Makary names Prasad as FDA’s chief medical and scientific officer

 In an email to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staff on Wednesday, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary announced that Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, will take on a new role as chief medical and scientific officer, in addition to leading the biologics center.

 
In his new capacity, Prasad will be tasked with advising senior agency officials and representing the agency’s thinking on medical and scientific matters to external stakeholders. Prior to joining the agency, Prasad was a hematologist/oncologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and was a frequent and vocal critic of FDA and certain COVID-19 public health mandates.
 
In addition to leading the agency’s biologics center, as the new chief medical and scientific officer, he will advise the commissioner and other senior officials on “cross-cutting and emerging medical and scientific issues” that affect the agency’s work.
 
Previously, the roles of chief medical officer and chief scientist have been separate positions; it is unclear whether the new position of chief medical and scientific officer will replace those roles. Steven Kozlowski is currently listed as the agency’s acting chief scientist, a position he’s held since October 2024, and the role of chief medical officer has gone unfilled since Hilary Marston was pushed out of the role in April 2024 amid mass layoffs across the agency. Kozlowski also serves as the director of the Office of Product Quality Assessment III within the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Focus has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services for clarification but has not received a response as of publication.
 
“[Prasad] will provide strategic input and leadership on trans-center working groups and initiatives, ensuring scientific consistency and integration across FDA centers, and build partnerships with academic, governmental, and industry stakeholders,” said Makary in an email reviewed by Focus.
 
“Dr. Prasad will also provide senior medical and scientific input to me on cross-center medical policy and regulatory decisions, and he will act as a senior medical and scientific representative at national, international, or advisory committee meetings, and forums related to public health, regulatory science, and innovation,” Makary wrote.
 
Since joining FDA, Prasad has served as a close advisor to Makary and has featured prominently in some of the agency’s major policy actions. Together, Makary and Prasad authored the agency’s revamped policy on COVID-19 vaccinations in the New England Journal of Medicine and laid out the agency’s new priorities in a JAMA Viewpoint article. (RELATED: FDA unveils new COVID-19 framework, restricting shots to elderly and high-risk people, Regulatory Focus 20 May 2025; Makary, Prasad lay out priorities for FDA: Reduced timelines, more AI, faster competition, Regulatory Focus 10 June 2025)

Prasad also led FDA’s recent roundtable meeting with cell and gene therapy (CGT) stakeholders. (RELATED: Stakeholders urge FDA to update CGT regulations to ease path to market for promising therapies, Regulatory Focus 9 June 2025)
 
“Dr. Prasad’s range of creative ideas and intellect are surpassed only by his energy,” said Makary. “I am delighted he has agreed to take on this dual role and am confident he will continue to provide extraordinary leadership and vision for the FDA."

 

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/6/makary-names-prasad-as-fda-s-chief-medical-officer

The Genocide Lie

 by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Fresh off having her Gaza-bound boat intercepted by Israeli forces, Greta Thunberg found her next stage. This past weekend in Stockholm, she joined demonstrators accusing Israel of committing genocide, a charge as inflammatory as it is ignorant. Genocide is not a catch-all insult. It has a specific legal meaning: requiring demonstrable intent to destroy an entire people because of who they are.

When activists misuse this term, they insult the memory of real victims of genocide, betraying the survivors of true systematic extermination.

But Thunberg’s performance was not an isolated incident. Similar protests erupted across Europe and the United States this past weekend — eerily synchronized, professionally staged, and too well-funded to be dismissed as organic. This isn’t conspiracy theorizing; it’s a recognition of strategy. Many of these events are connected to activist networks funded by wealthy donors, some with well-documented ties to regimes that are openly hostile to the West and its allies, including the Chinese Communist Party. These networks have increasingly provided cover for antisemitic rhetoric, allowing it to flourish under the pretense of political protest. What emerges is not a principled stand for justice, but a movement that selectively applies its outrage, often aligning with those who reject the very values it claims to defend. The campaign has reached such ludicrous heights that the European Parliament is now preparing to formally characterize Israel’s military response as genocidal.

