Tag Archives: CDC

Reportedly, Mark Blaxill is a CDC “Senior Advisor”. Remember, this is not The Onion.

28 Sep

How does one recapture trust in the public health system? I can tell you one way to make it worse. Put Mark Baxill to work at the CDC. Mr. Blaxill is a long time anti-vaccine activist who has done a lot of harm promoting the “vaccines cause autism” lie. We on this blog have been countering Mr. Blaxill’s misinformation for about two decades now.

According to Alt CDC, Mr. Blaxill now is in the Office of the Director. Once again: this is not The Onion. This is not April Fool’s day. This is life under Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy. Meritocracy is not a thing anymore. Fealty to the “vaccines are bad” campaign is. I’m open to counter arguments by those who feel Mr. Blaxill earned a spot at CDC. Go ahead. Point to his books and his papers, his writing on the Age of Autism blog and convince me he has the chops and, mostly, the integrity to serve as a public health “consultant” in what was once the premier public health agency in the world. I’m listening.

I don’t see Mr. Blaxill when I do a search on the HHS employee directory. But I am told he is a “senior advisor/consultant” reporting to Matt Buzzeli. Mr. Buzzelli is a political appointee, apparently assigned to CDC after the recent purge of qualified public health officials at CDC. So we have Mark Blaxill who, ignoring his anti-vaccine activism, is a businessman, and an apparently failed politician (he created his own political party which appears to have gone nowhere, and had a failed bid for a congressional seat). And he works for an attorney who “worked with the Family Office of Norm Miller to support the development of Interstate Batteries’ emerging retail and commercial operation.”

We’ve replaced people who were nonpolitical experts in their fields with these gentlemen. Feeling more confident about the CDC? Neither am I.


By Matt Carey

For Robert Kennedy “Restoring Trust” is not a goal. It’s a weapon.

3 Sep

We pay for the CDC. It isn’t there to support Mr. Kennedy’s agenda. It’s there to generate good information that Mr. Kennedy can use or, sadly, not use. He can’t ask them to sign off on dangerous vaccine policy and then cry “restore trust” to excuse firing the trusted experts who are, in his own words, world-leading experts who drive the science that serves us all.

Robert Kennedy (aka RFK Jr.) is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services*. He came to this job after his failed run for the office of President, but if you follow his social media you know: he still sounds like someone campaigning.

He loves slogans. Of course he has his “MAHA” (Make America Healthy Again) which not only brands his movement, but allows him to flatter Mr. Trump at the same time. Two more slogans are very important to him and are what I will focus on today: “Restoring Public Trust” and “Gold-Standard Science”. On first glance, they sound like good aspirational goals. But “restoring” public trust is a slam, where Mr. Kennedy makes people accept his premise that people don’t trust the CDC. Likewise, “Gold-Standard” science is a way of saying that results produced before his tenure are low quality.

Allow me to discuss Mr. Kennedy’s failure this last week with the CDC to highlight his use of “Public Trust” as a weapon.

What failure am I thinking of? Losing much of CDC’s leadership through mismanagement. That failure. Last week, Mr. Kennedy tried to pressure the head of the CDC into rubber-stamping his agenda on vaccines. The CDC Director, Dr. Susan Monarez, not only refused to approve Mr. Kennedy’s anything-but-gold-standard vaccine policy, she also refused to recognize Mr. Kennedy’s authority to fire her (Kennedy Sought to Fire C.D.C. Director Over Vaccine Policy) Eventually she was fired by the President.

At least four other senior CDC officials resigned over Mr. Kennedy’s actions with Dr. Monarez (CDC director is out after less than a month; other agency leaders resign). The list includes Dr. Debra Houry, the agency’s deputy director; Dr. Daniel Jernigan, head of the agency’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, head of its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; and Dr. Jennifer Layden, director of the Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology.

Losing so much expertise in one week in a huge blow to America. We all rely upon the CDC. We rely on expertise, experience and a nonpolitical agency. Make no mistake, all this is a huge blow to Mr. Kennedy. He not only lost experienced leaders who could provide him with quality information (which, he appears to be too arrogant to ask for), but also the reputation of the CDC and these staff. Mr. Kennedy wouldn’t have wouldn’t have pressured Dr. Monarez to rubber-stamp his policy if he didn’t want the credibility of the CDC behind his action.

