Category World News

Washington, DC – A former CDC director testified before a Senate committee that she was fired because she refused to categorically approve any vaccine advisory committee recommendations or fire career vaccine scientists.

Susan Monarez’ testimony before the Senate health committee comes just weeks after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of Health and Human Services, fired her after only 29 days in office.

Additionally, it comes as concerns grow about Kennedy’s leadership, who has spearheaded the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which critics claim has brought on misinformation and skepticism about vaccines.

According to Monarez, Kennedy instructed her to “commit to approuving every ACIP recommendation, regardless of the scientific evidence,” when she was speaking to lawmakers.

She added that he gave me the directive to fire career officials without cause who are in charge of vaccine policy. I responded that I had no way to fire scientific experts and that I could not pre-approve recommendations without examining the evidence.

Kennedy told her to resign if she could not, according to Monarez, adding that he had spoken with the White House on the subject several times. If “he believed he could not trust me,” Montarez said he had the right to fire her. He did it a few days later.

Under Kennedy’s leadership, the CDC, which is tasked with recommending vaccine recommendations and ensuring safety, Monarez framed her firing as part of a wider roll-back of scientific rigor throughout her testimony. The CDC director typically gives the panel’s recommendations independent approval.

In June, Kennedy gutted all 17 ACIP members, claiming that the panel was “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest” without providing any additional evidence. He has gradually replaced the panel with new members, including a number of individuals who have previously made unfounded claims about vaccines.

Kennedy defended his administration’s handling of the HHS and his personnel changes in a statement to the same Senate committee earlier this month, calling Monarez “untrustworthy” and making claims that she had lied.

According to him, “These adjustments were absolutely necessary to restore the agency’s status as the world’s gold standard public health agency.”

Later this week, the ACIP panel will convene to discuss the timing and dosage of vaccines for children, including those for COVID, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MRMRV).

According to Monarez, Kennedy’s modifications’ risks weren’t “theoretical.”

There is a real risk that recommendations could be made to limit access to vaccines for children and others in need, according to what I observed while serving, she said.

These recommendations could be implemented without the presence of a permanent CDC director, she said.

Refused to act as a rubber stamp

The Republican-controlled committee’s refusal to allow Monarez to testify at all highlighted Kennedy’s public statements and HHS leadership.

Bill Cassidy, the Republican committee chair, opened the hearing by praising Monarez and posing questions about her motives for firing her. Cassidy is a physician and has previously been critical of Kennedy’s views.

He noted that Monarez’s firing was unusual because he was the first CDC director to have the nomination for the position by Trump and was the first to be required by a law passed in 2023. Following that, a 51-47 vote along party lines approved her.

He cited Monarez’s “unquestionable scientific credentials” by Kennedy himself and her role as an “incredible mother and dedicated public servant” by President Donald Trump.

“Like what occurred,” you ask? Were we unsuccessful? Was there a mistake we made? he stated.

Sanders, an independent who supports Democrats, had a less shrewd stance.

Sanders responded, “I believe the answer is fairly obvious.”

Dr. Monarez was fired because she disobeyed Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous policy, which significantly restricted the use of effective and safe vaccines that would threaten the lives of American citizens and people all over the world.

Debra Houry, a former CDC chief medical officer, resigned in protest of her dismissal, and Monarez. According to Houry, both said they had to respond to false information that was spread by Kennedy, including a claim that the MMRV vaccine “had fetal parts” in April.

Monarez claimed that Kennedy had directly told her that “CDC employees were killing children and they don’t care.”

Some Republicans accused Monarez of disobeying Kennedy’s MAHA mission by using the exchange to raise concerns about the current vaccine schedules for children.

Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, grilled Maneras on the scientific background of some vaccines, particularly the COVID and Hepatitis B vaccines for young people in one exchange.

“We need to regain public health trust. We must engage in discussion about the actual science in order to accomplish this,” Paul said.

She said she concurred with Monarez.

The United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates only released a joint peace initiative for Sudan on Friday, but its viability is already uncertain.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fighting has left approximately 40, 000 people dead, according to the UN, but the death toll could be much higher. In Khartoum state alone, according to a research group from last November, 60, 000 people died as a result of the war, either directly from starvation or indirectly from starvation and disease.

According to UN data, almost 13 million people have been displaced in Sudan. And about half of those who remain are suffering from acute food insecurity, with some regions experiencing famine that has been predicted by government agencies to spread.

There have already been numerous failed attempts to put an end to the fighting. The most recent plan might have something different.

What exactly is in the most recent peace proposal?

The so-called “Quad” countries, which include the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, have proposed a three-month humanitarian truce in the conflict, followed by a permanent ceasefire, and a nine-month transitional period during which a broad-based civilian-led government would assume power.

The statement read, “The status quo causes unacceptable suffering and risks to peace and security, and there is no viable military solution to the conflict.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is also at the center of the proposal, which states that Sudan’s future cannot be “dictated by violent extremist groups belonging to or allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Some SAF members’ groups are viewed as having a loose relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members reject claims that they are violent or extremist. The Muslim Brotherhood is regarded as a “terrorist” group by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.

What has the conflict between Sudan’s two countries been like?

A parallel government supported by the RSF has welcomed elements of the Quad’s peace plan, despite the RSF having yet to formally respond to it.

The army-established Khartoum’s government has criticized it, though.

The government said in a statement from its foreign ministry that it would not support “interventions that violate the sovereignty of the Sudanese state and its legitimate institutions, which are supported by the Sudanese people, and its right to defend its people and its land,” despite its welcome efforts to end the conflict.

Have previous attempts been made to put an end to the fighting?

Yes, but they have all failed. Nearly the entire conflict has been discussed in conversation. The ceasefires that were reached have been opulent, despite widespread mistrust and widespread accusations of violations.

A number of brief ceasefires and truces followed, all of which failed to hold up until almost the time the fighting started in April of that year.

Saudi Arabia and the US made one of the first significant efforts to put a stop to the fighting when they attempted to reach a ceasefire through the Jeddah Platform, which ran from May 20 to June 2023. Despite some gains, negotiations broke down as a result of conflicting information regarding access to humanitarian aid and allegations of reciprocal violations.

In a later year, the group of East African States known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) announced that neither party had consented to a ceasefire pending direct negotiations, allowing either party to reject or contest the claim.

Saudi Arabia made another attempt in August 2024 through negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations should lead to a nationwide ceasefire, the intention was to. The SAF, however, criticized the UAE’s use of observers and claimed that it supported the RSF, and the negotiations stalled.

The UAE has refuted claims that it funds and finances the RSF, stating that its involvement in Sudan is solely for humanitarian purposes.

What is in question?

Sudan, one of Africa’s largest nations, had a 50 million population before the SAF and RSF’s conflict.

The UN notes that there are daily instances of “executions, torture, and rape” occurring in many communities where the spread of diseases, such as cholera, is already being spread through a depressed infrastructure, in addition to the tens of thousands of killed and millions of people who have been left.

The UN has identified the RSF as a “crime against humanity” that includes “large-scale killings, sexual and gender-based violence, looting, and the destruction of livelihoods – occasionally leading to persecution and extermination” despite the accusations of both sides.

A total of 24.6 million people, or roughly half of the population, are suffering from acute food insecurity, according to the World Food Programme, while 637, 000 others are suffering from starvation.