Let us be clear about what genocide actually means. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, spent years documenting the horrors of Nazi extermination policies before coining the term in 1944. His work was a forensic attempt to define a new kind of evil, one that defied existing legal frameworks. Lemkin’s analysis laid the groundwork for the 1948 Genocide Convention, which codified the term under international law. Lemkin set a high bar, and for good reason. Genocide demands clear, demonstrable intent to destroy an entire group, based solely on their ethnic, religious, or national identity.

Lemkin’s analysis laid the groundwork for the 1948 Genocide Convention, which codified the term under international law. Lemkin set a high bar, and for good reason. Genocide demands clear, demonstrable intent to destroy an entire group, based solely on their ethnic, religious, or national identity.

Intent to destroy does not mean to defeat militarily, nor to reclaim territory, but to erase a people entirely. Measured against this standard, the charge against Israel falls apart. Gaza’s population has increased ninefold since 1948, and, across the region, Palestinian birth rates remain high. Media outlets continue to publish and broadcast. Palestinian political parties, including Arab representatives, serve in Israel’s parliament, and schools continue to operate. To call this genocide is a disturbing distortion that drains the term of its moral and legal gravity.

Meanwhile, Hamas explicitly advocates for the destruction of Jews worldwide. Its founding charter reads as a blueprint for ethnic elimination, and the events of October 7th were a demonstration of this pernicious principle: civilians targeted, families systematically executed, and elderly and infants slaughtered.

How did we arrive at a point where this reality is inverted?

First, ideological movements that prioritize narrative construction over empirical evidence have captured major institutions. Universities have abandoned their mission of teaching critical analysis in favor of delivering predetermined conclusions. Media organizations have replaced investigative journalism with political advocacy, and international bodies have substituted theatrical performance for the pursuit of justice. When institutions cease to value truth, truth ceases to function as a principle for organizing society.

Second, we see the systematic application of what I call the racism of reduced expectations across the Middle East. It’s similar to the bigotry of low expectations, but goes much further. This mindset doesn’t merely assume less of certain actors; it actively excuses their worst atrocities. Hamas is granted a moral exemption not because its actions are misunderstood, but because many in the West have come to expect barbarism from them. When they burn families alive, it’s reframed as “resistance”. When they rape women and drag their corpses through the streets, it becomes “desperation”. The very behaviors that would rightly be condemned as evil if committed by a Western army are rationalized, even romanticized, when committed by jihadist militias.

Israel, however, faces an entirely different standard. Democratic, transparent, and accountable to its citizens, it must somehow achieve the impossible. It must fight wars without casualties, defend itself without causing offense, and exist without inconveniencing neighbors who openly call for its destruction. This, I argue, represents moral corruption of the highest order.

Third, we witness antisemitism’s eternal capacity for reinvention. Jews were blamed for medieval plagues, for both capitalism and communism simultaneously, and for both starting wars and avoiding military service. The justifications evolve, but the underlying hatred remains constant.

The term genocide joins racism, fascism, and apartheid in the graveyard of words smothered by political convenience. When every military action becomes genocide, when every policy becomes apartheid, and when every disagreement becomes fascism, society loses the ability to distinguish between different grades of moral failure. The consequences multiply rapidly. Real genocides proceed while the world argues about definitional games. I think of Holocaust survivors who still wake up screaming from memories they cannot silence, of Rwandan survivors who watched their families butchered with machetes in broad daylight, and Cambodians who clawed their way out of mass graves. These people know what genocide means. They know why the term was invented, and they know why it must never be used lightly.

I think of Holocaust survivors who still wake up screaming from memories they cannot silence, of Rwandan survivors who watched their families butchered with machetes in broad daylight, and Cambodians who clawed their way out of mass graves. These people know what genocide means. They know why the term was invented, and they know why it must never be used lightly.

