The vaccine panel hand-selected by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to drop federal recommendations for seasonal flu shots that contain the ethyl-mercury containing preservative thimerosal. The panel did so after hearing a misleading and cherry-picked presentation from an anti-vaccine activist.

There is extensive data from the last quarter century proving that the antiseptic preservative is safe, with no harms identified beyond slight soreness at the injection site, but none of that data was presented during today's meeting.

The significance of the vote is unclear for now. The vast majority of seasonal influenza vaccines currently used in the US—about 96 percent of flu shots in 2024–2025—do not contain thimerosal. The preservative is only included in multi-dose vials of seasonal flu vaccines, where it prevents the growth of bacteria and fungi potentially introduced as doses are withdrawn.

However, thimerosal is more common elsewhere in the world for various multi-dose vaccine vials, which are cheaper than the single-dose vials more commonly used in the US. If other countries follow the US's lead and abandon thimerosal, it could increase the cost of vaccines in other countries and, in turn, lead to fewer vaccinations.

Broken process

However, it remains unclear what impact today's vote will have—both in the US and abroad. Normally, before voting on any significant changes to vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the committee that met today—the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— would go through an exhaustive process. That includes thoroughly reviewing and discussing the extensive safety and efficacy data of the vaccines, the balance of their benefits and harms, equity considerations, and the feasibility and resource implications of their removal.

But, instead, the committee heard a single presentation given by anti-vaccine activist, Lyn Redwood, who was once the president of the anti-vaccine organization founded by Kennedy, Children's Health Defense.

Thimerosal has long been a target of anti-vaccine activists like Redwood, who hold fast to the false and thoroughly debunked claim that vaccines—particularly thimerosal-containing vaccines—cause autism and neurological disorders. Her presentation today was a smorgasbord of anti-vaccine talking points against thimerosal, drawing on old and fringe studies she claimed prove that thimerosal is an ineffective preservative, kills cells in petri dishes, and can be found in the brains of baby monkeys after it has been injected into them. The presentation did not appear to have gone through any vetting by the CDC, and an earlier version contained a reference to a study that does not exist.

Yesterday, CBS News reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hiring Redwood to oversee vaccine safety. In response, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called Redwood an "extremist," and urged the White House to immediately reverse the decision. "We cannot allow a few truly deranged individuals to distort the plain truth and facts around vaccines so badly," Murray said in a statement.

CDC scientists censored

Prior to the meeting, CDC scientists posted a background briefing document on thimerosal. It contained summaries of around two dozen studies that all support the safety of thimerosal and/or find no association with autism or neurological disorders. It also explained how in 1999, health experts and agencies made plans to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines out of an abundance of caution for concern that it was adding to cumulative exposures that could hypothetically become toxic—at high doses, thimerosal can be dangerous. By 2001, it was removed from every childhood vaccine in the US and remains so to this day. But, since then, studies have found thimerosal to be perfectly safe in vaccines. All the studies listed by the CDC in support of thimerosal were published after 2001.

The document also contained a list of nearly two dozen studies claiming to find a link to autism, but where described by the CDC as having "significant methodological limitations." The Institute of Medicine also called them "uninterpretable, and therefore, noncontributory with respect to causality." Every single one of the studies was authored by the anti-vaccine father and son duo Mark and David Geier.

In March, it came to light that Kennedy had hired David Geier to the US health department to continue trying to prove a link between autism and vaccines. He is now working on the issue.

The CDC's thimerosal document was removed from the ACIP's meeting documents prior to the meeting. Robert Malone, one of the new ACIP members who holds anti-vaccine views, said during the meeting that it was taken down because it "was not authorized by the Office of the Secretary [Kennedy]." You can read it here.

Lone voice

In the meeting today, Kennedy's hand-selected ACIP members did not ask Redwood any questions about the data or arguments she made against thimerosal. Nearly all of them readily accepted that thimerosal should be removed entirely. The only person to push back was Cody Meissner, a pediatric professor at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine who has served on ACIP in the past—arguably the most qualified and reasonable member of the new lineup.

"I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation," he said after Redwood finished her slides. "This is an old issue that has been addressed in the past. ... I guess one of the most important [things] to remember is that thimerosal is metabolized into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. It's not metabolized into methylmercury, which is in fish and shellfish. Ethylmercury is excreted much more quickly from the body. It is not associated with the high neurotoxicity that methylmercury is," he explained.

Meissner scoffed at the committee even spending time on it. "So, of all the issues that I think we, ACIP, needs to focus on, this is not a big issue. ... no study has ever indicated any harm from thimerosal. It's been used in vaccines ... since before World War II.

