How vaccine skeptics use storytelling effectively to create powerful but medically inaccurate messaging

Vaccine stupidity has a long history

A drawing published by the London Society for
the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination in the late 1800s.
Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia

Katherine Shwetz, Rice University; University of Toronto

As long as there have been vaccines, there have been people who doubted their science and safety.

Back in 19th-century England, people rioted against a mandatory smallpox vaccine, claiming that it violated civil rights and was an affront to human bodily integrity. In the United States, organizations dedicated to resisting vaccines have existed since the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League of Brooklyn was established in 1894.

Researchers generally refer to people who do not follow the standard advice of health professionals about vaccines, by either refusing or delaying some or all vaccines, as vaccine hesitant. Today, vaccine hesitancy is most famously associated with the Make America Healthy Again movement and its standard-bearer, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Public health advocates and science communicators have largely tried to counter these ideas by offering accurate, factual information. But as a medical humanities researcher studying how groups that embrace vaccine hesitancy craft their message, I’ve learned that part of why vaccine hesitancy is so hard to combat is how these groups use storytelling to spread their views.

Vaccine-hesitant groups have fewer limitations than pro-vaccine groups on the kinds of stories they can tell about the development and impact of vaccines. While science-driven messaging that encourages vaccination has to be faithful to the complex and often uneventful reality of science, vaccine-skeptic stories tend to make more dynamic claims.

You’re not imagining it: Your kid’s school supplies cost more this year

From lunchboxes to No. 2 pencils, the prices are skyrocketing. Here's how much.

Chabeli Carrazana, Economy and Child Care Reporter

This story was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of The 19th. Meet Chabeli and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Pencils are more expensive. So are notebooks, scissors, glue sticks — just about every back-to-school item that families will load into their literal or virtual carts this summer has gone up in price at a time when American families already feel crushed by rising costs.

According to one analysis of the 21 most common school supply items by the Groundwork Collaborative and The Century Foundation, two progressive think tanks, prices are up about 7.7 percent with parents paying an average of $173.45 for their school supply haul. That’s an even bigger jump than last year. Add to that an 11 percent hike in prices for school lunch essentials — from the literal tons of blueberries needed to feed young children to apple juice — and costs balloon to nearly $4,000 a year to cover supplies and meals. 

That data was first shared exclusively with The 19th. The analysis is based on weekly retail transaction data on millions of products collected by NielsenIQ from about 50,000 retailers.

With school supply costs outpacing inflation, many families — and especially the women who do the majority of purchases in American households — are going to feel the sticker shock, said Lindsay Owens, the president and CEO of the Groundwork Collaborative.

“Women in this country are rip-roaring mad about the price hikes that they're absorbing. They're trying to manage household finances and budgeting. They're trying to feed their kids healthy food,” Owens said. “The work is getting harder of providing for your family.”

Here are the school supplies with the biggest spikes in price: 

• Lunch boxes are up 27 percent
• Notebooks, notebook paper, tissues and index cards are all up about 20 percent
• Scissor costs rose 14 percent
• Dry erase markers and glue sticks are up 8 percent
• Headphones, binders, crayons, colored pencils and No. 2 pencils increased between 5 and 7 percent

On the lunch side: 

• 12 ounces of blueberries are up a whopping 48 percent
• A loaf of sandwich bread is up 22 percent
• Apple juice prices have risen 20 percent
• A pound of oranges has risen 17 percent
• A box of packaged animal crackers will run you nearly 16 percent more 
• A package of chocolate chip cookies is up 14 percent

Driving up some of these costs are tariffs and the war on Iran. 

Voters Are Realizing that Trump Doesn’t Care About Them

He has his own priorities

Mark Schauer for Common Dreams

This month, the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law—without Donald Trump’s signature, exactly as he’d threatened. It’s a small, recent example of a much bigger habit: Trump keeps showing voters exactly how little he thinks of them. 

