drawing to a close on Wednesday, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that all funding from Washington would cease.
In a three-and-a-half-minute video message that Kennedy shared on social media, he said the Trump administration was halting funding to the organization because it had "neglected the key issue of vaccine safety."
Kennedy, who has sought to distance himself from the "anti-vaccine" label, has a history of making misleading statements about vaccine safety and has been tied to anti-vaccine activism groups.
Gavi says it has helped vaccinate more than 1.1 billion children in 78 low income countries and prevented more than 18.8 million deaths since its creation 25 years ago. Its focus is getting vaccines, especially new vaccines, to populations that would struggle to afford them or access them otherwise.
Kennedy argued in the video that GAVI "has neglected the key issue of vaccine safety," and that "when vaccine safety issues have come before Gavi, Gavi has treated them not as a patient health problem, but as a public relations problem."
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks in Washington, D.C., June 23, 2025.
Kevin Mohatt/REUTERS
Kennedy accused GAVI of ignoring the science and said the alliance must "justify the $8 billion the U.S. has given it since 2001."
The U.S. has long been among the top government contributors to Gavi's funding, which also comes from private organizations.
The Biden administration had committed to $1.6 billion in funding for the organization from 2026 through 2030 — an amount roughly equal to the funding pledged by the private Gates Foundation — and shock and outrage reverberated across the conference in Brussels after Kennedy's announcement.
Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and the Gates Foundation, said on social media that the move would have "devastating consequences." He called on the U.S. Congress to keep funding Gavi, warning that if it did not, "more sick kids will fall behind in school," and there would be "more overcrowded hospital wards and eventually more grieving parents."
"If Congress allows this to happen, the consequences will be devastating," Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman said. "Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of preventable deaths will occur, especially among mothers and children."
Dr. Atul Gawande, a public health researcher and surgeon at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who previously held a seat on the Gavi board, said Kennedy would be held personally responsible for the results of halted U.S. government funding, which he called a "travesty and a nightmare."
"I would expect to see significant changes and reductions in access to safe and effective vaccines to children, in the poorest and most vulnerable countries of the world," one U.S. official with decades of experience in global health and vaccination programs told CBS News on the condition of anonymity. "Kennedy's rhetoric on vaccine safety is not helpful and is likely to fuel vaccine hesitancy in the minds of people across the world, where we will surely now see more uncontrolled outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This is very unfortunate."
The U.N.'s World Health Organization has warned since 2019 that vaccine hesitancy and mistrust is one of the leading threats to global public health.
The goal of this year's conference was to secure funding to reach the organization's target of over 90% global coverage with essential vaccines for a wide range of diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus and measles. Gavi received more than $9 billion in funding commitments on Wednesday, but it had hoped to garner $11.9 billion for the next five years, with the goal of immunizing 500 million children globally.
Other countries acknowledged Gavi's importance, and increased their contributions at the conference on Wednesday.
Topping that list was the U.K.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced $1.7 billion for the coming five years, making the U.K. Gavi's new largest donor.
Ghana's President John Darami Mahama, addressing the Gavi conference on Wednesday, began by detailing his younger brother's struggle with polio, and the stigma associated with the disease, which has been virtually eradicated worldwide thanks to vaccination programs launched in the late 1980s.
"I understand the importance of vaccines," Mahama told the delegations.
When his brother was diagnosed, vaccine access in Ghana was close to zero, but the president said that, through partnership with Gavi, 97% of the population was now vaccinated.
He said officials were still working to reach the last 3% — about "65,000 children who are in remote areas, difficult to reach for life saving vaccines" — and that Ghana planned to no longer need Gavi's support by 2030.
Mahama concluded his remarks with a topical comparison, saying: "One B-2 Spirit Bomber that dropped bombs on Iran cost $2.13 billion," and that he had done the math, adding: "Surely the world can afford the value of four B-2 bombers to save 500 million children. It's a choice we have to make."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure

Fast Company

time42 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure

The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.

Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say

Fox News

time44 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say

Body mass index (BMI) may not be the most accurate predictor of death risk. A new study from the University of Florida found that BMI — a measurement that is commonly used to determine whether a person's weight is in a healthy range for their height — is "deeply flawed" in terms of predicting mortality. Instead, one's level of body fat is "far more accurate," concluded the study, which was published this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. To measure participants' body fat, the researchers used a method called bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which uses a device to measure the resistance of body tissue to a small electrical current. Over a 15-year period, those who had high body fat were found to be 78% more likely to die than those who had healthy body fat levels, researchers found. They were also more than three times as likely to die of heart disease, the study noted. BMI — which is calculated by dividing weight by height, squared — was described as "entirely unreliable" in predicting the risk of death over a 15-year period from any cause. The study included 4,252 people in the U.S. and pulled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BMI should not be relied upon as a "vital sign" of health, according to senior author Frank Orlando, M.D., medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill. "I'm a family physician, and on a regular basis, we're faced with patients who have diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other conditions that are related to obesity," Orlando said in a press release for the study. "One of the routine measures we take alongside traditional vital signs is BMI. We use BMI to screen for a person having an issue with their body composition, but it's not as accurate for everyone as vital signs are," he added. BMI has been the international standard for measuring obesity since the 1980s, according to many sources, though some experts have questioned its validity. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." An individual is considered obese if their BMI is 30 or above, overweight if it is between 25 and 29.9, of "normal" weight in the range of 18.5 to 24.9, or underweight if lower than 18.5. While BMI is easy to calculate, one of its main limitations is that it cannot distinguish between muscle and fat mass, the researchers noted. "For example, people who are bodybuilders can really elevate their body mass index," Orlando said. "But they're healthy even with a BMI indicating that they're obese." "BMI is just so ingrained in how we think about body fat," Mainous added. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." Other methods, such as a DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan, may be even more accurate than BIA, but are much more expensive and not as accessible, the researchers noted. "If you talk to obesity researchers, they're going to say you have to use the DEXA scan because it's the most accurate," Mainous said in the release. "And that's probably true. But it's never going to be viable in a doctor's office or family practice." Dr. Stephen Vogel — a family medicine physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform with primary care, therapy and weight management options — echoed the limitations of BMI. "It has been an easy measurement tool that helps us understand at-risk groups across various populations and demographics, but it doesn't provide accurate data from patient to patient," the North Carolina-based doctor, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "These findings don't challenge the assumptions about BMI — they strengthen the message that new standards, delivered in a consistent and low-cost way, would provide better nuance for the individual when it comes to their overall physical health." "The main strengths of this study are a better correlation to an individual's risk of morbidity and mortality — however, the limitations lie in the fact that we don't have enough data to determine the right cutoff for these numbers, or to identify the right tools that will be both accurate and precise across the population," Vogel said. The researchers also acknowledged that body fat percentage thresholds haven't yet been as standardized as BMI and waist circumference. Also, the age range of the participants in the study was limited by the data source. "Future studies should extend this comparison of body fat to BMI in older adults," the researchers wrote. The study was also limited by focusing only on mortality as an outcome, they noted, without taking into account any developing diseases — such as heart failure or cancer — that could deepen the understanding of body fat as a risk factor. The goal, according to Vogel, is to have a cost-effective, consistent method that can be used across the population with reliable accuracy. "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all." "Benefits would come in the form of a more detailed list of information that helps providers and patients make informed decisions about the patient's health, which is ideal," Vogel noted. "I'm hopeful there's enough buzz around these measures that steps will continue to be taken toward regular implementation." For more Health articles, visit The researchers are hopeful that once standards are validated, measuring body fat percentage with bioelectrical impedance analysis could become standard of care. They added, "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all."

With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades

New York Times

time44 minutes ago

  • New York Times

With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades

The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store