RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "robert f. kennedy jr"

RFK Jr. resistance growing with funding cut reversal: 'MAHA agenda collapsing'

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s attempt to cut crucial health care funding and has been met with major resistance that could signal a significant shift in support for his MAHA agenda.

Salon's Sophia Tesfaye described in an opinion piece published Wednesday how Kennedy's move to terminate $2 billion in federal grants to support substance abuse and mental health funding last week was met with fierce backlash from health care organizations and marked "a tipping point."

After notable pushback and pressure just 24 hours after the decision was made, the decision to cut the funding for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration was ultimately rescinded. The reversal comes as legal opposition to Kennedy's agenda during the first year of the Trump administration has mounted.

"One year into Donald Trump’s second presidency appears to mark a tipping point, with a growing resistance to one of the most reckless members of his Cabinet finally taking root," Tesfaye wrote.

But that's not the only resistance Kennedy has faced.

"Yet even as SAMHSA was saved, another key pillar of his MAHA agenda was collapsing under the weight of public scrutiny."

A whistleblower revealed a U.S.-funded vaccine study "that would vaccinate some newborns against hepatitis B at birth — but not others — in the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, where prevalence of the highly contagious communicable disease is high."

"The new $1.6 million study was awarded without any competition from any other scientists, giving it 'the appearance of blatant cronyism,' Angela Rasmussen, a virologist and professor at the University of Saskatchewan, told the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy. Additionally, none of the vaccines in the study are FDA-approved," Tesfaye wrote.

Despite Kennedy's attempts to enact the problematic study sent "alarm bells ringing in the global health community,” according to a London professor. It was then cancelled in an announcement last week from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

Kennedy is also facing legal challenges over his vaccine policy to change the childhood vaccination schedule, with demands for action from several organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, he American College of Physicians and the American Public Health Association.

"The first year of Trump’s second term has been unbearably long," Tesfaye wrote. "But over the past several weeks, thanks to dogged reporting, whistleblowers willing to risk their careers and an outraged public that remains focused on what is at stake, key elements of this administration’s dangerous public health agenda were stalled, reversed or outright scrapped. The lesson from last week is clear: Resistance works when it’s sustained and strategic."

MS NOW panel cracks up as Trump admin plays dumb on its own move: 'It's just laughable'

An MS NOW panel chuckled Friday after President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were caught off guard on a question over funding to Planned Parenthood during an Oval Office event this week.

The laughter broke out during a segment about abortion advocates indicating that they could turn on Trump ahead of the midterms as both Trump and Kennedy were surprised to learn that their own administration had moved to return federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Host Chris Jansing turned to panelists Tim Miller, Bulwark podcast host and political analyst, and Sarah Matthews, spokesperson for Home of the Brave and former Trump White House deputy press secretary, for their reactions.

"You know, the ACLU said this week that the Trump administration had agreed to unfreeze millions in federal funding to Planned Parenthood. The president was asked about that by reporters. Take a listen," Jansing said.

The segment cut to a video of reporters questioning Trump at his desk in the Oval Office.

"It's being reported that frozen funds were released to planned parenthood in December by HHS. I'm wondering why that happened," the reporter said Wednesday after Trump signed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.

"I haven't. I have not heard that," Trump said.

"I haven't heard that," Kennedy said, standing in the group of lawmakers, cabinet members and advocates behind Trump.

After the clip, Jansing was quick to note how the panelists had reacted to the footage.

"You're laughing, Tim," Jansing said.

"Looks like if the HHS secretary hasn't heard it and the president hasn't heard it, who did it? What? Somebody has to know about this, you would think," Miller said.

"Somebody has to unfreeze it, right?" Jansing asked.

"Maybe the secret deep state person did it, I don't know," Miller said, laughing.

Matthews pointed to how Trump has often tried to stand down from talking about abortion and women's health.

"No, I mean, it's just laughable that the two people who you would think would be in charge of that decision or read in on that decision, claim to have no knowledge of it," Matthews said. "Now, whether that's true or not, maybe Trump was briefed on it. This is a topic that he likes to avoid and does not like to discuss. So maybe this was him skirting around it, but there's also a chance that neither of them had any idea about it, which is also just as concerning."

This Trump loyalist's shocking decision put your family in the crosshairs

By Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University.