If this wasn’t bad enough for Mr Kennedy’s claim to be restoring trust, nine (nine!) former CDC directors wrote a scathing (to use the New York Post’s word) editorial spelling out how dangerous Mr. Kennedy’s actions are: We Ran the CDC: RFK Jr. Is Endangering Every American’s Health. If it had been one, or only democrats, perhaps Mr. Kennedy could shrug this off. But it was nine former heads of the CDC. People who know how CDC works and know how important it is.

Clearly it was time for damage control. Mr. Kennedy took to the Wall Street Journal to defend himself. Instead of acknowledging that he severely damaged trust in the CDC, he spun his actions as “restoring public trust” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: We’re Restoring Public Trust in the CDC). Of course, to “restore trust”. Mr. Kennedy states “First, the CDC must restore public trust—and that restoration has begun.” No, really, it hasn’t. When nine former CDC directors come out and not just disagree with you, but state that you are “endangering every American’s health”, you can’t claim to be restoring public trust.

Focus on how Mr. Kennedy uses “restoring trust”. “Restoring trust” isn’t a goal. It’s a weapon. Stand up for the health of Americans? You are out, because we need to “restore trust”. It’s an excuse. “Did I try to ram through a vaccine policy so dangerous that over a dozen leaders, past and present, of CDC protested? No! I was ‘restoring trust'”.

The final sentence of Mr. Kennedy’s opinion piece is a slam to the good people who stood up and resigned. Mr. Kennedy doesn’t have the guts to directly call them out, instead he simply states:

It won’t stop until America’s public-health institutions again serve the people with transparency, honesty and integrity.

Yep. Those good people were part of a system that doesn’t serve with “transparency, honesty and integrity”. As opposed to Mr. Kennedy, who fired most of the FOIA staff (so much for transparency) and, frankly has rarely shown integrity and honesty in the 20 years I’ve known of him.

Consider that just a few weeks ago, Mr. Kennedy responded to the shooting at the CDC campus by praising the very people he now accuses of lacking integrity and honesty and the “public’s trust”. How did he characterize the people who work at CDC then**?

Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are curable or preventable, chronic or acute, or from human activity or deliberate attack, CDC’s world-leading experts protect lives and livelihoods, national security and the U.S. economy by providing timely, commonsense information, and rapidly identifying and responding to diseases, including outbreaks and illnesses. CDC drives science, public health research, and data innovation in communities across the country by investing in local initiatives to protect everyone’s health.

Yes. In a couple of weeks, they went from “world-leading experts” who “drive science” to people who lack “transparency, honesty and integrity”.

Mr. Kennedy is a politician. He’s not a doctor or a health expert. As a researcher who has followed Mr. Kennedy for 20 years, I can say he is not in any way the expert on reading science that he claims to be. He’s a politician. One week it serves him to praise CDC and the people there. The next he needs to slam them to excuse his own inexcusable behavior.

We pay for the CDC. It isn’t there to support Mr. Kennedy’s agenda. It’s there to generate good information that Mr. Kennedy can use or, sadly, not use. He can’t ask them to sign off on dangerous vaccine policy and then cry “restore trust” to excuse firing the trusted experts who are, in his own words, world-leading experts who drive the science that serves us all.


By Matt Carey

*It’s been six months, but it is still mind boggling to read, much less type, that sentence. After 20 years of following Mr. Kennedy’s action, much of that chronicled on this blog, it would be hard to imagine someone worse for the job that Mr. Kennedy.

** One might argue that since Mr. Kennedy didn’t sign that statement, these aren’t his words. He’s the Secretary of HHS. The quote is from a “Statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services“. If one wants to argue whether these are his words or just words he approved of, go ahead with the semantics. The end result is the same.

In light of the CDC attack, RFK Jr. should apologize for his language against vaccine researchers.

