If you wanted to get a COVID vaccine during pregnancy, to protect yourself and your future baby from the virus, that may soon be difficult to impossible. According to a short video posted on X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is also a noted anti-vaccine activist, said that the COVID-19 vaccine “has been removed” from the list of vaccines recommended in pregnancy, as well as the list of vaccines recommended for healthy children. This announcement sidesteps the usual regulatory process, and it’s not clear exactly what will happen next—but here’s what we know. The announcement may not be entirely validRFK, Jr made the announcement in a video where he stood alongside the NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary. Notably, nobody from the CDC was present. The FDA approves vaccines, but it’s the CDC that is in charge of recommendations. (It is not clear who the CDC’s acting director actually is, or whether there is one.) Normally, the CDC has an advisory panel called ACIP (the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices) that reviews scientific evidence to make recommendations for vaccines. They’ll vote on whether a given vaccine should be recommended for everybody in a group of people. Their decisions are then passed to CDC leadership, who make the final call as to whether the vaccine gets officially recommended for that group. Vaccines are not usually added or removed to the recommended list by the CDC without consulting with ACIP, and they definitely aren’t usually added or removed by tweeting a video. Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine policy, posted on LinkedIn that the announcement may not be legally valid if it’s not immediately followed by supporting documentation. She says: “Under administrative law, to avoid being found arbitrary and capricious, an agency's decision has to meet certain criteria, including explaining the agency's fact finding, a connection between the facts and the decisions, etc. A one minute video on Twitter doesn't quite get you there.” So far, the CDC’s web page on vaccines recommended in pregnancy still says that “A pregnant woman should get vaccinated against whooping cough, flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).” The adult and child vaccine schedules still include COVID vaccines.Strangely, this move on behalf of the CDC contradicts the one we reported about recently from the FDA. The FDA plans to require extra steps (possibly unethical and/or impractical ones) to approve new COVID vaccines for healthy children and adults. But these steps don’t apply to people who are at high risk for complications of COVID. The FDA’s policy announcement included a list of those high risk health conditions—which includes pregnancy.Why it matters which vaccines are “recommended”Recommending a vaccine doesn’t just mean expressing an opinion; the Affordable Care Act requires that vaccines recommended by ACIP must be covered by most private insurance and Medicaid expansion plans without any cost sharing. That means no deductible and no copay—so these vaccines must be free to you out of pocket if you fall into a group of people for whom they are recommended. The recommended vaccines include all the standard childhood vaccines, plus your seasonal flu shot, and other vaccines that are recommended for adults, for people who are pregnant, and so on. The full schedules are here. If you’ve gotten a COVID shot, a flu shot, a tetanus shot, a shingles shot—the shot’s inclusion on this list is why you were able to (probably) get it for free.So taking a vaccine off the recommended list means that it could be prohibitively expensive. GoodRX, which keeps tabs on pharmacy prices, reports that COVID shots may cost $200 or more out of pocket, plus any applicable administration fee that the provider might charge.Taking a vaccine off the recommended list may also mean it won’t be covered by the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to children who don’t have coverage for them through health insurance.Whether or not the vaccine actually gets taken off the list, the recent HHS announcement has another impact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that “Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit.” The ACOG statement also pointed out a few ways in which removing the vaccines from the recommended list is not “common sense and good science,” as the HHS announcement claimed. ACOG writes: “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families.”

More chaos CDC updates COVID vaccine recommendations, but not how RFK Jr. wanted Mixed messages only add to uncertainty about vaccine access for kids, pregnant individuals. Beth Mole – May 30, 2025 4:28 pm | 74 A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday updated its immunization schedules for children and adults to partially reflect the abrupt changes announced by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this week. In a 58-second video posted on social media on Tuesday, May 27, Kennedy said he was unilaterally revoking the CDC's recommendations that healthy children and pregnant people get COVID-19 vaccines. "I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule," Kennedy said in the video. The health agency's immunization schedules were not, in fact, updated at the time of the announcement, though. The Washington Post subsequently reported that the CDC was blindsided by the announcement. Five hours went by after the video was posted before CDC officials said they received a one-page "secretarial directive" about the changes, which was signed by Kennedy and puzzlingly dated May 19, according to the Post. Late Thursday, the CDC updated the immunization schedules. Contradicting what Kennedy said in the video, the CDC did not remove its recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. Instead, it added a stipulation that if a child's doctor agrees with the vaccination and parents "desire for their child to be vaccinated," healthy children can get vaccinated. In practice, it is unclear how this change will affect access to the vaccines. Health insurers are required to cover vaccines on the CDC schedules. But, it's yet to be seen if children will only be able to get vaccinated at their doctor's office (rather than a pharmacy or vaccine clinic) or if additional consent forms would be required, etc. Uncertainty about the changes and requirements alone may lead to fewer children getting vaccinated. In the adult immunization schedule, when viewed "by medical condition or other indication" (table 2), the COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for pregnancy is now shaded gray, meaning "no guidance/not applicable." Hovering a cursor over the box brings up the recommendation to "Delay vaccination until after pregnancy if vaccine is indicated." Previously, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended during pregnancy. The change makes it less likely that health insurers will cover the cost of vaccination during pregnancy. The change is at odds with Trump's Food and Drug Administration, which just last week confirmed that pregnancy puts people at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and, therefore, vaccination is recommended. Medical experts have decried the loss of the recommendation, which is also at odds with clear data showing the risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy and the benefits of vaccination. The President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) put out a statement shortly after the Tuesday video, saying that the organization was "extremely disappointed" with Kennedy's announcement. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families," ACOG President Steven Fleischman said. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 74 Comments

