♪ > > This week on the what happens when science meets politics and and > > our health is on the line.

♪ > > for > > Connecticut Public on Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

The show that connects politics, the people we got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

It's been a turbulent few months at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Junior, the agency's new director was fired and several other top officials resigned.

One of our guests today calls this moment, probably the most tumultuous time in the CDC's history.

So what does that mean for you?

> > For and people across Connecticut and what's in store for vaccinations this > > As flu season begins.

fall.

Joining me poor of Amanda Vili Science and global Health reporter at the New York Times report of a thank you so much for being here.

Thank you for coming on.

The Thanks for having me.

Also joining us, Dr Lynn Sosa infectious Diseases director for Connecticut's Department of Public Health, Dr. Sosa, great to have you on the show.

Thanks for having me as well.

Folks, you have any questions about your access to vaccinations.

Join our conversation.

Call U.S. 8, 8, 8, 720-9677, 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, also trying to moderate.

Are you to conversation here as we stream at YouTube dot > > Slash Connecticut Public.

com.

So hit us up.

Youtube dot com slash Connecticut Public poor of a we'll dig into vaccines a little later in the show.

But let's start with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC Dr Susan Monarez served as its new director recently fired.

First of all, tell me about resident as we could see throughout this recent con for mayor.

Not confirmation hearing.

Sorry, I'm always thinking about that.

What we're talking about Capitol Hill, but at least RFK Junior Robert F Kennedy Junior was grilled on Capitol Hill, we can tell that the men are as a sort of confirmation or appointment necessarily was very controversial at the time.

> > We know she was probably one of the better candidates for the job.

I think people are really worried about what kind of person Mr Kennedy would appoint in that role and she's an infectious disease X Verjee has a lot of experience in federal agencies.

He's a scientist and in her confirmation hearing, she said she excuse me that she supports vaccine.

So she not a controversial choice.

From that perspective at all.

And I think she became controversial for Mr. Kennedy, specifically because he didn't like her views in the end.

> > And I Elizabeth Warren, who's a senator that was worried whether or not.

And I think this happens with anybody in this new administration.

There's concern whether or not they would be partisan or at least would have to back down from a recommendation.

And it seems like that we had from one of the members of the administration, but it seems like that didn't happen with Doctor Bodnar is excuse me.

She was against some of the policy changes that we had under Robert F Kennedy Junior.

Is that correct?

> > That is correct.

Although there's some he said she said here where Mister Kennedy claims that none of this happened.

But what Dr Morris says is that he asked her to essentially rubber stamp any decision that comes out of the vaccine panel, which is at the moment filled advisors that he chose who was sort of share his vaccine skepticism and she apparently refused to do to go along with that.

And she also refused to fire some top CDC officials that Mr. Kennedy had wanted her to do and that essentially that was her undoing.

That's when Mr. Kennedy decided that he didn't want to keep around.

> > And that's the point.

There was some conjecture about whether or not she was fired.

She's gone either way.

And is that the point that some of these top scientists year, some of these folks that are maybe advocates for science are no longer in RFK Junior's way here.

> > You know, not just some.

I think there are a lot.

You know, we've lost thousands of scientists from the CDC, from the FDA from the NIH and even that the CDC itself, which is the agency that I cover most closely, there's so many people who are now gone who have very valuable expertise and things like infectious disease, HIV STI.

But also we know food safety in chronic diseases and all kinds of areas and the nation will be poorer for that because Mr. County will have access to that kind of expertise.

> > Dr Soza.

How does this turmoil happening in Washington, D.C., Impact Connecticut's Department of Health?

> > Yeah, definitely is affecting us on a lot of levels.

And I think it's the uncertainty in the fact that things are changing so quickly.

That's really been challenging for us to keep up with.

So I think people might not always realize that public health has always been here to keep people healthy and keep people safe.

And and it's really kind of that invisible work that public health does.

That's always been there.

Maybe people just kind of started realizing that during the pandemic.

But we've always been here in cities.

He's always been here.

And so it's really important that that continues.

A lot of this turmoil.

In terms of the federal people might not realize that about 80% of the funding that we receive from the federal government.

And we those funds are really important for making sure that we can continue to do the work that we do.

We get over 100 grants primarily from CDC to do things like disease, surveillance and outbreak operate detection and contact investigations and things like that.

Luckily, we have not lost any major funding net, but we are trying to prepare for that and trying to prioritize the work that we do focused first on the things that we're required to do by statute as well as making sure that we can maintain that safety net.

So it's definitely challenging times right now when you say prepare.

> > What does that mean?

Does that mean that you may have to ask state lawmakers to help you out to make up that money?

If it goes away or is it at you'll try to make sure you could kind of backfill if you need to what is prepare mean in that case?

> > Right.

I think that all of those things are possibilities.

