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 foodsare 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. 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, 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.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.Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesUndated: A bunch of ripe yellow Bananas.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.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.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 cholesterolin 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.”Still life featuring a collection of olive oil bottles, 2011.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. 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.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.But this study was conducted with Seventh Day Adventists, whose meat consumption was way lower than the average American. 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 meatper 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 SloanAFP 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 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. .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 billion last year is America’s fastest growing snack?NEW ORLEANS - OCTOBER 01: Amanda Barrett, 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.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. #seed #oils #upfs #carnibros #rfk

May 21, 202522 min readMildred Weeks Wells’s Work on Airborne Transmission Could Have Saved Many Lives—If the Scientific Establishment ListenedMildred Weeks Wells and her husband figured out that disease-causing pathogens can spread through the air like smoke Dutton; Lily WhearAir-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, by Carl Zimmer, charts the history of the field of aerobiology: the science of airborne microorganisms. In this episode, we discover the story of two lost pioneers of the 1930s: physician and self-taught epidemiologist Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, sanitary engineer William Firth Wells. Together, they proved that infectious pathogens could spread through the air over long distances. But the two had a reputation as outsiders, and they failed to convince the scientific establishment, who ignored their findings for decades. What the pair figured out could have saved many lives from tuberculosis, SARS, COVID and other airborne diseases. The contributions of Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband were all but erased from history—until now.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTCarl Zimmer: Mildred is hired in the late 1920s to put together everything that was known about polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads.At the time, the idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just an obsolete superstition. Public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, and this goes totally against the consensus at the time.Carol Sutton Lewis: Hello, I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. Welcome to the latest episode of Lost Women of Science Conversations, where we talk with authors and artists who've discovered and celebrated female scientists in books, poetry, film, and the visual arts.Today I'm joined by Carl Zimmer, an award-winning New York Times columnist and the author of 15 books about science. His latest book, Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, focuses on the last great biological frontier: the air. It presents the history of aerobiology, which is the science dealing with the occurrence, transportation, and effects of airborne microorganisms.The book chronicles the exploits of committed aerobiologists from the early pioneers through to the present day. Among these pioneers were Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, William Firth Wells.Airborne tells the story of how Mildred and William tried to sound the alarm about airborne infections, but for many reasons, their warnings went unheard.Welcome, Carl Zimmer. It's such a pleasure to have you with us to tell us all about this fascinating woman and her contributions to science.Can you please tell us about Mildred Weeks Wells—where and how she grew up and what led her to the field of aerobiology?Carl Zimmer: She was born in 1891, and she came from a very prominent Texas family—the Denton family. Her great-grandfather is actually whom the city of Denton, Texas is named after. Her grandfather was a surgeon for the Confederate Army in the Civil War, and he becomes the director of what was called then the State Lunatic Asylum.And he and the bookkeeper there, William Weeks, are both charged with embezzlement. It's a big scandal. The bookkeeper then marries Mildred's mother. Then, shortly after Mildred's born, her father disappears. Her mother basically abandons her with her grandmother. And she grows up with her sister and grandmother in Austin, Texas. A comfortable life, but obviously there's a lot of scandal hanging over them.She is clearly incredibly strong-willed. She goes to medical school at the University of Texas and graduates in 1915, one of three women in a class of 34. That is really something for a woman at that point—there were hardly any women with medical degrees in the United States, let alone someone in Texas.But she books out of there. She does not stick around. She heads in 1915 to Washington, D.C., and works at the Public Health Service in a lab called the Hygienic Laboratory. Basically, what they're doing is studying bacteria. You have to remember, this is the golden age of the germ theory of disease. People have been figuring out that particular bacteria or viruses cause particular diseases, and that knowledge is helping them fight those diseases.It's there in Washington at this time that she meets a man who will become her husband, William Firth Wells.Carol Sutton Lewis: Just a quick aside—because we at Lost Women of Science are always interested in how you discover the material in addition to what you've discovered. How were you able to piece together her story? What sources were you able to find? It seems like there wasn't a lot of information available.Carl Zimmer: Yeah, it was a tough process. There is little information that's really easy to get your hands on. I mean, there is no biography of Mildred Wells or her husband, William Firth Wells.At the Rockefeller archives, they had maybe 30 document boxes full of stuff that was just miraculously conserved there. There are also letters that she wrote to people that have been saved in various collections.But especially with her early years, it's really tough. You know, in all my work trying to dig down for every single scrap of information I could find of her, I have only found one photograph of her—and it's the photograph in her yearbook. That’s it.Carol Sutton Lewis: You talked about that photograph in the book, and I was struck by your description of it. You say that she's smiling, but the longer you look at her smile, the sadder it becomes. What do you think at that young age was the source of the sadness?Carl Zimmer: I think that Mildred grew up with a lot of trauma. She was not the sort of person to keep long journals or write long letters about these sorts of things. But when you've come across those clues in these brief little newspaper accounts, you can kind of read between the lines.There are reports in newspapers saying that Mildred's mother had come to Austin to pay a visit to Mildred because she had scarlet fever when she was 10, and then she goes away again. And when I look at her face in her yearbook, it doesn't surprise me that there is this cast of melancholy to it because you just think about what she had gone through just as a kid.Carol Sutton Lewis: Oh. Absolutely. And fast forward, she meets William and they marry. They have a son, and they start collaborating. How did that begin?Carl Zimmer: The collaboration takes a while. So William Wells is also working at the Public Health Service at the time. He is a few years older than Mildred and he has been trained at MIT as what was called then a sanitarian. In other words, he was going to take the germ theory of disease and was going to save people's lives.He was very clever. He could invent tests that a sanitarian could use, dip a little tube into a river and see whether the water was safe or not, things like that. He was particularly focused on keeping water clean of bacteria that could cause diseases like typhoid or cholera and he also, gets assigned by the government to study oysters because oysters, they sit in this water and they're filtering all day long. And you know, if there's bacteria in there, they're going to filter it and trap it in their tissues. And oysters are incredibly popular in the early nineteen hundreds and a shocking number of people are keeling over dying of typhoid because they're eating them raw. So William is very busy, figuring out ways to save the oyster industry. How do we purify oysters and things like that? They meet, they get married in 1917.In 1918 they have a child, William Jr. nicknamed Bud. But William is not around for the birth, because he is drafted into the army, and he goes off to serve. in World War I.Carol Sutton Lewis: So Mildred is at home with Bud and William's off at the war. But ultimately, Mildred returns to science. A few years later, where she is hired as a polio detective. Can you tell me a little bit about what the state of polio knowledge was at the time and what precisely a polio detective did?Carl Zimmer: It doesn't seem like polio really was a thing in the United States until the late 1800s. And then suddenly there's this mysterious