The Trump administration’s overhauling of the decades-old childhood vaccination schedule, announced by federal health officials on Jan. 5, 2026, has raised alarm among public health experts and pediatricians.

The U.S. childhood immunization schedule, the grid of colored bars pediatricians share with parents, recommends a set of vaccines given from birth through adolescence to prevent a range of serious infections. The basic structure has been in place since 1995, when federal health officials and medical organizations first issued a unified national standard, though new vaccines have been added regularly as science advanced.

That schedule is now being dismantled.

In all, the sweeping change reduces the universally recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11. It moves vaccines against rotavirus, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and meningococcal disease from routine recommendations to “shared clinical decision-making,” a category that shifts responsibility for initiating vaccination from the health care system to individual families.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has cast doubt on vaccine safety for decades, justified these changes by citing a 33-page assessment comparing the U.S. schedule to Denmark’s.

But the two countries differ in important ways. Denmark has 6 million people, universal health care and a national registry that tracks every patient. In contrast, the U.S. has 330 million people, 27 million uninsured and a system where millions move between providers.

These changes follow the CDC’s decision in December 2025 to drop a long-held recommendation that all newborns be vaccinated against hepatitis B, despite no new evidence that questions the vaccine’s long-standing safety record.

I’m an infectious disease physician who treats vaccine-preventable diseases and reviews the clinical trial evidence behind immunization recommendations. The vaccine schedule wasn’t designed in a single stroke. It was built gradually over decades, shaped by disease outbreaks, technological breakthroughs and hard-won lessons about reducing childhood illness and death.

The early years

For the first half of the 20th century, most states required that students be vaccinated against smallpox to enter the public school system. But there was no unified national schedule. The combination vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, known as the DTP vaccine, emerged in 1948, and the Salk polio vaccine arrived in 1955, but recommendations for when and how to give them varied by state, by physician and even by neighborhood.

The federal government stepped in after tragedy struck. In 1955, a manufacturing failure at Cutter Laboratories in Berkeley, California, produced batches of polio vaccine containing live virus, causing paralysis in dozens of children. The incident made clear that vaccination couldn’t remain a patchwork affair. It required federal oversight.

In 1964, the U.S. surgeon general established the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, to provide expert guidance and recommendations to the CDC on vaccine use. For the first time, a single body would evaluate the evidence and issue national recommendations.

New viral vaccines

Through the 1960s, vaccines against measles (1963), mumps (1967) and rubella (1969) were licensed and eventually combined into what’s known as the MMR shot in 1971. Each addition followed a similar pattern: a disease that killed or disabled thousands of children annually, a vaccine that proved safe and effective in trials, and a recommendation that transformed a seemingly inevitable childhood illness into something preventable.

The rubella vaccine went beyond protecting the children who received it. Rubella, also called German measles, is mild in children but devastating to fetuses, causing deafness, heart defects and intellectual disabilities when pregnant women are infected.

A rubella epidemic in 1964 and 1965 drove this point home: 12.5 million infections and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome left thousands of children deaf or blind. Vaccinating children also helped protect pregnant women by curbing the spread of infection. By 2015, rubella had been eliminated from the Americas.

Hepatitis B and the safety net

In 1991, the CDC added hepatitis B vaccination at birth to the schedule. Before then, around 18,000 children every year contracted the virus before their 10th birthday.

Many parents wonder why newborns need this vaccine. The answer lies in biology and the limitations of screening.

An adult who contracts hepatitis B has a 95 percent chance of clearing the virus. An infant infected in the first months of life has a 90 percent chance of developing chronic infection, and 1 in 4 will eventually die from liver failure or cancer. Infants can acquire the virus from their mothers during birth, from infected household members or through casual contact in child care settings. The virus survives on surfaces for days and is highly contagious.

Early strategies that targeted only high-risk groups failed because screening missed too many infected mothers. Even today, roughly 12 percent to 18 percent of pregnant women in the U.S. are never screened for hepatitis B. Until ACIP dropped the recommendation in early December 2025, a first dose of this vaccine at birth served as a safety net, protecting all infants regardless of whether their mothers’ infection status was accurately known.

This safety net worked: Hepatitis B infections in American children fell by 99 percent.

A unified standard

For decades, different medical organizations issued their own, sometimes conflicting, recommendations. In 1995, ACIP, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians jointly released the first unified childhood immunization schedule, the ancestor of today’s familiar grid. For the first time, parents and physicians had a single national standard.

