BEN CARSON: After COVID confusion, how can we rebuild trust in public health leaders?

Just over five years ago, our nation faced a moment that felt more like fiction than reality—a global pandemic and a national emergency, brought on by a virus we had never seen before. Faced with fear and uncertainty, Americans turned to our frontline healthcare workers, public health leaders, and scientists to help guide us through. And we trusted them—because historically, we've had good reason to.
But as the weeks turned into months, something began to shift. Decisions that lacked consistency and transparency started to erode that trust. Schools were closed to protect children—yet we later learned how deeply it harmed them. Mask mandates changed repeatedly. Beaches were shut down, while large political gatherings were permitted. These contradictions did more than confuse people—they undermined confidence in those charged with guiding us through the crisis.
Many Americans endured great sacrifices—missing weddings, funerals, and final goodbyes with loved ones—while some officials appeared to operate by a different set of rules. The phrase "trust the science" was too often wielded as a shield against legitimate questions and concerns.
As a member of President Trump's White House Coronavirus Task Force, I witnessed firsthand the difference of opinion among health experts. But rather than welcome those scientific debates, some dismissed them outright—labeling thoughtful disagreement as "anti-science." That kind of dismissiveness damages the very credibility that public institutions depend upon.
Today, we are seeing the consequences of that breakdown in trust. Perhaps nowhere is it more evident than in the growing skepticism around vaccinations. For decades, immunizations have been one of modern medicine's greatest achievements—eliminating diseases and saving millions of lives. But now, after years of mixed messaging and politicized public health decisions, we're watching long-held confidence in vaccines waver.
This isn't hypothetical. We are now facing the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. in a generation—spanning 31 states, resulting in over a thousand infections and the tragic loss of life. In several of the hardest-hit areas, vaccination rates are dangerously low. This mistrust has even begun to shape legislation, with several states considering laws that would further weaken immunization efforts.
We must not allow the missteps of recent years to unravel the decades of progress made through sound immunization practices. The established guidelines for routine vaccinations have long provided a foundation of safe and effective protection against serious diseases. While that trust must be restored, it must go hand in hand with a renewed respect for parental choice and individual responsibility. Confidence in vaccines grows when people are engaged and provided with clear information and empowered to make informed decisions in consultation with trusted providers. Trust is not built through mandates—it's earned through transparency, consistency, and respect for personal responsibility.
It is time for a reset. We need to move past the confusion and division of the COVID era. We must acknowledge what went wrong—not to assign blame, but to rebuild what's been lost: trust.
President Donald Trump's team at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration now has the opportunity to lead with clarity, competence, and a renewed focus on serving the American people. We recently saw very significant personnel changes at ACIP – a panel central to vaccine policy. This committee plays a vital role in protecting families and guiding national readiness. It's important in our quest for change that we pursue reform that's thoughtful, apolitical and fair. Safeguarding credibility is key to advancing the President's broader mission.
Let us remember that public health is not just about data—it's about people. It's about protecting families, preserving life, and earning trust through honesty and integrity.
We've all learned important lessons from a difficult time. Let's carry those lessons forward—and finally close the chapter on the COVID era.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

32 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Trump says US airstrikes 'obliterated' Iran's key nuclear sites

STORY: The U.S. struck three key nuclear sites in Iran, President Donald Trump said on Saturday. He warned that Tehran would face more attacks if it didn't agree to peace. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict. :: Tel Aviv, Israel It comes after more than a week of aerial combat between the two, with death and injuries in both countries. "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump: "History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons." While an Iranian official cited by Tasnim news agency confirmed that one of the nuclear sites was attacked by 'enemy aistrikes'. :: June 13, 2025 :: Tehran, Iran Israel launched attacks on Iran earlier this month, saying it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful. CBS news reported that the US reached out diplomatically to Iran on Saturday... ...to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and that it does not aim for regime change.

Hamilton Spectator

34 minutes ago

• Hamilton Spectator

US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with Iran

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United States attacked three sites in Iran early Sunday, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe that prompted fears of a wider regional conflict. Addressing the nation from the White House, President Donald Trump asserted that Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated.' There was no independent damage assessment. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted that its nuclear program will not be stopped. Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations. It was not clear whether the U.S. would continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a war with Iran for nine days. Trump acted without congressional authorization , and he warned that there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, warned in a post on X that the U.S. attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate. Hours later, Iranian missiles struck areas in northern and central Israel, according to an Israeli rescue service. United Hatzalah said it was dispatching first responders, but here was no immediate word on casualties or damage. The US helped Israel strike Iran's toughest nuclear site Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Trump and Israeli leaders have claimed that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the U.S. in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But U.S. and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media, using common alternate spellings for two of the sites. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Trump added in a later post: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the U.S. attacks. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. U.S. military leaders are scheduled to provide a briefing at 8 a.m. Eastern. The attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant that is built deep into a mountain, a U.S. official said. The weapons are designed to penetrate the ground before exploding. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. In addition, U.S. submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles, according to another U.S. official who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote on X that there has been 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after the strikes. 'The IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' it said. The 'IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available.' Trump's turn to strikes departs from some previous statements The strikes are a perilous decision for Trump, who won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But Trump also vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. After Israel began striking Iran, Trump went from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. He has bristled at criticism from some of his MAGA faithful who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack in a video message directed at the American president. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history,' he said. Netanyahu said the U.S. 'has done what no other country on earth could do.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' Fears of a broader war U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the 'dangerous escalation' of American strikes. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' he said in a statement. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the U.S. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 865 people and wounded 3,396 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 363 civilians and 215 security force personnel. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. ___ Madhani reported from Morristown, N.J. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Mehdi Fattahi in Iran, Lolita Baldor in Narragansett, Rhode Island, Samy Magdy in Cairo, contributed to this story. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Medscape

