MAHA OR MASA? WHEN HEALTH POLICY LEAVES SCIENCE BEHIND

“Make America Healthy Again” is an appealing slogan. Who could oppose it? But slogans are not evidence, and good intentions are not a substitute for science. The question Americans should be asking is whether the policies associated with the MAHA movement are actually making Americans healthier—or whether some are moving public health in the opposite direction.

There is a growing reason for concern.


Consider measles. As of September 24, 2026, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had recorded 3,659 confirmed measles cases in the United States, with 95% associated with outbreaks. That is already substantially higher than the 2,289 cases recorded during all of 2025. CDC also reports that kindergarten MMR vaccination coverage fell from 95.2% in 2019–20 to 92.4% in 2025–26, leaving approximately 280,000 kindergarteners inadequately protected.


And measles is not merely an inconvenience. In 2025, three Americans died from measles—an unvaccinated adult in New Mexico and two unvaccinated school-aged children in Texas. CDC reported that 12% of U.S. measles cases in 2025 required hospitalization.


Against that background, changing the nation's childhood vaccination strategy deserves extraordinary scrutiny.


President Donald Trump signed an executive order in August 2026 establishing a new “Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine” framework. The order retains measles vaccination among vaccines recommended for all children, but it also calls for the MMR combination vaccine to be replaced, once individual products are available, with three separate shots and directs federal agencies to examine changing the timing and sequencing of childhood vaccines.


That distinction matters. The administration says its objective is greater parental choice, safety research and alignment with other developed countries. HHS describes the policy as a restoration of “gold-standard science.” But changing a long-established vaccination schedule is not itself evidence that the existing schedule was medically unsound. The scientific question must always be: What evidence demonstrates that the proposed change produces better health outcomes?


This is where Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s history of controversial vaccine claims becomes relevant. Kennedy has built much of his public profile around allegations concerning vaccine safety that mainstream medical and public-health organizations have rejected. Once such claims become part of federal policy, the distinction between legitimate scientific skepticism and unsupported speculation becomes critically important.


Public health cannot operate on conspiracy theories. It requires randomized trials where appropriate, epidemiological evidence, pharmacovigilance, transparent methodology and independent replication.

Nor is vaccination the only area where infectious-disease threats remind us of the importance of competent public-health surveillance.


In 2026, the United States experienced a striking surge in cyclosporiasis, an intestinal illness caused by the parasite Cyclospora cayetanensis. CDC reported 19,883 laboratory-confirmed cases, 1,064 hospitalizations and two deaths between May 1 and August 31. Cases were reported in 49 states plus the District of Columbia.


And Ebola remains a reminder that infectious diseases do not respect political boundaries. In September 2026, CDC reported responding to a rapidly expanding Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Importantly, CDC said there were no cases associated with that outbreak in the United States and that the risk to Americans remained very low. The lesson is not that Americans should panic about Ebola. It is precisely the opposite: effective surveillance and infection-control systems are what allow public-health authorities to identify threats and keep relatively low-risk events from becoming American crises.


That is the central issue confronting MAHA.

There are legitimate public-health questions within the movement. Americans can reasonably debate ultra-processed foods, nutrition, food additives, chronic disease, conflicts of interest in medical research and the transparency of regulatory agencies. Some MAHA initiatives—such as efforts to increase disclosure surrounding substances manufacturers designate as “generally recognized as safe”—are policy questions that deserve serious examination rather than automatic dismissal.


But legitimate questions become dangerous when they are accompanied by unsupported conclusions.


America does not need less science. It needs better science communicated more honestly.


If MAHA means demanding rigorous research, greater transparency, better nutrition and stronger accountability, those objectives are compatible with mainstream public health. If it means treating unsupported vaccine theories as equivalent to decades of epidemiological evidence, weakening confidence in proven immunizations or changing medical recommendations before adequate evidence exists, then “Make America Healthy Again” risks becoming something quite different.