The schedule continued to evolve. ACIP recommended vaccinations for chickenpox in 1996; rotavirus in 2006, replacing an earlier version withdrawn after safety monitoring detected a rare side effect; and HPV, also in 2006.

Each addition followed the same rigorous process: evidence review, risk-benefit analysis and a public vote by the advisory committee.

More vaccines, less burden

Vaccine skeptics, including Kennedy, often claim erroneously that children’s immune systems are overloaded because the number of vaccines they receive has increased. This argument is routinely marshaled to argue for a reduced childhood vaccination schedule.

One fact often surprises parents: Despite the increase in recommended vaccines, the number of immune-stimulating molecules in those vaccines, called antigens, has dropped dramatically since the 1980s, which means they are less demanding on a child’s immune system.

The whole-cell pertussis vaccine used in the 1980s alone contained roughly 3,000 antigens. Today’s entire schedule contains fewer than 160 antigens, thanks to advances in vaccine technology that allow precise targeting of only the components needed for protection.

What lies ahead

For decades, ACIP recommended changes to the childhood schedule only when new evidence or clear shifts in disease risk demanded it. The Jan. 5 announcement represents a fundamental break from that norm: Multiple vaccines moved out of routine recommendations simultaneously, justified not by new safety data but by comparison to a country with a fundamentally different health care system.

Kennedy accomplished this by filling positions involved in vaccine safety with political appointees. His hand-picked ACIP is stacked with members with a history of anti-vaccine views. The authors of the assessment justifying the change, senior officials at the Food and Drug Administration and at HHS, are both long-time critics of the existing vaccine schedule. The acting CDC director who signed the decision memo is an investor with no clinical or scientific background.

The practical effect will be felt in clinics across the country. Routine recommendations trigger automatic prompts in medical records and enable nurses to vaccinate under standing orders. “Shared clinical decision-making” requires a physician to be involved in every vaccination decision, creating bottlenecks that will inevitably reduce uptake, particularly for the more than 100 million Americans who lack regular access to primary care.

Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have said that they will continue recommending the full complement of childhood vaccines. Several states, including California, New York and Illinois, will follow established guidelines rather than the new federal recommendations, creating a patchwork where children’s protection depends on where they live.

  • Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on Dec. 18, 2025.

Barrage hits GOP senator as he laments vaccine changes — after backing RFK Jr: 'Sit down!'

A Republican lawmaker and doctor was slammed Tuesday after commenting on how the childhood vaccine schedule should still be followed — despite voting to approve Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long claimed vaccine mandates should be lessened for American kids.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) declared that pediatric vaccines should be followed despite sweeping change this week that cut back the childhood vaccine schedule from 17 vaccines to 11.

Cassidy wrote the following statement on X:

"As a doctor who treated patients for decades, my top priority is protecting children and families. Multiple children have died or were hospitalized from measles, and South Carolina continues to face a growing outbreak. Two children have died in my state from whooping cough. All of this was preventable with safe and effective vaccines.

"The vaccine schedule IS NOT A MANDATE. It’s a recommendation giving parents the power. Changing the pediatric vaccine schedule based on no scientific input on safety risks and little transparency will cause unnecessary fear for patients and doctors, and will make America sicker."

Social media users reacted his comments.

"You should have voted NO on RFK and you know it. Congrats on the consequences of your actions," Scott Santens, founder and CEO of ITSAfoundation, wrote on X.

"Remember that time you voted to confirm a committed lifelong anti vaxxer as HHS Secretary?" Dr. Neil Stone, an infectious disease clinician and scientist, wrote on X.

"Your vote for RFK Junior literally killed these children. No one should ever take you seriously as a medical professional ever again," Malcolm Nance, U.S. security expert, wrote on X.

"Geez I wonder who was in a position to stop this crazy man from becoming Secretary?" Professor and activist Lessig wrote on X.

"Senator, bring forth articles of impeachment. Your tweet here doesn't change anything," former senator Whitney Westerfield wrote on X.

"If only you had the power to do something about this…oh wait," columnist and editor Ian Haworth wrote on X.

"SIT DOWN! It's because of YOUR vote that children have measles now!" Democratic strategist Leslie Marshall wrote on X.

'What could go wrong?' RFK Jr.'s wild move sends shockwaves

News of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's seismic move to roll back the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11 sent shockwaves across the internet Monday.

