Latest news with #HealthAndHumanServices
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Health
- Forbes
MAHA's Focus On Improving Nutrition Is At Odds With Trump Policies
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert ... More F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event introducing a new Make America Healthy Again Commission report in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The commission, which is tasked with studying the potential causes for the "childhood chronic disease crisis," recommends reassessing the nation's childhood vaccine schedule, scrutinizing ultra-processed foods and studying pesticides used in commercial farming. At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed a FY2026 budget of $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services — a reduction of about 26-percent from the 2025 level — cutting programs and staff at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Photo by) In introducing the first Make America Healthy Again Commission report, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the focus is childhood chronic disease prevention, with a particular emphasis on nutrition. But several key Trump administration policies appear to be inconsistent with this goal. And the report does not include several notably absent topics that are known to cause certain chronic diseases. The first MAHA Commission report released in May identifies multifarious drivers of childhood chronic disease, including poor diet and specifically the shift over time to ultra-processed foods, overuse of pesticides in agriculture, food dyes in products for sale in grocery stores and a cumulative overload of chemicals in the environment. The document offers a potpourri of high-level policy recommendations to counter these trends. In a tweet, Kennedy touted on June 19th that 'artificial dyes and additives are being removed from America's food supply.' Thus far, however, only Red Dye No. 3 has been banned and this occurred under the Biden administration. Manufacturers have until Jan. 2027 to remove this specific dye from their products. The HHS budget for 2026 proposes $14 billion in discretionary funding for programs that aim to reverse what Secretary Kennedy calls the 'chronic disease epidemic,' as it consolidates entities housed under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into the Administration for a Healthy America, namely the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. AHA is being called the 'primary federal agency committed to transforming the health of all Americans by addressing the root causes of chronic disease, promoting preventive care, advancing mental health and substance use services, and increasing access to a healthy environment and foods.' But only $2 million is being allocated to nutrition, an amount experts suggest is inadequate. They believe the figure should be doubled to at least $4 billion to achieve the objectives laid out by Secretary Kennedy. And despite the MAHA report raising concerns about American agricultural products, other Trump cabinet officials insist that the nation's food supply is safe. Differences in views on glyphosate, a commonly used chemical sprayed on crops, illustrate the disconnect. Glyphosate is cited in the report as a major contributor in the rise of chronic disease. It is a substance that may cause serious health problems, including cancer. But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, doesn't want to further regulate glyphosate. On food safety generally, Kennedy appears to be at odds with director Zeldin's decisions to deregulate pesticides. The MAHA report makes dozens of references to dietary guidelines and food standards in Europe that prohibit the use of certain pesticides in agriculture. However, Zeldin has promised no more regulations, arguing that European-style mandates would stifle economic growth. Furthermore, Congress and the Trump administration back cuts to assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that would seem to undermine efforts to improve people's access to food, whether of high or low quality. Food and diet researchers are also criticizing the direction the National Institutes of Health are going in possibly stifling debate regarding the merits and demerits of different foods. According to STAT News, more than 70 top U.S. nutrition scientists signed a letter last month demanding that NIH director Jay Bhattacharya address alleged censorship at the agency, writing that their colleagues 'need the freedom to present their findings in scientific meetings without political oversight, and to author and co-author freely in the scientific literature.' The letter is in part a response to censorship allegations from former top NIH nutrition scientist Kevin Hall, whose research on ultra-processed foods was cut short when he resigned in April, complaining of interference from his superiors. The MAHA Commission report attributes adverse health effects to nutrient depletion owing to 'ultra-processed grains, sugars, and fats,' as well as intake of more calories and inclusion of food additives. There is empirical support for this. For example, a 2024 review of the evidence, which included dozens of analyses, linked 'higher consumption of ultra-processed foods to poor cardiometabolic health, increasing the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease.' At the same time, the scientific evidence for how ultra-processed foods affect our health isn't unequivocal. In fact, according to a story by the New Scientist covering a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, scientists don't agree that simply opting for less processed foods guarantees a healthy diet. Additionally, former Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations from 2015 to 2023, Susan Mayne, says the report omits other well-accepted drivers of chronic disease, such as high intake of sodium and saturated fat. Instead, it criticizes the current set of U.S. dietary guidelines for 'problematic reductionist recommendations' in