Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supplies vaccines to nearly half of the world’s children. For decades, governments, institutions, and private groups around the world have provided the funding it needs to buy, stockpile and distribute vaccines at reduced cost for lower and middle-resource countries. But leaked documents, first reported by the New York Times, reveal that the Trump Administration has created lists of funding projects it plans to stop supporting, including Gavi.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly has plans to perform a large study on a “possible connection” between vaccines and autism—a topic of interest to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite plenty of research showing no such connection exists. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Kennedy was asked by Republican senator and physician Bill Cassidy about his views on vaccines and autism. “Will you reassure mothers unequivocally and without qualification that the measles and the hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism?” Cassidy asked. Advertisement “If the data is there, I will absolutely do that,” Kennedy replied. Of course, the data is there—in abundance. There is ample scientific evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet Kennedy and those who discount this research claim that it is either flawed or insufficient to disprove a possible link. That raises the question: could more “data” change their minds? If a lack of “good data” is truly driving people to avoid vaccines, it would be important to know, exactly, what new data could possibly change minds. Considering that most parents are probably not reading and appraising scientific studies themselves (either because they’re busy or because scientific studies are not really written for general audiences), this question is best asked to the high-profile vaccine skeptics in which some parents have placed their trust and whose opinions are taken seriously by millions of Americans.

What are the biggest threats to the health security of the American people? There are some strong candidates. Avian influenza is spreading in birds, cattle, and 50 mammalian species. Measles cases are surging at home and abroad. COVID-19 is still spreading and could mutate into a more deadly strain. Farther afield, Uganda continues to respond to an Ebola outbreak and Mpox has been seen in 127 countries. But perhaps the biggest threat to America’s health could be self-inflicted. According to a report published yesterday in the New York Times, our leaders intend to end funding for international immunization programs—including the Gavi Alliance I led from 2011 to 2023—that for decades have protected Americans from health threats abroad. These cuts would represent a grave threat to the health, well-being, and livelihoods of every American. Advertisement Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that U.S. national interest would be the guiding mission of American foreign policy. “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions,” he said. “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” For decades, U.S. support for immunization abroad has answered every one of these questions with a resounding “yes,” and U.S. philanthropies and the U.S. government have played a key role in funding vaccines for many of the world’s poorest children. Vaccines are our first line of defense when it comes to prevention of infectious disease, and the last word when the time comes to respond to an escalating outbreak or pandemic. In a world that changes fast, we know the next pandemic is a question of when, not if. Consider the case of Gavi, an international alliance of public- and private-sector partners that has been at the forefront of this global vaccination effort. Gavi, which received $300 million from the U.S. in 2024, uses an innovative financing model to dramatically reduce the cost of these vaccines and then gradually transfer the costs of immunization programs to their respective national governments as they transition from low-income to middle-income economies. The alliance provides vaccines for half of the world’s children and has immunized more than 1.1 billion additional children and counting in the past 25 years. In the process, it has achieved a return on investment that would be the envy of Wall Street: $54 for every dollar spent. Of course, as a former CEO of Gavi, I’m biased. But by any objective measure, Gavi’s results have been extraordinary not only in terms of the projection of soft U.S. power, but also in terms of the preservation of the vital security interests of America and our allies. The front line of the fight against many infectious diseases might be far from U.S. borders, but every case of measles and avian influenza on U.S. soil tells us the same simple story: viruses don’t care about borders. Because we live in a connected world, immunization in poorer countries is a big part of how we stop outbreaks of preventable but devastating diseases abroad, but also on U.S. soil–diseases that can cost lives and could end up costing us billions to contain. In other words, stronger immunization coverage in Khartoum and Kinshasa saves lives there, but also in Kansas City. Think back to just over 10 years ago. In 2014, three West African countries were devastated by an Ebola outbreak that claimed more than 11,000 lives. We saw cases in the U.S. and six additional countries, and we saw fear and panic amplified by the fact that there was no vaccine to control the disease. Gavi not only helped get an experimental vaccine across the finish line, it established a global vaccine stockpile that has played a key role in the rapid containment of outbreaks since. So far not a single additional case has made its way to the U.S.

