webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

CDC centers disease control

---

366 kia italy

primary vpence xian, experts gagged

see fauci birx

see fail 3 COVID

see herd immunity

see sci suppress

see expert GUBMINT

SEE MASK VAXX VXR TAG

SEE RFK2

---

---

CONFRIM PROMISED TO LEAVE SCI BD IN PLACE, LIED

ONLY 65 UP

THEHILL

Trump taps RFK Jr. deputy as interim CDC director

:{by Joseph Choi and Brett Samuels - 08/28/25

The Trump administration has picked Deputy Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Jim O’Neill to serve as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a day after the administration fired current Director Susan Monarez, officials told The Hill.

Monarez is contesting her firing, though the White House has confirmed her ouster following a statement on Wednesday from HHS.

O’Neill is a Silicon Valley investor and former CEO of the Thiel Foundation, funded by Trump donor Peter Thiel. He previously served as principal associate deputy secretary at HHS during the George W. Bush administration.

He was sworn in as deputy secretary in June.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would announce a replacement for Monarez “very soon.”

WATCH: Remembering Hurricane Katrina's Devastation 20 Years Later | TRENDING

The tumult in leadership has sparked panic and outrage among public health groups and Democrats in Congress.

Following Monarez’s ouster, four top CDC leaders submitted their resignations on Wednesday.

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, have vowed to conduct oversight into the matter.

In a 2014 speech, O’Neill called for pushing against the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) mission to consider the efficacy of drugs in its decision to approve them, saying the agency should only consider safety.

“We should reform FDA so that it’s approving drugs after their sponsors have demonstrated safety and let people start using them at their own risk, but not much risk of safety,” O’Neill said at the time.

Tags Bernie Sanders Bil

//:

AN 8 25

zephr.thedailybeast.com

https://zephr.thedailybeast.com › rfk-jr-scores-maha-win-as-trump-taps-his-deputy-for-top-cdc-role

RFK Jr. Scores MAHA Win as Trump Taps His Deputy for Top CDC Role

O'Neill served in senior roles at the Health Department under the George W. Bush administration before becoming managing director of the hedge fund Clarium Capital. During his time in Silicon Valley, he was CEO of the Thiel Foundation and co-founded the Thiel Fellowship, a grant

---

an 8 25

Susan Monarez, who only recently assumed the role of director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been removed from her position, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Officials confirmed the abrupt ousting to the outlet.

Monarez, a veteran federal scientist, had been nominated by President Donald Trump after his initial choice, former GOP Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), was withdrawn amid criticism over his views on vaccines and autism.

READ MORE:'Insane': Trump officials seethe over Noem's hand-picked aide crippling agency operations

Monarez received her confirmation in July.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Several CDC staff members, who also spoke anonymously about internal affairs, indicated that a planned agency-wide call scheduled for Monday was canceled on Friday — adding to the sense of turmoil.

This leadership shake-up comes as the agency grapples with the fallout from a violent incident earlier this month: a gunman attacked the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters on August 8, prompting a lockdown that ended in tragedy with the death of a police officer.

Law enforcement officials, neighbors, and the suspect’s father reported that he held the coronavirus vaccine responsible for his health issues.

READ MORE:'Shame, shame!' Angry boos signal Susan Collins should be 'very worried' about reelection

Meanwhile, the report of Monarez's removal led to strong reactions on social media, including from medical researchers.

CNN medical analyst Jonathan Reiner wrote on the social platform X: "Wow. This is possibly related to the aftermath of the shooting at the CDC and subsequent silence of the president. But its net effect now is to put full operational control of vaccine policy back in RFK’s hands. This is a big net negative for the country."

Abraar Karan, an infectious disease doctor and researcher at Stanford University, wrote: "Wow- another change in CDC leadership. We need transparency on why."

Political reporter Aaron Blake wrote: "IRS Commissioner Billy Long: Senate-confirmed, then ousted 53 days into the job.

CDC head Susan Monarez: Senate-confirmed, then reportedly ousted 28 days into the job."

---

MMA

Sean Hannity has a lot to say about the “stupid flu shot” all of a sudden

Sean Hannity used to tell his audience about getting the flu shot every year and how much it helped him. Now, he’s calling it a “stupid flu shot.”

Written by Helena Hind

Research contributions from Alicia Sadowski & Isabella Corrao

Published 05/29/25

Citation

Fox News, 9/16/2020

After years of assuring his audience that he regularly gets his yearly flu vaccination, Sean Hannity has suddenly changed his tune, casting doubt on the efficacy of the “stupid flu shot” during the May 28 edition of his radio show.

The MAGA propagandist’s comments come as harmful anti-vaccine policy takes root in the Trump administration, with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bucking the normal scientific review process and removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunizations for children and those who are pregnant.

During the May 28 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, guest Dr. Brian Tyson claimed that COVID-19 booster vaccines are “negative effective, just like last year's flu shot.” Hannity jumped in: “Well, people don't understand that. Every year, they will start producing a flu virus. They're guessing what flu is likely to hit. They don't know for sure”

The Fox News host continued: “My understanding is they're wrong 75% of the time, and people, you know, annually go get the stupid flu shot anyway.”

Sean Hannity attacks COVID vaccines and the “stupid flu shot”

May 28, 2025

Audio file

Audio

Citation

From the May 28, 2025, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): And even the creator, who I know you're familiar with, Dr. Robert Malone, was very outspoken, and he came on this program often. And he said that mRNA technology has not been perfected. He did support emergency authorization vaccinations for people over 65 that had preexisting conditions and comorbidities because they were the ones that were more likely to be -- their lives would be put in jeopardy by the virus. He absolutely was crystal clear. It was not designed for healthy people that were younger, meaning below the age of 65, and it's absolutely not designed for children.

Now, he's the one that created the technology that allowed for the creation of this, and he's saying this. And then he gets excoriated like you got excoriated for trying alternative treatment, which, by the way, studies, since that time have proven that you were right about things like hydroxychloroquine taken early, mitigating circumstances.

How many studies now have come out confirming that? How many studies have come out showing that masks really didn't help? How many studies came out, you know, showing that your protocols actually worked? How many patients' lives did you save, and how many patients did you lose in the process?

DR. BRIAN TYSON (GUEST): Yeah. I mean, it's -- so you're 100% correct. If you go to the website c19.org, you'll be able to pull up all the different treatments and all of the studies that are listed underneath those. There's over 400 studies on hydroxychloroquine, there's over 300 studies on ivermectin.

What we found was early treatment is the key. It's not about vaccines at this point because these vaccines are not effective. Actually, they're negative effective, just like last year's flu shot. Last year's flu shot had a negative efficacy of 26%, meaning those who got the flu shot were more likely to get the flu. It's the same thing with these COVID vaccine boosters.

HANNITY: Well, people don't understand that. Every year, they will start producing a flu virus. They're guessing what flu is likely to hit. They don't know for sure. And my understanding is that they're wrong 75% of the time, and people, you know, annually go get the stupid flu shot anyway.

TYSON: Yeah. But they made $6 billion off of it last year. And that's the problem. When you continuously approve vaccines without data and without research -- this is where you know the MAHA movement is -- hopefully it's going to make some ground -- you can't continue to produce vaccines without seeing the results. And you have to start holding the pharmaceutical companies accountable.

Once upon a time, Hannity was among those who chose to “go get the stupid flu shot” every year. In April 2020, the Fox host told his radio listeners it was “my choice” to “get a flu shot every year.” Months later, he said his choice to get his annual shot is “what freedom’s all about."

That November, in an attempt to assure his listeners that the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, he said he has “taken the flu shot for many, many years with no side effects at all whatsoever… it’s helped me."

Hannity also proclaimed his dedication to regular flu immunization to his Fox News audience: “I choose to get the flu shot every year and some of my friends think I’m nuts."

Video

Citation

From the September 16, 2020, edition of Fox News' Hannity

Hannity’s sudden reversal on the “stupid flu shot” is hardly surprising, considering his yearslong assault on the COVID-19 vaccine, his network’s dedication to pushing anti-vaccine narratives, and the Trump administration’s adoption of vaccine skepticism as policy.

Meanwhile, the American Medical Association recommends on its website that “everyone aged six months or older should receive an annual flu shot.” The AMA has more on the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine here. On its YouTube page, the AMA also its for the flu and COVID vaccine in 2024.

---

mma 922

not sure what to say beyond fox job 1 trash dems; tails you lose? if pandemic still, it is b/c dems failed to fix, or claim lockdn --> perm power tyranny

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): People on the left are freaking out because Biden claimed the pandemic is over, regarding covid. Pandemic's over. We still have a problem with covid, we're doing a lot of work on it, but the pandemic is over.

Don't viruses mutate, and aren't there some things called new variants? Can anyone say scientifically with any degree of certainty that new variants, more virulent variants aren't possible?

I'm not so sure I'm trusting doctor Joe on anything, or the NIH, or Doctor Fauci, or the CDC, which finally admitted, "We were wrong about those vaccine things we were telling you to take day in and day out."

planes and trains are optimal to spread?!

aha more regs tossed out for exceeding authority = ~ gubmint?  corp laissez-faire pollute? kill workers?

rooted in fed overreach?

jones day, trump fav, clerked for clarence

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's mask mandate for domestic travelers was struck down on Monday by a federal jurist who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. The decision is the latest in a string of blows to President Joe Biden's efforts to curb transmission of the coronavirus.