There are some questionable sources underpinning Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s controversial “Make America Healthy Again” commission report. Signs point to AI tomfoolery, and the use of ChatGPT specifically, which calls into question the veracity of the White House report meant to address reasons for the decline in US life expectancy.An investigation by NOTUS found dozens of errors in the MAHA report, including broken links, wrong issue numbers, and missing or incorrect authors. Some studies were misstated to back up the report’s conclusions, or more damningly, didn’t exist at all. At least seven of the cited sources were entirely fictitious, according to NOTUS.Another investigation by The Washington Post found that at least 37 of the 522 citations appeared multiple times throughout the report. Notably, the URLs of several references included “oaicite,” a marker that OpenAI applies to responses provided by artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT, which strongly suggests its use to develop the reportGenerative AI tools have a tendency to spit out false or incorrect information, known as “hallucinations.” That would certainly explain the various errors throughout the report — chatbots have been found responsible for similar citation issues in legal filings submitted by AI experts and even the companies building the models. Nevertheless, RFK Jr has long advocated for the “AI Revolution,” and announced during a House Committee meeting in May that “we are already using these new technologies to manage health care data more efficiently and securely.”In a briefing on Thursday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to concerns about the accuracy of the citations while evading any mention of AI tools. Leavitt described the errors as “formatting issues” and defended the health report for being “backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government.” The Washington Post notes that the MAHA report file was updated on Thursday to remove some of the oaicite markers and replace some of the non-existent sources with alternative citations. In a statement given to the publication, Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said “minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”See More:

Let’s start with one unambiguous fact: More children are diagnosed with autism today than in the early 1990s. According to a sweeping 2000 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a range of 2–7 per 1,000, or roughly 0.5 percent of US children, were diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. That figure has risen to 1 in 35 kids, or roughly 3 percent.The apparent rapid increase caught the attention of people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who assumed that something had to be changing in the environment to drive it. In 2005, Kennedy, a lawyer and environmental activist at the time, authored an infamous essay in Rolling Stone that primarily placed the blame for the increased prevalence of autism on vaccines. (The article was retracted in 2011 as more studies debunked the vaccine-autism connection.) More recently, he has theorized that a mysterious toxin introduced in the late 1980s must be responsible. Now, as the nation’s top health official leading the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has declared autism an “epidemic.” And, in April, he launched a massive federal effort to find the culprit for the rise in autism rates, calling for researchers to examine a range of suspects: chemicals, molds, vaccines, and perhaps even ultrasounds given to pregnant mothers. “Genes don’t cause epidemics. You need an environmental toxin,” Kennedy said in April when announcing his department’s new autism research project. He argued that too much money had been put into genetic research — “a dead end,” in his words — and his project would be a correction to focus on environmental causes. “That’s where we’re going to find an answer.”But according to many autism scientists I spoke to for this story, Kennedy is looking in exactly the wrong place. Three takeaways from this storyExperts say the increase in US autism rates is mostly explained by the expanding definitions of the condition, as well as more awareness and more screening for it.Scientists have identified hundreds of genes that are associated with autism, building a convincing case that genetics are the most important driver of autism’s development — not, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has argued, a single environmental toxin.Researchers fear Kennedy’s fixation on outside toxins could distract from genetic research that has facilitated the development of exciting new therapies that could help those with profound autism.Autism is a complex disorder with a range of manifestations that has long defied simple explanations, and it’s unlikely that we will ever identify a single “cause” of autism.But scientists have learned a lot in the past 50 years, including identifying some of the most important risk factors. They are not, as Kennedy suggests, out in our environment. They are written into our genetics. What appeared to be a massive increase in autism was actually a byproduct of better screening and more awareness. “The way the HHS secretary has been walking about his plans, his goals, he starts out with this basic assumption that nothing worthwhile has been done,” Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University who has worked with and studied children with autism for years, said. “Genes play a significant role. We know now that autism runs in families… There is no single underlying factor. Looking for that holy grail is not the best approach.”Doctors who treat children with autism often talk about how they wish they could provide easy answers to the families. The answers being uncovered through genetics research may not be simple per se, but they are answers supported by science.Kennedy is muddying the story, pledging to find a silver-bullet answer where likely none exists. It’s a false promise — one that could cause more anxiety and confusion for the very families Kennedy says he wants to help. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services in mid-April to discuss this agency’s efforts to determine the cause of autism. Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe autism “epidemic” that wasn’tAutism was first described in 1911, and for many decades, researchers and clinicians confused the social challenges and language development difficulties common among those with the condition for a psychological issue. Some child therapists even blamed the condition on bad parenting. But in 1977, a study discovered that identical twins, who share all of their DNA, were much more likely to both be autistic than fraternal twins, who share no more DNA than ordinary siblings. It marked a major breakthrough in autism research, and pushed scientists to begin coalescing around a different theory: There was a biological factor.At the time, this was just a theory — scientists lacked the technology to prove those suspicions at the genetic level. And clinicians were also still trying to work out an even more fundamental question: What exactly was autism? For a long time, the criteria for diagnosing a person with autism was strictly based on speech development. But clinicians were increasingly observing children who could acquire basic language skills but still struggled with social communication — things like misunderstanding nonverbal cues or taking figurative language literally. Psychologists gradually broadened their definition of autism from a strict and narrow focus on language, culminating in a 2013 criteria that included a wide range of social and emotional symptoms with three subtypes — the autism spectrum disorder we’re familiar with today.Along the way, autism had evolved from a niche diagnosis for the severely impaired to something that encompassed far more children. It makes sense then, that as the broad criteria for autism expanded, more and more children would meet it, and autism rates would rise. That’s precisely what happened. And