Call it MASA—Make America Sick Again—if that is where the evidence ultimately leads.


The test, however, should not be the slogan. It should be the data.


When preventable diseases return, when vaccination rates fall, when people are hospitalized or die, and when federal health policy departs from established medical evidence, Americans deserve something more than political rhetoric. They deserve policies grounded in reproducible science, transparent evidence and the basic principle that public health should first do no harm.

WHEN WARNING LABELS BECOME THE WARNING

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • September 30, 2026
We live in an age of warning labels. They are on ladders, coffee cups, toys, appliances, medications, clothing, furniture and virtually anything else we might buy. Some warnings are essential. Others are so obvious that they have become the stuff of comedy. We have all seen examples: a label on a cup warning that its contents may be hot. A hair dryer carrying a warning not to use it while sleeping. A package of peanuts warning that it contains peanuts. A chainsaw instruction manual cautioning users not to stop the blade with their hands. A Halloween costume warning that it is not fire-resistant. A label on an iron reminding us that the appliance becomes hot when turned on. Then there are warnings that seem to state the painfully obvious: “Do not put your fingers in the fan.” “Do not use a knife to cut yourself.” “This product is not intended to be eaten.” One particularly famous example involved a child’s Superman costume warning that it does not enable the wearer to fly. These warnings can be funny, but they raise a serious question: What happens when consumers become accustomed to treating warnings as jokes? The purpose of a warning is to interrupt ordinary behavior. It is supposed to make us stop, pay attention and recognize a danger that we might otherwise overlook. But if consumers encounter dozens of warnings every day—many concerning hazards that are already obvious—the warning itself can begin to lose its power. Think about the difference between two warnings. The first says: “Caution: Contents hot.” The second says: “This medication can cause potentially dangerous interactions with certain commonly used drugs. Consult a physician or pharmacist before taking it.” The first identifies a hazard virtually everyone understands. (The exception, however, is McDonald’s coffee which exceeds industry norms and is extremely hot, beyond what the average consumer would expect) The second communicates information that many consumers could not possibly know without being told. Yet both may appear in the same visual universe of labels, boxes, inserts and fine print. That creates what might be called warning fatigue . When people repeatedly encounter warnings that seem ridiculous or unnecessary, they may develop the habit of ignoring warnings altogether. The consumer learns, consciously or unconsciously, that “warning” often means “something obvious that lawyers wanted printed on the package.” That is a problem when the next warning really matters. 

FOREVER CHEMICALS IN YOUR MAKEUP BAG: THE HIDDEN DANGER OF PFAS IN COSMETICS

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • August 10, 2026
You probably don't think twice about your morning routine—a swipe of foundation, a coat of mascara, maybe some lipstick before heading out the door. But lurking in many of these everyday products is a class of synthetic chemicals that scientists call "forever chemicals," and their presence in cosmetics has become impossible to ignore.

A PREVENTABLE CRISIS: THE U.S. MEASLES SURGE AND THE COST OF ANTI-SCIENCE LEADERSHIP

By Ann K. • July 13, 2026
A Grim Milestone for American Public Health We are facing a public health emergency that was entirely preventable. According to updated data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States has recorded 2,170 confirmed measles cases in 2026—and we are only halfway through the year. This staggering figure nearly matches the 2,289 cases recorded across the entirety of 2025, representing a measles crisis on a scale this country has not seen in over three decades. Measles was declared officially eliminated from the United States in 2000, thanks to robust and widespread uptake of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Today, that monumental achievement is on the verge of being permanently erased.