The CDC last week extended the rule until May 3rd.

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida wrote in a 59-page ruling that the CDC exceeded its authority in requiring passengers on airlines and any other "conveyance" of public transportation to wear masks to help slow the spread of COVID-19.

Mizelle – whom the American Bar Associated dinged as "not qualified" after she was installed by Trump at the age of 33 – said that passengers who refused to comply and were "forcibly removed from their airplane seats, denied board at the bus steps, and turned away at the train station doors" had their rights against "detention and quarantine" violated.

"The Mask Mandate is best understood not as sanitation, but as an exercise of the CDC's power to conditionally release [from what?] individuals to travel despite concerns that they may spread a communicable disease (and to detain or partially quarantine those who refuse). But the power to conditionally release and detain is ordinarily limited to individuals entering the United States from a foreign country," she proclaimed.

“Wearing a mask cleans nothing,” Mizelle opined, even as cases are once again rising in pockets throughout the country, such as in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has re-instituted a mask mandate. The virus has also been spreading in the nation's capital, infecting White House officials and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, blasted Mizelle's order in a Monday afternoon tweet.

"This is both a big deal and a truly preposterous (nationwide) injunction. The CDC’s statutory authority is specifically directed at preventing the spread of communicable diseases across state lines," he wrote. "Where else is such spread more likely to occur than transport hubs like airports?"

see benzene, epa and dcd got rolled by api and energy corps?

...Representatives of BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips all declined to comment for this article, referring questions to the API, which did not respond to repeated interview requests. In a one-paragraph statement, Shell said the company’s financial “support for the study reflects our ongoing commitment to health, safety, and product stewardship,” stressing that “the study was wholly independent of Shell.”

ExxonMobil, whose scientists participated in the Shanghai study, said in a written statement that it “supports scientific research through funding and technical support,” painting its involvement in this project — as well as a 2012 ExxonMobil-sponsored study of benzene-exposed workers showing adverse health effects at levels below legal occupational limits — as part of a longstanding corporate commitment to better understanding the chemical. The 2012 results in particular prompted ExxonMobil to “voluntarily reduce allowable benzene exposure limits to one-half of OSHA legal limits” at its workplaces, it said — or 0.5 ppmfor an eight-hour shift.

By contrast, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends that workers limit their benzene exposure to an average of0.1 ppm during a shift.

“Our conservative approach to setting workplace benzene exposure limits is influenced by the most up-to-date scientific evidence, which includes the 2012 study,” ExxonMobil said, noting that its short-term limit is five times lower than OSHA’s.

As the Shanghai findings seep into the scientific literature and, ultimately, the courts, the petrochemical industry generally admits that benzene causes AML and MDS at higher doses. But other blood and bone marrow cancers continue to kill — at lower and lower exposures to the chemical.

Michael Boley in April, 1994. Courtesy of the Boley family

On February 27, 2012, Michael Boley, 68, died of a disease Shanghai researchers say can’t be tied to benzene: chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, a form of MDS, combined with another bone-marrow condition known as “myeloproliferative disease.”

Strong and industrious, with a knack for avoiding even the flu, Boley spent 23 years at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in St. Marys, Ohio, site of a seminal benzene study by NIOSH  in the 1970s. The research quantified for the first time the leukemia risk for workers exposed to the chemical in the plant’s Pliofilm unit, prompting OSHA to work on the benzene standard that took effect in 1987.

Michael Boley worked at a Goodyear plant in St. Mary's, Ohio, for 23 years. His 15th anniversary with the company appeared in Goodyear's newsletter. Courtesy of the Boley family

Boley didn’t make the benzene-soaked rubber film for which the unit was named; rather, he was a plant electrician, supervisor and engineer who worked there for an hour or two daily. Still, he knew benzene was in the air: While in the unit he noticed “Authorized Personnel Only” signs for Pliofilm workers who, he testified in a deposition, “were monitored on a regular basis.” At times, he complained about the unit’s “sweeter-than-gasoline” smell. Once, Boley asked a supervisor if he could have the same blood test the company administered to Pliofilm workers.

“His comment was, no, we wouldn’t require monitoring,” Boley testified. “Our levels would be safe.”

Four decades later, after enduring the fatigue, feebleness and shortness of breath accompanying a diagnosis of chronic monomyelocytic leukemia, or CMML, Boley sued Goodyear and its benzene suppliers, including ExxonMobil. “He wanted them to know what had happened to him,” said his widow, Cheryl. But the suit went nowhere: In 2011, Boley settled the litigation in a confidential mediation. His still-pending workers’ compensation claim has seen little traction.

“He couldn’t prove it,” Cheryl said, alluding to the companies’ claims that benzene couldn’t have caused her husband’s illness. Those claims were supported by Irons and other scientists affiliated with the Shanghai study, who reported in a journal article last year that “benzene exposure does not appear to be a significant predictor of CMML.”

Mounting evidence against benzene:

1928

First case

The first case of benzene-induced leukemia is reported.

1948

Only safe concentration is zero

The American Petroleum Institute concludes that “the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero.”

1977

Goodyear study

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health launches a study of two Goodyear plants in Ohio where workers are exposed to benzene at high levels — 10 parts per million to 100 ppm. Responding to the study, theOccupational Safety and Health Administration issues an emergency temporary standard for benzene of 1 ppm, down from 10 ppm....

dem hse oversight invest

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/head-of-cdc/

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/trump-cdc/

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/ex-trump-officials-reveal-how-ivanka-trump-and-kellyanne-conway-meddled-with-cdc-guidelines/

i**vanka Trump** and **Kellyanne Conway** sent "dictates" to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordering the public health agency to downplay the severity of its coronavirus messaging, two former members Trump appointees tell The New York Times.

"Every time that the science clashed with the messaging, messaging won," former chief of staff at CDC Kyle McGowan says. McGowan had worked with **Tom Price**, first in the Georgia Republican Congressman's office, and then at Health and Human Services after Trump appointed him Secretary of the agency. Price left HHS in disgrace.

Conway and Trump, both top advisors to the president, were focused on churches and schools. During the course of the pandemic the CDC first held back guidance it had prepared to help churches re-open safely. The Trump administration rewrote that guidance to allow houses of worship greater freedom, but at a huge cost in American lives. President Trump spent months demanding schools reopen, ignoring CDC guidance, and providing state and local governments few if any tools or financial support to protect students and staff.

McGowan and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, say the White House slowly but surely crushed the CDC, interfering with public announcements or pronouncements, all in the interest of protecting the health of the economy instead of the health of the American people.

In one instance McGowan says he and CDC Director Robert Redfield were forced to alter language on social distancing guidance, after White House budget director Russell Vought told them specifics on spacing requirements would be too onerous for businesses. In the end, no specifics on social distancing requirements were provided.

McGowan and Campbell say they "mediated between Dr. Redfield and agency scientists when the White House's requests and dictates would arrive: edits from Mr. Vought and Kellyanne Conway, the former White House adviser, on choirs and communion in faith communities, or suggestions from Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and aide, on schools."

9/22

an a m

Trump’s efforts to weaponize the CDC haven’t slowed down either. Last Friday, a new guidance slipped onto the website that emphasized that coronavirus transmission is airborne and that indoor, crowded spaces such as fitness classes and choir practice are especially dangerous. On Monday, however, the guidance was removed and the CDC said it had been “posted in error.”

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. As Ben Guarino, Chris Mooney and Tim Elfrink at the Washington Post report, “Evidence that the virus floats in the air has mounted for months, with an increasingly loud chorus of aerosol biologists pointing to superspreading events in choirs, buses, bars and other poorly ventilated spaces.”

==

People need to go to prison’: Political analyst blasts Trump administration for hiding CDC guidance about airborne coronavirus

David Badash / The New Civil Rights MovementSeptember 21, 2020

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday quietly changed its coronavirus official guidance to note that coronavirus droplets, or “aerosols,” can stay in the air far longer than previously thought…

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/cdc-abruptly-reverses-its-dangerous-testing-advice-after-nyt-revealed-improper-political-pressure/

an 920 mid-2021, masks best weapon [even if vax works 70%?]

trump attacks his own CDC director’s claims about coronavirus vaccines

Cody Fenwick

As the administration faced doubts about the integrity of its approval process for a coronavirus vaccine, President Donald Trump went on the attack Wednesday against CDC Director Robert Redfield’s claims…

More guaranteed to protect me’ than vaccine: CDC director calls face masks ‘most important health tool we have’ to fight COVID-19

Alex Henderson September 16, 2020

During an ABC News townhall event moderated by George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump once again downplayed the benefits of wearing protective face masks. But when Dr. Robert…

NO LNX

WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-sidelines-public-health-advisers-in-growing-rift-over-coronavirus-response/2020/07/09/

Health

CDC feels pressure from Trump as rift grows over coronavirus response

Vice President Pence holds a coronavirus task force briefing on Wednesday, joined by, from left, Dr. Deborah Birx, Adm. Brett Giroir, and CDC Director Robert Redfield.

