President Donald Trump, determined to guide the nation into a new golden age, has gone to war with the private-public consensus that has sickened generations of American children and threatens future greatness.

The president's battle strategy has finally come into full view.

'I am so grateful that I work for a president that is willing to run through walls to stop this and to heal our kids.'

Trump's Make America Healthy Again Commission, chaired by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released on Tuesday its long-awaited directives and strategies for tackling chronic disease, protecting children from toxic exposure, and helping American families flourish.

This report sets the stage for a shake-up that is sure to cause a great deal of consternation among medical establishmentarians, pharmaceutical reps, chemical magnates, and ultra-processed food manufacturers.

"We are now the sickest country in the world. We have the highest chronic disease burden of any country in the world, and yet we spend more on health care than any country in the world," Kennedy said during the public MAHA Commission meeting on Tuesday. "This is an existential crisis for our country."

Kennedy added, "I am so grateful that I work for a president that is willing to run through walls to stop this and to heal our kids."

Quick background

In his Feb. 13 executive order creating the MAHA Commission, President Donald Trump noted, "To fully address the growing health crisis in America, we must redirect our national focus, in the public and private sectors, toward understanding and drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending childhood chronic disease."

Three months later, Trump's commission released an assessment report identifying four potential drivers of the rise in childhood chronic disease: poor diet largely tied to ultra-processed foods; aggregation of environmental chemicals including microplastics, fluoride, phthalates, bisphenols, and crop protection tools; lack of physical activity and chronic stress; and overmedicalization.

The report suggested that the situation was rather bleak, noting:

Over 40% of the roughly 73 million kids in the U.S. have at least one chronic health condition;
1 in 5 kids over the age of 6 is obese;
1 in 31 kids is impacted by autism spectrum disorder by the age of 8;
Childhood cancer incidence has skyrocketed by over 40% since 1975;
Pesticides, microplastics, and dioxins "are commonly found in the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women — some at alarming levels";
Nearly 70% of an American child's calories come from ultra-processed foods; and
Stimulant prescriptions for ADHD, antidepressant prescription rates, and antipsychotic prescriptions for teens and/or children have exploded in recent decades.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told Blaze News earlier this year that the May assessment was a "diagnosis," and the next step was to "develop policy recommendations, grounded in gold-standard science and common sense."

Next steps

In the newly released "Make Our Children Healthy Again" report, the MAHA Commission broke its strategic plan into four pillars: advancing research, realigning incentives, fostering private sector collaboration, and increasing public awareness.

Deeper dives

The first pillar tasks various federal agencies with pursuing "rigorous, gold-standard scientific research to help ensure informed decisions that promote health outcomes for American children and families, as well as drive innovative solutions."

For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services will — through the National Institutes of Health and in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — study the root causes of autism.

The HHS, again working with the NIH, will also kick off a new vaccine injury program, investigating vaccine injuries "with improved data collection and analysis." Although this program will initially be housed at the NIH Clinical Center, the report indicated it could expand to centers around the country.

Other research initiatives include:

Closer looks at water contamination, including an Environmental Protection Agency review of new scientific information on the potential health risks of fluoride;
A concerted effort by the HHS, NIH, and EPA to complete an evaluation of the risks and exposures of microplastics and synthetics;
An HHS evaluation of the therapeutic harms and benefits of "current diagnostic thresholds, overprescription trends, and evidence-based solutions"; and
The formation of a mental health diagnosis and prescription work group at the HHS tasked with evaluating "prescription patterns for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and other relevant drugs for children."

Blowing up the status quo

The realignment pillar of the MAHA Commission's strategy is by far the biggest and potentially the most consequential in the report.

The report indicated that the HHS will continue its current work of eliminating harmful synthetic dyes and other additives from the food supply, addressing possible conflicts of interest at health-related federal agencies — such as those that prompted Kennedy's purge of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in June — and protecting "public health from corporate influence."

The administration apparently also has a slew of regulatory and deregulatory initiatives in the works.

Among the changes on the deregulatory front that Americans might soon see the fruits of is the elimination of mandatory reduced-fat requirements in federal nutrition programs; the elimination of barriers to small dairy operations selling their own milk products; and the FDA's abandonment of animal testing requirements.

