immunisation
The US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to make the annual flu vaccine optional for US military service members in April 2026 was not an exercise in “medical autonomy,” as he called it at the time. It was a recklessly ideological act that has now already cost a life. By lifting a long-standing, evidence-based mandate Hegseth dismissed as “absurd” and “overreaching,” he prioritized ill-advised principles over the health, welfare, and readiness of US service members.
The consequences arrived swiftly and were confirmed in mid-June 2026. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, at least 159–160 recruits fell ill with flu within weeks, with two hospitalizations. One sixth-week trainee, Keon McDaniel, died on June 16 at Brooke Army Medical Center after a medical emergency on June 12. While the official cause of death remains under investigation, sources report McDaniel had not received the flu vaccine. Vaccination rates among Air Force trainees plummeted to roughly 40% after the mandate was lifted, compared to near 100% coverage while immunization was mandatory.
The outbreak was so severe that the Air Force received an emergency exception from the Pentagon and reinstated mandatory flu shots for all recruits at Lackland – an admission that Hegseth’s policy was dangerously wrong. The exception was granted by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which can authorize mandatory vaccination when risk assessments warrant it.
Hegseth styled himself “Secretary of War” while declaring mandatory vaccination “not rational.” Yet the mathematics of infectious disease are clear: in communal settings like military bases, where close contact is unavoidable, voluntary vaccination leads almost inevitably to outbreaks. Yet Hegseth ignored decades of public health evidence that flu vaccines reduce morbidity, prevent complications, and maintain operational readiness. His decision was irresponsible and little more than political posturing aligned with anti-vaccination rhetoric that currently undermines public health across the US under Trump’s administration.
The death of a young trainee is a human cost Hegseth cannot dismiss. Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro is now calling for a full DoD accounting of the outbreak and an investigation into McDaniel’s death. Whenever military leaders make policy decisions, they must prioritize readiness and safety over ideology. Hegseth failed that duty in the most appalling fashion. His flu shot reversal was by no way a victory for autonomy; it was a failure of leadership that endangered service members and will likely cost more lives if not urgently corrected across the entire armed forces.
As of June 20, 2026, the mandatory flu vaccine has not been reinstated across all armed forces – only at Lackland. The broader policy remains voluntary, leaving the rest of the military exposed to Hegseth’s stupidity and similar outbreaks.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, is demanding that the journal Toxicology Reports explain in detail why it removed a 2021 paper he has cited in support of his anti-vaccine stance. The study had concluded that “While the findings in this paper are not proof of an association between infant vaccines and infant deaths, they are highly suggestive of a causal relationship.”
In his letter to the editors, Kennedy accuses the journal of suppressing research linking vaccines to sudden infant death. However, the evidence reveals quite clearly that Kennedy is not seeking transparency but rather attempting to bully a peer-reviewed journal that correctly identified fatal methodological flaws in a paper Kennedy continues to promote.
The removed study claimed to link vaccines to infant deaths using data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The journal removed the paper because VAERS is a passive reporting system that cannot establish causality. Any conclusion claiming vaccines cause deaths from such data is therefore not valid. The editors determined the methodology was seriously flawed and that the author’s responses to critiques were unsatisfactory. Consequently, the paper would mislead readers and harm the public. In this situation, it would have been unethical NOT to retract!
Kennedy’s demand for a “full explanation” ignores that the journal had already provided a clear, evidence-based removal notice. He wants to know who reviewed the paper and what standards were applied, yet these are standard peer-review procedures. Framing a legitimate scientific correction as censorship reveals Kennedy’s disregard for science and evidence-based medicine. As HHS secretary, he is responsible for protecting public health, yet he continues to cite fraudulent research that contradicts established scientific consensus on vaccine safety.
The story is reminiscent of the ongoing conflict over the landmark Danish vaccine study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It tracked over 1.2 million children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2018. Exploiting a natural experiment created by evolving national immunization schedules, researchers analyzed the dose-response relationship of aluminum adjuvants. The study found no evidence linking increased cumulative exposure to an elevated risk of 50 chronic pediatric conditions, including neurodevelopmental, autoimmune, and allergic disorders.
