In early January, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made one of the most significant changes to childhood vaccination policy in decades. Routine vaccination is no longer universally recommended for six diseases, including rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease and hepatitis A. The move follows a directive from President Donald Trump’s administration to reassess vaccine schedules and align them with what officials called “international consensus.”

Supporters of the change describe it as a step toward informed consent and transparency. Many public health experts see it very differently. They argue that the science behind the decision is selective, the process breaks with long-standing norms, and the consequences may only become clear years later.

So are these vaccines actually necessary, and is removing them from compulsory recommendation a reasonable move? Health and Me ran a fact check to see whether the four vaccines removed from the CDC universal guidelines would actually be a "better thing", as the Health Secretary and long time vaccine critic Robert F Kennedy Jr says.

Read: Children Getting Fewer Vaccine May Be A 'Better Thing', Says RFK Jr, As US Struggles With Rise In Flu Activity

What Exactly Changed With The CDC Vaccination

Until recently, the CDC recommended routine childhood vaccination against 17 diseases. That number has now dropped to 11. Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and COVID-19 are no longer universally recommended for all children. Instead, they fall under shared clinical decision-making, meaning parents can still opt for them after discussion with a healthcare provider.

Importantly, this does not mean the vaccines are banned or unavailable. Insurance coverage remains largely unchanged for now, and vaccines remain recommended for children at higher risk.

The larger concern raised by experts is not access, but messaging. Universal recommendations have historically been one of the strongest drivers of vaccine uptake.

Read More: CDC Vaccine Schedule: Coverage Falls From 17 to 11 Diseases For Children

A Break From the Usual Scientific Process

Traditionally, changes to the U.S. vaccine schedule go through the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts who review evidence publicly over months. This time, that process was bypassed.

Instead, the decision relied on a 33-page internal assessment prepared by two political appointees. Several experts criticized both the lack of transparency and the narrow interpretation of evidence.

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, described the process as federal officials making sweeping decisions behind closed doors, without public input or broad expert review.

Rotavirus: Rare Deaths, Heavy Hospital Burden

Rotavirus causes severe diarrhea and vomiting in infants and young children, often leading to dehydration. Before routine vaccination began in 2006, an estimated 55,000 to 70,000 U.S. children were hospitalized each year due to rotavirus.

The administration justified dropping the universal recommendation by emphasizing low mortality rates. However, CDC researchers previously estimated 20 to 60 deaths annually in the pre-vaccine era. Experts say focusing narrowly on death counts ignores the very real suffering and healthcare burden the virus caused.

Offit, who helped develop one of the vaccines, noted that most pediatric residents today have never seen a child hospitalized with severe rotavirus dehydration. That absence, he argues, is proof of success, not irrelevance.

Meningococcal Disease: Rare but Devastating

Meningococcal disease is uncommon, but when it strikes, it can be deadly within hours. Even with treatment, about 15 percent of patients die, and up to 20 percent suffer permanent complications such as amputations or hearing loss.

The administration cited low incidence and World Health Organization thresholds to justify removing the universal recommendation. But experts counter that low incidence is precisely what vaccination programs aim to achieve.

Dr. David Stephens of Emory University pointed out that most high-income countries still recommend meningococcal vaccines, even with similarly low disease rates. He also warned that recent U.S. data show a resurgence, with 2024 recording the highest number of cases in over a decade.

Modeling studies suggest that U.S. vaccination programs have already prevented hundreds of cases and dozens of deaths. Removing universal recommendations, experts warn, risks reversing those gains.

Influenza: The Limits of Clinical Trials

Annual flu vaccination for children has been recommended since 2008, based on evidence that children both suffer from influenza and play a major role in spreading it.

The administration argued that randomized controlled trials have not proven flu vaccines reduce hospitalizations or deaths in children. What it did not emphasize is that such trials are not designed to detect rare outcomes like death.

Dr. Mark Loeb of McMaster University explained that proving mortality benefits would require trials involving millions of children, which is not feasible. Instead, real-world observational studies are used.

Those studies consistently show that flu vaccination reduces hospitalizations in children. A 2024 review in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated a 67 percent reduction in pediatric hospital admissions. Experts say dismissing this evidence reflects a misunderstanding of how vaccine effectiveness is measured.