On the regulatory front and as foreshadowed in a Kennedy op-ed last year, the HHS will be pushing for greater accountability where direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is concerned.

The HHS will work with the FDA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission to "increase oversight and enforcement under current authorities for violations of DTC prescription drug advertising laws."

In a similar vein, the HHS and FTC will also explore potential industry guidelines to limit advertisements of unhealthy foods that target children.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

While the FDA will, on the one hand, update nutrient requirements for infant formula and ramp up screening for contaminants, it will also encourage companies to roll out new infant formulas. Meanwhile, the USDA and HHS will work to increase breastfeeding rates.

The commission appears especially keen on ensuring that foods are accurately labeled; dietary guidelines are reflective of the current nutritional science; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are used for healthy food; and the legal loophole that apparently enables the food industry to add potentially unsafe substances to the food supply without government oversight is closed for good.

The report indicated further that the CDC will update recommendations regarding fluoride — which has a retarding effect on children — and forever chemicals in the American water supply.

Besides regulatory changes, the commission indicated that the HHS is set to undergo a "comprehensive reorganization" to create the Administration for a Healthy America, an outfit that will lead the federal government's response to the chronic disease crisis through "integrated prevention-focused programs."

Blasting facts and shaking hands

The other two pillars in the MAHA strategy report concerning the promotion of public awareness and MAHA collaboration with elements of the private sector are both afforded relatively little real estate. Nevertheless, they contain a handful of proposals that could prove transformative.

The planned efforts to raise awareness about the potential harms posed by exposure to pesticides, fluoride, sedentary lifestyles, drug abuse, and too much screen time may, for instance, end up yielding more immediate effects than some of the corresponding regulatory initiatives, which are sure to face legal challenges.

Photo by Jennifer Polixenni Brankin/Getty Images

The section on fostering private-sector collaboration, the most diminutive section in the document, contains two plans that stand out. The first involves an education campaign aimed at improving health and fertility in men and women who are seeking to start families.

In the interest of helping American families grow and remedying America's abysmal fertility rate, which hit an all-time low last year, the HHS is initiating the "Root Causes of Infertility Award Challenge Competition," which "seeks to identify new and existing solutions to prevent, diagnose, and treat root causes of infertility, including chronic reproductive health conditions, and provide answers to families, improve health outcomes, and ensure a brighter future for parents and infants across the U.S."

The HHS will also develop an Infertility Training Center to help Title X clinics identify and treat for the underlying causes of infertility.

The second plan that stands out in the private-sector collaboration section concerns working with the agricultural industry on new approaches and technologies that could reduce the amount of pesticides needed. This appears to be a consolation prize for those who wanted certain harmful pesticides banned outright.

"A lot of these 128 recommendations are things that I've been dreaming about my whole life," Kennedy said. "We have accomplished more already than any health secretary in history, and the accomplishments we're going to have by the end of the year are going to be historic and unprecedented."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sudden child deaths after COVID shots? Trump FDA director promises answers.

Government officials, the establishment media, and pharmaceutical representatives spent years reassuring the American public that COVID-19 vaccines were "safe and effective." Those who dared to correctly suggest otherwise were often attacked and censored, and many who refused the jabs lost their jobs.

Several weeks after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took an axe to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' mRNA vaccine development activities and in the immediate wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's revocation of emergency-use authorization for COVID vaccines, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary told CNN talking head Jake Tapper that his agency is about to shine an unflattering light on the fallout of the vaccines.

Makary indicated on Thursday that the manufacturers of the latest COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — have agreed both to conduct clinical trials on healthy subjects this flu season and to produce their results by May.

'There have been children who have died from the COVID vaccine.'

"I think that's going to help answer the question a lot of parents have. If you have a 6-year-old girl, does she need 70 more shots in her average lifespan, or is the population immunity, the natural immunity, and the current circulating virulence — that is, the severity of the virus circulating now — more like a common cold, and is the protection transient?" Makary said. "And what is the true death rate or myocarditis rate or serious adverse event rate of the COVID shot in a young, healthy male today?"

