WHO: battered but still indispensable!
Even as the World Health Organization absorbs the sharpest funding contraction in its history, its role has become more visible, not less.
The US withdrawal, finalized in January 2026, stripped away roughly a fifth of the agency's budget overnight, forcing a wrenching 21 percent cut to the 2026-2027 budget and a scaling back from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion in planned spending.
Yet the demand for what only WHO can do, coordinate a global response across 36 active emergencies, from Sudan to Gaza to the DRC, and set the technical standards that let 194 countries act on a common evidence base hasn't shrunk to match.
Its 2026 appeal for nearly $1 billion in emergency funding, covering everything from mpox and cholera outbreaks to medical evacuations out of conflict zones, is less a routine ask than a test of whether multilateral health governance survives its own funding crisis.
The innovation here isn't technological but structural: WHO is pushing more decision making and resources toward national and local actors, betting that a leaner, more distributed model can preserve its convening power even as its checkbook shrinks.
Whether that reset produces a more resilient institution or simply a diminished one is the open question and it's one that will shape how the world handles the next pandemic, not just this year's emergencies.

In the United States, deaths and serious illness from vaccine-preventable diseases are rare, thanks to vaccines. So it’s hard to find those rare and powerful stories about people getting sick or dying from vaccine-preventable diseases. Meanwhile, unscrupulous anti-vaccine activists are happy to take that rare and powerful story of vaccine adverse events and amplify it as if it is the norm.

Health literacy is one of the strongest determinants of health. The World Health Organization notes that in the United States, health literacy is a stronger predictor of an individual's health status than income, employment status, education level, or race and ethnicity.

Yet only about 1 in 8 U.S. adults has proficient health literacy.

If health literacy influences so many of our health decisions, how do we build it?

One promising place to start is school.

Some countries have begun integrating health literacy into school curricula. Researchers have explored approaches ranging from problem-based learning and digital media literacy to evidence-based medicine curricula. While many have improved health knowledge, gains in broader health literacy skills have been mixed. Others have focused on specific diseases rather than the transferable skills needed to navigate health information throughout life.

That's what makes a new study from Nepal so interesting.

Rather than emphasizing health facts alone, researchers focused on helping ninth-grade students build the skills to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information. Over seven weeks, students practiced these competencies through discussions, role-playing, case studies, and real-world scenarios.

Compared with students who did not participate, they demonstrated significant improvements in health literacy, self-efficacy, and most health-promoting behaviors. Exercise behavior didn't improve significantly, and because the schools couldn't be randomly assigned, the findings should be viewed as encouraging rather than definitive.

Still, the overall direction is compelling.

Health literacy isn't just another chapter in a health class.

It's a foundational life skill.

One that deserves to be taught with the same intentionality as reading, writing, and critical thinking. | 37 comments on LinkedIn

NEW from me-
RFK Jr. has been known as the chief vaccine skeptic in the Trump administration.

But it is the president recently who has been pressing Kennedy to do more on vaccines.

Trump wants to see whether autism rates drop if the list of recommended childhood vaccines is cut back.

At a lunch at his golf course in northern Virginia in May, Trump told Kennedy he had the yips.

And many more hard-won bits of reporting from talking to 20+ people in my story here: https://lnkd.in/ebkBZhNS

Religions support vaccination… So to claim vaccination exemption as discrimination is somewhat ironic. If the Pope himself, in the name of God, supports vaccination, do you think yourself above God himself in making such claim ?? Religious exemptions for vaccines are not supported by religion… Period.

The health secretary is spreading doubts about vaccine safety and considering changes that could prompt manufacturers to flee the U.S. market. History has shown how plagues from the past can roar back when trust in shots — or access to them — falters.

I didn’t love Craig Spencer’s ‘embrace MAHA’ column in The Atlantic. Instead of canceling my friend, I called him.

Then I wrote this line-by-line rebuttal to his piece.

It's live now, so please check it out and let me know what you think...

https://lnkd.in/gkDtiVDy | 10 comments on LinkedIn

As some Americans continue to be misled by vaccine comments on the CDC website more children are suffering with, spreading, and dying from measels. There should be a warning on their website. BELIEVING AND FOLLOWING ADVICE ON THE CDC WEBSITE CAN BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH AND POSSIBLY KILL YOU.