it means that the “epidemic” that Kennedy and other activists have been fixated on is mostly a diagnostic mirage. Historical autism data is spotty and subject to these same historical biases, but if you look at the prevalence of profound autism alone — those who need the highest levels of support — a clearer picture emerges. (There is an ongoing debate in the autism community about whether to use the terminology of “profound autism” or “high support needs” for those who have the most severe form of the condition.) In the ’80s and ’90s, low-support needs individuals would have been less likely to receive an autism diagnosis given the more restrictive criteria and less overall awareness of the disorder, meaning that people with severe autism likely represented most of the roughly 0.5 percent of children diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. (One large analysis from Atlanta examining data from 1996 found that 68 percent of kids ages 3 to 10 diagnosed with autism had an IQ below 70, the typical cutoff for intellectual disability.)By 2025, when about 3 percent of children are being diagnosed with autism, about one in four of those diagnosed are considered to have high-support needs autism, those with most severe manifestation of the condition. That would equal about 0.8 percent of all US children — which would be a fairly marginal increase from autism rates 30 years ago. Or look at it another way: In 2000, as many as 60 percent of the people being diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability, one of the best indicators of high-support needs autism. In 2022, that percentage was less than 40 percent.As a recently published CDC report on autism prevalence among young children concluded, the increase in autism rates can largely be accounted for by stronger surveillance and more awareness among providers and parents, rather than a novel toxin or some other external factor driving an increase in cases.Other known risk factors — like more people now having babies later in their life, given that parental age is linked to a higher likelihood of autism — are more likely to be a factor than anything Kennedy is pointing at, experts say. “It’s very clear it’s not going to be one environmental toxin,” said Alison Singer, founder of the Autism Science Foundation and parent of a child with profound autism. “If there were a smoking gun, I think they would have found it.”While Kennedy has fixated on vaccines and environmental influences, scientists have gained more precision in mapping human genetics and identifying the biological mechanisms that appear to be a primary cause of autism. And that not only helps us understand why autism develops, but potentially puts long-elusive therapies within reach. It began with an accident in the 1990s. Steven Scherer, now director of the Center for Applied Genomics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, began his career in the late 1980s trying to identify the gene that caused cystic fibrosis — in collaboration with Francis Collins, who went on to lead the Human Genome Project that successfully sequenced all of the DNA in the human genome in the early 2000s. Scherer and Collins’s teams focused on chromosome 7, identified as a likely target by the primitive genetic research available at the time, a coincidence that would reorient Scherer’s career just a few years later, putting him on the trail of autism’s genetic roots.After four years, the researchers concluded that one gene within chromosome 7 caused cystic fibrosis. Soon after Scherer helped crack the code on cystic fibrosis in the mid-1990s, two parents from California called him: He was the world’s leading expert on chromosome 7, and recent tests had revealed that their children with autism had a problem within that particular chromosome.That very same week, Scherer says, he read the findings of a study by a group at Oxford University, which had looked at the chromosomes of families with two or more kids with autism. They, too, had identified problems within chromosome 7.“So I said, ‘Okay, we’re going to work on autism,’” Scherer told me. He helped coordinate a global research project, uniting his Canadian lab with the Oxford team and groups in the US to run a database that became the Autism Genome Project, still the world’s largest repository of genetic information of people with autism.They had a starting point — one chromosome — but a given chromosome contains hundreds of genes. And humans have, of course, 45 other chromosomes, any of which conceivably might play a role. So over the years, they collected DNA samples from thousands upon thousands of people with autism, sequenced their genes, and then searched for patterns. If the same gene is mutated or missing across a high percentage of autistic people, it goes on the list as potentially associated with the condition. Scientists discovered that autism has not one genetic factor, but many — further evidence that this is a condition of complex origin, in which multiple variables likely play a role in its development, rather than one caused by a single genetic error like sickle-cell anemia.Here is one way to think about how far we have come: Joseph Buxbaum, the director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, entered autism genetics research 35 years ago. He recalls scientists being hopeful that they might identify a half dozen or so genes linked to autism.They have now found 500 genes — and Buxbaum told me he believed they might find a thousand before they are through. These genetic factors continue to prove their value in predicting the onset of autism: Scherer pointed to one recent study in which the researchers identified people who all shared a mutation in the SHANK3 gene, one of the first to be associated with autism, but who were otherwise unalike: They were not related and came from different demographic backgrounds. Nevertheless, they had all been diagnosed with autism.Researchers analyze the brain activity of a 14-year-old boy with autism as part of a University of California San Francisco study that involves intensive brain imaging of kids and their parents who have a rare chromosome disruption connected to autism. The study, the Simons Variation in Individuals Project, is a genetics-first approach to studying autism spectrum and related neurodevelopmental disorders. Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via The Associated PressPrecisely how much genetics contributes to the development of autism remains the subject of ongoing study. By analyzing millions of children with autism and their parents for patterns in diagnoses, multiple studies have attributed about 80 percent of a person’s risk of developing autism to their inherited genetic factors. But of course 80 percent is not 100 percent. We don’t yet have the full picture of how or why autism develops. Among identical twins, for example, studies have found that in most cases, if one twin has high-support needs autism, the other does as well, affirming the genetic effect. But there are consistently a small minority of cases — 5 and 10 percent of twin pairs, Scherer told me — in which one twin has relatively low-support needs while the one requires a a high degree of support for their autism.Kennedy is not wholly incorrect to look at environmental factors — researchers theorize that autism may be the result of a complex interaction between a person’s genetics and something they experience in utero. Scientists in autism research are exploring the possible influence when, for example, a person’s mother develops maternal diabetes, high blood sugar that persists throughout pregnancy. And yet even if these other factors do play some role, the researchers I spoke to agree that genetics is, based on what we know now, far and away the most important driver.