reference to advice to 'reduce saturated fat' or 'limit sodium.' But in the case of sodium, this seems to ignore decades of research showing that sodium is over-consumed in the U.S., contributing to chronic disease. There are other conspicuous apparent oversights regarding HHS policy. For instance, STAT News notes that the MAHA Commission report includes no mentions of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa or binge-eating. Such eating disorders have been on the rise for decades, especially among young women and girls. Evidently, research on these eating disorders is being disproportionately affected by ongoing federal grant terminations, according to experts in the field. Also, Reuters reports that despite rising levels of alcoholism, which is conducive to a myriad of chronic diseases, revisions to the U.S. dietary guidelines under RFK Jr. may loosen federal guidance on alcohol consumption that currently advises no more than one to two daily drinks.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Health
- Washington Post
Inside RFK Jr.'s push to change vaccines in America
The meeting of the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in Atlanta on June 26. Every year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gathers to discuss vaccinations and make recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This year, however, the panelists are all new to the job and were all handpicked by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has expressed skepticism of vaccines. Today on 'Post Reports,' host Elahe Izadi speaks with two of The Washington Post's health reporters, Lena Sun and Lauren Weber, about last week's controversial ACIP meeting, and what the future of vaccines in the United States could look like under Kennedy's leadership. Today's show was produced by Emma Talkoff, with help from Thomas Lu. It was edited by Ariel Plotnick, with help from Reena Flores and mixed by Sam Bair. Thanks to Lynh Bui and Fenit Nirappil. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Making wearable health tech accessible to more Americans is an excellent idea — with a huge potential catch
In a congressional hearing this past week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared his views on improving the health of Americans. 'My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years,' he said. And next week, his department is scheduled to launch one of 'the biggest campaigns in HHS history,' focused on encouraging Americans to use wearable technology to 'take control over their own health.' Making wearable health technology accessible to more Americans is an excellent idea — the massive $63 billion market for fitness trackers and $12.6 billion glucose monitor sector are growing exponentially due in part to the fact that awareness of one's biometrics, from steps taken to sleep quality to calories consumed, can help improve health. But we shouldn't overstate the power of these devices to transform the well-being of Americans, both because of the limitations of these technologies and because of the administration promoting it. Wearable health aids have a long history. Leonardo da Vinci designed the first pedometer around 1500, and Holter heart monitors were invented in 1949. Digital technology, however, has accelerated innovation in this space exponentially, such that in the 15 years since the release of the first step-counting Fitbit in 2010, devices now track sleep, breath, stress levels and more. A federal campaign to promote wearables appeals to the commonsense idea that the more you know, the better equipped you are to improve your health — and thus more Americans should have access to this knowledge. And this initiative certainly lines up philosophically with the individualistic sensibility at the heart of the 'Make America Health Again' movement's animating definition of wellness, which elevates self-knowledge — 'do your own research' — above clinical expertise, especially if it involves pharmaceutical intervention. Indeed, in the hearing, Kennedy described friends who 'lost their diabetes' after wearing glucose monitors, thanks to their 'miraculous' awareness of the impact of their dietary choices (evidence does show that diet and exercise changes can reverse Type 2 diabetes, and that continuous glucose monitoring can be effective in motivating patients to make those shifts). Notably, the proposed HHS wearables campaign would come with a price tag of $80 a month for individuals, as opposed to GLP-3s, which can cost a person over $1,000 monthly. You don't need to be a MAHA acolyte to find this strategy compelling for a nation struggling with both chronic illness and the cost of health care. Furthermore, large-scale advertising campaigns encouraging personal fitness are a long-standing and effective federal strategy. It was Kennedy's uncle President John F. Kennedy who most famously employed this approach, launching a national publicity campaign to encourage Americans to be more physically active, both in their personal lives and by lobbying local officials to fund physical education and community recreation programs. That was during the Cold War, and JFK often linked the need to get moving with military preparedness. But he also talked about taking responsibility for looking good and feeling 'vigorous,' for men, women and children alike. 