From the New York Times, it's the headlines. Today's Thursday, December 4th. Here's what we're covering today.

I'm in Atlanta for the meeting of a very important committee. This is a vaccine committee that makes recommendations, essentially guidelines for all the shots that adults and children in America get. And this week it seems like they are about to make some very big changes.

My colleague Apora Mandaville is covering the meeting of a CDC committee today that seems poised to make a major switch up involving a vaccine that's been recommended for all newborns in the US for decades: the hepatitis B vaccine. It protects against the highly contagious disease that can severely damage the liver. And after babies began getting vaccinated in the early 90s, acute infection rates for kids dropped by 99%.

But the committee now seems likely to decide that vaccine should be delayed or no longer offered to children at all, as health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has cast doubt on whether it's necessary. AORVA says they're also going to discuss revising the use of other common childhood vaccines.

The committee doesn't make laws or rules, but the guidelines that they come up with are very important because they essentially determine whether insurance companies and government insurance programs will cover the shots. So, what they decide could affect people's ability to afford these shots or even have access to them.

More broadly, the public health experts that I talked to are concerned that this committee is really elevating some antivaccine tropes that have been circulating for decades. The committee members were all handpicked by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has made many unfounded claims about vaccines over the years that they were not tested properly, that they are toxic to children's brains, that they cause conditions like autism.

So beyond any decisions that this committee makes, just having these conversations in this very public format by this important committee gives these fringe theories legitimacy, and that makes public health experts worry that it will further erode confidence in vaccines and we'll start to see the return of some diseases that we have not seen in a very long time.

Today on Capitol Hill, two US military commanders are expected to face sharp questions about one of the US's deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean and whether it was a war crime. For months, the administration has been targeting boats it claims are carrying drugs, killing over 80 people so far. While many use of force experts and lawmakers have criticized that overall campaign as illegal, today the focus will be on one strike in particular.

On September 2nd, Seal Team 6 operators launched a strike on a vessel from Venezuela carrying 11 people. After the smoke cleared, surveillance video showed two people still alive in the wreckage. According to officials the Times talked with, the military intercepted communications from the survivors who were radioing suspected cartel members for help. Officials say the military interpreted that distress call as meaning the survivors were still in the fight. And Admiral Frank Bradley, who was overseeing the operation, ordered a follow-up strike that killed both people.

Lawmakers are expected to scrutinize these details of the attack since the Pentagon's Law of War manual prohibits firing on shipwrecked people who aren't still actively fighting. There's also the question of who bears the ultimate responsibility for the second strike. Bradley, who ordered it, or Hegsth, who signed off on the lethal operation more broadly. The defense secretary, who was watching the mission live on video, said he quote didn't stick around for the second strike and denied that he ordered it, but said Bradley made the right call.

Meanwhile, after an eight-month investigation, the Pentagon is set to release its report today on the Signalgate scandal. The Times has learned that the inquiry found that Hegsth risked endangering US troops back in March when he discussed military operations in Yemen in a group chat that accidentally included a journalist. Investigators also said that not all of the messages were properly preserved in compliance with federal law and that Hegsth refused to sit down for an interview during the inquiry.

At the White House yesterday, President Trump moved to significantly weaken federal fuel efficiency standards, getting rid of a Biden era rule that had encouraged automakers to sell more efficient vehicles and more electric vehicles. It's the administration's latest move to gut policy aimed at addressing climate change and double down on gas powered cars.

The White House claims the new rules will save consumers money by lowering manufacturing costs. Economists told the Times that could happen to some extent, but it would come at the expense of public health and the environment. Additionally, Trump's own tariff policies along with inflation have helped drive up the cost of many cars.

As Trump announced the new lowered standards, he was flanked by top auto executives who publicly celebrated the changes. In private though, many have expressed concerns about the whiplash of changing federal policies. As during the Biden administration, they already spent billions of dollars pivoting to electric vehicles.

Earlier this year, when a 26-year-old woman got some blood work results back showing hormone imbalances, she pasted her full medical report into chat GPT to ask what the problem could be. The chatbot told her it was quote most likely related to a tumor. That was wrong.

But when a 63-year-old man who'd been feeling some discomfort while exercising asked ChatGpt for advice, he used the info the chatbot gave him to persuade his doctor to take a closer look at his heart where they found a significant blockage. These kinds of mixed results are the reality for millions of people around the world who have started using chat bots for health advice.

Considering the bot's well-deserved reputation for getting all kinds of things wrong, experts are concerned about the potential for misinformation, people thinking they're dying when they're not, or thinking that something's not serious when it might be. The other big concern around this trend is privacy. Some people are uploading their whole medical histories to chat bots, which can include a ton of sensitive information. And HIPPA, the federal health privacy law in the US, doesn't apply to companies that operate the bots.

One professor who specializes in biomedical tech told the Times, "You're basically waving any rights that you have with respect to medical privacy. Still, there are some perhaps unexpected benefits that people point to." One woman who has metastatic appendix cancer told the Times it's been helpful to get ChatGpt's immediate overview of her test results, especially when they're bad. She felt like she could process the devastating news before her doctor's visit and then use her time with the doctor more effectively.

And finally, there is a race on to save music history. A lot of artists studio recordings were originally captured on magnetic tapes which are now decaying. And the times followed how one man in New Jersey, Kelly Prible, has been at the forefront of audio restoration, working to save unique recordings from icons like Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen.

All analog recordings get more and more fragile over time, but some of the most vulnerable recordings are from the 70s and 80s when changes in manufacturing introduced problems that have only become obvious over time. Pribble has his own glossery for how to describe those problems. Everything from loss of lubricant syndrome to adhesion syndrome where spools of tape get fused together into a huge solid chunk.

And Pribble's been pioneering various Rube Goldbergesque techniques to save them using products that you'd usually find in a waxing salon, for example, or drying out wet tape on a handbuilt rack of carefully angled hair dryers. One audio expert at the Library of Congress said Pribble is known as the magician. He salvaged tapes from hundreds of artists.

But the work is expensive. One record executive whose company owns a huge catalog of old recordings said it would cost millions of dollars to process and preserve all of their old tapes. So, it becomes a difficult question of what is and isn't worth saving.

Those are the headlines.