“We need to figure out how other types of genetics and also environmental factors affect autism’s development,” Scherer said. “There could be environmental changes…involved in some people, but it’s going to be based on their genetics and the pathways that lead them to be susceptible.”While the precise contours of Health Department’s new autism research project is still taking shape, Kennedy has that researchers at the National Institutes of Health will collect data from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and somehow use that information to identify possible environmental exposures that lead to autism. He initially pledged results by September, a timeline that, as outside experts pointed out, may be too fast to allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of the research literature. Kennedy has since backed off on that deadline, promising some initial findings in the fall but with more to come next year.RFK Jr.’s autism commission research risks the accessibility of groundbreaking autism treatmentsIf Kennedy were serious about moving autism science forward, he would be talking more about genetics, not dismissing them. That’s because genetics is where all of the exciting drug development is currently happening.A biotech firm called Jaguar Gene Therapy has received FDA approval to conduct the first clinical trial of a gene therapy for autism, focused on SHANK3. The treatment, developed in part by one of Buxbaum’s colleagues, is a one-time injection that would replace a mutated or missing SHANK3 gene with a functional one. The hope is that the therapy would improve speech and other symptoms among people with high-needs autism who have also been diagnosed with a rare chromosomal deletion disorder called Phelan-McDermid syndrome; many people with this condition also have Autism spectrum disorder.The trial will begin this year with a few infant patients, 2 years old and younger, who have been diagnosed with autism. Jaguar eventually aims to test the therapy on adults over 18 with autism in the future. Patients are supposed to start enrolling this year in the trial, which is focused on first establishing the treatment’s safety; if it proves safe, another round of trials would start to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness.“This is the stuff that three or four years ago sounded like science fiction,” Singer said. “The conversation has really changed from Is this possible? to What are the best methods to do it? And that’s based on genetics.”Researchers at Mount Sinai have also experimented with delivering lithium to patients and seeing if it improves their SHANK3 function. Other gene therapies targeting other genes are in earlier stages of development. Some investigators are experimenting with CRISPR technology, the revolutionary new platform for gene editing, to target the problematic genes that correspond to the onset of autism.But these scientists fear that their work could be slowed by Kennedy’s insistence on hunting for environmental toxins, if federal dollars are instead shifted into his new project. They are already trying to subsist amid deep budget cuts across the many funding streams that support the institutions where they work. “Now we have this massive disruption where instead of doing really key experiments, people are worrying about paying their bills and laying off their staff and things,” Scherer said. “It’s horrible.” For the families of people with high-needs autism, Kennedy’s crusade has stirred conflicting emotions. Alison Singer, the leader of the Autism Science Foundation, is also the parent of a child with profound autism. When I spoke with her, I was struck by the bind that Kennedy’s rhetoric has put people like her and her family in. Singer told me profound autism has not received enough federal support in the past, as more emphasis was placed on individuals who have low support needs included in the expanding definitions of the disorder, and so she appreciates Kennedy giving voice to those families. She believes that he is sincerely empathetic toward their predicament and their feeling that the mainstream discussion about autism has for too long ignored their experiences in favor of patients with lower support needs. But she worries that his obsession with environmental factors will stymie the research that could yield breakthroughs for people like her child.“He feels for those families and genuinely wants to help them,” Singer said. “The problem is he is a data denier. You can’t be so entrenched in your beliefs that you can’t see the data right in front of you. That’s not science.”See More:

Home You Can Now Make AI Videos with Audio Thanks to Veo3: A New Era of Scams Await News You Can Now Make AI Videos with Audio Thanks to Veo3: A New Era of Scams Await 6 min read Published: May 27, 2025 Key Takeaways With Google’s Veo3, you can now render AI videos, audio, and background sounds. This would also make it easy for scammers to design deepfake scams to defraud innocent citizens. Users need to exercise self-vigilance to protect themselves. Developers’ responsibilities and government regulations will also play a key part. Google recently launched Veo3, an AI tool that lets you create videos with audio, including background tracks and various sound effects. Until recently, you could either use voice cloning apps to build AI voices or video rendering apps to generate AI videos. However, thanks to Veo3, folks can now create entire videos with audio. While this is an exciting development, we can’t help but think how easy it would be for scammers and swindlers to use Veo3’s videos to scam people. A video posted by a user on Threads shows a TV anchor breaking the news that ‘Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has died after drinking an entire litre of vodka on a dare by RFK.’ At first glance, the video is extremely convincing, and chances are that quite a few people might have believed it. After all, the quality is that of a professional news studio with a background of the Pentagon. Another user named Ari Kuschnir posted a 1-minute 16-second video on Reddit showing various characters in different settings talking to each other in various accents. The facial expressions are very close to those of a real human. A user commented, ‘Wow. The things that are coming. Gonna be wild!’ The ‘wild’ part is that the gap between reality and AI-generated content is closing daily. And remember, this is only the first version of this brand-new technology – things will only get worse (worse) from here. New AI Age for Scammers With the development of generative AI, we have already seen countless examples of people losing millions to such scams.  For example, in January 2024, an employee of a Hong Kong firm sent $25M to fraudsters who convinced the employee that she was talking to the CFO of the firm on a video call. Deloitte’s Center for Financial Services has predicted that generative AI could lead to a loss of $40B in the US alone by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 32%. Until now, scammers also had to take the effort of generating audio and video separately and syncing them to compile a ‘believable’ video. However, advanced AI tools like Veo3 make it easier for bad actors to catch innocent people off guard. In what is called the internet’s biggest scam so far, an 82-year-old retiree, Steve Beauchamp, lost $690,000 after he invested his retirement savings in an investment scheme. The AI-generated video showed Elon Musk talking about this investment and how everyone looking to make money should invest in the scheme. In January 2024, sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift were spread on social media, drawing a lot of legislative attention to the matter. Now, imagine what these scammers can do with Veo3-like technology. Making deepfake porn would become easier and faster, leading to a lot of extortion cases. It’s worth noting, though, that we’re not saying that Veo3 specifically will be used for such criminal activities because they have several safeguards in place. However, now that Veo3 has shown the path, other similar products might be developed for malicious use cases. How to Protect Yourself Protection against AI-generated content is a multifaceted approach involving three key pillars: self-vigilance, developers’ responsibilities, and government regulations. Self Vigilance Well, it’s not entirely impossible to figure out which video is made via AI and which is genuine. Sure, AI has grown leaps and bounds in the last two years, and we have something as advanced as Veo3. However, there are still a few telltale signs of an AI-generated video.  