Blog

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently endorsed vaccine recommendations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), meningococcal, and chikungunya diseases.

Published on the CDC’s website on June 25, 2025, these recommendations were adopted by the U.S. HHS Secretary.

As the conclusion of last month’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, the members issued the following statement, which is inserted below:

‘Honesty, transparency, and compassion with regard to public health. These are the three pillars that we, the new ACIP members, are guided by. Our central duty is to protect public health, and we understand that we must answer the call for reestablishing confidence in the scientific examination process. This committee strongly supports the use of vaccines and other countermeasures, predicated on evidence-based medicine, including rigorous evaluation and expansive, credible scientific data, for both safety and efficacy.

All stakeholders, including healthcare providers, parents, children, schools, nursing homes, insurance providers, public health agencies, manufacturers, and the rare few who may be harmed by recommended interventions, need to have understandable, digestible, scientifically correct information. This group is committed to providing that information, and in order to do so, we must have data representing large populations. Data collection is a central question that may require constructing a broad risk-benefit analysis. The committee will endeavor to assess the status of programs that are intended to collect data from large populations that have, or have not, received vaccines. These data are needed in order to assess both adverse short- and long-term side effects and to evaluate the magnitude of side effects.

We came to this meeting with no predetermined ideas and will make judgements as if we are treating our own families. Unbiased scientific thinking is fundamental to the committee’s charge. Our votes are recommendations, but we know that some may perceive them as mandates, so we take this responsibility very seriously. We pledge not to hold a vote if there is not sufficient information to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits.

This committee is not in competition with other committees, organizations, or each other – we are all in competition with the infectious diseases, and we will work together to ensure the best outcomes for public health.’

Women who see themselves as having lower social status are more likely than other people to show early signs of heart stress linked to future disease risk, according to a new study led by researchers at McGill and Concordia universities.

One in three women in North America die from heart disease. Yet, women are less likely to receive important cardiac interventions or therapies than men. This highlights the need to rethink how we assess cardiovascular risk in women.”

Dr. Judy Luu, Co-Lead Author, Assistant Professor in McGill’s Department of Medicine and a clinician-scientist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre

Subjective social status – how people feel they rank compared to others in terms of their social standing – has previously been linked to physical and mental health, with lower social status associated with poorer health. The findings of this study are among the first to show measurable, sex-specific effects in the heart.

More than 400 adults between the ages of 35 and 83, all without diagnosed heart disease, took part in the study. Each completed a questionnaire ranking their social standing on a 10-rung ladder. Cardiac MRI scans then measured early signs of stress in the heart’s tissue.

Women who ranked their social status lower showed more signs of potential inflammation and early scarring in the heart, even when their income and education matched those who ranked their status higher. Men who ranked their social status lower than others with the same income and education did not show these warning signs.

Why might women be more affected?

There are two theories that may explain the findings, said co-lead author Jean-Philippe Gouin, Full Professor of Psychology at Concordia.

“First, subjective social status may better reflect women’s real-life experiences than objective data on their socioeconomic status,” he said. “For example, even with the same education as men, women often earn less or face additional social pressures. So, their self-perception may capture those realities more accurately.”

The second theory is about psychological impact, he said. Women may feel fewer opportunities for upward mobility, which can lead to more stress.

The researchers note that stress is one of the top five risk factors for heart disease in women under 65. Experiences such as trauma, discrimination, and caregiving demands may contribute to the subtle changes in heart tissue observed in this study – suggesting early signs of inflammation, even before disease is diagnosed.

The researchers plan to follow a larger group of participants over time to see whether these early markers predict heart disease.

“We hope our work helps shift the paradigm in cardiac care,” said Luu. “We want to make it normal to discuss mental wellness, social circumstances and stress in routine medical practice.”