RFK Jr. faces blowback from senators, former vaccine committee members after firings
RFK Jr. faces blowback from senators, former vaccine committee members after firings
Show Caption
Hide Caption
RFK Jr. expels entire CDC vaccine advisory committee
Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. removed a 17-member panel at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that issues recommendations on vaccines.
unbranded - Newsworthy
Recently fired members of a committee that advises the federal government on immunization safety lashed out at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying that their terminations will limit access to vaccines and put American lives at risk.
Kennedy last week abruptly dismissed all members of the committee, which advises the Centers for Diseases Control on vaccine safety. Two days after he dissolved the committee on June 9, Kennedy named eight new members to the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, including some who have advocated against vaccines.
"We are deeply concerned that these destabilizing decisions, made without clear rationale, may roll back the achievements of U.S. immunization policy, impact people's access to lifesaving vaccines, and ultimately put U.S. families at risk of dangerous and preventable illnesses,' the 17 former members wrote in an article published in medical journal JAMA on June 16.
The ACIP charter specifies that committee members serve overlapping terms to ensure continuity - and dismissing all the members at the same time 'have stripped the program of the institutional knowledge and continuity that have been essential to its success over decades,' wrote the members, whose committee recommendations also affect insurance coverage and safeguard broad access for vaccines.
In announcing his decision to oust the members, Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, claimed a 'clean sweep' was necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.
The committee would 'no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,' he said.
That was the opposite of what Kennedy told Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during his confirmation hearing to become Trump's cabinet member.
"If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes," Cassidy said during the hearing.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions called for an immediate bipartisan investigation into the terminations.
'For decades, Secretary Kennedy has spread lies and dangerous conspiracy theories about safe and effective vaccines that have saved millions of lives,' Sanders wrote in a letter to Cassidy. 'Unfortunately, since he has been confirmed I am very concerned that Secretary Kennedy is doubling down on his war on science and disinformation campaign that will lead to preventable illness and death.'
Additionally, 22 senators, including Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, wrote a joint letter to Kennedy saying they are 'troubled' by the appointment of several members to the committee who have a 'documented history of anti-vaccine ideology and peddling misinformation.'
Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new Kenendy appointees is a virologist and vaccine skeptic who became well-known during the COVID-19 pandemic for spreading misinformation about the virus on conservative shows and podcasts. The physician-scientist and biochemist has falsely claimed spike proteins from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines often cause permanent damage to children's vital organs.
Firing every member of the committee ahead of their next meeting scheduled for June 25-27 'eliminates the advisory board's ability to debate and make well-informed recommendations, putting American lives at risk,' the senators wrote.
Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House Correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Truist Reiterates Eli Lilly (LLY) Buy Rating on Orforglipron Diabetes Drug Data
Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is one of the 12 stocks that will make you rich in 10 years. On June 23, Truist Securities reiterated its 'Buy' rating on Eli Lilly stock. The firm also maintained the price target of $1,038.00. Truist's move followed Eli Lilly's presentation at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Annual Meeting. Pixabay/Public Domain The rating pertains to Eli Lilly's oral diabetes drug, orforglipron (OFG), evaluated in the Phase 3 ACHIEVE-1 study for Type 2 diabetes treatment. The ACHIEVE-1 study results were presented at the ADA conference, showcasing orforglipron's efficacy and safety profile. The trial demonstrated statistically significant reductions in A1C (a long-term blood sugar metric) and body weight compared to placebo, with efficacy increasing at higher doses. Truist's analysis was informed by attending the orforglipron presentation, gathering feedback from KOLs at the ADA conference, and participating in Eli Lilly's investor event, where management provided clarity to alleviate safety concerns. The firm noted that longer-term data are required to further strengthen orforglipron's safety profile, particularly for chronic use in diabetes and potential obesity indications. Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is an American global biopharmaceutical company. The company discovers, develops, and markets prescription medicines for diabetes, obesity, cancer, immunological disorders, and neurological diseases. Its key products include Mounjaro, Zepbound, Trulicity, Verzenio, Taltz, and Jardiance. While we acknowledge the potential of LLY as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None.