I think we want to make sure that we're continuing to fulfill our core functions, right?

So for example, for me as the infectious disease director, one of our core functions is making sure that we're monitoring disease trends and detecting outbreaks.

So that's really, really important.

And then when we actually find an outbreak, making sure that we're able to respond to that, making sure that we're finding people that are exposed, offering them treatment.

If that's available and and making sure that where we can continue to be that safety net.

For example, are state public health laboratory is important for making sure that if somebody health care provider thinks somebody has measles, we can make sure that that person can get that measles test as quickly as possible.

So those are the types of things that we're focused on right now.

Making sure that we know what those things are.

And then if we do have issues with with funding or have cuts were able to handle this.

> > Connecticut's governor Ned Lamont is exploring ways to require insurers to keep covering COVID-19 shots despite new federal guidance, limiting access to people with risk factors.

Those 65 and older as well.

Let's listen to what he shared a Capitol news briefing earlier this week.

> > You can have an executive order.

You can say I'm working with the pharmacies right now to see how far we can go.

So we want the pharmacies to be able to ride the COVID vaccine.

Anybody that wants and needs and > > Dr Sosa Massachusetts requiring insurers to pay for COVID vaccine.

And I think that's kind of what folks are trying to ask of the governor or if he's going to do that.

What's your understanding about whether or not that's something that Connecticut can do?

> > Writes, I think from the perspective of the Department of Public Health, we want to make sure that people understand, you know what the recommendations are and what our recommendations are for who should be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations and week have released interim recommendations on that similar to what you saw from New York in New Hampshire.

So that's been our first priority.

And then working with the governor's office to make sure that then people who should be getting the vaccine are able to do that.

> > Do your guidelines differ from the 65 and older?

And I guess the people with risk factors crowd and I'm I'm imagining that the risk factors are sort of limited to maybe multiple co-morbidities something like that.

Do you have a different sort of guidance than than what we got from the federal government?

> > Right.

So similar to what you've seen to other states or guidance as vaccine guidance police is is based on the best available evidence.

You've seen certain organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and more recently yesterday, the American Academy of Family Practice come out with their recommendations and that those are what our recommendations are based on.

So making sure that the people that are certainly at the highest risk for severe complications and death from COVID-19, very young children.

That's older person stats, people at the highest risk definitely should get the vaccine.

But then also making sure that people who want to get a vaccine can.

A spokesperson for President Trump pushed us.

I said in an emailed that Doctor Monarez was not aligned with the president's agenda of making America healthy again.

> > That's what we're talking about in terms of the federal stuff up or of a do we know which portions of the President's make America healthy?

Again, my high agenda, doctor Monarez was sort of challenging.

> > Vaccines.

I mean, she was only in the job for just less than a month so he can really have a chance to not be aligned in many ways.

Vaccines were really the main thing bone of contention between her and the administration, Mr. Kennedy has been very clear about what he thinks about vaccines.

He thinks that they are potentially dangerous.

The COVID vaccine in particular.

He's called it the deadliest vaccine ever made.

And I think she did not necessarily agree with those views and she didn't want to go into vaccine recommendation process with preconceived ideas.

She wanted to wait and look at the evidence and then make a decision and from what she has said, he wanted her to go along with whatever decision the he had already had in mind.

Regardless of the evidence.

And I think she was just not going to go along with that.

> > Than ours isn't the only one who's We talked about folks being gone from NIH.

Also the FDA, at least in terms of the CDC, what kind of big names or at least big scientific brains are sort of gone from there.

> > the CDC has 11 center directors with works right under the the director and a lot of those people are gone.

They were either late, you know, put on administrative leave in April.

And there was a big reorganization of the agency and then when Dr One has left 3 other center directors resigned.

One was at the data center.

One lead the infectious Disease Center and one led to a center for emerging infectious diseases.

So these are things that we really want some leadership in and then also the chief medical officer of agency whose from the liaison between the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services.

She oversees a lot of the work at the CDC and so 3 of those people left.

Sort of in protest of everything that's been going on at the agency and they left at the same Imus after hours and 100 signed the day before.

But that was a sort of big exit as a very, very important people.

And they're they're important, but also really love it.

I mean, I talked to a lot of CDC people in some of them had viewed these particular scientists as mentors.

And they're really shaken up by what happened and, of course, is all coming on the heels of that, the shooting on the CDC.

So things are not feeling very stable within the agency.

> > Absolutely.

A tumultuous time right now within the agency.

So then Doctor Sosa, we had that transition to sort of be able to come back to and then ask you is Connecticut in alignment with the President's Make America healthy again, agenda.

> > Yeah.

So I think keep keeping people healthy not political or partisan.

As I mentioned, a public health has always been there to keep people healthy and protect them.

They just haven't known it.