Despite its massive scale and rigorous design, Kennedy labeled the research a “deceitful propaganda stunt” and demanded its retraction. However, Kennedy’s criticisms rely on data misrepresentation and a fundamental misunderstanding of epidemiological methodology. First, Kennedy cherry-picked non-significant supplementary data, falsely claiming a 67% increased risk of Asperger’s syndrome. In reality, the finding had a wide confidence interval, lacked statistical significance, and completely vanished when researchers analyzed the full follow-up data. Second, Kennedy objected to the lack of a completely unvaccinated control group. Experts counter that the unvaccinated cohort (1.2%) was too small to measure rare outcomes accurately and would introduce severe confounding bias due to differing family lifestyles. Finally, Kennedy levelled inaccurate claims of financial corruption against Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut, a public research body that had long since divested its vaccine manufacturing arm.
The medical community has firmly rejected Kennedy’s attacks. The journal refused his retraction demand, and independent experts have defended the study as the strongest available evidence of vaccine aluminum safety. After all, aluminum salts have been used safely for a century, and vaccine-derived amounts are eclipsed by daily environmental and dietary intake.
The inescapable conclusion is that Kennedy’s campaigns are not about accountability or about promoting scientific rigor; they are about promoting his dangerous type of misinformation. His continued advocacy of pseudoscience exposes his commitment to ideology over evidence, a truly dangerous stance for anyone leading the nation’s health agency. It is high time, I feel, that he gets sacked before he does any more lasting damage to public health in the US and beyond!
The US resurgence of measles in 2026 serves as a stark, data-driven refutation of the anti-vaccine rhetoric championed by quacks like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For years, vaccine antagonists have framed immunisations as a matter of personal autonomy, minimizing the societal dangers of declining rates. Yet, public health is not governed by ideology, but by biology. The realities of 2026 – marked by over 2,000 confirmed measles cases across 40 US jurisdictions – demonstrate that when charlatans undermine trust in medical science, the real-world consequence is the return of preventable, highly contagious and dangerous diseases.
The core flaw in RFK Jr.’s rhetoric, it seems to me, is the failure to understand that vaccine protection is a collective barrier, not just an individual shield. Measles is one of the most infectious viruses known to humanity, requiring a high community vaccination threshold of 95% to maintain herd immunity. When coverage drops below this line, the virus easily finds pathways to spread. Because of sustained anti-vaccine sentiment, US kindergarten MMR coverage dropped from 95.2% in 2019–2020 to a dangerous 92.5% by the 2024–2025 school year. This decline left roughly 286,000 children unprotected, effectively dismantling the wall that kept measles at bay for decades.
Furthermore, public health crises thrive on localized vulnerability. While national averages can mask the severity of the issue, anti-vaccine messaging often clusters within specific communities, creating relatively dense pockets of under-vaccinated populations. When measles enters these communities, it does not remain isolated; it triggers rapid, localized outbreaks where almost all of cases are tied directly to these transmission clusters.
Beyond its well-known immediate dangers, a measles infection inflicts severe, long-term damage on the human body by causing a phenomenon known as immune amnesia. The measles virus actively targets and destroys memory T and B cells, the specialized white blood cells responsible for remembering past pathogens. A single measles infection can wipe out 11% to 73% of a person’s preexisting antibodies, effectively erasing the body’s immunological memory. While the patient develops immunity to measles itself, their defense system is left “flying blind” against other entirely unrelated viruses and bacteria they had previously beaten or been vaccinated against. This induced state of generalized immunosuppression typically lasts from two to five years, leaving recovered individuals dramatically more vulnerable to secondary, life-threatening infections long after the initial measles rash has cleared.