]

By

Lena H. Sun and

Josh Dawsey

July 9, 2020

:{

}:

The June 28 email to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was ominous: A senior adviser to a top Health and Human Services Department official accused the CDC of “undermining the President” by putting out a report about the potential risks of the coronavirus to pregnant women.

:{

}:

The adviser, Paul Alexander, criticized the agency’s methods and said its warning to pregnant women “reads in a way to frighten women .?.?. as if the President and his administration can’t fix this and it is getting worse.”

As the country enters a frightening phase of the pandemic with new daily cases surpassing 57,000 on Thursday, the CDC, the nation’s top public health agency, is coming under intense pressure from President Trump and his allies, who are downplaying the dangers in a bid to revive the economy ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election. In a White House guided by the president’s instincts, rather than by evidence-based policy, the CDC finds itself forced constantly to backtrack or sidelined from pivotal decisions.

The latest clash between the White House and its top public health advisers erupted Wednesday, when the president slammed the agency’s recommendation that schools planning to reopen should keep students’ desks six feet apart, among other steps to reduce infection risks. In a tweet, Trump — who has demanded schools at all levels hold in-person classes this fall — called the advice “very tough & expensive.”

“While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!” Trump tweeted Wednesday. The CDC was already planning to issue new guidelines in the coming days. But Vice President Pence on Wednesday explicitly tied the effort to Trump’s ire.

:{

}:

“The president said today we just don’t want the guidance to be too tough,” Pence told reporters. “And that’s the reason next week the CDC is going to be issuing a new set of tools.”

Analysts say the deepening divide is undermining the authority of one of the world’s premier public health agencies, which previously led fights against malaria, smallpox and HIV/AIDS. Amid the worst public health crisis in a century, the CDC has in recent months altered or rescinded recommendations on topics including wearing masks and safely reopening restaurants and houses of worship as a result of conflicts with top administration officials.

“At a time when our country needs an orchestrated, all-hands-on-deck response, there is simply no hand on the tiller,” said Beth Cameron, former senior director for global health security and biodefense on the White House National Security Council.

In the absence of strong federal leadership, state and local officials have been left to figure things out for themselves, leading to conflicting messaging and chaotic responses. Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the World Health Organization further undermined efforts to influence global strategies against the coronavirus, including how vaccines will be distributed.

The CDC, meanwhile, is increasingly isolated — a function both of its growing differences with the White House and of its own significant missteps earlier in the outbreak.

Those stumbles include the botched rollout of test kits likely contaminated at a CDC lab in late January, which led to critical delays in states’ ability to know where the virus was circulating. And the CDC’s initial decision to test only a narrow set of people gave the virus a head start spreading undetected across the country.

During a May lunch with Senate Republicans, Trump told the group the CDC “blew it” on the coronavirus test and that he’d installed a team of “geniuses” led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner to handle much of the response, according to two people familiar with the lunch who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Trump speaks at CDC headquarters in Atlanta in March, flanked by HHS Secretary Alex Azar, left, and CDC Director Robert Redfield.Trump speaks at CDC headquarters in Atlanta in March, flanked by HHS Secretary Alex Azar, left, and CDC Director Robert Redfield.]

:{

}:

“There is a view the CDC is staffed with ‘deep state’ Democrats that are trying to tweak the administration,” said one adviser who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations.

White House officials, who see the president’s reelection prospects tied to economic recovery, also say they’ve been deeply frustrated by what they view as career staffers at the agency determined “to keep things closed,” according to a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal deliberations.

:{

}:

Trump believes the CDC is “ineffective” and a “waste of time” but doesn’t blame CDC Director Robert Redfield and generally likes him, said another official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “He just thinks he is a poor communicator,” the official added.

:{

}:

Joe Grogan, former head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said Redfield had fans inside the White House who work on “addiction issues, on life issues, on HIV issues,” among other topics.

:{

}:

But he said Redfield has few political appointees to help him run a complex agency. “How do you run a place like that with .?.?. [few] appointees?” Grogan asked.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar called the director “a key scientific guide for the President and his administration, a trusted source for the American people, and a closely engaged partner of state and local governments.”

But Redfield is not a voice in coronavirus task force meetings, and “is never really in the Oval [Office] with the president,” said another senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal dynamics.

Even Redfield’s supporters say he has failed to be an effective advocate for the agency.

“Bob Redfield’s commitment to public health is completely strong,” said William Schaffner, a veteran infectious-disease specialist at Vanderbilt University. But he said Redfield lacks the standing, deftness and communication capacity to persuade skeptical audiences, including those in the White House, that protecting public health and fostering economic recovery are not opposing goals.

Redfield, for his part, downplayed Trump’s criticism of the CDC school reopening guidelines after a coronavirus task force briefing Wednesday, saying the agency and the president were “totally aligned.”

“We’re both trying to open the schools,” he said.

White House spokesman Judd Deere also disputed big differences, saying in a statement that the White House and the CDC “have been working together in partnership since the very beginning of this pandemic to carry out the President’s highest priority: the health and safety of the American public.

“The CDC is the nation’s trusted health protection agency and its infectious-disease and public health experts have helped deliver critical solutions to save lives. We encourage all Americans to continue to follow the CDC’s guidelines and use best-practices they have learned, such as social distancing, face coverings, and good hygiene, to maintain public health and continue our Transition to Greatness.”

But some health experts were indignant the agency had been ordered to rewrite guidance to reopen schools to “make it easier and cost less” — a demand that effectively “turns science on its head,” said Tom Inglesby, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security.

“CDC should be giving their best judgments on how to lower risks to make schools safer,” he said. “That’s their job. If they aren’t allowed to do that, the public will lose confidence in the guidance.”

'Why are they not out there shouting "fire''?'

The diminished role of the 74-year-old agency has bewildered infectious-disease experts, as well as members of the public seeking guidance.

After six states set one-day case records on July 3, Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean at Emory University’s School of Medicine, tweeted at Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, “Tom, where is @CDCgov ? Why are they not out there shouting ‘fire’?”

Frieden shot back: “They are still there, still doing great work, just not being allowed to talk about it, not being allowed to guide policy, not being allowed to develop, standardize, and post information that would give, by state and county, the status of the epidemic and of our control measures.”

Jeffrey Duchin, the health officer at Seattle and King County health department, added: “Agree. Muzzled, neutered and exiled.”

The agency has been largely invisible. After more than three months of silence, it resumed briefings for the public last month. There have been two.

By comparison, when the H1N1 swine flu pandemic hit the United States in the spring of 2009, the CDC held briefings almost every day for six consecutive weeks.

During this outbreak, the agency’s regular briefings ended abruptly after White House officials were angered when a top CDC leader warned that Americans could face “significant disruption” to their lives as a result of the virus’s spread to the United States.

CDC officials say they are still getting their message out, pointing to more than 2,000 documents providing pandemic-related information about reopening and staying safe for dozens of groups and venues, including funeral home directors, amusement parks and pet owners. Each Friday, the CDC also posts CovidView, a weekly report of selected data and trends on testing, hospitalizations and reported deaths.

But the information is posted without additional explanation or analysis.

“I want to hear a real person give me three minutes based on these findings,” said del Rio, also a global health and infectious-disease professor at Emory. “I want to see them in the news, being interviewed, giving us the data.”

Scientists at the CDC and former colleagues speak of deep frustration and low morale over its inability to fully share and explain scientific and medical information.

Researchers are fearful for their jobs and want to protect the integrity of the data they release. “If you want to say something, you’re thinking, ‘what’s the White House going to say and how are they going to use it,’ ” said one longtime scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The lack of briefings has fostered misunderstandings at times. In early April, for instance, when the agency reversed its position and recommended the use of cloth face coverings, CDC scientists gave no public briefings explaining why they made the change.

“It’s not rocket science,” said Nancy Cox, a virologist and former CDC official who led the influenza program for 22 years and was part of the agency’s response during the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. “But the reasoning behind those changes should be explained as clearly as possible and then you can get everyone on board.”

In the CDC’s absence, academic medical centers, public health and professional disease groups have filled the void by holding coronavirus briefings and providing analysis of key issues, data and research studies. Frieden, the president of Resolve to Save Lives, a New York nonprofit, has also been posting long Twitter threads analyzing the weekly CDC data released on Fridays.

Speaking 'with an unfettered voice'

:{

}:

Alarmed at the agency’s diminished role, nearly 350 public health organizations sent a letter Tuesday to Azar urging him to advocate for the CDC. The agency must be allowed to speak based on the best available science “and with an unfettered voice,” said John Auerbach, president and chief executive of Trust for America’s Health, a public health nonprofit that led the effort.

House Democrats echoed those concerns in a separate letter to Azar last month. Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said they were troubled by reports that administration officials are considering narrowing the CDC’s mission and embedding more political appointees at the Atlanta-based agency.

Traditionally the CDC has one political appointee, the director. Now it has Redfield and five other political appointees, including two advisers added in recent weeks.

“Now more than ever, the American people need a robust and effective CDC that is not repeatedly undermined by others in the administration, including the President and the Vice President,” the letter said.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows views the agency as a problem and has criticized the CDC repeatedly to other administration officials, said a senior administration official.

White House and HHS officials are discussing what the CDC’s “core mission needs to be,” said one adviser familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on policy deliberations. The discussions were first reported by Politico.

