[ad_1]
On this day in 1912, readers learned that the Rayo Lamp, the best lamp for reading and sewing on the market, cost a mere $1.49. Made by Standard Oil, it came with a chimney and 10-inch white dome shade for…
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
On this day in 1912, readers learned that the Rayo Lamp, the best lamp for reading and sewing on the market, cost a mere $1.49. Made by Standard Oil, it came with a chimney and 10-inch white dome shade for…
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Jan. 26, 2026 (HealthDay News) — U.S. poison centers are an amazing investment, according to a new study, saving the nation $3.1 billion every year in medical costs and lost productivity.
For every dollar invested in poison centers, communities receive $16.77 in benefits, according to the report by the RAND think-tank on behalf of the organization America’s Poison Centers.
These benefits include reduced ER use, shorter hospital stays, lower risk of premature death, better public health tracking and improved patient outcomes, RAND researchers wrote.
“Our findings demonstrate that the economic and societal value of poison centers is significant,” lead researcher David Metz, a senior analyst at RAND, said in a news release. “Poison centers take strain off an already-burdened emergency health system, while saving lives and money.”
The U.S. Poison Center Network is made up of 53 regional poison centers and their national accrediting organization, America’s Poison Centers.
These centers serve every U.S. state and territory and provide free, confidential advice on managing poison exposures 24/7, researchers said in background notes.
However, overall funding for the centers decreased by 8% between 2011 and 2024, leading America’s Poison Centers to commission the RAND study into the true value they provide.
Besides the money saved, poison centers also offer harder-to-quantify benefits like poison prevention efforts, emergency preparedness, disaster response, and better peace of mind for communities and health care providers, the report said.
“Behind every number in this report is a real person who got immediate, expert help when they felt most vulnerable,” Richard Fogelson, CEO of America’s Poison Centers, said in a news release.
“It was inspiring for us to see RAND measure the widespread impact of our network and how it dramatically reduces health care costs for the nation,” Fogelson added. “The report also reinforces the crucial role poison centers have in detecting and responding to the growing number of public health threats and disasters, enabling rapid and often life-saving coordination with federal, state and local agencies and first responders.”
Based on the report’s findings, America’s Poison Centers estimates that federal funding for the centers save $450 million a year in health care costs. However, that funding has been affected by changes to federal programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Despite the reduction in funding, poison centers have continued to modernize and now offer service through text and live chat services as well as the national hotline phone number.
“Poison centers have been serving and protecting our communities for more than 70 years,” said Dr. Chris Holstege, director of the Blue Ridge Poison Center in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“While we continue to evolve with technology and the changing health care landscape, the reliability, expertise and trustworthiness of poison centers have not changed,” Holstege said in a news release. “Today, many poison centers are also doing more with less, responding to natural disasters, providing education to families and health care providers, and monitoring trends and emerging threats.”
For help with a suspected poisoning, call 800-222-1222 or visit PoisonHelp.org.
SOURCES: America’s Poison Centers, news release, Jan. 21, 2026; Poison Prevention, Treatment, and Detection as Public Health Investments, Jan. 21, 2026
Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
[ad_2]
HealthDay
Source link
[ad_1]
It was one of President Donald Trump’s more audacious picks for his Cabinet: anti-vaccine activist and alternative health advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to helm the nation’s health department.
Kennedy, however, won over the senators needed to confirm him to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, promising not to remove government website statements pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism and to keep current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems intact. Ahead of being tapped by Trump for the role, he said he wouldn’t take vaccines away from those who wanted them while stressing a desire for individual choice.
Since his confirmation, Kennedy has toed the line between backing vaccination as a preventive public health tool and making statements or overseeing developments that threaten to undermine that tool. His moves have played out against the backdrop of an explosion in vaccine-preventable measles cases in West Texas and an intense flu season that resulted in high rates of hospitalization, along with bird flu outbreaks that have raised the specter of another pandemic.
Here’s a look at notable vaccine-related moves and remarks made by Kennedy or under his authority since he was sworn in as head of HHS on Feb. 13:
Sign Up for U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow Bulletin
Your trusted source for critical insights and solutions-focused analysis.
Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.
– Former U.S. News writer Steven Ross Johnson contributed to this report
[ad_2]
Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Source link
[ad_1]
It can be hard to wrap your head around all the conditions neurologists treat: cerebrovascular disorders like stroke and carotid artery disease, seizure disorders, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and frontotemporal dementia, headache and facial pain disorders, movement disorders including Parkinson’s, muscle diseases, sleep-related conditions like narcolepsy, and much more.
“If there’s a nerve somewhere, a neurologist could get involved,” says Dr. Andrew Dorsch, division chief for general neurology at Rush University System for Health and a neurologic rehabilitation specialist. “And there’s nerves everywhere in the body. There’s a lot of things that can go wrong with the nervous system, and it can take quite the detective work to figure it out.”
Often, he adds, people brush off neurological symptoms for a long time, pinning their symptoms on age-related aches and pains or assuming they’ll resolve on their own. That’s a mistake.
We asked four neurologists which symptoms you should never ignore—and what they might signal.
One common symptom that people often overlook is double vision in one eye. There are a number of potential causes, including multiple sclerosis, a stroke or aneurysm, myasthenia gravis, a brain tumor, or a brain infection, says Dr. Luis Cruz-Saavedra, a neurologist with Memorial Hermann Health System.
