Donald Trump’s candidates for the leadership of the most important health authorities are viewed critically. vA lot will depend on their decisions – also for Germany and Europe, warns a health expert.
77 Nobel Prize winners have just spoken out in an open letter against Donald Trump’s nominee for the Ministry of Health: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They see him as a threat to the health of the population.Kennedy is an avowed anti-vaccination activist who regularly spreads conspiracy theories. But Trump’s choice to head the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency comparable to the Robert Koch Institute, is also controversial. David Weldon, a doctor and former congressman, is also considered a vaccine skeptic.
In an interview with t-online, health expert Hajo Zeeb explains why these personnel decisions could have far-reaching consequences not only for the health system in the USA, but also for Germany and Europe.
Prof. Dr. Hajo Zeeb is an epidemiologist, human doctor and health scientist. Since 2010 he has headed the Prevention and Evaluation Department at the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology in Bremen.
t-online: Mr. Zeeb, what did
So you can understand the 77 Nobel Prize winners who just spoke out against robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services? (more on this hear)
Naturally. One can only agree with this call. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is extremely unsuitable for this position.
In times when new pandemics are possible at any time,it can be extremely dangerous to have unscientific vaccine skeptics like robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the goverment. I am also skeptical about his ability to lead a large institution such as a US Department. This also applies to David Weldon. He is a trained doctor, but his fame is based primarily on the fact that he has emerged as a critic of vaccination research and the CDC’s vaccination regulations. He also spread false information about the dangers of vaccinations on a large scale.
Dr. David Weldon, for example, spread the claim that thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is linked to autism. This claim has since been refuted. according to information from the Robert Koch Institute, autism is neither caused nor promoted by vaccinations.
After the statements made during the election campaign, Trump wants to shrink and weaken the CDC. Many of the CDC’s research and funding lines surrounding vaccinations could come under scrutiny. It is indeed also possible that the entire vaccination program will be separated from the CDC. It is indeed thus to be feared that information campaigns and research on vaccine safety will be restricted and vaccine skepticism will be fueled among the population. in the worst case, the population will be less informed about vaccination programs that have been established for decades - especially vaccination programs for children. This could reduce the vaccination rate. In principle, separating vaccine research from
If research on vaccine safety became more self-reliant, this could also lead to improved research overall. It is also conceivable that there will finally be a standardized registration of undesirable effects from vaccinations and other medications.
it may happen that pharmaceutical companies work less on certain vaccines or research areas if the changes in the USA no longer lead to innovative research or if vaccination skepticism is promoted by government authorities.
This is difficult to predict. But medicines are undoubtedly also an issue in the threatened tariff increases. A price increase would then be possible.In addition, as part of the “America First” strategy, it is conceivable that the USA will export less as soon as certain drugs become scarce in the country.
The FDA procedures are probably among the highly regulated processes that are a thorn in the side of the Trump management. On the other hand, Donald Trump can hardly afford to bring less tested drugs onto the market. This can have very negative consequences and bad publicity. We also have our own regulatory authority for the safety of medicines in Europe, the European Medicines Agency (EMA). So I have less to worry about here. But surprises are always possible
And the intensive cooperation between these authorities may of course be affected and may no longer be possible as before.
How can international health organizations respond to changes in U.S. health leadership to ensure global public health safety?
interviewer (Time.news Editor): good evening, Dr. Zeeb.Thank you for joining us today. With recent developments regarding Donald Trump’s nominees for critically important health positions, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of Health and Human Services, there’s a lot to unpack. Many health experts, including 77 Nobel Prize winners, have raised serious concerns. What are your thoughts on Kennedy’s suitability for this position?
Dr. Hajo Zeeb: Thank you for having me. I wholeheartedly agree with the concerns expressed by the Nobel laureates. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not only an anti-vaccination activist but also someone who has consistently propagated conspiracy theories that undermine public confidence in science and health institutions. In times where the threat of new pandemics looms large, having such individuals in influential positions poses a significant risk to public health.
Interviewer: That’s quite a strong statement. In your opinion, what specific dangers could arise from appointing someone like Kennedy, who is known for his vaccine skepticism, especially in the context of a health crisis?
dr. Zeeb: The risk is multifaceted. First and foremost, public health decisiveness is crucial during a pandemic. Appointing someone who has publicly voiced skepticism about vaccinations could lead to reduced vaccination rates, which in turn could result in a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. this scenario not only threatens the health of the U.S. population but has far-reaching consequences for international public health, including Germany and Europe, where interconnectedness in health issues is ever-present.
Interviewer: That aligns with public sentiment in many areas. Besides Kennedy, David Weldon has also been mentioned in discussions about Trump’s health leadership. How do you assess his candidacy, considering his background?
Dr.Zeeb: weldon’s case is similarly troubling. While he does have medical training, his notoriety derives mainly from his vocal opposition to vaccination protocols and spreading misinformation regarding their safety. Entrusting someone with such a background to lead the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) woudl be a misguided decision, notably when we need credible, science-based leadership.
Interviewer: Given the potential implications of these nominations, how should the international community, particularly Europe, respond or prepare for the changes in U.S. health leadership?
Dr. Zeeb: Europe must remain vigilant and proactive. Building alliances with credible health organizations,emphasizing the importance of scientific consensus,and countering misinformation will be essential. It is indeed also vital that health policies developed in the U.S. do not undermine established best practices seen in Europe,particularly regarding vaccinations and public health safety measures. As we’ve learned, health is a global issue, and we are only as strong as our weakest link.
Interviewer: As we look toward the future, what can individuals do to contribute to a healthier public discourse around these topics?
Dr. Zeeb: Individuals can engage in meaningful discussions based on scientific evidence. Advocating for public health policies grounded in research and promoting vaccination can change perceptions over time. We also need to support organizations that work to counter misinformation and empower communities to make informed health decisions.Grass-roots movements often pave the way for larger changes in society.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr.Zeeb, for sharing your insights on this pressing issue. It’s evident that the implications of these nominations extend well beyond U.S. borders and require a concerted response.
Dr. Hajo Zeeb: Thank you for addressing such an significant topic. Let’s hope for a future where science and public health prevail in leadership decisions.