
From apartheid's all-white world to HIV frontlines: The activist doctor with a 5-year fix for SA healthcare
Venter grew up under apartheid, weaned on Springbok radio and weekly military-style marching drills in Phalaborwa, Limpopo, where he was one of seven children and – until he landed at Wits – had 'never met a black person who wasn't a servant'.
Sean Christie talked to him about his unorthodox inaugural full professorship lecture, his work during the height of the Aids crisis, the Trump administration's defunding of HIV and scientific research and his shoot-from-the-hip fix of our healthcare system.
An inaugural lecture is a formal event thrown by a university to commemorate the lecturer's appointment to full professorship. They are usually pinnacle-of-career moments.
Francois Venter's inaugural lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand in 2023 was not typical.
He began by recounting years of successfully dodging requests to deliver the lecture, often blaming the university's email system for his lack of response. While he dutifully name-checked his professional role models and heroes, he also took the opportunity to give credit to his tennis and rock climbing coaches. Interwoven with these acknowledgements were lively anecdotes - such as drinking tequila with Dexter Holland of The Offspring rock band (who earned a PhD in molecular biology in 2017) and receiving not one, but two, untimely calls from Standard Bank ('I swear I turned this off …').
Venter's aversion to formalism, it seems, remains resolutely untreated.
'I hate, hate, hate talking about myself,' he warns.
We are sitting in the immaculate boardroom of Ezintsha, the Wits-based medical research centre that Venter leads.
Ezintsha came to international attention in 2019 after the results of a clinical trial called ADVANCE were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study showed the effectiveness of new HIV therapies and, perhaps more importantly, demonstrated why it is important that clinical trials be conducted in the contexts in which the drugs are mainly consumed.
The therapies worked, but as Venter puts it, 'with complications peculiar to local populations, far from the sanitised world of curated pharmaceutical studies done on healthy white men.'
Venter, by this time, was already well known for his work in HIV, not only for his scientific outputs but for taking up cudgels on behalf of people living with HIV. Venter's response to being singled out is predictable: 'There are so many people in the HIV world who did much more, and more bravely.'
It is the refrain of many treatment activists, and it was no deterrent to my questions about his childhood in the Lowveld town of Phalaborwa.
'The town has a paint colour named after it – Phalaborwa Dust – a sort of dull grey, which says everything, really,' says Venter, who was born in 1969, the first of seven children.
Venter's Afrikaans-speaking father worked as an accountant for the Palabora Mining Company, while his English mother ran a creche.
'You couldn't have a family that size today,' he says.
'They managed because the company subsidised everything from education to golf club memberships.'
In a time of grand apartheid, Venter's world was particularly white and insular.
'Growing up, I never met a black person who wasn't a servant,' he admits.
Supplied/Bhekisia
'I worked like crazy at school, knowing that was my ticket out of there,' says Venter, who worried his lowveld credentials would make him the odd man out at Wits medical school.
'Instead, I walked into this amazing diversity of people. For a boy who grew up on Springbok radio, it was more than I had dreamed of,' he says.
Cancel language
Venter is tall, powerfully built. The sharp edges of a forearm tattoo peek out of the sleeve of a black puffer jacket. His disposition is nervous, though, his speech often self-effacing, although mention one of his many bugbears and a quiet fury brims. Venter is known for speaking without any regard to 'self-preservation'. Like a good journalist, he calls it as he sees it.
Supplied/Bhekisisa
The comparison pleases Venter, who was editor of the campus newspaper, Wits Student, in 1991. The publication had been overtly political since depicting Prime Minister John Vorster in a butcher's outfit in 1973.
'I enjoyed the cut and thrust of the media, and understanding its place in political life,' says Venter, who credits journalism with making him a better HIV researcher and political organiser.
He describes his involvement in student politics as an almost involuntary act, akin to staying afloat in a turbulent river.
'The late 80s were some of the worst for apartheid repression. Fellow students were being detained and tortured, their families maimed and disappeared. There was nowhere for a white person to hide, and joining the fight [against apartheid] was the only moral choice.'
Medicine, in those first years, was at the edge of Venter's concerns. He maintains he was a 'mediocre student' although he pulled his socks up in his fifth year.
Dying in Baragwanath
Healthcare provided Venter with a clear view of the twistedness of apartheid policy.
'You go into the black hospitals and it's like, jeez, the things that are happening there. Meanwhile, white people are receiving world-class care,' says Venter, who did his 'house job' (residency) at Hillbrow Hospital, which is where he first encountered HIV as a student.