When should you take it seriously? “Immediately,” he says. “If you develop sudden-onset double vision, it’s a reason to go to the emergency department.” The doctors there will check vitals and look for stroke red flags, do eye and neurologic exams, and may order imaging like a CT scan of the head or a brain MRI.
Have you ever noticed that you’re dragging one leg behind you, or maybe limping around? Do you have difficulty picking up your morning coffee or writing with your dominant hand? If the answer is yes, schedule a doctor’s appointment.
“I’ve been impressed in my clinics by how many people ignore weakness in one hand or one leg,” Cruz-Saavedra says. (That is: impressed in a bad way.) “People come months after their symptoms start—but weakness is one you can’t ignore. A lot of people think, ‘Oh, it’s just a pinched nerve,’ but it could actually be a stroke, it could be a brain tumor, it could be a disorder like multiple sclerosis, it could be any sort of brain inflammation.”
When neurologists see patients with this type of weakness, they typically test strength, reflexes, coordination, and gait, which can help rule out potential causes and point them in the right diagnostic direction.
Sometimes people with neurological problems go blank for a few seconds, and then return to their normal selves with no recollection of what just happened. This experience is commonly associated with temporal lobe seizures, which happen in the parts of the brain that are important for short-term memory and processing emotions, Cruz-Saavedra says.
Read More: 12 Weird Symptoms Endocrinologists Say You Should Never Ignore
“Sometimes family members describe it because the patient might not really notice,” he adds. “They’ll say, ‘I was speaking to him, and he was just staring off, and then after 10-15 seconds, he was back to normal.’ Or the patient might say, ‘Hey, sometimes I lose track of time. It’s almost like I lost a little part of my day.’”
Stroke is a major cause of death in the U.S., yet people often don’t recognize the symptoms and delay seeking care as quickly as they should. “I hear all the time how someone’s having stroke symptoms, and their reaction is, ‘Well, I’m going to take a nap and see if they go away,’” says Dr. Enrique Leira, director of the division of cerebrovascular diseases at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
Stroke symptoms tend to appear abruptly and involve a lack of function stemming from brain injury. One way that manifests: trouble speaking. People might start slurring their words, speaking slowly, experience difficulty with word finding, or even be unable to comprehend what others are saying, Leira says. In that situation, seek care urgently, he advises.
Headaches are a pain for neurologists to evaluate—there are dozens of potential causes, and many are innocuous. But some warrant fast attention. A headache could raise suspicions of a stroke if “it’s unusually strong and sudden—it doesn’t build up over minutes or hours,” Leira says. “And if it strikes when you’re doing some physical effort, that’s enough of a concern that it should be checked out right away.”
When Dorsch’s patients come in for numbness, it’s typically affecting their feet or fingers. “That usually tells us that the nerves are not sending information back to the brain like they should,” he says. “The nerve is asleep. It’s stunned, or unfortunately in some cases, it’s dead. There’s no information getting to the body or up to the brain.” That makes numbness different from tingling, a prickly sensation that indicates that a nerve is irritated.
Read More: 12 Weird Symptoms Dermatologists Say You Should Never Ignore
When someone is experiencing numbness, the first step is typically doing a full workup to figure out which nerves are dysfunctioning, what’s causing the problem, and how to best treat it. While some patients end up having diabetes, there are many possibilities; others might have a genetic condition, or their immune system could be attacking their nerves, Dorsch says.
Everybody experiences déjà vu—the uncanny sense that something has happened before—from time to time. “But if you’re having episodes of déjà vu on a regular basis, you probably want to come in and get checked out,” Dorsch says. That’s because it could be a warning sign for a temporal lobe seizure. Dorsch recently treated a patient who was “having recurring episodes every week, or every couple of weeks, which is not how often people usually get déjà vu,” he says.
As people get older, they tend to develop problems with daily movement, like stiffness or slowing down. Some complaints stand apart, however. If you’re regularly having trouble getting out of your chair, it’s a good idea to schedule a doctor appointment.
“Sure, there could be some joint issues, but we really want to take a look and make sure you don’t have an issue with your muscles or your nerves or your spinal cord,” Dorsch says, like Parkinson’s or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). “That’s something I would want a family member to go get checked out.”
Neurologists are alert to several kinds of vocal changes. One is hypophonic speech, which means the voice is abnormally soft or breathy; it can indicate Parkinson’s disease, says Dr. Alexandru Olaru, a neurologist at University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center. Another is slurred speech, which could point to a stroke.
Another concerning change, Olaru says, is wet dysarthria: when your voice sounds gurgly, likely because of excess saliva or phlegm. “People lose the muscle mass in the back of their throat, and they lose the ability to handle the saliva,” he says. That means it pools in the back of the throat, “so when you talk, it’s almost like you have water in your mouth.” Some of the most common causes include Parkinson’s disease, ALS, and multiple sclerosis.
Everyone’s muscles twitch from time to time, usually at various locations. Sometimes you can actually see the muscles “rippling under the skin,” Olaru says. “Or, if you put your hand onto the muscle, you can feel it.”
Read More: 9 Weird Symptoms Cardiologists Say You Should Never Ignore
If you experience these fasciculations—the medical term for muscle twitches—in the same place consistently, however, it’s worth bringing up to your doctor. It’s possible you could have benign fascicular syndrome, which is harmless, or a more serious condition like spinal stenosis, ALS, or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (an autoimmune condition that targets the protective covering around your peripheral nerves). Neurologists usually recommend an electromyography (EMG), which is an electrical test for the nerves and muscles that can help pinpoint what’s going on.
