“During the Biden administration’s four years, the CDC recorded a total of 527 cases. In just the first seven months of the Trump administration, there have been 1,408 cases with 176 hospitalizations and three deaths. That’s a 267 percent increase over the Biden administration’s entire toll. Instead of immediately recommending measles vaccines at the beginning of the outbreak, RFK Jr. initially advised giving vitamin A to children.
…
The CDC’s manifold failures during the COVID-19 pandemic made it clear that it needs drastic reform and a return to its roots as an agency focused on fighting infectious epidemic disease. This evidently is not the sort of reform that RFK Jr. intends. Firing Monarez may not be “weaponizing public health,” but it sure looks a lot like gutting it.”
“Pharmacists’ authority to vaccinate individuals varies across state lines. In some places, it’s dependent upon a federal advisory process that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has upended.
At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration has signaled that it will only approve updated Covid vaccines for individuals 65 and older and for younger people considered to be at high risk for severe disease. People, regardless of where they live, may need to prove that they need the shot.
…
If the FDA narrows eligibility, people between 6 months and 65 years old who want a Covid vaccine this fall likely will have to navigate some roadblocks.
They, or their parents, may need to convince pharmacies and doctors that they have at least one of the underlying conditions that the FDA has suggested makes them eligible for a dose. The list includes asthma, diabetes, cancer, mood disorders and obesity. It’s unclear at this point what would serve as adequate proof.
…
Further complicating vaccination efforts for children this year: the FDA may pull Covid vaccine-maker Pfizer’s emergency use authorization for its shots for children under 5.”
The big city libs want to fund rural hospitals in flyover country. Trump does not.
“President Donald Trump pressed Congress in July to pass his big tax and spending law, which slashed more than $1 trillion from health care programs and could lead to an estimated 11.8 million people losing their health insurance. It also included cuts to what’s known as the provider tax, which nearly all states use to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, in part to help them fund services in rural communities where providing care may not otherwise be financially possible.
By one estimate, the law’s tax cuts could force more than 300 rural hospitals to close. In Erwin, Tennessee, it may mean Unicoi Hospital never reopens, leaving the county without any hospitals or emergency rooms.”
“The nation’s top public health agency was left reeling Thursday as the White House worked to expel the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director and replace her with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s current deputy.
The turmoil triggered rare bipartisan alarm as Kennedy tries to advance anti-vaccine policies that are contradicted by decades of scientific research.
Two administration officials said Jim O’Neill, the second-in-command at the Department of Health and Human Services, would supplant Susan Monarez, a longtime government scientist. O’Neill, a former investment executive who also served at the federal health department under President George W. Bush, does not have a medical background.”
The clearest success that worked against Covid was the vaccines, and it is the main thing Trump, RFK, MAGA, and MAHA are attacking. These substantial attacks will result in deaths.
MRNA vaccines are developed faster, so can more quickly deal with a new virus, and can more quickly be adapted to mutating viruses like the flu.
MRNA technology may also be able to help fight cancer.
Good data don’t support links to negative health from food dyes. So, using government influence to get companies to remove them is uneconomical and a foolish government policy.
“in June, vaccine manufacturer Moderna reported the results of a clinical trial pitting its mRNA influenza vaccine against both high-dose and standard-dose licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. The conventional vaccines used inactivated flu viruses to induce an immune response. Moderna’s mRNA-1010 achieved a relative vaccine efficacy against influenza illness of 26.6 percent in the trial. That means that the mRNA-1010 group had 26.6 percent fewer influenza cases than the group that got the standard-dose flu shot. For example, if the standard flu vaccine group had 100 cases per 1,000 people, the mRNA-1010 group would have had about 73–74 cases per 1,000.
The clinical trial roundly contradicts RFK Jr.’s claim that mRNA vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections, especially in comparison to old-fashioned flu vaccines.
…
A simple Google Scholar search for mRNA vaccine trials for infectious diseases turns up over 10,000 results for just 2025 alone. But let’s just take a look at a comprehensive new review of promising vaccine formulations for emerging infectious diseases. In that study, a team of Korean researchers compares the pros and cons of different vaccine production platforms, including whole-organism-based, live-attenuated, subunit, virus vector-based immunity, and nucleic acid-based (DNA and RNA) vaccines.
The researchers’ analysis concludes that “mRNA vaccine formulations offer significant advantages, such as rapid development and production, over other vaccine platforms.” They also note that it is “necessary to develop an analysis system that can verify the effectiveness and safety of the mRNA vaccine, as well as the development process of the vaccine itself.” Just what the now-cancelled BARDA mRNA vaccine contracts could have helped to figure out.
…
These vaccines might indeed have a significant impact on mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, if RFK Jr. would just stop standing athwart biomedical progress yelling, “Stop.””
“The sum of statistical lives saved vastly exceeds the number of actual lives.
Think of all the things that have saved your life. Every breath you take, every heartbeat, every car and lightning bolt that didn’t hit you. Yet, you’re only alive once. Even if we restrict ourselves to the effects of government programs, the total statistical lives saved by all programs is far greater than the population.
…
Wyse and Meyer only show one side of the ledger—the reduction in mortality among people who gain Medicare eligibility. On the other side are the statistical lives lost from the people the money is taken from, or the programs cut.
…
Counting statistical lives saved or lost is a debased currency, because it counts each actual life multiple times. And citing only the good side of the ledger makes it impossible to evaluate.
…
after the Medicaid expansion, total expenditures increased by more than $1 trillion. That spending also costs statistical lives
…
the money could have remained in taxpayers’ bank accounts, which also could promote good health. Mortality declines with income. Even if the Medicaid expansion were a cost-effective way to improve mortality, you have to consider the other side of the ledger.
…
The lifesaving medical measures with the biggest impact, such as vaccinations and antibiotics, are relatively cheap. The Medicaid expansion may have relieved financial stress and made the program’s beneficiaries more physically comfortable, which are better criteria for evaluating its impact.
Now consider the 2013 NEJM study trumpeted by conservatives, which examined various health measures. It found that Medicaid enrollment resulted in large and statistically significant improvements in patients’ subjective estimates of their health and quality of life, as well as significant reductions in their financial stress. But it did not find a statistically significant impact on mortality.
…
The two studies are more valuable in combination than individually. The NEJM study had the advantage of random assignment and detailed individual data. The NBER paper had a much larger sample size and time interval. Both found significant benefits to Medicaid recipients, although they did not establish that these benefits were any greater than could have been obtained by simply giving each recipient several thousand dollars per year. Neither study convincingly answered whether Medicaid improved health or saved statistical lives.”