But he did express concern that it could be removed from the vaccine used globally.

"The recommendations the ACIP makes are followed among many countries around the world," he said. "And removing thimerosal from all vaccines that are used in other countries, for example, is going to reduce access to these vaccines."

Anti-vaccine agenda

In the end, the seven-member panel voted in favor of recommending only those seasonal flu vaccines that did not contain thimerosal. There were three separate votes for this, making this recommendation for children, pregnant women, and all adults each, but all with the same outcome: five 'yes' votes, one 'no' vote (Meissner), and one abstention from anti-vaccine activist and nurse Vicky Pebsworth. After the vote, Pebsworth clarified that she did not support the use of thimerosal in vaccines, but had a quibble with how the voting questions were written.

In a brief presentation prior to the vote, ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorff gave a brief presentation on the MMRV vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella/chickenpox). He previewed a proposed recommendation to vote on in a future meeting that would remove the CDC's recommendation for that vaccine as well.

Read full article

Comments

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School found that people who used large language models to research topics demonstrated weaker understanding and produced less original insights compared to those using Google searches. The study, involving more than 4,500 participants across four experiments, showed LLM users spent less time researching, exerted less effort, and wrote shorter, less detailed responses. In the first experiment, over 1,100 participants researched vegetable gardening using either Google or ChatGPT. Google users wrote longer responses with more unique phrasing and factual references. A second experiment with nearly 2,000 participants presented identical gardening information either as an AI summary or across mock webpages, with Google users again engaging more deeply and retaining more information.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Swarms of tiny robots, each no larger than a speck of dust, could be deployed to cure stubborn infected sinuses before being blown out through the nose into a tissue, researchers have claimed. The micro-robots are a fraction of the width of a human hair and have been inserted successfully into animal sinuses in pre-clinical trials by researchers at universities in China and Hong Kong. Swarms are injected into the sinus cavity via a duct threaded through the nostril and guided to their target by electromagnetism, where they can be made to heat up and catalyze chemical reactions to wipe out bacterial infections. There are hopes the precisely targeted technology could eventually reduce reliance on antibiotics and other generalized medicines. [...] The latest breakthrough, based on animal rather than human trials, involves magnetic particles "doped" with copper atoms which clinicians insert with a catheter before guiding to their target under a magnetic field. The swarms can be heated up by reacting to light from an optical fibre that is also inserted into the body as part of the therapy. This allows the micro-robots to loosen up and penetrate viscous pus that forms a barrier to the infection site. The light source also prompts the micro-robots to disrupt bacterial cell walls and release reactive oxygen species that kill the bacteria. The study, published in Nature Robotics, showed the robots were capable of eradicating bacteria from pig sinuses and could clear infections in live rabbits with "no obvious tissue damage." The researchers have produced a model of how the technology could work on a human being, with the robot swarms being deployed in operating theatre conditions, allowing doctors to see their progress by using X-rays. Future applications could include tackling bacterial infections of the respiratory tract, stomach, intestine, bladder and urethra, they suggested. "Our proposed micro-robotic therapeutic platform offers the advantages of non-invasiveness, minimal resistance, and drug-free intervention," they said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A federal vaccine panel entirely hand-selected by health secretary and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gathered for its first meeting Wednesday—and immediately announced that it would re-evaluate the entire childhood vaccination schedule, as well as the one for adults.

The meeting overall was packed with anti-vaccine talking points and arguments from the new panel members, confirming public health experts' fears that the once-revered panel is now critically corrupted and that Kennedy's controversial picks will only work to fulfill his long-standing anti-vaccine agenda.

Controversial committee

An hour before the meeting began, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out swinging against the new panel, saying that the panel's work is "no longer a credible process." The organization shunned the meeting, refusing to send a liaison to the panel's meeting, which it has done for decades.

"We won't lend our name or our expertise to a system that is being politicized at the expense of children's health," AAP President Susan Kressly said in a video posted on social media.

The panel in question, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), has for more than 60 years provided rigorous public scientific review, discussion, and trusted recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how vaccines should be used in the US after they've earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The CDC typically adopts ACIP's recommendations, and once that happens, insurance providers are required to cover the cost of the recommended shots.

The system is highly regarded globally. But, on June 9, Kennedy unilaterally and summarily fired all 17 esteemed ACIP members and, two days later, replaced them with eight new people. Some have clear anti-vaccine views, others have controversial and contrarian public health views, and several have little to no expertise in the fields relevant to vaccines.

Last night, it came to light that one of the eight new appointees—Michael Ross, an obstetrics and gynecology physician—had withdrawn from the committee during a financial holdings review that ACIP members are required to complete before beginning work on the panel.