You know, all the things that public health does has often been in the background because that's what prevention is.

It's the things that you can do so that you never get sick or hopefully never get sick.

And so public health is going to continue to do that.

The state have the ability.

Do you think to enforce policies that may not necessarily align with the federal government's stance?

> > Or like if you have concerns about how vaccines are being doled out or are being covered.

What kind of power do you have to be able to to facilitate change?

> > I think that's what you're seeing with the governor statement that you played earlier today.

We're trying to figure out what what we can do and that might differ from state to state.

And I'm sure that Connecticut will figure that out very soon.

> > Is there concern that you mention being healthy is not political?

Is there concern from your perspective as an epidemiologist that it is becoming too political?

> > Well, I think, again, I think it's just making sure that people understand like what is public health here to do and how it's always been here to serve people to keep people healthy.

So, for example, again, from the infectious disease perspective.

One of the things that we do in the regular basis is monitor for different types of diseases, foodborne disease addiction is one of our main responsibilities.

And that's actually something we work with.

Cdc really closely on.

So, for example, we report a CDC when we find certain cases of foodborne illness and CDC is really important and being able to connect reports that different states make to them and then they are able to use that information that they have to say, hey, you Connecticut found a couple of people with this strain of salmonella.

We're also seeing that in Colorado.

They're able to help make those connections that can eventually lead to food recalls.

If that's if that's needed and keeping everybody safe and keeping the food supply safe.

That's just one example of the things that we do on a regular basis and that we're going to continue to so.

The takeaway that you that I'm having from this interview with you is that no matter what happens, no matter how political things become.

> > Our that has to really foster public health between a state and the federal government really relies on the state, state Department of Public Health or or whoever just having a really solid back and forth being able to work every day with the CDC.

> > Absolutely.

We talk with them every day.

We talk with our counterparts and our colleagues in other states every day.

That's something that we've always done.

And and we're obviously doing even more during this time to navigate all these challenging these all these changes in the uncertainty.

And that's something that we're going to continue to do.

But I cannot overstate the importance of having the CDC there to help kind of make sure that are we have a national coordinated public health response because that's really important.

That helps us to make sure that again, that we can detect outbreaks that we can understand that there is an outbreak not just in our state but affecting kind of all of the country.

But there.

But they also do so many other things in terms of making sure that we're safe from emerging diseases.

So, for example, when the m-pox outbreak happened.

M-pox was not a new disease to CDC.

They had actually seen m-pox before.

They've actually dealt with an m-pox outbreak in the early 2.

Thousands related to important prairie dogs.

So when M-pox actually came here in a different way, right?

It was new and that way because we have not seen it kind of spread in that way that it did in 2022.

CDC was the expert that we relied on because they had had that experience and they could share that and help us make sure that we were responding as quickly and efficiently as possible jet.

Only not only on testing but making sure that we had treatment and vaccines available.

The other thing and this is just another example of the importance of CDC.

Is that they are really important in terms of workforce development.

So I actually started my public health career as an epidemic and challege intelligence service officer.

Yes, officer.

And that's an applied epidemiology training program for physicians and scientists that's been at CDC for over 70 years.

So this is a two-year training program that helps clinicians and scientists learn how to be public.

Health practitioners and help them learn to respond to outbreaks, weather and sometimes they're assigned to a state or local health department.

I was assigned here to Connecticut or they can be assigned at CDC and then they can be deployed based on whether a state or sometimes another country asked for help.

So this is really important because this group has become the leaders and public health, both in state and local health departments.

That also in hospitals and other health care settings.

And CDC has actually created other training programs that are modeled on this.

Yes program for undergraduates for and pH level of folks for all level of public health practitioners.

And so without CDC being able to manage these training programs, we're going to really lose our pipeline of public health leaders.

And that is going to affect the health of our nation in the future.

So those are just a few examples of the importance of having CDC at the national level.

> > And very important for us all monitor that relationship between the state and federal government agency.

Poor of a Jim O'Neill, a former biotechnology executive, is now the agency's acting director.

What do we know about O'Neill?

> > Well, he's not new to the federal government.

He was also part of the health department under President George W Bush.

But he has spent some time in Silicon Valley in between.

He's said to be very close to Peter Teal.

He from what I can tell does not have a very strong background or at all in health.

And so it's a little bit unusual to have somebody be the acting director of the CDC, even the have not actually done any health or themselves are not an epidemiologist.

I'm not a medical doctor.

They don't really understand.

Medical research.

So it'll be interesting to see how that plays out and how long he'll be in that role.

It's a little bit difficult to see who they might bring in as the new permanent director because, well, from what we can tell from, you know, the 2 directors that have the nominees that have come in.

It's going to be difficult to find somebody who pleases both Mr. Kennedy and the Senate that has to approve the nomination.