Over the years, the agency that was founded to fight malaria now works on virtually every aspect of public health. “It has tried to be everything to everyone,” the adviser said, suggesting the agency might need to refocus more narrowly.

On the global front, administration officials are also weighing a $2.5 billion initiative called the President’s Response to Outbreaks that would move a significant portion of national and international pandemic responses to the State Department, according to a draft obtained by The Post. Details were first reported by Devex.

:{

}:

“There is no clear leadership role for CDC” in this plan, said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president for global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “In global health, you need an engaged CDC.”

Taken together, the administration efforts seem “designed to position CDC to the margins,” said one federal health official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

'Boogeyman where there aren't any'

The report that drew the email attack, accusing the agency of undermining the president, had provided detailed but incomplete information about pregnancy risks related to the coronavirus. It found pregnant women with covid-19 were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to an intensive care unit, and to need ventilator support than infected women who are not pregnant.

The sender, Alexander, a specialist in health research methods, is a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump ally who was recently appointed assistant HHS secretary for public affairs, which includes the CDC.

The email was directed to Redfield and Caputo.

Even amid the intense criticism of the agency, the email “crosses the line,” said the official, who was aware of the content.

Like all of the CDC’s reports, the analysis itself noted several limitations. One key one that researchers acknowledged was that they did not have data to indicate whether the pregnant women were hospitalized because of labor and delivery, or because they had covid-19.

Administration officials are “seeing political boogeymen where there aren’t any,” the federal health official said, adding that such narratives could further hamper the U.S. response.

“It could feed the fire to limit the flow of scientific data and communication to the general population,” the official said. “People are getting sick and dying. Can we just focus on the science?”

Alexander said in his email that the lack of data about why women were hospitalized was a “key issue.”

“The CDC is undermining the President by what they put out, this is my opinion and sense, and I am reading it and can see the subtle and direct hits,” he wrote.

Alexander, also a part-time assistant professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, did not respond to emails and telephone calls seeking comment.

Caputo said in an interview that he agreed with Alexander. The CDC represents itself as the gold standard for public health agencies, he said, “but in the case of pregnancy analysis, it wasn’t even bronze.”

He called CDC’s track record “spotty” and “questionable,” pointing to Zika diagnostic testing errors in 2016.

:{

}:

“In many cases over the years, regardless of administration, the CDC has undermined presidents and themselves,” Caputo said, referring to leaked drafts of CDC guidances. “Who says the CDC is the sole font of wisdom when it comes to detecting and fighting deadly pathogens?”

Experts say that even with some big unanswered questions, the pregnancy findings represent the best available evidence and are important. The lack of data reflects decades of long-neglected national surveillance on pregnancy.

“I don’t think this is frightening women,” said Denise Jamieson, who heads the obstetrics and gynecology department at Emory University and Emory Healthcare. True, the report “suffers from completeness of data,” she said. But now doctors can be more confident that pregnant women are more likely to have severe disease and use “this really important information” to counsel patients, she said.

Yasmeen Abutaleb, Alice Crites and John Hudson contributed to this report.

Lena H. Sun

Lena H. Sun is a national reporter for The Washington Post covering health with a special focus on public health and infectious disease. A longtime reporter at The Post, she has covered the Metro transit system, immigration, education and was a Beijing bureau chief. Follow

Josh Dawsey

Josh Dawsey is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017. He previously covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal.Follow

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/what-the-cdc-eviction-ban-means-6-questions-answered/

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/the-right-has-seized-on-a-misunderstood-cdc-statement-as-proof-that-isnt-that/

salon matt r

conservative social media networks and right-wing personalities, including Fox Nation host Tammy Bruce, have seized on a misunderstood COVID-19 mortality statistic from the CDC as “evidence” that pandemic public health fears are overblown. The viral spread of the “6%” meme seems to speak to both a larger scientific illiteracy and the rapidity with which the conspiratorial right jumps on misinformation that appears convenient to their political narrative. Salon spoke with scientific experts to understand the origin of this meme, and how it has been misinterpreted.

In a report published earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wrote that “for 6% of the deaths” reported involving the novel coronavirus, the data indicates that “COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.” This means that there were co-morbid conditions — meaning multiple health conditions that compounded the coronavirus’ effects — associated with the COVID-19 death on 94% of the other occasions. The CDC added that, “for deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

Many on Twitter seized upon the “6%” data point to argue that the United States has been overreacting to the pandemic.

“All of this for SIX PERCENT!” tweeted conservative writer and former congressional candidate DeAnna Lorraine.Another former congressional candidate, this one a veteran and self-described “Torah Observant Christian” named Nick Moutos, tweeted “#Fact Only 6% of reported #COVID19 deaths were “from” the virus. The other 94% were from other comorbidities. Death toll actually near 10K, or roughly .003% of the US population. #SixPercent"

fox News contributor and Fox Nation host Tammy Brucetweeted about the meme, too, making her point through understatement: “6% Six. Percent.” Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of right-wing campus group Turning Point USA, echoed Bruce, tweeting simply: “6%.”

A self-described pro-Trump political candidate in Virginia, Jason Alexander Roberge, tweeted that “I was called a conspiracy theorist in March for calling out the FAKE covid numbers: 6% Six Percent.”

Perhaps most shockingly, a Twitter account called The Cain Gang — which describes itself as “formerly run by Herman Cain, now supervised by his team and family” — tweeted that “it looks like the virus is not as deadly as the mainstream media first made it out to be.” That tweet was later deleted. Cain died of COVID-19 on July 30.

These tweets all reflect a profound misunderstanding of what “comorbidity” means, Dr. Alfred Sommer, an epidemiologist and dean emeritus at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Salon by email.

“People with co-morbidities die at higher rates, as do older people (some without serious co-morbidities but with aging, less responsive immune systems),” he wrote. “None of which makes any difference —if these people had not contracted COVID they would not have died at this time! So they are ALL COVID-caused deaths.”

Sommer believes the number of deaths attributed to the pandemic has actually been underestimated, as many who were ill — either with COVID-19 or something else — were unable to seek care because of the public health situation.

“Nobody counts the increase in the number of deaths caused by the pandemic — but not directly by infection: people who had heart attacks and related who couldn’t get care, or were afraid to seek care, because of COVID,” Sommer added. “The rate of these deaths has been running substantially higher this year than in past years.”

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, called the “6%” meme “a ludicrous misunderstanding and misinformation.” “Basically, [they are] arguing that if you die with COVID and have any risk factors, then it somehow doesn’t count as COVID,” he told Salon. Feigl-Ding compared the situation to that of cancer patients, who frequently have compounding conditions that increase their risk of dying of cancer.

“Most cancer patients have many other risk factors, which by their logic means a person didn’t die of cancer if someone has anything else,” he said.

Dr. Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, also told Salon that the six percent figure needs to be viewed in an appropriate context.

“The ‘six percent’ figure represents those people with only COVID-19 on their death certificate. This will be very unusual,” Lessler explained by email. “First, COVID-19 causes many of the co-morbidities mentioned, which are respiratory conditions. So, having, for example, respiratory failure on your death certificate in addition to COVID-19 is not really having another cause of death, as your coronavirus infection almost certainly caused the respiratory failure. Second, many of the other co-morbidities, such as heart disease, are common in the US and increase your chances of dying from COVID-19, so may be contributing factors to death but not necessarily the root cause.”

He concluded, “The most important thing to remember, is that no matter what the co-morbidities listed are, pretty much all of these people would have lived longer, probably a lot longer, if they had not been infected with the virus.”

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA) and former secretary of health in Maryland, confirmed to Salon by email that the six percent figure is being characterized “incorrectly.””The 6% figure was the percent that did not have any other diseases listed on the death certificate as a contributing factor for their death. That does not tell us what the risk to the U.S. population is,” Benjamin explained by email. “Approximately 40% of the U.S. population have at least one chronic disease (130 million people [out of] 330 million). That means 40% (130 million) of the country is at risk of getting severe disease if they get infected with SARS-CoV2 the virus that causes COVID-19. That is a significant risk to the overall population. COVID-19 was a contributing cause for the death and may have been the precipitating cause of death.”He added, “The way they are interpreting the 6% figure implies that the individual would have died from their underlying disease regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, which you cannot say.”

yikes out for surgery

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/dr-fauci-raises-alarm-about-new-cdc-guidelines-that-were-made-without-him/

==

==

an 820

How the CDC director surrendered to Trump’s pressure

Steven Harper / BillMoyers.com

==

==

Fauci hit back and bully caved? see navarro

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/the-cdc-has-fallen-so-far-new-guidelines-show-the-white-house-has-corrupted-the-top-us-health-agency/

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/dr-fauci-faces-barrage-of-abuse-and-threats-as-the-white-house-turned-on-him/

==

ultimate transparency fail?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/experts-sound-alarm-as-trump-hijacks-coronavirus-data-from-cdc-and-threatens-to-withhold-covid-19-drug/

==

shelved it's own recs/plan to restart economy

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/dr-birx-and-other-white-house-officials-pressuring-cdc-to-revise-covid-19-death-count-to-please-trump-report/

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/trump-spent-easter-weekend-calling-friends-about-dr-fauci-as-white-house-allies-begin-smear-campaign-report

no lnx

Trump spent Easter weekend calling friends about Dr. Fauci as White House allies begin smear campaign: report

Written by Tom Boggioni / Raw Story April 13, 2020

The Daily Beast is reporting that Donald Trump hunkered down in the White House over the Easter weekend, watching cable news programs and calling friends and allies asking what they think of Dr. Anthony Fauci who has become, for many, the only reliable face on the White House coronavirus task force.