Abrupt behavior and personality changes can be the result of conditions like autoimmune encephalitis, frontotemporal dementia, or other cognitive disorders. One common example is newfound paranoia. Someone might “feel like they’re being persecuted, or like somebody’s plotting against them or their loved one is being unfaithful, when it just makes no sense,” Cruz-Saavedra says.
Neurologists also pay close attention when someone who has been quiet and serious their whole life suddenly takes on a boisterous personality, talking nonstop. “Sometimes people even become hypersexual, and make inappropriate comments or jokes,” he says. “Or the other way around: a person who has been outgoing and very vocal is now just withdrawn.”
Dementia can also manifest as uncharacteristic-obsessive compulsive disorder or hoarding behavior, Cruz-Saavedra adds.
[ad_2]
Angela Haupt
Source link
[ad_1]
The Medicine and Disease Club has 30 regular members who attend weekly meetings to hear from guest speakers and prepare for competitions.
Not long after Milan Le and Eesha Kaushik launched the Medicine and Disease Club at Langley High School, they spent hours outside of a Northern Virginia grocery store with a trifold and flyers, asking people to consider donating to their efforts.
Intrigued by the setup, one community member stopped to learn more about why they were there. He asked about their career goals and what motivated them, and congratulated them on their hard work. And then, before walking away after a nearly half-hour exchange, he donated $100.
The moment was validating for the two Fairfax County students, who launched the club as sophomores in 2023 and are now seniors. It was their first fundraiser, and they didn’t know how many shoppers would even listen just for a few minutes.
Years later, the club has 30 regular members who attend weekly meetings to hear from guest speakers and prepare for competitions. Their fundraising totals recently reached $5,000.
“We had talked about the fact that there wasn’t very many clubs at our school that were for pre-medical students, just because there are a lot of students who are still exploring what they want to do in high school, and they might not have those distinctions,” Kaushik said.
Le and Kaushik, who’ve been friends since elementary school, initially envisioned the club as a place for students to study and earn community service hours. But now, there’s a core group in place, and younger students view older ones as mentors.
Using the U.S. Medicine and Disease Olympiad as the framework, the group regularly prepares for competitions. They present lessons on diseases and other medical conditions, and sometimes plan for interactive activities.
In one instance, leaders brought in pillows and stuffed animals for a lesson on CPR. Guest speakers, including psychiatrists and an internal medicine doctor, have shared details about their jobs too.
“I was teaching them how to read blood pressure, and a lot of them, this was the first time they were ever using a stethoscope, which is really cool,” Le said. “It’s a tangible first step into the field and you can really see and feel, understand. You can feel like you’re in the field.”
The pair, Kaushik said, is filling a void.
“What we found is the vast majority of the clubs offered that were academic were primarily individual,” Kaushik said. “They were, ‘We can help you study for something, but for the most part, you’re going to work on it on your own.’ And then the ones geared toward service were meeting infrequently and were more about, ‘You come here, get some service hours and that’s about all that happens.’”
Now, the club’s sense of community has grown so large, its members are disappointed when a meeting has to be canceled. One student made handmade bookmarks and stickers with the club logo to hand out during fundraisers.
Many of them “have shown so much interest and passion in it,” Kaushik said.
[ad_2]
Scott Gelman
Source link
[ad_1]
STUDENT. THAT’S RIGHT. AND THE STUDENT WORRIES ABOUT LOANS AND PAYING FOR HER EDUCATION. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE ADMINISTRATORS SAY TO THE STUDENTS, CONTINUE TO PURSUE YOUR DREAMS. HE HAS NO ALLERGIES TO THIS MEDICATION. IN THIS CLINICAL SITUATION, LAB STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND NURSING SCHOOL IN BALTIMORE ARE PRACTICING AND GAINING CONFIDENCE IN THEIR SKILLS TO CARE FOR PATIENTS. OTHER STUDENTS ARE GIVING THEIR END OF SEMESTER PRESENTATIONS. SOME NURSES WHO HAVE COME BACK TO SCHOOL FOR MORE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ARE WORRIED ABOUT NEWS. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS CONSIDERING EXCLUDING NURSING FROM ITS DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL DEGREE PROGRAMS. IT’S PRETTY UPSETTING FOR, I THINK, A LOT OF US. JAMIE CUTLER HAS BEEN A NURSE FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. SHE IS NOW STUDYING TO GET HER DOCTORATE DEGREE IN NURSING. THEY SAW US AS FRONTLINE WORKERS ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. WE WERE ESSENTIAL IN THE COVID PANDEMIC, AND NOW THEY’RE SAYING THAT WE’RE NOT ESSENTIAL AND THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO LOAN US MONEY TO GET OUR DEGREES AND ENHANCE OURSELVES. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. BALTIMORE’S TAKE ON THE PROPOSAL. IT WAS SHOCKING, BUT IT WASN’T COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TRACKING THIS ISSUE. THE PROVOST SAYS THIS WILL IMPACT STUDENTS AND HEALTH CARE. WE WANT TO ATTRACT STUDENTS FROM A VARIETY OF SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS SO THAT THEY COULD GO OUT AND BE PRACTITIONERS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING IN RURAL COMMUNITIES. AND SO THE DIRECT IMPACT OF THIS, IT MAKES THESE PROGRAMS LESS, LESS ACCESSIBLE. WHAT ARE ADMINISTRATORS TELLING STUDENTS? WE’VE GOT YOU AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICY AND THE CHALLENGES THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS OUR MISSION, WHICH IS TO IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION. THE FINAL DECISION IS SET FOR JULY 2026. UNIVERSITY’S NURSING AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT GIVING UP. THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO RECONSIDER. REPORTING LIVE FROM DOWNTOWN
Lawmakers urge Education Department to add nursing to ‘professional’ programs list amid uproar
Updated: 1:17 AM EST Dec 12, 2025