Ultimately, the current measles spikein the US illustrates that US public health control is being sabotaged. When prominent morons like RFK Jr. weaponize anti-vax delusions and distort clinical data, they do not simply foster debate, they actively erode the herd immunity threshold. The current US outbreak proves that the protection wall has thinned below the critical margin of safety. Far from being under control, measles has found a resurgence precisely because the rhetoric of figures like RFK Jr. has opened the door for a dangerous, preventable virus to reclaim its ground in and beyond the US.
For some time, I had suspected that the stupidity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs deep. Just how deep, is a surprise even to me. Let me give you just two examples from a choice of plenty:
EXAMPLE No 1
In January 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released far-reaching new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. They dramatically “flipped the food pyramid” by encouraging Americans to consume red meat and whole milk, sources previously discouraged by public health experts because of their contributios to heart disease and other chronic conditions.
“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again”, Kennedy commented. “Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, this edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will reset federal nutrition policy, putting our families and children first as we move towards a healthier nation,” Secretary Rollins said. “At long last, we are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies that grow and produce real food. Farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of the solution, and that means more protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains on American dinner tables.”
The scientific community responded with outrage, calling it a reckless abandonment of evidence-based nutrition and science. Promoting saturated fats and red meats contradicts decades of medical research and will increase cardiovascular disease rates across the US.
EXAMPLE No 2
In a hilarious revelation Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to Joe Rogan’s podcast to inform the world that the UK has become a dystopian nightmare. “It’s like the Soviets. It’s like Kafka,” he declared in February 27, 2026.
The trigger for this epiphany? David Lammy, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, announced plans to scrap jury trials for offenses carrying less than three years imprisonment. Instead, a judge will decide. Lammy felt that this was necessary because of the backlog that meant cases could not be heard for years. RFK Jr., ever the historian, reminded listeners that the UK was once the “birthplace of Magna Carta”. Now, according to him, the UK is a “dictatorship over speech restrictions”.
Joe Rogan was horrified. “Existential threat to freedom of thought!” he cried, as if the UK had outlawed laughter or something. The pair seemed genuinely shocked that a country with a functioning parliament and a Prime Minister might have different ideas about justice than, say, a certain American podcast audience.
The comparison to Kafka is particularly weird: Kafka’s The Trial features a man arrested by a mysterious bureaucracy for an unspecified crime. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. seems to be arguing that replacing juries with judges in minor cases is the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union. A bold claim, especially from someone whose vis part of a government that checks people’s social media upon arrival – one of several reasons why I would never travel to the US, while these people are in power. But not as bold as Kennedy’s Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines. In his 2025 HHS confirmation hearing, Senator Raphael Warnock pressed him on statements likening the CDC to a “Nazi death camp,” which RFK Jr. denied, claiming he was comparing injury rates rather than the institution itself.
Perhaps the real dystopia is RFK Jr. spending his time lecturing other countries while the US degrades into a Kafkaesque nightmare of its own?
Guest post by Ken McLeod
It seems like it was a century ago, but it’s been only six years since the COVID19 pandemic hit the world. Governments reacted in similar ways implementing severe public health measures such as lockdowns and mandatory wearing of facemasks. When those public health measures hit, they hit hard. The city of Melbourne was locked down for 111 days, for example,[1] alongside social distancing, curfews, and closed borders.
And then the vaccines arrived and were added to those rules. On 7 October 2021, the Victorian Chief Health Officer issued public health Directions that required, unless a valid medical exemption was given for medical reasons by a registered medical practitioner, ‘manufacturing workers’ must receive a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 15 October 2021 (or have a booking to do so) and must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by 26 November 2021.3 The refusal or failure by an employer to comply with the Directions was an offence which carried a significant penalty.
Antivaxxers were quick to exploit those exemptions and regrettably, out of tens of thousands of registered medical practitioners, some were willing to put their own unfounded beliefs above the science.
One of those doctors was Dr Denes C.Borsos, originally from Romania, practicing in the Australian state of Victoria in the picturesque country town of Colac, pop 22,000.
Dr Borsos issued 189 COVID-19 vaccination exemptions and 122 face mask exemptions to his patients, largely in the period from 11 to 14 October 2021. In the period from 11 to 13 October 2021, Dr Borsos saw approximately 221 patients in his practice.
