Regional Spanish leader under fire year after deadly floods

Demonstrators hold up banners during a march to mark the first anniversary of last year's deadly floods and demand accountability in Valencia, Spain. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 29 October 2025
Follow

Regional Spanish leader under fire year after deadly floods

  • Regions are primarily responsible for managing emergencies in Spain’s decentralized political system, but Mazon has denied accusations of dereliction of duty during the country’s deadliest natural disaster in decades

MADRID: One year after historic floods killed 229 people in Valencia, the Spanish region’s leader Carlos Mazon has faced mounting criticism over his handling of the disaster and defied calls to resign.
The eastern region bordering the Mediterranean had woken up under the highest red alert for torrential rain on October 29 last year.
But for five hours, the conservative Mazon, 51, was absent from the front line of an emergency response widely condemned as inadequate.
Above all, the late sending of a mass telephone alert to residents at 8:11 p.m. sparked fierce scrutiny of his agenda and a debate about whether that delayed potentially life-saving action.
“If Mazon had really been where he should have been, the alarm would have arrived on time,” leftist MP Agueda Mico, of the regionalist Compromis party, said on Tuesday.
Regions are primarily responsible for managing emergencies in Spain’s decentralized political system, but Mazon has denied accusations of dereliction of duty during the country’s deadliest natural disaster in decades.
“I did not switch off my mobile, I was not unreachable, I did not lack coverage, I did not lose interest, nor was I lost,” he told local newspaper Las Provincias in a rare interview since the tragedy.
According to the Levante newspaper, a colleague told Mazon there were already “many deaths” when he arrived in the evening at the seat of the regional government after a lengthy lunch.
Mazon resumed work at 7:45 p.m. and joined a critical emergency services meeting at around 8:30 pm, shortly after the telephone alert had been sent.
But the warning was too little, too late: muddy floodwater was already gushing through towns south of Valencia city and claiming lives.

- Shifting narrative -

Mazon said he spent four of his five hours of absence having lunch with a journalist to offer her a job.
This came after he had initially claimed to have eaten with a representative of Valencian businesses, but the person in question quickly came out to deny that account.
The remaining hour of Mazon’s absence — a critical period during which regional authorities hesitated about sending the alarm — remains shrouded in mystery.
The journalist, Maribel Vilaplana, broke her silence last month, saying they left the restaurant “between 6:30 and 6:45.”
But sources close to Vilaplana, contradicting Mazon’s narrative, revealed that he then accompanied her to search for her car instead of heading straight to his office.
An unexplained gap persists in his account of events from 6:57 to 7:34, when Mazon made and received no calls, according to a list he submitted to a parliamentary committee.
At 7:36 pm, the list shows he turned down a call from his then-top emergencies official, Salome Pradas, now under investigation for her role in the handling of the floods.

- Conservatives ‘undermined’ -

Although not under formal judicial investigation himself, Mazon has spent a year resisting intense pressure to resign.
Thousands of protesters have descended on Valencia’s streets every month demanding he quit, while 75 percent of the region’s residents want him to go, according to a poll published on Monday by Las Provincias and conservative daily ABC.
Experts view Mazon as a burden for the national leader of his opposition conservative Popular Party (PP), Alberto Nunez Feijoo, who prefers to dodge the topic.
Mazon “undermines Feijoo as a leader” and gives the Socialists “arguments to respond to corruption accusations” against Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, said Anton Losada, a political science professor at the University of Santiago de Compostela.
For Paloma Roman Marugan, associate professor of political science at Madrid’s Complutense University, the PP has entered “a rabbit hole” that could have been avoided “with a swift resignation that never happened.”
“But bringing him (Mazon) down is a tricky puzzle” for the PP as the party has no obvious replacement and wants to avoid early elections, she told AFP.


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.