Expert Warns of Health Crisis After CDC Resignation
Unfortunately, that quote is not attributable to Chicken Little. Instead, it's the opinion of Dr. Fiona Havers, formerly a top scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who resigned from the agency Monday.
In her first interview after leaving, Havers told the New York Times that Kennedy's attacks on science and how science is conducted will have dire consequences.
'It's a very transparent, rigorous process, and they have just taken a sledgehammer to it in the last several weeks,' she said. 'CDC processes are being corrupted in a way that I haven't seen before.'
At the CDC, Havers oversaw the team that collects data on COVID-19 and RSV hospitalizations and helped craft national vaccine policy.
In a goodbye email to her colleagues that was seen by Reuters, Havers said she no longer had confidence that her team's output would 'be used objectively or evaluated with appropriate scientific rigor to make evidence-based vaccine policy decisions.'
Kennedy's attacks on vaccination, coupled with the shocking firing of all 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices earlier this month, helped persuade her to go.
The health secretary has since named eight replacements to the influential panel. Among them are a scientist who criticized COVID-19 vaccines, a critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and another person the Associated Press described as 'widely considered to be a leading source of vaccine misinformation.'
'I could not be party to legitimizing this new committee,' Havers told the Times.
'I have utmost respect for my colleagues at CDC who stay and continue to try and limit the damage from the inside,' she added. 'What happened last week was the last straw for me.'
Asked to respond to the concerns Havers raised in her resignation email, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told CBS that 'under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, HHS is committed to following the gold standard of scientific integrity. Vaccine policy decisions will be based on objective data, transparent analysis, and evidence – not conflicts of interest or industry influence.'
HuffPost.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A New COVID Variant Is Here, And It's More Transmissible — Here Are The Signs And Symptoms
A new COVID variant known as NB.1.8.1 has made landfall in the United States. As of late May, the variant, which was first detected in China this past January, accounted for 10% of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences tested from around the world, recent surveillance data found. That's a significant jump from 2.5% four weeks prior. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spokesperson told HuffPost that the agency is in regular contact with international partners about the activity of NB.1.8.1. Up until late May, only 20 NB.1.8.1 sequences had been identified in the U.S. — that's below the threshold needed for a variant to appear on the agency's COVID dashboard. (As soon as its prevalence increases, NB.1.8.1 will pop up on the tracker, the spokesperson added.) It's nerve-wracking to hear that a new variant is making the rounds, but infectious disease specialists say there are no glaring differences between the symptoms of NB.1.8.1 and those caused by other versions of SARS-CoV-2. 'Currently it appears that NB.1.8.1 would have similar symptoms to other COVID variants that have recently been circulating,' Dr. Zachary Hoy, a pediatric infectious disease specialist with Pediatrix Medical Group in Nashville, Tennessee, told HuffPost. Here's what to know about the newest COVID variant that's gaining traction around the world. NB.1.8.1's mutations likely make it more transmissible. Compared to the currently dominant variant in the U.S. (LP.8.1), NB.1.8.1 has a handful of new mutations on the spike protein that may enhance its ability to bind to our cells, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The agency suspects these mutations will increase the virus's transmissibility and, potentially, diminish the effectiveness of neutralizing antibodies that prevent pathogens from latching to our cells. In other words, the variant may be skilled at dodging some of our immune defenses, research suggests. Here are the signs and symptoms doctors are seeing with NB.1.8.1. According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious diseases expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, NB.1.8.1's symptoms are pretty much the same as those seen with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Two of COVID's hallmark symptoms are a mild but persistent dry cough and nasal congestion, Hoy said. Many people who come down with COVID are also hit with fatigue and tiredness. 'An infected person can still make it through the day, but they are resting more and feel more tired throughout the day,' Hoy said. Other common symptoms include a fever, chills, a sore throat and muscle aches. 'Some have described recent variants as less intense symptoms as compared to wintertime influenza viruses, but both can have severe symptoms,' Hoy said. There's no evidence suggesting the variant causes more severe disease or an uptick in hospitalizations or deaths, the WHO states. The only noticeable aspect, as of now, is that it's rising in prevalence, Adalja said. How effective are the vaccines against NB.1.8.1? It's too early to know exactly how effective the shots are — as the research on NB.1.8.1 is limited since it's so new — but scientists expect the shots to hold up well. NB.1.8.1 broke off from the Omicron JN.1 lineage, which the 2024-2025 vaccines target. 'The ability of the vaccines to prevent severe illness is intact though protection versus infection is limited and transient,' Adalja said. Anyone who is at risk of severe disease should stay up-to-date with the shots. 'Those in older populations or with underlying immune disorders or on immune-decreasing medications would benefit more from vaccination or those with increased exposure such as healthcare workers,' Hoy added. So if you have a condition that puts you at risk, it's worth getting vaccinated if it's been more than six months since your last vaccine or bout of COVID, Adalja advises. He also added that those who are low-risk likely do not need to go out and get another shot. Know when to treat NB.1.8.1 at home and when to go visit a doctor. Most people will be able to recover at home by resting and staying hydrated. While you're sick, acetaminophen and ibuprofen can help alleviate muscle aches and fevers, Hoy said. And, in most cases, symptoms should clear up within a week. For those who are at risk for severe disease, including older adults and people who are immune-compromised, it's worth contacting a physician as they can prescribe antivirals — Paxlovid and Molnupiravir — that can significantly lower the risk of severe complications and death. As was the case with previous variants, these antivirals work best when started within five days of symptom onset. As for when you should go to an urgent care or emergency room? When you have chest pain, have a hard time waking up or staying awake, or feel confused and disoriented, the CDC advises. Hoy says the most concerning symptom he warns patients about is difficulty breathing. 'If you have COVID or COVID-like illness and have worsening trouble breathing or chest pain, you should be evaluated at your doctor's office, urgent care or the ER,' he said. Related... RFK Jr. Says COVID Shot Will No Longer Be Advised For Healthy Kids, Pregnant Women COVID Cases Are Rising This Summer, But Not All The Data Shows It — Here's Why People Are Reporting A Frightening COVID Symptom Right Now — Here's What To Know
