Danger risks of increasing rise of infecitious diseases when public health is victim of Musk-O-Vite chain saw

 Source document here 

Echo report published by Maria Shriver in  "Sunday News".

“ As a professor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, I never imagined I would be called to become the 19th Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And I certainly did not anticipate seeing myself serving in that role during the largest pandemic of our lifetime,”  Former CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky: “Here’s What to Know About What’s Happening to Our U.S. Health Agencies—and Why Doctors and Scientists Are Worried”

By Dr. Rochelle Walensky

It happens every week. An unexpected phone call or email from a family member, colleague, friend, and even friends of friends telling me some version of this: “My enter name of loved one has just been diagnosed with enter name of terrible disease.” What follows is a plea for help—an urgent request for a referral to the best specialist, an appeal to find the leading scientist who might offer hope based on a newest discovery or therapeutic. 

Whether you’re the one making the call or the one answering it, in that moment, your only wish is that medicine and science have advanced far enough to save a life. With the current changes happening at our nation’s premier health agencies, I fear we are taking steps in the wrong direction, ultimately destabilizing US science and demoralizing its dedicated talent pool.

I am an infectious disease clinician, drawn to this field by what I witnessed during my training in the mid 1990s: A generation dying of AIDS. Over time, my research turned to HIV-related policies on drug costs, access to care, and the value of treatment. As a professor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, I never imagined I would be called to become the 19th Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And I certainly did not anticipate seeing myself serving in that role during the largest pandemic of our lifetime.

When I received my CDC business cards, the numbers “24/7” appeared boldly on the back—a stark reminder of the CDC’s never-ending mission to safeguard the health, safety, and security of all Americans and, by extension, people around the world. Though I was deeply familiar with the CDC’s infectious disease work, I quickly came to understand the agency’s vast scope—from tracking rabies in imported dogs and the health of miners and fisherfolk to the surveillance of emerging outbreaks in over 60 countries.

The paradox of public health is that when it works as it should, it remains invisible. No headlines, no crises, just silent prevention. Most of the time, that’s exactly what happens. 

As the Director of the CDC from 2021 to 2023, I had a front row seat to the US public health agencies. Now, from the sidelines, I am witnessing the world’s premier US public health agencies in the news once again. This time, the news is not predominantly about the next crisis they are heroically tackling, but instead it is about their undoing. Like so many of my peers who have devoted their entire careers to science and medicine, I am distressed every time I see a headline about the indiscriminate undermining and dismantling of our public health agencies. Doctors and scientists are profoundly worried. Here are just a few reasons why.  

Our health agencies study and recommend vaccines to prevent infection and even eliminate diseases.

In my 25 years of clinical practice, I encountered only one case of measles. The patient was exposed in an airport terminal two hours after the “index patient”—the first identified case who had measles—had departed. The two never encountered one another. That is how contagious measles is. 

We know this disease requires vaccination rates (or immunity from prior infection) exceeding 95 percent to maintain robust and reliable community protection—what’s referred to as “herd immunity.” The CDC is in the vaccine business; the agency evaluates their benefits and risks, determines the populations in whom to deploy them, and rolls out campaigns for their implementation.  

In recent years, vaccination rates among US kindergartners have declined, with national coverage falling below 93 percent—a fall from 95 percent pre-pandemic. Even this modest drop results in consequences that are becoming alarmingly clear.

The epicenter of the current measles out breakin Gaines Conty Texas, which has the lowest kindergarten vaccination rate in west Texas, hovering around 82 percent. As I write this, there are 90 confirmed cases, and some estimates suggest as many as 200 to 300 additional infections.

Notably, most of those affected were unvaccinated. This is a big deal: Beyond the serious infectious complications that can result from measles, such as pneumonia, brain inflammation and death, contracting the disease can result in a weakened immune system and, for pregnant women, birth defects in an unborn child. Prior to a widely available vaccine, measles resulted in 400-500 deaths in the US annually, mostly children, which is more than twice the current number of annual pediatric deaths due to influenza. 

For decades, Americans had the privilege of debating vaccine safety, not because they faced the horrors of these diseases, but because vaccines had made them nearly disappear. Tragically, that tide is turning, and we are becoming reacquainted with the morbidity and mortality resulting from those very diseases vaccines have the capacity to prevent.

Public health servants dedicate their careers to tracking deadly diseases. Firing them leaves all of us exposed.

Over the past year, one of the most alarming health threats has been the evolution of H5N1—commonly known as “bird flu” or “highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).” This strain of the flu remains largely unfamiliar to the human immune system, and many experts are saying H5N1 has significant pandemic potential.

Since 2022, the virus has increasingly been detected in wild birds and has since spread to commercial poultry, nearly 1,000 dairy cattle herds across the country, and an expanding array of other animal and human hosts across the country. The outbreak has had wide-ranging consequences, from soaring egg prices to the first reported death of a patient in Louisiana, who was exposed to H5N1 by a backyard flock.

