A series of high-profile and under-the-radar decisions by US health agencies have scientists and doctors questioning the extent of the agencies' control over public communications. They argue that the debate is obscuring the most critical part: informing the public about key scientific and medical updates.
Studies Quashed and Research Halted
Studies on the safety of vaccines against shingles and Covid were reportedly quashed before publication by officials at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This follows the abrupt halt of a study on the effectiveness of Covid boosters by the top acting official at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and research terminated or never approved due to keywords like "hesitancy" and "misinformation" at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
These decisions threaten the reputations of US health agencies and public trust in science and policy, experts say. The surrounding tumult risks obscuring important information from the public and the scientific community.
Voices from the Frontline
Michelle Barron, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and co-author of the halted Covid vaccine study, stated: "The science and the basis of why we were even doing these studies has been sort of lost in the mist. It's incredibly important to recognize that Covid shots are still important. Flu shots are important. Measles shots are important."
Elias Kass, a naturopathic physician and vaccine advocate in Seattle, experienced censorship firsthand. When he submitted a presentation for a CDC-certified conference, a CDC representative flagged two issues: mentioning "equity" and "a pregnant person." Kass was told to change his slides or he would not be allowed to present. The changes were required due to executive orders on diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender.
Kass said: "It is saying that the executive order is the end of the story. It gets to dictate what words we use. And that's just censorship. There's no review, no voting, zero oversight, and he gets to decide what I put on my PowerPoint slide."
The Controversial Study on Covid Boosters
A study on how well the latest Covid boosters prevent hospitalizations and urgent-care visits was pulled from publication by Jay Bhattacharya, acting CDC director, who cited methodological weaknesses. However, a leaked copy published by Inside Medicine shows its design is standard for real-world vaccine effectiveness research.
Jeremy Faust, emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and editor of Inside Medicine, noted: "This is a run-of-the-mill standard-issue paper. The intervention says more about his political views and agenda than about the science." The study found the Covid booster is 50% effective against emergency visits and 55% effective against urgent-care visits among adults, an important data point for patients.
Barron added: "People should be talking about it. Unfortunately, there's so much other stuff that gets discussed that we kind of forget that. Booster rates have all gone down significantly because of all this confusion and not really talking about it."
Broader Implications
The decisions to restrict information about routine vaccines signal potential restrictions on the shots themselves. Jeremy Faust warned: "I think this HHS is slowly moving against seasonal vaccines generally." However, Emily Hilliard, HHS spokesperson, denied this, calling such claims "speculative."
Robert F Kennedy Jr, HHS secretary, has a history of undermining vaccines, and other officials like Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary appear to believe seasonal vaccines have been over-recommended, Faust said. He concluded: "I think they want to destroy the infrastructure and undermine the science that has led to the recommendations they don't like."