According to the report, the president thinks he made the infectious disease expert a “star” by featuring him prominently during his almost daily press conferences and is reportedly looking for feedback.

“’What do you think of Fauci?’ the president repeatedly worked into his phone conversations over the past few days, the three sources said, as he pulsed his broader network of informal advisers, industry allies, and current staff on their opinions on the news of the day,” the Beast’s Asawein Suebsaeng reports. “At one point this weekend, Trump remarked that he’s made Fauci a ‘star’ and that barely anybody would have known who the doctor was were it not for the president putting him front and center in the administration’s coronavirus response, televised press briefings, and media strategy.”

According to one source, the president, “.. did not sound bitter about it, I wouldn’t say that. It just sounded like he thought it was worth a reminder.”

What may have set off the president was an appearance by the Fauci on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where, in a roundabout way,the doctor  admitted that the White House dropped the ball on getting ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic that has already led to over 22,000 deaths in the U.S.

“Fauci’s comments did not go over well with certain officials working in the White House or on the president’s campaign, according to multiple aides, or with Trump supporters who are publicly protective of the president and his image,” the report states. “‘ Dr. Fauci needs to be more careful choosing his words on #Coronavirus, & if he’s going to be critical, make clear what he personally could’ve done better,’ Jason Miller, a former senior Trump adviser, posted to Twitter on Sunday.”

According to the report, Miller was not the only critic of the doctor who is close to Trump and the White House, with Suebsaeng writing, “By Sunday afternoon, prominent Trump allies and surrogates were circulating links and documents showing how Fauci had been inconsistent or made faulty predictions about the virus in recent months, encouraging each other to share them or use them as talking points.”

Of note, late Sunday the president retweeted a Twitter post that contained the hashtag: #Fire Fauci.

You can read more here.

==

an 320

Rush Limbaugh argues that medical experts are just part of the ‘Deep State’Alex Henderson

no lnx

Rush Limbaugh argues that medical experts are just part of the ‘Deep State’

Written by Alex Henderson March 27, 2020

Far-right talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, like President Donald Trump, has been a frequent source of nonsense during the coronavirus crisis: on his February 24 show, he equated COVID-19 with “the common cold.” And on Friday, the 69-year-old Limbaugh argued that health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cannot be trusted because they are part of “the Deep State” and have an anti-Trump agenda.

In audio that Media Matters has posted on its website, embedded above, Limbaugh can be heard on Friday telling listeners, “We’ve talked about the Deep State all these years since Trump was elected — the Trump-Russia collusion, the FBI — well, the Deep State extends very deeply. And the American people did not elect a bunch of health experts that we don’t know. We didn’t elect a president to defer to a bunch of health experts that we don’t know.”

Limbaugh added, “And how do we know they’re even health experts?Well, they wear white lab coats, and they’ve been in the job for a while — and they’re at the CDC, and they’re at the NIH…. But has there been any job assessment for them? They’re just assumed to be the best because they’re in government. But these are all kinds of things that I’ve been questioning.”

Limbaugh, who lives in South Florida, went on to criticize social distancing measures in that part of the U.S.

“I’ve been watching people routinely accept whatever the authorities say,” Limbaugh told listeners. “Where I live, the local town government is driving around town, trying to spot people violating the social distancing ordinances. And when they see it, they publish it on their web site: ‘This is very troublesome. We at the town are very troubled by groups of people congregating, violating the social distancing.’ Well, what do you think people are going to do? People are not just going to sit around here and stop living.”

Limbaugh and Trump have both repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus crisis. Back in February, when thousands of people were dying from it in mainland China, Trump insisted that his critics were exaggerating the threat posed to other parts of the world.

On February 24, Limbaugh insisted that the mainstream media were exaggerating the threat posed by coronavirus as a way of attacking Trump, telling his audience, “It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.”

That day, Limbaugh also told listeners, “Thedrive-by media hype of this thing as a pandemic, as the Andromeda strain, as, ‘Oh, my God, if you get it, you’re dead’.… I think the survival rate is 98%. Ninety-eight per cent of people (who) get the coronavirus survive. It’s a respiratory system virus.”

Stephen King

@StephenKing

Rush Limbaugh says coronavirus no worse than the common cold. Sage advice from a lifelong cigar smoker who has lung cancer.

In late February, Trump told reporters he had a “hunch” that the death rate from coronavirus was lower than what the World Health Organization (WHO) was reporting. And it was also during that period that Trump denounced coronavirus warnings coming from Democrats as a “hoax.” Since then, the number of deaths from coronavirus has passed 25,000 worldwide, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

On March 11, Limbaugh argued that the cancelations of major events like basketball games and the South by Southwest convention in Austin, Texas were an overreaction.

“Where does this end?,” Limbaugh asserted. “Especially when you realize there are diseases out there that kill many more than are being killed by this.”

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/experts-accuse-cdc-of-withholding-crucial-information-about-the-coronavirus-from-doctors/

no lnx

Experts accuse CDC of withholding ‘crucial’ information about the coronavirus from doctors

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield visited the NIH on June 12, 2018. In this image Dr. Redfield visits the Vaccine Research Center and learns about universal flu vaccine development. Dr. Anthony Fauci (r), Director of NIAID, accompanied the visit. Credit: National Institutes of Health

Written by Igor Derysh / Salon March 3, 2020

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has withheld “crucial” information about the coronavirus from doctors, medical experts warn.

There are now more than 100 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S., including numerous patients who have already recovered. But the CDC has only shared detailed clinical information about one of those patients, according to CNN. The agency has information about other coronavirus patients, which it has not yet released.

“It’s a medical truism that it’s absolutely essential that physicians with experience with a particular condition disseminate information to others,” Dr. Irwin Redlener, the director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, told the network. Not sharing this information is “inexplicable and inappropriate,” he added.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, has said reports on the cases are forthcoming. Health officials in three states and multiple hospitals said they shared patient information with the CDC, but the agency has not released it. Doctors told CNN they could not understand why.

“If you’re a doctor dealing with this in the emergency department, you want to know what we’ve already seen in the United States,” Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the network. “You want to know what symptoms were common? Are there any markers that give a sense when a mild case is likely to progress to a severe case? What do you need to worry about?”

The lone detailed report on a U.S. coronavirus case was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Jan. 31, describing the condition and treatment of a 35-year-old Washington state man who recovered from the virus at a hospital. Most of the other medical information is related to cases in China, where the outbreak began.

“If I’m a hospital, I want to know from the people with experience. How did they manage this patient?” Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University, told CNN. “I don’t want to know this when my first case arrives two months from now. I want to know this now so I can plan and prepare.”

The CDC has already been criticized for sending faulty tests to state labs, a move which delayed the ability to identify new cases. The agency required states to send their tests to a lab in Atlanta, but a top federal scientist warned that the test kits may be contaminated, Axios reported.

The CDC courted further controversy Monday after its website stopped displaying the number of Americans who have been tested for the coronavirus.

“Americans are dying. We deserve to know how many people have been tested,” Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said in a letter to CDC Director Robert Redfield. “Knowing that CDC testing is keeping pace with the likely number of cases is imperative to maintaining public trust.”

The CDC also abruptly postponed a press briefing on the coronavirus response without explanation Monday.

The moves came after researchers found the coronavirus likely spread undetected in Washington state for weeks amid concerns that the CDC was not allowing certain patients with symptoms to get tested. Researchers estimate there are hundreds more cases in the U.S. that have not been identified. The CDC also released a patient from isolation who later tested positive for the coronavirus.

The news, which came after reports that coronavirus response chief Vice President Mike Pence required all health officials to clear their public statements with his office, drew questions of whether the CDC was intentionally withholding information.

“Is this administration muzzling the CDC because they care more about optics than patients?” Daily Beast editor Molly Jong-Fast asked.

Former White House ethics director Walter Shaub argued the lack of information was likely due to incompetence.

“There’s no useful information coming out of our government on the coronavirus because the government has no information to share. The government has no information to share because it isn’t testing people. It isn’t testing people because they haven’t distributed tests. They haven’t distributed tests because they bungled them,” he tweeted. “They bungled the tests because there’s no competent management. There’s no competent management because Trump chose appointees based on loyalty. He used this criterion because he’s corrupt. Also because he’s incompetent.”

==

white House overruled CDC on recommendation that seniors avoid flying

Could it be any clearer that the Trump administration is…

===

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/s-the-christian-right-now-in-charge-of-public-health-inside-the-trump-administration

no lnx

Inside Mike Pence’s secret Christian empire

Jim Domen, founder of Church United, and VP Mike Pence,

Written by Heather Digby Parton March 9, 2020

If you’ve been following the latest news on the coronavirus outbreak, you probably saw at least some snippets of President Trump’s visit to the CDC last Friday. It will stand as one of the most astonishing appearances by this or any other president — and that’s saying something. When asked if he regretted firing the entire staff of the Office of Pandemic Preparation, Trump said, “This is something that you can never really think is going to happen.” He said that everyone who wants to be tested for this virus can get tested, which is not even close to true. He called Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state, who is on the front lines dealing with this epidemic, a “snake.”

