Well y’all, I did NOT have “my 1,002 word post ranting about the decimation of public health would go viral” on my 2025 bingo card, but here we are, 76 hours later and that post has been shared 6.2K times on Facebook. I had to turn off app notifications because my phone was becoming unusable with all the friend requests and messages. 🤯
I’m taking this as a sign that people are hungry for reliable information, and there are a lot of people who realize that public health actually affects you, even if you don’t work in the field and don’t think about it on a regular basis. So I’m going to continue sharing information when I can, because I think it’s important. Feel free to follow me (better than a friend request), and share as you like.
I’m calling this series What in the health?! 2/6/25. (h/t to my colleague who suggested these updates need a memorable name 🤣).
A few important updates since I first posted Monday:
–Good(ish) news: The MMWR came out again today, after two weeks of silence. Oddly, it only has two articles, both about wildfires (one about emergency department use during the LA fires, and one about PFAS concentrations in the blood of first responders during the Maui wildfires in 2023). Nothing about bird flu, which I understand was originally scheduled to appear two weeks ago. Plus given that a new strain of bird flu (H5N9) was discovered in Merced County, CA since the last MMWR came out, we should all be caring a lot about bird flu. Not sure what to make of the fact that the new MMWR is ignoring bird flu and focusing on wildfires only, but some communication is better than no communication…
–Also good(ish) news: At least a few NIH study sections have resumed and are meeting again. (Thanks to those of you who reached out to let me know about this!) This is huge, because this means NIH will be able to make decisions and release funds to support some critical health-related research studies. There are also some travel and communications restrictions that have been lifted, though there is still a ban on NIH scientists speaking in public, and advisory council meetings are not allowed to meet in open session. But the NIH is definitely not back to normal operations, and it’s still anyone’s guess how this will play out over time.
–Not good news: As reported in the Washington Post and numerous other sources, at the National Science Foundation (the other major federal funder of health and science-based research in the US) staff have been directed to flag any grants that have any of a long list of terms, including such divisive words as “cultural relevance,” “female,” “inclusive,” “inequities,” “minority,” “socioeconomic,” “victims,” and “women.” This screening for terms includes grants that have already been awarded, as well as those submitted for consideration. The WaPo article refers to an internal NSF document that says “NSF grants that are flagged for ‘further action’ because they don’t comply with the executive orders could be subject to a range of additional steps, including modification to be in compliance or being terminated in part or whole.” What that will mean in practice is anyone’s guess at this point, but it’s not feeling like a great move for science or for health, especially if you’re part of a group of people that bears a disproportionate burden of health issues (known as “inequities,” yes, I said it).
–Also not good news: The CDC has mandated that all scientific journal articles produced by its researchers that are still under review—or even formally accepted but not yet posted online—be withdrawn, so they can be checked for compliance with an order to not mention a series of terms including “gender,” “transgender,” and “non-binary,” including others. This is a completely unprecedented move, and applies whether the CDC author is the primary author or just a co-author (potentially in the middle of a long list of authors who collaborated on work done over many years). It has at least two major implications: 1) non-CDC collaborators may be unwilling to make these changes and omit data or change interpretation, meaning either the papers won’t be published and enter the scientific literature at all, or the CDC authors will have to be improperly removed from the paper, given accepted rules for determining paper authorship; and 2) a lot of important research focused on the causes and potential solutions re health inequities for women and LGBTQ+ people will be stifled, which harms *all of us,* not just women and people who are LGBTQ+.
–Terrible news: The dismantling of USAID is a disaster. I would be one of the first to admit that USAID has never been perfect. No one is claiming it didn’t have problems. But placing (nearly) all direct-hire staff on administrative leave, and having them pack up their lives overseas and return to the US within 30 days? These are people who are living overseas with families—people who have jobs and go to school and have pets and friends and full lives. Never mind the decades of work that is being destroyed in front of their eyes, and the terrible impacts that will have on people in many countries for years and years to come. Absolutely horrifying. This is not an acceptable way to reduce government waste, even if that’s what you think USAID symbolizes.
So what can you do? A lot of people have written to me asking for advice about what can help. I wish I had great answers for you but my best advice is to MAKE NOISE and make sure your elected officials know that you think this is not OK. The “5 Calls” app (see 5calls.org) makes it easy. Pick one or two of the things that are most important to you and speak out about it. DONATE to local organizations near you who are working to oppose these changes and preserve our commitments to science, life, and each other’s humanity. Feel free to comment below with your suggestions about good orgs to donate to, or other actions people can take that can make a difference.