disease that can strike children with no warning. These kids can't. walk, or suddenly these kids are dying. Not only are the symptoms completely terrifying to parents, but how it spreads is a complete mystery. And so Mildred, seems to have been hired at some point in the late 1920s To basically put together everything that was known about polio to help doctors to deal with their patients and to, you know, encourage future science to try to figure out what is this disease.You know, Mildred wasn't trained in epidemiology. So it's kind of remarkable that she taught herself. And she would turn out to be a really great epidemiologist. But, in any case, She gets hired by the International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis, that was the name then for polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads. Case studies where, in a town, like this child got polio, then this child did, and did they have contact and what sort of contact, what season was it? What was the weather like? All these different factors.And one thing that's really important to bear in mind is that, at this time, the prevailing view was that diseases spread by water, by food, by sex, by close contact. Maybe like someone just coughs and sprays droplets on you, but otherwise it's these other routes.The idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just obsolete superstition. for thousands of years, people talked about miasmas, somehow the air mysteriously became corrupted and that made people sick with different diseases. That was all thrown out in the late 1800s, early 1900s when germ theory really takes hold. And so public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless.Carol Sutton Lewis: But Mildred doesn't agree, does she?Carl Zimmer: Well, Mildred Wells is looking at all of this, data and she is starting to get an idea that maybe these public health experts have been too quick to dismiss the air. So when people are talking about droplet infections in the 1920s, they're basically just talking about, big droplets that someone might just sneeze in your face. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, are spreading long distances through the air.So Mildred is starting to make a distinction in her mind about what she calls airborne and droplet infections. So, and this is really the time that the Wellses collectively are thinking about airborne infection and it's Mildred is doing it. And William actually gives her credit for this later on.Carol Sutton Lewis: Right. and her results are published in a book about polio written entirely by female authors, which is quite unusual for the time.Carl Zimmer: Mm hmm. Right. The book is published in 1932, and the reception just tells you so much about what it was like to be a woman in science. The New England Journal of Medicine reviews the book, which is great. But, here's a line that they give, they say, it is interesting to note that this book is entirely the product of women in medicine and is the first book.So far as a reviewer knows. by a number of authors, all of whom are of the female sex. So it's this: Oh, look at this oddity. And basically, the virtue of that is that women are really thorough, I, guess. so it's a very detailed book. And the reviewer writes, no one is better fitted than a woman to collect data such as this book contains. So there's no okay, this is very useful.Carol Sutton Lewis: PatronizeCarl Zimmer: Yeah. Thank you very much. Reviewers were just skating over the conclusions that they were drawing, I guess because they were women. Yeah, pretty incredible.Carol Sutton Lewis: So she is the first to submit scientific proof about this potential for airborne transmission. And that was pretty much dismissed. It wasn't even actively dismissed.It was just, nah, these women, nothing's coming outta that, except William did pay attention. I believe he too had been thinking about airborne transmission for some time and then started seriously looking at Mildred's conclusion when he started teaching at Harvard.Carl Zimmer: Yeah. So, William gets a job as a low level instructor at Harvard. He's getting paid very little. Mildred has no income. He's teaching about hygiene and sanitation, but apparently he's a terrible teacher. But he is a clever, brilliant engineer and scientist; he very quickly develops an idea that probably originated in the work that Mildred had been doing on polio. that maybe diseases actually can spread long distances through the air. So there are large droplets that we might sneeze out and cough out and, and they go a short distance before gravity pulls them down. But physics dictates that below a certain size, droplets can resist gravity.This is something that's going totally against what all the, the really prominent public health figures are saying. William Wells doesn't care. He goes ahead and he starts to, invent a way to sample air for germs. Basically it's a centrifuge. You plug it in, the fan spins, it sucks in air, the air comes up inside a glass cylinder and then as it's spinning, if there are any droplets of particles or anything floating in the air, they get flung out to the sideS.And so afterwards you just pull out the glass which is coated with, food for microbes to grow on and you put it in a nice warm place. And If there's anything in the air, you'll be able to grow a colony and see it.Carol Sutton Lewis: Amazing.Carl Zimmer: It is amazing. This, this was a crucial inventionCarol Sutton Lewis: So we have William, who is with Mildred's help moving more towards the possibility of airborne infection, understanding that this is very much not where science is at the moment, and he conducts a really interesting experiment in one of his classrooms to try to move the theory forward. We'll talk more about that experiment when we come back after the break.MidrollCarol Sutton Lewis: Welcome back to Lost Women of Science Conversations. We left off as the Wellses were about to conduct an experiment to test their theories about airborne infections. Carl, can you tell us about that experiment?Carl Zimmer: Okay. it's 1934, It's a cold day. Students come in for a lecture from this terrible teacher, William Wells. The windows are closed. The doors are closed. It's a poorly ventilated room. About 20 minutes before the end of the class, he takes this weird device that's next to him, he plugs it into the wall, and then he just goes back and keeps lecturing.It's not clear whether he even told them what he was doing. But, he then takes this little pinch of sneezing powder. out of a jar and holds it in the sort of outflow from the fan inside the air centrifuge. So all of a sudden, poof, the sneezing powder just goes off into the air. You know, there are probably about a couple dozen students scattered around this lecture hall and after a while they start to sneeze. And in fact, people All the way in theback are sneezing too.So now Wells turns off his machine, puts in a new cylinder, turns it on, keeps talking. The thing is that they are actually sneezing out droplets into the air.And some of those droplets contain harmless bacteria from their mouths. And he harvests them from the air. He actually collects them in his centrifuge. And after a few days, he's got colonies of these bacteria, but only after he had released the sneezing powder, the one before that didn't have any.So, you have this demonstration that William Wells could catch germs in the air that had been released from his students at quite a distance away, And other people can inhale them, and not even realize what's happening. In other words, germs were spreading like smoke. And so this becomes an explanation for what Mildred had been seeing in her epidemiology..Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. That was pretty revolutionary. But how was it received?Carl Zimmer: Well, you know, At first it was received, With great fanfare, and he starts publishing papers in nineteen thirty he and Mildred are coauthors on these. And, Mildred is actually appointed as a research associate at Harvard, in nineteen thirty it's a nice title, but she doesn't get paid anything. And then William makes another discovery, which is also very important.He's thinking okay, if these things are floating in the air, is there a way that I can disinfect the air? And he tries all sorts of things and he discovers ultraviolet light works really well. In fact, you can just put an ultraviolet light in a room and the droplets will circulate around and as they pass through the ultraviolet rays, it kills the bacteria or viruses inside of them. So in 1936, when he's publishing these results, there are so many headlines in newspapers and magazines and stuff about this discovery.There's one headline that says, scientists fight flu germs with violet ray. And, there are these predictions that, we are going to be safe from these terrible diseases. Like for example, influenza, which had just, devastated the world not long beforehand, because you're going to put ultraviolet lights in trains and schools and trolleys and movie theaters.Carol Sutton Lewis: Did Mildred get any public recognition for her contributions to all of this?Carl Zimmer: Well not surprisingly, William gets the lion's share of the attention. I mean, there's a passing reference to Mildred in one article. The Associated Press says chief among his aides, Wells said, was his wife, Dr. Mildred Wells. So, William was perfectly comfortable, acknowledging her, but the reporters. Didn't care,Carol Sutton Lewis: And there were no pictures of herCarl Zimmer: Right. Mildred wasn't the engineer in that couple, but she was doing all the research on epidemiology. And you can tell from comments that people made about, and