We are at a crossroads. One path leads further into the abyss: where words mean whatever a mob wants them to mean, where evidence is optional, where outrage is manufactured, and where history is rewritten. The other path is harder, but it’s the only one worth taking. It insists on clarity over confusion, facts over fiction, and truth over tribalism. It demands that we treat the term genocide not as a soundbite, but as the sacred descriptor of the worst crime humanity can commit.

https://courage.media/2025/06/17/the-genocide-lie/

Governors’ Sanctuary Excuses Don’t Add Up

 

Democrat Governors Tim Walz of Minnesota, J. B. Pritzker of Illinois, and Kathy Hochul of New York testified before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee last week, defending their states’ sanctuary policies amid growing scrutiny over their impact on public safety. While the hearing produced plenty of political theater, it was also a sad spectacle of gaslighting and deflection of accountability, revealing the twisted sanctuary ideology that is still prevalent throughout the country.

Sanctuary policies, which restrict local law enforcement from cooperating fully with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), are often framed as compassionate measures to protect illegal aliens. This is partisan political spin detached from reality. By limiting cooperation with federal authorities, these policies create safe havens for individuals who have entered the country illegally and, in many cases, commit violent crimes.

The governors’ insistence that their policies promote safety rings hollow when we consider the victims—innocent people like Laken Riley, a University of Georgia student brutally murdered in 2024 by an illegal alien with a criminal history. Riley’s death, and too many other deaths like it, are in direct consequence of the reckless sanctuary policies these governors champion.

During their testimonies, Walz, Pritzker, and Hochul repeatedly claimed their states cooperate with ICE when presented with a criminal warrant. This assertion is misleading, as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a criminal warrant for local authorities to honor ICE detainers. The U.S. Constitution establishes that the federal Constitution takes precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. By implementing policies that limit cooperation unless a judicial warrant is presented, these governors are effectively violating federal law. Their claim of cooperation is a convenient half-truth, designed to deflect accountability while they obstruct ICE’s effectiveness to detain and deport individuals who pose a threat to public safety.

The INA is clear that immigration authorities have the right to arrest removable aliens, and the U.S. Constitution is clear that states and localities must not impede federal immigration enforcement. Yet, sanctuary policies do exactly that. In Minnesota, for example, while Governor Walz denied that his state is a sanctuary jurisdiction, cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul restrict police and city employees from assisting ICE unless a criminal warrant is issued.

Similarly, the Trust Act in Illinois, signed into law in 2017, prohibits local authorities from detaining individuals solely based on immigration status, even when ICE issues a detainer. These policies create a patchwork of non-compliance that undermines the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws, leaving communities vulnerable to preventable crimes.

The Laken Riley Act passed in January 2025 was a direct response to these failures, mandating the detention of noncitizens charged with certain crimes, including theft and assault, and empowering states to sue the federal government if paroled aliens commit crimes. Yet, even in the face of such federal legislation, these governors cling to their sanctuary policies, pledging their fealty to a system that has repeatedly failed victims like Riley.

The hypocrisy of these governors lies in their refusal to acknowledge the link between their policies and the preventable loss of life. They try to sound responsible by pronouncing that aliens who commit violent crimes should be deported. However, this is too little, too late. At that point, an innocent person has already been assaulted or killed. What is stopping these governors from applying common sense and simply removing anyone who is here illegally? The answer is their dogmatic obedience to an anti-borders ideology that prioritizes the wishes of illegal aliens over both the wishes and the safety of American citizens.    

It is time to end the charade. Sanctuary policies do not make communities safer; they create dangerous loopholes that allow criminals to evade justice. The governors’ testimony on Capitol Hill was a masterclass in deflection, cloaking their defiance of federal law in the language of compassion.

But compassion for whom? Certainly not for the families of people like Laken Riley or the countless others who have paid the ultimate price for these failed policies. If these governors truly cared about safety, they would dismantle their sanctuary policies, fully cooperate with ICE, and prioritize the lives of their citizens over political posturing.