The biggest giveaway is the lip sync. If you see a video of someone speaking, pay close attention to their lips. The audio in most cases will be out of sync by a few milliseconds. The voice, in most cases, will also sound robotic or flat. The tone and pitch might be inconsistent without any natural breathing sounds. We also recommend that you only trust official sources of information and not any random video you find while scrolling Instagram, YouTube, or TikTok. For example, if you see Elon Musk promoting an investment scheme, look for the official page or website of that scheme and dig deeper to find out who the actual promoters are.  You will not find anything reliable or trustworthy in the process. This exercise takes only a couple of minutes but can end up saving thousands of dollars. Developer’s Responsibilities AI developers are also responsible for ensuring their products cannot be misused for scams, extortion, and misinformation. For example, Veo3 blocks prompts that violate responsible AI guidelines, such as those involving politicians or violent acts.  Google has also developed its SynthID watermarking system, which watermarks content generated using Google’s AI tools. People can use the SynthID Detector to verify if a particular content was generated using AI. However, these safeguards are currently limited to Google’s products as of now. There’s a need for similar, if not better, prevention systems moving forward. Government Regulations Lastly, the government needs to play a crucial role in regulating the use of artificial intelligence. For example, the EU has already passed the AI Act, with enforcement beginning in 2025. Under this, companies must undergo stringent documentation, transparency, and oversight standards for all high-risk AI systems.  Even in the US, several laws are under proposal. For instance, the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act would require AI-generated content that shows any person to include a clear disclaimer stating that it is a deepfake. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in September 2023 and is currently under consideration.  Similarly, the REAL Political Advertisements Act would require political ads that contain AI content to include a similar disclaimer. That said, we are still only in the early stages of formulating legislation to regulate AI content. With time, as more sophisticated and advanced artificial intelligence tools develop, lawmakers must also be proactive in ensuring digital safety. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all News OpenAI Academy – A New Beginning in AI Learning Krishi Chowdhary 44 minutes ago View all

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. This giant microwave may change the future of war Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse.  And one of these is microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up. Read the full story. —Sam Dean This article is part of the Big Story series: MIT Technology Review’s most important, ambitious reporting that takes a deep look at the technologies that are coming next and what they will mean for us and the world we live in. Check out the rest of them here. What will power AI’s growth? Last week we published Power Hungry, a series that takes a hard look at the expected energy demands of AI. Last week in this newsletter, I broke down its centerpiece, an analysis I did with my colleague James O’Donnell.But this week, I want to talk about another story that I also wrote for that package, which focused on nuclear energy. As I discovered, building new nuclear plants isn’t so simple or so fast. And as my colleague David Rotman lays out in his story, the AI boom could wind up relying on another energy source: fossil fuels. So what’s going to power AI? Read the full story. —Casey Crownhart This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Elon Musk is leaving his role in the Trump administration To focus on rebuilding the damaged brand reputations of Tesla and SpaceX. (Axios)+ Musk has complained that DOGE has become a government scapegoat. (WP $)+ Tesla shareholders have asked its board to lay out a succession plan. (CNN)+ DOGE’s tech takeover threatens the safety and stability of our critical data. (MIT Technology Review) 2 The US will start revoking the visas of Chinese studentsIncluding those studying in what the US government deems “critical fields.” (Politico)+ It’s also ordered US chip software suppliers to stop selling to China. (FT $) 3 The US is storing the DNA of migrant childrenIt’s been uploaded into a criminal database to track them as they age. (Wired $)+ The US wants to use facial recognition to identify migrant children as they age. (MIT Technology Review) 4 RFK Jr is threatening to ban federal scientists from top journalsInstead, they may be forced to publish in state-run alternatives. (The Hill)+ He accused major medical journals of being funded by Big Pharma. (Stat) 5 India and Pakistan are locked in disinformation warfareFalse reports and doctored images are circulating online. (The Guardian)+ Fact checkers are working around the clock to debunk fake news. (Reuters) 6 How North Korea is infiltrating remote jobs in the USWith the help of regular Americans. (WSJ $) 7 This Discord community is creating its own hair-growth drugsMen are going to extreme lengths to reverse their hair loss. (404 Media) 8 Inside YouTube’s quest to dominate your living room It wants to move away from controversial clips and into prestige TV. (Bloomberg $) 9 Sergey Brin threatens AI models with physical violenceThe Google co-founder insists that it produces better results. (The Register) 10 It must be nice to be a moving day influencer They reap all of the benefits, with none of the stress. (NY Mag $) Quote of the day “I studied in the US because I loved what America is about: it’s open, inclusive and diverse. Now my students and I feel slapped in the face by Trump’s policy.” —Cathy Tu, a Chinese AI researcher, tells the Washington Post why many of her students are already applying to universities outside the US after the Trump administration announced a crackdown on visas for Chinese students. One more thing The second wave of AI coding is hereAsk people building generative AI what generative AI is good for right now—what they’re really fired up about—and many will tell you: coding.Everyone from established AI giants to buzzy startups is promising to take coding assistants to the next level. Instead of providing developers with a kind of supercharged autocomplete, this next generation can prototype, test, and debug code for you. The upshot is that developers could essentially turn into managers, who may spend more time reviewing and correcting code written by a model than writing it from scratch themselves.But there’s more. Many of the people building generative coding assistants think that they could be a fast track to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical superhuman technology that a number of top firms claim to have in their sights. Read the full story. —Will Douglas Heaven We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.) + If you’ve ever dreamed of owning a piece of cinematic history, more than 400 of David Lynch’s personal items are going up for auction.+ How accurate are those Hollywood films based on true stories? Let’s find out.+ Rest in peace Chicago Mike: the legendary hype man to Kool & the Gang.+ How to fully trust in one another.