an hour ago
Pope Leo XIV marks feast day as Vatican launches campaign to help erase its $57-68 million deficit
ROME -- Pope Leo XIV on Sunday celebrated a special feast day traditionally used by the Catholic Church to drum up donations from the faithful, with the Vatican under the first American pope rolling out a new campaign to urge ordinary Catholics to help bail out the deficit-ridden Holy See. Leo celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, marking the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and repeated his message calling for unity and communion among all Christians. In churches around the world, Masses on the July 29 feast day often include a special collection for Peter's Pence, a fund which both underwrites the operations of the central government of the Catholic Church and pays for the pope's personal acts of charity. With a promotional video, poster, QR code and website soliciting donations via credit card, PayPal, bank transfer and post office transfer, the Vatican is betting this year that an American-style fundraising pitch under the Chicago-born Leo will help keep the Holy See bureaucracy afloat and erase its 50 million to 60 million euro ($57-68 million) structural deficit. The video features footage of Leo's emotional first moments as pope, when he stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica and later choked up as he received the fisherman's ring of the papacy. With an evocative soundtrack in the background, the video superimposes a message, available in several languages, urging donations to Leo via the Peter's Pence collection. 'With your donation to Peter's Pence, you support the steps of the Holy Father,' it says. 'Help him proclaim the Gospel to the world and extend a hand to our brothers and sisters in need. Support the steps of Pope Leo XIV. Donate to Peter's Pence.' The fund has been the source of scandal in recent years, amid revelations that the Vatican's secretariat of state mismanaged its holdings through bad investments, incompetent management and waste. The recent trial over the Vatican's bungled investment in a London property confirmed that the vast majority of Peter's Pence contributions had funded the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls, not papal charity initiatives as many parishioners had been led to believe. Between the revelations and the COVID-19 pandemic, which closed churches and canceled out the traditional pass-the-basket collection on June 29, Peter's Pence donations fell to 43.5 million euros in 2022 — a low not seen since 1986 — that was nevertheless offset the same year by other investment income and revenue to the fund. Donations rose to 48.4 million euros (about $56.7 million) in 2023 and hit 54.3 million euros (nearly $63.6 million) last year, according to the Peter's Pence annual report issued last week. But the fund incurred expenses of 75.4 million euros ($88.3 million) in 2024, continuing the trend in which the fund is exhausting itself as it covers the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls. On top of the budget deficit, the Vatican is also facing a 1 billion euro (about $1.17 billion) shortfall in its pension fund that Pope Francis, in the months before he died, warned was unable in the medium term to fulfill its obligations. Unlike countries, the Holy See doesn't issue bonds or impose income tax on its residents to run its operations, relying instead on donations, investments and revenue generated by the Vatican Museums, and sales of stamps, coins, publications and other initiatives. For years, the United States has been the greatest source of donations to Peter's Pence, with U.S. Catholics contributing around a quarter of the total each year. Vatican officials are hoping that under Leo's pontificate, with new financial controls in place and an American math major running the Holy See, donors will be reassured that their money won't be misspent or mismanaged. 'This is a concrete way to support the Holy Father in his mission of service to the universal Church,' the Vatican's economy ministry said in a press release last week announcing the annual collection and new promotional materials surrounding it. 'Peter's Pence is a gesture of communion and participation in the Pope's mission to proclaim the Gospel, promote peace, and spread Christian charity.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me
My first day as a high school teacher, kids were opting out of pretty much everything I asked them to do. Too tired to read, they said. Writing made their heads ache. They had beefs with whoever I partnered them with on a project and they sure weren't about to get up in front of the class. Most teachers quickly become accustomed to all the opting out. We wise up and toughen up to help kids toughen up. We also figure out how to know when, for the moment, it is better to leave them be. We also get used to the exceptions that kids and their parents ask for. The first year I assigned James Baldwin's "If Beale Street Could Talk," a girl told me her parents wouldn't let her read it. Her brother had found all the f-bombs and showed their parents. The novel also contains critiques of Christian piety and hypocrisy. It was on the district approved reading list, but I didn't want to give that girl any more grief than her