The future of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. is suddenly in question. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s newly restructured vaccine advisory committee is set to vote this week in Atlanta on whether to alter long-standing recommendations for several critical vaccines, including shots against chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19.

The committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), plays a powerful role: its recommendations guide pediatricians nationwide and determine which shots are covered by the government-funded Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a safety net for low-income families.

While some experts say the agenda looks like a routine review, others worry it could open the door to unnecessary confusion, weaken trust, and reduce access to vaccines that have long protected children from serious disease.

Also Read: Unique Symptoms Of Covid In 2025 And How Long Infection Now Last

Chickenpox and the MMRV Vaccine Debate

Before the chickenpox vaccine was licensed in 1995, nearly every American child contracted the disease. While often dismissed as a rite of passage with itchy rashes and mild fevers, chickenpox could also lead to severe complications like pneumonia, skin infections, brain swelling, and in rare cases, death. The virus, varicella, also lingers in the body and can resurface decades later as shingles, a painful nerve condition.

The introduction of the vaccine dramatically reduced cases and hospitalizations. In 2005, regulators approved a combination shot called MMRV, which bundled measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines into a single injection. Initially, health officials recommended the combo as the preferred option for the first dose in toddlers.

However, studies soon revealed a catch: children who received the MMRV shot were more likely to develop fevers, rashes, and in rare instances, febrile seizures compared with those who got separate MMR and varicella injections.

In response, the ACIP in 2009 updated its guidance, recommending separate shots for the first dose (typically given between ages 12–15 months) but allowing the combo shot for the second dose in preschool years.

Today, most pediatricians follow that approach. Still, the evidence hasn’t changed in over a decade. That raises eyebrows about why the Kennedy-led committee is reopening the debate now.

Public health experts caution that limiting the combined shot could make vaccination less convenient for families and potentially reduce uptake. Pediatric advisors warn that even small barriers, like two shots instead of one, can mean some kids fall behind.

Why Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Still Matter

While much of the attention is on chickenpox, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine remains equally critical. Each of these viruses was once a common threat in childhood:

• Measles can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, and death.
• Mumps can cause meningitis and, in boys, permanent infertility.
• Rubella is especially dangerous for pregnant women, sometimes causing miscarriage or severe birth defects.

Before widespread vaccination began in the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. contracted these diseases every year. Outbreaks have returned in recent years when vaccination rates dip, underscoring the importance of reliable and consistent recommendations.

Revisiting guidance without new evidence, experts say, risks fueling skepticism among parents already facing a flood of misinformation online.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Question

The COVID-19 shots are also on the table. Typically, ACIP renews recommendations annually for vaccines against respiratory viruses such as flu. But this June, Kennedy’s panel endorsed flu vaccines while staying silent on COVID-19.

Also Read: US Health Officials To Examine Covid Vaccine Effects In Pregnant Women And Kids

That silence matters. Earlier, Kennedy had already removed COVID-19 shots from CDC recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women, sparking lawsuits from pediatric groups who said the move endangered kids’ health.

The FDA recently narrowed the authorization of updated COVID-19 vaccines, limiting use for certain younger groups. If ACIP mirrors that without clarification, millions of children could lose federally funded access through the Vaccines for Children program. Experts warn this could leave families confused, especially since COVID-19 formulations update yearly, much like flu shots.

Revisiting Hepatitis B Vaccinations

Hepatitis B presents a different set of challenges. The virus can cause chronic liver infection, cirrhosis, and cancer. While adults often acquire it through sexual contact or sharing needles, newborns face the highest lifelong risk if exposed at birth.

Read More: Hepatitis B Vaccination Timeline For Children Under Review Without Scientific Data, Says Former CDC Director Susan Monarez

Since 2005, U.S. guidance has recommended that infants receive their first hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth. This approach significantly reduced cases of mother-to-child transmission, which often slipped through maternal screening programs. Studies show the newborn shot is safe and highly effective, preventing 85–95% of chronic infections.

Yet Kennedy’s committee has floated the idea of revisiting this recommendation, though experts note there is no new evidence suggesting safety concerns. Critics argue that questioning the birth dose now could reverse decades of progress.

Why the Stakes Are So High

Beyond the science, the politics surrounding these deliberations are unusual. Kennedy, once one of the nation’s most vocal vaccine skeptics, dismissed the 17-member ACIP earlier this year and replaced it with a panel that includes several anti-vaccine voices.

Historically, ACIP’s recommendations are based on careful review by subcommittees made up of pediatricians, infectious disease experts, pharmacists, and public health officials. Those subgroups sift through peer-reviewed studies, track outbreaks, and balance risks against benefits. But this time, critics say the process appears less about science and more about ideology.