Americans are worried about the chemicals in their food, and some politicians are expressing the same concerns. In January, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asserted that the food supply is “poisoning” people, while Dr. Marty Makary, the new Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said during his Senate hearing in early March that chemical additives in food are “drugging our nation’s children at scale.” He promised to “look at” chemicals as causes for inflammation and disease. Advertisement Just 150 years ago, most food came from local farms and markets down the road from people’s homes. Today, it materializes from thousands of miles away, filled with cryptic, unpronounceable ingredients, many of them chemicals. Research points to potential consequences. “There is extensive evidence that synthetic chemicals, unintentionally and intentionally added to food, contribute to chronic disease across the lifespan,” says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, professor of pediatrics at NYU School of Medicine. He and other experts want people to know the risks of chemicals in food and what to do about them. Why are there so many chemicals in our food supply? Companies can add risky chemicals to food without independent tests to find out if they’re safe for consumption. It’s done without FDA approval through a loophole in federal regulations called the Generally Recognized As Safe exemption, or GRAS.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common medical issues women experience; up to 60% of women will get one during their lifetime. Older, post-menopausal women are especially susceptible, since lower estrogen levels can lead to decreased levels of beneficial bacteria that suppress infection-causing bacteria. On March 25, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first new antibiotic to treat UTIs in 30 years. The medication, gepotidacin, targets E. coli bacteria, which is responsible for the most common types of infections, called uncomplicated UTIs, that affect women. Advertisement Called Blujepa, the drug works differently than existing antibiotics. It targets two enzymes that E. coli uses to make more copies of itself when it generates and snips off circles of its DNA. During that process, the DNA can become knotted, but the bacteria can undo those knots. Blujepa interferes with that process, which prevents the bacteria from replicating and producing more bacteria that can infect cells. Read More: Menopause Is Finally Going Mainstream Tony Wood, chief scientific officer at GSK (which makes Blujepa), said during a press briefing that this process is unique to E. coli bacteria, and the fact that the drug focuses on this unique property could make it harder for the bacteria to develop resistance against the drug. Existing antibiotics that are used to treat UTIs have broad activity against a number of bacterial species—which makes it more likely that bacteria can find ways to develop resistance to them.

The genetic testing company 23andMe, which holds the genetic data of 15 million people, declared bankruptcy on Sunday night after years of financial struggles. This means that all of the extremely personal user data could be up for sale—and that vast trove of genetic data could draw interest from AI companies looking to train their data sets, experts say. “Data is the new oil—and this is very high quality oil,” says Subodha Kumar, a professor at the Fox School of Business at Temple University. “With the development of more and more complicated and rigorous algorithms, this is a gold mine for many companies.” Advertisement But any AI-related company attempting to acquire 23andMe would run significant reputational risks. Many people are horrified by the thought that they surrendered their genetic data to trace their ancestry, only for it to now be potentially used in ways they never consented to. “Anybody touching this data is running a risk,” Kumar, who is the director of Fox’s Center for Business Analytics and Disruptive Technologies, says. “But at the same time, not touching it, they might be losing on something big as well.” Read More: 23andMe Filed for Bankruptcy. What Does That Mean For Your Account? Training LLMs Companies like OpenAI and Google have poured time and resources into making an impact on the medical field, and 23andMe’s data trove may attract interest from large AI firms with the financial means to acquire it. 23andMe was valued at around $48 million this week, down from a peak of $6 billion in 2021.

On March 17, PepsiCo announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire the prebiotic soda brand Poppi. Poppi and other prebiotic soda brands, like Olipop, have gained popularity in recent years with flavors like strawberry lemon, orange, grape, and cherry limeade. The companies claim that their sodas are healthy alternatives to regular soft drinks partly because they contain prebiotics, which serve as food for the bacteria in our gut (which are called probiotics). Both prebiotics and probiotics are important to maintaining a healthy gut microbiome and have been linked in research to better health outcomes, including improved digestion and a stronger immune system, says Julia Zumpano, a registered dietitian and media nutrition liaison for the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Human Nutrition. Advertisement But do these health benefits hold up when prebiotics are delivered in the form of a soda? “I think in moderation they can be a fair, good choice,” Zumpano says. “I definitely think they are better than traditional sodas…but really they should be consumed in moderation.” In 2024, Poppi was sued over allegations that its prebiotic sodas don’t improve gut health as much as the brand’s marketing claims it does. Poppi denied the allegations; it stopped using the phrase "gut health" on its packaging in 2023 and recently agreed to a settlement of $8.9 million, pending court approval, according to the Associated Press. Zumpano says there’s limited research proving that prebiotic sodas lead to positive gut microbiome changes, and Marion Nestle, emeritus professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, adds it’s not clear if the sodas contain enough prebiotics to significantly affect the gut. Both experts say that eating fibrous foods—such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans—are far superior sources of prebiotics than these drinks.

