Medical groups sue US health secretary over Covid-19 vaccine change
At the end of May, Kennedy announced via social media that federal authorities would no longer recommend Covid-19 vaccines for children and pregnant women, resulting in blowback from health experts.
In the lawsuit, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Physicians (ACP) and other leading medical groups are calling on the court to stop Kennedy's "unilateral, unscientific" directive and restore the Covid-19 vaccine to immunisation schedules.
"It is really unconscionable to take away a parent's ability and choice to protect their children through vaccination," said Tina Tan, a paediatrician and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, one of the plaintiffs.
Since taking office, Kennedy – who spent decades spreading vaccine misinformation before becoming President Donald Trump's top health official – has worked to overhaul American vaccination policies.
In June, he fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) and appointed his own panellists, under the banner of "Make America Healthy Again."
Monday's complaint also highlighted the controversial new appointees to ACIP.
"We are on a dangerous path," warned Susan Kressly of the AAP, denouncing what she described as misinformation spread by Kennedy while citing the concerns of her peers and parents of patients.
"Paediatricians cannot stay silent as the system we rely on to support life-saving vaccines is chiselled away piece by piece, with Secretary Kennedy leading efforts to sow doubt and distrust in the American success story of vaccines," Kressly said.
The problem isn't limited to parents and children, as misinformation about vaccines undermines a long-standing trust between doctor and patient.
Increasingly, medical professionals are finding that adult patients are "hesitant to get their vaccines. They are not trusting the system anymore," said Jason Goldman, president of the ACP.
The issue of vaccines extends beyond Covid-19 in the US.
Johns Hopkins University released a count Monday finding the US has recorded its worst measles epidemic in more than 30 years, with 1,277 cases confirmed since the beginning of 2025, and illness recorded in 40 of 50 states.
The total US figure is the highest since 1992.
The joint complaint was filed in Massachusetts, a north-eastern US state.
Federal health officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
13 hours ago
- The Star
Will the world's first Pandemic Agreement live up to its promise?
Covid-19 was the first pandemic this century. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 778 million cases globally, with more than seven million deaths as of June 7 (2025). The vast majority of cases occurred in 2020 and 2021. One of the heartbreaking lessons of Covid-19 was that lives and livelihoods were destroyed by an invisible agent that had no respect for borders or anything else. According to the Lancet Global Health 2050 Commission, there is a 50% likelihood of another new pandemic causing 25 million or more deaths between now and 2050. Cognisant of the imperative to do better than during the Covid-19 pandemic, the member states of WHO agreed in December 2021 that a new legal instrument was needed to help countries prevent, prepare for and respond to future global health threats. The work to draft the Pandemic Agreement was long, arduous and divisive amidst increasing global geopolitical upheaval. What it is The Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 20 (2025). This agreement is only the second legally-binding one that WHO has negotiated after the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control. Many of the delegates at the WHA who spoke prefaced their measured enthusiasm with caveats and cautious hopes, as well as a sense that something was better than nothing, as the Agreement was not as transformative as the majority had hoped for. The Agreement established principles, priorities and targets for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The aim is to: Build resilience to pandemics Support prevention, detection and responses to outbreaks with pandemic potential Ensure equitable access to pandemic countermeasures, and Support global coordination through a stronger and more accountable WHO. A pandemic emergency was defined as such: 'It must be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). 'A PHEIC means an extraordinary event which is determined (i) to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and (ii) to potentially require a coordinated international response; being of communicable disease nature; having, or at risk of having, wide demographical spread; exceeding, or is at high risk of exceeding, the capacity of health systems; causing, or is at high risk of causing, substantial social and/or economic disruption etc.; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action etc.' The Agreement complements other initiatives, actions and measures aimed at making the world safer from pandemics, including the International Health Regulations, and global systems and institutions working towards equitable sharing of health technologies, information and expertise. It will establish a Pathogen Access and Benefit-sharing System (PABS) to 'enable materials and genome sequences of pandemic pathogens to be shared and aims to promote equitable sharing of any resulting innovations, such as vaccines'. WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (red tie) celebrating the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement by the WHA on May 20. Money and monopolies However, the Agreement stated that manufacturers would have to share only 20% of any vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics. Although 20% is better than nothing, no one could claim that it is equitable and just. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a few high-income countries had early and excess access to vaccines through bilateral arrangements with manufacturers. This undermined the global Covax initiative and contributed to death and illness in poor countries that were dependent on donations. The Agreement does not stop some countries from again monopolising life-saving measures at the expense of others in the next pandemic. It also does not provide for funding. It encourages states to 'develop and implement national and/or regional policies, adapted to its domestic circumstances, regarding the inclusion of provisions in publicly-funded research and development grants, contracts and other similar funding arrangements, particularly with private entities and public- private partnerships, for the development of pandemic-related health products, that promote timely and equitable access to such products, particularly for developing countries, during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and regarding the publication of such provisions'. There is already a Pandemic Fund and development banks will likely have a role in funding. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism will be established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of the Agreement. However, how it will operate together with existing financing instruments is unclear. Countries still in charge The Agreement recognises national sovereignty, i.e.: 'Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the WHO, including the Director-General of the WHO, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic law, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.' The issue of accountability is unclear in the Agreement as it states that: 'Each Party shall monitor its preparedness capacities, and periodically assess, if needed with technical support from the Secretariat of the WHO upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacities.' There are no provisions for independent monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. This means that there are no consequences for non-compliance with the Agreement. Selective adherence by WHO member state(s) can undermine the effectiveness of the Agreement. More work needed The WHA established a new body, i.e. the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), to draft and negotiate the Annex on PABS in Article 12 of the Agreement. It will be submitted to the next WHA for adoption, after which the Agreement will be open for ratification and accession by member states of WHO. The IGWG was also directed by the WHA to initiate steps to enable the setting-up of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) to 'enhance, facilitate and work to remove barriers and ensure equitable, timely, rapid, safe and affordable access to pandemic-related health products for countries in need during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and for prevention of such emergencies'. After the WHA adopted the Agreement, WHO's Director-General stated: 'The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement. 'The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. 'It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. 'It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during Covid-19.' How the guiding principle in Article 3 of the Agreement, i.e. 'full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons', would be addressed is an open question. The weak requirements on the sharing of health technologies and the vague statements on accountability means that the Agreement is unlikely to prevent a repetition of one of the primary failures in the Covid-19 pandemic, i.e. the uncontrolled acquisition and consumption of crucial resources by a few high-income countries at the expense of the rest of the world. It is unlikely that the current Agreement will ensure an equitable global response at the next pandemic. Anyone who has read it can only hope that it will be strengthened before the next pandemic arrives. While something is better than nothing, more needs to be done. Dr Milton Lum is a past president of the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations and the Malaysian Medical Association. For more information, email starhealth@ The views expressed do not represent that of organisations that the writer is associated with. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. Information published in this article is not intended to replace, supplant or augment a consultation with a health professional regarding the reader's own medical care. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
New Straits Times
17 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Medical groups sue US health secretary over Covid-19 vaccine change
WASHINGTON: Several leading medical groups filed suit against US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday, accusing him of endangering public health with new Covid-19 vaccine recommendations. At the end of May, Kennedy announced via social media that federal authorities would no longer recommend Covid-19 vaccines for children and pregnant women, resulting in blowback from health experts. In the lawsuit, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Physicians (ACP) and other leading medical groups are calling on the court to stop Kennedy's "unilateral, unscientific" directive and restore the Covid-19 vaccine to immunisation schedules. "It is really unconscionable to take away a parent's ability and choice to protect their children through vaccination," said Tina Tan, a paediatrician and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, one of the plaintiffs. Since taking office, Kennedy – who spent decades spreading vaccine misinformation before becoming President Donald Trump's top health official – has worked to overhaul American vaccination policies. In June, he fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) and appointed his own panellists, under the banner of "Make America Healthy Again." Monday's complaint also highlighted the controversial new appointees to ACIP. "We are on a dangerous path," warned Susan Kressly of the AAP, denouncing what she described as misinformation spread by Kennedy while citing the concerns of her peers and parents of patients. "Paediatricians cannot stay silent as the system we rely on to support life-saving vaccines is chiselled away piece by piece, with Secretary Kennedy leading efforts to sow doubt and distrust in the American success story of vaccines," Kressly said. The problem isn't limited to parents and children, as misinformation about vaccines undermines a long-standing trust between doctor and patient. Increasingly, medical professionals are finding that adult patients are "hesitant to get their vaccines. They are not trusting the system anymore," said Jason Goldman, president of the ACP. The issue of vaccines extends beyond Covid-19 in the US. Johns Hopkins University released a count Monday finding the US has recorded its worst measles epidemic in more than 30 years, with 1,277 cases confirmed since the beginning of 2025, and illness recorded in 40 of 50 states. The total US figure is the highest since 1992. The joint complaint was filed in Massachusetts, a north-eastern US state. Federal health officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP.