The American people deserve better. We cannot afford another decade of sanctuary policies that violate the law and cost innocent lives. The blood of victims like Laken Riley stain the hands of those who choose ideology over safety. It is time for change—before more lives are lost to this dangerous hypocrisy.

Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, D.C, and co-host of IRLI’s “No Border, No Country” podcast.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/governors-sanctuary-excuses-dont-add-up/

Curbing Illegal Trade Means Outsmarting Its Enablers

 Intellectual property (IP) theft has become a significant security concern in today’s globalized economy. Evolving technologies and the rise of artificial intelligence have made it easier than ever to steal hard-working businesses’ most creative ideas, costing the American economy up to $600 billion annually, while enriching some of the world’s most dangerous criminal organizations. 

It’s critical that the public understands the impact of this crime. In April, hundreds of organizations from across the country participated in World Intellectual Property Day, raising awareness about the issue and advocating for action at all levels of government.

However, public awareness is only part of the solution. Enacting real, tangible policy changes that address this security threat means acknowledging that it is part of a much larger ecosystem of transnational illegal trade.   

Criminal organizations profiting from illegal trade operate like large businesses. They depend on complex supply chains, the profitability of goods, and reliable distributors. They assess risks and rewards and utilize the same networks to move other illicit commodities in the process. The routes that are used to smuggle drugs are often used to move other illegal goods such as counterfeits, wildlife, and even humans. This interconnected, shadowy economy is booming – making up a $2.2 trillion industry that accounts for nearly 3% of the global GDP.  

You don’t need to look far to see illegal trade in action. For example, a recent survey,  shows that over 50% of small businesses have reported incidences of organized retail crime (ORC), with over 30% of these cases turning violent. Including brazen crimes such as theft and armed robbery, ORC costs U.S. retailers upwards of $1 billion a year in sales, while placing our communities and workforce in imminent danger.

In some instances, just going online can be risky as consumers can easily be deceived into buying an illicit product, lured in for a price that’s too good to be true. Online marketplaces have quickly become a hotbed of illegal trade not just because of the anonymity they provide criminals, but because of the lack of accountability to keep shoppers safe. Few legal guardrails exist that hold even our most trusted e-commerce platforms liable when crooks exploit their sites. The consequences are staggering.

A 2023 Michigan State University study found that nearly 7 in 10 consumers were deceived into buying a counterfeit item within the past year. Moreover, almost 36% of counterfeit items sold online fail to meet U.S. product safety standards, posing serious health risks for unsuspecting consumers.

The good news is that we can beat these criminals at their own game. While serving with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, my team worked alongside industry leaders and world-class researchers to undermine transnational criminal organizations that perpetuated illicit commerce.

Exchanging data and best practices with our private sector partners was critical in exposing layers in the illegal trade ecosystem and dismantling fraudulent schemes that jeopardize national security.

The fact remains that criminal organizations are pros at adapting. They survive by exploiting legal loopholes and constantly evolving technologies. No single entity or “silver bullet” policy can extinguish illegal trade on its own. It requires public-private sector collaboration, information-sharing between financial and online data-holders and enforcement personnel, and sound policy through all levels of government.

In 2021, Philip Morris International (PMI) launched "United to Safeguard America from Illegal Trade" (USA-IT) – a public education initiative supported by 85 national and state law enforcement agencies, academics, and leading business organizations dedicated to combating all forms of illegal trade.

Since its inception, USA-IT has trained over 36,000 law enforcement officials to spot warning signs related to these crimes and dedicated millions of dollars to support front-line organizations. The coalition also ensures that our nation’s first line of defense—the general public—understands how to spotlight suspicious activity that could endanger themselves and their communities. Raising awareness on this issue has built momentum our nation desperately needs to keep the bad guys at bay.

Throughout my decades-long career, one thing has become abundantly clear: although criminals are smart, the good guys are smarter—especially when we work together. Now is the time to fight back to keep our nation, our economy, and our communities safe and prosperous.