A bipartisan group in Congress is urging the Education Department to add nursing to a list of college programs that are considered “professional,” adding to public outcry after nurses were omitted from a new agency definition.The Trump administration’s list of professional programs includes medicine, law and theology but leaves out nursing and some other fields that industry groups had asked to be included. The “professional” label would allow students to borrow larger amounts of federal loans to pursue graduate degrees in those fields.Video above: Nursing students concerned over possible loss of federal student loan accessUnder new rules proposed by the Trump administration, students in graduate programs deemed professional could borrow up to $200,000 for their degrees in total, and up to $50,000 a year. Loans for other graduate programs would be capped at $100,000 in total and $20,500 per year.In the past, graduate students had been able to borrow federal loans up to the full cost of their programs.In a Friday letter, lawmakers argue that a $100,000 cap on nursing graduate programs would make it harder for students to pay for expensive but high-demand programs, like those for nurse anesthetists. The annual cap would also pinch students in year-round nurse practitioner programs, which charge for three terms a year rather than just two and often cost more than $20,500 a year, they wrote.The letter challenges the Education Department’s claim that few nursing students would be affected by the caps.Programs for certified nurse anesthetists can cost more than $200,000, lawmakers said, but the programs typically pay off and supply a workforce that “overwhelmingly provides anesthesia to rural and underserved communities where higher cost physicians do not practice.”Video below: Massachusetts hospitals cut vacancies but critical staffing gaps persist, report saysThe letter was signed by more than 140 lawmakers, including 12 Republicans. It was sent by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., and Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., leaders of the Senate and House nursing caucuses.Another Democrat, Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York, sent a similar letter this week. Excluding nurses would require students to take out riskier private loans or put tuition out of reach entirely, said Torres, who represents the South Bronx.”A restrictive interpretation would undermine our healthcare and education systems, weaken our workforce, and close doors for low-income, first-generation, and immigrant students who make up much of my district,” Torres said.The Trump administration has said new loan caps are needed to pressure colleges to reduce tuition prices.In deciding what would count as a professional degree, the department relied on a 1965 law governing student financial aid. The law lays out several examples of professional programs but says it is not an exhaustive list. The Trump administration adopted those examples as the only fields in its definition.Those deemed professional are: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology.The definition drew blowback from nursing organizations and other industry groups that were left out, including physical therapists and social workers. Department officials have said the new proposal may change as it’s finalized in a federal rulemaking process.
A bipartisan group in Congress is urging the Education Department to add nursing to a list of college programs that are considered “professional,” adding to public outcry after nurses were omitted from a new agency definition.
The Trump administration’s list of professional programs includes medicine, law and theology but leaves out nursing and some other fields that industry groups had asked to be included. The “professional” label would allow students to borrow larger amounts of federal loans to pursue graduate degrees in those fields.
Video above: Nursing students concerned over possible loss of federal student loan access
Under new rules proposed by the Trump administration, students in graduate programs deemed professional could borrow up to $200,000 for their degrees in total, and up to $50,000 a year. Loans for other graduate programs would be capped at $100,000 in total and $20,500 per year.
In the past, graduate students had been able to borrow federal loans up to the full cost of their programs.
In a Friday letter, lawmakers argue that a $100,000 cap on nursing graduate programs would make it harder for students to pay for expensive but high-demand programs, like those for nurse anesthetists. The annual cap would also pinch students in year-round nurse practitioner programs, which charge for three terms a year rather than just two and often cost more than $20,500 a year, they wrote.
The letter challenges the Education Department’s claim that few nursing students would be affected by the caps.
Programs for certified nurse anesthetists can cost more than $200,000, lawmakers said, but the programs typically pay off and supply a workforce that “overwhelmingly provides anesthesia to rural and underserved communities where higher cost physicians do not practice.”
Video below: Massachusetts hospitals cut vacancies but critical staffing gaps persist, report says
The letter was signed by more than 140 lawmakers, including 12 Republicans. It was sent by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., and Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., leaders of the Senate and House nursing caucuses.
Another Democrat, Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York, sent a similar letter this week. Excluding nurses would require students to take out riskier private loans or put tuition out of reach entirely, said Torres, who represents the South Bronx.
“A restrictive interpretation would undermine our healthcare and education systems, weaken our workforce, and close doors for low-income, first-generation, and immigrant students who make up much of my district,” Torres said.
The Trump administration has said new loan caps are needed to pressure colleges to reduce tuition prices.
In deciding what would count as a professional degree, the department relied on a 1965 law governing student financial aid. The law lays out several examples of professional programs but says it is not an exhaustive list. The Trump administration adopted those examples as the only fields in its definition.
Those deemed professional are: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology.
The definition drew blowback from nursing organizations and other industry groups that were left out, including physical therapists and social workers. Department officials have said the new proposal may change as it’s finalized in a federal rulemaking process.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Scientists are trying a revolutionary new approach to treat rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus and other devastating autoimmune diseases — by reprogramming patients’ out-of-whack immune systems.