With the remaining seven new members, ACIP's two-day meeting began this morning, despite calls for it to be scrapped. The new ACIP chair, Martin Kulldorff, introduced himself by proudly relaying that he had refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and was fired from Harvard University as well as an ACIP working group in the past.

Childhood vaccines under attack

Kulldorff's first order of business was to announce a new working group to review the safety of vaccine schedules in their entirety, rather than the safety of individual vaccines. Kulldorff was echoing an anti-vaccine talking point that children today get too many vaccines.

"In addition to studying and evaluating individual vaccines, it is important to evaluate the cumulative effect of the recommended vaccine schedule," Kulldorff said. "This includes interaction effects between different vaccines, the total number of vaccines, cumulative amounts of vaccine ingredients, and the relative timing of different vaccines."

Although children get more vaccines now than they did in the past, modern vaccines are more efficient at training the immune system against pathogens, exposing them to fewer elements of germs (antigens) to generate protective immune responses. A handy explanation from Yale's School of Public Health notes that children under age 2 in the 1980s got vaccines against just seven diseases—but those vaccines targeted over 3,000 antigens. Today, children under age 2 get vaccines against 15 diseases—but those vaccines target just 180 antigens, asking much less of the immune system.

Further, the cumulative effect of vaccines is baked into testing. When new childhood vaccines are tested in clinical trials, the children participating in those trials are still able to get every other vaccine recommended for them—withholding proven vaccines from participants would be unethical. So, any vaccine safety and efficacy trial includes children who are getting the entire vaccine schedule in addition to the vaccine being tested, providing information on cumulative effects with every new addition.

Kulldorff also said that the panel will go after specific vaccines, including the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given to newborns. The AAP immediately hit back, calling this "unscientific and dangerous." AAP highlighted that the hepatitis B vaccine is safe and lifesaving. Babies infected with hepatitis B at birth have a 90 percent chance of developing chronic disease, and 25 percent with chronic infections will end up dying from it. Thanks to vaccination, there were only 13 cases of hepatitis B in 2022.

“Very concerned”

During the full-day meeting, the seven new members listened to CDC experts review data on COVID-19 vaccines and RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. In the discussions, ACIP member Retsef Levi—who is an expert in operations management—made a puzzling critique that the CDC's method for evaluating COVID-19 vaccine efficacy analysis didn't account for "alternative" explanations like "the vaccine is actually making you more vulnerable for multiple viruses."

Meanwhile, ACIP member Robert Malone—who has claimed to have invented mRNA vaccines and is proud to be called an "anti-vaxxer"—spread false misinformation that certain lots of COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.  ACIP member Vicky Pebsworth—a nurse who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization—said she was "very concerned" that the CDC's safety monitoring systems were not capturing all of the adverse events from vaccines and said the committee should have access to "data that we probably wouldn't ordinarily have." A CDC subject matter expert noted that there are published studies showing that the CDC's safety monitoring systems capture a large majority of adverse events.

The committee ran over time and did not vote on anything today. But tomorrow, it will vote on an RSV monoclonal antibody discussed today, as well as on influenza vaccines, which will be discussed on Thursday. The agenda also includes presentations on a measles vaccine that has been the target of anti-vaccine activists.

One presentation on flu shots will come from the former president of Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization, the Children's Health Defense. The slides of that presentation have been posted and will focus on the alleged dangers of a mercury-based preservative thimerosal, which anti-vaccine advocates have long falsely linked to autism. Already, researchers and media reports have noted that the presentation supports some of its claims with a study that does not exist.

Read full article

Comments

Critics are increasingly branding Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as a failure, including lawmakers fiercely debating how much funding to allot next year to the controversial agency.

On Tuesday, Republicans and Democrats sparred over DOGE's future at a DOGE subcommittee hearing, according to NextGov, a news site for federal IT workers. On one side, Republicans sought to "lock in" and codify the "DOGE process" for supposedly reducing waste and fraud in government, and on the other, Democrats argued that DOGE has "done the opposite" of its intended mission and harmed Americans in the process.

DOGE has "led to poor services, a brain drain on our federal government, and it’s going to cost taxpayers money long term," Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) argued.

For now, DOGE remains a temporary government agency that could sunset as soon as July 4, 2026. Under Musk's leadership, it was supposed to save the US government a trillion dollars. But so far, DOGE only reports saving about $180 billion—and doubt has been cast on DOGE's math ever since reports revealed that nearly 40 percent of the savings listed on the DOGE site were "bogus," Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institute, wrote in a report detailing DOGE's exposed failures.