So missed might be in that role for quite a while.

And we don't.

He said he has said that he does support vaccines, but he has also said that he really supports Mr. Kennedy's agenda and he's efforts to make America healthy again.

So we don't know quite yet where he'll fall on the vaccine issue.

But chances are he will go along with what Mr. Kennedy wants.

> > I hate to do this, but I'm all about nuance on this show.

So I'm gonna try to do this quick with you, Peter Teal, you said that name.

Let's close the loop on that.

Peter Teal is important because for some folks that might not know this is somebody who is who was accused of being a tech bro.

You could call it in the tech bro.

I understand that.

And really into science fiction.

So people that we bring this up because people are concerned, obviously about the future of America where it's going.

when we talk about this tech bro, sometimes we hear about eugenics and things like that.

Is there anything we need to be concerned about with that connection between O'Neill until there?

> > I don't really want to Okay.

That's very whether to bring it up at that point.

But he's a very big donor to the Republicans.

Your audience does wield a lot of influence.

> > And so when you see somebody like someone who's aligned with him come into government, they deserve a bit of a signal that there might be outside influences now on what the government > > Thank you for doing that does.

in some sort of way so that we can kind of close the loop on that.

The CDC historically relies on science, not science fiction, but science right?

Meaning it hasn't worked specifically in service to the executive branch of the federal government.

Help me to find the current moment and how it sort of differentiates from years past.

r y rely on the CDC for guidance.

I think that's a big piece of a of activity that the CDC does that's going to be lost.

Now and the other part of that is that think a lot of people maybe don't realize that about 80% of the CDC's budget Ghost Estates.

You know, one of the criticisms of the CDC has been that it's bloated, that its mission has really expanded beyond its scope.

And I have spoken to some next great somewhat agree with that and think that the CDC can actually use reform and maybe there's some overlap, but they also do think that everything that the CDC does is really valuable to the states and, you know, it's not just food safety.

side officials have talked about ring actions, diseases.

No state can have all the expertise to deal with its residents.

Health problems at the local level.

And so it's been very important for them to turn to the CDC.

So what I see now is a state officials and local officials being extremely nervous about these developments because for the first time in a long time, they're facing a situation where they will have a lot less money.

Many of them have already laid off people at the local and state levels and also they're going to have a lot of us expertise from the CDC.

So we're asking them to make more decisions on their own.

And at the same time, they're giving them a lot less money.

So there's going to be big fallout that we will see at the state and local levels.

We haven't quite seen it all yet because we're still operating under last year's budget for the most part.

But when the new budget kicks in and we see the the effects really play out.

I think we're going to see some some major effects of the state local levels.

> > From Connecticut Public Radio, this is the Wheelhouse of Frankie Graziano.

You listen to science and global health reporter at The New York Times up or of Amanda Vili and in fact, HSUS diseases, director and state epidemiologist for Connecticut's Department of Public Health, Dr Lynn Sosa after the break, which immunizations are being reviewed by the vaccine advisory panel and how should families in Connecticut prepare as we enter flu season?

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Send us a comment on YouTube as you're watching the stream YouTube dot com slash Connecticut Public.

You're listening to Wheelhouse.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ > > This is Connecticut Public Radio.

> > Ahead of the 2026 midterms.

President Trump is floating proposals to ban mail-in ballots and even voting machines on the next fresh air election.

Law expert Richard Hacen reflects on what this says about the state of our democracy and what's at stake for free and fair elections.

Join us.

♪ ♪ > > Wasn't today at noon.

> > Support comes from live.

Well, learn, grow and thrive.

Your way fall semester to thrive.

Starts this month.

Classes available for people living with dementia and for those wanting to prevent it for details, visit live well, DOT org.

♪ > > Coming up in the next episode of the Colin McEnroe show.

Sugar was first investigated 10,000 years ago in New Guinea and Ready Way.

People started saying I think this is good for us to the continuous cavities and my eating too much of this stuff that we just discovered.

We could domesticate.

We'll tell you more on this episode.

Listen this afternoon, it was a part comes from Goodspeed musicals in New England.

The weather is always changing.

Listen for forecast from meteorologist Garrett R Gns during Morning Edition.

And all things considered support comes from Mystic Seaport, Museum and Columbia Implant Center.

This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano leadership at the Federal Centers for Disease Control Prevention has shaken up raising new questions about the stability of the nation's top public health agency.

This hour.

We're looking at how people could ripple down to Connecticut.

Still with U.S. infectious diseases director for Connecticut's Department of Public Health Dr Lynn Sosa and Science and Global Health Reporter for The New York Times report of a mind of Ely.

Do leadership changes within the CDC affect the way you make decisions for your family?

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, hit us up on YouTube.