When your body’s immune cells attack you instead of protecting you, today’s treatments tamp down the friendly fire but they don’t fix what’s causing it. Patients face a lifetime of pricey pills, shots or infusions with some serious side effects — and too often the drugs aren’t enough to keep their disease in check.
“We’re entering a new era,” said Dr. Maximilian Konig, a rheumatologist at Johns Hopkins University who’s studying some of the possible new treatments. They offer “the chance to control disease in a way we’ve never seen before.”
How? Researchers are altering dysfunctional immune systems, not just suppressing them, in a variety of ways that aim to be more potent and more precise than current therapies.
They’re highly experimental and, because of potential side effects, so far largely restricted to patients who’ve exhausted today’s treatments. But people entering early-stage studies are grasping for hope.
“What the heck is wrong with my body?” Mileydy Gonzalez, 35, of New York remembers crying, frustrated that nothing was helping her daily lupus pain.
Diagnosed at 24, her disease was worsening, attacking her lungs and kidneys. Gonzalez had trouble breathing, needed help to stand and walk and couldn’t pick up her 3-year-old son when last July, her doctor at NYU Langone Health suggested the hospital’s study using a treatment adapted from cancer.
Gonzalez had never heard of that CAR-T therapy but decided, “I’m going to trust you.” Over several months, she slowly regained energy and strength.
“I can actually run, I can chase my kid,” said Gonzalez, who now is pain- and pill-free. “I had forgotten what it was to be me.”
CAR-T was developed to wipe out hard-to-treat blood cancers. But the cells that go bad in leukemias and lymphomas — immune cells called B cells — go awry in a different way in many autoimmune diseases.
Some U.S. studies in mice suggested CAR-T therapy might help those diseases. Then in Germany, Dr. Georg Schett at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg tried it with a severely ill young woman who had failed other lupus treatment. After one infusion, she’s been in remission — with no other medicine — since March 2021.
Last month, Schett told a meeting of the American College of Rheumatology how his team gradually treated a few dozen more patients, with additional diseases such as myositis and scleroderma — and few relapses so far.
Those early results were “shocking,” Hopkins’ Konig recalled.
They led to an explosion of clinical trials testing CAR-T therapy in the U.S. and abroad for a growing list of autoimmune diseases.
How it works: Immune soldiers called T cells are filtered out of a patient’s blood and sent to a lab, where they’re programmed to destroy their B cell relatives. After some chemotherapy to wipe out additional immune cells, millions of copies of those “living drugs” are infused back into the patient.
While autoimmune drugs can target certain B cells, experts say they can’t get rid of those hidden deep in the body. CAR-T therapy targets both the problem B cells and healthy ones that might eventually run amok. Schett theorizes that the deep depletion reboots the immune system so when new B cells eventually form, they’re healthy.
CAR-T is grueling, time consuming and costly, in part because it is customized. A CAR-T cancer treatment can cost $500,000. Now some companies are testing off-the-shelf versions, made in advance using cells from healthy donors.
Another approach uses “peacekeeper” cells at the center of this year’s Nobel Prize. Regulatory T cells are a rare subset of T cells that tamp down inflammation and help hold back other cells that mistakenly attack healthy tissue. Some biotech companies are engineering cells from patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases not to attack, like CAR-T does, but to calm autoimmune reactions.
Scientists also are repurposing another cancer treatment, drugs called T cell engagers, that don’t require custom engineering. These lab-made antibodies act like a matchmaker. They redirect the body’s existing T cells to target antibody-producing B cells, said Erlangen’s Dr. Ricardo Grieshaber-Bouyer, who works with Schett and also studies possible alternatives to CAR-T.
Last month, Grieshaber-Bouyer reported giving a course of one such drug, teclistamab, to 10 patients with a variety of diseases including Sjögren’s, myositis and systemic sclerosis. All but one improved significantly and six went into drug-free remission.
Rather than wiping out swaths of the immune system, Hopkins’ Konig aims to get more precise, targeting “only that very small population of rogue cells that really causes the damage.”
B cells have identifiers, like biological barcodes, showing they can produce faulty antibodies, Konig said. Researchers in his lab are trying to engineer T cell engagers that would only mark “bad” B cells for destruction, leaving healthy ones in place to fight infection.
Nearby in another Hopkins lab, biomedical engineer Jordan Green is crafting a way for the immune system to reprogram itself with the help of instructions delivered by messenger RNA, or mRNA, the genetic code used in Covid-19 vaccines.
In Green’s lab, a computer screen shines with brightly colored dots that resemble a galaxy. It’s a biological map that shows insulin-producing cells in the pancreas of a mouse. Red marks rogue T cells that destroy insulin production. Yellow indicates those peacemaker regulatory T cells — and they’re outnumbered.
Green’s team aims to use that mRNA to instruct certain immune “generals” to curb the bad T cells and send in more peacemakers. They package the mRNA in biodegradable nanoparticles that can be injected like a drug. When the right immune cells get the messages, the hope is they’d “divide, divide, divide and make a whole army of healthy cells that then help treat the disease,” Green said.
The researchers will know it’s working if that galaxy-like map shows less red and more yellow. Studies in people are still a few years away.
A drug for Type 1 diabetes “is forging the path,” said Dr. Kevin Deane at the University of Colorado Anschutz.
Type 1 diabetes develops gradually, and blood tests can spot people who are brewing it. A course of the drug teplizumab is approved to delay the first symptoms, modulating rogue T cells and prolonging insulin production.
Deane studies rheumatoid arthritis and hopes to find a similar way to block the joint-destroying disease.