Even if the committee doesn’t overturn long-standing guidance, simply reopening settled debates may erode confidence. Parents who hear that vaccines are “under review” might delay or decline shots, leaving children vulnerable.

Perhaps most worrisome: a restrictive vote could block coverage of these vaccines under the Vaccines for Children program, which supplies nearly half of all childhood shots in the U.S. Without it, low-income families could lose access, widening gaps in protection.

What Lies Ahead?

The stakes of this week’s ACIP votes go far beyond the meeting room in Atlanta. At issue is not just whether a child gets one shot or two, but whether the nation maintains decades of progress against diseases once considered inevitable.

Chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19 vaccines have all proven their worth in protecting children from dangerous, sometimes deadly illnesses. Experts say undermining trust or restricting access now could reopen the door to outbreaks that public health worked so hard to shut.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US, has issued a statement recalling an organic baby formula. The company ByHeart Inc's two lots of Whole Nutrition Infant Formula has been recalled, the lots are:

• Lot: 206VABP/251261P2 ("Use by 01 Dec 2026")
• Lot: 206VABP/251131P2 ("Use by 01 Dec 2026")

In a statement, the CDC wrote:

CDC and public health officials in several states, the Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program, and FDA are investigating a multistate outbreak of infant botulism linked to recalled infant formula. Infant botulism happens when swallowed spores from a type of bacteria called Clostridium botulinum infects a baby's large intestine and make toxin in it. Infant botulism often starts with constipation but is usually first noticed as difficulty feeding (sucking and swallowing), a weak and altered cry, and loss of muscle tone.

The CDC also notes that 10 states have seen the cases infant botulism. 13 cases have been reported, all of them leading to hospitalization.

The Food and Drug Administration (DA), US has also asked parents and caregivers who have this product to identify the given lot information at the bottom of the packaging and if it matches, they must throw it away. The FDA has said that it is working with retailers to remove "all potentially impacted product" from the store shelves.

FDA has also asked parents who have fed their kids ByHeart's infant formula to keep and eye on them as a precaution and botulism can take two weeks to develop.

The States Which Have Reported The Cases Of Infant Botulism Linked With ByHeart Formula:

• Arizona
• California
• Illinois
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Washington

What Is Infant Botulism?

Most common form of all botulism in babies, who are between 2 to 8 months old. It happens when the bacteria spores grow in a baby’s intestines and produce the toxin. Honey and contaminated soil can be sources of infant botulism. Adults can also get this type, though it’s rare.

What Are The Symptoms Of Botulism In Infants?

As per CDC, the symptoms include:

• Most infants with infant botulism will initially develop constipation, poor feeding, loss of head control, and difficulty swallowing
• If untreated, infants with infant botulism experience a progressive flaccid paralysis that can lead to breathing difficulties and required weeks of hospitalization

The CDC has also recommended that if clinical supports infant botulism then parents and caregivers must begin the treatment and should not wait for laboratory confirmation.

What Did The Makers Of The Infant Formula Say?

ByHeart, which is a New York City based company said that the FDA has as of now tracked 83 reports of infant botulism across the nation since August, 13 of them from the formula. In the statement, the company said: "ByHeart is taking the proactive step to remove any potential risk from the market and ensure the highest level of safety for infants. The FDA has not identified a direct link between any infant formula and these cases and there is no historical precedent of infant formula causing infant botulism."

Eli Lilly’s weight-loss and diabetes injection, Mounjaro, has overtaken GSK’s antibiotic Augmentin (GSK.L) to become India’s highest-selling drug by value in October, as demand for weight-loss treatments continues to surge in the world’s most populated country. According to new data from research firm Pharmarack, the U.S.-based drugmaker’s popular injectable earned ₹1 billion ($11.38 million) in sales last month, compared to Augmentin’s ₹800 million.

While Augmentin still led in overall units sold—5.8 million doses versus 85,000 of Mounjaro—the latter’s premium pricing pushed it ahead in total value, as per Reuters. Analysts say India is rapidly emerging as a major market for obesity treatments, with the global weight-loss drug sector expected to cross $150 billion annually by the end of this decade.

Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro Becomes India’s Top-Selling Medicine in October

Launched in India in March 2025, Mounjaro which helps regulate blood sugar levels and reduces appetite—has seen its sales double within months, surpassing its rival Wegovy by Novo Nordisk, which entered the Indian market in June. Data from Pharmarack shows that Mounjaro has so far generated ₹3.33 billion in total revenue.

