|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By: Marina Zhang
Trust in the public health agencies has decreased since the pandemic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has taken the lowest dip. According to polls conducted by researchers at Harvard, in 2021, more than half of the American population trusted the CDC a great deal. However, subsequent polls funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CDC showed that trust dipped to less than 40 percent in 2022 and 2023. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the NIH were similarly affected, though to a lesser degree.
The newly nominated agency heads hold views that differ from those of the departing leaders, creating a potentially tense dynamic between the agencies and their new leadership.
What are the nominees’ stances on the key health issues, and how may their leadership shape the agency?
NIH Director: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
The National Institutes of Health is the largest funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the United States and worldwide.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and the new pick for the head of the NIH, would be making decisions on allocating potentially $50.1 billion of funds into research that would benefit American’s interest.
Katy Talento, former White House health advisor to the Trump administration, told The Epoch Times over email that she would expect Bhattacharya to reform the funding process to ensure that priorities for research grant approvals are driven by uncovering the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic in the United States rather than symptom mitigation medications.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said in his campaign videos that he would direct the NIH to fund research that looks into the cause of America’s chronic health crisis, which may explore the safety of food additives and various chemicals in the environment. He is also calling for thorough randomized controlled research on the benefits and risks of vaccinations.
This would likely change the direction of the NIH’s research funding.
In the fiscal year of 2024, the NIH received more than $46 billion in funding. Ranked in consecutive order, most of the funding went to the National Cancer Institute, which researches cancer, and then to the institutes that research infectious disease, heart disease, neurology, and mental health.
“The NIH haven’t focused on any of the issues like obesity, they’ve done very little work on diabetes … smoking, these are major problems In the United States,” Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, told the Epoch Times in an interview.
Meissner, who knows Bhattacharya personally, said it is unlikely that Bhattacharya may be swayed by political motivations.
“He is genuinely concerned about what is in the best interest of the health of the people of this country. He doesn’t owe allegiance to any political party,” he said.
Bhattacharya, a well-known critic of COVID-19 public health responses, gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic for his criticism of lockdowns, emphasizing the long-term mental health and economic harms they could cause.
He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration with two other researchers. The Declaration advocated for focused protection, proposing that public health measures be primarily directed toward high-risk individuals while allowing young and healthy people to return to normal life.
Criticized for views contrary to those of the leading public health leaders at the time, his social media accounts were suppressed.
Nevertheless, Bhattacharya actively spoke out on social media and television and engaged in open debates with his critics.
Given Bhattacharya’s history of standing by his beliefs despite public criticism, Peter Pitts, former associate commissioner at the FDA, told The Epoch Times that he believed Bhattacharya would be an “agent for change.”
Meissner said that Bhattacharya will ensure scientific dialogue at the NIH without political bias. “He is the right person at the right time to manage the NIH.”
“Jay Bhattacharya welcomes a chance to hear opposing views … and even his critics would admit that he’s willing to engage in a discussion with anybody with divergent opinions as he did during the pandemic, and that’s what is needed to restore NIH to its former position of prominence,” Meissner told The Epoch Times.
Though Bhattacharya has been critical of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports, he is not opposed to COVID-19 vaccinations and has said that the vaccines have been successful in preventing and controlling the spread of COVID-19.
FDA Commissioner: Marty Makary
Dr. Marty Makary, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of several books, is seen as a person who values evidence more than consensus.
Makary has long criticized doctors’ reliance on consensus and groupthink over scientific scrutiny, a central theme in his upcoming book, “Blindspots.”
“Some medical practices are rooted in good data, while others become folklore,” Makary said in a previous interview with The Epoch Times.
He said that doctors are reluctant to adapt to new evidence, which can result in treatments that are ineffective or even harmful.
Makary has similarly criticized many COVID-19 public health strategies for the same reasons.
In his nomination statement, President-Elect Donald Trump said that he was confident that Makary will “restore FDA to the Gold Standard of Scientific Research, and cut the bureaucratic red tape.”
Makary has been said to be the “least surprising or controversial of all of Trump’s health picks so far,” according to Jerome Adams, former surgeon general for the previous Trump administration, in an interview with STAT. He is believed to be reasonable and can be persuaded with evidence according to select of biotech and pharmaceutical experts interviewed in the article.
Makary is currently on the executive board of a telehealth company called Sesame that prescribes patients medication and directly connects patients with doctors.
Makary’s op-eds throughout the pandemic showed an evolving view that adapted as more research emerged.
CDC Director:
Dr. Dave Weldon
Dr. Dave Weldon, the nominated CDC director, will focus on the CDC’s true purpose—the prevention of disease—and prioritize transparency, which the current CDC failed to do, Trump said in his nomination statement.
Weldon is well known for being a skeptic of vaccine safety and a critic of the CDC.
During his time in Congress, from 1996 to 2008, Weldon tried three times to introduce a bill that would ban mercury vaccines. The bill was blocked each time by the health subcommittees.
Weldon’s views align closely with Kennedy’s on examining vaccine safety and removing conflicts of interest in health agencies.
At the start of his testimony at a 2002 hearing discussing vaccines and autism, Weldon praised vaccination systems as significant breakthroughs. However, he criticized the lack of transparency from agencies like the CDC, which does not allow researchers to access the vaccine safety data, and suggested “to open it up and let objective scientists look at it.”
He added that unless there is an open dialogue on vaccine safety, he will “never be satisfied that there isn’t some data suggesting that some children may have serious side effects,” including potential side effects of autism.
With his new nomination, his past comments and skepticism of the required MMR vaccine are now drawing scrutiny. He also tried to introduce bills for vaccine injury compensation.
“I believe Weldon’s point is that whenever a vaccine is administered … the health care provider must consider whether the vaccine offers more protection than harm,” Meissner who is a staunch supporter of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine told The Epoch Times, adding that the benefits and risks to each vaccine for each individual may differ.
In 2006 and 2007, Weldon tried to introduce the Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act. The bill requires the HHS to conduct safety research, monitor licensed vaccines, and encourage vaccine adverse event reporting, and that it should be conducted without conflicts of interest.
