I expect Dr Schwartz’s nomination for CDC director to go through. What happens after is critical.
She has clear evidence that if she tries to buck RFKs vaccine moves, she may be fired. But the political backlash to Monarez was significant, enough that it led to Schwartz’s nomination.
Levers she has: she has to sign off on any ACIP recommendations. She can inform how CDC staff contribute to ACIP meetings. Ultimately she can threaten to publicly disagree with Kennedy and risk firing.
Will she do these things? Will Kennedy back off? Would Trump risk losing the MAHA coalition completely by firing Kennedy if he fears more backlash to another CDC director firing?
Who knows? Honestly, too much politics for me when we should really be focusing on robust vaccine education, VPD surveillance and closing vaccine access gaps, yet this is the world we live in.
It's so fascinating to me how these public health and medical leaders are being constantly put to the test in ways I'm sure they never imagined. It actually makes me wonder if we need to be considering these kinds of elements as part of our training of MDs and researchers. We train on research rigor & integrity but have always assumed that our operating partners (like the federal government) would be good actors. Do we need also train on leadership integrity? How to balance protecting your org or lab while also standing up for the science? I think it's tempting to imagine things will go back to normal after this administration, but I'm less sure. So how do we prepare for this new normal going forward?
I have encountered this problem in the last year- I’m a neuroscience researcher and have been so frustrated by what’s been going on in HHS, but have felt afraid to speak publicly for fear of losing both my job and funding for my lab. Some guidance on how to make your voice heard as a scientist without jeopardizing your team would have been so helpful.
So curious to hear more about that Idaho CHD lawsuit and how it develops. I know CHD and similar groups have very active legal teams centered around certain case studies and I’ve always wondered how genuine their claims are. Eg. If an individual was really harmed by a vaccine or if it was just coincidence/something else happened as may be the case for this Idaho trial. Fantastic work as always Unbiased Science team!
The OMB proposal for federal funding is one of the most alarming things to have happened during this administration. Not to be a fearmonger but it many ways this could be the end of biomedical science as we know it. Thanks for publishing about it. I have heard they've already received 10's of thousands of comments!
The language in "Flu Vaccines in the Fall" regarding ACA conflicts with this article from KFF: https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/immunizations-covered-by-the-aca/. It would be great to get clarification because we get questions about this and have previously said that it should be covered.
Also a huge thank you for doing these updates - they are incredibly helpful!
I expect Dr Schwartz’s nomination for CDC director to go through. What happens after is critical.
She has clear evidence that if she tries to buck RFKs vaccine moves, she may be fired. But the political backlash to Monarez was significant, enough that it led to Schwartz’s nomination.
Levers she has: she has to sign off on any ACIP recommendations. She can inform how CDC staff contribute to ACIP meetings. Ultimately she can threaten to publicly disagree with Kennedy and risk firing.
Will she do these things? Will Kennedy back off? Would Trump risk losing the MAHA coalition completely by firing Kennedy if he fears more backlash to another CDC director firing?
Who knows? Honestly, too much politics for me when we should really be focusing on robust vaccine education, VPD surveillance and closing vaccine access gaps, yet this is the world we live in.
It's so fascinating to me how these public health and medical leaders are being constantly put to the test in ways I'm sure they never imagined. It actually makes me wonder if we need to be considering these kinds of elements as part of our training of MDs and researchers. We train on research rigor & integrity but have always assumed that our operating partners (like the federal government) would be good actors. Do we need also train on leadership integrity? How to balance protecting your org or lab while also standing up for the science? I think it's tempting to imagine things will go back to normal after this administration, but I'm less sure. So how do we prepare for this new normal going forward?
I have encountered this problem in the last year- I’m a neuroscience researcher and have been so frustrated by what’s been going on in HHS, but have felt afraid to speak publicly for fear of losing both my job and funding for my lab. Some guidance on how to make your voice heard as a scientist without jeopardizing your team would have been so helpful.
So curious to hear more about that Idaho CHD lawsuit and how it develops. I know CHD and similar groups have very active legal teams centered around certain case studies and I’ve always wondered how genuine their claims are. Eg. If an individual was really harmed by a vaccine or if it was just coincidence/something else happened as may be the case for this Idaho trial. Fantastic work as always Unbiased Science team!
The OMB proposal for federal funding is one of the most alarming things to have happened during this administration. Not to be a fearmonger but it many ways this could be the end of biomedical science as we know it. Thanks for publishing about it. I have heard they've already received 10's of thousands of comments!
The language in "Flu Vaccines in the Fall" regarding ACA conflicts with this article from KFF: https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/immunizations-covered-by-the-aca/. It would be great to get clarification because we get questions about this and have previously said that it should be covered.
Also a huge thank you for doing these updates - they are incredibly helpful!
Will covid vaccines be available in the fall?