Latest news with #U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices
NBC News
a day ago
- Health
- NBC News
CDC's vaccine panel to take up longtime target of anti-vaccine groups
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers meet next week, but their agenda suggests they'll skip some expected topics — including a vote on Covid-19 shots — while taking up a longtime target of anti-vaccine groups. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations on how to use the nation's vaccines, setting a schedule for children's vaccines as well as advice for adult shots. Last week, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. The agenda for the new committee's first meeting, posted Wednesday, shows it will be shorter than expected. Discussion of Covid shots will open the session, but the agenda lists no vote on that. Instead, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations, on RSV vaccinations for pregnant women and children and on the use of a preservative named thimerosal that's in a subset of flu shots. It's not clear who wrote the agenda. No committee chairperson has been named and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not comment. Committee won't take up HPV or meningococcal vaccines Missing from the agenda are some heavily researched vaccine policy proposals the advisers were supposed to consider this month, including shots against HPV and meningococcal bacteria, said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Instead, the committee is talking about subjects 'which are settled science,' she said. 'Every American should be asking themselves how and why did we get here, where leaders are promoting their own agenda instead of protecting our people and our communities,' she said. She worried it's 'part of a purposeful agenda to insert dangerous and harmful and unnecessary fear regarding vaccines into the process.' The committee makes recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover. But the CDC has no director and the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy. Thimerosal is a longtime target of anti-vaccine activists Thimerosal was added to certain vaccines in the early 20th century to make them safer and more accessible by preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. It's a tiny amount, but because it's a form of mercury, it began raising questions in the 1990s. Kennedy — a leading voice in an anti- vaccine movement before he became President Donald Trump's health secretary — has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Thimerosal now only appears in multidose flu shot vials, not the single-shot packaging of most of today's flu shots. Targeting thimerosal would likely force manufacturers to switch to single-dose vials, which would make the shots 'more expensive, less available and more feared,' said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Doctors' groups have opposed Kennedy's vaccine moves Last week, 30 organizations called on insurers to continue paying for Covid vaccines for pregnant women after Kennedy said the shots would no longer be routinely recommended for that group. Doctors' groups also opposed Kennedy's changes to the vaccine committee. The new members he picked include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of Covid vaccines, a top critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and a leader of a group that has been widely considered to be a source of vaccine misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long put out its own immunization recommendations. In recent decades it has matched what the government recommended. But asked if they might soon diverge, depending on potential changes in the government's vaccination recommendations, Kressly said; 'Nothing's off the table.' 'We will do whatever is necessary to make sure that every child in every community gets the vaccines that they deserve to stay healthy and safe,' she said.
2 days ago
- Health
New CDC advisers will skip some expected topics and explore a target of antivaccine activists
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers meet next week, but their agenda suggests they'll skip some expected topics — including a vote on COVID-19 shots — while taking up a longtime target of anti-vaccine groups. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations on how to use the nation's vaccines, setting a schedule for children's vaccines as well as advice for adult shots. Last week, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. The agenda for the new committee's first meeting, posted Wednesday, shows it will be shorter than expected. Discussion of COVID-19 shots will open the session, but the agenda lists no vote on that. Instead, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations, on RSV vaccinations for pregnant women and children and on the use of a preservative named thimerosal that's in a subset of flu shots. It's not clear who wrote the agenda. No committee chairperson has been named and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not comment. Missing from the agenda are some heavily researched vaccine policy proposals the advisers were supposed to consider this month, including shots against HPV and meningococcal bacteria, said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Instead, the committee is talking about subjects 'which are settled science,' she said. 