About 30 percent of people with a certain self-reactive antibody in their blood will eventually develop RA. A new study tracked some of those people for seven years, mapping immune changes leading to the disease long before joints become swollen or painful.
Those changes are potential drug targets, Deane said. While researchers hunt possible compounds to test, he’s leading another study called StopRA: National to find and learn from more at-risk people.
On all these fronts, there’s a tremendous amount of research left to do — and no guarantees. There are questions about CAR-T’s safety and how long its effects last, but it is furthest along in testing.
Allie Rubin, 60, of Boca Raton, Florida, spent three decades battling lupus, including scary hospitalizations when it attacked her spinal cord. But she qualified for CAR-T when she also developed lymphoma — and while a serious side effect delayed her recovery, next month will mark two years without a sign of either cancer or lupus.
“I just remember I woke up one day and thought, ‘Oh my god, I don’t feel sick anymore,’” she said.
That kind of result has researchers optimistic.
“We’ve never been closer to getting to — and we don’t like to say it — a potential cure,” said Hopkins’ Konig. “I think the next 10 years will dramatically change our field forever.”
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
[ad_2]
Associated Press
Source link
[ad_1]
A provision in the federal spending bill that could end the US government shutdown would effectively destroy the hemp extracts industry by banning intoxicating hemp-based THC products, including gummies and drinks.
The provision, part of the funding bill passed by the US Senate Monday night, would ban the “unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including delta-8, from being sold online, in gas stations, and corner stores,” according to a Senate Appropriations Committee summary of the legislation. The bill, accounting for $26.65 billion in funds, is being voted on in the House of Representatives Wednesday. If passed, President Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law.
The hemp provision ends a loophole provided by the 2018 Farm Bill that essentially decriminalized intoxicating hemp-based products. Those products include cannabinoids like delta-8 and THCA, which are found in a variety of edibles and drinks. However, the Farm Bill stipulates that hemp products can’t contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight; delta-9 is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, which remains federally illegal. Both hemp and cannabis come from the cannabis sativa plant, but hemp contains very low levels of delta-9.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was the sole Republican to vote against the spending bill Monday after failing to amend the bill by striking the hemp ban from it. In September dozens of Kentucky hemp farmers sent a letter to fellow state Senator Mitch McConnell, who has been pushing for the ban, pleading with him to reconsider.
The letter said the hemp-derived cannabinoid market “gave us—for the first time in decades—a new crop with real economic opportunity” and that a ban would result in “immediate and catastrophic consequences.”
According to a report from the Cannabis Business Times, sales for hemp-derived cannabinoids exceeded $2.7 billion in 2023.
“This will ultimately devastate the industry and devastate hemp farmers as well,” says attorney and hemp advocate Jonathan Miller, adding that it would “wipe out” 95 percent of hemp ingestibles.
While the provision says it will preserve “non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products,” Miller disputes that, noting that the most popular hemp-derived CBD products still contain more that the proposed limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. CBD products do not get people high, but are popular and used for things like insomnia and anxiety, though research on their efficacy is still limited.
[ad_2]
Manisha Krishnan
Source link
[ad_1]
In a step toward the wider use of gene editing, a treatment that uses Crispr successfully slashed high cholesterol levels in a small number of people.
In a trial conducted by Swiss biotech company Crispr Therapeutics, 15 participants received a one-time infusion meant to switch off a gene in the liver called ANGPTL3. Though rare, some people are born with a mutation in this gene that protects against heart disease with no apparent adverse consequences.
The highest dose tested in the trial reduced both “bad” LDL cholesterol and triglycerides by an average of 50 percent within two weeks after treatment. The effects lasted at least 60 days, the length of the trial. The results were presented today at the American Heart Association’s annual meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The Nobel Prize–winning Crispr technology has mostly been used to address rare diseases, but these latest findings, while early, add to the evidence that the DNA-editing tool could be used to treat common conditions as well.
“This will probably be one of the biggest moments in the arc of Crispr’s development in medicine,” Samarth Kulkarni, CEO of Crispr Therapeutics, tells WIRED. The company is behind the only approved gene-editing treatment on the market, Casgevy, which treats sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.
The American Heart Association estimates that about a quarter of adults in the US have elevated LDL levels. A similar number have high triglycerides. LDL cholesterol is the waxy substance in the blood that can clog and harden arteries over time. Triglycerides, meanwhile, are the most common type of fat found in the body. High levels of both raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.
The Phase I trial was conducted in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand between June 2024 and August 2025. Participants were between the ages of 31 and 68 and had uncontrolled levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. The trial tested five different doses of the Crispr infusion, which took about two and a half hours on average to administer.
“These are very sick people,” says Steven Nissen, senior author and chief academic officer of the Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, which independently confirmed the trial’s results. “The tragedy of this disease is not just that people die young, but some of them will have a heart attack, and their lives are never the same again. They don’t get back to work, they develop heart failure.”
One trial participant, a 51-year-old man, died six months after receiving the lowest dose of the treatment, which was not associated with a lowering of cholesterol and triglycerides. The death was related to his existing heart disease, not the experimental Crispr treatment. The man had a rare, inherited genetic form of high cholesterol and previously had several procedures to improve blood flow to his heart.
[ad_2]
Emily Mullin
Source link
[ad_1]
Cold plunging at the gym or having a chilly shower at home has become a popular practice in recent years. But is all the self-inflicted freezing really that good for you? With the promise of boosting your mood, providing mental clarity, and reducing muscle soreness post-workout, it may sound enticing, but it’s not for everyone. Aside from making your teeth chatter, there are the notable negatives as well as its positives to consider.