'Soft Americans' were morally suspect and national security risks, the then-president-elect wrote in a 1960 Sports Illustrated essay, but they also looked less attractive at the beach or the pool, the environments in which he was often photographed. Physical education classes were as important as academic offerings, his administration emphasized in pamphlets, posters and even a special-release jingle written for P.E. classes that encouraged boys and girls through a playful, synchronized routine to 'get rid of that chicken fat.' These federal campaigns didn't solve the issues of sedentariness and obesity, but they were integral in establishing the expectation that it is the responsibility of every American to care about their physical fitness. Echoes of the elder Kennedy's approach are unmistakable in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s announced advertising campaign. The differences, however, should give us pause. For one, the sophisticated wearable technology the health secretary celebrates as 'miraculous' is much more powerful than the toe touches and jumping jacks promoted in JFK's day. This is a boon, but we should be wary of the 'techno-utopianism' that assumes more sophisticated technology always yields a better future. Psychologists, for example, track a recent rise in orthorexia, body dysmorphia and anxiety, disorders that only stand to be aggravated by access to endless streams of biometric data. More philosophically, sociologists warn of the dangerous tendency toward 'the quantified self' and attendant 'intimate forms of surveillance,' in which we normalize defining ourselves as an agglomeration of figures and metrics, existing only to be optimized. Most immediately, as Kennedy was asked in the hearing but did not clearly answer, are concerns about data collection and privacy, especially relevant due to recent breaches like the 23andMe hack, which leaked the data of millions of users to the public and potential nefarious actors. Fitness tracker data has already created a specific liability. The Strava running app, for example, has repeatedly revealed sensitive locations of troops and political figures to the public. These are thorny but perhaps resolvable problems. It is true that making America healthy is an urgent priority and that individuals should be empowered to be stewards of their own well-being. We must use every tool at our disposal to achieve better health outcomes, and this can include partnering with the dynamic fitness and technology industries, the innovation of which outpaces that of the public sector. That said, we should not overstate the 'miraculous' potential of any intervention, and especially given this administration's repeated ethical breaches on questions of security and science — and even its alleged affinity for eugenics — we should be especially vigilant about how this initiative is plays out. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Anti-vaccine activist presents data to RFK Jr.'s reshaped CDC advisory panel
A longtime anti-vaccine activist gave a presentation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine advisory committee meeting Thursday on an issue that has long been considered settled science. It was perhaps the clearest sign of how meetings of the panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, have already changed drastically under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently fired all 17 members of the panel and replaced them with a group of his own appointees. The presenter, nurse practitioner Lyn Redwood, is the president emerita of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy. Her presentation focused on thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that had previously been used in some vaccines. Since 2001, however, nearly all vaccines made in the United States contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts. The exception is the multi-dose flu shot vials, though most flu shots now come in single-dose packaging that doesn't contain the preservative. Anti-vaccine activists have long claimed that thimerosal is linked to autism, but the link has been widely debunked. Redwood referenced 'neurodevelopmental disorders' rather than autism in her presentation, but after the presentation asserted links between thimerosal and brain inflammation, which she called 'one of the hallmarks that we see in autism.' A background briefing document that was available on the CDC's website Tuesday said that a summary of studies found 'no association between prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccinations and autism spectrum disorder in children.' The document was taken down Wednesday without explanation. ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone said Thursday during the meeting that, based on his understanding, 'that article was not authorized by the Office of the Secretary and has been removed.' Dr. David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, decried the document's removal. 'Decades of evidence were ignored or even hidden,' said Higgins, who wasn't a part of the meeting. 'That's not being transparent. That's not scientific integrity.' Following the presentation, the committee voted 5-1 to recommend that children, adults and pregnant women get single-dose thimerosal-free flu vaccines. One member, Vicky Pebsworth, abstained. Before ACIP recommendations are implemented, the CDC director must sign off on them. However, there is currently no director in place as the nominee for the position, Susan Monarez, awaits confirmation by the Senate. In the absence of a director, Kennedy has the authority to adopt the ACIP's recommendations. ACIP recommendations do not mean the multi-dose vials are banned; for that to happen the Food and Drug Administration would need to revoke approval. Thimerosal-free flu shots account for the majority of the doses given in the U.S. Just 4%-5% of flu vaccines used during the 2024-2025 season were multi-dose, thimerosal-containing vaccines, Tracey Beth Høeg, a special advisor to the FDA commissioner, said during the meeting. Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician, was the lone dissenting vote. 'The risk from influenza is so much greater than the nonexistent, as far as we know, risk from thimerosal,' Meissner said of his vote. 'I would hate for a person not to receive the influenza vaccine because the only available preparation contains thimerosal. I find that very hard to justify.' Meissner had initially followed up Redwood's presentation by saying he wasn't sure how to respond to it. 'This is an old issue that has been addressed in the past,' he said. Multiple infectious disease experts said on a Thursday press call following the ACIP meeting that multi-dose vaccines can be useful for vaccinating large groups such as workers. The decision not to recommend thimerosal-containing vaccines could also dissuade other countries — where multi-dose vials are more common — from using them, thereby reducing vaccine access, they added. Dr. Sean O'Leary, the American Academy of Pediatrics' liaison to ACIP, called Redwood's presentation 'unprecedented.' 'That was a highly-biased presentation full of cherry-picked data and junk science,' O'Leary said. 'The vast majority of it wasn't actually relevant to thimerosal in vaccines.' O'Leary told reporters in a call on Thursday that the AAP chose not to participate in the meeting, which it usually does. 'This meeting showcased an ACIP that has drifted so far from its long-standing focus on science, evidence and public health. When that focus returns, we will, too,' he said. Higgins, the Colorado pediatrician who was not part of the meeting, said, 'it's outrageous that a decision as consequential as this would be decided based on a single presentation from someone who arguably is not an expert in the field.' Redwood's presentation also triggered a slew of responses from representatives of major medical organizations participating in the meeting, who questioned the veracity of the data presented and asked to see credible scientific evidence. 'Will there be an actual CDC presentation done by staff scientists, physicians and those who are subject matter experts with accurate, peer-reviewed scientific data,' Dr. Jason Goldman, American College of Physicians' liaison to ACIP, asked the committee, 'or will we have lay person presentations only?' Committee Chair Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician who has criticized pandemic lockdowns and Covid vaccines, scolded those representatives for their pushback. 'I think it's inappropriate to dismiss a presentation just because the person does not have a Ph.D., or an MD,' he said. 'There are a lot of knowledgeable people who we would like to hear from, and we want to hear from a variety of viewpoints. And I think today's discussion is a very good example that we have received input from a variety of people on this topic.' In a separate vote, the committee reaffirmed the existing recommendation that people ages 6 months and older should get annual flu shots, with six votes in favor. Pebsworth again chose to abstain. Earlier Thursday, the committee voted on whether to recommend an RSV drug for infants younger than 8 months. Five members voted in favor and two voted against, providing the majority vote needed for the recommendation to pass. The drug up for a vote Thursday, clesrovimab, is a monoclonal antibody injection that can prevent lower respiratory disease in infants during or before their first RSV season, which typically starts in the fall and peaks in the winter. RSV leads to up to 300 deaths a year among those younger than 5 in the U.S. A dramatic spike in severe RSV overwhelmed children's hospitals in late 2022. Clesrovimab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this month. A similar drug, nirsevimab, has also been approved for infants and some young children since 2023. A vaccine for pregnant women that also protects newborns is approved as well. Meissner, who was part of the committee's work group on RSV, fielded questions from fellow members about the trial data and the disease itself. He explained how newborns' tiny airways put them at higher risk for severe illness. That risk, he said, falls in their second year of life, when the airways are larger. The work group determined that the drug was effective at preventing severe RSV in young infants and had a favorable safety profile. 'These are truly remarkable products. They are safe and they're effective,' Meissner said. 'The FDA has spent an enormous amount of time looking at safety and efficacy.' Despite this, two members of the group, Retsef Levi and Vicky Pebsworth, questioned the drug's safety and voted not to recommend it. This article was originally published on
CBS News
6 days ago
- Health
- CBS News
RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes against rarely used flu shot preservative, backs new RSV shot
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's panel of vaccine advisers voted Thursday in their first official move after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the committee's previous experts and replaced them with his own picks. A majority of the committee approved updated recommendations for a new shot for respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and voted to urge Americans to avoid a small number of flu vaccines that use the preservative thimerosal despite evidence of its safety. Votes by the panel are closely watched by health authorities because they are tied to federal policies and programs that enable access to vaccines, including requirements for insurance coverage and funding to provide shots for uninsured children. Other vaccines were also being discussed by the panel, but not voted on, including those for COVID-19, measles, chikungunya and anthrax. Kennedy's new committee also announced Wednesday that it would start a renewed review of all recommended pediatric vaccines, over fears about the "cumulative effect" that the shots could be having on children. That includes weighing changes to recommendations for hepatitis B and measles vaccines given early in life. The American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, denounced the move as sowing distrust in safe and effective immunizations, and warned Wednesday against curbing hepatitis B recommendations. "Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine when making vaccine recommendations, and that is what we will do. Vaccines are not all good or bad," Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the panel's chair, said Wednesday. Flu vaccines and thimerosal The panel's majority vote to recommend against flu vaccines with thimerosal is unlikely to impact many Americans, since the mercury-based preservative is already rarely used in the