Also Read: RSV Vaccine Has Benefits, Reveals Study Amid CDC's Changed Guidelines On Childhood Vaccines

Hepatitis A: Protecting Others by Vaccinating Children

Hepatitis A rarely causes severe illness in young children, which is precisely why childhood vaccination works. Children often spread the virus silently to adults, who face much higher risks of liver failure and death.

Dr. Noele Nelson, a former CDC epidemiologist, explained that vaccinating children interrupts this transmission chain and provides lifelong immunity. She warned that reducing childhood vaccination could recreate the conditions that once fueled adult outbreaks.

Claims that hepatitis A vaccines lack adequate safety data were also disputed. Clinical trials and decades of post-licensure monitoring have found no unexpected safety concerns, according to Nelson and other experts.

Are These Changes Scientifically Justified?

Public health experts broadly agree that these vaccines are not perfect and that honest discussions about risks and benefits matter. Where they strongly disagree is the idea that low disease rates or ethical limits on trial design justify weakening universal recommendations.

Low incidence, experts emphasize, is not a reason to stop vaccinating. It is evidence that vaccination works.

Whether the consequences of this policy shift emerge in five years or ten, many experts fear the costs will be paid quietly, through preventable hospitalizations, outbreaks and deaths that no longer make headlines but never needed to happen in the first place.

Squirrels could be natural hosts of the mpox virus (MPXV) -- that causes monkeypox disease -- according to a recent study by German researchers.

The team from the Helmholtz Institute for One Health (HIOH) identified the fire-footed rope squirrel (Funisciurus pyrropus) as a likely natural reservoir of the MPXV.

The study published in the journal Nature revealed that sooty mangabeys – a primate found in West Africa -- can contract mpox by eating infected squirrels. The disease may present mild lesions, but it can also cause more severe skin lesions or even be fatal.

"Identifying the animal sources of the virus and the exposure routes that lead to inter-species transmission are key steps towards understanding spillover mechanisms and developing effective prevention measures to mitigate the risk of transmission to humans," said Livia V. Patrono, one of the senior authors at HIOH.

Squirrels Suspected MPXV Hosts

While squirrels have long been suspected as potential reservoirs for MPXV, their role was confirmed after an investigation of an mpox outbreak among wild sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys) in Côte d'Ivoire.

During the outbreak, reported in early 2023, nearly one-third of the primates showed clinical signs of disease, and four infants died.

The team conducted viral genome sequencing and found that the infected monkeys carried a virus that was nearly identical to an MPXV strain identified in a fire-footed rope squirrel found dead 12 weeks earlier nearby.

Further, the team analyzed fecal samples from the mangabeys. A sample collected eight weeks before the outbreak's onset contained DNA from both the virus and the rope squirrel. This provided strong evidence of interspecies transmission at that moment.

Sooty mangabeys have been previously observed catching and eating fire-footed rope squirrels, which provide a direct route for the transmission of viruses.

Mpox Continues To Spread Globally

Although mpox is no longer a public health emergency, outbreaks of clade I and clade II strains of the mpox virus are continuing in many countries around the world, especially in Africa.

Last week, Madagascar announced the country's first death from mpox, a 3-year-old girl from the island nation’s eastern city of Toamasina.

The WHO has also confirmed that two cases of the recombinant strain – combining genomic elements of clades Ib and IIb of the monkeypox virus (MPXV) – have been identified to date: one in the United Kingdom and one in India.

Mpox is an infectious disease caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), part of the Orthopoxvirus genus, which also includes the virus that causes smallpox.

It spreads through close physical contact, including sexual contact, and in some cases through contaminated materials or respiratory droplets.

Symptoms typically include fever, swollen lymph nodes, rash, and/or lesions.

The global health body has also urged all countries to “remain alert to the possibility of MPXV genetic recombination.” It has also urged for continued epidemiological surveillance, sequencing, vaccination of at-risk groups, and infection prevention and control measures.

An international group of scientists has created an artificial intelligence tool that can estimate a woman’s likelihood of developing breast cancer within the next four years.

The AI tool, known as the BRAIx risk score, analyzes mammogram images to generate an individualized risk assessment and flag women who may face a higher chance of developing the disease.

It may not only show the current risk but also predict the future risk, enabling early detection and treatments for a better outcome.

According to the findings published in The Lancet Digital Health journal, nearly one in 10 women ranked in the top 2 percent of risk by the AI tool were diagnosed with breast cancer within four years. This was despite previously receiving a clear screening result.

“These risk scores enable future development of personalized screening pathways to transform population breast cancer screening and save lives,” said corresponding author Helen M. L. Frazer of the University of Melbourne.

Frazer noted that identifying women who appear cancer-free but carry very high risk -- comparable to those with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations -- will unravel both hereditary and non-hereditary causes of breast cancer.

From one-size-fits-all screening to personalization

Breast cancer screening programs have significantly lowered mortality rates -- by roughly 40-50 percent among women aged 50 to 74. However, most screening systems still apply the same approach to all women, regardless of individual risk.

Traditional screening tools use genetics, breast density, and questionnaires to estimate breast cancer risk. On the other hand, new AI-based screening tools, such as BRAIx personalizes screening by gathering information already present in breast scan images to better identify who is at higher risk.

“Our results show that conventional mammographic density is a far weaker predictor of breast cancer risk than the BRAIx risk score, even for interval cancers,” the researchers said in the paper. Interval cancers are aggressive tumors diagnosed after a negative mammogram.

The BRAIx Tool

The BRAIx risk score was developed using mammograms from nearly 400,000 women. To prove its efficacy, the AI tool was tested on data from almost 96,000 women from Australia and then confirmed in an independent Swedish population of over 4,500 women.

The findings showed that:

• The BRAIx risk score estimated breast cancer risk more accurately than the traditional risk factors, such as breast density, country of birth, and even family history.

• For the top 2 percent of women with the highest BRAIx risk score, the probability of a cancer diagnosis within 4 years was 9.7 percent -- a risk level exceeding that typically seen in women with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

The BRAIx risk score can:

• Make breast screening more personalised,
• Improve early cancer detection,
• Reduce false alarms,
• Save lives without increasing costs

Global Breast Cancer Burden

Breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer among women worldwide.

A recent study published in The Lancet Oncology journal predicted that the number of new cases of the deadly disease will reach more than 3.5 million globally in 2050 -- rising by a third from 2.3 million in 2023.

Annual deaths from the disease will also rise by 44 percent -- from around 764,000 to 1.4 million.

However, not smoking, getting sufficient physical activity, lowering red meat consumption, and having a healthy weight can help prevent over a quarter of healthy years lost to illness and premature death from breast cancer.

People who survived a COVID-19 infection can be at significant risk for kidney disease, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease. compared to individuals who were not infected, according to a study.

The study, published online in the journal Communications Medicine, revealed that COVID patients have

• a 2.3-times higher risk of acute kidney injury
• a 1.4-times higher risk of chronic kidney disease
• a 4.7 times higher risk of kidney failure

“While we’re in the post-pandemic era, this shows that COVID-19 history is an important variable when considering the long-term impact of the infection on kidney function and disease,” said first author Yue Zhang, who was at Pennsylvania State University, US, while conducting the study. Zhang is currently a postdoctoral scholar at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

How Was The Study Conducted?

For the study, data on over 3 million working-age adults in the United States were analyzed.

The team compared the effect of influenza, another common viral infection that affects kidney health, and people with a history of COVID infection on kidney infections.

Using a machine learning model, the individuals were followed between 180 and 540 days for the emergence of new acute or sudden kidney disease.

The results showed that:

• Both COVID and the flu can worsen kidney health
• Flu caused a mild and temporary effect
• COVID increased the risk of acute kidney injury for a longer duration
• COVID survivors developed kidney disease within a few hours to a few days
• COVID patients had a longer-term chronic and end-stage kidney disease.

How COVID Worsens Kidneys Health

The Penn State researchers explained that kidney cells express high levels of the primary protein receptors that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells. Kidney cells also produce specialized enzymes that help viruses enter cells.

According to Kidney Health Australia, an acute COVID infection can impact the kidneys with fevers and respiratory symptoms, and/or worsening blood sugar control.

The US National Institutes of Health stated that renal dysfunction is an increasing clinical indicator of COVID propagation.

Citing several studies, the NIH said that the most common clinical manifestation is proteinuria -- found in more than half of the COVID patients. In addition, hematuria, elevated blood urea nitrogen, and elevated serum creatinine are other common features in Covid survivors with poor kidney health.

Nasr Ghahramani, Professor of Medicine at Penn State College of Medicine, stressed the need for COVID survivors, especially those with diabetes and high blood pressure, to take "more frequent and more prolonged monitoring of their kidney function" to enable early detection and better outcomes.