Mildred Wells is that. William would be nowhere as a scientist without Mildred. She was the one who kept him from jumping ahead to wild conclusions from the data he had so far. So they were, they're very much a team. She was doing the writing and they were collaborating, they were arguing with each other all the time about it And she was a much better writer than he was., but that wasn't suitable for a picture, so she was invisible.Carol Sutton Lewis: In the book, you write a lot about their difficult personalities and how that impacted their reputations within the wider scientific community. Can you say more about that?Carl Zimmer: Right. They really had a reputation as being really hard to deal with. People would politely call them peculiar. And when they weren't being quite so polite, they would talk about all these arguments that they would get in, shouting matches and so on. They really felt that they had discovered something incredibly important, but they were outsiders, you know, they didn't have PhDs, they didn't have really much formal training. And here they were saying that, you know, the consensus about infectious disease is profoundly wrong.Now, ironically, what happened is that once William Wells showed that ultraviolet light could kill germs, his superior at Harvard abruptly took an intense interest in all of this and said, Okay, you're going to share a patent on this with me. My name's going to be on the patent and all the research from now on is going to happen in my lab. I'm going to have complete control over what happens next. And Mildred took the lead saying no way we want total autonomy, get out of our face. She was much more aggressive in university politics, and sort of protecting their turf. And unfortunately they didn't have many allies at Harvard and pretty soon they were out, they were fired. And William Wells and his boss, Gordon Fair, were both named on a patent that was filed for using ultraviolet lamps to disinfect the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: So what happened when they left Harvard?Carl Zimmer: Well, it's really interesting watching them scrambling to find work, because their reputation had preceded them. They were hoping they could go back to Washington DC to the public health service. But, the story about the Wells was that Mildred, was carrying out a lot of the research, and so they thought, we can't hire William if it's his wife, who's quietly doing a lot of the work, like they, for some reason they didn't think, oh, we could hire them both.Carol Sutton Lewis: Or just her.Carl Zimmer: None of that, they were like, do we hire William Wells? His wife apparently hauls a lot of the weight. So no, we won't hire them. It's literally like written down. It’s, I'm not making it up. And fortunately they had a few defenders, a few champions down in Philadelphia.There was a doctor in Philadelphia who was using ultraviolet light to protect children in hospitals. And he was, really, inspired by the Wellses and he knew they were trouble. He wrote yes, I get it. They're difficult, but let's try to get them here.And so they brought them down to Philadelphia and Mildred. And William, opened up the laboratories for airborne infection at the University of Pennsylvania. And now actually Mildred got paid, for the first time, for this work. So they're both getting paid, things are starting to look betterCarol Sutton Lewis: So they start to do amazing work at the University of Pennsylvania.Carl Zimmer: That's right. That's right. William, takes the next step in proving their theory. He figures out how to actually give animals diseases through the air. He builds a machine that gets to be known as the infection machine. a big bell jar, and you can put mice in there, or a rabbit in there, and there's a tube connected to it.And through that tube, William can create a very fine mist that might have influenza viruses in it, or the bacteria that cause tuberculosis. And the animals just sit there and breathe, and lo and behold, They get tuberculosis, they get influenza, they get all these diseases,Now, meanwhile, Mildred is actually spending a lot of her time at a school nearby the Germantown Friends School, where they have installed ultraviolet lamps in some of the classrooms. And they're convinced that they can protect kids from airborne diseases. The biggest demonstration of what these lamps can do comes in 1940, because there's a huge epidemic of measles. In 1940, there's, no vaccine for measles. Every kid basically gets it.And lo and behold, the kids in the classrooms with the ultraviolet lamps are 10 times less likely to get measles than the kids just down the hall in the regular classrooms. And so this is one of the best experiments ever done on the nature of airborne infection and how you can protect people by disinfecting the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: Were they then finally accepted into the scientific community?Carl Zimmer: I know you keep waiting for that, that victory lap, but no. It's just like time and again, that glory gets snatched away from them. Again, this was not anything that was done in secret. Newspapers around Philadelphia were. Celebrating this wow, look at this, look at how we can protect our children from disease. This is fantastic. But other experts, public health authorities just were not budging. they had all taken in this dogma that the air can't be dangerous.And so again and again, they were hitting a brick wall. This is right on the eve of World War II.And so all sorts of scientists in World War II are asking themselves, what can we do? Mildred and William put themselves forward and say we don't want soldiers to get sick with the flu the way they did in World War I. They're both haunted by this and they're thinking, so we could put our ultraviolet lamps in the barracks, we could protect them. Soldiers from the flu, if the flu is airborne, like we think, not only that, but this could help to really convince all those skepticsCarol Sutton Lewis: mm.Carl Zimmer: But they failed. The army put all their money into other experiments, they were blackballed, they were shut out, and again, I think it was just because they were continuing to be just incredibly difficult. Even patrons and their friends would just sigh to each other, like, Oh my God, I've just had to deal with these, with them arguing with us and yelling at us. And by the end of World War II, things are bad, they have some sort of split up, they never get divorced, but it's just too much. Mildred, like she is not only trying to do this pioneering work in these schools, trying to keep William's labs organized, there's the matter of their son. Now looking at some documents, I would hazard a guess that he had schizophrenia because he was examined by a doctor who came to that conclusion.And so, she's under incredible pressure and eventually she cracks and in 1944 she resigns from the lab. She stops working in the schools, she stops collaborating with her husband, but she keeps doing her own science. And that's really amazing to me. What kinds of things did she do after this breakup? What kind of work did she conduct? And how was that received?Mildred goes on on her own to carry out a gigantic experiment, in hindsight, a really visionary piece of work. It's based on her experience in Philadelphia. Because she could see that the ultraviolet lamps worked very well at protecting children during a really intense measles epidemic. And so she thought to herself, if you want to really make ultraviolet light, and the theory of airborne infection live up to its true potential to protect people. You need to protect the air in a lot more places.So she gets introduced to the health commissioner in Westchester County, this is a county just north of New York City. And she pitches him this idea. She says, I want to go into one of your towns and I want to put ultraviolet lights everywhere. And this guy, William Holla, he is a very bold, flamboyant guy. He's the right guy to ask. He's like, yeah, let's do this. And he leaves it up to her to design the experiment.And so this town Pleasantville in New York gets fitted out with ultraviolet lamps in the train station, in the fountain shops, in the movie theater, in churches, all over the place. And she publishes a paper with Holla in 1950 on the results.The results are mixed though. You look carefully at them, you can see that actually, yeah, the lamps worked in certain respects. So certain diseases, the rates were lower in certain places, but sadly, this incredibly ambitious study really didn't move the needle. And yeah, it was a big disappointment and that was the last science that Mildred did.Carol Sutton Lewis: Even when they were working together, Mildred and William never really succeeded in convincing the scientific community to take airborne infection seriously, although their work obviously did move the science forward. So what did sway scientific opinion and when?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, Mildred dies in 1957. William dies in 1963. After the Wellses are dead, their work is dismissed and they themselves are quite forgotten. It really isn't until the early 2000s that a few people rediscover them.The SARS epidemic kicks up in 2003, for example, and I talked to a scientist in Hong Kong named Yuguo Li, and he was trying to understand how was this new disease spreading around? He's looking around and he finds references to papers by William Wells and Mildred Wells. He has no idea who they are and he sees that William Wells had published a book in 1955 and he's like, well, okay, maybe I need to go read the book.Nobody has the book. And the only place that he could find it was in one university in the United States. They photocopied it and shipped it to him in Hong Kong and he finally starts reading it. And it's really hard to read because again William was a terrible writer, unlike Mildred. But after a while it clicks and he's like, oh. That's it. I got it. But again, all the guidelines for controlling pandemics and diseases do not really give much serious attention to airborne infection except for just a couple diseases. And it's not until the COVID pandemic that things finally change.Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. If we had listened to Mildred and William earlier, what might have been different?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, I do try to imagine a world in which Mildred and William had been taken seriously by more people. If airborne infection was just a seriously recognized thing at the start of the COVID pandemic, we would have been controlling the disease differently from the start. We wouldn't have been wiping down our shopping bags obsessively. People would have been encouraged to open the windows, people would have been encouraged to get air purifiers, ultraviolet lamps might have been installed in places with poor ventilation, masks might not have been so controversial.And instead these intellectual grandchildren of William and Mildred Wells had to reinvent the wheel. They had to do new studies to persuade people finally that a disease could be airborne. And it took a long time. It took months to finally move the needle.Carol Sutton Lewis: Carl, what do you hope people will take away from Mildred's story, which you have so wonderfully detailed in your book, rendering her no longer a lost woman of science? And what do you hope people will take away from the book more broadly?Carl Zimmer: I think sometimes that we imagine that science just marches on smoothly and effortlessly. But science is a human endeavor in all the good ways and in all the not-so-good ways. Science does have a fair amount of tragedy throughout it, as any human endeavor does. I'm sad about what happened to the Wells by the end of their lives, both of them. But in some ways, things are better now.When I'm writing about aerobiology in the early, mid, even late—except for Mildred, it's pretty much all men. But who were the people during the COVID pandemic who led the fight to get recognized as airborne? People like Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech, Kim Prather at University of California, San Diego, Lidia Morawska, an Australian researcher. Now, all women in science still have to contend with all sorts of sexism and sort of baked-in inequalities. But it is striking to me that when you get to the end of the book, the women show up.Carol Sutton Lewis: Well,Carl Zimmer: And they show up in force.Carol Sutton Lewis: And on that very positive note to end on, Carl, thank you so much, first and foremost, for writing this really fascinating book and within it, highlighting a now no longer lost woman of science, Mildred Weeks Wells. Your book is Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, and it's been a pleasure to speak with—Carl Zimmer: Thanks a lot. I really enjoyed talking about Mildred.Carol Sutton Lewis: This has been Lost Women of Science Conversations. Carl Zimmer's book Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe is out now. This episode was hosted by me, Carol Sutton Lewis. Our producer was Luca Evans, and Hansdale Hsu was our sound engineer. Special thanks to our senior managing producer, Deborah Unger, our program manager, Eowyn Burtner, and our co-executive producers, Katie Hafner and Amy Scharf.Thanks also to Jeff DelViscio and our publishing partner, Scientific American. The episode art was created by Lily Whear and Lizzie Younan composes our music. Lost Women of Science is funded in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Anne Wojcicki Foundation. We're distributed by PRX.If you've enjoyed this conversation, go to our website lostwomenofscience.org and subscribe so you'll never miss an episode—that's lostwomenofscience.org. And please share it and give us a rating wherever you listen to podcasts. Oh, and please don't forget to click on the donate button—that helps us bring you even more stories of important female scientists.I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. See you next time.HostCarol Sutton LewisProducerLuca EvansGuest Carl ZimmerCarl Zimmer writes the Origins column for the New York Times and has frequently contributed to The Atlantic, National Geographic, Time, and Scientific American. His journalism has earned numerous awards, including ones from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering. He is the author of fourteen books about science, including Life's Edge.Further Reading:Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. Carl Zimmer. Dutton, 2025Poliomyelitis. International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis. Williams & Wilkins Company, 1932 “Air-borne Infection,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 21; November 21, 1936“Air-borne Infection: Sanitary Control,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 22; November 28, 1936“Ventilation in the Spread of Chickenpox and Measles within School Rooms,” by Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 129, No. 3; September 15, 1945“The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill,” by Megan Molteni, in Wired. Published online May 13, 2021WATCH THIS NEXTScience journalist Carl Zimmer joins host Rachel Feltman to look back at the history of the field, from ancient Greek “miasmas” to Louis Pasteur’s unorthodox experiments to biological warfare. #public #health #researcher #her #engineer

The Food and Drug Administration plans major changes for how Covid vaccines are rolled out and who will be able to get the updated shots this fall. In a paper published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s new vaccine chief, wrote that any new Covid vaccine now must undergo placebo-controlled clinical trials — meaning some people would get the actual vaccine while others would get an inactive substance like a saline shot, to compare results. At a planned FDA vaccine panel meeting Thursday, agency advisers are expected to advise the vaccine makers about which strains to target for new shots. The new clinical trial requirement isn't expected to affect the fall rollout for older adults and other people at high risk for severe illness because drugmakers are exempt from additional testing for those groups. Makary and Prasad said in a question-and-answer session later Tuesday that annual shots for healthy children and adults would no longer be routinely approved. They also suggested that the vaccines may not be updated every year.“Instead of having a Covid strategy that’s year to year, why don’t we let the science tell us when we should change?” Prasad said. “The virus doesn’t have a calendar.”Previously, updated Covid vaccines had been cleared by the FDA similar to flu vaccines. The original Covid shots, from Pfizer and Moderna, approved in late 2020, went through placebo-controlled trials. Then, the drugmakers transitioned to smaller studies to test how well the updated shots triggered immune responses against the current variants circulating in the U.S.In the journal article, Makary and Prasad cast doubt on the flu vaccine model, noting that only a quarter of people in the U.S. get the updated shots each year, including less than a third of health care workers. In comparison, about 75% of health care workers get seasonal flu shots, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Covid shot policy, the officials wrote, “has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations.” “We reject this view,” they added. Dr. Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine and infectious disease at Georgetown University and a former chief scientist at the FDA, agreed that people can understand their own health risks but was skeptical of the agency’s new approach, saying it limits people’s “freedom to choose.”“What about people with elderly or high risk relatives/housemates?” he wrote in an email. “What about people who are not at increased risk of severe disease who want to reduce their risk of infection or time off from work?”During the webcast, Prasad claimed that “there is no high-quality evidence that you getting a booster to visit your grandma protects your grandma.”Who will be able to get the Covid shots?Under the FDA’s new guidance, the drugmakers will need to run new trials that track participants for at least six months. The main goal of the trials should be to show that the shots help prevent symptomatic Covid, the officials wrote, with data showing at least 30% effectiveness. People who’ve had Covid in the past should still be included in the trial to better reflect the general population, they said. Drugmakers can still use smaller studies, known as immunogenicity studies, to get approval for adults 65 and up, as well as children and adults with at least one medical condition that puts them at higher risk for Covid. The FDA said many people are considered at high risk, including pregnant women and those with obesity or who have mental health conditions such as depression. Other conditions linked to severe Covid illness include diabetes, heart disease and asthma. “Ultimately, these studies alone can provide reassurance that the American repeat-boosters-in-perpetuity strategy is evidence-based,” the officials wrote.Estimates, they said, suggest that 100 million to 200 million people in the U.S. will have access to the updated vaccines.The FDA’s mandate comes ahead of Thursday’s vaccine advisory committee meeting, where outside experts will discuss which strains should be included in the next round of Covid shots. In briefing documents published earlier Tuesday, FDA staff members wrote that updating the vaccines to more closely match currently circulating strains may “provide added benefit” in anticipation of an uptick in cases during the fall and winter.The change means it will be near impossible for Pfizer and Moderna to complete the new trials in time for the fall season. Aside from running the trials, the drugmakers will still need to design the trials and enroll participants, which can also take several weeks or months.A medical professional prepares a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine booster shot in Freeport, NY., on Nov. 30, 2021.Steve Pfost / Newsday via Getty Images fileThe data would then need to be analyzed and signed off on by the FDA. It’s also unclear what the change will mean for healthy children and adults who want to get the updated shots. Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, said people considered at “low risk” can still be harmed by the virus.“Low risk doesn’t mean no risk,” he said. “I mean, anybody can be hospitalized and killed by the virus.”Goodman questioned why the FDA was making the change instead of the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which typically makes recommendations on who should get the Covid shots. “It is not clear why there was a compelling reason for FDA to step in and preempt that usual and publicly transparent consultative process,” he said. Kennedy's influence on vaccine rulesA change to the way Covid vaccines are updated was expected. Earlier this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mandated that all new vaccines must undergo placebo-controlled clinical trials. Until Tuesday, it wasn’t clear whether HHS considered Pfizer’s and Moderna’s updated shots “new vaccines,” requiring new clinical trials.Former government health officials feared that the FDA, under Kennedy, was moving to slow-walk vaccine approvals.Over the weekend, the FDA approved Novovax’s vaccine after weeks of delay. In an unexpected turn, however, the agency limited the use of the shot to people 65 and up and teens and adults with at least one medical condition that puts them at risk of severe illness. Typically, it’s the CDC that makes recommendations about who should get the vaccines. Makary had warned about changes to the way vaccines are tested and approved, saying last week that the agency would soon “unleash a massive framework.” Kennedy has long opposed vaccines, including the Covid shot. In 2021, he submitted a citizens’ petition requesting that the FDA revoke the authorization of the Covid vaccines. The same year, he called the Covid shots “the deadliest vaccine ever made,” citing rare cases of myocarditis in young men. Studies find that the risk of myocarditis is higher — and typically more severe — in people with a Covid infection than after the vaccine. Last week, at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, Kennedy also falsely claimed that the only vaccines tested against a placebo were the Covid shots. The move prompted committee chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., to later pause the hearing to correct Kennedy.“For the record, that’s not true. Rotavirus, measles and HPV vaccines have been, and some vaccines are tested against previous versions. So just for the record, to set that straight,” said Cassidy, who is a physician.Kennedy isn’t the only health official who has been critical of the Covid vaccines. Makary; Prasad; Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, a special advisor to Makary; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the head of the National Institutes of Health, have, as well. #fda #says #covid #vaccines #likely

Limited access Under anti-vaccine advocate RFK Jr, FDA to limit access to COVID-19 shots FDA will require big, pricy trials for approvals for healthy kids and adults >65. Beth Mole – May 20, 2025 3:18 pm | 16 U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Capitol Hill on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty | Tasos Katopodis U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Capitol Hill on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty | Tasos Katopodis Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Under the control of anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Food and Drug Administration is unilaterally terminating universal access to seasonal COVID-19 vaccines; Instead, only people who are age 65 years and older and people with underlying conditions that put them at risk of severe COVID-19 will have access to seasonal boosters moving forward. The move was laid out in a commentary article published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Trump administration FDA Commissioner Martin Makary and the agency's new top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad. The article lays out a new framework for approving seasonal COVID-19 vaccines, as well as a rationale for the change—which was made without input from independent advisory committees for the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Normally, the FDA's VRBPACand the CDC's ACIPwould publicly review, evaluate, and discuss vaccine approvals and recommendations. Typically, the FDA's scope focuses on licensure decisions, made with strong influence from VRBPAC, while the CDC's ACIP is principally responsible for influencing the CDC's more nuanced recommendations on usage, such as for specific age or risk groups. These recommendations shape clinical practice and, importantly, health insurance coverage. Makary and Prasad appear to have foregone those norms, even though VRBPAC is set to meet this Thursday to discuss COVID-19 vaccines for the upcoming season. Restrictions In the commentary, Markary and Prasad puzzlingly argue that the previous universal access to COVID-19 vaccines was patronizing to Americans. They describe the country's approach to COVID boosters as a "one-size-fits-all" and write that "the US policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations. We reject this view." Previously, the seasonally updated vaccines were available to anyone age 6-months and up. Further, people age 65 and older and those at high risk were able to get two or more shots, based on their risk. So, while Makary and Prasad ostensibly reject the view of Americans as being too unsophisticated to understand risk-based usage, the pair are installing restrictions to force their own idea of risk-based usage. Even more puzzlingly, in an April meeting of ACIP, the expert advisors expressed clear support for shifting from universal recommendations for COVID-19 boosters to recommendations based on risk. Specifically, advisors were supportive of urging boosters for people age 65 and older and people who are at risk of severe COVID-19—the same restrictions that Makary and Prasad are forcing. The two regulators do not mention this in their NEJM commentary. ACIP would also likely recommend a primary series of seasonally matched COVID-19 vaccines for very young children who have not been previously exposed to the virus or vaccinated. ACIP will meet again in June, but without a permissive license from the FDA, ACIP's recommendations for risk-based usage of this season's COVID-19 shots are virtually irrelevant. And they cannot recommend usage in groups the FDA licensure does not cover. It's unclear if a primary series for young children will be available and, if so, how that will be handled moving forward. New vaccine framework Under Makary and Prasad's new framework, seasonally updated COVID-19 vaccines can continue to be approved annually using only immunology studies—but the approvals will only be for people age 65 and over and people who are at high risk. These immunology studies look at antibody responses to boosters, which offer a shorthand for efficacy in updated vaccines that have already been through rigorous safety and efficacy trials. This is how seasonal flu shots are approved each year and how COVID boosters have been approved for all people age 6 months and up—until now. Moving forward, if a vaccine maker wants to have their COVID-19 vaccine also approved for use in healthy children and healthy adults under age 65, they will have to conduct large, randomized placebo-controlled studies. These may need to include tens of thousands of participants, especially with high levels of immunity in the population now. These trials can easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and they can take many months to complete. The requirement for such trials will make it difficult if not impossible for drug makers to conduct them each year and within a timeframe that will allow for seasonal shots to complete the trial, get regulatory approval, and be produced at scale in time for the start of respiratory virus season. Makary and Prasad did not provide any data analysis or evidence-based reasoning for why additional trials would be needed to continue seasonal approvals. In fact, the commentary had a total of only eight references, including an opinion piece Makary published in Newsweek and a New York Times article. "We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," they argue in their commentary. Their new framework does not make any mention of what will happen if a more dangerous SARS-CoV-2 variant emerges. It also made no mention of vaccine usage in people who are in close contact with high-risk groups, such as ICU nurses or family members of immunocompromised people. Context Another lingering question from the framework is how easy it will be for people dubbed at high risk to get