Wes Streeting, the UK's Health Secretary, recently sparked controversy by saying that there are certain mental health conditions that are being overdiagnosed. In an interview with BBC's One's Sunday with Laura Kussenberg, he expressed his concerns that too many people are being "written off" due to mental health diagnoses. This could potentially prevent them from re-entering the workforce. He also however suggested that early intervention could help the people to stay employed and that over diagnosis of mental health conditions may be causing unnecessary dependence on welfare benefits.

His comments came amid discussions on potential government reforms to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and other disability benefits. Furthermore, it is during this time when in the US, health sector is undergoing major changes, and important issues like mental health is sidelined. In such a scenario, Streeting's comment did not sit right with the people.

His remarks have rather drawn criticism from mental health professionals and advocacy groups who have argued that such rhetoric risks stigmatize mental health conditions and discourages people from seeking help.

What The Experts Say?

Minesh Patel, Associate Director of Policy and Campaigns at the mental health charity Mind, acknowledged the need for better support but warned against language that undermines legitimate medical diagnoses. He pointed out that individuals applying for benefits already undergo rigorous assessments, with many initial denials later overturned at appeal.

Robert Howard, a professor of old age psychiatry at University College London, expressed concerns that Streeting’s statements could be used to justify reductions in mental health funding. He emphasized that rather than questioning diagnoses, the government should focus on ensuring timely and effective treatment. Howard also highlighted that many young people with anxiety and other conditions struggle to work, and the best way to support them is through accessible psychological therapy—not by suggesting they are not truly ill.

Is Mental Health Really Overdiagnosed?

This topic has always been a heated one, and has been the heart of debates. Some studies suggest that mental health diagnoses have increased in the recent years. However, experts argue that this is due to the greater awareness and improved access to mental health help and resources. The approach too have been better, where people are now more open about talking it. Media too has made a mark by producing films and documentaries around it. capturing what it looks like. documenting the experiences, and thus allowing a discourse.

A 2022 study published in The Lancet Psychiatry found that while there has been a rise in diagnoses of anxiety and depression, this correlates with increasing societal stressors such as economic uncertainty and social isolation. The study emphasized that proper mental health support can significantly improve employment outcomes, contradicting the notion that overdiagnosis is a widespread issue.

Similarly, a report from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) found that many individuals with mental health conditions still face delays in receiving treatment. This suggests that the issue is not overdiagnosis but rather an inadequate response to growing mental health needs. Moreover, research from the British Journal of Psychiatry has shown that underdiagnosis remains a bigger concern, particularly among marginalized groups who may not have access to appropriate care.

Experts warn that Streeting’s comments could inadvertently discourage people from seeking help or lead policymakers to introduce stricter benefit eligibility criteria, making it harder for those with genuine mental health struggles to receive the necessary support.

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.

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 US childhood vaccination schedule has become the center of a heated debate and much attention is being drawn towards it after a Senate hearing revealed the possible changes to when critical shots like the hepatitis B vaccine are given. Susan Monarez, former director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing said that she was fired in August for refusing two demands by Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, which were: fire career agency officials and sign off vaccine recommendations without seeing any data.

“He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign,” she said. “I responded that I could not pre-approve recommendations without reviewing the evidence, and I had no basis to fire scientific experts.”

At stake is not just the timeline of immunization, but also health and safety of millions of children who rely on vaccines to protect them from life-threatening diseases.

“The concern is Robert F Kennedy [Jr.] is going to make America sicker again,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “They’re going to send us towards more disease, more death and more despair in our nation.”

Why Does Vaccine Schedule Matter?

The CDC, through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), sets the recommended vaccine schedule for children. While not mandatory, these guidelines strongly influence what health insurers cover and how doctors across the country advise parents.

For decades, the schedule has ensured that children are vaccinated against highly contagious diseases at the ages when they are most vulnerable. Changes to this timeline are not simply administrative, they have direct consequences on whether children remain protected against illnesses that once caused widespread suffering and death.

Debate Around The Hepatitis B Vaccine

One of the most debated issues that has risen is the hepatitis vaccine. It is from 1991 that the CDC recommended that babies must receive the first dose within 24 hours of birth, followed by additional doses at one month and between six to eighteen months.

This timing is not arbitrary. Hepatitis B is a viral infection that attacks the liver and can lead to cirrhosis, cancer, and lifelong health complications. Critically, the risk of developing chronic hepatitis B depends on the age at which a person is infected. Babies infected at birth have up to a 90% chance of developing chronic infection. Adults, by comparison, have only about a 5% chance.

Because many mothers are unaware they carry the virus, the birth dose serves as a crucial safeguard. It blocks transmission at the earliest stage, preventing lifelong illness and premature deaths.

So, What Could Change?

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the committee’s chair, asked Monarez if Kennedy had told her he was going to change the childhood vaccination schedule. “He said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September, and I needed to be on board with it,” Monarez said.

What is being proposed contradicts the CDC recommendation of hepatitis shot being the first one for a child to receive within 24 hours of being born. Testimony at the Senate hearing suggested that the vaccine schedule could be revised to delay the first dose of the hepatitis B shot until age 4. Former CDC officials raised alarms that this proposal was not based on scientific data but rather political direction.

