CDC nominee sidesteps questions on standing up to Kennedy on vaccines 75%

By Reuters69%

7/15/2026, 7:36:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Recency Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 233 hits. Analysis detected 1,632 faulty-reasoning hits from 683 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.1% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,228 of 20,408 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.40% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON >> Erica Schwartz, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. 
CDC, repeatedly declined today to say whether she would defy Health Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr. on vaccines, frustrating senators weighing whether the embattled agency can secure stable, independent leadership after months of turmoil. 
Sen. 
Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and physician who chairs the Senate health committee, repeatedly pressed Schwartz on whether she would exert full control over the agency and stand up to Kennedy, including removing officials seeking to link vaccines to autism. 
Schwartz declined to answer directly. 
As Cassidy kept pressing, she said only that she would never “compromise on” or “betray” science, adding that Kennedy will allow her to exercise her authority. “The secretary will absolutely allow me to be CDC director,” she said. 
“We need a CDC director that will actually stand up to crazy, stupid things being said that undermine faith in immunization,” Cassidy said. 
Cassidy, who opened the hearing saying he could not support any nominee who equivocated on vaccine facts, appeared unsatisfied. 
He told Schwartz at the end of the hearing she seemed “way overprepped” and had been “always trying not to answer my questions,” which he called “disappointing.” 
Under questioning from ranking member Bernie Sanders, Schwartz said she accepted the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism but would not commit to removing content on the CDC website suggesting such a link, saying only that she would review it and speak with Kennedy. 
Schwartz, Trump’s first-term deputy surgeon general, said her first priority would be restoring trust “through radical transparency and unwavering scientific integrity.” She aligned herself with Kennedy’s broader agenda, telling Republican Sen. 
Tommy Tuberville she was “all in on the Make America Healthy Again agenda.” 
Cassidy, who has opposed Kennedy’s vaccine overhaul, said vaccines are “overwhelmingly safe and effective” and that studies show they do not cause autism. 
He said the CDC website should reflect the best science “rather than the preferences of political appointees.” 
Asked whether she would have advised against rolling back the military’s flu vaccine mandate, a move followed by an outbreak at a Texas air base that prompted the Pentagon to restore it, Schwartz demurred, declining to comment on hypotheticals. 
**Cassidy confronts second nominee** 
The committee also considered Sean Kaufman, Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary for preparedness and response, whose past comments questioning vaccines have drawn scrutiny. 
Cassidy was harsher with Kaufman, saying he was “flummoxed” that the nominee backed halting mRNA vaccine research, which he called “a cornerstone of our biosecurity response.” 
Asked to commit to restoring the funding, Kaufman said only that he would “fight for the very best mRNA platform.” “That’s not the same answer,” Cassidy said. 
At one point he smashed his hand onto his desk and raised his voice, asking, “Why would you repeat the damn lies? 
” 
Kaufman has questioned the infant hepatitis B vaccine and has previously cited the disproven link between vaccines and autism. 
In a now-deleted May 2025 LinkedIn post, he wrote that anyone calling him “an antivaxxer” would force him “to call you a pedophile.” 
Kaufman sought to distance himself from those comments. “Let me be clear, vaccines save lives,” he said, calling them “safe and effective.” 
Still, both drew open Republican support. 
Senator Roger Marshall called Schwartz among the “most qualified people I’ve seen” and Kaufman “the right person for ASPR right now.” 
**CDC leadership turmoil continues** 
Trump nominated Schwartz in April after multiple leadership shakeups at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has lacked a permanent leader for all but a month of his second term. 
Susan Monarez, confirmed last year, was fired less than a month later after clashing with Kennedy over vaccine policy. 
If confirmed, Schwartz would inherit an agency confronting the worst U.S. measles resurgence in three decades, driven by falling childhood immunization rates, and an international Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. 
Kaufman, the co-founder of a biosafety consulting firm, would, if confirmed, oversee national crisis countermeasures, including vaccines and personal protective equipment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.2%Reuters: 2.8%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 3.1%Confirmation Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 2.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Reuters: 4.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.9%Availability Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.8%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 1.6%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Reuters: 10.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 9.2%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.9%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Reuters: 3.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.0%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 5.1%Reuters: 1.9%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 30.0%Reuters: 10.5%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 20.0%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 13.3%Reuters: 2.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 4.4%Self-Serving Bias13.3%This article: 6.6%Reuters: 1.5%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 4.0%Reuters: 0.7%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.0%This article: 3.1%Reuters: 1.3%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 4.2%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.9%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Reuters: 4.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 2.5%Halo Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.1%Reuters: 4.9%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 5.7%Recency Bias17.1%This article: 0.6%Reuters: 0.6%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.6%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Reuters: 1.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 13.9%Ad Hominem13.9%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.8%Reuters: 5.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 7.1%Appeal to Authority14.8%This article: 13.0%Reuters: 1.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 7.1%False Dilemma13.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.1%Reuters: 3.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.7%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.3%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.9%Reuters: 0.3%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.3%Bandwagon0.9%This article: 22.5%Reuters: 4.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 10.8%Appeal to Emotion22.5%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 1.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 2.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.2%Reuters: 4.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 8.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.2%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.4%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Reuters: 0.6%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.9%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 34.1%Reuters: 3.3%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 11.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)34.1%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.0%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.3%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 2.7%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 1.5%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.7%Reuters: 3.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 3.4%Reuters: 0.9%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 1.1%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.6%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.1%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reuters: 0.2%Honolulu Star-Advertiser: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

683 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers58%attributed speech289writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 38 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 23 words • 100.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 27 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 45 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 31 words • 0.0% coverageTommy Tuberville • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSean Kaufman • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSean Kaufman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Marshall • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roger Marshall

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words5.3% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Roger Marshall: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.