"We do know at the FDA — because we've been looking into the [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database of self-reports — that there have been children who have died from the COVID vaccine," the commissioner told Tapper.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events that take place following vaccination from members of the public, health care providers, and vaccine manufacturers.

SementsovaLesia/Getty Images

According to the VAERS database, there have been many thousands of reported serious reactions following COVID-19 vaccination among those 29 years of age and younger, including death and permanent disabilities.

Makary indicated that his agency is now "doing a proper investigation" into COVID-19 child vaccination deaths.

'It was not released in the last administration, and it should have been.'

The commissioner noted that this investigation will include a review of autopsy reports, further scientific investigations, and interviews with "the primary sources, the family members who lost a child."

"We think the public deserves to have that information," Makary continued. "It was not released in the last administration, and it should have been."

Blaze News reached out to the FDA as well as to Pfizer, Novavax, and Moderna for comment but did not receive responses by deadline.

After insinuating that the Biden administration sat on possible evidence of the COVID-19 vaccines' lethality, Makary alleged that some of the recently departed officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had hamstrung efforts earlier this year to obtain data pertaining to the link between myocarditis and the COVID vaccines.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can manifest as various symptoms, including heart palpitations, chest pain, fainting, and weakness, and can also cause fatal cardiac arrest.

Months after ex-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claimed without evidence that her agency had not "seen any reports" or "a signal" for myocarditis, the FDA and the CDC belatedly put out advisories in 2021 admitting of an elevated risk of myocarditis among mRNA COVID-19 vaccinees. Despite these admissions, the corporate media and medical establishment spent years pushing the narrative that such risks remained mild and rare.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during a Senate hearing last week that he agreed with the suggestion attributed to Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices member Dr. Retsef Levi that the COVID vaccines caused serious harm, including death, "especially among young people."

Tapper, referencing Kennedy's agreement on this point, asked Makary on Thursday whether there was "a reliable, credible study behind that claim," noting that his team at CNN "went to the CDC website, and almost all the studies there, if not all the studies there, suggested the opposite, that kids were generally not poorly affected by the vaccine, that it was rare."

"Yes, there is because they're at higher risk, particularly males, for myocarditis," Makary responded.

Referencing the findings of a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the commissioner added, "It can be as high as 1 in 2,600 young males between the ages of 17 and 24."

A peer-reviewed study published last year in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety concluded that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

'We're not going to just keep rubber-stamping the approvals.'

An FDA-funded study published by the Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine in October indicated that myocardial COVID-19 injuries warrant "continued clinical surveillance and long-term studies in affected patients."

Makary suggested that his agency has "asked for the CDC to give us [myocarditis] data since we came into office" but was blocked and "given different excuses and told to wait and 'we can't do it.'"

The commissioner alleged that "those individuals who resigned from the CDC that were at leadership [level]" were those who "gave us the hard time about getting the data."

Among the CDC officials who recently resigned were Debra Houry, who served as chief medical officer; Daniel Jernigan, who directed the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; and Demetre Daskalakis, the non-straight activist who directed the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

While Makary suggested during the interview that the vaccines produced as a result of President Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed saved lives, especially because early on "there was low population immunity," he stressed that now is "a different time."

The FDA recently revoked emergency-use authorization for COVID vaccines but approved COVID-19 vaccines for adults over 65 and for individuals 6 months and older who have one or more risk factors putting them at high risk of severe COVID.

"We're not going to just keep rubber-stamping the approvals that then lead to this incredible march and chant every year: 'Everyone has to get their COVID shot,'" Makary told Tapper.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK Jr. laughs at Democratic senators' vaccine concern-mongering: 'You're just making stuff up'

Several members of the Senate Finance Committee tried desperately during a hearing on Thursday about President Donald Trump's 2026 health care agenda to paint Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as both a "charlatan" and as a danger to public health.

Like the mutineers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who revolted over Susan Monarez's removal last week as their director, Democratic lawmakers — Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Maggie Hassan (N.H.) in particular — and a few Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.), quickly discovered that Kennedy wasn't willing to play their games.

'You are lying.'

In addition to highlighting recent victories at the Department of Health and Human Services such as recent reductions to bureaucratic waste and the obliteration of the DEI regime, Kennedy informed the committee at the outset, "We are ending gain-of-function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. We are addressing cellphone use in schools, excessive screen time for youths, the lack of nutrition education in our medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others."