'It was the beginning of that incredible surge in numbers that occurred between 1993 and 1997.
The first cases I saw were returning political exiles,' says Venter, who experienced an internal snap after an incident in a Yeoville restaurant.
'It was 1995. Rocky Street was still quite eclectic and happening, and I was hanging out in a restaurant run by this Caribbean guy I knew. He had booted out a young drug addict, who went across the street and bought a knife, came back and stabbed him in the heart. It was 10am. I tried to resuscitate him, but I had nothing. He bled to death in front of me, and I was like, f*ck South Africa and its trauma and violence.'
Venter boarded a plane for the United Kingdom, and a hospital job he found 'terminally boring'.
By 1997, he was back in Johannesburg, specialising in internal medicine. The HIV epidemic was at its zenith, and hospitals across the country were overwhelmed.
'In some of the hospitals, like Bara (Baragwanath Hospital), you just left patients in casualty, and they would die there and go out the door.
'In Joburg Gen (Johannesburg General Hospital, today Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital), you put them on the floor in the corridors, and they died there waiting for a bed. It was brutal,' says Venter.
'The numbers had surged with a suddenness and severity that we still don't really understand. Nelson Mandela was trying to prevent a race war. There really wasn't much that he, or anybody else, could have done. I didn't understand the transmission enough, and we didn't have the tools to prevent it.'
Toxic - and incredibly effective
On completion of his specialist time ,Venter was burnt out and unsure of what to do with his life. He was interested in HIV, sparked by his experience of looking after a haemophiliac in 1997.
'The patient was one of a group that had HIV after receiving infected blood imported from the US by the state in the 1980s.
'The apartheid government took a decision to pay for their treatment with what was then extremely expensive antiretroviral therapy (ART), and the ANC government continued this,' says Venter, who was amazed at the impact of the drugs on his patient.
'I saw this patient in ICU just come off a ventilator, which just did not happen in those days.'
Venter was offered a job with the Wits-based Clinical HIV Research Unit by world-renowned HIV expert Ian Sanne, who, says Venter, 'taught me how to do clinical trials, how to play with these toxic, incredibly effective drugs, and it was really the first time I was able to start seeing myself as someone who was going to get involved in HIV. The drugs have evolved since then, now more effective with almost no side effects.'
It was also where Venter started interacting with the NGOs and activists then taking the fight for affordable antiretroviral therapies to the government.
The Treatment Action Campaign had started smuggling them into the country. 'It was devastating, though, watching them fighting our government to even acknowledge HIV existed, while their members died needing those drugs. The hypocrisy of senior political figures, many of whom had family members on ARVs (antiretrovirals) I was treating, yet didn't call out Mbeki, is unforgivable.'
He then joined Professor Helen Rees' Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Initiative and began working out of Esselen Street Clinic, an old Hillbrow facility home to the first South African HIV testing site, and from where he ran a huge US government-funded HIV support programme for the next decade across several provinces, gaining experience in expanding primary care approaches in chronic diseases.
Sponsored by
Since those heady Esselen days, many important clinical trials, HIV programmes, research papers and court cases have gone under the bridge, and Venter has become part of the moral conscience of South Africa.
For years, Ezintsha was based in a Yeoville house and Hillbrow back rooms, around which sewage spills split and foamed. Now, it occupies two floors of a large office block in Parktown, an environment of biometric access controls and curvilinear glass, employing 150 people. On the upper floor is the Sleep Clinic, where patients with suspected sleep disorders lie back on R50 000 mattresses sponsored by the company.
READ | Struggling with a sleep disorder? First-of-its-kind sleep clinic launched in Johannesburg
'The quid pro quo is that they be allowed to advertise,' says a faintly apologetic Venter.
The Sleep Clinic also houses a new obesity clinic, where Venter sees patients with South Africa's new pandemic.
'The new drugs for obesity are every bit as revolutionary as the HIV drugs,' he says, 'but every bit as fiddly as antiretrovirals were in 2000'.
New studies, using these wonder drugs in people with both HIV and obesity, are being hatched here to try to improve primary care for diabetes, hypertension and other common diseases in South Africa.
The race to the bottom
The transit away from the streets into cushy offices is one that many organisations working on HIV have made in recent years.
'It is nice not to have to worry about staff being pistol-whipped while at work,' remarks Venter, but donor funding, while key to the fight against HIV in South Africa, has also distanced organisations from communities, and created a dependency which, following the collapse of the US government's Aids fund, Pepfar, and the United States International Agency for International Development, USAID, threatens catastrophe.