During early days of covid operation i have Heard about him first...But Eustice Mullins had written those stuff and much more years earlier...

You dont need to be a doctor, just being a smart observer and questioner about anything is enough...

+

🚨🚨 He lost his medical license for studying 3,324 children and proving that unvaccinated children were much healthier than vaccinated children. Just like the similar study by the Henry Ford Health Institute, his work was censored by the medical community.
Dr. Paul Thomas.

Anti-vaccine influencers are back on the idea of mutated measles strains causing outbreaks of measles. Of course, they still have no evidence and no explanation why most cases are in folks who are unvaccinated... https://lnkd.in/eJRFNGFg

For those who are not aware, there is zero scientific evidence that suggests drinking your own urine can regulate your estrogen production. Urine is a human byproduct, meaning it is filtered waste your body is expelling after liquid passes through your kidneys. Not only is it not medical treatment, and certainly not a form of HRT; science has shown it can also be dangerous to consume, causing dehydration and even kidney damage, per the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Medical professionals have responded in horror to the trend, urging people to please not try this at home.

“I can’t believe it’s 2026 and I have to say this out loud,” Rachel Gelman, a pelvic floor physical therapist and sex counselor, said in a video responding to the trend. “Don’t drink your pee. If you don’t want to do hormone therapy, that’s fine, you don’t have to. But drinking your pee is not going to manage whatever symptoms you’re having or do something to protect you from whatever you think it happens from hormone therapy.”

Another misinformation post from McCullough Foundation . First, the spike test he refers to has never been validated. Second, there is no large clinical trial that has ever confirmed the utility of such test. Third, there is no data from a confirmatory trial that has set a spike antibody threshold level of any relevance. Fourth, the only reason McCullough Foundation pushes such lies is to sell their spike detox regimen which is not only not FDA approved, but has never been proven to be either safe or efficacious.

Artificial intelligence continues to demonstrate its potential to strengthen healthcare systems and expand access to important health knowledge.
So, in a world driven by clickbait and 20-second attention spans, where AI-generated influencers are becoming increasingly realistic, how easy is it for the public to distinguish between genuine health education and marketing disguised as expertise? Where do ethical practice and transparency fit into this new landscape, and do they still matter?

I share what I learn from my professors, clinicians, and peer-reviewed research because I acknowledge most people neither have the time nor the opportunity (or desire) to immerse themselves in that kind of medical jargon. What we are witnessing is that AI, in many ways, is dismantling the high walls surrounding academic research and clinical studies by synthesizing and disseminating knowledge around the world, in creative ways and with remarkable speed.

We already know that AI is here to stay and has its place within healthcare communication, but how do those of us entrusted with the care of others preserve the public trust while embracing technologies that make knowledge more widely available? As the boundaries between genuine clinical expertise and persuasive digital content continue to blur, what responsibilities must we commit to in this convergence of expertise and influence?

Ultimately, we know that access to information is not the same as medical knowledge, nor do popularity and "likes" equate to learning, clinical competence, or sound application. Clinical judgment is developed through years of rigorous education, supervised training, scientific inquiry, and experience caring for patients. This makes the relationship between healthcare professionals and the public more -not less- important. Social validation is not the same as expertise. The challenge is ensuring that, as technology advances, our commitment to truth, ethical responsibility, and the public's trust advances with it.  

#ArtificialIntelligence #PublicHealth #HealthCommunication #MedicalEducation #EvidenceBasedMedicine #NaturopathicMedicine

https://lnkd.in/g3atRika.

On lit souvent que la confiance des citoyens dans la science s'effondre. Est-ce vrai ? A qui ce récit profite-t-il politiquement ?