— (@)

Rather than dwell on these or other recent positive developments at the HHS, Hassan, like other Democrats on the committee, instead focused her attack on Kennedy's approach to vaccines.

Hassan, whom Open Secrets indicated has received over $1 million in campaign donations from the health professional industry and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry, claimed that Kennedy "acted behind closed doors to overrule scientists and limit the freedom of parents to choose the COVID vaccine for their children" and "unilaterally changed the parameters for giving vaccines."

"This is crazy talk," Kennedy said. "You're just making stuff up."

Hassan appears to have been grossly misrepresenting recent actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary noted in a recent op-ed that his agency has "approved COVID-19 vaccines for adults over 65 and for people 6 months and older who have one or more risk factors that put them at high risk of severe COVID," thereby bringing "the U.S. in line with peer nations."

Makary underscored that "the FDA can't regulate the practice of medicine. The FDA grants marketing authorizations, but doctors are able to prescribe drugs off label to people at low risk. In a few states, pharmacists may require a prescription."

In other words, parents still enjoy the freedom to choose the COVID vaccine for their children even though Makary indicated his agency is not confident that the benefits outweigh the risks .

"Since the FDA isn't approving a vaccine for the healthy school-age and working population, college and school mandates will be legally impossible," Makary wrote. "Accordingly, the FDA is revoking the emergency-use authorization for COVID vaccines. The emergency is over. The FDA will now return to an evidence-based standard."

Kennedy told Hassan on Thursday that the decisions about the COVID vaccines were not made "behind closed doors. The industry makes the studies, and they could not provide a study that said it is effective for healthy kids."

"You're just making stuff up, Senator," Kennedy said.

SementsovaLesia/Getty Images

Hassan prompted a laugh from the health secretary by responding with, "Sometimes when you make an accusation, it's kind of a confession, Mr. Kennedy."

Despite the continued ability of Americans to get the COVID vaccines, Hassan suggested again that "people who want to exercise their freedom of choice are being denied that because you are citing data that you won't produce to the public and you are rejecting science."

"You are making things up to scare people, and it's a lie," Kennedy said. "You are lying."

'I know you've taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator.'

Elizabeth Warren picked up where Hassan left off, willfully conflating FDA approval for COVID vaccines with their general availability.

"Last week, you announced that the COVID-19 vaccine is no longer approved for healthy people under the age of 65," Warren said. "In announcing the change, you said that the vaccine will be available for anyone who wants it. Now obviously, both things cannot be true at the same moment."

"Anybody can get it," Kennedy said. "It's not recommended for healthy people."

When Warren started down another rabbit hole, insinuating that an insurance company's refusal to cover a drug on the basis of pulled FDA approval is the same as a governmental denial of vaccines, Kennedy told her flatly, "I'm not going to recommend a product for which there's no clinical data for that indication. Would you?"

"I know you've taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator," Kennedy added, possibly answering his own question.

According to Open Secrets, Warren received $818,997 from “pharmaceuticals/health products" sources during the 2020 campaign cycle. Between 2019 and 2024, Warren's Senate campaign committee and leadership PAC have also reportedly received $131,329 from the pharmaceutical industry; $528,320 from the health professional industry; and $109,924 from the hospital/nursing home industry.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why the nicotine myth might be the most lethal public health lie

An alarming new survey reveals a dangerous blind spot in the medical community: Countless doctors still believe nicotine directly causes cancer. That myth has been repeated for decades, but science says otherwise.

The survey by Povaddo LLC included 1,565 U.S. medical professionals. Nearly half of health care practitioners (47%) and 59% of those treating heavy smokers incorrectly identified nicotine as a carcinogen. Another 19% weren’t sure. The result: Many physicians discourage patients from trying “tobacco harm reduction” products — like e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco — that contain nicotine but eliminate the thousands of toxins in combustible cigarettes.

It’s time for the FDA to cut through decades of propaganda and tell the truth: Nicotine is addictive, but it isn’t the cause of cancer.

