Connect with us

Business

The vaccine and public health debate at the center of CDC upheaval, explained

Published

on

The vaccine and public health debate at the center of CDC upheaval, explained


The exterior of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) main campus in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Aug. 27, 2025.

Alyssa Pointer | Reuters

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is facing a leadership upheaval — and at the center of the shakeup is concern about the agency’s approach to vaccines and U.S. public health.

The White House on Thursday said President Donald Trump had fired CDC Director Susan Monarez after she refused to resign. Lawyers for Monarez said she was “targeted” for “protecting the public over serving a political agenda.”

Meanwhile, four other top health officials at the CDC announced Wednesday they were quitting the agency. That includes Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who said he could no longer serve because of the “weaponizing of public health.”

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, former National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis, and former National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Daniel Jernigan hold flowers and react after they appeared during a protest, a day after the White House fired CDC director Susan Monarez and several top officials resigned, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Aug. 28, 2025.

Alyssa Pointer | Reuters

The loss of those respected leaders and efforts to oust Monarez follow a string of measures by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a prominent vaccine skeptic – to overhaul federal health agencies and change immunization policy in the U.S. That includes mass firings, gutting a key government vaccine panel, canceling studies on mRNA shot technology and hiring those with like-minded views.

Kennedy has a long track record of making misleading and false statements about the safety of vaccine shots, but in his current role, he wields enormous power over the agencies that regulate the immunizations and determine both who can get them and which ones insurance plans should cover.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said the leadership overhaul at the CDC represents Kennedy’s “failed leadership and reckless mismanagement,” adding that he has a “blatant disregard for science and evidence-based public health.” 

The agency is also reeling from funding cuts and an Aug. 8 attack by a gunman at its headquarters in Atlanta.

Some health policy experts said the leadership exodus could further erode the public’s trust in an agency that is responsible for detecting disease outbreaks and guiding state and local health departments when needed.

“This has to be seen on top of a raft of ways that CDC has been weakened and undermined, maybe irreversibly,” Lawrence Gostin, professor of public health law at Georgetown University, told CNBC. 

“Throughout all of those years, CDC has been independent and the jewel in the crown of American science. That’s literally all crumbling as we speak,” he said. “This is almost the definition of politics undermining science.”

Top official highlights vaccine concerns

Daskalakis was among the officials to explicitly highlight concerns with the views held by Kennedy and his staff, which he said challenged his ability to continue in his role at the agency.

“I am unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health,” Daskalakis said in his resignation letter, which was posted on X.

He said the CDC’s recent changes to the adult and children’s immunization schedule “threaten the lives of the youngest Americans and pregnant people.”

High-ranking members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dressed in uniform, salute former CDC Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, former National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis, and former National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Daniel Jernigan, a day after the White House fired CDC Director Susan Monarez and several top officials resigned, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Aug. 28, 2025.

Alyssa Pointer | Reuters

In May, Kennedy said the CDC removed Covid vaccines from the list of shots recommended for healthy pregnant women and children. An updated guidance days later said shots “may” be given to those groups.

Daskalakis said the data analyses that supported the change have “never been shared with the CDC despite my respectful requests to HHS and other leadership.” He also said HHS circulated a “frequently asked questions” document written to support Kennedy’s decision without input from CDC subject matter experts, and that it cited studies “that did not support the conclusions that were attributed to these authors.”

On Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration approved the latest round of Covid vaccines only for those at higher risk of serious illness, marking another shift in policy around those shots since the pandemic began.

Shares of Covid vaccine makers dipped on Thursday. Moderna’s stock fell more than 3%, while shares of Pfizer fell around 2%. 

Those companies and other drugmakers have been bracing for changes to vaccine and public health policy since Trump first named Kennedy as his pick to lead HHS in November. The CDC’s leadership shakeup only adds to the uncertainty in the pharmaceutical industry, which is also grappling with Trump’s drug pricing policies. 

Kennedy tried to distance himself from his previous views about vaccines and other health policies during his Senate confirmation hearings back in January, claiming that he isn’t “anti-vaccine” and would not make it “difficult or discourage people from taking” routine shots for measles and polio.

But some of Kennedy’s recent efforts appear to reflect his vaccine-critical views. For example, Kennedy in August argued that mRNA vaccines – the technology used in Covid shots – are ineffective and advocated for the development of other jabs that use other “safer” platforms.

Years of research support the effectiveness of mRNA Covid vaccines, and the technology is now approved for use in shots against respiratory syncytial virus.

Threat to public health 

Former National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis, next to former National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Daniel Jernigan, speaks to the media during a protest, a day after the White House fired CDC director Susan Monarez and several top officials resigned, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Aug. 28, 2025.