READ | How the health department will deal with Pepfar's near collapse
'What happened still feels quite unthinkable. It is extremely frustrating that our systems have not been made sustainable and are now on the brink of collapse as a result of Pepfar having been interwoven with the national HIV programme to such an extent everything unravels when it is stopped.'
Venter sketches a scenario, in which South Africa's HIV response – 'the one effective programme we have' – is misleadingly characterised as 'too expensive', and dragged down to the lowest common denominator, 'leading to the same terrible outcomes you find in crap programmes, like diabetes'.
'A race to the bottom, in other words,' says Venter.
'We have poor indicators for almost every health metric outside of HIV, TB and vaccines, and even those are now slipping, due to the health department dropping the ball.
'Both our public and private health services are an expensive mess, for very different reasons. The health minister has been in charge for most of the last 17 years, we have endless excellent white papers and policy documents that gather dust, and little to show for the continent's most expensive health system.'
Will this grim scenario prevail, or will South African healthcare be shepherded through the labyrinth of budget cuts and misfiring systems? Venter doesn't see why not.
Venter says:
Our problems are systemic, and we have enough resources and brains to fix them.
He pauses to mull the judiciousness of his next point.
'I'll tell you what you do. You take the top people from the medical aids and tell them: You can't be head of Discovery or the Government Employee Medical Scheme, Gems, anymore, lead with the best people from academia, from government, the private sector, donors, civil society, form a focused group with teeth, and run the health system.
'We all declare our interests, put an end to corruption, and everyone from the president and the minister of health down in government must use the public healthcare system when using their medical aid. If they experience the system first-hand, they will have an immediate investment in assisting those fixing it.
'Start using the innovations South Africans are world leaders in, including data systems. If we do that, I am telling you we will fix the system in five years.'
Venter, clearly, has already rolled up his sleeves for this new fight. It will be interesting to see who joins him.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
10 African countries most exposed to Trump's health aid cuts
Several African countries' health systems remain critically vulnerable to the fallout from President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to scale back U.S. foreign assistance, most notably through the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Several African countries are critically vulnerable due to reduced U.S. foreign assistance, particularly from cuts to USAID programs. For some nations like Somalia and South Sudan, U.S. health aid constitutes over 200% of their government health spending, making them heavily reliant. Cuts to U.S. health aid threaten African public health progress and may lead to global health risks due to weakened disease surveillance capabilities. Newly released data shows how heavily African health systems rely on U.S. aid, raising serious concerns about the impact of abrupt funding cuts on public health across the continent. According to the Center for Global Development, the United States has been a central player in supporting global health supply chains, particularly through the Global Health Supply Chain – Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC-PSM) project. In 2024 alone, the project supported 73 countries and disbursed $1.15 billion in donated health commodities and technical assistance. The majority of the funding focused on HIV (71.1%), followed by malaria (20.3%), family planning (7%), and maternal, neonatal, and child health (1.5%). In nine countries, this aid accounted for more than 10% of total government health spending, levels that are difficult to replace with domestic resources. Trump's freeze on $72 billion in U.S. foreign aid spending led to the suspension of hundreds of development projects in over 200 countries and territories, affecting nearly 10,000 USAID personnel. In total, the administration terminated 5,341 projects worth $75 billion and initiated a sharp reduction in USAID staffing, signaling a dramatic shift in America's approach to global development. For Africa, where U.S. aid often supports core health services, these actions threaten to reverse years of progress in disease control, maternal health, and emergency preparedness, while exposing millions to increased health risks. African nations most hit by US health aid cuts Recent data sourced from Business Daily Africa shows that countries like Somalia, South Sudan, and Malawi are among the most at risk, with U.S. health aid making up 237%, 235%, and 207% of their government health spending, respectively. The chart below ranks the top 10 African countries most vulnerable to Trump's health aid cuts, based on U.S. health aid as a percentage of government health spending: In over 20 African countries, U.S. assistance forms a vital share of national health budgets. For nations like Uganda, Liberia, and Mozambique, it covers more than 80% of health spending, supporting key services such as HIV/AIDS treatment, immunizations, and maternal care. The impact would be especially severe in fragile states like Somalia and South Sudan, where local systems cannot absorb such a shock. In these countries, U.S. aid underpins essential services, and its loss could trigger a collapse in healthcare delivery and a rise in preventable diseases.