This misunderstanding costs lives. By misidentifying nicotine as the killer, doctors steer smokers away from safer alternatives that could dramatically reduce cancer, heart disease, and lung disease.

Education matters. Health care providers need to know nicotine is addictive, but the real harm comes from the smoke. Until that distinction is clear, patients will remain trapped in the deadliest habit of all — traditional smoking.

Science has already proven the case. A conventional cigarette contains more than 600 ingredients and, when burned, produces over 7,000 chemicals, including arsenic, formaldehyde, tar, and lead. Smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, according to the CDC, making it the nation’s leading cause of preventable death. By contrast, studies show vaping or smokeless products cut exposure to those toxic substances by orders of magnitude.

Even the FDA admits this. In 2017, then-Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said, “Nicotine, though not benign, is not directly responsible for the tobacco-caused cancer, lung diseases, and heart disease that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.” Yet years later, the agency continues to regulate vaping into oblivion while dragging its feet on promoting THR.

The public is ahead of the bureaucrats. A 2024 poll of U.S. voters found overwhelming support for FDA reform and a strong desire to reduce smoking. Congress has noticed too. Former Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a physician, called risk reduction for combustible smoking not “a partisan issue.” Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.), co-chairman of the Congressional Tobacco Harm Reduction Caucus, added: “As we move from smoke-based to smokeless products … that’s going to reduce the harm [caused by] tobacco across this country.”

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Americans want safer alternatives. Lawmakers in both parties support tobacco harm reduction. The medical community, however, remains misinformed — and the FDA’s mixed messaging hasn’t helped. Every day doctors cling to the nicotine myth, more smokers stay chained to cigarettes.

It’s time for the FDA to cut through decades of propaganda and tell the truth: Nicotine is addictive, but it isn’t the cause of cancer. Doctors need to know it, patients need to hear it, and policies need to reflect it. Mislabeling nicotine has killed enough people already.

If regulators and medical professionals are serious about saving lives, they must stop demonizing nicotine itself and start promoting harm reduction. Millions of lives depend on it.

COVID wasn’t the only virus. Arrogance infected public health.

America doesn’t have a science problem. It has a trust problem.

The collapse of trust didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because the people running our institutions — government agencies, public health bureaucracies, and elite media — chose fear over facts, power over principle, and silence over accountability.

Truth alone won’t restore trust. We need courage. We need accountability. And above all, we need to stop pretending that silence keeps the peace.

I’ve spent more than three decades in life sciences, investing in innovation and funding companies that bring real cures to market. Bureaucracy can slow progress. But during COVID-19, the damage went farther. It wasn’t just red tape. It was arrogance, censorship, and the collapse of debate inside institutions once devoted to transparency and truth.

We told Americans to “trust the experts,” then changed the story every few weeks. We locked down playgrounds while allowing political protests. We shut down small businesses while rewarding massive platforms. We punished skepticism, not misinformation. We arrested surfers, fired nurses, and drove policemen and military personnel out of their jobs for refusing a vaccine. Where were the “my body, my choice” voices then?

Now Americans don’t just question mandates — they question everything: the data, the motives, the science itself.

Who can blame them? Childhood vaccination rates are falling because public health failed. An entire generation lost precious developmental time in isolation. Families grieved alone. And the same bureaucrats behind those mandates persuaded us to blame COVID, when in fact it was their decisions that did much of the damage. No one has been questioned. No one has been punished. Not one county health official has been held accountable.

A recent Gallup poll showed trust in institutions like the CDC and FDA has collapsed by more than 30 points in just a few years. That trust won’t be restored by press conferences or new slogans. It will only be restored when real leaders tell the truth about what went wrong and take responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Dr. Scott Atlas put it plainly: The lockdowns weren’t the result of the virus. They were the result of decisions — decisions made by people who ignored known data, silenced dissent, and wielded authority like a weapon. And they got it wrong. Pretending otherwise only guarantees the disaster repeats.

So where do we start if we want to rebuild trust?

End the illusion of absolute authority. The CDC, NIH, and FDA must return to their proper role: advisory. They don’t make laws. They don’t issue mandates. They provide information — period.

Impose term limits on public health leadership. No more 30-year bureaucratic dynasties. Power without turnover hardens into ideology.

