Pashtun leaders pay high price as voters demand change

Pakistani opposition leader and head of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a religious parties alliance, Maulana Fazalur Rehman leaves after attending a meeting in Islamabad on July 31, 2018. (AAMIR QURESHI/AFP)
Updated 31 July 2018
Follow

Pashtun leaders pay high price as voters demand change

  • They lost not because of rigging but because voters in Pakistan are getting mature, says analyst
  • Ghulam Ahmed Bilour of ANP was the first politician to concede defeat

PESHAWAR: Pakistan’s election has stunned heavyweight Pashtun religious and nationalist leaders who were “wiped out” at the polls as voters rejected political dynasties in favor of change.
The poll results surprised many at home and abroad with the defeat of veteran Pashtun leaders such as Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) chief Mehmood Khan Achakzai, Awami National Party (ANP) Chairman Asfandyar Wali and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) chief Siraj-ul-Haq.
According to the 2017 census, Pakistan’s population has surged to 207.8 million, with ethnic Pashtuns making up 24 percent of the country’s population — the second largest ethnic group in the country.
Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI), led by Imran Khan, emerged as the leading party in the poll, but opposition parties have questioned the legitimacy of the elections amid claims of vote rigging.
Senior politicians and heads of political parties facing defeat include Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, former prime minister and veteran Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader, former Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Aftab Sherpao of Qaumi Watan Party (QWP), and former Housing Minister Akram Khan Durrani.
The JUI-F chief lost in his traditional stronghold and hometown of Dera Ismail Khan, while contesting from two constituencies, NA-38 and NA-39.
Soon after his defeat, the party leader, who also leads the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious-politico parties, rejected the poll results.
“The election has been held, but in a real sense it was a brazen assault on the people’s mandate,” he said.
Political scientist Irfanullah Khan said the entire Pashtun religious and nationalist political leadership had been wiped out in the elections.
“I don’t think they lost because of rigging but because voters in Pakistan are getting mature and simply discard those who can’t deliver,” Khan said.
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who was contesting for the first time from three constituencies, lost in Malakand (NA-8) and in Lyari (NA-246) constituency of Karachi city. However, he managed to secure victory from his native constituency NA-200 in Larkana.
Zardari tweeted that attempts to keep him out of Parliament had failed. “Party workers are understandably outraged when it takes 28 hours to announce controversial results,” he said.
“The voice of Pashtuns, either religious or nationalist, will be largely missing in the Parliament,” Khan said.
ANP chief Asfandyar Wali faced a surprise defeat in his native Charsadda constituency NA-24.
“Not only the ANP, but the entire Pashtun leadership has been targeted in this election,” his party quoted him as saying as he rejected his defeat.
PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif, who contested from four constituencies, could secure his victory only in Lahore. Sharif faced defeat in Dera Ghazi Khan, Karachi and Swat.
On behalf of PML-N, Khwaja Asif, former foreign minister, said that the PML-N would act as a “vibrant opposition” in the Parliament.
Rehmat Khan, former additional inspector-general, told Arab News that it was not a question of vote rigging of election but the fact that people are fed up with “hereditary politics.”
“Voters want new leaders, and those winning elections again and again with a background in hereditary politics have been firmly rejected,” he said.
PML-N stalwart Sardar Awais Leghari also lost in his home constituency of Dera Ghazi Khan. Another veteran, JI chief Siraj-ul-Haq, lost in his native Lower Dir area.
A seasoned political figure, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who had been in the Parliament since 1985 tasted defeat on two seats — NA-59 and NA-63 in Rawalpindi district.
In another upset, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi lost on two seats in Islamabad and his native constituency Murree.
But the PTI chairman secured an overwhelming victory on all five seats contested, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Bannu and his hometown Mianwali.
PkMAP chief Mehmood Khan Achakzai told a press conference in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan, that his party rejected the election results.
Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, a senior ANP leader, also lost the election from NA-31 in Peshawar. Bilour was the first politician to concede defeat.
Khurshid Ahmad, a retired intelligence officer, said that a new generation wants a new leadership to deliver instead of voting in favor of political dynasties.
“The voters rejected religious and nationalist leaders because they didn’t deliver in the past,” he said.


US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

Updated 06 December 2025
Follow

US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

  • Vaccine advisers named by Kennedy reverse decades-long recommendation
  • Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive
  • President Donald Trump posted a message calling the vote a “very good decision”

NEW YORK: A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all US babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.
A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.
“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups.
Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.
But Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.
For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.
President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.
The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago
Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.
Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.
They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.
The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.
The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.
In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses
Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.
In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.
In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.
Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.
But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.
Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.
“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.
The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.
Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.
Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.
A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.
Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”
Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’
Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.
The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.
Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.
The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”
“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.
The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.
In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.
The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.
Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.