Scientific American
5 hours ago
- Scientific American
U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future
As a young doctoral researcher at a university in the southern U.S., Camilo felt like he was finally closing in on his dream of becoming a leader in the next generation of HIV scholars. His recent work has helped hundreds of LGBTQ+ Latino people access HIV prevention programs and preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication that reduces HIV infection risk. But these lifesaving efforts—and Camilo's hopes of a career focused on directly helping people in his community—came to a screeching halt one recent Friday afternoon: he opened an e-mail that said a National Institutes of Health grant, vital to his work, had been terminated. 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future,' says Camilo, who asked to use a pseudonym, citing fear of retaliation. Since researchers first began receiving grant termination letters in late February, massive chunks of federal funding for science and health have been canceled on a near-weekly basis. The Trump administration has framed these cuts as a way to reduce wasteful spending, refocus research priorities and eliminate ideological bias. Grants have been flagged for containing keywords such as 'women,' 'diverse,' 'minority' and 'racially.' Camilo's research checked all the boxes for the administration's crackdown on so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research. He had been expecting the bad news, but when it came, it was still crushing. 'You're losing everything,' he says. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Grant Watch, a project tracking Trump's scientific funding cancellations, has tallied more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and 1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion as of mid-June. An NSF spokesperson declined an interview request from Scientific American but wrote in an e-mail that 'we remain committed to awarding grants and funding all areas of science and engineering.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to direct requests for an interview for this article. An NIH representative did not respond to a list of written questions but said the agency 'is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.' 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future.' —Camilo, doctoral researcher On June 16 Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled against cuts to hundreds of grants for projects through the NIH, calling these cuts 'void and illegal' and indicating that funding must be reinstated. Experts expect the Trump administration will appeal the ruling, which does not apply to all of the terminated grants compiled by Grant Watch. Virtually every research sector has been disrupted in some way since Trump took office and issued a slew of executive orders affecting science and health care. Tens of thousands of federal employees at the HHS, NIH and other science- and health-related agencies have been laid off. Universities are bracing for major federal funding cuts by freezing new hiring and cutting graduate student positions. Private research companies and industries have also seen some federal support severed—including support for the development of new vaccines and cancer treatments. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work.' —Andrew Pekosz, virologist, Johns Hopkins University Of the many thousands of researchers grappling with the fallout, one group is being disproportionately affected: early-career scientists. Senior researchers often have a diversity of funding streams, but for those starting out in the field, 'grants serve as the foundation for an entire career of work,' says Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. With the cuts, 'there are some [early-career researchers] who we will undoubtedly lose from the scientific and health enterprises.' Scientific American posted on a Reddit space for scientists, researchers and lab workers to ask people how they are grappling with the professional and personal whiplash of these interruptions. More than 50 people responded with public comments; dozens more sent private messages expressing fears, frustrations and concerns. We interviewed several of them—and other junior researchers—about how the cuts are affecting their current and future work and what the long-term consequences may be for the U.S. Research Interrupted Students and postdoctoral researchers perform the vast majority of research at academic institutions, so in addition to disrupting individual lives, the cuts have thrown whole laboratories into disarray. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work,' says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist who leads a lab at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Pekosz's lab had recently lost a COVID-related grant that was supposed to run until September. which forced him to dismiss a postdoc and a research associate because he lacked funding for their salaries. He was able to cobble together support for a Ph.D. student on the project but had to shorten the timeline for the research. Although the lab's grant is among those that Judge Young ordered the NIH to restore, much damage has already been done. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' —Sierra Wilson, Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh Labs that still have funding are also working under high pressure and low morale. 'We're constantly asking our PI [principal investigator], 'Is everything going to be okay? Are we going to be safe?'' says R.K., an undergraduate student at a lab in the Midwest that's investigating treatments for a genetic disease. (R.K. asked to be identified by his initials, citing fear that speaking out could harm his future career.) At weekly meetings, he says, the lab's principal investigator has been pushing the team to publish more papers 'in order to show our progress to donor organizations.' If the researchers' NIH funding shrinks, he says, 'we would need to persuade our other donors for more money to make up the gap.' Applied across thousands of U.S. labs, these losses—both tangible and psychological—will add up, Pekosz says. 