Ban conflicts of interest. No royalty payments to government scientists from the very companies they regulate. No revolving door between regulators and pharma.

Demand transparency. Every agency meeting, vote, and decision should be public and immediate. If they work for us, we should know what they’re saying.

These aren’t partisan talking points. They’re common-sense reforms. The stakes are too high to shrug and “move on.” Parents who lost a year of their children’s development, the elderly who died alone, the small business owners who lost everything — they deserve accountability. This isn’t about public policy. It’s about principle.

RELATED: No perp walks, no peace

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

And here’s the deeper truth: Fixing this mess isn’t just government’s job. It’s up to us — the entrepreneurs, innovators, parents, doctors, investors, and voters — to become stewards of truth. Not because we crave power, but because we believe in clarity. Because we still believe in the ideals America was built on.

I came to the United States at 15 after fleeing war in Beirut. I’ve seen what happens when fear and control override freedom and reason. I’ve spent my life betting on better — on ideas, on people, and on this country.

Truth alone won’t restore trust. We need courage. We need accountability. And above all, we need to stop pretending that silence keeps the peace.

It doesn’t. It only postpones the next disaster.

WHO’s war on FDA: Science or sour grapes over US cuts?

In a brazen slap to both American science and American sovereignty, Dr. Reina Roa — Panama’s top health bureaucrat and the incoming head of the World Health Organization’s anti-tobacco treaty summit — is openly attacking the credibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In an official July 8 communication, Roa dismissed the FDA’s evidence-based reviews of reduced-risk nicotine products such as e-cigarettes and pouches, arrogantly questioning the agency’s independence simply because its conclusions don’t align with the WHO’s ideological agenda.

If the global public health community truly wishes to reduce the burden of smoking, it must start by respecting the integrity of scientific bodies like the FDA.

This is not a harmless bureaucratic quibble. It is an extraordinary and unfounded rebuke of one of the world’s most respected regulatory institutions — and, by extension, an insult to the United States. Moreover, it’s a refusal to acknowledge an ever-growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating that non-combustible nicotine products are dramatically less harmful than smoking.

Roa’s claim that “there is no independent scientific consensus not affiliated with the tobacco industry confirming that these products pose a substantially lower risk” is demonstrably false. The global scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming and spans continents, ideologies, and public health traditions.

Against science

The U.K.’s Royal College of Physicians stated in its landmark 2016 report “Nicotine without Smoke” that “the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation … is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.” Public Health England, now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, famously concluded that vaping is “at least 95% less harmful than smoking.”

In 2018, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found “substantial evidence that exposure to toxic substances from e-cigarettes is significantly lower compared with combustible tobacco cigarettes.” Cancer Research U.K. is clear that “e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking,” and Action on Smoking and Health in Britain echoes that “the evidence is increasingly clear that vaping is much less harmful than smoking.”

International bodies agree. New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, France’s National Academy of Medicine, Canada’s Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, and Australia’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health have all publicly confirmed that vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products are significantly less harmful than smoking.

This is not outlier science. It is the core of responsible and evidence-based policymaking.

Willful ignorance or …?

Roa’s suggestion that these positions do not represent a true scientific consensus reflects either willful ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Worse, it insinuates that the FDA, a regulatory agency known for setting some of the toughest product standards globally, may be compromised or manipulated by the tobacco industry. This is an outrageous accusation bordering on outright defamation.

What a turnaround for the WHO. In its 2015 study group report, it recommended that “regulatory strategies developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could be used as a basis for deciding on best practices.”

Yet now that the FDA has authorized vapes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches as “appropriate for the protection of public health,” Roa signals that the WHO has suddenly changed its mind — raising the question of whether her position has more to do with U.S. funding cuts for the WHO than with public health.

It would be troubling enough if this false rhetoric came from a fringe voice. But an official communique from the Ministry of Health of Panama and incoming president of the 11th Conference of the Parties, the key global gathering for setting tobacco policy under the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, should be held accountable.

The role should demand evidence-based leadership and the ability to unify countries around the shared goal of reducing smoking-related death and disease. Instead, Roa’s rejection of accepted fact signals a concerning unwillingness to engage with real-world data and a disregard for the urgent need to provide smokers — especially in developing nations — with accurate information.