Alysa D. Erichs is the Spokesperson for United to Safeguard America from Illegal Trade (USA-IT) and former Acting Executive Associate Director for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) (ret).

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2025/06/19/curbing_illegal_trade_means_outsmarting_its_enablers_1117647.html

The MAGA Split that Wasn't

 by Roger Simon

For forty-eight hours, more or less, the media drumbeat was nonstop. There’s a split in MSGA over Iran. There’s a split in MAGA over Iran. Trump is finished. What happened to America First?

Tucker, Candace-what’s-her-name, Rep. Massie, a host of others were warning us—helping Israel rid Iran of nukes would be the end of his presidency!

A gaggle of dreary Democrats accused Trump of being a dictator and demanded foreign policy control—for themselves.

Axios and Politico brought out their usual array of nameless leakers.

The WaPo published some unreadable op-eds.

The Free Press featured a high-toned debate you had to pay for.

The sky was indeed falling.

(Excuse me while I yawn.}

Anyway, it’s over. Tucker—easily the splitter-in-chief for his notoriety— has raised a white flag and apparently called the president to apologize, according to an amused Gateway Pundit (no payment necessary).

Maybe Carlson noticed the poll, on CNN of all places, that, via unanimity that hasn’t been seen since someone offered free Sam Adams at Yankee Stadium, 83% of Republicans and 79% of Dems and Independents agreed with President Trump—the Ayatollah should never have nukes.

Or, perhaps, from another angle, the former Fox News host didn’t want a repeat of today’s (June 18) article in the Jerusalem Post: “Tucker Carlson 'begged' evangelical leader to apologize for calling him an antisemite - exclusive”. It begins:

“American conservative commentator Tucker Carlson ‘begged’ evangelical Christian Zionist leader Laurie Cardoza-Moore to apologize for calling him an antisemite, she revealed exclusively to the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

{snip]

“She recalled her call with the controversial figure, saying ‘Tucker kept me on the phone for over twenty minutes, questioning my Christian credentials and suggesting I had lost my way as an Evangelical.

"‘I explained to him that he clearly hadn’t made it past the book of Genesis which clearly states: ‘I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you,’”.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Tucker blurbed my most recent book, so he clearly can’t hate all Jews.

Weirdly, I may be the only person on the planet who has (or had, depending on how he reacts to this) a friendship with both of these people. Maybe I could cosplay Steve Witkoff and try to bring them together.

But enough of that. Much more seriously, we are now at the point of Waiting for Mr. Trump. Will he or won’t he pull the trigger on dropping American bunker busters on Iran’s incredibly deep Fordow nuclear installation? (Fordow itself is proof the mullahs wanted to weaponize. Why make this installation so deep, and wildly expensive, if not for that purpose?)

On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t matter. Israel has already done a remarkable job of laying waste to much of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, killing off many of its scientists and leaders in the ruthless Revolutionary Guard Corps, among others. The IAF had freedom of air movement across Iran from virtually the first day.

We’ve all heard of the Six Day War. This was and is in many ways the One Day War. Israelis like to do things fast.

Behind this achievement is a man who should go down in military history books— David Barnea, the recent head of the Mossad (or “Institute”). This was the individual who spearheaded the surprise pager explosions that practically finished off Hezbollah after decades and then engineered, long in advance, the attacks with drones that Mossad manufactured inside Iran that blocked Iran’s defenses and finished off many or their scientists and military leaders simultaneously minutes into the action. Some say this revolutionized war.

Kudos are also due the much maligned Benjamin Netanyahu. Between these men, and I am sure others, they might be able to handle Fordow by themselves, even if takes more time without the stealth bombers. But who knows? Nevertheless, our president seems to be jumping in now. He will be and is the global winner. So many of us have come to trust him and his high approval numbers are showing it.

Unfortunately, none of this was the case after Oct. 7, but Hamas was not the only enemy Israel had to deal with then. Arguably worse was the Biden administration.