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Views from the front lines of Trump's war on the science community
The Trump administration has unleashed a tsunami of budget cuts to federal science programs. Mass firings have taken place at both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, part of a deliberate decimation of research staff across the federal government. Since January, the administration has systematically cut science funding to its lowest level in decades and issued a flood of budget plans and executive orders that are reshaping how the government uses and supports science. Some outcomes have been immediate and tragic, including staffing shortages that have left cancer patients stranded during experimental drug trials and delays in approving COVID-19 vaccines. The extent of these actions is unprecedented. The administration for a time froze all grant funding at the National Science Foundation and abruptly terminated thousands of the ongoing projects that it funds, as well as those of the National Institutes of Health. As scientists at leading research institutions, we have personally witnessed the effects of the administration's policies — including colleagues relocating overseas and students leaving research altogether. Undergraduate science internship programs have been canceled, and graduate programs in many research universities paused. As a result, scientists are increasingly seeking jobs abroad. The administration claims its goals are to increase efficiency and raise the standards of scientific research. In fact, thousands of programs and projects have been cut solely on the basis of ideologically motivated keyword searches, without any concern for their performance, design or conduct. That's not efficient. A Trump executive order issued in May underscores the purely political nature of these attacks. Titled ' Restoring Gold Standard Science,' the order puts hand-picked presidential appointees into every agency to review and 'correct' any evidence or conclusions with which they disagree. That's not scientific. Further, many of the administration's policies effectively punish researchers simply for asking discomfiting questions and punish institutions for teaching about unpopular ideas. Viewed together, these outline a political strategy toward science that is both systematic and dangerous: a full-scale war on the scientific community, the network of individual researchers across many institutions whose collaboration is essential for scientific progress. Despite the media stereotype of a lone genius in a lab coat, science is really a communal activity. As Isaac Newton, one of the most important scientists of all time, wrote: 'If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' Every research project builds on foundational theory, tested methods and vetted findings created and refined through previous research. And every scientist depends on the distributed efforts of an extensive community to vet and review manuscripts for publication and proposals for new research, maintain common journals, databases and tools needed to share and build upon knowledge and educate and train the next generation of talent who help operate their labs. Institutions of higher education are the traditional hosts for the scientific community in the U.S, providing an independent forum for developing and refining ideas, an environment for training students and infrastructure for labs and shared resources. For more than 80 years, U.S. society has partnered with these institutions to foster a healthy scientific community. Federal funding enabled universities to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for scientific research and support the most promising students. The scientific community collaborated to evaluate proposals for research across fields, ensuring resources were directed to the highest-quality projects, independent of political and institutional bias. No system is perfect, but the external scientific community has successfully partnered with the government to provide independent guidance and vetting — balancing competing interests and perspectives to evaluate proposals, advise the agencies that set funding priorities, accredit the programs that train researchers, review research findings and publish research results. Scientists within the government participate in the larger scientific community, reinforcing community standards as they move between jobs, and preserve the autonomy to ask scientific questions and share their findings. The administration's policies represent a three-fold attack on the scientific community. First, the administration aims to directly seize control over the key community functions that support scientific independence: Administrative actions have politicized the review processes for funding at National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, suppressed scientific data and withdrawn support for students. Second, the administration aims to subdue universities that provide an independent home for the community by weaponizing institutional accreditation and student visas, threatening individual institutions and their leadership when they are slow to align with the administration's ideology. Third, the administration is isolating scientists and scientific functions within the government. It does so by sidelining scientific expertise, firing entire independent expert advisory panels, canceling government access to scientific journals, preventing government scientists from publishing in them and, now, subjecting scientific analysis to systematic political modification and censorship. The government's war against science is a disaster for both. Without intellectual and political independence, the scientific community can't function effectively to discover new knowledge and solve hard problems. It's magical thinking for politicians to expect to receive truthful answers about the world when they poll to find the most popular answer, pay to get the answers they want or ignore data they dislike. And it's anti-democratic when political leaders dictate whether questions, data, and conclusions are appropriately scientific. Society needs science to tackle complex problems and to teach others how to do so. Science doesn't function without a healthy scientific community. As citizens, we should debate what problems are essential. As voters, we should decide which problems deserve public research funding. As free people, we should not tolerate political attacks on science and the scientific community. Micah Altman is a social and information scientist at MIT's Center for Research on Equitable and Open Scholarship, MIT Libraries. Philip N. Cohen is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Continuous glucose monitors are in vogue. But do you really need to track your blood sugar?