Users on social media warned of the repercussions surrounding the decision and what it could mean for American children in the years to come.

"MAGA = Make America Get sick Again," user Tom Katt wrote on X.

"Vaccines exist for a reason. Who knows how many people will get sick because of this?" User Candace Jeffries wrote on X.

"Oh so how are the other 6 being prevented? (They’re not.)" Professor Willie Young wrote on Bluesky.

"What could go wrong," user ElisabetK wrote on Bluesky.

"Nothing says MAGA like purposely allowing vulnerable children to die," user Mark Darson wrote on Bluesky.

"At least we won't have to worry about school shootings anymore. Kids won't live long enough to get that far," user Eric Lavers wrote on Bluesky.

"What a time to be alive…and by ALIVE I mean thanks to the vaccines we received. Please Listen to your pediatrician, not the heroin addict currently in charge of health policy," user Linda Durkin wrote on Bluesky.

"Well, that's certainly one way to make the math look better on the pamphlet. Reducing the scope from 17 to 11 sounds less like a public health update and more like simplifying a subscription tier. I wonder which six diseases got the 'we'll circle back on those' treatment," user Jason Frakk wrote on X.

"Rather than boosting uptake of the measles vax by eliminating the recommendation vaccines against rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B, have they considered getting the nation's top health official to stop attacking the measles vax?" Media Matters for America Senior fellow Matthew Gertz wrote on X. He also added this in a thread:

"Anyway congrats to everyone who helped make 'more kids get sick for no reason' a reality, the result was entirely predictable."

RFK Jr. drops dramatic rollback on recommended childhood vaccines

Federal health officials on Monday announced a dramatic rollback on recommended childhood vaccines, cutting back the number of diseases prevented by routine shots from 17 to 11, according to reports.

The major move was pushed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, who has long claimed that children should not have as many vaccines, The New York Times reported.

Public health experts, including pediatricians, have been critical of the Trump administration's shift in vaccine recommendations for children.

“The abrupt change to the entire U.S. childhood vaccine schedule is alarming, unnecessary and will endanger the health of children in the United States,” Dr. Helen Chu, physician and immunologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, told The Times.

Chu, who is also a former member of the federal vaccine advisory committee, challenged the notion that the move could help improve immunization rates or increase trust around vaccine hesitancy.

“Already, parents are worried about what they are hearing in the news about safety of vaccines, and this will increase confusion and decrease vaccine uptake,” Chu said.

Jim O’Neill, the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has now changed the agency’s immunization schedule.

President Donald Trump last month instructed Kennedy to change the vaccine schedule to match "wealthy nations, citing Denmark, Germany and Japan," The Times reported.

Rubio's shocking decision makes RFK Jr.'s cuts look like child's play

For much of 2025, public-health debates in the United States have focused on the damage being caused by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his reckless vaccine policy decisions, deep funding cuts, the wholesale firing of experienced public health professionals across Health and Human Services agencies, and the loss of trust in public health institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

His actions weakened domestic health protections and further eroded trust in science, evidence based decision making and the scientific method itself.

But even accounting for all of Kennedy’s harm, the most destructive public health decision of 2025 didn’t come from his agency. It came from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio via elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

That decision will cost more lives, undermine more health systems and increase global health risk more than any other public health policy choice made this year. It also delivered a severe blow to America’s ability to lead through diplomacy.

USAID provided key global public health infrastructure

For decades, USAID was one of the most important public-health institutions on the planet, arguably more consequential than the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation. It served as a core pillar of global disease prevention and health-system stability. Today, it’s gone.

USAID funded (and held partners accountable for) infectious disease surveillance, HIV treatment, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, maternal and child health services, clean water and sanitation systems, nutrition programs for mothers and infants, vaccine delivery infrastructure and health workforce training in developing nations.

USAID’s work stopped outbreaks before they became pandemics. It reduced mass displacement. It stabilized regions where collapsing health systems fuel hunger, conflict and migration. It improved women’s health, helped families plan their futures and helped entire populations escape poverty.

USAID focused on upstream prevention on a global scale. It was also one of our most effective tools for building diplomatic influence.

Hard power, soft power: why USAID mattered

In international affairs, countries project power in two ways. Hard power relies on forces like military strength, sanctions and the threat of punishment. Soft power relies on trust, humanitarian aid, scientific cooperation and being seen as a reliable partner acting in good faith.

