新华社华盛顿8月27日电（记者熊茂伶）美国白宫发言人库什·德赛27日晚确认，白宫已解除上任还不到 一个月的美国疾病控制和预防中心主任苏珊·莫纳雷兹职务。 当天，美国疾控中心多名高层官员辞职。据美国媒体报道，这些官员辞职与不满疫苗政策、虚假信息以 及将公共卫生政治化等有关。 27日，美国疾控中心的上级部门美国卫生与公共服务部在社交媒体X平台上发文称，莫纳雷兹已不再担 任疾控中心主任，"我们感谢她为美国人民所作的贡献"。该文并未对解职原因作出说明。莫纳雷兹7月 31日才正式上任。 当天晚些时候，莫纳雷兹的律师团队发表声明回应称，她既没有辞职也没有被解职。声明说："莫纳雷 兹选择保护公众而非迎合政治议程，她拒绝盲目遵从政府那些缺乏科学依据、轻率的指令，并拒绝解雇 那些尽职尽责的卫生专家。为此，她被针对了。" 在这一声明发出后不久，白宫正式确认将莫纳雷兹解职。库什·德赛表示，正如莫纳雷兹的律师在声明 中所言，莫纳雷兹（倡导的政策方向）与美国总统特朗普"让美国再次健康"的议程不一致。"由于莫纳 雷兹在向卫生与公共服务部领导层表明辞职意向后仍拒绝主动辞职，白宫已解除其在美国疾控中心的职 务。" 责编：陈亚楠、王珊宁 ...

Core Viewpoint - The sudden dismissal of all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) by U.S. Health Secretary Robert Kennedy has raised significant concerns within the public health community regarding vaccine policy and public trust in health authorities [1][4][10]. Group 1: Dismissal of ACIP Members - The decision to remove all 17 members of ACIP, a key advisory body for vaccine safety and policy, has shocked the public health sector, with many experts expressing their dismay and concern over the future operations of the committee [1][4][7]. - Experts have noted that the abrupt nature of the dismissals has left some members unaware of their termination until they saw news reports [5][8]. Group 2: Reasons Behind the Dismissal - Robert Kennedy cited conflicts of interest among ACIP members as a reason for the dismissals, claiming that the committee had become a "rubber stamp" for vaccine manufacturers without providing evidence to support these claims [4][7]. - The Health Department stated that new members would be appointed to ensure that scientific activities are based on credible and unbiased evidence, although this assertion has been met with skepticism from public health experts [5][10]. Group 3: Implications for Public Trust and Vaccine Policy - The removal of ACIP members is expected to undermine public trust in the government's ability to safeguard public health and could disrupt the transparent decision-making process that has historically guided vaccine recommendations [7][10]. - Concerns have been raised that the new appointments may include individuals with strong political biases, potentially jeopardizing the integrity of vaccine policy [8][10].

Core Viewpoint - The sudden dismissal of all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has raised significant concerns within the public health community regarding the future of vaccine policy and public trust in health authorities [1][3][5]. Group 1: Dismissal of ACIP Members - Robert F. Kennedy announced the termination of all 17 ACIP members, a key advisory body for vaccine safety and policy in the U.S., which has shocked public health officials [1][3]. - The decision was unexpected, with some members learning of their dismissal through news reports, indicating a lack of communication and transparency [4][6]. - The American College of Physicians (ACP) expressed extreme concern and anger over the decision, calling for its immediate reversal due to potential harm to public health trust [1][3]. Group 2: Allegations of Conflicts of Interest - Kennedy claimed that the ACIP members had numerous conflicts of interest, stating that the committee had become a "rubber stamp" for vaccine manufacturers [3][5]. - He referenced outdated data to support his claims, which has been criticized by public health experts as misleading and not reflective of current circumstances [5][6]. - Experts have pointed out that the committee has historically operated with a high level of professionalism and integrity, and the sudden changes could undermine public trust in vaccine recommendations [5][7]. Group 3: Implications for Public Health - The abrupt changes in ACIP could disrupt the decision-making process regarding vaccine coverage and recommendations, which are critical for public health [4][5]. - Concerns have been raised that the new members appointed may have strong political biases, potentially compromising the scientific integrity of the committee [5][7]. - Former CDC officials have warned that this action could lead to a decrease in vaccination rates, posing a significant risk to public safety [7].