Tasked with the challenge of testing the latest cold-plunge pools earlier this year, I reluctantly jumped on the bandwagon. With my adrenaline pumping and my endorphins having a disco post-plunge, I was hooked and have since became an ice bath advocate. But as with every wellness craze, it’s worth keeping up with the ever-changing advice on best practices. Keen to find out more, I asked Gary Brecka, top biohacker and founder of The Ultimate Human, for advice on how to cold plunge for maximum benefit.
Whether you’re a seasoned pro or a newbie wondering what all the fuss is about, take a deep, calming breath and jump right in. Find options for your own ice bath in the WIRED guide to the best cold-plunge tubs, with designs from the likes of PolarMonkeys, CalmMax, Plunge, and more.
Jump to Section
Whether it’s in the sea, a lake, or an ice bath at your local gym or at home, cold plunging means immersing your body in water that is 39 to 59 defrees Fahrenheit (4 to 15 Celsius). If you don’t have a gym membership and don’t fancy stripping down to your bathing suit at the local lake, an indoor bathtub filled with icy cold water will do. “You don’t need an expensive set up,” says Brecka. “A bathtub with ice works. A horse trough in the backyard works. Dedicated plunge pools are convenient, but you’ll get benefits no matter how you create cold exposure. It’s consistency that matters more than equipment.”
So how long do you cold plunge and what temperature should a cold plunge be? Brecka suggests two to six minutes as the ideal time. It’s long enough to activate the nervous system and short enough to stay safe. If you’re new to cold plunging, however, under a minute is plenty.
“What are the benefits of cold plunging?” is the million dollar question you’re probably asking yourself, right as you’re staring into the tub (along with “Why don’t you just have a warm cookie and hot chocolate instead?” which is what I often hear my inner child say.) Brecka suggests persevering for maximum benefit.
“We do a plunge because cold exposure activates your nervous system, improves circulation, and helps your body adapt to stress,” he says. “Cold plunging is not about powering through the shock, it’s about letting that shock drive physiological change.”
Some studies show benefits for cold plunging, including from Harvard Medical School. While those studies are encouraging, however, they are not conclusive, and their effects vary considerably across the board.
[ad_2]
Emily Peck
Source link
[ad_1]
DANVERS — Getting an annual mammogram is critical for women over 40. Peabody teacher and Georgetown resident Pam Davies knows that better than most.
Davies, a first-grade teacher of 31 years at the Captain Samuel Brown Elementary School, was diagnosed with stage-zero breast cancer three days before school let out in June.
kAmu@C 96C[ E96C6 H6C6 ?@ H2C?:?8 D:8?D] }@ =F>AD @C 5:>A=:?8 @? 96C 3C62DED] }@ ?:AA=6 5:D492C86 @C DH@==6? =J>A9 ?@56D F?56C E96 2C> @C ?62C E96 4@==2C 3@?6—2== 4@>>@? DJ>AE@>D 5@4E@CD D2J E@ <66A 2? 6J6 @FE 7@C]k^Am
kAm“x 24EF2==J 42==65 E@ 42?46= >J J62C=J >2>>@8C2> D@ x 4@F=5 8@ @FE E@ 5:??6C H:E9 7C:6?5D[” D2:5 s2G:6D[ H9@ 😀 db] “(96? x 42==65 E96C6 H2D ;FDE 2 =:EE=6 3:E =@?86C @7 2 H2:E[ 2?5 D@>6E9:?8 😕 >J 8FE D2:5[ ;FDE 8@ 2?5 5@ :E]”k^Am
kAmp 76H 52JD 27E6C 92G:?8 E92E >2>>@8C2> 2E E96 qC62DE w62=E9 r6?E6C 2E q6E9 xDC26= {296J w62=E9 r2C6 r6?E6C 😕 s2?G6CD[ s2G:6D H2D 2D<65 E@ 4@>6 324< 😕 7@C 2 5:28?@DE:4 >2>>@8C2>]k^Am
kAm$96 H2D?’E 4@?46C?65] $96’5 925 E@ 7@==@H FA 😕 E96 A2DE 3642FD6 96C 56?D6 3C62DE E:DDF6 4@F=5 >2<6 :E >@C6 492==6?8:?8 E@ D66 4=62C C6DF=ED 😕 2 >2>>@8C2>[ D@>6E:>6D D9@H:?8 D925@HD @C @E96C E9:?8D E92E 6?565 FA 36:?8 ?@E9:?8 😕 E96 A2DE]k^Am
kAms@4E@CD 7@F?5 42=4:7:42E:@?D 😕 96C 3C62DE E92E 925?’E 366? E96C6 E96 AC6G:@FD J62C] %96J’C6 FDF2==J 36?:8?[ D96 H2D C62DDFC65] qFE 2 3:@ADJ H2D D4965F=65 E@ >2<6 DFC6]k^Am
kAmp H66< =2E6C[ D96 H2D E@=5 D96 925 DE286K6C@ sF4E2= r2C4:?@>2 😕 $:EF[ 2? 62C=J 7@C> @7 3C62DE 42?46C E92E’D EJA:42==J 4@?7:?65 E@ E96 >2>>2CJ 8=2?5D 2?5 G6CJ EC62E23=6]k^Am
kAm“xE H2D E96 36DE 42D6 D46?2C:@[ :7 J@F 92G6 E@ 92G6 E96 5:28?@D:D[” D96 D2:5]k^Am
[ad_2]
By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer
Source link
[ad_1]
Science Corp. uses solar panel-like technology implanted in a patient’s eye. Early results for people with macular degeneration are impressive.