21 Aug

I will state this straight out–I believe the anti vaccine movement has put good people at risk for decades with their rhetoric. And I also believe Mr. Kennedy has contributed a great deal to this climate of hate. How much or how directly he may have influenced the gunman who opened fire at the CDC recently, I cannot say. But I can say that I believe Mr. Kennedy, who has used terms like “corrupt”, “criminal” and “poison children” when discussing a CDC researcher, should apologize for his language. It isn’t a matter of whether the language directly contributed to the shooting. He never should have made many of the comments that were a mainstay of his speeches over the years.

Let’s consider one specific event. Ten years ago Robert Kennedy attended an anti vaccine event called the CDCTruth rally. The rally was held in Atlanta, Georgia, home of the CDC. Mr. Kennedy singled out a researcher at CDC, calling them them “corrupt”, a “criminal”, “guilty of research fraud”, who injured people and suggested they “poison[ed] children”. Read his statement for yourself:

I’m going to say one last thing to you.  [CDC-Researcher], who runs the division, the vaccine division, and who orchestrated this corruption; [they are] a criminal and he committed scientific research fraud and [they are] guilty of injuring all of these people.  Now I’m saying that and I’m using [their] name*; and what I’m saying, if it’s untrue is an act of slander, and I want [them] to sue me.  And if [they] didn’t do it, [they] ought to sue me.  [They] ought to file a suit this afternoon and enjoin me from ever saying that again.  If somebody said that about me, I would sue them immediately and I’m saying to you, [CDC-Researcher], if you didn’t poison the children, you need to sue me right now and shut me up because what I’m saying to you is damaging to your career.  So let’s see what [they do] on Monday.  Thank you all very much.” 

That was ten years ago, why bring this up now? Because, as I noted above, a gunman killed a police officer in what was an apparent attempt to commit mass murder at the CDC recently (1 week after deadly shooting at CDC, some employees feel Trump and RFK Jr. have moved on). The attack appears to have been a motivated by the CDC’s actions with vaccines (Shooter attacked CDC headquarters to protest COVID-19 vaccines, authorities say).

When Mr. Kennedy spoke, it wasn’t about the COVID-19 vaccines. The pandemic hadn’t occurred yet. It was about the MMR vaccine. But, I will argue, it contributed to the climate of hatred towards vaccine researchers that persists to this day among his supporters. While I can’t say Mr. Kennedy’s words directly influenced the murderer, he never should have said them. They were irresponsible then and they should be retracted now.

We should address a few points as long as this topic has come up. First, as Medpage Today reports:

“There is no evidence that vaccination causes depression and suicidality,” Roy Perlis, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told MedPage Today.

So, for those who have framed this as, “look at what vaccines did”: stop. You are setting the stage for the next attack.

Also, from the same article, “One study found that those with depression were more likely to endorse COVID vaccine falsehoods”.

Mr. Kennedy’s supporters can try to excuse his comments as, “reasonable people wouldn’t use words like these to justify violence.” Not everyone is reasonable. And you can’t just send out hateful words to reasonable people.


By Matt Carey

I suspect Mr. Kennedy will make moves that will dramatically reduce access to the MMR vaccine. Sooner rather than later. It will be a big mistake. That’s one of the big understatements ever made on this blog.

That said, here’s something to consider as an appendix to the article above. Mr. Kennedy made statements that, in his own words, are slander if not true. He was talking about the MMR vaccine which in his statements “poison[s] children”. Begs the question: why is it still approved? It is safe and effective and doesn’t cause autism. But why hasn’t Mr. Kennedy stopped its use?

Mr. Kennedy has been in charge of HHS–which ultimately has control over whether the MMR vaccine is approved for use–for six months. While he has done a lot to dismantle America’s vaccine program, and has moved very quickly, the MMR vaccine is still approved for use with American infants. Given Mr. Kennedy’s 2015 statements, one must ask why he didn’t immediately pull approval. Did Mr. Kennedy actually believe his rhetoric back in 2015 or was it indeed slander? Or, did he believe it then but doesn’t now? Is he moving slowly to keep his position of power? Wouldn’t that action, if the MMR vaccine were indeed poison (again, it is not), amount to sacrificing the kids getting the vaccine today for some “greater good”?

I have a hard time aligning Mr. Kennedy’s actions with his views.


* I redacted the researcher’s name and gender. Should be obvious that I think Mr. Kennedy put that researcher in danger and that I want don’t want to contribute to that effort.