In a closely watched vote, the U.S. Senate confirmed Dr. Susan Monarez as the new Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), marking a pivotal moment for an agency under intense political and public scrutiny. The 51-47 confirmation made Monarez the first CDC director to be Senate-confirmed under new legislation passed in 2023. The appointment follows months of leadership vacuum and ideological rifts inside the CDC that have fueled uncertainty in public health circles.

Monarez now steps into a role that has become as much about crisis management and restoring public trust as it is about public health science.

Who Is Susan Monarez?

At 50, Dr. Susan Monarez brings a formidable résumé steeped in science, biosecurity, and federal health policy. She holds a PhD in microbiology and immunology from the University of Wisconsin and completed her postdoctoral training at Stanford University. Before joining the CDC, Monarez served as Deputy Director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a government agency known for funding innovative biomedical research.

Her career spans multiple federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). These roles have given her deep exposure to health innovation, disaster preparedness, and pandemic response policy.

Also Read: Why Are Only Certain People At Risk Of Developing MS? World's First Study Aims To Crack The Code

Monarez has also led the development of national strategies to combat antibiotic resistance, close maternal health gaps, expand telehealth, and ensure the ethical use of health data. Her work has been consistently focused on bridging science and policy to tackle real-world health threats—both globally and domestically.

Monarez’s confirmation ends a stretch of instability at the CDC, which has been operating without a permanent director since early 2025. The agency has faced major staff losses, widespread morale issues, and increasingly vocal political pressure. President Trump’s initial nominee, David Weldon, was withdrawn unexpectedly, and Monarez was named acting director in January before being formally nominated in March.

During her confirmation hearing, Monarez maintained a diplomatic stance affirming her support for vaccines and science-based policy—while skirting direct questions about her relationship with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose controversial antivaccine positions have sparked upheaval within the agency. Kennedy has taken bold steps to sideline CDC authority, including bypassing the agency earlier this year to roll back COVID-19 vaccine guidance for pregnant women and children.

That move underscored the new reality Monarez inherits: a CDC whose power and relevance in setting public health policy is being redefined in real-time.

At her Senate hearing, Monarez was clear about her priorities: rebuilding public confidence in the CDC, modernizing outdated data infrastructure, and preparing for future infectious disease threats. These are not minor tasks. The CDC has suffered from a credibility gap over the last several years, exacerbated by mixed messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic, political interference, and what many in the public saw as a lack of transparency.

“She brings decades of distinguished experience in health innovation, disaster preparedness, global health, and biosecurity to CDC,” the agency said in a social media post following the vote. “Dr. Monarez will lead efforts to prevent disease and respond to domestic and global health threats.”

But restoring trust will take more than credentials. The CDC’s internal structure and external messaging need overhauling to match the expectations of a more skeptical and divided public. Monarez is taking over an agency in flux—both scientifically and politically.

Science and Strategy Behind the Leader

Monarez’s scientific work reflects a global and future-forward perspective. She has spent her career at the intersection of technology and health policy, especially in biodefense and medical preparedness. At ARPA-H, she helped direct funding toward tools for rapid disease detection, AI-driven health diagnostics, and innovative solutions for behavioral health and maternal care disparities.

She has also been deeply involved in policy development at the national level, helping craft presidential action plans and leading interagency coordination on issues ranging from pandemic preparedness to organ transplantation reform. In previous roles, she worked directly on combating multi-drug-resistant infections and led international collaborations with the EU, Canada, France, and others on biosecurity measures.

This blend of strategic vision and scientific rigor is exactly what public health experts say the CDC needs now—particularly in an era where emerging infectious diseases, misinformation, and technology disruptions often collide.

What’s Next for the CDC Under Monarez?

Monarez is stepping into the role amid mounting public health challenges. Vaccine skepticism is on the rise, federal funding for the CDC is set to be slashed under the 2026 budget proposal, and chronic disease burdens continue to grow alongside new threats like drug-resistant bacteria and climate-related health crises.