USAID was a cornerstone of American soft power. When the U.S. helped countries prevent disease, strengthen health systems, and keep children alive and families out of poverty, it built credibility. We earned cooperation and trust. It made American leadership legitimate rather than coercive.

Eliminating USAID didn’t just dismantle public health infrastructure; it dramatically weakened our soft power. It broadcasts that the U.S. is transactional, unreliable and disinterested in shared global responsibility.

That erosion of trust will make cooperation during future emergencies far more difficult not only for this administration, but for future ones that may want to restore America’s role as a force for good.

Damage is under way

Thanks to Secretary Rubio disease surveillance is collapsing, meaning outbreaks are detected later or not at all. Interruptions in HIV and tuberculosis treatment are fueling drug resistance, which will inevitably reach us as well.

Gaps in maternal and child health services are translating into preventable deaths. Weakening vaccine infrastructure invites the return of diseases that were on the decline.

Responsibility for this decision is clear. As Secretary of State, Rubio presided over, defended, and even trumpeted the dismantling of USAID. President Donald Trump supported it. Elon Musk helped drive the ideological and operational wrecking ball that made it possible.

Together, they reframed global public health as expendable “foreign aid” rather than what it is: A frontline defense against disease, instability, humanitarian catastrophe and a key source of American soft power.

What history will remember

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done real damage to public health in 2025. But history will judge the elimination of USAID as something even worse: an abdication of public health responsibility trading several decades of disease prevention and diplomacy for personal ambition and professional survival.

History will remember Rubio’s decision as an abandonment of global public health and soft power, not dollars “saved.”

  • Will Humble is a long-time public health enthusiast and is currently the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA). His 40 years in public health include more than 2 decades at the Arizona Department of Health Services, where he served in various roles including as the Director from 2009 to 2015. He continues to be involved in health policy in his role as the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association.

These alarming changes show how Trump is wrecking public health

As a family physician, I work every day to earn the trust of my patients. I see lines being blurred between politics and medicine and, despite the high trust the public has in their own physician, it is becoming harder to separate medical and scientific information from misinformation.

I hear this concern from my patients, particularly when trusted resources, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), make drastic policy shifts: Is this science based decision-making or politics?

Who do you trust?

With every new patient I see, I share my approach to care by saying, “I work for you. In many ways, you are my boss. My job is the make assessments and recommendations, yours is to make decisions, and I’m here to help you with that. How does that sound to you?”

People universally embrace this approach. It promotes individual autonomy and shifts the power to the patient — where it belongs. National surveys reveal that trust in government agencies such as the CDC is at an all time low, on par with approval ratings for Congress. However, trust in one’s own personal physician remains very high, with nearly eight in 10 people rating their personal doctors as “very good” or “excellent,” according to a recent People’s Voices Survey.

Despite this relatively high trust the public has in their own doctors, the insertion of politics into the exam room has made it harder for people to make the right decisions for themselves by infecting the relationship between people and their doctors with misinformation, causing people to second guess recommendations they are receiving.

Pull back the curtain

The public has good reason to be suspicious of the CDC right now. The changes approved last week by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, are arbitrary, not science-based, and go against decades of safety and efficacy data. Their vote to remove hepatitis B vaccination from the recommended infant and child schedule will lead to a resurgence of hepatitis B.

Prior to recommending newborn vaccination in 1991, 18,000 children were diagnosed annually with hep B, a chronic illness that leads to liver failure and liver cancer.

Half of these children were infected through mother-to-child transmission, and giving the shot at birth prevents the virus from taking hold.

The other half occurred through contact with saliva or blood exposure to someone else who is infected. The virus can stay active for up to a week on surfaces and is known to have been transmitted during sports and in child care settings, through coming in contact with the virus by touching a contaminated surface, or exposure to scrapes or bites. (Up to half of the children in child care are bitten by another child each year.)

Since vaccination was universally recommended, infection rates have dropped by nearly 99 percent, and today we see much less liver failure and cancer resulting from hepatitis B infection. No one wants to see those numbers increase again.

What are physicians saying?

Making ACIP a political committee rather than one based on science means that recommendations are subject to bias and can no longer be trusted. This breach of trust by our government results in lack of confidence in vaccine recommendations across the board, including those by the public’s trusted health care professionals who they continue to see as excellent.