As you're watching our live stream, YouTube dot com slash Connecticut Public poor of a vaccine advisory panel newly established under health Secretary Kennedy Junior.

We'll revisit childhood and adolescent immunization schedule soon.

What are some of the vaccinations included on that list to be reviewed?

> > So I want to clarify something really quickly.

The panel itself is not new.

That meme for certain you.

This is the same panel that has you're always need recommendations for which vaccines Americans should take.

But now that the members all Sima lined with Mr. Kennedy's views on vaccines and on next week they're supposed to be looking at few different vaccines.

Definitely COVID-19 vaccines.

They're supposed to vote on that.

But we don't expect any surprises there.

Most likely they will just go along with the restrictions that Mr. Kennedy and the FDA have already spilled out, which is that people 65 plus and only people with multiple other conditions will be able to get the vaccine or should get the vaccine.

That's what the they're expected to recommend.

A lot of the experts that I talked to are extremely worried about something else that's on the agenda, which is the hepatitis B vaccine.

That's a vaccine that's given at birth to prevent Hepatitis B, which can be a very horrific disease and can be fatal.

The argument that some people have made is that because this this disease is mostly sexually transmitted.

We should not be vaccinating every child at birth, but they're very good reasons to be doing that, including the fact that it's not only sexually transmitted.

And so there are some concerns that the panel will revisit that vaccine possibly take it off the routine immunization schedule, possibly delay the time at which would be given.

And so there's a lot of concern that vaccine.

They're also looking at a couple other things, including some preventive products for respiratory Syncytial Virus, which is a leading cause of hospitalization for young babies.

They had already voted actually to allow that.

And in June, when they met, it's their first meeting.

But since then, a couple of the members have said that they feel they were lied to it.

That meeting and that there's new data that they didn't know about and that they're going to revisit that.

So we don't know what's going to come out of that.

Robert F Kennedy Junior has promised that there would be answers on the cause of autism this month.

> > Why is that timeline?

Wiser?

This pressure to 2 solve autism here as the federal government seems to be trying to do here.

> > You know, it's a good question.

I think people have been trying to figure out the cause of autism for quite a long time.

In fact, before I joined the Times, I worked for a research organization that that funded autism research and we covered it every single day.

And they're they're not really clear answers.

Quite get accent.

We do know that there are some some genes that seem to be implicated.

But we also know that Mr. Kennedy has many occasions that he thinks the vaccines have something to do with causing autism.

So we expect to see definitely something along those lines in this report.

I think that's something that he has promised his base for quite a long time that he's going to get to the bottom of this.

And he.

Sort of self-imposed this deadline of September 15th that he was going to have an answer by then.

And he has appointed a couple people whose job it has been to look through.

A lot of vaccine safety records and and other data and to come up with the answer.

But this is important.

This is where it's kind of important.

Look at the rhetoric, right?

I think you I'm trying to forget I'm trying to remember the word off the top of my head here > > President Donald Trump said, but I think the rhetoric that he used, what is that they're trying to figure it out.

But it seems like there's something in organic made of in the word that he used theirs.

There's some kind of word that the president has been using and and and why I'm bringing this up is that folks are trying to read through the tea leaves to see where RFK Junior is kind of going with all of this in terms of autism and maybe even vaccines.

> > And there's some sense that he include vaccines in this report, but also maybe some ultra processed foods or something.

Dietary.

We're hearing a lot of rumors, until we see the reporting, we really won't be clear exactly what they have decided is the solution or the problem, rather.

> > Robert F Kennedy junior questions the legitimacy of science behind vaccinations for things like chicken box, Dr. Sosa measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and more from your understanding in the state's understanding, Dr. Sosa, is there reason to question the safety of these vaccines?

> > No, there's not.

I think the guidance on vaccines has always been based on the best scientific evidence for their effectiveness and usage.

And that evidence is constantly being updated as studies are conducted in its new vaccines are developed and brought to market CDC and they see AP have historically played that critical goal of making sure the most up-to-date evidence is available for making vaccine recommendations.

The other thing I wanted to make sure everybody knew is that systems have been in place for many years to monitor safety of vaccines at after they brought to market and available to the public and these systems are there to detect an issue or a potential issue of the vaccine so that those concerns can be investigated.

Quickly, I can give you an example.

So there's a virus called Chikungunya virus.

It's a virus that is a mosquito-borne virus.

It is very common and other parts of the world, especially tropical parts of the world.

So people traveling to those parts of the vote might be exposed to it.

It's a virus that causes severe body aches, pains and fever and can cause more severe illness, especially in older persons including sometimes death.

So after a cip meeting in the spring, CDC provided information from the vaccine adverse events reporting system or vaers about reports of people who had severe complications after receiving one of the 2 available vaccines against chicken getting a virus.