Her immediate task will be internal stabilization—building back teams, reaffirming scientific values, and reestablishing CDC leadership across state and local public health departments. Externally, she must walk a careful line: maintaining scientific integrity while navigating a politically volatile environment.

Already, her ability to operate in this tension-filled space is under watch. While her academic and professional pedigree earns her respect in science circles, her willingness—or reluctance—to directly challenge political directives from Secretary Kennedy and the White House will define her legacy at the CDC.

Susan Monarez’s confirmation is more than a personnel change; it signals a recalibration of how public health leadership will work in today’s polarized environment. Her track record suggests she understands the complexity and weight of the role.

The real test now is whether she can reassert the CDC’s voice in public health, without becoming another casualty in the ongoing tug-of-war between science and politics.

In what is being hailed as a groundbreaking moment in global transfusion medicine, a 38-year-old woman from Karnataka, India, has been identified as the first known carrier of a previously undocumented human blood group, now officially named CRIB. This unprecedented finding came to light when she was admitted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital in Kolar for heart surgery in 2023.

Though she was originally typed as O-positive, her blood didn’t behave like it. It reacted with every test sample available in the lab—something known as being panreactive. That raised immediate red flags among her physicians. No compatible donor could be found, even among 20 of her closest family members. Despite the risk, the surgical team completed her cardiac procedure without a transfusion—a decision that would later prove critical in her survival and in medical history.

What followed was a medical investigation that spanned continents. Her blood sample was sent to the International Blood Group Reference Laboratory (IBGRL) in Bristol, UK—one of the world’s leading institutions in blood group identification. There, a team of transfusion scientists spent 10 months conducting molecular and serological analyses to crack the case.

Also Read: James Van Der Beek Shares Health Update After Stage 3 Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis

Finally, they concluded that her blood carried an unknown antigen—a marker on red blood cells that typically determines compatibility for transfusions. The antigen didn’t match anything in the 43 existing blood group systems recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT).

A new antigen was identified within the Cromer blood group system, which involves proteins called decay-accelerating factor (DAF) on red cells. To honor the origin of the discovery, scientists named the antigen CRIB, an acronym combining Cromer, India, and Bengaluru.

What Is the CRIB Blood Group?

The CRIB blood group represents a rare antigen profile within the Cromer system. In most people, antigens in this group are present on DAF proteins. But in the CRIB case, the woman lacked a high-prevalence antigen commonly found in the general population, causing her immune system to react to every available donor blood type—even O-positive.

This made the woman’s blood functionally unique. Anyone with this blood type would need extremely rare, CRIB-negative blood in the case of transfusion—currently, there’s no known matching donor worldwide.

This isn’t just a medical oddity—it has far-reaching consequences for how we approach blood donation, transfusion safety, and immunogenetics.

The CRIB blood group challenges conventional systems used for blood typing and compatibility. It underscores how standard blood typing is still incomplete, and how gaps in our understanding can be dangerous—especially in emergency surgeries or during pregnancy.

How Is This Blood Type Discovery Affect Pregnancy and Fetal Health?

The discovery of CRIB has serious implications for fetal medicine. Similar to how Rh incompatibility can lead to Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn (HDFN), CRIB-positive mothers might develop antibodies that attack the fetus’s red blood cells—if the baby inherits incompatible antigens.

Detecting CRIB in expectant mothers could therefore become critical in preventing miscarriage or fetal complications.

India’s diverse gene pool has previously produced rare blood group discoveries, including INRA (Indian Rare Antigen), first identified in 2017. With CRIB now officially recognised by ISBT, it marks India’s second major contribution to global transfusion science in under a decade.

This elevates the importance of developing a national rare blood registry, and investing in genetic blood screening—not just for patients, but for potential donors.

What Is The Science Behind the Cromer Group?

