For the 2024–25 school year, the United States has recorded its highest percentage of kindergartners with vaccine exemptions—4.1%, or roughly 138,000 children. This new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) follows a worrying trend that’s gained momentum since the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine immunizations. With measles outbreaks on the rise and herd immunity slipping, pediatricians and public health experts are asking a pressing question: what happens when vaccine complacency meets misinformation?

According to the CDC’s most recent report, vaccine exemptions for kindergartners have jumped more than a full percentage point over the last four years. Nearly all of these exemptions are classified as nonmedical, which means they’re granted for religious or personal reasons—not for health-related concerns.

Exemptions increased in 36 states this school year, and in 17 states, more than 5% of kindergartners have opted out of one or more required vaccinations. That’s a critical problem for public health officials, as it creates fertile ground for vaccine-preventable diseases to return.

Measles—a disease that was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000—is making a grim comeback. So far in 2025, there have been 1,333 measles cases in 39 states, the highest number recorded in more than three decades. CDC officials note that most of these cases are among unvaccinated children.

Why does this matter? Because measles is one of the most contagious viruses on the planet. To prevent outbreaks, at least 95% of a community needs to be vaccinated. In the U.S., however, MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine coverage has dropped to 92.5%—the fifth year in a row it’s fallen below the federal target.

The effects of declining trust in vaccines, what concerns me most is that we’re playing with fire, and children will get burned.

While several variables contribute to vaccine hesitancy, some experts point to political shifts at the federal level. Dr. Besser specifically criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time vaccine skeptic, for what he believes is a growing culture of doubt and fear around childhood immunizations.

While these numbers are bad, they don’t even begin to reflect the impact that Secretary Kennedy will have on future exemptions.

In response, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated, “Vaccination remains the most effective way to protect children from serious diseases like measles and whooping cough,” adding that the decision to vaccinate “is a personal one.”

That last line is what’s worrying public health experts—many of whom believe the public needs firmer messaging in favor of vaccinations, not neutrality.

What’s Causing the Decline?

Beyond political rhetoric, a few key factors are contributing to the rise in exemptions:

Pandemic Disruption: Children born around 2020 missed well-child visits during lockdowns, leading to gaps in scheduled vaccinations.

Misinformation: Social media platforms continue to amplify vaccine myths, often unchecked.

Policy Loopholes: Forty-five states allow religious exemptions, and 15 states permit personal or philosophical exemptions. In some places, the process to opt out is easier than completing immunization requirements.

Complacency: Because vaccines have worked so well historically, many parents no longer see the diseases they’re meant to prevent—and underestimate their risks.

Vaccines are often victims of their own success, once you stop seeing disease, people forget why we needed protection in the first place. Here’s what the latest CDC data reveals about vaccine coverage among kindergartners during the 2024–25 school year:

MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella): 92.5% vaccinated (down from 92.7%)

DTaP (Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis): 92.1%

Polio: 92.5%

Total kindergartners lacking MMR documentation: 286,000

This is far below the 95% coverage goal set by HHS to prevent disease spread.

Why Are Experts Calling for Urgent Action?

The American Academy of Pediatrics has reiterated its position, nonmedical exemptions should be eliminated. Public health leaders argue that making vaccine refusal easy puts the entire population at risk—especially children too young or medically unable to be vaccinated.

“There’s a growing body of evidence that where it’s easy to get an exemption, exemption rates go up,” said a 2019 study by health policy researchers. “Removing personal-belief exemptions leads to fewer kids being left unprotected.”

Several states are now reconsidering their policies. However, in others, new legislation may make it even easier to opt out. For instance, one state is introducing an online affidavit form that parents can print at home without needing any medical consultation.

What’s at Stake?

This year’s outbreak has already led to three deaths and dozens of hospitalizations, mostly in unvaccinated children. And the worst may still be ahead. If the trend of rising exemptions continues, experts fear a resurgence of diseases like polio, whooping cough, and chickenpox—diseases that once caused widespread suffering and death before vaccines became available.

Vaccination is not just a personal choice—it’s a public responsibility. The recent CDC data serves as a warning. If exemptions continue to rise, the U.S. could see the return of once-eradicated diseases on a larger scale.

Not forever, but what if you could press pause on Alzheimer’s just long enough to enjoy a few more good years? That is the tantalising promise behind a new drug called lecanemab, hailed as a game-changer in the fight against dementia.

The drug has already been licensed for use in the UK after trials showed it could slow the pace of decline in people with early-stage Alzheimer’s. But new long-term findings are turning cautious hope into something stronger: patients who stayed on lecanemab for four years experienced a noticeable delay in the disease's progression. Some even showed no decline at all.

How It Works

In the initial 18-month trial, the drug delayed Alzheimer’s progression by just under six months. That might not sound like much, but it’s the long game that matters here. Among 478 patients who remained on the drug for four years, the average delay before their disease advanced to the next stage stretched to almost 11 months.

Even more striking: 69 per cent of those with low levels of tau saw no decline at all over the four years. And over half in that same group actually improved their cognitive scores.

A Slow Slide Instead of a Steep Drop

Typically, people with mild Alzheimer’s see their scores on memory and function tests worsen by one or two points each year. But for those taking lecanemab, the total decline across four years was just 1.75 points. That’s a major shift in the rhythm of the disease, changing it from a downhill tumble to a slow shuffle.

Professor Christopher Van Dyck, who led the study at Yale School of Medicine, puts it simply: “You will get worse over time, but it will take longer to get there.” That extra time could mean more independence, more connection with loved ones, and more living.