So vaers has actually been around since 1990, and it's meant to serve as an early warning system for possible safety problems for licensed vaccines.

So once that those issues were detected, FDA actually suspended the approval of one of the currently available chicken getting a vaccine.

So this is really a perfect example of how the normal routine process of approving and recommending vaccines.

Part of that process is also monitoring the safety of those vaccines.

Robert F Kennedy question last week, up or of a by his colleagues, including Republican senators during a contentious.

> > Hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, he faced pushback and questions over vaccine policies and the recent firing of the director of the CDC, Susan Monarez.

What do you anticipate that we'll see play out in DC over the next coming months here?

And will there be more contentious sort of moments here up or of a?

> > Absolutely.

In fact, last night, Senator Cassidy announced that Dr one errors will come before a Senate next week to talk about.

Her side of what happened.

So already we're starting to see that they are digging deeper into the actual circumstances of her firing and also, I think as Mr. Kennedy goes farther down this path of vaccines and his committee, the committee member City's appointed may be revised the nation's schedule for certain important vaccines.

The senators are going to get more and more upset.

We started to see even in this last hearing that Senator Cassidy was initially very supportive of Mr. Kennedy.

And even though he had some doubts did vote in his favor was starting to get very agitated.

We another Republican senator who has actually always been very supportive.

Senator Barrasso also saying, you know, that he's very concerned about these activities on vaccines.

> > So I think you're starting to see some real concern on the side of Republican senators.

So far.

That doesn't seem like it really affects Mr. Kennedy's relationship with President Trump, you know, Mr. Kennedy comes with his own big base and he seems to have a very special relationship with the president.

So I none of this necessarily means that Mr. Kennedy's role is in jeopardy.

But I think his relationship with the senators, it's definitely frayed.

> > There are a lot of questions about the CDC and whether or not it can sort of survive this whole thing.

Is that relevant to the conversation of whether or not it actually does survive or is the concern that this is just going to be much different and it and not necessarily will crumble, but it will just be an Oregon, an agency that doesn't really interact with the states and also doesn't provide important funding to prevent illnesses.

Are we more worried about the infrastructure covering or about the CDC just looking much different in the future for of a > > I don't think it's so much the CDC looking different or having, you know, different institution, names or center names.

I think what we're really concerned about is what whether the CDC can function in its the unit's traditional role in guiding states in being able to be the source of really science-based information.

I wrote about this recently about whether the CDC can survive this moment.

And when I started reporting and I fully expected that the people I talked to would say, oh, you're overreacting, you know, it says it's all going to settle down and pretty much everybody I talked to said that the CDC's on its death, but the CDC, as we know it and that we may never recover from this moment because the thing that makes us ISIS so powerful is its credibility.

And that is what it's losing at this moment.

> > I need to know, I guess doctor, so sorry you prevent.

Are you preparing for that eventuality?

Is that sort of a hypothetical at this point or is that something that you can kind of?

Work on here as you prepare for the next coming months and obviously trying to worry about maybe the next pandemic or whatever is always going to be around the corner in terms of a menace to public health.

> > Right.

So, you know, as I mentioned, CDC has really been critical for making sure that we have a coordinated public health response, whether its emergency response, whether it's routine and we're certainly still hoping that CDC can do that.

And I you know, we know so many people that work there.

Many colleagues, many those people are friends.

You will find no more dedicated workforce than people who are in public health and the people that are there are still trying to do that at the same as often as we talk to our colleagues at CDC, we talk to our colleagues in other states across the country and certainly because we're so small in the Northeast, we talk to our colleagues in the northeast on a regular basis and certainly even more as we try to navigate these challenging times.

So I think, you know, as as we see what happens with CDC, we're going to continue to rely on each other so that we can make sure that we are continuing to fulfill our clerk function.

And in keeping protect everybody from public health threats.

> > So then let's finish off in this.

Know what your families in Connecticut know about vaccines this fall.

Will they still have access to a COVID booster?

Flu shot and everything else they've historically had access to will insurance cover it.

Is there any kind of update you can give us on that?

> > Sure.

I think our main role right now is making sure that people know what vaccines they should be getting and so as I mentioned, we have released interim COVID-19 vaccine guidance, making sure that people know that.

What they should be able what they should get.

And that includes really young people really older people, people at highest risk.

And and I think the other thing to remind people is that we are very fortunate in Connecticut.

We have Connecticut vaccine program is one of the strongest vaccine programs in the nation.

It provides all recommended vaccines to all children.

This has resulted in us in Connecticut having the highest vaccine rate for the measles, mumps, rubella shot for kindergartners at 98.2% And so that's really important.

And I think, you know, that has translated to the fact that Connecticut is one of 8 states who has not had a measles case this year.

We're certainly if that should happen.

But I think it's really important to show that those high vaccine rates are keeping the people of Connecticut safe.

> > And those records to continue to matter.

So appreciate that work.

Thank you so much for bringing that up.

You've been listening to Doctor Lynne Sosa, infectious diseases, director for Connecticut's Department of Public Health, Dr. Sosa, thank you for coming on the show.

Thanks for having me.

pour of Le Monde of Ely Science and Global Health Reporter for The New York Times report of a I am so grateful for your time this morning.

The pleasure.

A very delicate conversation where you're trying to navigate around politics to have a very important public health conversation at a time where we need information and not misinformation.

Thank you so much to both of you for doing that right now after the break, families in Connecticut are struggling to find care following the closure of 2 hospital based gender affirming care programs.

You'll want to hear this.

We'll hear why these programs are shuttered and where families are turning for help.

Stick with us.

You're listening to the Wheelhouse.

♪ ♪ The trucking industry and more broadly, the freight industry as a whole still hasn't fully recovered from the business impacts of the COVID pandemic.

> > The amendment truckers get paid per mile is still more than 30% lower than it was in 2021.

We'll talk about what's being called the great freight recession in the trucking industry.

I make a joke of it.

That's on the next on point.

♪ Listen this morning at 10.

> > Support comes from the with Dean Stephens Museum presenting an evening of spirit messages with evidential medium Scott Allan.

October second at 7 live readings can be uplifting and lightning in a little bit.

Magical wds museum dot org.

> > I'm Mark Contreras, president and CEO of Connecticut Public.

You probably heard that Congress has voted to take away federal funding for public media as one of the very few locally owned and operated broadcasters in the state.

We have been and will continue to be here for you with local news.

You can trust educational resources for kids and with nationally and locally produced shows that inform educate and inspire.

> > Become a monthly donor visit CT Public Dot Org, slash future.

This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano to hospital based gender affirming care programs in Connecticut recently closed leaving families across the state scrambling so Jon Tester, any Boston has the story jot to is senior health reporter at Connecticut Public's.

joins us in the studio now.

My bestie to thank you so much for being here morning.

Frankie.

Are you worried about you or your loved ones access to gender, affirming care?

We know many people are let us know.

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Leave us a comment at YouTube as well as you're watching YouTube dot com slash Connecticut Public.

Connecticut was a place were children, teens and adults could seek gender affirming care.

Before this year.

Right?

So gentle kind of happened to change them.

> > So starting trying to get a little technical thing here.

You know what I'll do.

I'll be very deliberate about it.

And then also work out as we do that.

There you > > We'll be working on technical challenges all the time.

So Frankie, it began in January, the that President Trump took office.

He issued an executive order.

He issued an executive The United States would recognize to Jen does only.

And the U.S. would end federal support for what it called gender ideology.

So let's begin with that.

And then towards the end of gender t there was another executive order issued to ban Trans K up to limit federal support that Ron skit full kids youth 1919.

So that went into effect.

And that executive order had this language.

It said it described the medical treatment as chemical and said you commute Haitian and the children would being maimed by doctors and then in July, the U.S. Justice Department followed by issuing subpoenas.

The 2 to provide it is and that's very month soon out to both of these hospitals.

You mentioned announced they would be ending Tron scare full up youth below the age of 19.

What impact of this action have on children or teens currently receiving their care?

A Connecticut Children's hospital Hartford.

> > I am family scrambling to get care.

they're looking at Boston.

One family that I met with the looking at Boston.

They have an appointment.

> > In Boston coming up in about a week.

But just this morning, the Associated Press ran a story saying that a federal judge in Massachusetts a block Trump administration's attempt to subpoena medical records of transportation's receiving care at Boston Children's Hospital.

These are kids and they asking for personal records on the treatment and that could put to identify, you know, who these children up.

So one of the parents, I meant.

Told me that, you know, I'm debt to mother is a menace that.

And had menace to cones and had the Paige and she's the mother of a pages.

The mother 11 year-old Ron Stock to was not going to see get from Yale to Boston and then Melissa Combs, mother off am 18 year-old and she says.

I don't want the fact she says I won to be out of the reach of the Fed's.

I want my kids to be out of the reach of the feds and they feel this kid is not going to see a doctor until she turns 19.

And then, you know, there's no way as of now for the feds to get kids.

So she stocked up on her Harmon medication and is waiting to turn 19.

That's what's going > > Very difficult at that on.

point, especially if you have something else going on, you want people to go to the doctor.

That's why you have insurance.

At least in theory is you want people to be healthy.

Your reporting on this topic to topic brought you in contact with the young man named Daniel Human.

Can you tell us about Daniel?

> > In just 20 years old and he's at, you know, the 20 year-old boy who loves to bike studying women's agenda and sexuality studies act to UConn loves to travel and is now in even bureau on at, you know, and and has become an advocate.