'Every American should be asking themselves how and why did we get here, where leaders are promoting their own agenda instead of protecting our people and our communities,' she said. She worried it's "part of a purposeful agenda to insert dangerous and harmful and unnecessary fear regarding vaccines into the process.' The committee makes recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover. But the CDC has no director and the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy. Thimerosal was added to certain vaccines in the early 20th century to make them safer and more accessible by preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. It's a tiny amount, but because it's a form of mercury, it began raising questions in the 1990s. Kennedy — a leading voice in an antivaccine movement before he became President Donald Trump's health secretary — has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Thimerosal now only appears in multidose flu shot vials, not the single-shot packaging of most of today's flu shots. Targeting thimerosal would likely force manufacturers to switch to single-dose vials, which would make the shots 'more expensive, less available and more feared,' said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Last week, 30 organizations called on insurers to continue paying for COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women after Kennedy said the shots would no longer be routinely recommended for that group. Doctors' groups also opposed Kennedy's changes to the vaccine committee. The new members he picked include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of COVID-19 vaccines, a top critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and a leader of a group that has been widely considered to be a source of vaccine misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long put out its own immunization recommendations. In recent decades it has matched what the government recommended. But asked if they might soon diverge, depending on potential changes in the government's vaccination recommendations, Kressly said; 'Nothing's off the table.' 'We will do whatever is necessary to make sure that every child in every community gets the vaccines that they deserve to stay healthy and safe,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Health
- Winnipeg Free Press
New CDC advisers will skip some expected topics and explore a target of antivaccine activists
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers meet next week, but their agenda suggests they'll skip some expected topics — including a vote on COVID-19 shots — while taking up a longtime target of anti-vaccine groups. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations on how to use the nation's vaccines, setting a schedule for children's vaccines as well as advice for adult shots. Last week, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. The agenda for the new committee's first meeting, posted Wednesday, shows it will be shorter than expected. Discussion of COVID-19 shots will open the session, but the agenda lists no vote on that. Instead, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations, on RSV vaccinations for pregnant women and children and on the use of a preservative named thimerosal that's in a subset of flu shots. It's not clear who wrote the agenda. No committee chairperson has been named and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not comment. Committee won't take up HPV or meningococcal vaccines Missing from the agenda are some heavily researched vaccine policy proposals the advisers were supposed to consider this month, including shots against HPV and meningococcal bacteria, said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Instead, the committee is talking about subjects 'which are settled science,' she said. 'Every American should be asking themselves how and why did we get here, where leaders are promoting their own agenda instead of protecting our people and our communities,' she said. She worried it's 'part of a purposeful agenda to insert dangerous and harmful and unnecessary fear regarding vaccines into the process.' The committee makes recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover. But the CDC has no director and the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy. Thimerosal is a longtime target of antivaccine activists Thimerosal was added to certain vaccines in the early 20th century to make them safer and more accessible by preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. It's a tiny amount, but because it's a form of mercury, it began raising questions in the 1990s. Kennedy — a leading voice in an antivaccine movement before he became President Donald Trump's health secretary — has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Thimerosal now only appears in multidose flu shot vials, not the single-shot packaging of most of today's flu shots. Targeting thimerosal would likely force manufacturers to switch to single-dose vials, which would make the shots 'more expensive, less available and more feared,' said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Doctors' groups have opposed Kennedy's vaccine moves Last week, 30 organizations called on insurers to continue paying for COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women after Kennedy said the shots would no longer be routinely recommended for that group. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Doctors' groups also opposed Kennedy's changes to the vaccine committee. The new members he picked include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of COVID-19 vaccines, a top critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and a leader of a group that has been widely considered to be a source of vaccine misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long put out its own immunization recommendations. In recent decades it has matched what the government recommended. But asked if they might soon diverge, depending on potential changes in the government's vaccination recommendations, Kressly said; 'Nothing's off the table.' 'We will do whatever is necessary to make sure that every child in every community gets the vaccines that they deserve to stay healthy and safe,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
US to drop guidance to limit alcohol to one or two drinks per day, sources say