Alyssa Pointer | Reuters

As changes roll through the CDC, concerns over a threat to public health and protocol are growing.

Daskalakis slammed the means by which HHS and other CDC leadership have communicated major policy changes. For example, Kennedy announced he was firing the entirety of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – a panel of vaccine advisors to the CDC – through an X post and op-ed “rather than direct communication with these valuable experts,” Daskalakis said. 

He said he believed there would be an opportunity to brief Kennedy on key topics such as measles, avian influenza and the approach to the respiratory virus season. But Daskalakis said seven months into the new administration, no CDC subject matter expert from his center had briefed Kennedy. 

“I am not sure who the Secretary is listening to, but it is quite certainly not to us,” he said. “Unvetted and conflicted outside organizations seem to be the sources HHS use over the gold standard science of CDC and other reputable sources.”

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, followed by former National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis, and former National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Daniel Jernigan, reacts during a protest, a day after the White House fired CDC director Susan Monarez and several top officials resigned, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Aug. 28, 2025.

Alyssa Pointer | Reuters

Dr. Debra Houry, who also resigned Wednesday from her post as the CDC’s chief medical officer, similarly said that senior leaders “never were able to brief the Secretary” on any of the issues the agency deals with.

“The CDC scientists are top notch and excellent,” she told MSNBC in an interview. “What we would actually have preferred was to have more interactions with the secretary.”

Houry added that “over the past few months, things at the CDC have been really difficult when it comes to having science and data driven decisions.”

As longtime experts leave the CDC, the threat of infectious diseases is growing. While measles cases are ticking up in the U.S. again, bird flu is spreading in cattle. The first human case of the flesh-eating parasite “New World screwworm” has been detected in the country.

The departures could “make our public health less assured,” Benjamin of the American Public Health Association said.

Susan Monarez, U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to be director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies before a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 25, 2025.

Kevin Mohatt | Reuters

He said the leadership disruption also raises concerns about the nation’s ability to detect and respond to an emerging infectious disease spreading because the CDC is the “glue that holds” individual doctors and state and local health departments together.

“I am worried that we won’t know in time, and that we’ll be chasing that disease for far longer than we should,” Benjamin said. 

Benjamin said he has “little confidence” that the Trump administration will find someone “highly competent” with relevant experience to replace Monarez. 

“It obviously all has enormous implications for the health and well being of the public, and enormous implications around the finances of our nation,” he said. “Prevention and wellness saves us money, and public health is the best buy.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Bank share prices tumble after calls for tax on profits

Published

on

Bank share prices tumble after calls for tax on profits


The share prices of leading UK banks have tumbled following calls for the government to introduce a new tax on banking profits.

Traders and investors have reacted to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) saying a windfall tax could raise up to £8bn a year for the government.

The think tank said the policy would compensate taxpayers for losses on the Bank of England’s cash printing drive.

While the Treasury has not commented on any policy, concerns led to NatWest, Lloyds and Barclays being the biggest fallers on the main index of the London Stock Exchange early on Friday.

NatWest and Lloyds share prices were down by more than 4%, and Barclays had dropped by more than 3% in early trading.

Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds bank, has previously spoken out against any potential tax rises for banks in the Budget.

He said efforts to boost the UK economy and foster a strong financial services sector “wouldn’t be consistent with tax rises”.

The Treasury has been contacted for comment.

The IPPR, a left-leaning think tank, said a levy on the profits of banks was needed as the Bank of England’s quantitative easing (QE) drive was costing taxpayers £22bn a year.

The Bank of England buys bonds – essentially long term IOUs – from the UK government and corporations to increase bond prices and reduce longer term interest rates.

The Bank is selling off some of these bonds, and the IPPR said it is now making huge losses from both selling the government bonds below their purchase value and through interest rate losses.

The IPPR described those interest rate losses as “a government subsidy to commercial banks”, and highlighted commercial bank profits compared to before the pandemic were up by $22bn.

The tax suggestion comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces the difficult task of maintaining her fiscal rules while finding room for spending promises in the upcoming autumn Budget.

Carsten Jung, associate director for economic policy at IPPR and former Bank of England economist, said the Bank and Treasury had “bungled the implementation of quantitative easing”.

“Public money is flowing straight into commercial banks’ coffers because of a flawed policy design,” he said.

“While families struggle with rising costs, the government is effectively writing multi-billion-pound cheques to bank shareholders.”

Speaking on BBC’s Today programme, Mr Jung said the £22bn taxpayer loss was roughly equivalent to “the entire budget of the Home Office every year”.