Our federal health agencies work together to prevent bird flu and control outbreaks when they occur. This is just one of many examples of the work performed tirelessly by federal agency employees—work that doesn’t end at the U.S. border. 

 Take Ebola, for example, a deadly virus that belongs to a family of viral hemorrhagic fevers, alongside similarly lethal diseases like Marburg, Rift Valley Fever, and Lassa Fever. Thanks to the vigilance of trained local communities and the tireless work of many dedicated employees at the CDC, the WHO, and other US and international partners, these diseases are largely contained within Africa. Yet outbreaks continue to occur and remain one flight away from spreading diseases across the globe. During my tenure as CDC Director, we faced at least two Marburg outbreaks and one Ebola outbreak, the latter claiming 77 lives.

As we all learned from HIV/AIDS in the ’90s, a threat anywhere is a threat everywhere. In an interconnected world, no country can tackle these dangers alone. Right now, an Ebola outbreak in Uganda and Marburg outbreak in Tanzania are resolving, thanks in part to the WHO, which allocated $5 million so that these contagious diseases can be rapidly contained and do not reach us here in the US or anywhere else around the world.

This is what partnership looks like. This is what global solidarity demands. 

Deep funding and staffing cuts threaten the next generation of scientific leaders—and the big breakthroughs they’re working on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) boasts 174 Nobel Laureates among its investigators and grantees. Its work has transformed medicine. Today, a person with HIV can expect a normal lifespan—an unthinkable reality when I was in training. Pediatric leukemia, once a near-certain death sentence, now has a cure rate exceeding 90 percent, which is a dramatic leap from its cure rate of less than 10 percent just decades ago.

Throughout my entire research career, I was funded by the NIH. Make no mistake, the grant process is brutally competitive. Funding rates at some institutes hover below 10 percent, which means that on average, a researcher must write 10 grants—each totaling 100 to 200 pages—just to be awarded one. Even then, securing funding can take more than 1.5 years from the submission of the initial application.

These odds are not for the faint of heart. They are for the scientifically determined, the relentless seekers of discovery, the ones who strive to have the answer when a loved one makes that desperate call about a terrifying diagnosis.

 A weakened NIH is not just a threat to the pipeline—it is a threat to discovery itself. The scientific ecosystem is delicate. To drive groundbreaking discoveries and transform them into tangible individual and population benefits, the nation must sustain a robust NIH alongside a flourishing, well-resourced network of US scientists and research institutions. When those closest to us have serious questions about their health, it is the results of this science that will enable those of us in the medical field to provide answers. 

As the foundations of global partnerships, infrastructure, funding, and expertise falter at the federal level, scientists, epidemiologists, and public health experts are sounding the alarm. 

The enemies are not the people, they are the pathogens. And the threat is not distant, it’s right here.

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH is the Bayer Fellow in Health and Biotech at the American Academy in Berlin, and a physician scientist. She served as the 19th Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School (2012-2020), an Infectious Diseases (HIV) clinician. She is mother of three boys (her proudest title), and wife.

Donald Trump owns rising inflation because his tariffs fuel spikes in costs while eggs prices are higher than ever

Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs:  An echo essay published in The Conversation by Jason Reed, Associate Professor of Finance at Notre Dame University.

Inflation figures released on Feb. 12, 2025, will come as a disappointment to Americans who hoped Donald Trump would be true to his word on bringing down prices “on Day One.” It will also put pressure on the new administration to be wary of policies that may heat up inflation – and that includes tariffs.

The consumer price index, which measures the change in prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services, rose unexpectedly from December to January by 0.5%. It means consumers are paying around 3% more on item prices than they were a year ago.

Economists had been expecting the pace of inflation to slow in January.

The news isn’t good for anyone concerned. It means inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s long-run target of 2% – making it harder for the central bank to cut rates at its next meeting on March 19. At its last meeting, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee kept its benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at a range of 4.25-4.50%.

Following the release of the latest inflation data, markets have a stronger conviction that the Fed will again hold rates steady when it meets in March.

It also means more pain for consumers. Higher interest rates set by the Fed play a large role in determining rates for mortgages, credit cards and auto loans. 

If January’s rate of inflation were to continue throughout 2025, consumers would see a painful 6.2% annualized inflation rate.

And although it would be churlish to link the latest jump in inflation to an administration just weeks old, it does put into focus the current slate of Trump economic policies. 

Economists have long warned that imposing tariffs on imports and cutting taxes does little to curb inflation – rather, they may contribute to faster price increases.

Already, China has been hit by a 10% tariff on all products. Trump has also proposed a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, and he mulled imposing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico – two of the United States’ largest trading partners.

I believe that if these wide-ranging tariffs come into effect, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to keep rates elevated for the remainder of 2025.