The bill wasn’t controversial at all. It was negotiated by both parties’ top committee members and aimed squarely at lowering housing costs. 

But Trump let it sit for weeks rather than sign it, hoping to extract an unrelated voter-suppression bill in return.

At this point, childish behavior from the president shouldn’t be surprising.

In his first inaugural address, Trump claimed to be the champion of America’s “forgotten men and women.” But it was a lie from the start. He never cared about the poor and marginalized. 

He cared about cutting taxes for his friends; scapegoating immigrants for the struggles of the working class; and restoring a mythical era of American “greatness” characterized by the supremacy of straight, white, Christian males.

Although his lie was obvious, it was also effective. In 2016, Trump won around one-eighth of voters who’d supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic primaries. In 2024, he significantly increased his share of the Black and Hispanic vote. 

Brilliantly explained

Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn, was the brains behind McCarthy

South Kingstown leaves Flock

South Kingstown cancels Flock Safety contract after community advocacy, ACLU letter 

SteveAhlquist.news 

In a move that protects the critical privacy rights of residents in South Kingstown and beyond, the South Kingstown Town Council voted unanimously last night to terminate the Town’s contract with the company Flock Safety and to remove the half-dozen automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras presently in the Town.

From an ACLU of RI press release

The decision by the council came after a thorough discussion where a representative from Flock Safety was asked numerous questions and the councilors shared their concerns, and concerns they had received from dozens of their constituents, who also showed up to the meeting to support cancellation of the contract.

The contract was initially approved a year ago, in June 2025. The Council’s decision to terminate it comes just weeks after the Little Compton Town Council voted to reject installing Flock Safety cameras in that community.

Last week, the ACLU of RI sent a four-page letter to the South Kingstown council members outlining numerous privacy concerns about the Flock Safety cameras. 

The letter emphasized that the cameras collect more information than just license plates, that there are no state laws that protect the privacy of Rhode Islanders in the installation and use of these systems, and that the cameras are part of a nationwide surveillance system that has been misused in many ways. 

In the past year, dozens of other municipalities across the country have canceled their contracts or rejected the cameras due to the significant privacy concerns their use raises. In Rhode Island, in addition to Little Compton, the Warren and Portsmouth Town Councils have recently rejected police efforts to install the cameras in those communities.

Dems push Trump to restore funding for global vaccination program

Communicable diseases do not care about national boundaries

Rep. Rose DeLauro Press Release

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) issued the following statement after the State Department notified Congress of its intent to release $600 million in lawfully appropriated funding for Gavi, an international organization that supports children in developing nations with vaccine access.

“After continued advocacy from myself and my Democratic colleagues on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, these funds are finally being allowed to flow. It is utterly shameful that these resources were ever blocked in the first place, and children around the world were deprived of desperately needed vaccines for nearly two years.

How can you trust a Health Secretary who
takes his grandchildren swimming in sewage?

“Gavi has helped to vaccinate over 1 billion children globally over the past 25 years, preventing more than 20 million deaths. The insertion of Secretary Kennedy’s senseless, selfish, and absurd crusade against vaccines is putting children in the United States and abroad at great risk. He must stop putting his own personal, ill-informed opinions above well-established scientific evidence before even more children get sick.”

Ranking Member DeLauro raised this issue during an Appropriations Committee meeting in late April.

More West Nile Virus found in mosquitoes around the state

A closer look at Foulkes’ record on opioids

What she did and didn't do - are the attacks fair?

By Philip Eil, Rhode Island Current

In 2022, when Dan McKee and Helena Buonanno Foulkes first squared off for the democratic gubernatorial nomination, opioids didn’t get a lot of airtime. 

Aside from a few high-profile moments — a jab in a debate by candidate Luis Daniel Munoz, a controversial TV ad where the McKee campaign claimed Foulkes had made money “pumping opioids into our homes” — you could have easily missed discussion of the issue. McKee ultimately won that primary over Foulkes by three percentage points.