Le Baromètre de l'esprit critique, l'Eurobaromètre, le baromètre Edelman…chaque nouvelle enquête (ou du moins : ce qu’en dit sa reprise médiatique) semble confirmer le même récit d'un décrochage généralisé : la confiance dans la science s’effrite dans les opinions publiques. 
🙇Le point qui doit nous inquiéter, c’est que l'administration Trump en a même fait un argument officiel pour justifier ses coupes budgétaires dans la recherche, voire ses discours antivax : il faudrait « dépolitiser » la science pour restaurer une confiance perdue.
Sauf qu'en creusant les grandes enquêtes académiques de référence (68 pays, 72.000 personnes sondées dans Nature Human Behaviour en 2025) le tableau qui apparaît est très différent : une confiance globale stable, et plutôt élevée.
📈Alors comment expliquer un tel écart entre le sentiment ambiant et ce que disent les chiffres ?
C'est la question que je pose dans ce texte, à partir du dossier que la revue Nature a consacré au sujet début juillet (👉🏻https://lnkd.in/d7rNNCEW).
💬 Premier constat, d'ordre méthodologique : « confiance dans la science » ne veut pas dire la même chose selon qu'on interroge la confiance dans l'institution, dans la compétence des chercheurs, ou dans leur volonté d'agir pour l'intérêt général. Une bonne partie du sentiment de crise vient de la confusion entre ces objets.
🤯La seconde réflexion est plus inconfortable : elle touche à l'intérêt qu'ont certains acteurs politiques à entretenir ce récit, quitte à s'affranchir des données. Car la question de savoir si les citoyens ont ou non confiance dans la science a une valeur politique cruciale.
Dire que la confiance est en crise, c'est pouvoir s'autoriser plus facilement à faire de la politique sans la boussole de la science : après tout, les citoyens n'en voudraient pas.
Dire, à l'inverse, que la science a su garder la confiance des citoyens quand la politique l'a perdue, c'est parier sur la valeur de l'evidence-based policy making et s'engager à en structurer les procédures.
🗳️ Dans tous les cas, d'ici 2027, le débat public aurait tout intérêt à mieux documenter cette question : quel rôle les Français veulent-tels donner aux scientifiques sur la place publique, qu'en attendent-ils, de quoi les créditent-ils, et où situent-ils la frontière légitime entre science et décision ? Leurs réponses à ces questions varient-elles selon leur camp politique ? Sans cette donnée, invoquer la valeur de la science en politique reste une pétition de principe plutôt qu'une stratégie porteuse politiquement.

📚 A lire ici sur le site Evidences : https://lnkd.in/dgF2wRZ6

Science, Pseudoscience and the Decline of Public Health
Dr. Kevin Kavanagh argues that public health in the United States is being threatened by a growing conflict between mainstream medical science and pseudoscience, especially around vaccines. He criticizes efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services with their challenging of journal retractions, protecting flawed anti-vaccine studies, and blocking publication of vaccine safety and effectiveness research. Kavanagh explains that passive reporting systems such as VAERS can identify potential safety signals but cannot prove causation by themselves. He contrasts questionable vaccine claims with large, methodologically stronger studies showing vaccine safety, including research on aluminum adjuvants and adverse events. He also defends established study designs used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, noting that randomized trials can be unethical in public health contexts. Beyond academic disputes, he warns that undermining publication integrity damages public trust, weakens vaccination programs, worsens disease control, and contributes to scientist attrition and our nation’s brain drain to other countries. He concludes that data quality, consistent scientific standards, and public health consequences must guide policy. Health Watch USA(sm) meeting. July 15, 2026.

View YouTube Video: https://lnkd.in/ebU62f4a

Download PDF of PowerPoint Slides: https://lnkd.in/e8uTmaSQ 

Haven't registered yet for our upcoming seminar 'Ethical Principles in Legal Context: Vaccine Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia', presented in partnership with the Centre for Health Law + Policy. ???

There's still time to secure your place. 🔗https://lnkd.in/gcWgd6CM
Thursday 30th July 2pm (ASWT) / 4pm (ASET)

We look forward to seeing you online!

Katie Attwell, Marco Rizzi, Amy T., Shevaun Drislane
UWA School of Social Sciences UWA Law School

"The fact that decades of research have confirmed the safety of vaccines is irrelevant to Kennedy and his inner circle. If they are serious about finding and removing toxins that threaten patients’ health, they should look at our nation’s generic drug supply, most of which is imported from overseas."

