CDC scientists freed to publish again—under new Trump-appointed CDC Chief of Staff, a lawyer with no science background.

Mar 04, 2025

Hi everyone, Three stories for you today. First, some good news about the thawing of scientific censorship at the CDC. But there are some wrinkles, including the soft launch of a new Chief of Staff at the CDC, a Trump-selected lawyer with no relevant scientific background. Plus, RFK Jr. managed to get attacked by both the scientific and anti-vaxxer communities for an essay he published over the weekend. Then, some news about HHS employees and their continued harassment by the Trump-Musk Office of Personnel Management/DOGE.

Reminder: If you are employed by the government (or were recently let go) and would like to speak to me informally, please email me or find me on Signal at "InsideMedicine.88." I promise to maintain your confidentiality.

Let’s get to these stories…

But first, if you want to support work like this, please share and support Inside Medicine. Your support makes this possible. Thank you!

An Inside Medicine CDC source informed me that CDC scientists may finally come out of hiding and submit manuscripts for publication in external peer-reviewed journals. All submissions had been halted since early February. (Abstracts and other in-person presentations remain on hold, as CDC workers are still awaiting word on when normal work-related travel may continue.) The source shared an internal email sent to CDC staff by Dr. Sam Posner, the Director of the agency’s Office of Science. Dr. Posner’s memo was mostly boilerplate (including the usual clearance processes and procedures) but did have several notable specifics. Here are some, followed by brief commentaries:

“Be compliant with all relevant executive orders.”
- Response: This is an obvious reminder that the Trump administration’s delicate sensibilities around gender and diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be forgotten.
“Focus on program and agency priorities.”
- Response: Same as above.
“Not provide comment on, or advocate for, policy or funding.”
- Response: This is a bit odd. While CDC scientists don’t generally advocate for funding, policy implications are almost impossible to avoid, even if not explicitly stated. (Our source agreed.)
“Currently, it is especially important reviewers at all levels of the agency critically review and approve only the highest quality relevant science that informs public health action. While we do this as a matter of routine business, it is important that we redouble our efforts.”
- Response: This might be another veiled directive to maintain the censorship regime that the Trump administration has eagerly pursued.
“All documents being reviewed by our office weekly with Dr. Houry and Mr. Buzzelli.”
- Response: Everyone knows who Dr. Debra Houry is. But, who is Mr. Buzzelli? I had no idea. I looked it up. As of late February, one Matthew Buzzelli seems to be the CDC’s Chief of Staff—a newly-installed Trump appointee. The idea that all documents must be reviewed by Mr. Buzzelli seems a little strange, since he is described on the CDC’s website as having no scientific background. Per the CDC, “Buzzelli is a seasoned legal professional with a distinguished career as a trial attorney.” So, why must he review all the manuscripts being sent out to scientific and medical journals? One can guess, but here’s one possible clue: According to CNN, Kyle McGowan, the CDC Chief of Staff during President Trump’s early Covid-19 response, was criticized for being insufficiently loyal.

Did RFK Jr. actually come out in support of measles vaccines? Hardly.

On Sunday, Fox News published an op-ed by RFK Jr. that seemed pro-measles vaccine. Sadly, this counted as news. However, the reality is less rosy, for three reasons.

As Yale’s Dr. Ben Mazer wrote in a piece called “Fox News does RFK Jr dirty,” it looks like the Fox editors may have made RFK Jr. seem far more pro-vaccine than he meant to appear. How? Because if you take away the headline and sub-headline, the actual body of the essay is quite muted in its support of vaccines. Not everyone realizes that in almost all instances, opinion writers do not write their own headlines or sub-headers. That falls to editors and/or the copy desk. So, it’s possible (and even likely) that RFK Jr. not only didn’t write the words “Measles outbreak is call to action for all of us. MMR vaccine is crucial to avoiding potentially deadly disease,” he might not have even seen them until after the piece was published. Now, usually, writers are shown the headlines and subheaders before publication, but not always. And in this case, it would have been very embarrassing for Secretary Kennedy to push back, either before but especially after the piece went live. So, he’s stuck with it. And Mazer is correct. The rest of the essay lacks anything remotely as pro-vaccine as the headlines.
Indeed, in the piece, RFK Jr. wrote (bold added for emphasis), “Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.” Unless you know the language of vaccine denialism and vaccine skepticism, this kind of language might wash over you. But “understanding your options” and “personal choices” are chestnuts used by master grifters seeking to sound open and compassionate while undermining life-saving vaccines. So, there was a great deal of social media commentary from science influencers that emphasized two related points. First, the bar is now so low that even what little support for vaccines RFK Jr. offered seems like a win for vaccines—it ain’t. Second, it was still shocking but not surprising that RFK Jr. failed to deliver the full-voiced support of science that every previous national health leader has offered, which sounds a bit more like this: “The MMR vaccine is safe, effective, and necessary to keep our own children, and our entire communities safe. The only permissible exceptions to MMR vaccine requirements should be due to medical conditions that preclude receiving it. Laws permitting non-medical exemptions should be revoked.” See? Not that hard.
RFK Jr. spent way too many pixels on issues that don’t matter in most cases: vitamins. He wrote that “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D, and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be part of a balanced diet.” If you click that “best defense” hyperlink above, you’ll find a CDC page about vitamins that has nothing to do with measles. Now, it’s true that for babies under age 2, correcting Vitamin A deficiency is important for many reasons, including for preventing measles complications. But that is not what is behind US measles outbreaks, nor are extra doses in the general population the answer. Spending space on this is yet another classic move by those who want to undermine science. Making vaccines and vitamins appear equal undermines vaccines, rather than elevating vitamins.