Evidently word had got around. According to the Geelong Advertiser, a local newspaper, reported that on 14 October 2021 police were forced to disperse a crowd of alleged antivaxxers who had flocked to his clinic following reports that he was handing out vaccine exemptions.[2] According to AusDoc “Police were called to Dr Denes Borsos’ practice….following reports that about 100 people were lined up for a kilometre outside his clinic waiting for vaccine exemptions.” [3]
Health Care Commission Inspectors visited his clinic on 18 October 2021 and issued Borsos a $1,817 fine and an Infringement Notice which said that:
- Dr Borsos contravened public health directions; and
- undermined the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
- failed to meet his obligations as a registered medical practitioner; and
- inappropriately wrote referrals to specialist cardiology practitioners for each of those patients; and
- failed to make adequate clinical records for each of those patients except in the cases of eight patients where Dr Borsos failed to make any clinical records; and
- engaged in inappropriate billing practices, in that he falsely claimed benefits from Medicare for 84 patients.
On 24 December 2021 the Medical Board of Australia issued Borsos with an immediate suspension of his registration and referred the case to the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In his submission to the Tribunal Borsos branded the vaccine an ‘experimental bioweapon’ and that the Medical Board was ‘wrong, cruel and arrogant’ and accused it of ‘stretching the legislation like bubble gum’. [4]
Meanwhile Borsos then ran as an independent candidate for the Victorian seat of Polwarth, Victoria, on 26 Nov 2022. Of 53,064 eligible voters, Borsos received 2,017 votes, or 3.8 % [5] of votes.
Then in 2024 Borsos made two applications to Australia’s paramount Court, the High Court of Australia, for leave to appeal. On both occasions leave was refused. At least he was in good company; two other failed applicants were suspended antivax medical practitioners, Mark Hobart and Valerie Peers. [7]
At the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing on 13 May 2025:
- Dr Borsos stated that if a patient stated that they did not wish to have a COVID-19 vaccination, this was sufficient justification to grant the patient a vaccination exemption;
- Borsos claimed that Covid 19 is a scam, the PCR tests are a fraud and the COVID jabs are intentionally harmful;
- When Dr Borsos was asked whether the referrals to cardiologists were used as a justification for the vaccination exemptions, he stated that the justification for the vaccination exemptions was that the patient wanted an exemption;
- Dr Borsos did not accept the authority of Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) Guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination exemptions. [8]
- Borsos said of his referrals of 196 patients to un-named specialist cardiology practitioners [the patient] “is pressured at work to have the COVID jab and is very concerned about the risk of myocarditis, and the implications of getting injured.” [9]
- Borsos claimed that his opinion should override that of the expert and regulatory authorities.
We might never know how many of Borsos’ clients went on to suffer illness because of his irresponsible actions. We do know, however, of one real victim.
Mr Ross Edwards was employed by Bulla Dairy Foods as a Plant Operator at their Colac factory. After being employed by Bulla for 17 years, his employment was terminated effective 25 October 2021, because he had chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19: a requirement under Victorian Government public health orders.
Mr Edwards had obtained an ‘exemption’ from Borsos on 13 October 2021. He contended to the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, but the dismissal was upheld.
The Commission’s decision says that in addition to Mr Edwards, Dr Borsos also provided exemptions to four other employees of Bulla. More than a dozen other employees were terminated. [10] So at least 13 people lost their jobs due to Borsos’ irresponsibility.
And Borsos lost his career and can’t apply for registration until 2031.