Why Early Treatment is Key

This makes a strong case for early diagnosis and intervention, which could shift the way we approach Alzheimer’s care. No longer is it just about managing symptoms; it’s about changing the trajectory of the disease.

Not a Cure, But a Clear Step Forward

Lecanemab isn’t a miracle cure. It doesn’t reverse Alzheimer’s, and it’s not suitable for all patients. But experts say it’s a major milestone. Reportedly, this is the first wave of disease-modifying treatments and there’s still plenty to understand.

Other Contenders in the Ring

Lecanemab isn’t the only drug showing promise. A similar treatment called donanemab was tested over a three-year period, though it was only administered for 18 months. Still, the results were encouraging: patients on the drug gained an extra six to 12 months before their disease progressed.

That might not sound earth-shattering, but in a condition where time is everything, even a few more months of clarity and connection can be priceless.

The research is still evolving, but the signs are encouraging. With continued trials, this could be the start of a new chapter in dementia treatment, one where patients and families have more time to prepare, more time to enjoy life, and more hope than ever before.

When 63-year-old John Starns slumped on a train station bench in Sevenoaks, drenched in sweat and struggling to stay upright, most passers-by assumed he was drunk. He looked wobbly, pale, and visibly disoriented. But what looked like an awkward case of public intoxication turned out to be something far more sinister: a brain tumour hiding behind symptoms commonly mistaken for vertigo.

From “It’s Just Vertigo” to “You Have a Brain Tumour”

Three months and one MRI scan later, John finally got the truth. He reportedly had a vestibular schwannoma, a rare, benign brain tumour sitting on the nerve that connects the brain to the inner ear. It was affecting his balance, hearing, and overall coordination, symptoms that, in hindsight, were never typical of garden-variety vertigo.

What is Vestibular Schwannoma?

That is why the symptoms can masquerade as something much less serious.

• Dizziness or vertigo
• Hearing loss in one ear
• Ringing or buzzing sounds (tinnitus)
• Poor sound localisation
• In more advanced cases, numbness on one side of the face

Because these tumours grow at a glacial pace, symptoms tend to hide for months or even years. According to Cancer Research UK, they account for around 8 per cent of all brain tumours, with risk increasing significantly after the age of 65. In rare cases, they are linked to a genetic condition called neurofibromatosis, which often causes tumours on both sides of the brain.

Why Dizziness Deserves a Second Look

For John, it was not just one woozy episode. It was a string of unsettling, spin-the-room moments that left him lying flat on his back, eyes squeezed shut, praying for the world to stop pirouetting. And while vertigo was the first suspect, his brain had other plans, like growing a tumour on his vestibulocochlear nerve.

That is the thing with dizziness: it is vague, common, and often misunderstood. It can signal anything from low blood pressure and ear infections to neurological conditions that need serious medical attention. But because it is so easy to dismiss and hard to describe without wildly gesturing, it often gets brushed under the rug until it insists on being noticed.

If you face dizziness, do not ignore it. Especially if the dizziness is intense, recurrent, or comes with sidekicks like hearing loss, balance issues, or ringing in your ears.

In a controversial move that has rattled the U.S. medical community, federal health officials have severed ties with more than half a dozen major medical organizations from participating in government vaccine advisory workgroups.

The decision, communicated via email on Thursday, disinvites top experts from these groups from contributing to the workgroups that support the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a key body that guides the nation’s vaccination policies.

Organizations affected include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and several others, many of whom have historically played a critical role in shaping vaccine guidelines.

“This is deeply concerning and distressing,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a renowned vaccine expert from Vanderbilt University who has been involved with ACIP workgroups for decades. “Removing these organizations will likely create conflicting messages about vaccine guidance. Patients might hear one thing from the government and another from their personal doctors.”

Longstanding Collaboration Ends Abruptly

For years, the ACIP has relied on a structured system where experts from various medical and scientific fields evaluate vaccine data and help draft recommendations. These recommendations, once approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), often inform clinical practice and determine insurance coverage.

But according to an email obtained by Bloomberg and confirmed by federal officials on Friday, the medical organizations are now being sidelined on the grounds that they are “special interest groups” and are assumed to carry a “bias” due to the populations they serve.

Dr. Schaffner defended the former system, highlighting how professional organizations offered practical insights on how recommendations could be realistically implemented in clinical settings. Importantly, all members were subject to conflict-of-interest vetting, ensuring objective guidance, he added.

Health Secretary Kennedy’s Sweeping Changes

This latest shake-up follows an earlier, unprecedented move in June when U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly dismissed the entire ACIP panel, accusing it of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers. Kennedy, a former leader in the anti-vaccine movement, has since appointed several known vaccine skeptics to the new committee.

Among the organizations removed from the workgroup process are the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, National Medical Association, and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

In a joint statement released Friday, the AMA and several of the disinvited organizations denounced the decision, calling it “irresponsible” and “dangerous to our nation’s health.” The statement warned that excluding their medical expertise “will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.”

The groups urged the administration to reverse the decision, emphasizing the importance of transparency and collaboration in public health decision-making.

Lawsuit and Fallout

Several of the ousted organizations had previously criticized Kennedy’s overhaul of the ACIP. Last month, three of them joined a lawsuit challenging the government’s decision to halt COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for most children and pregnant women, a policy shift that has been widely criticized by public health experts.

Meanwhile, newly appointed ACIP member Retsef Levi, a professor of business management with no formal medical background, defended the administration's direction on social media. Levi wrote that future workgroups would “engage experts from an even broader set of disciplines,” and claimed that membership would be based on “merit & expertise, not organizational affiliations with conflicts of interest.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not yet disclosed which experts will replace the disinvited members or when the new workgroups will begin operating.