So the age of he began transitioning and that the hold him me it in them in Mansfield.

> > And, you know, Tat said nothing happened at 7 and the fact that Daniels changed and he's made it his name and pronouns and they tried hard in a country too.

> > this was 13 years ago.

Yeah, contribute to the south.

So name and pronouns that this wasn't just awoke thing that just happened last year saying that there are 10 years and years ago after off to counseling for this child received counseling.

Feig is.

> > Every one of these parents that I meant.

Told me that the child received in a psychiatric and psychological counseling for years before even starting to transition.

It was not something that happened overnight.

So when Dan in transition as a child, he would gravitate to words that the men section of the stories if used to play, but certain toys and, you know, always question, you know why promote toys and agenda basis.

But in this case, the parents told me that this was Daniel stories that right, really hard to make them conform to this both gender but only made an in miserable and not thrive and not the farm to the plate with.

He risk of dying by suicide is what he said and without this kid, he said, you know, what would have happened to me threes and blame him.

> > Critics of gender affirming care say it starts too early, but early intervention was life-altering in Daniels case, as you just really shared with us.

And here's what he shared with the we actually get to hear Daniels voice here.

It is.

After a transition that.

> > 7 and started puberty blockers at 9.

When I got my testosterone shots when I got top surgery there all the reason I'm here.

> > He spoke about how critical this was > > Can you expand on what we're hearing for their?

You're saying it was critical and that's kind of the point is that this save Daniel's life.

and question that parents are asking now it?

To remember who are these people who should decide?

You know, it's it's a child.

Not on their own.

The parents.

And the doctors.

What point does the federal government understand the medical needs of the child.

That's the question raised.

> > This regret that they're trying to talk about this kind of transition regret.

What are your self sister sources?

What is Daniel telling you about that?

What are you hearing?

> > She is joined us and we are open to.

All these people with on experiences and being this in and the witness that and I picked 7 studies 1, 1, you know, one of the when known Tron said the studies to the transition.

Ken Roth MacKinnon the New York Times recently longer peace in substack that the data only appointed to about between one and 6% of transition regret mostly adult women.

Transition with police Saturday.

An ad Scandinavian studies point to about 10%.

But this is the take away.

The takeaway is.

Rather than using this data to argue for bans.

Researchers stress it should be used to improve informed consent and patient support.

Not eliminate.

Kate McKinnon wrote and that seems to be the takeaway that I'm getting from.

From people from piece, which is from doctors.

> > Where families in Connecticut seeking care now, are there any facilities that remain committed to offering gender affirming care in the area?

> > For children, it's Boston.

Yeah.

And that not in Connecticut.

> > Is it Boston Children's Hospital and he is Is it a mass general where people go?

> > Yes, all of these hospitals have announced a commitment to keep their doors open and isn't.

It's a cost.

On the one hand, you know there it's a cost-effective that's because already crushed in Connecticut with lower Medicaid reimbursement rates adjust its like the but again, you know, not not up to the cost of service to continue to say now with the federal It kind of witch hunt and all critics say on them on TRON skit.

You know, the access to Medicaid funding is going to be a question federally qualified health centers in Connecticut.

I I spoke to submit Sabine at rookie, who is the CEO of will be tucked in the country since look, we don't know how long and in what way we can continue.

Gender affirming get its own sun and second, so that uncertainties they've in the Connecticut as she goes and Connecticut is a state where I'm like 27 other states that have district.

It.

In some way, a farm gender affirming to get office that leak and protection.

But then the hospitals are under intense pressure.

> > A lot of concern that hospitals that states are going to have to fall to that pressure from the federal government in order to keep some kind of funding there.

I I appreciate appreciate you bringing that up.

But what's at stake, as you mentioned earlier is it sounds like people like Daniel human, their lives are on the line here.

What are you following now suggest that really got about 30 seconds left.

Are you following any pending challenges to Trump's action?

Any local legislation, what he got?

> > Yes, Condit, Polanski spoke with the state Senate in math.

and we understand that the state lawmakers are trying to see what more can be done and the state tried to pass additional protections earlier this year.

But that did not go Did not get flow walked.

you know, our colleague McInnes Abbott dug up some information on that.

I'm going to be following all attention of a Kalen, Chris.

Yeah.

And so jobs report.

> > Thank you so much.

Doctor Yup.

Srinivasan, senior health reporter for Connecticut Public.

So great to have you on the show.

Thank you for an important topic to continue to follow at CT Public Dot Org today show produced by Chloe when edited by Patrick Scahill.

It was directed and produced here by Eugene Everett Route and Joe costs special thanks.

Meagan Fitzgerald, Connecticut Public, officials team and our Rob staff this the Wheelhouse.

Thank you for joining us this week.

♪