“Mounjaro’s consumption in India by volume was nearly ten times higher than Wegovy in October,” said Sheetal Sapale, Vice President (Commercial) at Pharmarack. Eli Lilly sold around 262,000 doses of Mounjaro last month, compared to 26,000 doses of Wegovy. Both drugs belong to the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, designed to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.

How Does Mounjaro Work?

Mounjaro is a once-weekly injectable medication developed primarily for managing type 2 diabetes. Its key ingredient, tirzepatide, is the first of its kind to act on two gut hormones—GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) and GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide). This dual mechanism makes Mounjaro more advanced than older drugs such as Ozempic (semaglutide) or Victoza (liraglutide), which target only GLP-1, which is thus driving a surge in its sale in india.

Although it was originally approved for diabetes management, Mounjaro has attracted global attention for its strong weight-loss effects. Ongoing studies are evaluating its use for non-diabetic individuals struggling with obesity. The drug mimics the action of GIP and GLP-1, which are hormones released naturally after meals to regulate insulin release, lower blood sugar, and suppress appetite.

Mounjaro for Type 2 Diabetes

For people living with type 2 diabetes, keeping blood sugar in check often requires a combination of medicines, diet adjustments, and regular monitoring. Mounjaro offers a more integrated solution by targeting multiple factors that influence glucose levels. Findings from clinical trials, including the SURPASS-1 to SURPASS-5 studies, show that Mounjaro delivers better outcomes than many existing diabetes treatments, particularly in lowering HbA1c levels—a key marker of long-term glucose control.

Patients using Mounjaro have shown:

• Lower fasting and post-meal blood sugar levels
• Reductions in HbA1c by up to 2.5%
• Improved insulin sensitivity

Mounjaro and Weight Loss

Beyond its use for diabetes, Mounjaro has gained global popularity for its significant role in weight reduction. Clinical studies reveal that people taking the drug often lose between 15% and 20% of their body weight over several months of consistent use. This level of weight loss surpasses that seen with many earlier treatments and even some surgical interventions, making Mounjaro one of the most effective options currently available for managing obesity.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general information and should not replace professional medical guidance. Always consult your doctor for advice or concerns regarding any health condition.

Following the sharp hike in the H-1B visa fee to $100,000, the Trump administration may soon begin rejecting visa applications from foreigners with certain health conditions, including diabetes and obesity.

While there has been no formal confirmation from U.S. authorities, a report by KFF Health News said a cable from the State Department to embassies and consulates listed new health-related grounds for visa denials.

Trump May Now Deny Entry to Diabetic and Obese Immigrants

According to the report, the guidance instructs visa officers to consider applicants ineligible for entry based on factors such as age and medical conditions, including cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, diabetes, metabolic and neurological disorders, and certain mental health conditions.

Officers have also been told to evaluate other issues such as obesity — which can contribute to high blood pressure, asthma, and sleep apnea, when assessing whether an applicant might become a “public charge,” or a potential financial burden on the U.S. government.

The guidance further directs officials to determine whether the applicant has sufficient financial resources to pay for their care. “Does the applicant have adequate financial resources to cover the costs of such care over his entire expected lifespan without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense?” the cable states.

It adds that individuals who could become a “public charge” — due to age or chronic health problems, may be denied entry for potentially relying on U.S. public resources.

Although the directive applies broadly to most visa categories, it is expected to primarily impact those applying for permanent residency, senior attorney Charles Wheeler told KFF Health News.

Can US Officers Reject Visas Over Health Or Financial Ability?

Visa officers have also been instructed to evaluate whether applicants can afford medical treatment independently, without relying on U.S. public funds.

Wheeler said the new rule gives officers the power to form their own opinions on what might lead to future medical emergencies or financial strain. “That’s concerning because these officers are not medically trained, have no expertise in this area, and should not be making projections based on personal judgment or bias,” Wheeler said.

US Visa Officers To Consider Health Of Applicants’ Family Members

The cable also instructs visa officers to assess the health of applicants’ family members — including children or elderly parents, when determining visa eligibility.

“Do any of the dependents have disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or other special needs and require care such that the applicant cannot maintain employment?” the State Department communication asks.

Currently, immigrant applicants must undergo a medical examination conducted by a doctor approved by the U.S. embassy. The screening includes tests for infectious diseases, an evaluation of mental health history, substance use, and proof of vaccination against illnesses such as measles, polio, and hepatitis B.

However, immigration lawyer Sophia Genovese from Georgetown University noted that the new guidance expands these requirements by directing officials to weigh long-term health conditions, not just communicable diseases, when reviewing visa applications.