He made it clear that he wants to cook the numbers so it doesn’t look as if the nation is in the midst of an epidemic. This has been obvious from the outset, but for the president to come out and say it is something else again:

Mostly, however, he patted himself on the back:

You know, my uncle was a great person. He was at MIT. He taught at MIT for, I think, like a record number of years. He was a great super genius. Dr. John Trump. I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, “How do you know so much about this?” Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for President.

As Wired science reporter Adam Rogers wrote:

As a reporter, in general I’m not supposed to say something like this, but: The president’s statements to the press were terrifying. That press availability was a repudiation of good science and good crisis management from inside one of the world’s most respected scientific institutions.

Let’s put that another way: The CDC was considered one of the world’s most respected scientific institutions. It has not been covering itself in glory during this crisis.

The most unnerving aspect of the government response so far has not been Trump’s gibberish. He’s in over his head and it shows, as usual. And we know from his response to Hurricane Maria and other natural disasters that his only concern in a crisis is for his own political well-being. But I wouldn’t have expected to hear the director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, laud Trump like a Fox News pundit:

It’s a full-blown ritual at this point for members of the Trump cabinet and Republicans in Congress to genuflect to the president as if he were a 15th-century pope. And we know that public health experts have had to tread very softly in order not to upset him.

Still, it was surprising to hear such a slavering tribute from a scientist in the midst of a global health crisis. Likewise, it was strange to hear the highly esteemedU.S. global AIDS coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, make similar comments when she was introduced as part of the coronavirus task force back on March 2:

It is clear the early work of the president over travel restrictions and the ability quarantine has bought us the time and space to have this task force be very effective. I have never worked with such incredible scientists and thoughtful policy leaders…

It seemed just a bit over the top. But these two weren’t the only ones:

There’s something important happening under the surface here. It may not simply be that these health policy professionals are trying to keep the kooky president happy so they can do their work on behalf of the country. They may be Trump true believers.

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams, for instance, is a Mike Pence crony who previously served as the Indiana state health commissioner. He was intimately involved in the horrific HIV outbreak in that state, where Pence refused to authorize a needle exchange program until a number of people had died unnecessarily. Naturally, Trump appointed him surgeon general.

Redfield and Birx are both evangelical Christians who have been associated with HIV research for many years, going back to the 1980s. Birx runs PEPFAR, George W. Bush’s global AIDS initiative, and both she and Redfield have been involved with Children’s AIDS Fund International, which lobbies for abstinence-only sex education around the world.

The Washington Post reported back in 2018 that they belong to a network run by an important power broker in the evangelical world:

Evangelical activist Shepherd Smith has spent more than three decades cultivating relationships with leading AIDS researchers and policymakers to promote abstinence-only sex education and other programs. Those connections now could influence government programs and funding within the Trump administration. Among the most prominent: Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…

[His wife] Anita Smith is now a consultant within PEPFAR to Deborah Birx, a physician and ambassador at large who oversees the program’s estimated $5 billion annual budget. Birx is also a former board member of Children’s AIDS Fund International and served until she was hired by the CDC in 2005, a PEPFAR spokesman said.

Anita Smith was hired by Birx to “improve prevention programs aimed at preteen girls.” I’m pretty sure we know what she recommended.

Redfield and Birx both served in the military doing AIDS research in the mid-1980s. Redfield is well-known for recommending measures that were considered extreme even within the Reagan administration, including the forced quarantine of AIDS patients. He later had a financial interest in an HIV vaccine that didn’t work, but which he continued to push. Birx, on the other hand, has maintained a stellar reputation.

To be clear, none of this means that these people aren’t qualified for the jobs they hold. They both have medical degrees and relevant experience. But they seem to be part of a conservative subculture of evangelical Christians who have found a foothold in the Trump administration clustered around Mike Pence’s office. Along millions of other evangelicals, it appears they really believe in Donald Trump.

Setting ideology aside, however, what Trump wants these people to do — cover up his own ignorance and incompetence — is totally at odds with what they must know is best for the health of the American public. Is their worshipful admiration for this man blinding them to the need to communicate honestly with the American people about this crisis? Because that would explain a lot.

==

==

Sanders knocks self-described ‘great genius’ Trump on his lies about the coronavirus

Walter Einenkel / Daily Kos  February 26, 2020

Sen. Bernie Sanders hit at Donald Trump for completely screwing up efforts to protect Americans from the spread of the coronavirus.

trump did not rehire, cut 16%

Top Trump economic advisor slammed for claiming coronavirus ‘contained’ after CDC warns of spread

David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement  February 26, 2020

Larry Kudlow, President Donald Trump’s top economic advisor, is falsely claiming the U.S. has “contained” the coronavirus, literally minutes after reports broke that the CDC is warning of a spread of the deadly virus that has killed 2600 people, mostly in China.

==

CDC: The number of Americans dying from antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’ vastly underestimated

Nicole Karlis / Salon

The CDC says it could get worse — and experts say there are simple things you can do to stop from getting one.

==

Top CDC Health and Climate Scientist Files Whistleblower Complaint

BY: MARIANNE LAVELLE & GEORGINA GUSTIN

:{

Here's what happened to a top scientist in the nation's premiere health agency. Other scientists, and climate science itself, have been sidelined in agencies across the government. Read More}:

rider on old bill keeps CDC from research on guns? still?

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-corruption-robert-kennedy-jr-2096438139.html

CDC Scientists Expose Agency Corruption

Last month, _{The Hill published a letter}_ sent by "more than a dozen" senior Center for Disease Control (CDC) scientists charging the agency with nursing an atmosphere of pervasive research fraud.  The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC's diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter to CDC Chief of Staff, Carmen Villar, expressed alarm "about the current state of ethics at our agency." The scientists complained that "our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests" and "circumvented by some of our leaders."

The scientists told Villar that, "questionable and unethical practices, occurring at all levels and in all of our respective units, threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health." The letter charged that staff level scientists "are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right," and that, "Senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors."

The scientists cited several recent scandals involving scientific corruption at CDC.

The scientists complain that the "climate of disregard" at CDC puts "many" agency scientists in difficult positions. "We are often directed to do things we know are not right." The public record supports SPIDER's allegations that scientists who insist on research integrity suffer persecution by CDC supervisors.

The recent SPIDER letter highlights the culture of deep-rooted scientific corruption that has metastasized across CDC and become the subject of a decade- long parade of investigations.

Given this long history of deeply entrenched scientific chicanery at the CDC, it's no surprise that scientists are now complaining. If Donald Trump is sincere about his promise to "Drain the Swamp" in the federal bureaucracy, he should begin by appointing an honest and able CDC director who can restore transparency, credibility, robust science and regulatory independence at the agency and who will turn around the culture of corruption that has been so damaging to children's health.

==

advis comm got sacked eg nat ctr env health, 15 of 18 p148 new becky dunlop, nor caro tox industry; lois swisky gold UC risk assess (pollut~ cancer) dennis paustenbach ca ~ erin brock; CDC got pro lead ppl ; regulatory paralysis is the goal  strat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/

We’re fully into Orwellian territory now. The Washington Post’s Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilperin reportedFriday evening that a group of CDC employees were told not to use seven words in official budget documents: “vulnerable,” “fetus,” “transgender,” “entitlement,” “diversity,”“evidence-based,” and “science-based.”

Twenty-four hours later, Sun and Eilperin followed up by reporting that another HHS agency received similar guidance about avoiding “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” and “diversity,” as well as instructions to use “Obamacare” instead of “Affordable Care Act.” Another linguistic substitution is visible at the State Department, where some documents now refer to “sexual risk avoidance” rather than “sex education.”

In a post at the Union of Concerned Scientists blog on Saturday morning, Michael Halpern wrote:

CDC research and initiatives have direct impact on public health and safety for all populations—including and especially those who are most vulnerable to public health threats. Effectively tackling public health challenges means being honest and open about risks and who faces these risks. To prevent the agency from losing its legitimacy, CDC Director Fitzgerald must speak up now to reinforce the centrality of science to the agency’s work.

On Sunday, STAT’s Helen Branswell reported that CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald emailed the agency’s staff to assure them the CDC is still a science-based institution, and that Fitzgerald took to Twitter to “assure you there are no banned words at CDC.” Similarly, an earlier statement from HHS spokesperson Matt Lloyd called the idea of banned words “a complete mischaracterization.” Branswell notes that the responses don’t refute Sun and Eilperin’s reporting, though.

As far as I can tell, there is no edict stating that CDC employees cannot use these words anywhere – i.e., technically, there’s no ban. What employees have been told, according to Sun and Eilperin’s sources, is that certain words in certain documents are being flagged and sent back to CDC for corrections. Whether a word is banned or whether employees learn that using it will result in being told to revise the document in question, the end result is the same: Words central to advancing public health disappear from important documents.

Unacceptable alternatives

I’m sure CDC employees have access to thesauruses, but using imprecise language is not what scientists do. Some Trump administration officials would probably prefer that fetuses be referred to as “the unborn” (as they did in the HHS Draft Strategic Plan), but that’s not a medically accurate term. Likewise, “transgender” is the only accurate and appropriate term for the population it describes – a population that faces an increased risk for HIV and is the focus of CDC efforts in that area. “To pretend and insist that transgender people do not exist, and to allow this lie to infect public health research and prevention is irrational and very dangerous, and not just to transgender people,” said National Center for Transgender Equality’s Executive Director Mara Keisling.

There are plenty of different ways to discuss vulnerable populations and diversity, but telling scientists to avoid those terms seems to be sending a signal that the administration doesn’t care about eliminating health disparities – even though CDC plays a key role in achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal to “Achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups.”

STAT’s Erin Mershon quoted the reaction from Planned Parenthood:

Dana Singiser, a vice president of public policy at Planned Parenthood, called the move “unimaginably dangerous” and said it would put “millions of lives in danger.”

“You cannot fight against the Zika virus, or improve women’s and fetal health, if you are unable to use the word ‘fetus.’ You must be able to talk about science and evidence if you are to research cures for infectious diseases such as Ebola,” she said. “You must be able to acknowledge the humanity of transgender people in order to address their health care needs. You cannot erase health inequities faced by people of color simply by forbidding the use of the words ‘vulnerable’ or ‘diversity.’”

Something else that set off alarm bells in the public health community was a suggested alternative (also reported by Sun and Eilperin) to using “science-based” or “evidence-based”: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” This is a problem, because“community standards and wishes” often include certain communities’ wishes that sexual intercourse only occur between married, cisgender heterosexual couples, or that vaccinations be entirely optional.

At Quartz, Nikhil Sonnad collected examples of how CDC used these words in past budgets.

Responses

Despite the news breaking when the weekend was already underway, the response from those who support science public health has been swift. Branswell reported:

The Post published its story late Friday, setting off a firestorm of protest within the scientific community. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health said that if true, the edict was “an Orwellian attack on scientific integrity.”

In a letter to Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, the organization demanded that the policy be withdrawn.

“The reported policy flatly contravenes the mission of the agency, grossly violates the agency’s pledge to the American people, and represents an appalling act of censorship,” wrote Laura Magaña, president of the association. “Leaving this policy in place would disrupt the agency’s critical work and, as a result, threaten the health of U.S. communities across the country.”

The American Association for the Advancement of Science was quick to denounce the reported policy.

“Among the words forbidden to be used in CDC budget documents are ‘evidence-based’ and ‘science-based.’ I suppose one must not think those things either. Here’s a word that’s still allowed: ridiculous,” said CEO Rush Holt.

Science and democracy advocate Aaron Huertas fired off a letter to CDC’s Acting Director for Science, Captain Willian R. Mac Kenzie, MD, pointing out the ways in which the ban on these words contradicts the agency’s scientific integrity policy.

Several of us will be rallying early Monday morning outside CDC’s DC office to show our support for CDC employees and science that serves the public.

I’m sure there will be more developments in this and other aspects of scientific integrity at federal agencies. I hope the Trump administration will recognize the crucial role of our science-based health agencies and give them assurances that they are free to use scientific language appropriately.

cdc conf ~

THE SENATE VOTED to confirm Donald Trump’s pick for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency today over the objections of Democratic senators, hundreds of former EPA officials, and hundreds of current EPA employees. Although an Oklahoma judge had ruled on Thursday that Pruitt’s office had to release more than 2,500 emails he had exchanged with energy and gas companies and industry groups, Republicans crammed through his confirmation in a 52-46 vote (with Democrats Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp voting with the Republican majority) before anyone had a chance to review the emails exchanged with the companies he’s now in charge of regulating.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, while Republicans in Washington were holding the first of two votes to confirm an EPA chief who will roll back regulations on the oil and gas companies responsible for most global warming, hundreds of climate scientists gathered in Atlanta to talk about the way climate change is already sickening and killing people around the country and the world.

The Climate and Health Meeting, which was organized in January after the CDC cancelled a similar conference, was far from being a litany of the gloom and doom predictions and statistics that you might expect from the scientists studying increases in temperature, rising sea levels, and extreme weather. Those things were present, of course, summed up perhaps most frighteningly by former Vice President Al Gore, the meeting’s host, who noted that humans emit 110 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours ­­­­— and that the heat energy trapped by this daily dump is the equivalent of “exploding 400,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs.” Or the graph that showed how the continued release of these greenhouse gases could lead to a 12-degree temperature rise by 2300, a change that would render large swaths of the earth uninhabitable.

Instead, the focus was on the extremes that have already happened— and, more importantly, their human consequences. Gore pointed out the parts of the world that are already on the outer limits of human habitability, a spot in Iran where the heat index hit 165 for the first time in 2015, for instance, or a town in India, where the temperature hit a record 123.8 degrees last year. He showed people in Pakistan digging mass graves in advance of killer heat waves because they now know what to expect and traced how warmer temperatures contributed to the spread of the virus that causesdengue fever in India, where there are now 37 million infections each year.

While poor countries are being hit the hardest, the U.S. is already seeing its fair share of human casualties. Air pollution, which is worsened by heat — and produced by the same fossil fuel combustion that warms the climate — already kills 200,000 Americans each year and costs the country almost 4 percent of GDP in 2010. Two-thirds of water-borne disease outbreaks in the U.S. are set off by extreme weather events. We saw pictures of refrigerator trucks for bodies that couldn’t fit into the morgue after a Chicago heat wave, elderly people felled by heat stress in the American Southwest, and children forced to carry around backpacks of emergency asthma supplies for their heat-exacerbated asthma.

In what was may have been the saddest presentation in a day of sad presentations, psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren described the mental health consequences of climate change on children, telling of kids suffering from clinical anxiety about the climate and the particular difficulty of reckoning with human-caused crises. “What happens from intentional negligence is harder to put behind us,” she explained. Van Susteren predicted that children, as they grow older, will experience their parents’ “destructive inaction on climate” as child abuse.

If the unsparing presentations about the mounting human toll of climate change begged for “bowls of Prozac and certificates for free vasectomies,” as one scientist joked, they also reflected the recognition that past efforts to convey the urgency of climate change to voters had failed — and were partly responsible for the fact that the climate experts were presenting their calamitous news essentially in exile.

With its focus on climate reality, the meeting paid less attention to the political reality that is the biggest obstacle to addressing it. Most presenters made just the barest nods to our anti-science president who derides climate change as a hoax. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, noted dryly that walls won’t keep out the malnutrition, diseases, and death that await us if we don’t reduce our burning fossil fuels.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who made the Carter Center available for the conference, was also restrained, referring only obliquely to “this last election.” At the same time that the victor of that last election was signing a bill that will reverse protections on waterways from coal mining ash, Carter, who has devoted his life to humanitarian causes, was talking about the impact of climate change on “the lives of the poorest people on earth.” Carter acknowledged his relative freedom to speak his mind on the subject, noting, “I have secret service protection the rest of my life.”

The few representatives of the CDC who attended the meeting were more constrained. Only about 12 staff members from the federal agency originally slated to host the conference were in attendance, according to CDC Spokesperson Bernadette Burden. And many of them were using personal or vacation time to be there, exercising “their right to attend as private citizens,” as Burden put it.

George Luber, a CDC epidemiologist who attended the meeting in an official capacity, gave a clear presentation showing the agency’s efforts to prepare cities and states for the health changes brought by climate change. The program helps project local disease burdens, draft response plans, and develop “the best science so we can make the best decisions,” Luber said.

What was less obvious was whether that government work will continue under the new administration. “No one knows what will happen,” said Julia Gold, who manages the Rhode Island’s climate change program, which is funded by a grant from the CDC.

Patrick Breysse, director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, of which the Climate and Health program is part, told me he’s confident the agency’s health-focused work will continue. While there may be disagreement over the root causes of climate change, Breysse said, “The good news is that people generally agree that there are increasing temperatures, more wildfires.” He even expressed hope that the agency would reschedule its climate meeting, but was unable to say when that might happen.

As government scientists find themselves less able to communicate about the environmental disaster to which they’ve devoted their professional lives, those free to speak are trying to figure out how to rectify the communications failures that have cast them politically powerless. Climate change used to be understood mostly as a problem of the planet and the endangered species on it. But this meeting made it clear that the emphasis will no longer be on shrinking habitats or abstract graphs with lines pointing off into the distant future. However poignant, the plight of the polar bear is out.

In its place, we’ll be seeing images of kids like Will, a 7-year-old in Texas, who is now forced to wear a cooling vest because of a medical condition that makes him particularly susceptible to heat and to stay inside on the increasing number of very hot days in his hometown in Texas.

The best strategy, according to Ed Maibach of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, is to keep the message simple — that climate change is real and — if we cut back on fossil-fuel use — reversible.

Maibach, who has divided the American public into six categories according to their beliefs about climate change, presented perhaps the most encouraging message of the event: that much of the country is open to learning about climate change. The good news, according to Maibach, is that only 9 percent of the country are “dismissers,” the most ideologically extreme end of the spectrum who are dead-set against recognizing the reality of climate change. The bad news is that that many of them are now leading our government.

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-corruption-robert-kennedy-jr-2096438139.html

no links

Last month, The Hill published a letter sent by "more than a dozen" senior Center for Disease Control (CDC) scientists charging the agency with nursing an atmosphere of pervasive research fraud.

The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC's diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter to CDC Chief of Staff, Carmen Villar, expressed alarm "about the current state of ethics at our agency." The scientists complained that "our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests" and "circumvented by some of our leaders."

The scientists told Villar that, "questionable and unethical practices, occurring at all levels and in all of our respective units, threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health." The letter charged that staff level scientists "are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right," and that, "Senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors."

The scientists cited several recent scandals involving scientific corruption at CDC.

They describe a "cover up," by officials, of mismanagement in CDC's Wise Woman Program, which provides screening in low income neighborhoods for heart disease, diabetes and other chronic health disorders. According to the letter, CDC officials purposefully misrepresented screening numbers in documents they sent to Congress to conceal failures in the multimillion dollar project. "... definitions were changed and data 'cooked' to make the results look better than they were." The scientists accused high level CDC bosses of suppressing the results of an internal review, involving staff across the CDC, "so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems." As part of the systematic cover up, CDC then engaged in a coordinated effort to "bury" these deceptions. "CDC staff has gone out of its way to delay FOIAs and obstruct any inquiry."

The scientists also complain about the "troubling" adventures of Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Michael Pratt, Senior Advisor for Global Health at the NCCDPHP.Bowman recently left the CDC following shocking media disclosures that the pair had manipulated scientific studies on soft drink safety in collusion with Coca Cola.The CDC flimflam was part of Coke's campaign to pressure the World Health Organization to relax guidelines for sugar consumption by children in developing nations where the soda industry is aggressively expanding its markets.

The scientists complain that the "climate of disregard" at CDC puts "many" agency scientists in difficult positions. "We are often directed to do things we know are not right." The public record supports SPIDER's allegations that scientists who insist on research integrity suffer persecution by CDC supervisors.

On Sept. 27, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency, announced further investigation of corruption in the agency's Zika testing program. That investigation arose from disclosures by laboratory chief Dr. Robert Lanciotti, supervisor of the CDC's prestigious Fort Collins, Colorado lab, that his CDC supervisors were deliberately using a Zika test that agency officials knew would underestimate the number of Zika cases nationwide by some 40 percent. Dr. Lanciotti initially raised the issues internally at CDC and in an email to state public health officials in April 2016. In May, his CDC supervisor responded to this boat rocking by demoting Lanciotti to a non-supervisory position within his lab. Dr. Lanciotti filed a whistleblower claim alleging that his punishment was retaliation for his disclosures. After its initial investigation, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel forced the CDC to reinstate Dr. Lanciotti as lab chief.

In a 2010 scandal that predated the Flint, Michigan tragedy, Congress found that the CDC had deliberately manipulated scientific documents and purposefully made inaccurate claims about the safety of Washington, DC drinking water in order to mislead DC residents into believing that their water was safe. The congressional committee found that the CDC's deceit had caused thousands of DC residents to drink water highly contaminated with lead for years to the detriment of their health. As with the Coca Cola and Wise Woman Program scandals, the immediate victims of CDC scientific fraud and mismanagement were disproportionately poor and minority.

In August 2014, CDC senior vaccine safety scientist, Dr. William Thompson, invoked federal whistleblower status and testified to Congressman William Posey that his CDC supervisors had ordered him to destroy data and manipulate studies to conceal injuries to black children from certain vaccines. According to Thompson's testimony to Congressman Posey, data analyzed by Thompson and a team of scientists for a key study showed that black boys who received the MMR vaccine on schedule, had a 250% increase in autism diagnoses. The data also pointed to the vaccine as a culprit in the epidemic of regressive autism in both white and black children. A high level CDC official, Dr. Frank DeStefano, ordered Thompson and his fellow scientists to destroy that data in a large garbage can and omit the damning findings from the published study. That study has been cited more than 110 times in published studies on PubMed, and forms the cornerstone of the CDC's orthodoxy that vaccines don't cause autism.

One of the key figures in the cover up described by Dr. Thompson is the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Dr. Colleen Boyle. Boyle's seminal career coup at the CDC was orchestrating the cover up of Agent Orange and dioxin toxicity in the 1970s. Boyle's handiwork deprived thousands of Vietnam veterans of health benefits until her fraud was uncovered and exposed in comprehensive investigations by Congress and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Instead of punishing Boyle for corruption and scientific fraud, the CDC rewarded her with a powerful directorship. From that platform, Boyle has managed the CDC's cover up of the vaccine-autism connection....

==

thom h:

...ut even if reporting police violence data were compulsory, there'd still be big obstacles to using that data in any sensible way. That's because thanks to Republicans and the National Rifle Association, it's been illegal for more than 20 years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct any research on gun violence.

That's right—illegal!

This ban began back in the 1990s after the CDC published some good, solid research into gun violence. One of the first studies they did found a clear relationship between increases in gun ownership and increased homicide rates.

The NRA didn't like where this was going for obvious reasons, so it started pushing its bought-and-paid-for shills in Congress to do something about those pesky scientists at the CDC. The NRA got its wish in 1996 when Republican Congressman Jay Dickey introduced what's now known as the Dickey Amendment.

It was a policy rider attached to a spending bill and it stated that, "None of the funds available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Because it's so broadly worded, the Dickey Amendment has had a chilling effect on gun research at the federal level.

No one wants to go to jail for doing their job, and CDC researchers live in fear that they'll become the next Lois Lerner, dragged in front of a congressional kangaroo court and forced to testify for hours on end.

Tragically, we really need the information from good studies about police violence—but the Dickey Amendment has prevented them from being done.

Therefore, we don't know what kind of connections there are between gun ownership and police violence, connections we should have known about years ago but haven't because of the gun industry's stranglehold over public policy.

The NRA, of course, couldn't be happier with this situation. But this is just absurd. Even Jay Dickey thinks so. He's now come out against his own amendment and thinks it should be repealed....

==

On Global Warming

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's office was behind a push to censor congressional testimony that global warming poses a danger to the public, according to Jason Burnett, a former associate deputy administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The vice president and the White House Office of Management and Budget heavily edited testimony last year by the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). "I read the testimony, checked with EPA scientists, and came to the conclusion that the draft testimony was fundamentally accurate as written," Burnett stated in a letter to Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. [1]

==

cf rfk2

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did have time, however, to spell out the quarter century that it took for the U.S. government to fully shield the pharmaceutical industry from product liability lawsuits. That was back in 1988 when Congress injected the provision in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) Act. 

From there, all big pharma had to do was buyoff the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure that more vaccines were added to the schedule, which for the past 15 years has three times the number of shots in the U.S. vaccine schedule than any other nation in the western hemisphere.

Then the crafty feint the U.S. government did with NVICP, or “Vaccine Court” as it’s known, was to gut the spirit and charter of the act. They rewrote the standard of injury to a victim of thimerosal by protecting mercury itself from such lawsuits.

==

"The**CEQ** became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command.[14]

Also, the White House removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to theU.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committeeabout the dangers to human health of global warming.[15] According to one CDC official familiar with both the CDC version and the version given to the Senate, the version given to the Senate was "eviscerated." The White House prevented the Senate and thus the public from receiving key CDC estimates in the report about diseases likely to flourish in a warmer climate, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes, more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution, an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus, mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress, and how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming.

Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming[16][17]

"High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Also, the White House removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.[15] According to one CDC official familiar with both the CDC version and the version given to the Senate, the version given to the Senate was "eviscerated." The White House prevented the Senate and thus the public from receiving key CDC estimates in the report about diseases likely to flourish in a warmer climate, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes, more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution, an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus, mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress, and how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming.

Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming[16][17]

"High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[18] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[16]

[edit] Political pressure on scientists

See also: Politics and science in the United States

US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, [19] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[20][21][22]

Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article [23] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[24] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."[25]

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

   "Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

   "The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[26]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey [27] was itself unscientific.[28]

Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

[edit] Allegations of attempts to mislead the public

The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with hydrogen cars and other fixes. It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions. Tyler Hamilton, in his review of the book for The Toronto Star, wrote that the book offers "alarming detail on how the U.S. public was being misled by [the Bush administration] (backed by conservative political forces) that is intent on inaction, and that's also on a mission to derail international efforts to curb emissions."[29]

Papers presented at an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, held in 2009 under the sponsorship of the University of Copenhagen in cooperation with nine other universities in the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), maintained that the climate-change skepticism which is so prevalent in the USA[30] "was largely generated and kept alive by a small number of conservative think tanks, often with direct funding from industries having special interests in delaying or avoiding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions".[31]

In Merchants of Doubt (2010) Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, both American science historians, argue that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, by spreading doubt and confusion.[32][33]

In Requiem for a Species (2010), Clive Hamilton suggests that the roots of climate change denial lie in the reaction of American conservatism to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. He argues that as the "red menace" receded, conservatives who had put energy into opposing communism sought other outlets. Hamilton contends that the conservative backlash against climate science was led by three prominent physicists -- Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and William Nierenberg.[34]

[edit] Litigation