French fries at Steak 'n' Shake in Greenwood, Indiana. RFK Jr touted French fries while dining at a ... More Steak 'n' Shake.Missvain, Wikimedia Commons RFK Jr is not just bringing back infectious diseases like measles. Our top health official is working hard to back diet-related diseases like obesity, diabetes, and heart attacks. During his first three months in office, RFK, Jr. has made three big pronouncements about what Americans should eat. The first is important but for the wrong reasons. The second builds on the fallacies of the first. And the third goes against 60 plus years of scientific evidence. 1. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are poisoning us Something is poisoning the American people. And we know that the primary culprit is our changing food supply to highly chemical and processed food. RFK Jr, at his Senate Finance Confirmation Hearings, January 29, 2025 French Fries, with 13 Ingredients, would be considered an ultra-processed food.Open Food Facts RFK is not wrong if he is referring to ultra-processed foods (or UPFs). A recent study found that those who ate more UPFs were more likely to show early symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and a review study linked UPFs to higher risk of dying from heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and mental health outcomes including anxiety and sleeping difficulties. UPFs are made from multiple ingredients including additives like colorants, flavor enhancers, and preservatives. They contain high amounts of sugars, salt, and fats, which makes them hyper-palatable, or simply tasty. And they are cheap, readily available (witness the local gas station convenience store), and handy to eat. Unfortunately for the consumer, a review of studies with a combined population of over 1 million, found that for each 10% increase in UPF consumption, your risk of mortality increases by 10%. Why are UPFs unhealthy? Many people eschew the long list of “chemicals” on the ingredient labels of everything from Wheaties to Fritos. One type of ingredient--food dyes--can have negative health effects and are associated with hyperactivity in children. In fact, MAHA hopes to ban food dyes in UPFs like soft drinks and Fruit Loops. Yet I haven’t heard MAHA alerting us to the high levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fat in UPFs… all things that have been shown over and over to contribute to chronic diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer.FI/FOOD Washington Post Studio DATE: 1/7/05 PHOTO: Julia Ewan/TWP Kellogg's Fruit Loops now have 1/3 ... More less sugar and 12 added vitamins and minerals. (Photo by Julia Ewan/The The Washington Post via Getty Images)The Washington Post via Getty Images Dr Kevin Hall, who worked as a nutrition researcher at NIH for 21 years, found that people on an ultra-processed diet consumed about 500 more calories per day, which could explain why UPFs are associated with type 2 diabetes and obesity. But what explains why UPF consumers gobble up more calories? Dr Hall thinks energy density might be the culprit. Simply put, a chocolate chip cookie packs a lot more calories into every bite than a banana. So eating that ultra processed chocolate chip cookie means eating more calories per bite compared to eating fruit and other less processed foods. Not to mention that the sugar, salt and fat taste good… making me want to eat 4 or 5 chocolate chip cookies instead of one banana. Cramer ton, North Carolina, Floyd & Blackie's bakery employee with tray of large M&M chocolate chip ... More cookies. (Photo by: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesUndated: A bunch of ripe yellow Bananas. (Photo by Richard Whiting /Getty Images)Getty Images The preliminary results of Dr Hall’s recent study, which he posted on X, show that the high energy density and the irresistible taste of salt, sugar, and fat explain why people on high UPF diets eat more calories. But don’t expect to see the final results of this important study published anytime soon. Turns out Dr Hall took early retirement at 54 yrs old from his research position at NIH. Why? Because the MAHA administration forced him to withdraw his name from a paper on UPFs that mentioned “health equity”--or the difficulties some groups have accessing healthy food. The administration also took away the money Dr Hall needed to continue his UPF research, censored his media access, and even incorrectly edited his response to a NY Times inquiry. Just as we were on the brink of understanding why UPFs are making us sick, one of the world’s leading UPF scientists is out. Hard to see how lack of scientific information is Making Americans Healthy Again. 2. Eat Beef Tallow instead of Seed OilsWASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 31: Beef tallow french fries photographed for Food in Washington, DC on March ... More 31, 2025. (Photo by Scott Suchman for The Washington Post via Getty Images; food styling by Lisa Cherkasky for The Washington Post via Getty Images)The Washington Post via Getty Images While dining on fries and a double cheeseburger at Steak N Shake with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Kennedy touted French fries cooked in beef tallow. Robert F. Kennedy Jr 10/21/24 @RobertKennedyJr Did you know that McDonald’s used to use beef tallow to make their fries from 1940 until phasing it out in favor of seed oils in 1990? This switch was made because saturated animal fats were thought to be unhealthy, but we have since discovered that seed oils are one of the driving causes of the obesity epidemic. …Americans should have every right to eat out at a restaurant without being unknowingly poisoned by heavily subsidized seed oils. It’s time to Make Frying Oil Tallow Again 🇺🇸🍔 Close-up of a large frozen ball of beef kidney fat during home rendering of beef tallow, Lafayette, ... More California, March 25, 2025. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)Gado via Getty Images To be sure, consuming a lot of seed oils raises health concerns, including that they contain few nutrients, are often highly processed, and some, like soybean oil, might contain unhealthy amounts of omega 6 acids. But, are seed oils worse than saturated animal fats? Seed oils, unlike animal fats, are mostly unsaturated. According to Dr. Christopher Gardner, director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center who has been studying the role of fat in our diet since 1995, "Every study for decades has shown that when you eat unsaturated fats instead of saturated fats, this lowers the level of LDL cholesterol [bad cholesterol] in your blood. There are actually few associations in nutrition that have this much evidence behind them…To think that seed oils are anywhere near the top of the list of major nutrition concerns in our country is just nuts." And in a 2025 study, participants with the highest intake of butter, which similar to beef tallow is largely saturated animal fat, had a 16% less likely to die. About ⅓ of the deaths were due to cancer, about a third to cardiovascular disease, and a third other causes. The authors conclude: “Substituting butter with plant-based oils may confer substantial benefits for preventing premature deaths. These results support current dietary recommendations to replace animal fats like butter with non hydrogenated vegetable oils that are high in unsaturated fats, especially olive, soy, and canola oil.” (Note that olive oil, while plant-based, is not a seed oil since most of the oil comes from the fleshy part of the olive.) Still life featuring a collection of olive oil bottles, 2011. (Photo by Tom Kelley/Getty Images)Getty Images In short, if you have to choose between seed oils and animal fat, you are probably better off with seed oils, or even better, extra virgin olive oil (EVOO). But, you should avoid consuming too much of any sort of oil or fat, which brings us to the third RFK Jr pronouncement.RFK Jr and West Virginia Governor Morissey. Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ... More Celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month In Los Angeles. Patrick Morrisey speaking at the 2017 CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland.Mario Tama, Getty Images; Gage Skidmore 3. Become a Carni-Bro At a public event to promote MAHA in West Virginia, RFK Jr body shamed Governor Patrick Morrisey for his weight. I’m going to put him on a really rigorous regime. We’re going to put him on a carnivore diet … Raise your hand if you want Governor Morrissey to do a public weigh-in once a month. And then when he’s lost 30 lbs I’m going to come back to this state and we’re going to do a celebration and a public weigh in with him. RFK, Jr. MAHA seems to be at the forefront of the next culture war: dump plant-based foods and become a “carni-bro.” Yet a comprehensive review of studies on foods and obesity concluded: High intakes of whole grains, legumes, nuts, and fruits are associated with a reduced risk of overweight and obesity, while red meat and sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with an increased risk of overweight and obesity. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JULY 04: Spectators pose for a photo ahead of the 2023 Nathan's Famous Fourth ... More of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest at Coney Island on July 04, 2023 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. The annual contest, which began in 1972, draws thousands of spectators to Nathan’s Famous located on Surf Avenue. (Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images)Getty Images How do UPFs compare to red meat? The only study I found comparing the two found people eating UPFs had an approximately 14% greater chance of dying whereas those who ate red meat had an approximately 8% chance of death over the same time period. (Those eating other types of meats like chicken and pork and fish did not have a greater chance of dying.) But this study was conducted with Seventh Day Adventists, whose meat consumption was way lower than the average American (while their UPF consumption was fairly typical of the US). People in West Virginia, whose governor is in fact rotund, are by far and away the biggest consumer of hotdogs in the US, at 481 hot dogs per person per year. In a recent UK study with a more typical population, every added 70 g of red meat and processed meat (like ham, hotdogs, bacon, and deli meats) per day was associated with a 15% higher risk of coronary heart disease and a 30% higher risk of diabetes. Because red and processed meat consumption is also associated with higher rates of cancer, the World Cancer Research Fund recommends limiting red meat to no more than three portions per week and avoiding processed meat altogether.TOPSHOT - An overweight woman walks at the 61st Montgomery County Agricultural Fair on August 19, ... More 2009 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. At USD 150 billion, the US medical system spends around twice as much treating preventable health conditions caused by obesity than it does on cancer, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. Two-thirds of US adults and one in five children are overweight or obese, putting them at greater risk of chronic illness like heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes, according to reports released recently at the "Weight of the Nation" conference. AFP PHOTO / Tim Sloan (Photo by Tim SLOAN / AFP) (Photo by TIM SLOAN/AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty Images Heart Disease: Still the leading killer According to the CDC, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, accounting for one in five deaths, or one death every 33 seconds. Heart disease cost the US about $252.2 billion from 2019 to 2020. And if you look at a map of where heart disease is more common, it looks uncannily like a map of MAHA supporters (including in West Virginia). .Heart Disease Death Rates, 2018–2020 for Adults, Ages 35+, by CountyCDC The first items in a list of CDC recommendations for preventing heart disease are all about food: Choose healthy meals and snacks high in fiber and limit saturated and trans fats, salt, and sugar. This sounds like a recipe for avoiding UPFs. But it could also be a recipe for substituting whole grains and fruit and vegetables for red and processed meats, which punch the double whammy of being meat and UPFs. Is RFK, Jr. Making America Healthy Again? Let’s celebrate Kennedy’s move away from UPFs, an important step toward improving Americans’ health. But why does our top health official publicly tout beef tallow, French fries, and double cheeseburgers, when we know that Americans’ consumption of saturated fat and meat lead to obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease? Or has he weighed in on ultra-processed meats, like Slim Jim’s, which with sales at $3 billion last year is America’s fastest growing snack?NEW ORLEANS - OCTOBER 01: Amanda Barrett (L), 18-years-old, watches her mother Eve Barrett peel a ... More mold-covered layer of paint off a wall as the family sees what is left of their home in the Lakeview District October 1, 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The people of New Orleans are still cleaning up over a month after Hurricane Katrina hit the area. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)Getty Images It’s hard to understand what is going on in RFK’s brain. He gloms on to a limited number of studies suggesting health risks of eating seed oils, while ignoring saturated fats and even encouraging Americans to eat fast foods. He wants to rout out corruption in the food and pharmaceutical industry, yet uses his position to sell Make America Tallow Again hats and T-shirts. He says he believes climate change poses an existential threat, yet on his second day in office eliminated funding for research on heat waves, indoor mold after flooding, and other NIH climate change and health programs. And in his big May report on children’s health, he ignores the largest causes of death for those under 19--gun violence and accidents. Raise your hand if you want Secretary Kennedy to conduct a public truth-telling once a month.