brother and parents already were so I let her read something else. Even so, I am concerned about the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, validating an assertion of religious freedom over a school district's reading program. The case was brought by a group of Maryland parents against Montgomery County's school board, which refused to allow the parents to opt their kids out of the reading and/or discussion of books that depicted people married to same-sex spouses, dramatized a dog at a pride parade, and told other stories whose settings included the recognition and normalization of LGBTQ+ people. In general, I have always tried to honor the beliefs of parents ‒ not just about what to read but also about how they choose to raise their children ‒ whether or not I agree with them. I do this out of respect and also for the sake of kids who are better off without being in the middle of ideological conflict. There are limits, however. The most serious of these is that if I believe a parent's idea of discipline rises (or descends) to the level of physical abuse, I am compelled by law, as are all teachers, to report it to the authorities. Teachers are also mandated to report emotional abuse, elusive as it may be to detect. The students whose emotional abuse has often been the most obvious to me are gay teenagers whose parents have shunned or humiliated them. Some of this abuse is instigated by religious beliefs and influences that make their child's sexuality a source of torment. Another view: Schools are pushing LGBTQ+ books on kids. Supreme Court should side with parents. | Opinion I feel for those parents, but I am far more sympathetic to the young men and women who are the subject of the condemnation and alienation. Even in cases where the level of emotional abuse isn't sufficient to file a report, and with all due respect to the parents, I am compelled to offer emotional support and a voice of acceptance. If narrowing a child's educational experience in that way is a pillar of religious freedom, does that 'freedom' also prevent me or any other teacher from telling an LGBTQ+ student they need not be ashamed of who they are? Perhaps not ‒ not yet ‒ but I worry, as should all educators. It has been nearly 100 years since the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in John Scopes' case that the state may not criminalize the teaching of human evolution, though Darwin's theory was at odds with the Judeo-Christian Bible's version of human inception. The parallels between Scopes and Mahmoud are far from perfect. The former challenged the academic freedom to teach science when science contradicted religious beliefs. The latter challenges the authority of a school district to override the religious beliefs (or interpretations, anyway) of parents on curricular decisions about their kids. Even so, it doesn't take much of a leap to get from opt-outs for LGBTQ+ book references to opt-outs for the study or even mention of human evolution. Evolution is foundational to anthropology, human history and civilization, and human biology. Preventing a student from learning about it could set the student behind their peers in their knowledge and understanding of science. Preventing a child from understanding the world beyond their own family and experience is potentially more crippling. The world in which today's children are growing up is diverse. An inability to comprehend it and navigate it can limit their academic and professional horizons. Some kids have two moms and some have two dads. Some kids have a transgender parent. Some are being raised by a single parent or grandparent(s) or in a blended family, some kids are being raised by someone with whom they are not related, and still others are being raised by no one at all. Refusing to allow a child to understand and normalize this diversity marginalizes those kids ‒ many of whom are already marginalized by circumstances. This is what educators think about. We try to look out for all kids, but especially the ones who might otherwise feel out of place. Opinion: If you had a teacher who changed your life, 'find that person, tell that person' More urgently, books that validate all families and all kids can save the life of a child who realizes they are gay or trans and feels alone and terrified by that realization. The imposition of those books to someone's faith seems, by comparison, trivial. Pushing back against that imposition seems utterly selfish ‒ ironic for people of faith. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. At the core of this issue are two fundamental questions: How much power and authority should parents legally have over their children? Are we, as a nation, willing to fully recognize the humanity and dignity of all people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation or identity ‒ and regardless of our own comfort level? To the first question I can tell you, as a high school teacher and a parent, that parental power is ultimately mostly illusory, and quite often the tighter the parental grip the stronger the children's resistance. I do not have the answer to the second question, but I do know that on this day, Supreme Court justices tilted us toward no. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ books worries me as a teacher | Opinion