Science demands better

Questioning the FDA’s independence is not only offensive to American regulators and public health professionals but also an error that weakens the credibility of the WHO. Tobacco harm reduction is not an American invention, nor is it industry propaganda. It is a public health strategy rooted in the principle of reducing risk for people who either can’t or won’t quit nicotine entirely. The WHO’s own Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty explicitly mentions harm reduction, yet it continues to sideline this approach in practice.

Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/Getty Images

By downplaying the FDA’s role and dismissing the broad scientific consensus, Roa undermines the credibility of public health institutions worldwide and fuels mistrust in regulatory science. Ironically, in accusing others of lacking independence, she raises questions about her own objectivity in presiding over COP 11 — the most important international public health meeting of the year. Such a gathering should be conducted impartially, without an atmosphere that attempts to exclude the settled consensus about reduced-harm products.

Roa’s remarks betray the very mission of the WHO and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty. If the global public health community truly wishes to reduce the burden of smoking, it must start by respecting the integrity of scientific bodies like the FDA, embracing credible evidence wherever it originates, and recognizing that harm reduction is not a threat — it’s an opportunity.

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.

Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.

'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'

An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."

Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.

JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.

After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.

Farrukh Saeed/Getty Images

A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."

The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."

'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'

Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."

"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."

"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."

The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.

Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."

'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'

Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."

"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.

In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."

Dobrila Vignjevic/Getty Images stock photo

Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry , and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.

An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."

"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."

The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New China virus vaccine — same deep-state playbook?

The FDA has lifted a pause on administering vaccines for the chikungunya virus, which is a mosquito-borne illness currently spreading from China.

lxchiq is a single-dose vaccine and was approved for at-risk adults 18 and up in 2023. However, administrations of the shot to adults ages 60 and older were paused earlier this year after reports of 17 side effects following vaccination — including two deaths.

“Now they’ve decided that they’re just going to go ahead and push it forward,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says, disturbed.

Unlike COVID, the virus isn't transmitted from person to person. However, like COVID, people are now being quarantined in China.

“I’m like, ‘Oh boy, that feels eerily familiar,’” Gonzales says.

Matt Kibbe of “Kibbe on Liberty” couldn’t agree more.

“Even if we expose all the bad actors of that time, we need to understand that that infrastructure is still in place and they’re itching for a new crisis because that’s what they feed on. They feed on the power of that,” Kibbe says.

“The difference, I think, is that there’s plenty of us, and I think a lot of Americans have come along with us early skeptics of this nonsense. We’re not going to buy it the second time, and they’re going to have to really scare the crap out of us if they want us to fall in line again,” he continues.

“You have to wonder how much of this is still the deep-staters,” Gonzales agrees, “who, as you said, Matt Kibbe, as you said, they just want a big fearmongering epidemic so that they can grab more control. They’re still there.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump’s health revolution: RFK Jr. takes aim at chemicals, junk food, and overmedication

Quick background

Next steps

Deeper dives

Blowing up the status quo

Blasting facts and shaking hands

Sudden child deaths after COVID shots? Trump FDA director promises answers.

RFK Jr. laughs at Democratic senators' vaccine concern-mongering: 'You're just making stuff up'

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Confirms FDA Review Of Dangerous Abortion Pill Underway

Why the nicotine myth might be the most lethal public health lie

COVID wasn’t the only virus. Arrogance infected public health.

WHO’s war on FDA: Science or sour grapes over US cuts?

Against science

Willful ignorance or …?

Science demands better

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

Make Vaccine Injury Compensation Fair Again

Horowitz: The failure of the mRNA shots is on display for all with open eyes

Bill Maher urges left to stop comparing Trump to Hitler

LED astray: Yes, those harsh lights are the spawn of Satan

The dark truth behind Taylor Swift's picture-perfect engagement

Wokeness? My students are more worried about the economy

GLAAD Smears Charlie Kirk, Puts Target On Back Of Other Conservative Activists

Quick background

Next steps

Deeper dives

Blowing up the status quo

Blasting facts and shaking hands

Against science

Willful ignorance or …?

Science demands better

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.