If implemented, such a shift would mean babies could go unprotected during the period when they are most at risk of contracting hepatitis B from their mothers or close contacts. Experts warned this would undo decades of progress in reducing infant infections, from 20,000 cases annually before 1991 to fewer than 20 per year today.

Risks of Delaying Vaccination

Delaying hepatitis B vaccination could open the door to a resurgence of preventable infections. Even if mothers are screened during pregnancy, screening isn’t perfect, and some may acquire the infection late in pregnancy or go undiagnosed. Without the immediate protection of the birth dose, babies would be vulnerable.

Moreover, shifting vaccines later in childhood carries another risk: missed doses. Studies show that adherence to vaccines is highest in infancy, when routine well-baby visits are frequent. Delaying could mean some children never get fully vaccinated at all.

The consequences are not minor. Untreated hepatitis B leads to chronic infection in most infants, setting them on a path toward liver damage, cirrhosis, and cancer later in life.

Concerns for Childhood Immunization

The hepatitis B vaccine isn’t the only one under review. The same advisory panel is expected to revisit recommendations for measles, chickenpox, and the updated COVID-19 shot.

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

Critics worry that altering the established childhood schedule without thorough scientific review could destabilize public trust and increase preventable outbreaks.

The controversy comes at a time when confidence in public health agencies is already slipping. According to a recent KFF poll, trust in the CDC dropped from 63% in 2023 to 57% in 2025. Changes seen as politically motivated, rather than evidence-driven, could erode that trust even further.

Why Science-Based Decisions Are Essential

Experts stress that vaccination decisions should be grounded in data, not politics. The success of public health in the U.S., from reducing measles deaths to nearly eliminating mother-to-child hepatitis B transmission—has hinged on science-led policymaking.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a gastroenterologist, reminded lawmakers that the hepatitis B vaccine transformed infant health in America: “Before 1991, as many as 20,000 babies were infected with hepatitis B each year. Now, fewer than 20 babies annually get the virus from their mother.”

Such achievements highlight the life-saving role of evidence-based vaccination. Undoing or weakening these protections without compelling scientific justification risks reversing decades of progress.

What Comes Next?

The ACIP meeting will be pivotal in determining the future of the childhood vaccine schedule. If changes are recommended, they could reshape how millions of American children are immunized. However, for many experts, the principle remains clear: any adjustments must be backed by rigorous data and public health expertise.

Federal health officials are taking a closer look at the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women and children, while also weighing updates to recommendations for older adults.

According to U.S. News, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing reports of possible birth defects following vaccination during pregnancy and is preparing data on deaths in children after receiving COVID shots.

The review will be presented during a September 18-19, 2025, meeting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory committee, CNN reported. Experts emphasise that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), one of the primary tools being used in the review, is a monitoring system meant to detect potential safety signals. It does not establish that vaccines directly caused the reported health problems.

What Is VAERS?

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is designed to act as an early-warning tool, flagging potential safety signals that may warrant further study. “VAERS is a system that generates hypotheses,” explained Dr Demetre Daskalakis, who recently stepped down as director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in an interview with CNN.

So far, large-scale studies have continued to show that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in pregnancy. The CDC has tracked outcomes in more than 23,000 pregnant women through one registry and more than 45,000 in another database, finding no increased risk of miscarriage, major birth defects, or other complications. Similarly, Pfizer reported that rates of birth defects in vaccinated participants during a clinical trial were comparable to those in the general population.

The CDC advisory committee is also expected to discuss whether vaccine guidance for older adults should be revised. While COVID vaccines are currently approved for adults 65 and older, as well as younger adults at high risk of severe illness, the panel may consider recommending them mainly for those 75 and older, or for younger individuals with underlying conditions.

ALSO READ: Is 'Stratus' COVID Variant The Pandemic’s Next Chapter In 2025 With New Symptoms?

New COVID Variant ‘Stratus’ Dominates U.S. Cases

COVID-19 activity remained high across the United States during the first week of September, according to fresh data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Despite the confusion around emerging strains, shifting vaccine guidelines, and cuts to vaccine development funding, the agency continues to track cases, hospitalisations, and deaths on a weekly basis.

For the four weeks ending August 30, projections show that a new variant called XFG. nicknamed “Stratus” accounted for 78 percent of infections nationwide. The next most common strains were NB.1.8.1 at 14 percent and LP.8.1 at 3 percent.

ALSO READ: Ozempic Users Found To Age Back By More Than 3 Years, Finds New Trial; Peer Review Pending

What Is the ‘Stratus’ Variant?

XFG is a late-summer Omicron offshoot and a recombinant strain, formed by blending two earlier lineages: F.7 and LP.8.1.2. Scientists say the variant may carry mutations that help it slip past parts of the immune system more effectively, though there is no evidence yet that it spreads faster than previous strains.

The CDC advises people to watch for familiar COVID-19 symptoms, which continue to include:

1. Fever or chills
2. Cough
3. Fatigue
4. Sore throat
5. Loss of taste or smell
6. Congestion
7. Muscle aches
8. Shortness of breath
9. Headache
10. Nausea or vomiting