I won’t go further with that assertion, obvious as it is, because I would prefer to address something I have been personally involved with on and off since roughly 2006—regime change in Iran . It was about then that I would make weekly treks out into the San Fernando Valley from the El Segundo offices of PJ Media to broadcast the news in a small studio belonging Radio Free Iran.

I did this in English, since I know no Farsi, but at the same time I was meeting, and putting on the fledgling PJTV, Iranian expats living in what they called Tehrangeles. My heart broke form their stories, as well you might imagine.

But I also got to see how difficult regime change was. There were so many competitive movements to solve their national problem I was often reminded of Mao’s “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” (Of course, Mao was lying.)

My best advice is, let’s get the Ayatollah and his crew out (or dead) and leave it at that. After that it’s Iran for the Iranians to sort out.

BUT ONE LAST THING that should give us all immense pleasure. Iran under the mullahs has been the world’s capital of misogyny. Sometimes that misogyny was so extreme it reached unparalleled levels of rape and torture. (If you don’t know about it, you can start here.)

The most obvious aspect of this misogyny is the enforced wearing of hijabs. In the last few days, many videos have shown up on X of women throwing off their hijabs. If you’ve missed it, here’s one with school girls shouting “Death to the Dictator!” (Khamenei, obviously, not Trump). I loved it.

https://americanrefugees.substack.com/p/the-maga-split-that-wasnt

Former Vaccine Committee Did Not Follow the Rules

 In the spring of 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services underwent a sharp shift in leadership and oversight. With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. assuming the role of Secretary, one of the most scrutinized decisions was his removal of 17 members from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The move followed years of concern about industry entanglement and sparked immediate backlash. Those dismissed issued a public letter defending their integrity and insisting that they had followed all disclosure requirements. But a detailed look at ACIP’s meeting history reveals that reporting a conflict of interest is not the same as acting on it—and that many of these members repeatedly failed to recuse themselves from discussions and votes where conflicts were plain.

ACIP is a federally chartered committee that sets the nation’s vaccine recommendations. Its decisions determine what vaccines are required for school entry, which are covered under federal programs like Vaccines for Children (VFC), and how billions in taxpayer dollars are spent. With that responsibility comes the requirement—both legal and ethical—to act free from industry influence. That doesn’t just mean disclosing conflicts. It means avoiding decisions in which personal or institutional interests could interfere with impartiality.

Over the last two decades, numerous ACIP members declared financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, but continued to participate in discussions and cast votes on matters directly tied to those companies. In many cases, those votes concerned vaccine products made by companies funding the members’ own clinical trials or compensating them as advisors. Under the CDC ethics policy, aligned with federal advisory standards, members are expected to recuse themselves from both discussion and voting when a conflict is present. Many did not.

For example, Dr. Cody Meissner, who served from 2008 to 2012, disclosed that his institution—Tufts Medical Center—received research funding from MedImmune, Pfizer, Wyeth, and AstraZeneca. Yet he voted on influenza and pneumococcal vaccine recommendations during that same period, with no recusal recorded in the meeting minutes.

Dr. Tamera Coyne-Beasley, who served from 2010 to 2014, repeatedly disclosed Merck-funded clinical trials conducted at the University of North Carolina. She voted on Merck-related vaccine policies, including HPV and adolescent immunization schedules, without recusal.

Dr. Janet Englund, on the committee from 2007 to 2011, had one of the most expansive sets of industry ties. She disclosed institutional research support from Sanofi Pasteur, MedImmune, Novartis, ADMA Biologics, and Chimerix. Although she abstained from one vote on influenza vaccines in 2010, minutes from other meetings show her participating in discussions and decisions involving those same sponsors, without abstention.

These are not isolated cases. Dr. Robert Atmar, Dr. Sharon Frey, and Dr. Paul Hunter all disclosed active involvement in Covid-19 vaccine trials during 2020. They recused themselves from one vote—the December 12, 2020, emergency session on the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine—but participated in related discussions and subsequent votes on similar products and schedules. Their ongoing roles as principal investigators for companies like Moderna, Janssen, and AstraZeneca constituted direct professional conflicts. Under ACIP policy, they should have recused themselves from both discussion and voting. They did not.