Revving up for higher car costs:  One of the largest drivers of inflation in January was rent increases, which accounted for nearly 30% of all items increase. Rents jumped 4.6% from a year earlier.

If Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports, like lumber, take effect, Americans can expect continued price increases in the homebuilding sector. Supply and demand imbalances remain a key driver for higher prices, so fewer houses being built due to higher materials cost will likely lead to higher rents.

Consumers saw better news on new vehicle prices, which remained flat over the month and showed slight declines from a year ago.

This is even as demand for new cars increased 2.5% over 2024. In January 2025, the number of new vehicles sold topped the same month a year earlier for the fifth month in a row.

But, as with homebuilding, any tariffs on the import of car parts or materials will impact the auto industry. Carmakers may have breathed an immediate breath of relief when Trump delayed new tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But if deals aren’t reached by the March 1 deadline, industry analysts expect immediate impacts on top sellers.

And any higher cost of new cars will have a knock-on effect on used cars, which saw prices jump 2.2% in January – it’s largest increase since May 2023.

Increased prices are no yoke! (groan):  Of course, not all inflationary pressures are in the purview of government.

The transportation sector, which includes insurance and parking fees, increased by 8% over the year. Insurance prices soared almost 12%, on the back of last year’s 20.6% increase in prices, while parking fees increased by almost 5% as a result of more expensive repairs and more dangerous driving behaviors.

Meanwhile, with bird flu continuing to spread, egg prices rose a shocking 15.2% in January, and are 53% more expensive than at this time last year. (Killing millions of chickens just to create enough wings for Super Bowl weekend also contributes to the egg shortage.)

All in all, voters who cited inflation as the main reason they were backing Trump may be feeling a little uneasy – the administration is only a few weeks old, but for one reason or other, Americans are experiencing ever higher prices with little relief in sight.

Ebola is an infectious disease: American health care workers are front line experts

Although the etiology of the Ebola virus and longitudinal studies about the disease are ongoing, one aspect of treatment for the disease includes isolation of victims and strict infection control procedures to prevent the spread. America's health care workers are well trained to respond to an individual who presents with an infectious disease. Indeed, infection control procedures are included in all hospital personnel orientations, even among clerical staffs. Nevertheless, America's health care systems are not totally prepared to handle an epidemic of Ebola. One of the biggest problems isn't related to the causation of the disease, at all. Rather, the problem is ethical. Who will receive the most effective treatments?  Even worse, who will receive transport to a hospital for treatment?

America's health care workers are as much at risk for contracting Ebola as those who work with victims in developing countries in Africa. Most at risk are the emergency responders, who are likely the first ones called when a person becomes incapacitated by critical illness, like Ebola. Emergency providers are likely most at risk for being exposed to an Ebola outbreak, should one occur. 

Yet, there are a very limited number of ambulances available for transporting patients to a hospital or emergency treatment facility during an infectious disease outbreak, like Ebola.  

Transporting an Ebola patient puts the ambulance out of service until it's completely bathed in a chlorine disinfecting solution - twice. There are only a few transports any emergency medical transport will be able to accommodate, given the risk of Ebola exposure to the EMS responders. An additional risk of exposure includes the people cleaning the ambulance and equipment, following the transports.  

Therefore, when US public health officials are speaking confidently on national media about how Ebola will be managed, they're speaking about the disease process. They're not addressing the systems crises that will erupt as a result of the disease spreading. 

There's justifiable confidence in America's ability to respond to an isolated Ebola outbreak. Of course, the treatment of the victims will be expensive because of the intensity of the treatment of the isolated patient and the follow up "contact tracing" of those who are exposed.

It was just a matter of time before Ebola showed up in the USA. Indeed, it seems like our US health care system may have been victims of the "someplace else" delusion, like it would never happen to them. Now, it's here.  

The "someplace else" syndrome will be debunked. Health care systems will certainly pull out those pandemic policies from the years when H1N1 "bird flu" was supposed to cause a worldwide pandemic.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, the Ebola patient who traveled from Liberia to Texas before he exhibited symptoms of the illness, simply can't be an isolated incident. Not knowing who else may present as a result of the 21 day incubation time of the virus is, frankly, more dangerous than the disease itself.  

Health care workers can isolate, and treat the Ebola patient, and clean the transport and treatment equipment. 

What we can't do is predict who might be carrying the virus and where they might be located.  Therefore, the health care community isn't prepared to respond to an Ebola outbreak of more than a few people, unless a great deal of money is made available to pay for the training for a response to the disease. 

As with all infectious diseases, the most important response is prevention.  

Hand washing is the first line of defense for all infectious  diseases and more important than ever to help prevent Ebola.

America's health care providers are experts at handling infectious diseases and practicing infection control procedures. Nevertheless, the care givers and first responders are not systems analysts. 

In my opinion, our our US health care and emergency responder "systems" are not prepared to respond to an infectious Ebola outbreak.