shots. During the 2024-2025 season, 96% of all influenza vaccines in the U.S. were thimerosal-free, according to the CDC. "If we want to have confidence in vaccines, and we want to promote people taking vaccines, we should remove this mercury-containing preservative from the seasonal influenza," said Kulldorff. One of the panel's advisers, Dr. Cody Meissner of Dartmouth University, questioned why the committee was reopening an old issue that had previously been addressed by health authorities, potentially undermining a heavily studied vaccine ingredient. "The ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence, as much as possible, and there is no scientific evidence that thimerasol has caused a problem," Meissner said, who was the only panelist to vote against the change. Thimerosal has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help prevent bacteria in multi-dose vials of vaccine. It contains a form of mercury called ethylmercury, which is different from the methylmercury found in some seafood. "Ethylmercury is excreted much more quickly from the body. It is not associated with the high neurotoxicity that methylmercury is," Meissner said. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that a "robust body of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted in the U.S. and other countries support the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines." Anti-vaccine groups have falsely tied thimerosal to autism. However, well-designed studies have found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. CDC officials told CBS News they saw the meeting as an early test case demonstrating how Kennedy has tightened his grip over the federal vaccine recommendations process and eroded its credibility. Multiple liaison members of the panel, representing outside groups, objected to the committee bypassing the rigorous, usually monthslong CDC systemic review process that studies evidence on the need, impact and feasibility of new recommendations. Some worried re-debating settled science could contribute to unnecessary fears or doubts around vaccines that have long been considered safe. "This selective use of data and omission of established science undermines public trust and fuels misinformation. The science on thimerosal is settled, and the rhetoric being used to suggest otherwise is misleading and harmful," Dr. Sean O'Leary, head of the AAP's infectious diseases committee, said in a statement. Instead, the vote was based mainly on a presentation by Lyn Redwood, the former head of a group founded by Kennedy that has lobbied against vaccine authorizations and requirements. Redwood has been hired to work in the agency's vaccine safety office, though she said Thursday she was speaking only as a private citizen. "I think it's inappropriate to dismiss a presentation, just because the person does not have a PhD or an MD. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who we would like to hear from, and we want to hear from a variety of viewpoints," Kulldorff said. Ahead of the meeting, the CDC removed a review the agency previously posted on its website that debunked claims about how the preservative could cause autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. "My understanding is that article was not authorized by the Office of the Secretary, and has been removed consequent. I'm sure that the Office of the Secretary will make note of your comment," panelist Dr. Robert Malone said. Malone was responding to a question from Phyllis Arthur of Bio, a trade group that represents vaccinemakers, who had called for the CDC's evidence review to be restored to the website. Molly Howell of the Association of Immunization Managers worried the move could also impact plans for a potential pandemic influenza vaccine, which currently rely on the potential use of the preservative. "Future meetings of ACIP and CDC will have to consider those things," Kulldorff said. RSV shot An RSV vaccine during pregnancy and another antibody shot called clesrovimab that can be given to newborns have previously been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and recommended by the CDC to prevent the disease. The committee Thursday voted by a majority — five in favor, two against — to recommend a shot for newborns, branded as Enflonsia by Merck, adding another option to the already approved immunizations. Two of the panel's new members — Retsef Levi, an operations management professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Vicki Pebsworth, the research director of a group focused on preventing vaccine injuries and deaths — voted against recommendations for the shot. Pebsworth said she worried about coadministration of the shot with other childhood vaccines, despite data presented by the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink showing that RSV antibody shots being given alongside other vaccines are not resulting in a safety risk. Levi said that he was uncomfortable with clinical trial data he claimed suggested that deaths could be more frequent after use of the shots. He cited his experience as a parent, saying that "as a father, I can feel that I would be concerned." "I don't feel this is ready to be administered to all healthy babies. I think we should take a more precautionary approach to this," Levi said. That was at odds with reviews by the CDC and FDA, which did not turn up evidence of this risk. An FDA official told the panel that the death rates — 0.3% after the shot versus 0.2% without — were not significant, and that careful reviews of the deaths concluded that their causes were not related to the drug. Meissner disagreed with Levi, warning that 80% of children hospitalized with RSV are healthy with no underlying conditions. Meissner had previously participated in the deliberations of the committee's work group as an outside adviser, before Kennedy purged its voting members. "The work group has spent an enormous amount of time, the FDA has spent an enormous effort looking at safety and efficacy, and it is simply not an issue here," he said.