Even more recently, Dr. Bonnie Maldonado, an ACIP member appointed in 2024, disclosed being the lead investigator at Stanford for Pfizer’s pediatric Covid-19 and maternal RSV vaccine trials. She abstained from a June 2024 vote on Covid-19 boosters, citing the conflict. But in October 2024, she voted on the updated Covid-19 booster policy—even though her conflict remained active. The shift from abstention to participation raises questions about how recusal standards were interpreted or enforced.

The issue isn’t whether these members followed disclosure procedures. Many of them did. The issue is that reporting a conflict is not the same as acting on it. Participation in discussion alone can shape how others vote. It can legitimize products, guide tone, frame safety, and shape the options others feel comfortable selecting. The CDC’s own guidelines make clear that individuals with a financial or professional interest must step back not just from voting, but from the discussion itself.

And the extent of the conflicts was not minor. Across more than a dozen ACIP members from 2006 to 2024, documented ties included:

• Ongoing clinical trial funding from vaccine manufacturers, including Merck, Pfizer, GSK, Moderna, and Sanofi.
• Service on corporate advisory boards.
• Chairing or participating in industry-funded safety monitoring boards.
• Stock ownership in companies whose products were under committee review.

These relationships were often institutional—grants to universities or medical centers—but they supported labs, salaries, and career advancement. In academic medicine, institutional funding is career currency. The fact that members disclosed these ties does not absolve their obligation to recuse. Disclosure is a first step, not a last one.

It is worth noting that the 17 former members who protested their dismissal also lost their conflicts of interest. They collectively framed their removal, using mostly rhetoric, as political overreach (see Popular Rationalism, 6/17/2025). A clear-eyed reading of the record suggests a different reality. A system that relies on conflicted, contracted experts to regulate industry products is not sustainable. Trust in public health rests on independence and enforcement of the rules, not just credentials. When that independence is compromised, so too is public confidence in the recommendations that follow.

That the dismissed members objected vocally is no surprise. For many, committee membership provided not just prestige, but continued alignment with the industry partnerships that defined their research careers. Those partnerships were no longer tenable under new conflict standards. Their removal was not retaliation. It was a course correction.

There is no question that vaccine policy should be informed by experienced scientists. But there must be a line between advising on science and voting on the commercial fate of the very products tied to one’s funding. That line was blurred for too long.

The next iteration of ACIP will need to do more than acknowledge conflicts. It will need to build trust by preventing them.

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and prolific author with over 55 peer-reviewed studies and three books to his name: Ebola: An Evolving Story, Cures vs. Profits, and The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism. He writes regularly on his Substack platform Popular Rationalism, where he shares scientific analyses, insights, and commentary, and contributes occasionally to The Defender published by Children’s Health Defense. He is Editori-in-Chief of Science, Public Health Policy & the Law.

• Dr. Lyons-Weiler is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), where he conducts and supports research in the public interest aimed at reducing human suffering. His work spans biomedical research, including vaccine safety science, genomics, bioinformatics, and cancer. He is also the founder of IPAK-EDU, an independent online educational platform offering rigorous science and health courses to the public.
• https://brownstone.org/articles/former-vaccine-committee-did-not-follow-the-rules/

“Non-Profit” Hospitals Oppose Medicaid Payment Caps as Their Prices Explode

 The hospitals have launched an all-out lobbying blitz against the Senate tax bill, because it caps their Medicaid payments at Medicare rates. It also limits the “provider tax” scams which allow states to give hospitals federal funds without paying their state share.

The Senate is right to rein in these costs.

As the chart below shows, no industry has seen their prices skyrocket more than the hospitals, thanks to extravagant federal health care spending.

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/non-profit-hospitals-oppose-medicaid-payment-caps-as-their-prices-explode/