When you go to the doctor, you’re probably the one answering most of the questions. Yet it’s essential to make sure you're asking plenty of your own. “We need to get someone to fund a bazillion-dollar PSA to tell people to be bolder when they talk to their doctors,” says Risa Arin, founder and CEO of XpertPatient, a patient education platform. “I see this over and over again: People aren’t asking any questions, never mind the right ones.” We asked experts to share the questions you should ask your doctor to help you get well or stay that way. Advertisement “What screenings should I get?” Exactly which health screenings you need, and when, depends on factors like age, sex, personal medical history, and family history. When you’re at your annual physical, ask your doctor what you should prioritize in the coming year, so you can be certain you don’t miss anything, suggests Dr. Jessica Edwards, founder and CEO of Zara Medical, a hybrid primary care practice. Screening yearly for mental health disorders like depression is important, too—so if your doctor doesn't bring it up, initiate the conversation yourself, she advises. “What vitamins and supplements might be helpful?” Some vitamins and supplements are a waste of money. Others could be harmful. And then there are the ones that could actually benefit your health. To figure out which is which, ask your doctor, Edwards advises. “It matters because if you live in an area that isn't sunny, you should take vitamin D,” she says. “If you’re a vegetarian, you might need to supplement vitamin B12.”

Talking about money is almost always awkward—especially when it’s with a romantic partner. Perhaps that’s why so many people avoid it, sometimes for decades into their married lives. “Money is a huge source of shame,” says Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist and author of books including Start Thinking Rich: 21 Harsh Truths to Take You From Broke to Financial Freedom. “If you were to ask me about my net worth, or how big my 401(k) is, or what percentage of my income I’m saving or investing, I'm going to be anxious: ‘Do you think I should have more? Do you think I should have less? How am I stacking up here?’” he says. Advertisement Yet delaying the conversation is one of the biggest mistakes couples make. Ideally, Klontz says, people should start talking about money around the time they discuss whether they want to have children, where they envision themselves living, and other future-oriented topics. We asked experts for their favorite ways to broach the subject. “I’d love for us to feel completely aligned about money. Could we set aside some time to chat about our finances?” This is a great way to bring up money with a significant other for the first time, says Alex King, an accountant and financial coach who’s the founder of the personal finance platform Generation Money. “Frame it as something collaborative you can tackle together,” he suggests. “You’re saying, ‘We’re a team—let’s get on the same page.’” Read More: 14 Things to Say Besides ‘I Love You’ It’s also helpful to acknowledge that money can be overwhelming, but that talking about it, especially early on, helps reduce stress in the long run. Make a plan to have the conversation when you're both feeling relaxed, King advises.

If you love someone, learn how to fight with them. That’s the best advice Krystal Mazzola Wood, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Phoenix, gives the couples she works with. “It makes all the difference in the world,” she says. “Most of us don't innately have the skills to communicate well when we're feeling overwhelmed or unheard, because we literally go into fight-or-flight mode. We have to actively practice how to communicate well during a conflict to protect and strengthen the relationship.” Advertisement That includes having a handful of go-to phrases in your back pocket to deploy when things get heated. We asked experts what to say during your next fight with your partner—and how it might help you find your way back to each other. “You’re right about ___.” Couples often land in Mazzola Wood’s office because, when they argue, they get stuck on who’s right and who’s wrong. They tend to especially fixate on “perceiving themselves as correct,” she says. “That makes the other person feel completely unheard and unseen, which encourages them to get defensive and argue back.” There’s a better way: Instead of ruminating over how you’re going to prove your point, draw attention to something your partner said that you agree with. That will help diffuse the tension and remind both of you that you’re on the same team, she says. “I’m sorry for ___.” Apologizing for your role in an argument—which doesn’t mean taking all of the blame—is a shortcut to a peaceful resolution. “When someone hears an apology, they automatically soften,” Mazzola Wood says. “I always think about giving the love that we want to receive.” Be specific (and genuine) about what you're apologizing for, she urges, looking your partner in the eye and speaking from the heart. Don't try to justify your behavior, minimize your partner's feelings, or guilt-trip them. It’s also a good idea to steer clear of quasi-apologies, like “I’m sorry you feel that way” or “I’m sorry, but,” which is more offensive than saying nothing at all.