access to seasonal shots. Makary and Prasad lay out a long list of conditions that would put people at risk of severe COVID-19 and therefore make them eligible for a seasonal booster. The list includes: obesity; asthma, lung diseases; HIV; diabetes; pregnancy; gestational diabetes; heart conditions; use of corticosteroids; dementia; physical inactivity; mental health conditions, including depression; and smoking, current or former. The FDA leaders estimate that between 100 million and 200 million Americans will fit into the category of being at high risk. It's unclear what such a large group of Americans will need to do to establish eligibility every year. In all, the FDA's move to restrict and hinder access to seasonal COVID-19 vaccines is in line with Kennedy's influential anti-vaccine advocacy work. In 2021, prior to taking the role of the country's top health official, Kennedy and the anti-vaccine organization he founded, Children's Health Defense, petitioned the FDA to revoke authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines and refrain from issuing any approvals. Ironically, Makary and Prasad blame the country's COVID-19 policies for helping to erode Americans' trust in vaccines broadly. "There may even be a ripple effect: public trust in vaccination in general has declined, resulting in a reluctance to vaccinate that is affecting even vital immunization programs such as that for measles–mumps–rubellavaccination, which has been clearly established as safe and highly effective," the two write, including the most full-throated endorsement of the MMR vaccine the Trump administration has issued yet. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation about the vaccine, including the false and debunked idea that it causes autism. "Against this context, the Food and Drug Administration seeks to provide guidance and foster evidence generation," Makary and Prasad write. 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. 16 Comments #under #rfk #covid #shots #will

For many months now, the city of Milwaukee has been grappling with a lead poisoning crisis that has forced at least four schools to temporarily close and dozens more to undergo rigorous inspections.It began on January 13, when Milwaukee first notified parents at one grade three to five school that a child had tested positive for high levels of lead in their blood. Local health officials determined the lead exposure did not occur at the child’s home, which left their school as the obvious culprit. City investigators found chipped lead paint and lead-laden dust throughout the school building; press and government reports indicate that the school district has struggled to keep up with paint maintenance requests, due to a lack of funding and manpower. Local officials soon realized they had a big problem on their hands, as the vast majority of the city’s school buildingswere built before 1978, when lead paint was banned. Lead, a dangerous neurotoxin that can lead to development problems in children after prolonged exposure, has now been detected in at least nine public schools, and at least four students have tested positive for high lead levels in their blood. So far, no children have been hospitalized for acute lead poisoning, which can be life-threatening, but the affected kids continue to be monitored. Several buildings have been temporarily closed so workers can do a deep clean. Milwaukee has been inspecting all of its public schools for lead, with the goal of completing the review by September.Normally, cities navigating such a crisis could depend on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for federal support. When the lead poisoning was first detected in January, at the tail end of the Biden administration, city health officials were immediately in contact with the CDC environmental health team, which included several of the country’s top lead poisoning experts, Milwaukee health commissioner Mike Totoraitis told me. A group of federal experts were planning a trip to the city at the end of April.But not anymore. In early April, the Trump administration denied Milwaukee’s request for support because there was no longer anybody on the government’s payroll who could provide the lead poisoning expertise the city needs.On April 1, the lead exposure team within the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health was laid off as part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s massive restructuring of the federal health department. The planned trip was canceled, and no federal officials have stepped foot in Milwaukee since to aid in the response. “We were talking tomultiple times each week,” Totoraitis said, “before they were let go.”Milwaukee has pushed ahead with its own inspection and free blood testing clinics. The city reported on May 13 that it had replaced 10,000 lead water service lines, in an attempt to remove another possible source of exposure for local children. But they still have 55,000 more left to go, and local officials have said they would need state or federal funding to finish the job.Ordinarily, Totoraitis said, the CDC experts would serve as the city’s subject matter experts, guiding them through their epidemiological investigations. Federal officials are especially adept at the detective work that can determine whether a child was exposed at home or at the school. Milwaukee officials had recent experience with lead exposures in homes but not in schools; they were relying on federal expertise to interpret lead dust levels that were found during the school inspections. Without them, they’ve been left to navigate a novel and dangerous health threat on their own.“They were there for that sole purpose of having some of the best subject matter expertise on lead poisoning, and it’s gone now,” Totoraitis said. “Now we don’t have any experts at the CDC to reach out to.”In this uncertain new era for public health, Milwaukee’s experience may become all too common: a city left to fend for itself amid an emergency. What in the past might have been a national scandal could become all too routine.This is what happens when the federal government won’t respond to a health crisisWhen I spoke with Totoraitis, he was already contemplating the next public health problem he would have to deal with. “If we have a new emerging health issue, that I don’t have internal expertise on and neither does the state, we don’t have anyone to call now,” Totoraitis said. “That’s a scary endeavor.”He can’t be sure what kind of help he will be able to get from the federal government as the restructuring at the US Department of Health and Human Services continues. The department just rehired hundreds of health workers focused on workplace safety, but other teams, including the lead team, have not been brought back.The turmoil makes it harder for local officials to keep track of which federal experts are still on staff, where they are located, and who has actually been let go. But the message is clear: President Donald Trump and his senior deputies want state and local governments to take on more of these responsibilities — without a helping hand from the feds.The US public health system has been set up so that the state and local health departments are the front line, monitoring emerging problems and providing personnel in a crisis. The federal government supplies insights that state and local officials probably don’t have on their own. That is what Totoraitis was depending on; Milwaukee was inexperienced with lead exposures in large public buildings before this year’s emergency.Health crises happen all the time. Right now, there is a small tuberculosis outbreak in Kansas; a Florida town experienced the unexpected spread of hepatitis last December. A dozen people have been hospitalized in a listeria outbreak. And the US is currently facing its largest outbreak of measles in decades, with more than 1,000 people sickened. At one point, local officials said that the federal government had cut off funding for the outbreak response as part of a massive clawback of federal funds at the end of March, although the CDC has since sent additional workers to West Texas where the outbreak originated.There used to be little doubt the federal government would step up in these scenarios. But Totoraitis warns that Milwaukee’s experience of the past few months, left to fend for itself in an emergency, could soon be repeated elsewhere.“Let’s say next year this time, St. Louis is in a similar situation — they could call us, but we don’t have the bandwidth to consistently support them,” Totoraitis said. “This unfortunately is a great example of how quickly changes in the federal government can affect local government.”Kids are being poisoned by lead. Trump is letting it happen.Kennedy, Trump, and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency gleefully cut 10,000 jobs from US health agencies this spring. The cost of those losses will be felt every time a city is confronted with an unexpected health threat. Today, in Milwaukee, families are facing the fear and uncertainty of lead exposure — and they know federal help isn’t coming. As one Milwaukee mom told ABC News recently: “It really sends the message of, ‘You don’t matter.’”See More: #american #kids #are #being #poisoned