The U.S. government has not yet made its official recommendations for who should be able to get COVID booster shots this fall, but FDA officials published a policy position in the New England Journal of Medicine announcing that it intends to make some drastic policy changes. The changes could result in healthy people under age 65 losing access to COVID vaccines, according to vaccine experts who have spoken about the policies. Here’s what we know so far, and why the announced policy could be a problem. How COVID vaccines are currently approvedScientists have changed the formulation of COVID vaccines a few times over the years, because the COVID virus itself tends to mutate. Vaccines are updated to better match the strains that are circulating, and this has happened roughly once a year—similar to how flu shots are updated each year. Instead of designing new vaccine trials from scratch for each small change in the COVID vaccine, manufacturers conduct studies to show that the immunity people get from the new vaccine is equivalent to what people got from the old vaccine. After approval from the FDA, the CDC then issues a recommendation for who should get the vaccine. Currently, everyone aged 6 months and up is recommended to get a COVID vaccine. What might be changingThe new policy, according to the NEJM article, would be to accept those immunobridging studies only to approve vaccines for people aged 65 and up, and people above the age of 6 months who have one of the high-risk conditions on a list maintained by the CDC. For healthy people under 65, the FDA’s policy wouldn’t approve new COVID vaccines unless they were tested against a placebo. (The type of placebo is phrased vaguely: “The control group could receive a saline placebo,” the authors write.) The FDA doesn’t have the authority to change the recommendations on who should get vaccines that are already approved (that’s the CDC’s purview), but it is in charge of approving vaccines and can approve them only for specific populations. Why placebo-controlled trials are an absolutely wild idea for COVID vaccinesPublic health experts are, to put it mildly, not happy with this plan. That’s because we already have COVID vaccines that work. Doing a placebo-controlled trial would require withholding COVID vaccines from people in the control group; they would get saline instead of a functional vaccine. The normal way to do this type of trial (if you do one at all, rather than relying on immunobridging) is to compare the new vaccine or medication against one that is already considered effective. To use an extreme analogy, you wouldn’t test a new design of seatbelt by randomizing people to ride around without using any seatbelts at all. Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez told CNN that the FDA’s announced approach “essentially denies access to vaccines,” since such trials are not practical for companies to do. In a post on Bluesky, toxicologist Ryan Marino said that it amounts to “scientific misconduct.” Vaccine expert Paul Offit told NPR “I don't think it's ethical, given that we have a vaccine that works, given that we know that SARS-CoV2 [the COVID virus] continues to circulate and cause hospitalizations and death, and there's no group that has no risk.”More vaccine chaos may be comingThe new policy isn’t official yet, but it’s hard to imagine the FDA and CDC being allowed to approve and recommend vaccines the way it always has in the current political climate. Biologics director Vinay Prasad and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, whose names appear on the FDA’s policy statement, have a history of arguing against COVID vaccine access for children. And both agencies are under the umbrella of HHS, the department of Health and Human Services, which is headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr—the same person whose anti-vaccine organization financed the movie Plandemic. If you don’t recall the details of that movie circulating in the early pandemic days, it implied both that COVID wasn’t real and that it was a bioweapon created by the government; the logic didn’t hold together but ultimately the point was that we should be suspicious of vaccines. (I have more on Plandemic here.) RFK, Jr has said a lot of bananas stuff about vaccines. He has compared childhood vaccines to the holocaust, claimed that Bill Gates put microchips in vaccines, and loudly questioned whether vaccines cause autism. How this man got put in charge of a health agency, I will never understand. Recent and future vaccine approvals may be at risk in this environment. Moderna had planned to submit a combined flu/COVID vaccine for approval; it has since withdrawn its application. (It’s not clear whether recent FDA policy announcements are directly related.) Novavax’s recent vaccine was approved recently, but only after a delay and only for older adults and for people with high-risk health conditions. Kennedy released a report today that questions the childhood vaccine schedule and implies that vaccines are part of the “stark reality of American children's declining health.” 

America last RFK Jr. calls WHO “moribund” amid US withdrawal; China pledges to give $500M As the rest of the world signed a pandemic agreement, the US sent an abrasive video. Beth Mole – May 21, 2025 7:07 pm | 27 World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus speaks during the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, May 19, 2025. Credit: Getty | Xinhua News Agency World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus speaks during the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, May 19, 2025. Credit: Getty | Xinhua News Agency Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more China is poised to be the next big donor to the World Health Organization after Trump abruptly withdrew the US from the United Nations health agency on his first day in office, leaving a critical funding gap and leadership void. On Tuesday, Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong said that China would give an additional $500 million to WHO over the course of five years. Liu made the announcement at the World Health Assembly (WHA) being held in Geneva. The WHA is the decision-making body of WHO, comprised of delegations from member states, which meet annually to guide the agency's health agenda. “The world is now facing the impacts of unilateralism and power politics, bringing major challenges to global health security," Liu told the WHA, according to The Washington Post. "China strongly believes that only with solidarity and mutual assistance can we create a healthy world together." This year, China sent its largest-ever delegation—180—to the WHA, while the US was absent, according to Health Policy Watch. The increased involvement and large donation are seen as clear examples that China is working to take the place of the US. Although the US has cut all ties with the WHO—and reportedly still owes the agency $260 million in 2024–2025 dues—US health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made an unexpected appearance at the WHA via a six-minute video. Isolated In the abrasive, pre-recorded speech, Kennedy described the WHO as "moribund" and "mired in bureaucratic bloat [and] entrenched paradigms." "WHO's priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine," Kennedy said, alluding to his anti-vaccine and germ-theory denialist views. He chastised the health organization for allegedly capitulating to China and working with the country to "promote the fiction that COVID originated in bats." Kennedy ended the short speech by touting his Make America Healthy Again agenda. He also urged the WHO to undergo a radical overhaul similar to what the Trump administration is currently doing to the US government—presumably including dismantling and withholding funding from critical health agencies and programs. Last, he pitched other countries to join the US in abandoning the WHO. "I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation.... we're ready to work with you," Kennedy said. Meanwhile, the WHA embraced collaboration. During the assembly this week, WHO overwhelmingly voted to adopt the world's first pandemic treaty, aimed at collectively preventing, preparing for, and responding to any future pandemics. The treaty took over three years to negotiate, but in the end, no country voted against it—124 votes in favor, 11 abstentions, and no objections. (The US, no longer being a member of WHO, did not have a vote.) "The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.” Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 27 Comments