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Sunny Side Up: How do we find genuine happiness?
Last month I was on radio discussing whether our pursuit of happiness might backfire, leaving us less content instead of bringing the fulfilment we expect. If we see happiness as a fleeting emotion, then the constant pursuit of any single feeling becomes problematic. Studies suggest people in elevated moods can actually become less cautious, more impulsive, and more prone to errors in judgement. During the Covid-19 pandemic, American psychologist Prof Steven Hayes – creator of acceptance and commitment therapy – delivered a memorable webinar for mental health NGO Relate Malaysia. He opened with a striking observation: 'We're sold the message that we ought to be constantly happy, but that's a problematic message. We need the whole range of human emotion to survive and thrive.' The idea that we should always be happy also shows up in therapy settings, where clients struggle with this expectation. Mark Vahrmeyer, a UK psychotherapist, wrote an excellent summary about the assumed opposition of depression and happiness. He pointed out that many people come to therapy wanting to 'feel happier'. But happiness isn't simply the opposite of depression. Depression isn't just sadness; it's a deadening of the inner world, a flattening of meaning, imagination, and desire. By contrast, happiness is transient, and therapy doesn't aim to manufacture a single feeling on demand. It's about helping us stay with our emotions, listen to them, and think instead of simply reacting. Vahrmeyer also notes that a rich life includes joy, but also grief, anger, longing, and disappointment. Chasing only happiness reduces life to shallow hedonism. What matters isn't simply feeling good but feeling fully alive and open to everything that life brings us. Yet too often we see a cultural push, in schools and workplaces, towards relentless positivity. We're encouraged to be cheerful, grateful, and upbeat at all times. These are valuable qualities, of course, but they aren't the only emotions we feel. Good emotional education, especially for young people, means helping people to recognise, understand, and express the full range of their feelings in healthy, honest ways. If children learn that anger and frustration are simply 'bad' and mustn't be expressed, those emotions won't just vanish. They can turn into something more corrosive and painful over time. A child who feels shame for being angry might withdraw, struggle to stand up for themselves, or suffer in silence. Over years, those unspoken feelings can harden into resentment against others or against themselves. If our model of emotional health is all about smiling through pain, we leave ourselves unprepared for reality, papering over cracks that only deepen if ignored or denied. We see this in how we handle grief. When someone loses a loved one, they might be told to 'stay strong' or 'think of the good times', as if devastation is something to hide or feel guilty about. But of course, they will feel deep sadness or devastation – and it isn't weakness to experience emotions appropriate for a significant and personal loss. During the radio interview, I was also asked if doing things just to be happy can still be good for us. It's a fair question and one with a nuanced answer: Activities that lift our mood clearly have value and can help us cope. American psychologist Carol Dweck talks about 'earned' positive feelings – those that come from meaningful effort and commitment. Exercising, creating, or helping others can all bring real satisfaction and lasting change. But it depends on our approach and our mindset. If happiness becomes the only goal, the pursuit can turn hollow, leaving us wanting more and never satisfied. When we nurture relationships, learn, create, or help others – not simply to be happy but because these things matter – the happiness that follows is more genuine, grounded, and lasting. It's not that happiness is unimportant or trivial. It's that it's most authentic when it grows out of living in ways that deeply engage us. Real happiness comes from understanding and accepting our full range of emotions, learning to express them well, and giving them their place. When we do this, we create the foundation for genuine contentment – the kind we often search for in all the wrong ways. Sunny Side Up columnist Sandy Clarke has long held an interest in emotions, mental health, mindfulness and meditation. He believes the more we understand ourselves and each other, the better societies we can create. If you have any questions or comments, e-mail lifestyle@ The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