The Cromer blood group system is one of the more obscure and less commonly tested classifications in blood science. It involves antigens located on the DAF (decay-accelerating factor), which protects blood cells from immune destruction. Variants in these antigens can cause unexpected immune reactions during transfusions.

CRIB appears to represent a novel Cromer antigen—meaning it doesn’t behave like any of the previously documented ones. This puts it in a category of what transfusion scientists call high-prevalence antigen absences, where even a single unit of compatible blood can be hard—or impossible—to find.

In an effort to find a compatible blood donor, doctors collected samples from 20 of her family members. None matched. This confirmed that the antigen pattern was not only rare—it was potentially unique.

The case was handled with meticulous care. According to Dr. Ankit Mathur from the Rotary Bangalore TTK Blood Centre, “Her blood was panreactive, incompatible with all test samples. Recognising this as a possible case of a rare or unknown blood type, we worked closely with international experts and managed the case without transfusion.” Now that CRIB has been added to the official ISBT database, transfusion scientists across the world are advocating for:

• Development of CRIB-specific antibody screening kits
• International rare blood registries to flag potential future donors
• Greater investment in genetic blood typing, especially in populations with diverse ancestry
• Training healthcare professionals to recognise and manage panreactive or atypical cases earlier

The discovery of CRIB is more than a scientific milestone—it’s a reminder of how individual cases can rewrite medical textbooks. One woman’s unusual blood has now become a catalyst for change in how we view transfusion safety, genetics, and global healthcare cooperation.

For now, she remains the only known person in the world with the CRIB blood group but her case has opened the door to more discoveries and potentially, more lives saved.

James Van Der Beek says his life will never be the same again. Diagnosed with stage 3 colorectal cancer in August 2023, the Dawson’s Creek and Varsity Blues actor is now facing the kind of life transformation that goes far beyond Hollywood scripts.

“I’m just on the journey,” the 48-year-old told Today.com in a candid interview. “It's a process. It'll probably be a process for the rest of my life."

For Van Der Beek, living with cancer isn’t just about treatment. It’s become a full-time job, one that’s required a complete overhaul of his lifestyle. From modifying his diet to rethinking how he exercises and rests, the actor has embraced a slower, more intentional way of living.

Finding Peace in Slowing Down

“The most important thing,” Van Der Beek shared, “is to find the beauty of just taking things a little bit more slowly and prioritizing rest, and really allowing that to be the job.”

His perspective is reflective of someone who has been forced to confront mortality. In an emotional Instagram post in March, the actor said, “I had to come nose to nose with death.”

During treatment, he had to step back from his role as a father and husband. “I could no longer be a father who could pick up his kids and put them to bed... I could not be a provider because I wasn't working."

Yet in the quiet moments of stillness, he found something unexpected: spiritual clarity. “I meditated and the answer came through. I am worthy of God's love, simply because I exist. And if I'm worthy of God's love, shouldn't I also be worthy of my own?”

Encouraging Others to Get Screened

Van Der Beek, who was screened at age 46, is now encouraging others to get checked earlier. He admitted he was unaware that the recommended age for colorectal cancer screenings had been lowered to 45.

“I thought I was way ahead of the game,” he said. “I ate as well as I could. I was healthy. I was in amazing cardiovascular shape. There was no reason in my mind that I should have gotten a positive diagnosis.”

His message is clear: even those who feel and look healthy aren’t immune, and early detection can be life-saving.

Back on Set and Grateful for It

Despite everything, Van Der Beek has been finding joy and even normalcy through work. He recently filmed for the upcoming Legally Blonde prequel series Elle, calling the experience a much-needed escape.

"The greatest thing about work is cancer doesn't exist between action and cut," he said. “It was fun to drop in and just have a blast… It’s such a great cast, a great production, and everybody out there is really talented.”