WARNING LABELS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA: PROTECTING YOUR CHILDREN IN THE DIGITAL AGE

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • June 15, 2026
For decades, Americans have relied on warning labels to alert consumers to hidden dangers. Cigarette packages warn of cancer. Alcohol labels caution pregnant women. Medications disclose side effects. Yet one of the most powerful and potentially addictive products used by millions of children every day carries virtually no warning at all: social media. In 2024, as I wrote in the September, 2024 issue of this newsletter, then-U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy called on Congress to require cigarette-style warning labels on social media platforms, arguing that parents and children deserve to know that excessive use has been linked to anxiety, depression, body image problems, sleep disruption, and other mental health concerns. He stated that social media had become an important contributor to the youth mental health crisis and that warning labels could help increase awareness among families. Unfortunately, that proposal has stalled under the new administration. The opportunity to provide parents with basic health information appears to have been abandoned just as evidence of social media's harmful effects continues to mount.

WARNING: USING AI FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSES MAY BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • April 30, 2026
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping the landscape of healthcare, particularly in the realm of medical diagnosis. From analyzing medical images to predicting disease risk, AI-driven tools are increasingly being integrated into clinical workflows. While the potential benefits are substantial—improved accuracy, faster diagnoses, and expanded access to care—there are also meaningful risks that warrant careful scrutiny. Understanding both sides is essential for clinicians, policymakers, and patients alike.

LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES: A GROWING FIRE RISK IN OUR HOMES

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • March 31, 2026
Lithium-ion batteries power much of modern life. From smartphones and laptops to e-bikes, power tools, and even home energy storage systems, these compact and efficient batteries are everywhere. But as their use has expanded, so too has a serious and often underestimated danger: the risk of fire. Lithium-ion battery fires are not like typical household fires. They burn hotter, spread faster, and can reignite even after appearing to be extinguished. These fires are caused by a process known as “thermal runaway,” where damage, overheating, or internal defects trigger a chain reaction inside the battery. Once this process begins, it can release flammable gases, cause explosions, and produce intense flames that are difficult to control.

WARNING: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S EPA IS DISMANTLING REGULATIONS PROTECTING US FROM PFAS, PUTTING OUR LIVES AT RISK

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • February 27, 2026
1. Weakening National Drinking Water Standards  In April 2024, the EPA finalized the first federally enforceable National Primary Drinking Water Rule (NPDWR) for six PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), PFBS, and mixtures of these chemicals. These rules established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and required monitoring and treatment timelines for public water systems. Under Trump's EPA, this landmark public health rule is being undone :

THE SILENT WINTER THREAT: CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING DURING STORMS AND POWER OUTAGES

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • January 27, 2026
Winter in the Northern Hemisphere brings cold weather, snow, and often severe storms. These conditions can lead to power outages that last hours or even days. When electricity is lost and temperatures plummet, many households turn to alternative heating methods or portable power generators. While these actions are understandable, they can expose families to a perilous and often invisible threat: carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning . 

HOLIDAY FOOD SAFETY: PROTECTING YOUR FAMILY FROM SALMONELLA & LISTERIA THIS THANKSGIVING

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • November 24, 2025
As Thanksgiving approaches, kitchens across the country are about to come alive with the sounds and smells of holiday cooking. While this season brings family, gratitude, and plenty of delicious food, it also comes with a serious and often overlooked risk: foodborne illness. In the U.S., Salmonella and Listeria remain two of the most dangerous and persistent causes of food poisoning—especially during the holidays, when increased food preparation, crowded refrigerators, and large holiday meals create ideal conditions for bacterial growth.Whether you’re hosting your first Thanksgiving dinner or you’re a seasoned holiday chef, brushing up on a few key food safety practices can help you keep your loved ones healthy and your celebration memorable for all the right reasons.

ARE WAYMOS SAFER THAN HUMANS DRIVING A CAR?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • October 30, 2025
The race to develop autonomous vehicles (AVs) has reached a pivotal moment. Alphabet-owned Waymo, widely regarded as the frontrunner in the field, has rolled out fully driverless taxis in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, with plans to expand to additional cities. But as more Waymo vehicles hit public roads without human drivers, the question looms large: Are they truly safer than the people they’re replacing behind the wheel?
Show More