Air travel is remarkably, astonishingly safe. Every year, commercial US airlines take more than 800 million domestic passengers to their destinations, and in a typical year, zero of them are killed and very few are injured. It’s a track record made possible by a fairly intense commitment to safety. But increasingly over the last few years, we’ve been testing these limits.This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.Right now the example in the headlines is New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport, which had three air traffic controllers on duty when it was supposed to have 14 and which over the last couple of weeks suffered three “communications blackouts” where air traffic controllers couldn’t communicate with approaching planes.But it’s not just Newark. There has been an alarming rise in near-misses, communications blackouts, and other serious problems over the last few years at airports across the country, often a consequence of understaffing and high traffic. The midair collision near Reagan National Airport in Washington earlier this year that killed over 60 people was the deadliest air crash in the US since 2001.Even with the Washington disaster, very few of these incidents, thankfully, get anyone killed. That’s because the US achieves the astonishing safety of our air travel system with defense in depth, which means a bunch of different things have to go wrong for a crash to happen.Planes have on-board systems that should alert them if they’re too near another plane, even if air traffic control is sleeping on the job. There are backup emergency frequencies in case a communications blackout occurs. There are pre-published procedures for what to do in the event of a landing that looks unsafe, so if the pilots find themselves abruptly entirely out of contact with the ground, or coming in for a landing on a runway that they realize too late isn’t clear, they have been trained on precisely how to respond.Pushing our defenses against disaster to the limitsIn the risk analysis world, this is called the “Swiss cheese” model of how to prevent a disaster. Every layer of a system made up of humans — with all our flaws — is going to have some gaps. Air traffic controllers will have a bad day, or be tired, or let something slip their mind. Technological solutions will have limitations and edge cases. Pilots will make mistakes or have a medical emergency or get confused by unusual instructions. So each layer of the defenses against disaster has “holes” in it. But so long as the holes don’t all line up — so long as there isn’t a gap in every single layer at the same time — the defenses hold, and the planes land safely. All of this means that despite the absurd strain on air traffic controllers, flying out of Newark is still almost certainly going to go fine. But to achieve and maintain the exceptionally low accident levels that we’ve taken pride in over the last 20 years, “almost certainly” isn’t good enough. If you want not just 99.9 percent of planes but every single plane, every single year, to land safely, you can’t afford to let one of the layers of our defenses get more and more full of holes. A “near miss” where several layers of defenses fail should be taken incredibly seriously and prompt changes, even if one other layer sufficed to save us.Any event which would have been a mass casualty event if not for the good judgment and quick thinking of the pilots, or if not for good weather, or if not for an activation of the automatic TCAS collision avoidance system, needs to be treated as a major emergency. If we let near-misses become business as usual, then it’s inevitable that some percentage of them will convert into actual mass disasters — as happened in Washington this January, where a helicopter and plane collided in an airspace that was known to have risky amounts of helicopter traffic and a bunch of alarming near-misses.This is, of course, important in its own right, since every single commercial plane crash is a preventable tragedy. But it’s also, I sometimes fear, a symptom of a broader cultural malaise. Plane crashes used to be horrifyingly common. We made them rarer through a comprehensive, aggressive program to add layers of defense against human error, revising our procedures through tragedy after tragedy. And we succeeded.If you read the description of almost any plane crash that occurred in the 1970s, one thing stands out: It could not have happened today. Through mechanical improvements, procedural improvements, training improvements, and backup systems, we’ve built planes that are much, much harder to crash. But then, as frequent deadly plane crashes became a distant cultural memory, we immediately started testing how far we could underresource those systems. We ignored near-misses and staffing shortages; we failed to heed warnings that our systems are in trouble and our procedures need changes. Boeing pushed out a dangerous new plane, hoping that other layers of our collective defenses against crashes would suffice to keep them in the air; in the US, those other layers were sufficient, but in poorer countries, they were not. We’ve lost our fearThe parallels to other areas of modern life stand out. It used to be that half of children were dead before age 5; vaccination changed that, but in the world made safe by vaccination, parents grew skeptical of it. Now kids are dying of measles again. It’s been observed that “what if we hike tariffs?” is an idea that comes around once a century or so, and goes badly enough we’re warned off it for a while. We have to touch the hot stove ourselves to learn that it burns us, it seems: The cultural memory doesn’t last for all that long.This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, by itself. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where caution only ever ratchets up; safety is a trade-off, and it’s reasonable to relax precautions if we still get good results without those precautions. But in some cases — like understaffing air traffic control or not vaccinating against measles — the precaution in question passes any reasonable cost-benefit calculation. Our “lesson” is taught by the deaths of innocent people. And more terrifyingly, it’s not clear we’re even learning from our brush with reality. Were the deaths of children in Texas enough to turn around measles vaccination rates? Did the crash over the Potomac teach us to start paying more attention to near-misses? It’s too early to say, but it doesn’t look good so far — and that is what really scares me.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Future Perfect #how #stretched #our #aviation #system

May 16, 20254 min readSee the Dramatic Consequences of Vaccination Rates Teetering on a ‘Knife's Edge’As U.S. childhood vaccination rates sway on a “knife’s edge,” new 25-year projectionsBy Lauren J. Young edited by Dean VisserMeasles, rubella, polio and diphtheria—once ubiquitous, devastating and deeply feared—have been virtually eliminated from the U.S. for decades. Entire generations have barely encountered these diseases as high vaccination rates and intensive surveillance efforts have largely shielded the country from major outbreaks.But amid a major multistate measles outbreak that has grown to hundreds of cases, a recent study published in JAMA projects that even a slight dip in current U.S. childhood vaccination rates could reverse such historic gains, which could cause some of these maladies to come roaring back within 25 years—while just a slight increase in rates could effectively squelch of all four.“We were quite surprised that we’re right on that knife’s edge,” says the study’s lead author Mathew Kiang, an assistant professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University. “A little bit moreand things could be totally fine; a little less and things are going to be quite bad.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization formally declare a disease eliminated when there is zero continuous transmission in a specific region for 12 months or more. The U.S. achieved this milestone for measles, a viral illness that can lead to splotchy rashes, pneumonia, organ failure and other dangerous complications, in 2000. Poliovirus, which can cause lifelong paralysis and death, was effectively eliminated from North and South America by 1994. The U.S. rid itself of viral rubella, known for causing miscarriages and severe birth defects, in 2004. And diphtheria, a highly fatal bacterial disease, was virtually eliminated after a vaccine was introduced in the 1940s. These are “key infectious diseases that we’ve eliminated from the U.S. through widespread vaccination,” says study co-author Nathan Lo, a physician-scientist at Stanford University.Kiang, Lo and their colleagues ran multiple scenarios of childhood vaccination rates over 25 years to see if the four diseases would return to endemic levels. Measles—which is a very contagious disease and requires high population immunity to prevent spread—was the most susceptible to fluctuations in vaccination coverage. The models estimated that a 5 percent coverage decline would lead to an estimated 5.7 million measles cases over 25 years, while a 5 percent increase would result in only 5,800 cases.Polio and rubella would require sharper vaccination rate downturnsbefore reaching comparable risks of reemergence.While projected diphtheria cases were notably lower, Lo notes that the illness has a relatively high fatality rate and can cause rapid deterioration: “Patients with diphtheria get symptomatic and within a day or two can die.”Routine childhood immunization numbers have been slowly but steadily falling in recent years for several reasons, including missed appointments during the COVID pandemic and growing—often highly politicized—public resistance to vaccinations. “The idea of reestablishment of measles is not outrageous and certainly in the moment where we’re looking at erosion of trust through our federal authorities about vaccination,” says Matthew Ferrari, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study.Reduced U.S. vaccination rates can also cause “knock-on effects” that