“So we’re suggesting to fix this leak of taxpayer money, and the first step would be a targeted levy on commercial banks that claws back some of these losses,” he said.

A tax targeting the windfall profits linked to QE would still leave the banks with “substantially higher profits”, the IPPR report said, while saving the government up to £8bn a year over the term of parliament.

But financial services body UK Finance said that a further tax on banks would make Britain less internationally competitive.

“Banks based here already pay both a corporation tax surcharge and a bank levy,” the trade association said.

The association said a new tax on banking would also “run counter to the government’s aim of supporting the financial services sector”.

Russ Mould, AJ Bell investment director, said the UK stock market had soured following the suggestion, with investors wondering “if the era of bumper profits, dividends and buybacks is now under threat”.

“The timing of the tax debate, fuelled by a report from think-tank IPPR, is unfortunate given it coincides with a new poll from Lloyds suggesting a rise in business confidence, despite cost pressures,” he said.

The Chancellor has worked hard since Labour won power to woo the City. In her Mansion House speech in November last year, Reeves said that banking regulation after the 2008 financial crisis had “gone too far”.

But she faces difficult fiscal decisions in the run-up to her budget, after the government watered down its planned welfare savings and largely reversed winter fuel allowance cuts – decisions which narrowed her budget headroom.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trophy-property ranches hit the market as more heirs chose to sell

Published

on

Trophy-property ranches hit the market as more heirs chose to sell


Owned by the same family for more than 116 years, Reynolds Ranch is now on the market for $30.7 million.

Courtesy of California Outdoor Properties

For more than 116 years, Deanna Davis’ family has owned Reynolds Ranch, spanning 7,600 acres in California’s Central Coast region. With the heirs in disagreement over the homestead’s future, Reynolds Ranch is now on the market for $30.7 million.

“It’s so hard to make decisions together as a family about the ranch,” she told CNBC. “If I had the cash, I would buy the whole thing right now and cash everybody out and start over and take the title in a LLC.”

It’s a common predicament for family trees that have too many branches, said Davis, who runs the ranch. Her mother, who died last December, was the last family member who grew up on Reynolds Ranch. Now the family is scattered across the country and some of her relatives live overseas. Some family members who can only visit once or twice a year would rather cash out.

Families like Davis’ are increasingly choosing to sell these long-held properties, high-end ranch brokers told CNBC.

The legacy properties are in big demand — even if not at pandemic highs — as deep-pocketed buyers crave wide open skies and a slower pace of life. The so-called “Yellowstone” effect remains in full force, with fans of the Paramount show seeking sprawling properties in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and other Western states.

“All I know is whoever buys this property, when they sit on the porch in the afternoon, sipping their margarita or iced tea, they will think they landed in paradise,” Davis said.

‘Nothing quite like it’

Ranch brokerage Live Water Properties currently has $700 million in listing inventory, up from under $200 million in May 2024, according to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, broker Latham Jenkins. Many of these properties are legacy ranches that are on the market for the first time in generations, he said.

One such listing is Antlers Ranch in Meeteetse, Wyoming, which spans 40,000 acres — nearly three times the size of Manhattan — and is priced at $85 million. Antlers Ranch is on the market for the first time in five generations.

“Large historic properties are less common as many have been broken up and sold off,” Jenkins said. “Those that remain are highly desirable.”

These legacy ranches can demand a premium for reasons other than acreage, he said. Many historic ranches, like another one of his listings, Red Hills Ranch, a 190-acre property asking for $65 million, are surrounded by public lands that cannot be developed. Buyers are drawn to that privacy, as well as the ability to hike and fish nearby and see wildlife up close.

Red Hills Ranch, 25 miles outside Jackson WY, spans 190 acres and is listed for $65 million. Nestled in the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Red Hills Ranch was formerly the private guest ranch of late senator Herb Kohl.

Courtesy of Live Water Properties

“When you sit next to a running river, watching sunrises and sunsets, seeing an elk calf be born, there’s nothing quite like it,” Jenkins said.

Families usually come to him when the next generation has little interest in taking over the ranch or the heirs can’t come to an agreement. He described it as “bittersweet” when these one-of-a-kind properties become available for the first time in generations.

“That’s the thing with real estate. The land is perpetual, but the ownership is not,” he said.

Bill McDavid, a broker at Hall and Hall, represents Rocking Chair Ranch, a 7,200-acre Montana ranch that has been in the same family for more than seven decades.

“The adult children just got to the point where they realized, ‘No, it’s time for this family to move on and do something else,” he said of the sellers behind the property, which is listed at $21.7 million.