The "DOGE process" that Republicans want to codify, Kamarck explained, typically begins with rushed mass layoffs. That's soon followed by offers for buyouts or deferred resignations, before the government eventually realizes it's lost critical expertise and starts scrambling to rehire workers or rescind buyout offers after "it becomes apparent" that a heavily gutted agency "is in danger of malfunctioning."

Kamarck warned that DOGE appeared to be using the firings of federal workers to test the "unitary executive" theory, "popular among conservatives," that argues that "the president has more power than Congress." Consider how DOGE works to shut down agencies funded by Congress without seeking lawmakers' approval by simply removing critical workers key to operations, Kamarck suggested, like DOGE did early on at the National Science Foundation.

Democrats' witness at the DOGE hearing—Emily DiVito of the economic policy think tank Groundwork Collaborative—suggested that extensive customer service problems at the Social Security Administration was just one powerful example of DOGE's negative impacts affecting Americans today.

Some experts expect the damage of DOGE's first few months could ripple across Trump's entire term. "The rapid rehirings are a warning sign" that the government "has lost more capacities and expertise that could prove critical—and difficult to replace—in the months and years ahead," experts told CNN.

By codifying the DOGE process, as Republicans wish to do, the government would seemingly only perpetuate this pattern, which could continue to be disastrous for Americans relying on government programs.

"There are time bombs all over the place in the federal government because of this," Kamarck told CNN. "They’ve wreaked havoc across nearly every agency."

DOGE spikes costs for Americans, nonprofit warns

Citizens for Ethics, a nonpartisan nonprofit striving to end government secrecy, estimated this week that DOGE cuts at just a few agencies "could result in a loss of over $10 billion in US-based economic activity."

The shuttering of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alone—which Musk allegedly stands to personally benefit from—likely robbed American taxpayers of even more. The nonprofit noted that agency clawed back "over $26 billion in funds" from irresponsible businesses between 2011 and 2021 before its work was blocked.

Additionally, DOGE cuts at the Internal Revenue Service—which could "end or close audits of wealthy individuals and corporations" due to a lack of staffing—could cost the US an estimated $500 billion in dodged taxes, the nonprofit said. Partly due to conflicts like these, Kamarck suggested that when it finally comes time to assess DOGE's success, the answer to both "did federal spending or the federal deficit shrink?" will "almost surely be no."

As society attempts to predict the full extent of DOGE's potential harms, The Wall Street Journal spoke to university students who suggested that regulatory clarity could possibly straighten out DOGE's efforts now that Musk is no longer pushing for mass firings. At the DOGE hearing, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggested the only way to ensure DOGE hits its trillion-dollar goal is to "make sure these cuts aren’t just temporary" and pass laws "to streamline agencies, eliminate redundant programs and give the president the authority to fire bureaucrats who don’t do their jobs."

But one finance student, Troy Monte, suggested to WSJ that DOGE has already cost the Trump administration "stability, expertise, and public trust," opining, "the cost of DOGE won’t be measured in dollars, but in damage."

Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told CNN that when DOGE borrowed the tech industry tactic of moving fast and breaking things, then scrambling to fix what breaks, it exposed "the mosaic of incompetence and a failure on the part of this administration to understand the critical value that the breadth of government expertise provides."

"This is not about a single incident," Stier said. "It’s about a pattern that has implications for our government’s ability to meet not just the challenges of today but the critical challenges of tomorrow."

DOGE’s future appears less certain without Musk

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) had hoped to subpoena Musk at the DOGE hearing to testify on DOGE's agenda, but Republicans blocked her efforts, NextGov reported.

At the hearing, she alleged that "all of this talk about lowering costs and reducing waste is absolute BS. Their agenda is about one thing: making the federal government so weak that they can exploit it for their personal gain."

Just yesterday, The Washington Post editorial board published an op-ed already declaring DOGE a failure. Former DOGE staffer Sahil Lavingia told NPR that he expects DOGE will "fizzle out" purely because DOGE failed to uncover as much fraud as Musk and Trump had alleged was spiking government costs.

Beyond obvious criticism (loudly voiced at myriad DOGE protests), it's easy to understand why this pessimistic view is catching on, since even from a cursory glance at DOGE's website, the agency's momentum appears to be slowing since Musk's abrupt departure in late May. The DOGE site's estimated savings are supposed to be updated weekly—and one day aspire to be updated in real-time—but the numbers apparently haven't changed a cent since a few days after Musk shed his "special government employee" label. The site notes the last update was on June 3.