REFERENCES
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10846680/
[2] Geelong Advertiser November 3 2021 ‘Colac GP agrees to stop practicing medicine….’ Harrison Tippet
[3] AusDoc 4 November 2021 GP at Centre of Vax exemption case agrees to stop practicing
[4] Daily Mail ‘Doctor who blamed Shane Warne’s death on vaccines is banned from for five years: ‘Career destroyed’ ‘Ian Vickers https://tinyurl.com/3pk9xm3f
[5]https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/state-election-results/2022-state-election-results/results-by-district/polwarth-district-results/polwarth-results-distribution
[7] Leave refused [2024] HCASL 256
[8] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[9] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[10] Fair Work Commission Decision https://tinyurl.com/yc5a8ukk
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
I have repeatedly warned that Trump and his cronies are systematically destroying science and medicine in the US and beyond. Recently, I looked into Medline to see what other experts are publishing on this issue. I did not expect to find much and was surprised that a plethora of articles are now available that discuss the issues from vastly different perspectives. Here are the Medline-listed papers published in 2026 that include an abstract:
A reduction in U.S. foreign aid under the “America First” policy of President Donald Trump, who took office in 2025, has significantly impacted global health. As the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, the U.S. has frozen development aid to evaluate its alignment with national interests. This has led to the termination of numerous international health programs, including those addressing malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and polio, and has caused funding shortages for non-profit and international organizations like GAVI and the World Bank. Projections indicate dire consequences. According to USAID, a potential 18 million additional malaria cases and 166,000 deaths could occur annually. Paralytic polio cases are expected to increase by 200,000 per year, and new tuberculosis cases could rise by 10.7 million by 2030. Recent studies estimate that new HIV infections and between 770,000 and 2.93 million HIV-related deaths from 2025 to 2030. This crisis presents an opportunity for the global community to rethink its approach to aid. Other forms of financing, such as private sector investment, CSR activities, and innovative mechanisms like the Global Fund, could fill the gap left by reduced ODA. The article also stresses the importance of strengthening governance in recipient countries, promoting self-reliance, and fostering international collaboration through shared data platforms and multilateral programs. Ultimately, the document argues that providing foreign aid is not just a moral obligation, but is also in the national security and economic interest of donor countries, including the United States.
A Science analysis shows more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s in the federal government left or lost their jobs after President Donald Trump took office.
Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump’s campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump’s negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in self-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) raises crucial questions about its future as the governing international organization for health. The executive order on withdrawal was one of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term. Because the United States is WHO’s biggest funder and most powerful state backer, withdrawal could indicate an existential threat. However, almost simultaneously member states passed a new international Pandemic Agreement expanding WHO’s authority. How should these conflicting signals be understood? Analyzing WHO’s decline in a context of broader US and geopolitical shifts, the authors find that withdrawal is the outcome of the end to broader political orders of neoliberal internationalism on which WHO depended for legitimacy rather than idiosyncratic Trump politics. WHO’s reliance on certain international norms and power structures leave it compromised. US normative and institutional shifts are far more difficult for WHO to navigate than in past political eras. Therefore, international relations research suggests that avoiding catastrophic impacts depends on reform actions by WHO officials, other member states, and US actors. States and others in the United States will face harm from WHO decline, and the authors suggest that US actors have legal standing to challenge withdrawal. Complacency and inaction may be WHO’s biggest risk.
Throughout the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, his administration has taken swift action to undermine the role that government health agencies play in the health policy-making process. This article makes the case that the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine government health agencies’ regulatory authority reflect a dislike and distrust of the people who serve in key civil service roles. It also provides evidence that efforts to roll back regulatory authority are part of a long-standing political strategy to cater to public dislike and distrust of scientific, medical, and academic experts. While the public could provide policy makers with an incentive to protect public health agencies and the people who staff them, recent public opinion research shows that many Americans simply do not know or do not care enough about the Trump administration’s actions to call for their elected officials to stop them. This article concludes by offering several health communication strategies and directions for future research (the “science of standing up for science”) that might inspire public concern about efforts to roll back government health agencies’ regulatory authority and might motivate people to show support for the civil servants who staff those agencies.