42 minutes ago

• Medscape

Fast Five Quiz: How Much Do You Know About Bell Palsy?

Bell palsy, or idiopathic facial paralysis, is the most common peripheral paralysis of the facial nerve (cranial nerve VII). Many cases of facial nerve paralysis have identifiable etiologies, such as stroke, Lyme disease, or Ramsay Hunt syndrome, but Bell palsy is, by definition, idiopathic in nature. How much do you know about Bell palsy and its management? Check your knowledge with this quick quiz. Type 2 diabetes is associated with several types of peripheral neuropathy, including Bell palsy. The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy among patients with type 2 diabetes has been calculated to be as high as 53.6%. In one retrospective cohort study, 33% of participants with Bell palsy had coexisting type 2 diabetes. Additionally, obesity might increase the risk for Bell palsy. Some studies have concluded that there is a slight female preponderance among patients with Bell palsy, whereas others have found no sex predilection. Even if female sex is not a risk factor, evidence suggests that Bell palsy is associated with pregnancy. The median age of onset is 40 years, and patient age < 15 years is not a risk factor. However, Bell palsy has been identified in children and even infants. Facial nerve trauma can certainly cause symptoms resembling Bell palsy, but Bell palsy is idiopathic and does not have a traumatic etiology. If these symptoms resulted from trauma, the diagnosis would be traumatic facial nerve palsy rather than Bell palsy. Learn more about Bell palsy epidemiology. Lagophthalmos, but not true eyelid ptosis, is a characteristic feature of Bell palsy. Symptoms of Bell palsy typically have a rapid onset, manifesting from 24 to 72 hours and often resolving or partially resolving within a few weeks to 3 months. In Bell palsy, facial paralysis is usually unilateral, and bilateral facial paralysis should lead to consideration and evaluation for other etiologies. Hearing loss is not a typical symptom of Bell palsy. The presence of hearing loss indicates an association with an upper motor neuron lesion or a lesion involving more than the facial nerve. Learn more about Bell palsy presentation. A rapid evidence review on Bell palsy points out that, as the condition is idiopathic, laboratory diagnostics are not required for a diagnosis. Clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery concur that diagnostic testing is not needed to identify Bell palsy. The guidelines recommend that clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new-onset Bell palsy, pointing out that this approach is not cost-effective. However, both the rapid evidence review and guidelines state that laboratory testing can help identify systemic causes of facial palsy symptoms, such as Lyme disease or diabetes, when reasonable clinical suspicion exists. Learn more about workup for Bell palsy. Oral corticosteroids are recommended in a rapid evidence review as the first-line treatment for Bell palsy. Guidelines from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery also recommend this approach in patients age = 16 years with Bell palsy. Antiviral monotherapy has not been demonstrated to influence recovery and should be avoided. However, combination therapy with oral corticosteroids and antivirals should be considered, as this approach consistently results in lower rates of synkinesis and might reduce rates of incomplete recovery. Local injectable anesthetic would not be an appropriate therapy because it would not address the underlying cause, lower motor neuron palsy. There is no evidence-based role for local anesthetic in the treatment of Bell palsy. Electroconvulsive therapy is mostly used in the treatment of severe mood disorders. The mechanism of action would not be expected to be useful in the treatment of facial nerve palsy. Learn more about management of Bell palsy. Along with the Sunnybrook facial grading system, the House-Brackmann scale is widely used to qualify symptom severity of Bell palsy. A patient with obvious facial weakness, inability to move the forehead, incomplete closure of the eyelids, and mouth asymmetry with maximal effort would be grade IV, moderately severe symptoms. Grade I is classified as a normal presentation with full facial function in all areas. Grade II is characterized by slight facial weakness on close inspection, slight synkinesis, and no lagophthalmos. Grade III would exhibit moderate symptoms with noticeable, but not severe, synkinesis; obvious facial asymmetry but not disfiguring; complete eyelid closure with effort; and slightly weak mouth even with maximal effort. Learn more about Bell palsy prognosis.