Meanwhile, the unabashedly anti-vaxxer crowd also felt betrayed by RFK Jr.’s essay. So, nobody’s happy. Welcome to politics, Secretary Kennedy.

New weekly “What I did emails” to HHS employees inboxes are a “dumpster fire.” Plus, another Trump-Musk attempt to push federal employees out the door. (The last one didn’t go well.)

In the last few days, HHS employees have received another round of strange emails. One CDC employee I spoked to summarized their inbox as a “dumpster fire.” Another HHS employee chose the word “contemptible” to describe some of the emails. A third described his inbox as a “Schrödinger-Pandora Box": If you don’t look, you won’t know what fresh hell awaits you.” (I love these people: The first CDC employee also offered “steaming pile of garbage,” “chaotic trash,” and “*sadistic chaotic trash,” before I responded that I’d gathered enough options and they could stop. )

Over the weekend, HHS employees were once again instructed to submit an infantilizing list of what they did last week. The emails also announced that this nonsense will now be a weekly requirement, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency. (No choice. I have to deploy it:🤦🏻‍♂️.) This time, the email was vaguely less menacing, and took into account the reality that many federal employees handle classified information:

Email #1. Subject: “What did you do last week? Part II."

Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets describing what you accomplished last week and cc your manager.
Going forward, please complete the above task each week by Mondays at 11:59pm ET.
Please do not send links, attachments, or any classified/sensitive information. If all of your activities are classified or sensitive, please write "All of my activities are sensitive".

(Note: Can't they hire a copy editor?) Like last weekend, most HHS employees initially did nothing while awaiting further guidance from their managers. A follow-up email provided guidance. Take a look at an excerpt:

Email #2. Subject: “UPDATE RE: OPM Email (What did you do last week? Part II)”

HHS Employees
HHS employees are required to respond to the email every Monday before the deadline and copy their supervisors on their response….
Response Guidance:
Follow any guidance you receive from your supervisors regarding how you should respond.
Keep your response at a high level of generality and describe your work in a manner that protects sensitive data, personally identifiable information, and applicable privileges to the extent possible. Do not identify, by name or title, any other HHS employees with whom you have been working.
Do not identify any specific grants, contracts, or any specific grantees or contractors in your response.
If you are engaged in scientific research or reviews, do not identify by name any drugs, devices, biologics, therapeutics, or similar items in your response. If you are engaged in any scientific experiments, research, or reviews, do not provide information that could allow anyone to identify the precise nature of your work.
Employees who are on approved leave, out of the office due to alternative work schedules, or those who have a signed Deferred Resignation Agreement are not required to respond.

What strikes me about this was how inefficient and meaningless this weekly exercise will be. If nothing specific can be offered, what’s the point? “The chief effect is to waste staff time and create more uncertainty at a time at which we have plenty,” one of my CDC sources told me.

Meanwhile, DOGE stooges will have to sort out who is in and out of the office (or on leave). Chasing down compliance will be a self-assigned fool’s errand.

Then today, HHS employees got another limited-time offer (some restrictions may apply) via an email from the Office of Personnel Management:

Email #3. Subject: “Please read immediately: HHS VERA Program”

HHS Employees
Today, we received authorization from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to offer Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) to eligible employees across our Department for ten business days – effective from today to next Friday (March 14, 2025) at 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. This is in keeping with President Trump’s recent Executive Order on workforce restructuring and associated OPM/OMB guidance.
According to OPM, VERA “allows agencies that are undergoing substantial restructuring, reshaping, downsizing, transfer of function, or reorganization to temporarily lower the age and service requirements in order to increase the number of employees who are eligible for retirement.” Further details about the program, including specific eligibility criteria, may be found on the OPM website here.
If you would like to apply, please submit your required information to your local HR Benefits Office via email before 5:00pm on Friday, March 14, 2025.
Please direct any questions to your local HR Benefits Office.

Given the Trump administration’s very low turnout for the “Fork in the Road” offer last month, they’re again attempting to push federal employees out by offering to pay them to go. This appears to be another misguided waste of federal dollars by a team ostensibly trying to save money—especially since many of these positions will eventually have to be refilled anyway, whether by this administration or another one that actually understands the important work that HHS workers do. I haven’t heard back from anyone to whom the offer applies, so I don’t know how this one has been received. But, hey, at least this time, the administration didn’t lead by literally insulting the recipients of the offer, as they foolishly did with the initial “Fork in the Road” messaging in which federal workers were enticed with the "opportunity” to leave their “low-productivity jobs.” Ah, that was classy. Maybe the Trump administration is finally learning something. I unsure whether that’s good or bad…

That’s all for now! If you have information about any of the unfolding stories we are following, please email me or find me on Signal at InsideMedicine.88.

Thanks for reading, sharing, speaking out, and supporting Inside Medicine! Please ask your questions in the comments and if you can’t upgrade due to financial considerations, just email me.