This paper focuses on how, during his second mandate, far-right leader Donald Trump tells a story of his nation as having been disrespected in the recent past by national elites and global ones, while the leader and their close circle have the mission to repair that status as part of United States foreign policy (i.e. respect for the status of the US). When narrating a better future, Trump travels to a remote national past to show the possibility of reinstating US stature in the international. While constructing that better future, Trump also starts to unfold a foreign policy story of success to cement the brighter future in a retrospective way given this future has purportedly been previously lived in a more remote national past. Relied on here is symbolic interactionist role theory, strategic narrative analysis and the notion of ‘heartland’ from populism scholarship; this paper also contributes to the study of narratives of roles and populism in the field of foreign policy analysis by engaging with the IR notion of ‘status’. Taking an interpretative analysis approach, this case study shows how far-right leaders like Trump can conceive and play the status or master role of their states in foreign policy via strategic narratives.
On the one hand, it is encouraging that the Trump-inflicted damage is being noticed and that there is strong opposition to Trump’s various actions. On the other hand, it is depressing to realise how deep and far-reaching the damage has already become
The suppression of scientific data within US federal agencies represents a fundamental tension between independent public health expertise and political ideology. This conflict seems to have now reached a boiling point at the ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’ (CDC), where the Trump administration’s political leadership has indefinitely delayed the publication of an important report demonstrating the continued benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine. This action marks a pivotal shift in how the US manages public health information, signalling an era where data is scrutinized not just for its accuracy, but for its alignment with a specific political narrative.
The controversy centres on a study conducted by career scientists within the CDC’s ‘National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases’. It analyzed data from the winter of 2025 and showed that COVID-19 vaccinations reduced the risk of hospitalization by 55% and emergency room visits by 50% among healthy adults. These figures provide a compelling argument for the vaccine’s role in mitigating the burden on the US healthcare system. However, despite being scheduled for release in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) in mid-March, the study remains unpublished.
The primary figure behind this delay is the Acting CDC Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Appointed by the Trump administration and a vocal advocate for the “Great Barrington Declaration,” Bhattacharya has challenged the report’s methodology, specifically the “test-negative design”. This is an observational study design often used to estimate vaccine effectiveness. It compares people who seek care and are test-positive for the target infection with similar people who seek care but are test-negative. The key idea is simple:
- Recruit people with similar symptoms who come for testing.
- Split them into cases, who test positive, and controls, who test negative.
- Compare the odds of prior vaccination or another exposure between the two groups.
If vaccinated people are less common among the test-positive group than among the test-negative group, that suggests the vaccine is effective. This design is efficient because both cases and controls come from the same care-seeking population which reduces confounding. It is also practical during outbreaks, since cases and controls can be identified quickly from testing records.
While Bhattacharya frames his criticism as a commitment to rigorous quality control, the scientific community begs to differ and stress that the test-negative design has been the gold standard for assessing vaccine effectiveness for over twenty years. Indeed, a flu vaccine study using the exact same methodology was approved for publication by the same leadership just days prior, suggesting a double standard applied specifically to COVID-19 data.
This scandalous incident does not exist in a vacuum; it is a manifestation of a broader overhaul of US public health spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Under this leadership, the administration has sought to deprioritize standard immunization schedules and has integrated vaccine skeptics into the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). By suppressing data that proves vaccine efficacy, the administration creates a vacuum of information that can be filled by more skeptical, politically convenient narratives.
The consequences of all this are profound. When political appointees act as gatekeepers for scientific data, it erodes the public’s trust in the CDC as a neutral, evidence-based institution. High-profile resignations, such as that of Dr. Fiona Havers, suggest a demoralized workforce of career scientists who feel their objective research is being censored. Furthermore, by withholding data that quantifies the protection offered by vaccines, the government limits the ability of healthcare providers and citizens to make informed decisions about their own health risks.
In conclusion, the suppression of the 2026 CDC vaccine report is a watershed moment for scientific integrity in government. It illustrates the danger of a system where data is viewed through a lens of political utility rather than public safety. As the administration continues to reshape federal health policy, the ongoing struggle between career researchers and political leadership will likely define the future of public health transparency in the US. The losers, no doubt, will be the people – primarily in the US but likely also globally.
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