threaten disease eradication efforts around the world, Ferrari says. Additionally, recent funding cuts to international vaccine development programs such as USAID and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, will “likely lead to increases in measles, rubella, diphtheria and polio elsewhere in the world,” he says. Outbreaks of these diseases in the U.S. largely start when unvaccinated American travelers pick one up while visiting a place where it’s more common. “If you now add the consequences of defunding vaccination around the world, then that’s going to increase the likelihood of these cases coming to the United States,” Ferrari says, adding that the study authors may have made “conservative assumptions” about these international factors.But Ferrari says the study’s scenarios assumed immediate—and in some cases unrealistically high—vaccination rate drop-offs without accounting for other possible public health efforts to control disease. “Even if we anticipated an erosion of vaccination in the United States, it probably wouldn’t happen instantly,” Ferrari says. “Detection and reactive vaccination weren’t really discussed in the paper, nor was the population-level response—the behavior of parents and the medical establishment. That’s something we can’t possibly know.... From that perspective, I think the scenarios were enormously pessimistic.”Lo and Kiang argue that politically driven shifts in vaccine policy, such as reduced childhood vaccination requirements or a tougher authorization process for new vaccines, could make a 50 percent slump in vaccination rates less far-fetched. “I think that there was a lot of pushback from very smart people that 50 percent was way too pessimistic, and I think that—historically—they would have been right,” Kiang says. “I think in the current political climate and what we’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that that istrue.”Kiang and Lo say that while their study shows the dangers of vast vaccine declines, it also highlights how small improvements can make a massive difference.“There’s also a more empowering side, which is that the small fractions of population that push us one way can also push us the other way,” Lo says. “Someone might ask, ‘What is my role in this?’ But small percentages, we find, can really push us back into the safe territory where this alternate reality of measles reestablishing itself would not come to pass.” #how #measles #polio #other #eliminated

Image by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/FuturismDevelopmentsFresh off his family's dip in Washington, DC's sewage-contaminated Rock Creek, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is reminding us that he is no expert when it comes to healthcare — the thing he was nominated to run.When speaking to the House of Representatives — his first appearance before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January — the allegedly brainwormed Health and Human Services secretary said the quiet part out loud when attempting to weasel out of questions about vaccines."I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive," Kennedy told the House Appropriations Committee, "but I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me."That rejoinder came in response to questions from Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat, who asked if the political scion would, vaccinate his family, as he did in the past.Kennedy said that he would "probably" vaccinate them against measles — a face-saving response, perhaps, given that a massive and deadly measles outbreak has spread amongst unvaccinated populations during his three-and-a-half-month tenure.When asked the same question about whether he'd vaccinate his kids against polio and chickenpox, Kennedy refused to answer directly."What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant," the avowed anti-vaxxer contended. "I don’t want to give advice."That assertion raised the hackles of critics who contend not only that the HHS head is supposed to be the nation's guiding light in healthcare, but also that his vaccine opinions have shaped his tenure thus far."The problem is that is his job — the top line of his job description — is the nation's chief health strategist," decried Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a post-hearing call with reporters. "That is his job, is to give people the best advice that he can. I believe that he's giving up on, in my view, his chief responsibility."As Benjamin notes, Kennedy's stance on vaccines has indeed been behind the HHS secretary's decision to direct dosages of Vitamin A — rather than extra supplies of measles, mumps, and rubellavaccines — to be shipped to the West Texas region where the measles outbreak has led to the deaths of two children.During that same press call, public health practice professor Marissa Levine of the University of South Florida put Kennedy's vaccine obfuscation in even starker terms."I wonder what it would be like," she said, "if the transportation secretary refused to answer a question about whether he would fly."More on RFK Jr.: Government Launching Database of Everyday People With AutismShare This Article #trump039s #crackpot #secretary #health #admits

Monitoring wastewater for traces of infectious diseases is giving this human byproduct a powerful new role in public health. Once used decades ago to detect poliovirus, wastewater-based epidemiology reemerged during COVID-19 and is now proving useful again in tracking measles outbreaks before cases are officially reported.A recent study led by researchers from Baylor College of Medicine, UTHealth Houston, the Houston Health Department, and Rice University showed that measles virus was detected in Houston’s wastewater days before any clinical cases were confirmed. Published in the American Journal of Public Health, the findings come as measles cases rise in Texas and across the U.S.This early detection strategy may offer a new line of defense: spotting outbreaks before they spread.The Measles ComebackMeasles is a highly contagious respiratory virus spread via droplets from coughing or sneezing. Symptoms, such as fever, runny nose, and rash, can resemble other illnesses but can be deadly for young children and immunocompromised individuals.Before the vaccine’s rollout in 1968, the U.S. saw more than 300 cases per 100,000 people annually. By 2000–2009, that number fell below 0.05 per 100,000. But when vaccination rates dip below 95 percent, fresh outbreaks can return, with devastating effects.With lower vaccine uptake and an aging population, experts say stronger surveillance is needed to track this fast-spreading virus.Read More: Scientists Scour Sewage for Coronavirus CluesAnalyzing the WastewaterUsing a sequencing-based approachthe research team scanned wastewater samples for measles.“In 2023, we showed that systematically sequencing the genetic material in wastewater reveals dynamic changes in human viruses circulating in a community,” said study co-author and professor at Baylor Anthony Maresso in a news release. “Importantly, analyzing these viral changes in wastewater can improve our understanding of outbreaks and transmission and inform public health preparedness, just as one uses meteorological data to better understand and predict weather patterns to anticipate potentially dangerous conditions.”In the latest study, measles virus was found in samples from two Houston treatment facilities on January 7, ten days before two travelers in the same area tested positive.“In such cases our next step is always validating the signal with a second method,” said co-first author Sara Javornik Cregeen in the release. “tested for the virus presence in samples from the same date and collection site and confirmed the signal using another technique.”She added, “As a reference, the 821 Houston wastewater samples we sequenced from the same area were negative for measles virus in the previous 31 months.”Maresso noted in the press release, “Because no other cases have been reported and the detections occurred in the same area where the travelers resided, it is reasonable to assume that the measles signal detected in wastewater is from the two infected cases, which underscores the high sensitivity of the method.”Measles Vaccination Still the Best ProtectionThese results suggest measles may be shed at higher rates than previously thought, or that the team’s agnostic hybrid-capture sequencing method is especially sensitive. Likely, it’s both.The researchers are now monitoring measles activity in other Texas cities, especially in West Texas where new cases are emerging. Their results feed into a public-facing, first-of-its-kind health dashboard: tephi.texas.gov/early-detection.“This work underscores the ability of sophisticated wastewater analyses to serve as an early detection system benefiting public health,” said Eric Boerwinkle, dean of UTHealth Houston School of Public Health in the statement. However, he added, “The best protection from contracting the measles virus is the MMR vaccine, which has been shown to be safe and effective.”Beyond measles, this approach can track everything from seasonal viruses like flu and COVID-19 to emerging threats like avian H5N1 influenza. Wastewater, it turns out, may be one of our best tools for staying a step ahead of the next outbreak.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:American Journal of Public Health: Sequencing-Based Detection of Measles in Wastewater: Texas, January 2025Nature Communications: Wastewater sequencing reveals community and variant dynamics of the collective human viromeHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard. #measles #sewers #wastewater #surveillance #offers