In addition to Musk, several notable Musk appointees have also left DOGE. Most recently, Wired reported that one of Musk's first appointees—19-year-old Edward "Big Balls" Coristine—is gone, quitting just weeks after receiving full-time employee status granted around the same time that Musk left. Lavingia told Wired that he'd heard "a lot" of people Musk hired have been terminated since his exit.

Rather than rely on a specific engineer spearheading DOGE initiatives across government, like Coristine appeared positioned to become in Musk's absence, Trump cabinet members or individual agency heads may have more say over DOGE cuts in the future, Kamarck and Politico's E&E News reported.

"The result so far is that post-Musk, DOGE is morphing into an agency-by-agency effort—no longer run by a central executive branch office, but by DOGE recruits who have been embedded in the agencies and by political appointees, such as cabinet secretaries, who are committed to the same objectives," Kamarck wrote.

Whether Trump's appointees can manage DOGE without Musk's help or his appointees remains to be seen, as DOGE continues to seek new hires. While Musk's appointed DOGE staff was heavily criticized from day one, Kamarck noted that at least Musk's appointees appeared "to have a great deal of IT talent, something the federal government has been lacking since the beginning of the information age."

Trump can extend the timeline for when DOGE sunsets, NextGov noted, and DOGE still has $22 million left over from this year to keep pursuing its goals, as lawmakers debate whether $45 million in funding is warranted.

Despite Trump and Musk's very public recent fallout, White House spokesperson Kush Desai has said that Trump remains committed to fulfilling DOGE's mission, but NPR noted his statement curiously didn't mention DOGE by name.

"President Trump pledged to make our bloated government more efficient by slashing waste, fraud, and abuse. The administration is committed to delivering on this mandate while rectifying any oversights to minimize disruptions to critical government services,” Desai said.

Currently, there are several court-ordered reviews looking into exactly which government systems DOGE accessed, which could reveal more than what’s currently known about how much success—or failure—DOGE has had. Those reviews could expose how much training DOGE workers had before they were granted security clearances to access sensitive information, potentially spawning more backlash as DOGE's work lurches forward.

Kamarck suggested that DOGE was "doomed to face early failures" because its "efforts were enacted on dubious legal grounds"—a fact that still seems to threaten the agency's "permanence." But if the next incoming president conducts an evaluation in 2029 and finds that DOGE's efforts have not meaningfully reduced the size or spending of government, DOGE could possibly disappear. Former staffers hope that even more rehiring may resume if it does, E&E reported.

In the meantime, Americans relying on government programs must contend with the risk that they could lose assistance in the moments they need it most as long as the Musk-created "DOGE process" continues to be followed.

"Which one of these malfunctions will blow up first is anyone’s guess, but FEMA’s lack of preparedness for hurricane season is a good candidate," Kamarck said.

Read full article

Comments

theodp writes: The job of the future might already be past its prime," writes The Atlantic's Rose Horowitch in The Computer-Science Bubble Is Bursting. "For years, young people seeking a lucrative career were urged to go all in on computer science. From 2005 to 2023, the number of comp-sci majors in the United States quadrupled. All of which makes the latest batch of numbers so startling. This year, enrollment grew by only 0.2 percent nationally, and at many programs, it appears to already be in decline, according to interviews with professors and department chairs. At Stanford, widely considered one of the country's top programs, the number of comp-sci majors has stalled after years of blistering growth. Szymon Rusinkiewicz, the chair of Princeton's computer-science department, told me that, if current trends hold, the cohort of graduating comp-sci majors at Princeton is set to be 25 percent smaller in two years than it is today. The number of Duke students enrolled in introductory computer-science courses has dropped about 20 percent over the past year." "But if the decline is surprising, the reason for it is fairly straightforward: Young people are responding to a grim job outlook for entry-level coders. In recent years, the tech industry has been roiled by layoffs and hiring freezes. The leading culprit for the slowdown is technology itself. Artificial intelligence has proved to be even more valuable as a writer of computer code than as a writer of words. This means it is ideally suited to replacing the very type of person who built it. A recent Pew study found that Americans think software engineers will be most affected by generative AI. Many young people aren't waiting to find out whether that's true." Meanwhile, writing in the Communications of the ACM, Orit Hazzan and Avi Salmon ask: Should Universities Raise or Lower Admission Requirements for CS Programs in the Age of GenAI? "This debate raises a key dilemma: should universities raise admission standards for computer science programs to ensure that only highly skilled problem-solvers enter the field, lower them to fill the gaps left by those who now see computer science as obsolete due to GenAI, or restructure them to attract excellent candidates with diverse skill sets who may not have considered computer science prior to the rise of GenAI, but who now, with the intensive GenAI and vibe coding tools supporting programming tasks, may consider entering the field?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.