This time has been different.

On the day the former CVS executive announced her run again for governor last fall, McKee debuted a website and attack ads tying her to the opioid crisis. And he hasn’t let up, continuing to link her to the crisis via campaign statements, interviews, TV ads, and social media posts. His ongoing criticism of CVS recently prompted a rebuke from some state business leaders. 

Foulkes — who polls show leading McKee by a significant margin — defended her opioids record in her first TV ad of the campaign. To date, CVS — the Woonsocket-based juggernaut with a market capitalization exceeding $125 billion — has been sued by thousands of cities, counties, states, and tribal governments for its role in the crisis. In 2022, the company paid $5 billion to settle those lawsuits, though it stated that the deal was “not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing.” 

CVS has also paid more than $70 million in fines after Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into opioid-related conduct — involving improper dispensing, filling prescriptions for unauthorized prescribers, record-keeping violations, and more — across 11 states, including Rhode Island and its neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts. 

Foulkes was president of CVS’s Pharmacy division from January 2014 to February 2018. During that time she was, as a company-produced bio noted, responsible for all aspects of the company’s retail business, including pharmacy operations. 

In her answers to reporters’ questions and in stump speeches, Foulkes has returned to a few points: the company’s record of cutting off pill mill doctors, its role in passing legislation that lowered the number of pills allowed in initial opioid prescriptions, the sweeping drug-takeback initiatives on her watch, and a steep overall drop in opioids dispensed during her tenure. 

Here’s a closer look at her claims:

O Canada

Trump renews war on Canada because?

Robert Reich

Trump on Monday signed orders to impose a 50 percent tariff on a wide range of Canadian imports.

The White House claims the tariffs are a “punishment” for Canadian discrimination against American cars, dairy, and alcohol.

But the tariffs will also punish us. Remember, tariffs are import taxes — paid for by you and me and everyone else in America. So, we’re about to pay more for everything we import from Canada — plywood, paper, furniture, hockey sticks, cement, et al. Canada is our second-largest trading partner, for chrissake.

Even if the Supreme Court finds that Trump lacks authority to invoke these tariffs and the government must refund American importers for the extra cost — as the high court did with his first round of tariffs — you and I won’t be reimbursed for the extra costs we’ve paid.

Corporations aren’t giving their customers any of the $80 billion in refunds they’ve received from the Treasury Department for the first round of tariffs, so don’t expect any reimbursement on this second round. Which means we’re doubly screwed.

Worse yet, the Treasury isn’t really bearing the cost of the $80 billion in refunds. 

Tired of winning yet?

Get ready!

And be careful...

Environmental Organizations Endorse Foulkes for Governor, Citing Stances on Transit, Electric Rates

While McKee turns against the environment, Foulkes steps up

By Rob Smith / ecoRI News staff

With less than six weeks to go until September’s primary, some environmental groups are getting off the bench and making their political endorsements in the governor’s race.

The Providence Streets Coalition, a grassroots activist organization devoted to increasing funding, safety, and reliability in the state’s transit network, announced July 21 that it is backing former CVS executive Helena Foulkes for governor.

“For far too long, this community has advocated for our state leaders to care about improvements and investments for safer streets and a transit system that works for all,” said Nichole O’Loughlin, political director for the Providence Streets Coalition, at the group’s endorsement announcement. “Unfortunately, our current governor has repeatedly done the opposite, and we need to change that right now.”

Transit and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority have not fared well under Gov. Dan McKee. Thanks to a persistent $32 million budget deficit and a lack of support from the governor’s office and the General Assembly, RIPTA had to make deep operational cuts to balance its budget, reducing bus service or frequency, resulting in fewer and worse rides for the agency’s regular users.

The cuts have particularly hit hard in the state’s metro area, where it sees the bulk of its riders, many of whom cannot afford to own a car or come up with transportation alternatives outside of RIPTA. Foulkes, meanwhile, has pledged to fully fund and invest in expanding RIPTA’s bus service, as well as the state’s network of roads, bridges and bike infrastructure.