Because politics and politicians are interfering with the patient-doctor relationships and undermining trust in public health measures like vaccines, we will likely see infections rise as we have seen with measles this past year.

While the federal government is spreading misinformation through ACIP and the CDC, the state of New Hampshire is showing that it still trusts doctors over politics with regard to childhood vaccines, directing New Hampshire doctors to adhere to vaccine recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

As I stated earlier, I work every day to earn the trust of my patients and to share the best medical information and highest-quality patient care available. I keep politics out of the exam room, and we need the politicians to stay out of our exam rooms and our relationships with our patients.

When going to see your doctor, remember that we work for you and our recommendations are based on years of training, a dedication to science, and, most importantly, a commitment to partnering with you to make the best decisions for your health.

  • P. Travis Harker, MD, MPH is a family physician in Portsmouth and a past president of the New Hampshire Medical Society.

Trump's decisions have now put our children at deadly risk

By David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The committee advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy voted on Dec. 5, 2025, to stop recommending that all newborns be routinely vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus — undoing a 34-year prevention strategy that has nearly eliminated early childhood hepatitis B infections in the United States.

Before the U.S. began vaccinating all infants at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine in 1991, around 18,000 children every year contracted the virus before their 10th birthday — about half of them at birth. About 90 percent of that subset developed a chronic infection.

In the U.S., 1 in 4 children chronically infected with hepatitis B will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Today, fewer than 1,000 American children or adolescents contract the virus every year – a 95 percent drop. Fewer than 20 babies each year are reported infected at birth.

I am a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist who studies vaccine delivery and policy. Vaccinating babies for hepatitis B at birth remains one of the clearest, most evidence-based ways to keep American children free of this lifelong, deadly infection.

What spurred the change?

In September 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, debated changing the recommendation for a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, but ultimately delayed the vote.

This committee regularly reviews vaccine guidance. However, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disbanded the entire committee and handpicked new members, its activity has drastically departed from business as usual. The committee has long-standing procedures for evaluating evidence on the risks and benefits of vaccines, but these procedures were not followed in the September meeting and were not followed for this most recent decision.

The committee’s new recommendation keeps the hepatitis B vaccine at birth for infants whose mothers test positive for the virus. But the committee now advises that infants whose mothers test negative should consult with their health-care provider. Parents and health-care providers are instructed to weigh vaccine benefits, vaccine risks and infection risks using “individual-based decision-making” or “shared clinical decision-making.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But while parents have always been free to discuss benefits and risks with their health-care providers to make a decision on what’s best for their child, this change is not based on any new evidence, and it introduces uncertainty into a recommendation that has long been clear.

As a doctor, I am already seeing this uncertainty play out in the clinic. I recently had new parents ask to postpone the hepatitis B vaccine until adolescence because they believed federal health leaders had evidence that people only become infected through sexual activity or contaminated needle use.

After a brief conversation, they came to understand that this was inaccurate — children can be infected not only at birth but also through routine household or child-care exposures, including shared toothbrushes or even a bite that breaks the skin. In the end, they chose to vaccinate, but this experience highlights how easily well-intentioned parents can be misled when guidance is not clear and consistent.

Why the CDC adopted universal hepatitis B shots

Hepatitis B is a virus that infects liver cells, causing inflammation and damage. It is spread through blood and bodily fluids and is easily transmitted from mother to baby during delivery.

The hepatitis B vaccine has been available since the early 1980s. Before 1991, public health guidance recommended giving newborns the hepatitis B vaccine only if they were at high risk of being infected — for example, if they were born to a mother infected with hepatitis B.

That targeted plan failed. Tens of thousands of infants were still infected each year.

Some newborns were exposed when their mothers weren’t screened; others were exposed after their mothers were infected late in pregnancy, after their initial screening. And like any lab test, the screening can have false negative results, be misinterpreted or not be communicated properly to the baby’s care team.

Recognizing these gaps, in 1991 the CDC recommended hepatitis B vaccination for every child starting at birth, regardless of maternal risk.

The U.S. adopted a policy of vaccinating all babies from birth because the number of people with hepatitis B infections was, and remains, relatively high, and because many mothers do not receive prenatal care, so their infections go undetected.

Meanwhile, in some European countries, like Denmark, only babies with certain risk factors receive the vaccine at birth. That’s because in those countries, hepatitis B infections are much less prevalent and pregnant mothers are more widely tested due to universal health care. Due to these differences, that approach is not effective in the United States. In fact, most World Health Organization member countries do recommend a universal birth dose.

Vaccinating at birth

The greatest danger for infants contracting hepatitis B is at birth, when contact with a mother’s blood can transmit the virus. Without preventive treatment or vaccination, 70 percent to 90 percent of infants born to infected mothers will become infected themselves, and 90 percent of those infections will become chronic. The infection in these children silently damages their liver, potentially leading to liver cancer and death.

About 80 percent of parents choose to vaccinate their babies at birth. If parents choose to delay vaccination due to this new recommendation, it will leave babies unprotected during this most vulnerable window, when infection is most likely to lead to chronic infection and silently damage the liver.

A research article published on Dec. 3, 2025, estimates that if only infants born to mothers infected with hepatitis B received the vaccine, an additional 476 perinatal hepatitis B infections would occur each year.

The hepatitis B vaccines used in the U.S. have an outstanding safety record. The only confirmed risk is an allergic reaction called anaphylaxis that occurs in roughly 1 in 600,000 doses, and no child has died from such a reaction. Extensive studies show no link to other serious conditions.

How children get exposed to hepatitis B

Infants and children continue to be vulnerable to hepatitis B long after birth.

Children can become infected through household contacts or in child care settings by exposures as ordinary as shared toothbrushes or a bite that breaks the skin. Because hepatitis B can survive for a week on household surfaces, and many carriers are unaware they are infected, even babies and toddlers of uninfected mothers remained at risk.

Full protection against hepatitis B requires a three-dose vaccine series, given at specific intervals in infancy. Anything short of the full series leaves children vulnerable for life.

In addition to changing the birth dose recommendation, the committee is now advising parents to consult with their health care provider about checking children’s antibody levels after one or two doses of the vaccine to determine whether additional doses are needed. While such testing is sometimes recommended for people in high-risk groups after they get all three doses to confirm their immune system properly responded to the vaccine, it is not a substitute for completing the series.

The recommendation for all babies to receive the vaccine at birth and for infants to complete the full vaccine series is designed to protect every child, including those who slip through gaps in maternal screening or encounter the virus in everyday life. A reversion to the less effective risk-based approach threatens to erode this critical safety net.

  • Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on Sept. 9, 2025.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s alleged 'lewd sex-act' texts with former flame exposed

U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reportedly texted his former flame, who was a reporter, about a "lewd sex act."

The New York Post over the weekend reported on the alleged texts, which involve ex-reporter Olivia Nuzzi. It's Nuzzi's ex-boyfriend who says the texts exist.

"Not healthy — but certainly a human service. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once texted disgraced journalist and alleged ex-flame Olivia Nuzzi about a lewd sex-act called 'felching,' according to her jilted ex-fiancé," according to the Post. "Ryan Lizza, 51, claimed he learned about 'felching' only after combing through the salacious text messages and raunchy 'poems' written to Nuzzi from RFK Jr. during their 2023-2024 emotional affair — sarcastically joking 'Thanks Bobby,' in a revelatory article released Saturday."

In another article, the Post reported that, "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote disgraced political reporter Olivia Nuzzi an outrageously raunchy 'poem,' which was dramatically revealed by her ex-fiancé and reporter Ryan Lizza in the second part of his series exposing the secrets of his ethics-challenged ex."

According to the Post's reporting:

“Yr open mouth awaiting my harvest,” Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, wrote to Nuzzi in undated texts recounted by Lizza in a piece published on his Substack early Saturday.

“I mean to squeeze your cheeks to force open your mouth. I’ll hold your nose as you look up at me to encourage you to swallow. ‘Don’t spill a drop.’ I am a river You are my canyon. I mean to flow through you. I mean to subdue and tame you. My Love,” Kennedy allegedly penned to Nuzzi.

The report states, "Lizza coined the poem 'American Canyon' and suggested there were 'many others, too explicit to print.' ('Thanks to Bobby, I am now aware of something called felching.),' Lizza added. Lizza began telling his side of the story after Nuzzi revealed she would be publishing a tell-all about the sordid affair with the once-presidential candidate, titled 'American Canto.'"

Read the full piece here.

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.