'We're going to see a massive downsizing of biomedical research efforts because there simply is not going to be the funding available to maintain the current level,' he says. Recent data suggest this is likely to prove correct. For example, according to a 2023 JAMA Health Forum paper, of the 356 drugs that gained Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2019, more than 84 percent received research funding from the NIH before approval. This research was powered by early-career workers: billions of dollars in NIH funding supported graduate students, postdocs and research staff who conducted the work. Under the current budget cuts, however, 'all of this is at risk,' says Fred Ledley, a co-author of the 2023 paper and a professor of natural and applied sciences at Bentley University. Deeply Personal The termination letter for Calimo's grant, which is not affected by Judge Young's ruling, said that it 'no longer [effectuated] agency priorities' and that 'research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.' Not only did these claims completely contradict the original score that NIH grant reviewers gave Camilo's application, reading the letter made him feel like he was being 'attacked,' he says. Early-career grants are both crucial stepping stones to larger grants and recognition of a rising researcher's potential. The way the Trump administration's termination letters are worded 'delegitimates the scientists and the work they do,' Ranney says. 'There's often a deeply personal aspect.' 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country.' —Alex, postdoc, University of Colorado Sometimes, that personal aspect is literally about the researchers themselves. Sierra Wilson, a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, assumed her liver-regeneration research would be safe from the cuts. But because Wilson is a first-generation college student from a low-income household, her funding came from a program that aimed to increase diversity in biomedical research, and according to the NIH spokesperson, that program is now 'expired.' When Wilson read her termination letter in late April, she suspected it must be related not to her research but to her classification as an underrepresented scholar. In her case, she says, the federal cuts appear to be targeting 'people themselves—which feels more discriminatory.' The NIH spokesperson did not respond to Scientific American's question about the allegation that the termination of grants in the now expired program appeared to be based on researchers' identity or background. According to the spokesperson, 'Grantees may appeal terminations for nonalignment with agency priorities.' Wilson sent an appeal request in May, but she does not expect a timely resolution, and to her knowledge, her grant is not affected by Judge Young's decision. University personnel who helped her with the appeals process told her that they expect she will have graduated by the time the NIH gets back to her. A number of junior researchers say all these blows are taking a heavy toll on their mental health. One of them is Alex, a postdoc at the University of Colorado, whose last name has been withheld for privacy at her request. Alex, who says she comes from a low socioeconomic background and served in the military before pursuing research developing flu vaccines, reports recurring nightmares about losing her postdoctoral job. She 'spirals' each time she sees bad news about science at stake, she says, and has recently developed blood pressure issues. 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country,' she says. 'I feel ashamed I even served it.' The Lost Generation of Scientists Scientists who are just entering their field can spark fresh ideas and bring an appetite for change. But dwindling funding and opportunities threaten to 'choke off' this influx of new talent—further constraining the already competitive job market—Pekosz says. He has even seen signs of the scientist-hiring drought spilling over into industry. His graduating Ph.D. students are struggling to secure jobs, he says, adding that his inbox is full of e-mails from prospective students as well as laid-off federal scientists seeking positions in his lab. Wilson has fading hopes for securing a job in academia when she graduates this fall. 'With all these grant and job terminations, the market is flooded, and people aren't hiring because [they don't know] how things will work out,' Wilson says. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' Many scientists, including early-career ones, are contemplating leaving the U.S. to find better support for their research. R.K., who plans to pursue a dual medical degree and Ph.D., is now considering applying to programs in Asia and Europe. Alex, likewise, is strongly thinking about leaving the country. 'I would love to be a PI,' she says. 'But there's no hope left here.' If available scientific talent continues to decline in the U.S., experts anticipate a potential domino effect on the economy. In 2024 every dollar invested in NIH research generated a $2.56 return, so the U.S. economy will likely feel the aftershocks of the recent cuts relatively quickly, Ranney says. In the longer term, scientific discoveries 'will start to stagnate,' she says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' —Tyler Yasaka, medical and Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh There's also a likelihood that science fields will become a less appealing choice for incoming college students. 'I worry that we're going to see a loss of basic scientific skill and knowledge as fewer people go into science,' Ranney says. If the pipeline of new talent slows, the nation's position as a global leader in science will be difficult to maintain—or to recover once it's gone, she says. It's going to be impossible to replace all the lost federal funding, Ranney says. The remaining hope, then, is that 'we can reverse course,' she says. Some scientists are uniting and pushing back. Tyler Yasaka, a dual medical and Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, is part of an informal committee at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Hillman Cancer Center that's brainstorming actions researchers and students can take, such as advocating for science in front of elected officials at Capitol Hill. He is also independently launching a podcast to share scientists' experiences with funding. 'I think most scientists aren't comfortable speaking out publicly, but if we value democracy, we have an obligation to use our voices,' Yasaka says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' Fortunately for Camilo, his university has found institutional funds to support the remainder of his Ph.D. But he no longer sees a clear path forward after graduation to continue his research on HIV and LGBTQ+ health among Latinos in the U.S.—public health issues that are personally important to him. 'It's sad and upsetting,' he says. 'I do not want to give up on my community.'


Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Chaotic and deeply frightening': Once a global gold standard, U.S. government health guidance is falling apart
Weeks after President Trump took office, multiple government webpages referencing gender and sexual orientation abruptly disappeared from the internet. Many returned after a February court order. But they came with an unusual addition: a disclaimer from the Department of Health and Human Services denying facts provided by its own agencies. 'Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female,' reads a statement now appended to several government webpages, including some discussing HIV, civil rights protections and healthcare for transgender people. 'This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it.' Once a global leader in public health guidance, the U.S. government is now embarking on the unusual project of denying or deleting once-public information provided by its own researchers. The U.S. Global Change Research Program's entire website went dark Monday, taking with it an extensive report on the health effects of climate change whose authors included employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other government agencies. Dozens of research databases maintained by the National Institutes of Health on topics such cancer and Alzheimer's disease now display a warning that they are 'under review for potential modification in compliance with Administration directives.' Some federal sites have added new pages that at times contradict evidence-based guidance posted on the same site. currently hosts both a recent presentation by vaccine skeptic Lyn Redwood about the dangers of the preservative thimerosal, as well as a fact sheet published in December debunking many of the incorrect statements about thimerosal that anti-vaccine campaigners have advanced. (The site also notes that thimerosal was removed from U.S. childhood vaccines in 2001.) The consequence, physicians and child health advocates said this week, is having fewer tools to help healthcare providers and the public make informed decisions, further eroding the public's trust in science. 'Use whatever analogy you want to use — this is a five-alarm fire,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics' infectious-disease committee. 'One day the information is there, and the next day it's gone. And it's being driven purely by politics and not by science. It's dystopian, frankly,' O'Leary said. 'The CDC is a model for the world in terms of what they do for the U.S. population, and that is being harmed in a very profound way.' O'Leary was one of several physicians The Times spoke with who stressed that the contradictory messages emerging from U.S. government agencies were not a sign of a fracturing consensus among public health professionals, but of the administration's turn away from those professionals' expertise. The nation's various scientific societies, professional groups and medical associations 'are all in alignment,' O'Leary said. 'There is no disagreement among us that what is happening is chaotic and deeply frightening for the American people.' For the first time since the 1990s, the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer endorses the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule. Visitors to the academy site are directed not to the CDC's most recent guidelines, which no longer suggest outright that children get the COVID-19 vaccine, but to a version published in November that retains the recommendation that it be given only to children 6 months and older. After the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted last month to recommend only thimerosal-free flu shots and drop COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy pregnant people without the scientific input the group typically receives before such decisions, both the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued statements denouncing the committee's recommendations. (Roughly 96% of the flu shots administered last year did not contain thimerosal, according to the CDC.) The CDC now deems the COVID shot a 'shared clinical decision-making vaccination' for children. Unlike routine or risk-based vaccine recommendations, this designation is 'individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian,' according to But by depleting and muddying the information it makes publicly available, the administration is depriving parents of the evidence-based data they need to make responsible decisions, said Bruce Lesley, president of the child health-advocacy group First Focus on Children. 'We all should rely on some sort of expertise and protections,' Lesley said. 'There's no way to be able to put that burden on parents and to expect that it's just going to be all fine.' The CDC website in particular has long been a resource that physicians and other healthcare providers rely on to stay abreast of evidence-based recommendations for treatment and emerging health trends around the country, doctors said. 'What all this is doing is causing a great deal of confusion, and not just for our families and our patients, but also for our providers and our doctors,' said Dr. Eric Ball, an Orange County pediatrician and the American Academy of Pediatrics' California chair. 'We rely on accurate information from our public health sources so that we can help best take care of our patients, and when we can't trust those sources, that makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs and endangers the health of our communities.' Since Trump took office, several independent efforts have sprung up to archive what data can be saved from government websites before its withdrawn or deleted, such as the Data Rescue Project and But the patchwork of alternatives can't replace what has long been for the U.S. public — a single-stop clearinghouse for evidence-based information presented in plain language, said Dr. Tina Tan, a professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine and the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 'The question now is who do you trust, and where do you get trusted information? And that's a major issue,' Tan said. 'The American public needs to understand that all these changes are going to have some type of impact on them.'