Three Things Thursday highlights three things I am paying attention to as an epidemiologist each week. To fully understand this week’s news, we need to review what has happened during the past few weeks…
Two weeks ago, RFK Jr told Congress,
“I don’t think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me.”
Last week, the FDA announced that COVID vaccines in the fall will only be available to individuals 65+ and those at high risk for severe complications from the disease.
And then on Tuesday, RFK Jr, along with the Directors of NIH and FDA, took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce that they “couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.”
⚠️ Here are three things you need to know —
The announcement was made on X (formerly Twitter).
And to quote Taylor Swift —
“But you say it in a tweet, that’s a cop-out.”
Proper administrative processes for changing the national Immunization Schedule were NOT followed. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was NOT consulted.CDC’s website has not been updated. The current immunization schedule for infants (> 6 months), children, and pregnant people still includes the COVID vaccine.
CDC Immunization Schedule (Birth to 18 months) Immunization Schedule (18 months to 18 years) At the risk of being repetitive, “…if you say in a tweet, that’s a cop-out.”
Does tweeting now equate to policy change? Are we going to accept an announcement on a social media platform? Who are these three men to bypass the procedures in place to add and remove vaccines from the immunization schedule?In the tweet announcing the policy change, there were no implementation details, and it contradicts what RFK Jr promised just last week — that he would not take vaccines away from those who want them. However, as a result of the Tweet, insurance companies may decide not to cover COVID vaccines for healthy children and healthy pregnant people as a result of this announcement, as the announcement is being interpreted as a policy change.
Is it legal? Will it be challenged in court? I don’t know…
ALSO in Tuesday’s Tweet, RFK Jr stated, “Last year, the Biden Administration urged healthy children to get another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy.” The tweet claims this is “good science.”
This is NOT good science. There is NOT a lack of clinical data. Let’s…
CDC data presented in April highlight that 41% of children hospitalized with a COVID infection did NOT have an underlying health condition; they were by all standards "healthy children.”
There is also an extensive body of research that shows COVID vaccines prevent long COVID,1 reduce the risks of severe outcomes caused by the disease, and provide protection to the community by reducing the spread of the disease. MedPage Today states —
“Higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get COVID if people who aren't at risk don't get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA's restrictions go too far, because they don't provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a COVID booster for protection.”
In a press release, the American Academy of Pediatrics states —
“The federal government’s removal of COVID-19 vaccines from the routine immunization schedule for healthy children and people who are pregnant ignores independent medical experts and leaves children at risk...
An AAP analysis of data collected by HHS found that 11,199 children were admitted to the hospital with COVID during the 2024-’25 respiratory virus season, 7,746 of whom were under age 5 years.
The decision to exclude healthy people who are pregnant means infants under 6 months no longer would have protection despite having COVID hospitalization rates similar to people ages 65-74 years. It also leaves pregnant people vulnerable, as the CDC considers pregnancy a risk factor for severe disease.”
COVID also poses SERIOUS risks to individuals who are pregnant, developing fetuses, and newborns. Specifically, it has been documented that COVID doubles the rate of stillbirths and is associated with maternal and fetal complications, including pneumonia and placental damage.
There is also evidence showing that the majority of infants hospitalized with COVID are born to unvaccinated mothers.
The announcement/Tweet made by HHS on
Tuesday made sweeping, political, and false conclusions.
There was NO evidence presented to support the claims that were made.
There was no review of the data; there were no public comments; or expert review and discussion of the data. It was a political announcement meant to push President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. The CDC was not consulted, and its advisory committee was not involved. Many of the statements made on Tuesday directly contradict what RFK Jr said before Congress just two weeks ago. And, please, let us not forget that this man has explicitly stated that he doesn’t “think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me.”
The process used to make the recommendation is NOT clear. And the collaborative process that has long been used to develop public health recommendations was bypassed. Politics trumped transparency and data-informed decision-making.
I worry that the process (or lack thereof) used by HHS to create new COVID vaccine recommendations, will be used again (for other vaccine or health policies).
I worry that politics will trump data-informed decision-making in the future.
I worry that health policy is being created for political purposes, not to keep people healthy.
I worry that trust in governmental public health agencies will continue to erode.
I worry that fewer people will get the COVID shot this fall, resulting in more disease, hospitalizations, and deaths.
I worry… because I want our communities to be safe and healthy.
Hoping this post helps to educate and empower you
to be healthy and create healthy communities.
I am continuing to work hard and more collaboratively to
CREATE HEALTHY COMMUNITIES FOR ALL.
I will be here with you (at least) weekly throughout the next four years.
To create healthy communities for all, I am committing to —
Using data/science to create public health (aka preventative health) programs, policies, and interventions to save lives and decrease suffering.
Fighting misinformation.
Inspiring others to understand the science to make healthy decisions and create healthy communities.
If you are local, please join me TOMORROW, May 30, at the Meadville Public Library for a Community Coffee Hour Conversation about our community’s health needs.
What else can you do?
Click the “Like” button on the posts you enjoy. It’s a small thing, but it helps.
Share posts, either on social media or with your friends and family.
Comment on the posts. Hearing from you is a form of encouragement & it helps move Epi(demiology) Matters up in the Substack algorithm.
Send me your ideas & questions.
Epi(demiology) Matters is written by Dr. Becky Dawson, PhD MPH — an epidemiologist, teacher, mom, wife, and dedicated yogi. She is a tenured professor at Allegheny College, Research Director at a community hospital, and an exclusive contributor (all things health & medicine) at Erie News Now (NBC/CBS). Her goal is to create healthy communities for all. She writes Epi Matters — first & foremost because epidemiology does matter (to all of us), and she hopes that each post will help to educate and empower readers to be healthy and create healthy communities.
Be sure you and your friends and family are subscribed so you don’t miss a post —
Epi(demiology) Matters is free — because science, reports, news, updates, and alerts about health should NOT be behind a paywall. EVER. Everyone needs access to up-to-date health information in order to be healthy and create healthy communities for all.
Thank you for your measured and science based responses to the current chaos.
How much does toxicology figure into epidemiology? I'm asking as I've read of and even experienced poisoning events that are identical to various 'diseases' and wonder how you would go about teasing out whether or not the patient had a disease or was toxic.
Further, how do you tease out the difference between a disease and malnutrition?
I once read many decades ago from a vet turned doctor, Joel Wallach, that he postulated that all disease was malnutrition based on his many years of being a vet mostly for big farms and observing that it was cheaper to give a breeding bull a certain (cheap) mineral supplement than to do a hip replacement or to make a 10,000 turkeys healthy with vitamin whatever it was than to do heart ops or something like that. (sorry, this may be factually incorrect but I'm going on a memory from the 80s but I hope you get the idea). He knew this about animals and humans from countless autopsies.