Get Inside Wealth directly to your inbox

Generational transfer of wealth

As ranching has been on the decline for decades, many multigenerational ranches have already changed hands, according to McDavid, who is based in Missoula, Montana. However, he is also seeing a rise in families looking to sell ranches they bought 20 to 30 years ago. The owners typically don’t have family ties to ranching and decided to buy trophy properties after making their fortune in tech or finance.

“For the buyer who made their money in the dot-com era, they had a grand idea about a family legacy, or whatever,” he said. “And then their kids got older, and they didn’t move to the ranch because nobody ever moved to the ranch. I mean, the dot-com guy, he came out and visited for at most the summer.”

He added of the heirs, “it was never in the cards for them to take over the ranch.”

Davis said she hopes a local ranching family will buy her California property, which has abundant grazing pastures and water sources. However, she said its likely a buyer from Silicon Valley will snap up Reynolds Ranch, which is only an hour and a half drive from San Jose and can accommodate a landing strip for a private plane.

John Onderdonk, who advises on agricultural properties for wealth manager Northern Trust, said the generational transfer of wealth is shaping the market. He is also a fourth-generation cattle rancher and said he is fortunate that his brothers agree on keeping their central California ranch in the family. However, he said many of the families he works with that choose to sell do so because of finances rather than disinterest.

“Real estate is a capital-intensive asset class, and if there isn’t liquidity in the portfolio, and the rest of the family isn’t able to support that, tough decisions come into play,” he said.

Listed at $21.7 million, Rocking Chair Ranch is on the market for the first time in over seven decades. The Philipsburg, MT, ranch spans 7,200 acres.

Courtesy of Hall and Hall

Legacy ranches, which may come with livestock and cropland, are attractive but require much due diligence, according to Ken Mirr of Mirr Ranch Group. For instance, these ranches are usually run by long-tenured managers who might leave when the property is sold and are hard to replace, said the Denver, Colorado-based broker. Or, they stay and have a rough time adjusting to new ownership, Mirr added.

“Those managers who have been here a long time start thinking that they own the place, right?” he said. “Sometimes that’s not the best person to be managing the ranch.”

Buyers expecting complete privacy can get a rude awakening. For instance, Mirr said, the previous family could have a longstanding verbal agreement with a neighbor allowing them to cross through their property. Depending on the state, members of the public may also be fish or wade in rivers located on private property, he said.

McDavid said buyers with deep pockets can have unrealistic expectations, wanting a rural property without sacrificing convenience. For instance, many want to live within 30 minutes’ driving distance of a major airport. Buyers also prefer move-in-ready properties, and multigenerational ranches may lack modern amenities.

As for the sellers, they get a windfall but aren’t able to replicate the lifestyle that comes with a legacy ranch.

“It’s just kind of a unique thing when you’re sitting on your porch and you look around and you own everything as far as your eyes can see,” Davis said. “It’s extremely difficult, the concept of losing the place, but on the other hand it’s going to make the next family very happy.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Pakistan Stock Exchange sees share prices bounce back – SUCH TV

Published

on

Pakistan Stock Exchange sees share prices bounce back – SUCH TV



The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) saw a modest rebound on Friday after several sessions of heavy losses. By the Friday prayers break, the benchmark KSE-100 index had climbed over 1,253 points, or 0.84%, reaching 148,596 points, amid market uncertainty caused by the ongoing catastrophic floods in Punjab.

A total of 457 companies traded their shares during the session, with 278 recording gains, 165 posting losses, and 14 remaining unchanged.

Investors remained cautious due to potential flood damage to Punjab’s agriculture sector and the subdued growth outlook indicated by the central bank.

On Thursday, the KSE-100 index had continued its bearish streak, dropping 150.52 points, or 0.10%, to close at 147,343.51 points.

Trading volume on Friday totaled 935,466,958 shares, up from 856,664,471 shares on the previous day, while the value of traded shares rose to Rs 33.515 billion from Rs 29.286 billion.

The three top trading companies were Pace (Pak) Limited with 71,482,279 shares at Rs8.06 per share, Bank Makramah with 66,004,498 shares at Rs5.81 per share and Pak Elektron with 51,186,186 shares at Rs46.83 per share.

Unilever Pakistan Foods Limited witnessed a maximum increase of Rs757.14 per share price, closing at Rs 33,077.14, whereas the runner-up was Sazgar Engineering Works Limited with Rs149.52 rise in its per share price to Rs1,644.75.

PIA Holding Company LimitedB witnessed a maximum decrease of Rs377.99 per share, closing at Rs26,622.01 followed by Sapphire Textile Mills Limited with Rs61.37 decline in its share price to close at Rs1,370.00.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending