NIH Risk of clots https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11177983/
myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis mRNA jabs https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mrna+covid+vaccine+myocarditis
NIH side effects mRNA jabs https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10363686/
Direct Support
from NPR
The Trump administration began sending notices of termination to thousands of staffers at federal health agencies Tuesday, according to interviews with employees and officials at multiple agencies and e-mails reviewed by NPR.
The Department of Health and Human Services last week announced it planned to dismiss 10,000 people. These cuts come on top of around 10,000 people already leaving the agencies under the Trump administration's Fork in the Road offer and early retirement.
Termination emails went out Tuesday morning to employees and leadership of agencies within HHS, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as several smaller agencies.
Many of those workers only found out they had been fired when they tried to badge into the building after waiting in line and couldn't get in, NPR learned from multiple sources at HHS who didn't want to share their names for fear of repercussions...
read more here
from Healthcare Brew
The new US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. rescinded on Monday a long-standing public comment practice at the nation’s largest public health agency—shortly after promising a “new era of radical transparency” last month.
In a policy statement on Feb. 28, Kennedy said the “extra-statutory” public comments “impose costs on the department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the department, and impede the department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”
Since the move effectively limits citizens from sharing their opinions with the agency, experts have shared concerns that removing these opportunities for public commentary could impede the agency’s ability to operate in the public’s interest.
Lawrence Gostin, a law professor and chair of global health law at Georgetown University, posted on X that the move allows the HHS to “operate in secret” and “ignore the views of key stakeholders.”...
read more here
from CBS
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ended a longstanding transparency rule on Friday, supercharging his authority to change policies in areas ranging from Medicaid to the National Institutes of Health without advance notice to the public.
Dubbed the "Richardson Waiver" after the former health secretary who issued the rule in 1971, the policy Kennedy repealed had required regulations related to property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts to go through the federal "rulemaking" process.
The law governing rulemaking usually exempts such regulations, but in response to calls at the time to close the exemption, officials voluntarily waived it. This meant that, until now, they would go through the process of notifying the public of their proposals and asking for comments before imposing changes.
"The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department's flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates," Kennedy said in a filing announcing the end of the waiver.
Now health agencies no longer need to go through the notice and comment process for many policy changes about grants and benefits. This includes new rules that could otherwise be stymied by backlash during a public comment period, like potentially adding in work requirements to Medicaid or redrawing how the National Institutes of Health funds research...
read more here
from the NYT
A proposal by the Trump administration to reduce the size of grants for institutions conducting medical research would have far-reaching effects, and not just for elite universities and the coastal states where many are located.
Also at risk could be grants from the National Institutes of Health to numerous hospitals that conduct clinical research on major diseases, and to state universities across the country. North Carolina, Missouri and Pennsylvania could face disproportionate losses, because of the concentration of medical research in those states.
In the 2024 fiscal year, the N.I.H. spent at least $32 billion on nearly 60,000 grants, including medical research in areas like cancer, genetics and infectious disease. Of that, $23 billion went to “direct” research costs, such as microscopes and researchers’ salaries, according to an Upshot analysis of N.I.H. grant data.
The other $9 billion went to the institutions’ overhead, or “indirect costs,” which can include laboratory upkeep, utility bills, administrative staff and access to hazardous materials disposal, all of which research institutions say is essential to making research possible.
The N.I.H. proposal, which has been put on hold by a federal court, aims to reduce funding for those indirect costs to a set 15 percent rate that the administration says would save about $4 billion a year...
read more here