#PatientSafety #AffordableMedicine #FDA

https://lnkd.in/e8wrDefu

Did you ever hear the one about...? Is #storytelling the answer to #vaccine #hesitancy?

Vaccine hesitancy is a wicked problem. It’s not that people don’t understand #science or don’t have access to high-quality medical information. Vaccine hesitancy is particularly hard to solve because it’s fueled by a range of issues, including #misinformation, the desire for social belonging and deeply held religious beliefs.

Public health advocates and science communicators have largely tried to counter these ideas by offering accurate, factual information. But as a medical humanities #researcher studying how groups that embrace vaccine hesitancy craft their message, I’ve learned that part of why vaccine hesitancy is so hard to combat is how these groups use storytelling to spread their views.

To some degree, all health information mixes #science and storytelling. A patient’s medical history, for example, simply strings together a person’s health information into a coherent tale.

Vaccine-hesitant groups are particularly adept at using #narrative to craft compelling, nerve-wracking or highly emotion-driven stories of doctors ignoring patient concerns and children developing devastating health conditions after getting vaccinated.

What makes these stories the secret weapons of vaccine hesitancy is that they often are not actually about vaccines at all.

Come on fellow #scientists! Let's creative. Who has a story to tell?

#vaccinehesitancy #hiddensignals #wickedproblem #secretweapon #publichealth #childhealth #religion #socialacceptance #sciencecommunication #healthinformation
https://lnkd.in/gS5vjizZ

This essay is the best "plain language" explanation of the controversies surrounding vaccines and disinformation that I have read. To a certain extent, I came away feeling that "We have met the enemy and the enemy is us". I hope everyone reads this piece and then asks, " How do we move forward?

Did you know that tetanus is not contagious and cannot spread from person to person?

Parents, get more scientific facts and research about tetanus - see the link in the first comment. ⬇️

#vaccines #parenting

There is tons of literature that have proven that there is no link between adjuvant aluminum salts in vaccines and autism. Still, either by omission, ignorance or lies, Children's Health Defense still pushes such conspiracy theory as seen by such event…Just by looking at who presents, one could see how little credibility such a panel has, if any…

"I feel like I am dealing with a broken record here. Over and over again, this administration attempts to rewrite the history of COVID-19 in America. They refuse to acknowledge the drastic effects COVID has had, and continues to have, on our country. They refuse to acknowledge the deaths and, unfortunately, the continuing impact of long COVID on millions of Americans. What they have done instead is blame vaccines and the scientists who managed to develop them, blaming members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices for reviewing the research and recommending the safe distribution of vaccines that have been proven to work. They have attacked a successful research and regulatory framework, which this administration is doing everything it can to dismantle.

This brings us back to their guidance that children and young people and pregnant women should not continue to get vaccinated against COVID. Contrary to their claim, their revised policy is, in fact, common nonsense and dreadful science. But worst of all, it is so very dangerous. Which is why I continue to remind people about Dr. Bhattacharya—one of the principal authors of the discredited Great Barrington Declaration—and his continuing distortions.

So let’s talk facts, not fiction. Robert F. Kennedy makes the astounding claim, “Last year the Biden Administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeated booster strategy in children.” Well, Secretary Kennedy, if you don’t look for the data, you won’t find the data. And if you don’t read the science, you won’t know the science.

The basic and critical fact that seems to have eluded Secretary Kennedy is that, from the very beginning of the COVID epidemic, medical personnel were excruciatingly aware of COVID’s impact on pregnant women and their vulnerability to the disease. There was a study published in the December 15, 2020, issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology titled “Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk of death and pneumonia: propensity score matched analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort.” With data from the COVID-19 National Data Registry of Mexico, comprising 475 monitoring hospitals, the study involved 5,183 pregnant and 175,905 non-pregnant women with COVID-19. So, despite Secretary Kennedy’s ignorance, as early as 2020, there was a convincing case to vaccinate pregnant women against COVID:"
https://lnkd.in/gZSiVKHU