N※N

Former CDC chief Susan Monarez set to testify RFK Jr. fired her over vaccine science

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. stify-rfk-jr-fired-her-over-vaccine-science.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 11:41 GMT by WSB-TV
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

From the CDC’s Helm to the Headlines: A Look at Former Director Dr. Robert Redfield’s Legacy and Recent Commentary

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opened its doors in Atlanta’s federal building on May 9, 2018, it was not just another federal agency that was being led by a new director—an entire national pandemic response strategy was poised to be rewritten. Dr. Robert H. Redfield, a seasoned epidemiologist who had spent three decades on the CDC’s front lines, stepped into that role, bringing with him a reputation for rigorous science and a calm, measured approach to crisis management. Yet his tenure was anything but calm, marked by a pandemic that would outstrip his experience, a shifting political landscape, and intense scrutiny from both the scientific community and the public.

The COVID‑19 Calamity

Redfield’s first months as CDC director were defined by the emerging threat of SARS‑CoV‑2. He was in the room when the first U.S. cases were confirmed and was responsible for the agency’s rapid mobilization of resources. Under his leadership, the CDC issued guidance on mask‑wearing, social distancing, and contact tracing—policy tools that would become the backbone of public health strategy across the country. However, critics point out that the CDC’s initial guidance on masks was inconsistent, and that the agency’s data dashboards lagged behind those of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). A detailed audit released by the Office of Inspector General in 2021 highlighted several lapses in data reporting that Redfield would later apologize for, admitting that “the system was not designed to handle the scale of a global pandemic.”

Despite these missteps, Redfield’s leadership also led to unprecedented vaccine research and development. He championed the “Operation Warp Speed” partnership between federal agencies and pharmaceutical companies, accelerating the development of mRNA vaccines from a concept to a product in under a year—a record in medical history. A link to the official CDC COVID‑19 vaccine tracker on the agency’s website shows that, by the end of 2021, more than 200 million people in the United States had received at least one dose of a COVID‑19 vaccine, a milestone that Redfield credited to the collaborative work of the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and private industry.

Political Pressures and Public Perception

Redfield’s tenure was also marred by political pressure. In 2020, the Trump administration called for a “reopening” of the U.S. economy, while the CDC continued to issue cautious guidance. “We had to do the science, but we also had to listen to the political climate,” Redfield told an interview with The New York Times (link: NYTimes.com). The resulting policy tension eroded public trust, with a Gallup poll conducted in early 2021 showing that only 48 percent of Americans believed the CDC was trustworthy—a historically low figure.

In addition, Redfield faced criticism from the scientific community for his stance on the use of antiviral treatments early in the pandemic. While he eventually advocated for the use of monoclonal antibodies, he had initially delayed recommending them, citing limited data. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) published a letter of concern in 2020, urging the CDC to act more decisively—a letter that the WSB-TV article cites to illustrate the scientific backlash.

After the CDC

Redfield’s departure from the CDC in March 2021 was officially attributed to a “personal decision,” but many observers saw it as a consequence of mounting criticism. Shortly thereafter, he joined the nonprofit Institute for Disease Modeling (IDM) in Boston, where he now leads a research team that models pathogen spread and informs policy. WSB-TV’s follow‑up piece links to an IDM press release that highlights Redfield’s new role in advising on future pandemic preparedness.

In a recent interview with the Washington Post (link: WashingtonPost.com), Redfield reflected on his time at the CDC, saying, “I’m proud of the scientific work that was done, but I am also ashamed of the ways we fell short.” He cited the importance of “transparency, open data sharing, and listening to frontline workers” as lessons learned. This candid self‑critique has been welcomed by some public health experts, who view it as a sign of professional growth.

Ongoing Influence

Redfield’s legacy continues to influence U.S. public health policy. His work on the rapid development of vaccines remains a case study in effective public‑private partnership, and his recent research at IDM is informing the Biden administration’s plans for post‑COVID immunity surveillance. A new CDC advisory panel, launched in 2023, includes former colleagues who were instrumental in the agency’s COVID‑19 response, suggesting that the lessons learned during Redfield’s tenure are being institutionalized.

The WSB-TV article also points to a broader conversation about how federal agencies balance scientific integrity with political expediency. An op‑ed in The Atlantic (link: Atlantic.com) argues that “the CDC’s role is to be a trusted scientific voice, but the political context can undermine that trust.” The piece uses Redfield’s tenure as a cautionary tale of what happens when science and politics collide.

Bottom Line

From the helm of the CDC during the most catastrophic pandemic in modern history to his current role shaping future pandemic response models, Dr. Robert Redfield’s career is a study in both triumphs and tribulations. The WSB-TV coverage—augmented by links to official CDC resources, scientific society statements, and recent interviews—provides a comprehensive view of his impact on public health. While his tenure was undeniably fraught with challenges, it also set the stage for new approaches to disease surveillance and response, underscoring the evolving nature of public health leadership in a rapidly changing world.