A Healing Phase and a Family Anchor

In March, he gave Extra an update from his Texas ranch, where he lives with his wife Kimberly and their six children, Olivia (14), Joshua (13), Annabel (11), Emilia (9), Gwendolyn (7), and Jeremiah (3). Van Der Beek said he’s now in a “healing portal,” adding, “I feel like I can see the finish line.”

Earlier that month, he made his debut as the Griffin on The Masked Singer, a role that offered unexpected emotional catharsis. “To be able to put on the mask and connect with an audience without [my diagnosis] being a part of the equation was actually a really beautiful thing,” he said.

Last month, 17 top public health experts were abruptly removed from the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the group historically responsible for setting national vaccine guidelines. The move came directly from U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who dismissed the entire panel, accusing them of being too closely tied to vaccine manufacturers and too quick to approve vaccines without scrutiny.

In their place, Kennedy appointed several individuals known for their skepticism toward vaccines, a controversial decision that has sparked concern among the medical community.

READ MORE ON: RFK Jr. Removes Entire CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee

Kennedy Names New Vaccine Advisers Among Whom Are Anti-Vaxxers And Those Who Spread Misinformation

“A Travesty” of a First Meeting

In a strongly worded commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week, the ousted experts criticized what they say is a dangerous shift in how vaccine policy is being handled. According to the former committee members, the new ACIP lacks rigorous scientific review and open discussion.

They pointed to the new committee’s first meeting in June as a troubling example.

The session included a presentation from a known anti-vaccine advocate warning against thimerosal, a preservative used in some flu vaccines, despite longstanding studies showing no link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. Strikingly, the new panel did not hear from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists who could have presented data debunking the concerns.

Despite acknowledging the lack of evidence against thimerosal, the committee still voted to recommend removing it from vaccines.

ALSO READ: RFK Jr. Orders Thimerosal Removed From All US Flu Shots

“That meeting was a travesty, honestly,” said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatric infectious disease expert from Stanford University and a former ACIP member, as reported by AP.

A Pattern of Destabilization

This isn’t the first time Kennedy’s decisions have raised eyebrows.

In May, he made headlines for halting the federal recommendation of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. The fired experts addressed this in an earlier essay published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, calling Kennedy’s choices “destabilizing.”

Now, their latest commentary goes further, warning that the current path could lead to long-term damage to public health. They argue that Kennedy and his newly selected panel are dismantling a once-trusted system that upheld science-based, unbiased vaccine guidance for decades.

Proposing a Way Forward

Recognizing the challenge of restoring the former ACIP structure, the ousted experts proposed new ideas for preserving trustworthy vaccine policy. They suggest forming an alternative committee, potentially independent from the federal government, to provide reliable recommendations.

“No viable pathway exists to fully replace the prior trusted and unbiased ACIP structure and process,” they wrote. “Instead, the alternatives must focus on limiting the damage to vaccination policy in the United States.”

Other suggestions included encouraging leading professional health organizations to collaborate on unified recommendations, or establishing an external group to audit ACIP’s guidance. However, the experts admitted that such efforts face major hurdles, especially regarding access to government-held data.

YOU MAY LIKE TO READ: RFK Hires Autism Skeptic To Look Into CDC Autism Data

Insurance Coverage and Access at Risk

Noel Brewer, a former committee member from the University of North Carolina, warned that insurers might selectively cover vaccines based on short-term cost savings. For example, the flu shot, which helps avoid immediate healthcare expenses, might be approved, while longer-term preventive vaccines, like the HPV shot, could be left out.

“That’s the danger,” Brewer said. “Vaccines that prevent future cancers might not make the cut.”

A Growing Controversy

Kennedy’s actions have not gone unnoticed in Congress. During a recent House hearing, Democratic lawmakers grilled him about his rapid and sweeping changes to national vaccine policy. So far, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not responded to media inquiries regarding the criticism or the experts’ proposed solutions.

READ MORE: RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Panel Votes Against Flu Shot Preservative: All About The Controversial Thimerosal Ingredient