U.S. Dietary Guidelines are expected to eliminate the long-standing recommendation that adults limit alcohol consumption to one or two drinks per day, according to three sources familiar with the matter, in what could be a major win for an industry threatened by heightened scrutiny of alcohol's health effects. The updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which could be released as early as this month, are expected to include a brief statement encouraging Americans to drink in moderation or limit alcohol intake due to associated health risks, the sources said. The guidelines are still under development and subject to change, two of the sources and a fourth individual familiar with the process said. Currently, the recommendations advise limiting drinking to one serving or less per day for women and two or less for men, widely seen as a moderate level. Similar guidelines exist in countries such as the United Kingdom, which advises limiting drinking to 14 units per week, while Canada, however, has adopted a more cautious stance, warning that health risks begin to increase after just two drinks per week. Even moderate drinking is linked to some health risks, such as higher risk of breast cancer, though some studies have also found an association with possible health benefits, such as a lower risk of stroke. The fourth source said that the scientific basis for recommending specific daily limits is limited, and the goal is to ensure the guidelines reflect only the most robust evidence. The new guidelines, developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are closely watched internationally and influence policies ranging from school lunch programs to medical advice. Neither department responded to requests for comment. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known teetotaler, has remained largely silent on alcohol but has emphasised a focus on whole foods in the upcoming guidelines. Some alcohol executives had feared a move towards tighter recommendations on alcohol intake as authorities like the World Health Organization upped their warnings about alcohol's health risks. Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said alcohol consumption increases the risk of at least seven types of cancer and called for warning labels on alcoholic drinks. Major industry players, including Diageo and Anheuser-Busch InBev, have lobbied lawmakers throughout the review process. Senate records show each company spent millions on lobbying efforts related to the guidelines and a range of other issues such as tax and trade in 2024 and 2025. Both companies declined to comment. The new guidelines are set to move away from suggesting consumers limit alcohol consumption to a specific number of daily servings, according to the three sources, who asked not to be named in order to speak freely. One person said the new alcohol-related recommendation will probably be limited to a sentence or two. Another said the existing numbers tied to moderate drinking could still appear in a longer appendix. While industry representatives have lobbied lawmakers on the guidelines or how they should be decided, some officials and researchers advocated for tighter restrictions. Reports intended to inform the guidelines have meanwhile drawn different conclusions about alcohol's health effects and the science around this. 'UNHELPFUL' The guidelines, which are reviewed every five years, have advised drinking in moderation and defined that as no more than one drink per day for women and no more than two for men since 1990. Eva Greenthal, a senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit focused on nutrition, health and food safety, said the more general language expected in the guidelines was "so vague as to be unhelpful". Under such a change, the message that even moderate drinking can increase risks, especially for breast cancer, would get lost, she continued. Two studies were produced to inform the development of the guidelines. The first found that moderate drinking was associated with increased risk of some cancers, but a decreased risk of dying from any cause and some cardiovascular problems like stroke. The evidence for some other health impacts was insufficient to draw conclusions, it found. The other report conversely found the risk of dying from alcohol use, including increased risk for seven cancers, begins at any or low levels of alcohol use and increases with higher consumption.
Time Magazine
2 days ago
- Health
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Upholds Gender-Affirming-Care Ban. Here's What to Know
The Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to transgender rights with its decision to uphold a Tennessee law that bars doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures for trans minors in the state. The Wednesday decision in the landmark U.S. v. Skrmetti case is expected to upend access to healthcare for trans and nonbinary youth far beyond Tennessee. While the ruling does not ban gender-affirming care nationwide, it permits the at least 25 bans that states have passed against medical and surgical care for transgender youth. Some states, such as Florida, have similarly moved to restrict access to such care for adults. The opinion comes as the Trump Administration targets transgender Americans on the federal level as well, seeking to bar requests for updated gender markers on federal identification documents that align with the holder's gender identity and releasing a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report aiming to discredit gender-affirming care as treatment for individuals with gender dysphoria. The effort to bar accurate gender markers was blocked by a federal judge on Tuesday. The Supreme Court's decision will pose a significant obstacle for legal challenges to the mounting restrictions being placed on gender-affirming care across the country. In the ruling, the conservative majority rejected arguments that barring such care violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the court's 6-3 ruling. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.' Here's what to know about the decision and how it will impact care. What does the Supreme Court's decision mean for gender-affirming care? The lawsuit at the core of the U.S. v. Skrmetti, filed by the families of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based medical provider, challenged the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors under the equal protection clause, citing sex discrimination. The state of Tennessee, meanwhile, argued that the ban would help protect children from what it referred to as 'experimental' medical treatment, though every major medical and mental health association supports gender-affirming care as a legitimate health practice, per GLAAD. The justices found that the law is a standard state regulation on medical care and does not discriminate on the basis of sex. 'The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex,' the majority opinion reads. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissented. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined in full by Jackson and in part by Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' The state of Tennessee is home to about 3,000 transgender youth, according to UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute. Nationwide, there are an estimated 300,000 transgender adolescents. The Supreme Court's ruling will also allow gender-affirming-care bans in states beyond Tennessee to go into effect, though it does not enact a nationwide ban. That means transgender minors living in a state with a ban will have to seek care in other states in order to continue receiving medication or other gender-affirming treatments. It is still unclear how the ruling could affect potential gender-affirming-care bans for adults, according to Alex Reinert, a constitutional law and civil rights professor at Cardozo School of Law. 'The court doesn't address that,' he says. 'But I think the reasoning that the court has provided would apply to attempts to regulate gender-affirming care for adults as well.' Many activists are lamenting the decision due to its potential effect on transgender youth. 'The biggest human tragedy here are the trans kids whose lives are going to be irrevocably changed as a result of not being able to get the best practice healthcare that their parents want them to get, [and] that their doctors want them to get,' says Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. A 2022 study published in the National Library of Medicine found that gender-affirming care was associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality. A 2024 peer-reviewed study in Nature Human Behaviour in collaboration with Trevor Project researchers found that anti-transgender state laws caused an uptick in suicide attempts among transgender youth by as much as 72%. 'Today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,' said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project who argued the case before the court, becoming the first out trans attorney to do so. 'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.' What legal challenges could come next Legal experts say the decision will make it difficult to battle other gender-affirming-care bans, though not impossible. 'The question presented to the Supreme Court was pretty narrow. It was very specifically this question of whether or not discrimination against trans people constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex,' says Oakley. Cases that pertain to protected classes, such as sex and gender, are typically reviewed under the lens of heightened scrutiny. The level of scrutiny matters because it dictates the type of rationale the government must have for passing a law, says Reinert. The majority ruled on Skrmetti with a rational review, meaning that they believed the Tennessee law did not deal with those issues but instead with matters of age and 'the medical purpose for which the treatment is being sought,' Reinert says. 'The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. But neither of the above classifications turns on sex,' the majority opinion reads. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex. While SB1's prohibitions reference sex, the Court has never suggested that mere reference to sex is sufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny.' In cases regarding the rational basis reviews of the law, 'the state almost always wins,' Reinert says. Oakley says it's possible future plaintiffs could contest state laws based on parental rights over their child's medical treatment. Reinert concurs that additional legal challenges can be brought in the court system depending on the way other state laws are phrased or organized. But, he adds, the decision 'almost certainly makes those challenges much harder to succeed at.' What medical groups say about gender-affirming care Gender-affirming care is espoused as a medically accepted treatment by every major medical association in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and more. The American College of Pediatricians, which has been identified as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of the state of Tennessee. The group was first founded in 2002 by members who opposed the American Academy of Pediatrics's endorsement of adoption by same-sex couples. Beyond the U.S., several European countries are assessing best practices for patients with gender dysphoria. The U.K. moved to ban puberty blocker prescriptions for youth in March 2024, citing a lack of evidence. Some doctors who treat patients with gender dysphoria have expressed disappointment with the court's ruling. 'Today's decision codifies the patchwork of state laws banning vs. allowing medically necessary healthcare for a singular group of young people into federal law,' Morissa Ladinsky, a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and Child Health told TIME in an emailed statement. 'This emboldens a more sinister reality. Providers can now discriminate in the delivery of health care. We can treat patients differently on the basis of age, sex and gender. Because we can, does not mean we must.'
