Expert Warns of Health Crisis After CDC Resignation

If the policies of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. aren't reversed, 'a lot of Americans are going to die as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases.'
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade

Social Security is a lifeline for millions of Americans, but experts warn that the program faces serious financial challenges in the years ahead. Lawmakers are under growing pressure to act as the trust fund's reserves are projected to run short in the early 2030s, per Social Security trustees report. For You: Read Next: 'The most significant reforms that have been discussed for years include raising the full retirement age, modifying the payroll tax cap, adjusting the benefit formula, and revising the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA),' said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League. Below we dive into some of these possible social security changes. One of the most likely Social Security changes is raising the full retirement age, which is the age when Americans can claim full benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full retirement age is already set to rise to 67 for workers born after 1959, and several proposals would gradually increase it to 68, 69 or even 70 for future retirees. This move is seen as a way to account for longer life spans and to help shore up Social Security's finances. Check Out: However, raising the FRA would mean that many future retirees would have to wait longer to receive full benefits. 'Delaying full benefits would effectively reduce lifetime benefits for many retirees who claim benefits early, particularly those unable to continue working into their late 60s,' Benton explained. Another major reform under discussion is modifying or eliminating the payroll tax cap, which limits the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. According to Benton, only earnings up to $168,600 are currently taxed for Social Security, leaving higher earners' additional income untaxed. Proposals like Congressman John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act would apply payroll taxes to wages above $400,000, creating what's known as a 'donut hole.' This means income between the current taxable cap and $400,000 wouldn't be taxed for Social Security, but income above that threshold would. Over time, as the cap rises, this gap would close and all high earnings would be subject to Social Security taxes. Adjusting the Social Security benefit formula is another reform that could be enacted to improve the program's solvency and equity. The current formula is progressive, replacing a higher percentage of income for lower earners and less for higher earners. 'Some plans propose reducing benefits for higher earners while modestly boosting them for lower-income beneficiaries,' Benton said. For example, the Bowles-Simpson plan would cut benefits for high earners and boost them for low earners, according to the Tax Foundation. These changes aim to provide greater income security for the most vulnerable retirees while reducing costs for the system as a whole. The way Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation could also see significant changes in the next decade. 'One recurring proposal is to adopt the Chained CPI, which tends to produce lower inflation estimates than the current CPI-W used for COLAs,' Benton explained. Critics argue this would erode retirees' purchasing power over time, especially for those who live longer. Alternatively, Benton and The Senior Citizens League support using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which better reflects seniors' spending patterns and would likely result in higher COLAs. The debate centers on balancing the need for program solvency with protecting retirees' standard of living. A gradual increase in the payroll tax rate is another option experts believe could help close Social Security's funding gap. According to the Social Security Administration, the current rate is 6.2% for employees and 12.4% for the self-employed, split between workers and employers. 'Even a small increase, phased in over time, could significantly improve solvency,' Benton said. This solution spreads the cost across all workers and helps ensure Social Security's future without drastic benefit cuts. Benton predicts that changes to how Social Security benefits are taxed could be on the horizon, particularly for higher-income retirees. The Concord Coalition reported that up to 85% of benefits can be taxed depending on income. However, the income thresholds are not indexed to inflation, so more beneficiaries are taxed each year. Proposals include lowering the income thresholds or increasing the share of benefits subject to taxation for higher earners. This would raise additional revenue for the trust fund and target those most able to afford it. However, such changes could be unpopular among middle- and upper-income retirees, making them politically sensitive. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on 6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade

Atlantic

37 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Brad Lander's Stand

As ICE agents dragged Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller and a candidate for mayor, down the hallway of a federal courthouse this week, he repeatedly—and politely—asked to see their judicial warrant. Lander had locked arms with an undocumented man he identified as Edgardo, and refused to let go. Eventually, the ICE agents yanked Lander away from the man, shoved him against a wall, and handcuffed him. Lander told them that they didn't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens. They arrested him anyway. The courthouse is only a few blocks away from the one where Donald Trump was convicted last year of 34 felony crimes for falsifying business records. His supporters painted the criminal-justice process as a politically motivated witch hunt. But none of them seems to mind now that masked ICE agents are lurking behind corners in the halls of justice to snatch up undocumented migrants who show up for their hearings. This was not the first time Lander had accompanied someone to the courthouse, and it wouldn't be his last. The Department of Homeland Security claimed that Lander had been 'arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer.' The whole thing is on video, so anyone can see that there was no assault. Lander is about as mild-mannered a politician as they come. Matt Welch, a libertarian blogger and no fan of Lander, wrote on X that the only things Lander had ever assaulted were 'Coney Island hot dogs and school-zone speed limits.' He's the kind of old-fashioned elected official who doesn't much exist anymore, the kind you see at public-library events or can call when your kid's day care is shut down and know he'll actually do something about it. A different kind of politician would have milked the attention for all it was worth. But if Brad Lander were a different kind of politician, he might be first and not third in the polls. 'I did not come today expecting to be arrested,' he told reporters after being released. 'But I really think I failed today, because my goal was really to get Edgardo out of the building.' People who are used to living in a democracy tend to find it unsettling when elected officials are arrested, or thrown to the ground and handcuffed for asking questions at press conferences. They don't like to see elected officials indicted for trying to intervene in the arrest of other elected officials. And they find it traumatizing when, as has been happening in Los Angeles and elsewhere, they see law-abiding neighbors and co-workers they've known for years grabbed and deported. The question now is what Americans are going to do about it. Los Angeles has offered one model of response. Although Trump campaigned on finding and deporting undocumented criminals, in order to hit aggressive quotas, ICE has changed its tactics and started barging into workplaces. Citizens have reported being detained simply because they look Hispanic. Residents of one Latino neighborhood recorded ICE officers driving in an armored vehicle. Many residents felt that the raids were an invasion by the president's personal storm troopers, and marched into the streets in response. The first groups of protesters were organized by unions, but soon, other Angelenos —of many ages and backgrounds—joined them. Most of the protesters were peaceful, chanting and marching and performing mariachi around federal buildings in downtown L.A. But others were not. They defaced buildings with graffiti and summoned Waymos, the driverless taxis, in order to set them on fire. The right seized on a chance to reinforce the narrative that California is in the grip of dangerous radical-left activists, categorizing the protests as 'violent riots.' Trump overrode Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, to deploy the National Guard, and sent in Marines to protect ICE officers. Of course, that meant only that more Angelenos came out to protest. There were arrests and rubber-coated bullets and clouds of tear gas. I would have thought that the reaction to the protests from anyone outside the MAGAverse would have been pretty uniform. Democrats have been warning Americans for years about Trump's descent into authoritarianism. Now it is happening—the deportations, the arrests, the president's face on banners across government buildings, the tank parade. 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said. And yet, so many Democratic leaders, public intellectuals, and members of the media seemed distinctly uneasy about the protests. Yes, they seem to say, ICE has been acting illegally, but what about the Waymos? In The Washington Post, David Ignatius fretted about protesters waving Mexican flags and wondered if the 'activists' were actually working for Trump. Democratic leaders were 'worried the confrontation elevates a losing issue for the party,' The New York Times reported. Politico raised a more cynical question: 'Which Party Should Be More Worried About the Politics of the LA Protests?' Many Democrats denounced vandalism while supporting the right to protest. But the Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was harsh in his criticism of the protesters, lamenting that the random acts of violence and property damage by a few bad actors would cause Democrats to lose the ' moral high ground.' There is a time for politicians to fine-tune a message for maximum appeal. But this is a case of actual public outrage against the trampling of inalienable rights. This is not a fight for the moral high ground; this is a fight against authoritarianism. Democrats made themselves hoarse warning against the threat to democracy Trump's second term would present. They invoked autocracy and even fascism to stir the public to keep Trump out of office. Obviously, it didn't work. But that threat is no longer abstract. It's now very real. And for all the speeches imploring Americans to save democracy at the polls, the Democratic establishment seems remarkably tepid about supporting Americans defending democracy in the streets. Yes, Democrats would have an easier time in the court of public opinion if no protester ever picked up a can of spray paint. And certainly, setting cars on fire is not good. I myself would love to have a nice, quiet summer. But I want to save our democracy more. We can't afford to get distracted for even a moment by the excesses of a few protesters, which are vanishingly small compared with the excesses of the president of the United States. Defending liberty is a messy business: You might remember all that tea tossed into Boston Harbor. The phrase 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God' was once considered for the Great Seal of the United States. (Thomas Jefferson adopted it for his own seal at Monticello.) And yet, although the civil-rights movement is remembered for Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil disobedience, the movement included riots and armed activist groups. Violent protests, such as the Oakland riots of 1967, were a significant part of anti-draft and anti–Vietnam War movements. Their violence did not invalidate the causes those earlier movements sought to advance, any more than the property damage caused by a few activists today invalidates the claims of the great majority of peaceful protesters. Historically, protest movements are seen as 'civil' only in retrospect. For a party that you'd think would be fighting with everything they're worth, Democrats seem remarkably focused on preserving the status quo. Even after the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress, Democrats won't shake anything up. Despite her popularity, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been kept out of any committee-leadership position. David Hogg, the young anti-gun activist, was ousted from his position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee after he announced his plan to back primary challengers against older Democratic incumbents in hopes of breathing new life into the party. Earlier this week, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had directed ICE to focus on what he sees as enemy territory: Democratic-leaning cities that have 'turned once Idyllic Towns into scenes of Third World Dystopia.' New York and L.A. are both sanctuary cities—they have passed laws pledging to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. We shouldn't be surprised to see more citizens of these cities stepping up to protect their neighbors and their communities. That is exactly what Lander was attempting to do when he was arrested. 'This is part of what authoritarians do,' Lander told Democracy Now following his release. 'Our challenge is to find a way to stand up for the rule of law, for due process, for people's rights, and to do it in a way that is nonviolent and insistent, demands it, but also doesn't help them escalate conflict.' Lander's clarity in this moment makes him a rarity, even in the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Last Saturday, when an estimated 5 million Americans protested the Trump administration and New Yorkers marched up Fifth Avenue, two of New York's most powerful elected officials, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the minority leaders of the House and the Senate, were in the Hamptons, dining on bavette and chilled English pea soup to celebrate the marriage of the megadonor Alex Soros to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide. Meanwhile, Lander was out in the streets, side by side with his constituents. A few days later, leaving the courthouse, he assured New Yorkers that he was fine, his only lasting damage a button torn from his shirt as a result of ICE's rough treatment. But, he warned, 'the rule of law is not fine, and our constitutional democracy is not fine.'

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Dr. Oz welcomes move by states to reduce migrant health coverage

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity doctor who oversees Medicaid and Medicare for the Trump administration, welcomes the move by a trio of blue states — California, Illinois and Minnesota — to freeze or reduce health care benefits for undocumented migrants. He told NewsNation's 'CUOMO' on Friday that some states broadened their public medical programs to include migrants because they could leverage federal dollars to pay for it, but Medicaid is supposed to be reserved for the most vulnerable Americans. 'If we extend it to illegal immigrants without keeping tabs of what those costs are — and especially if we have a system that encourages states to do legalized money laundering, to push more money towards able-bodied individuals — the dollar doesn't stretch that far. You end up bankrupting the whole system,' the former TV host said Friday. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposes suspending new health care enrollment for undocumented adults, although existing patients would continue to receive some coverage. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) would go further, ending his state's immigrant adult health program, which covers more than 30,000 people, on July 1. Minnesota is making undocumented adults ineligible for health care assistance by the end of the year. 'Taking care of a large population of undocumented folks has become a problem, and states have to manage that,' Oz said. The top health official's comments come after the administration moved to end Obamacare's coverage of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children, according to a final rule announced Friday. The provision will undo a Biden-era rule that was estimated to allow 147,000 immigrants to enroll in coverage. A federal judge blocked the rule from being enforced in 19 states, and it is still being litigated in court.