In her remarks accepting the Providence Streets Coalition endorsement, Foulkes said she had spent hours attending listening sessions when the cuts were first proposed, recalling riders gathering in small rooms to share their personal stories of what cuts to bus service would mean to them.

“Owning a car costs over $11,000 a year in this state, and riding a bus is less than $1,000 a year,” Foulkes said. “If we want to attract young people and keep them here, this is the wave of the future.”

The group didn’t endorse a gubernatorial candidate in 2022. Other endorsement announcements from the Providence Streets Coalition are expected later this summer.

Tuesday’s announcement was far from the first endorsement Foulkes picked up from an environmental organization. Last month Climate Action Rhode Island announced it was endorsing Foulkes, citing her policy platform of investing $40 million for residents and businesses to install solar and battery storage, and her pledge to hold Rhode Island Energy accountable for its rate hikes.

Coffee may help shield the liver from fat, scarring, and cancer

Another study flags coffee's potential benefits

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

A major long-term study linked coffee consumption with lower risks of cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death from liver disease. Coffee drinkers also showed healthier liver scans and blood protein patterns, with less fat, inflammation, and scarring. Benefits appeared even at one or two cups daily and were strongest around three to four cups.

One of the largest investigations yet into coffee and liver health has found that people who drink more coffee tend to have lower risks of cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death related to liver disease.

The Cedars-Sinai Health Sciences University study, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, also uncovered biological patterns that could help explain why coffee consumption has repeatedly been associated with healthier livers.

"Previous studies suggested that coffee might benefit the liver, but most were smaller or looked at only one piece of the puzzle," said hepatologist Hyunseok Kim, MD, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of Medicine at Cedars-Sinai and corresponding author of the study. "We followed hundreds of thousands of people for more than a decade and looked at their health outcomes along with liver MRI scans and blood protein analyses. Together, those findings help explain the biological mechanisms behind coffee's association with better liver health."

New Trump administration rules on federal science funding could make American research slower, costlier and harder to share

Imposing ideological screening on scientific research will cost lives

Aliasger K. Salem, University of Iowa

Most Americans don’t read the rules that govern the federal grants funding science. Those rules, called the Uniform Guidance, shape how cancer research is funded, graduate students are trained, clinical trials are sustained, universities stock their labs and discoveries from those labs move into broader society.

When the Trump administration announced on May 29, 2026, its intentions to revise these rules, many researchers were alarmed.

The Office of Management and Budget – the White House agency tasked with implementing the president’s policies across the executive branch – proposed requiring political appointees to review grant decisions for whether research projects advance the president’s policy priorities. These political officials would also have greater authority to override the decisions of the research agencies managing the grants.

The proposal was open for public comment until July 13, 2026, and received nearly 500,000 comments. Scientists have warned that these changes could allow political considerations to displace objective assessments, undermining merit-based federal research funding.

The OMB said these changes are intended to improve transparency and oversight of federal funds. However, scientists worry that several of these revisions could make research less predictable, harder to share and more expensive to do.

Beyond concerns about political influence over funding decisions, there are also more practical issues: What happens when the federal grant system becomes less stable for the people involved in the work of research?

Deprioritizing scientific merit

The first issue is peer review. Federal science agencies already use peer-review systems to assess which research projects will receive federal funding.

These systems generally involve scientists and other specialists with expertise relevant to the proposed work. Grant proposals typically undergo several rounds of review, one involving external experts and one involving agency officials. I am a scientist who has served for many years on federal grant review panels, including within the National Institutes of Health.

Reviewers like me assess the scientific merit of a research proposal through several factors. These include the rigor and feasibility of the work – that is, whether the study design can appropriately answer the research question. We consider whether the investigators have the expertise and institutional support to conduct the work. We also assess the overall impact of the project, examining whether the research could meaningfully advance the field and benefit science and society.