A quarter-size device that tracks the rise and fall of sugar in your blood is the latest source of hope — and hype — in the growing buzz around wearable health technology. Continuous glucose monitors, small patches that provide 24-hour insight into concentrations of sugar in the blood, could be a tool for Americans to 'take control over their own health,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told federal lawmakers. 'They can take responsibility,' Kennedy said. 'They can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way they live their lives.' The devices have lifesaving benefits for people with diabetes, the disease caused when blood sugar remains high because their bodies don't make enough insulin or become resistant to it. The condition, which affects more than 38 million people in the U.S., raises the risk of serious health problems such as heart and kidney disease and vision loss. But the devices have surged in popularity among people without diabetes. Sales have been driven by high-profile marketers such as Casey Means , the nominee for U.S. surgeon general . There's scant evidence the monitors are useful for people with normal blood sugar levels, said Dr. Jody Dushay, an endocrine specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Healthy bodies can effectively regulate glucose after meals and provide the energy they need to function. Glucose monitors may lead people to misinterpret normal swings in blood sugar that happen after eating or activity. In addition, the devices can be 'notoriously inaccurate,' providing misleading readings, she said. 'The problem with wearing these is that you can just be zooming in on and creating pathology when it's not there,' Dushay said. Here's what you need to know about the devices: Here's what a continuous glucose monitor does The device is a small patch, about the size of two stacked quarters, usually placed on the upper arm or stomach. It uses a needle to painlessly pierce the skin for a tiny sensor. The sensor measures the glucose in fluid under the skin, delivering a signal every few minutes to a phone app or a handheld display. The apps typically record blood sugar levels and help people track the foods they eat and how they impact those levels. When healthy people eat a meal that contains carbohydrates, their blood sugar rises, peaks and falls in response to the food. A healthy fasting blood glucose level for a person without diabetes is roughly 70 milligrams per deciliter to 99 milligrams per deciliter. A range from 100 to 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates prediabetes and above 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. In adults without diabetes, blood sugar levels can climb to 140 milligrams per deciliter or more within an hour of a meal, before falling back to baseline levels within two or three hours, according to the association. It's a sign the body is processing sugar normally. Continuous glucose monitors have been available since the late 1990s For decades, these devices were available only for people with diabetes. The monitors revolutionized care by allowing more precise adjustment of insulin used to treat diabetes and giving people the ability to modify meals and activity more accurately. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter monitors. Since then, many companies have emerged to market them, claiming to provide intensive, individualized health monitoring. Cost is generally about $100 a month. They've really caught on with consumers curious about how food and activity affect their blood sugar levels. For instance, Noom, the weight-loss and fitness app, launched a blood glucose feature last year that has proven extremely popular, said Alexander Fabry, a company executive. 'Of the people who are using a CGM, the vast majority of them don't have a diabetes diagnosis,' he said. Who can use the monitors? The devices have been lifesaving for people with diabetes. And they can be helpful for people with risk factors for the disease, including obesity, prediabetes, a history of gestational diabetes or a family history of the condition. The devices can allow users to see how specific food and activity choices affect their blood sugar in near real-time, said Dr. Alaina Vidmar, a pediatric obesity specialist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. 'After a large meal, you may watch your blood sugar go up and sort of learn something about yourself,' Vidmar said. 'For example, I drink a sugar-sweetened soda and my blood sugar goes up really high, really fast. And maybe I don't feel as good, right?' What are the cautions? People without risk factors for diabetes may turn to the monitors just because they're curious, said Dr. David Kessler. A former FDA commissioner, Kessler doesn't have diabetes, but he wore a monitor for a couple months during research for his recent book, 'Diet, Drugs and Dopamine.' 'I think it's a very interesting tool to experiment with if you're so inclined,' Kessler said. But, he noted, the devices can't be used to diagnose or treat disease. Even experts don't agree on how to interpret or provide health advice for people without diabetes based on blood sugar data. 'No one knows what's optimal in the nondiabetic state,' he said. Before using a monitor, Dushay asks patients to consider their motives. 'What do you think you're going to get from the data?' she said. 'What is to be gained from wearing that monitor?' ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