[ad_2]
Claire Cameron
Source link
[ad_1]
Bill Atkinson was a computing pioneer who, in the 1980s, effectively made Apple computers usable for everyday people by transforming code into windows, menus, and graphics.
But few people know that later in life he was a secret advocate of what’s widely considered the world’s most potent psychedelic: 5-MeO-DMT.
The hallucinogen, also called “the God molecule,” is a compound found in the venomous secretions of the Sonoran Desert toad named Incilius alvarius (it’s commonly called Bufo alvarius) and is known to bring about ego death, a total dissolution of the senses, and a euphoric feeling of existential connectedness, all in a roughly 20-minute trip. Atkinson, who died from pancreatic cancer on June 5 at the age of 74, was a member of a close-knit, private online community of 5-MeO-DMT enthusiasts called OneLight, where he went by the alias “Grace Within.”
Several of Atkinson’s friends and fellow psychonauts tell WIRED their “beloved” Atkinson played a key role in helping people access smaller doses of 5-MeO-DMT, which can be made synthetically, as he believed it would maximize the benefits of the potentially dangerous drug while minimizing harm. “The same creative mind who affected personal computers so profoundly continued to influence human evolution through his efforts to make the miracle of ‘bufo’ safer and more manageable,” says friend Charles Lindsay, an artist who has worked with the SETI Institute, which works to find signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. “He truly pushed boundaries. That requires a willingness to consider what might easily be deemed ridiculous.” Or, he adds, “risky.”
Many people have reported benefits to their mental health thanks to smoking 5-MeO-DMT, and biotech companies are preparing advanced trials to test the drug as a treatment for depression and addiction. Former heavyweight champion boxer Mike Tyson, longevity guru Bryan Johnson, and podcaster Joe Rogan have told of transcendent, life-changing experiences under the influence of the powerful drug.
But 5-MeO-DMT remains illegal in the US, and while underground options exist, people often go to legal centers and retreats in Mexico to take strong doses.
Atkinson took “many hundreds” of 5-MeO-DMT trips, according to friend Jamis MacNiven, the founder of popular Silicon Valley diner Buck’s of Woodside. “Nobody hit it harder than Bill,” he says.
The 5-MeO-DMT experience, with its daunting ego death awaiting within seconds of smoking the molecule, can be discombobulating, and a sometimes fraught period afterward can lead to serious destabilization and lasting trauma. Comedian Chelsea Handler had a “scary” trip, which she said left her “feeling as sick as I’ve ever felt.”
[ad_2]
Mattha Busby
Source link
[ad_1]
Look, there’s nothing quite like starting your day by pooping on a little paper hammock affixed to your toilet seat and then poking it a bunch of times with a cotton swab. It was more of a mental hurdle than a practical one, though, as the collection and disposal (you just flush the hammock down when you’re done) was easy enough. You then swish the stick around in a solution, cap it, and send it off. Twenty days later, I got an email that my results were in.
On the website, your results are broken down into a few sections: Summary (with tabs for Brain Health, GI Health, Metabolic Health, Skin Health, and Physical Performance), Action Plan (with tabs for Highest Impact, Diet, Lifestyle, and Probiotics), and the Organisms page, which shows you every single organism it found in your sample, and their relative abundance. Mine held some surprises.
On the positive side, my Microbiome Diversity came in at 4.19, which is above average (normal range is 2.80–3.99, as measured by the Shannon Index), which it says is a sign of a healthy microbiome, and it didn’t find any pathogens or parasites. It says I digest lactose well (thank goodness). It didn’t find any associations for things like depression, celiac disease, IBS, ulcerative colitis, leaky gut, hypertension, eczema, or a bunch of other things that I’m thankful to not have. Some of these were actually a bit puzzling, frankly, as I’ve struggled with insomnia pretty much my entire life, but it didn’t find any associations there, or for fatigue, and I am most assuredly a tired human.
As far as associations that it did find, some were things I suspected, while others were total surprises. Under Brain Health, I had a moderate association for stress and a low association for ADHD, neither of which shocked me. Under Metabolic health was a “very low” association for prediabetes, which I actually thought would be higher, unfortunately. I had a moderate association with osteoarthritis, which made sense, given my family history.
[ad_2]
Brent Rose
Source link
[ad_1]
President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a pair of initiatives aimed at making in vitro fertilization more affordable and accessible, marking his administration’s most significant step yet on an issue that has divided conservatives and became a key point of last year’s campaign outreach to women and families.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said his administration would encourage employers to offer fertility benefits directly to their employees—similar to dental or vision coverage—and unveiled a new agreement with EMD Serono, the maker of Gonal-F, one of the most widely used fertility drugs in the United States. The company, he said, had agreed to provide “massive discounts” on its fertility medications through a government website, TrumpRx.gov, beginning next year.
“With the actions I will outline this afternoon, we’ll dramatically slash the cost of IVF and many of the most common fertility drugs for countless millions of Americans,” Trump said. “Prices are going way down—way, way down.” He called the announcement a “historic victory for American women, mothers, and families.”
The administration said the new Labor Department guidance would make it easier for companies, including small businesses, to add fertility coverage as a supplemental benefit, without overhauling their primary health insurance plans. The White House is not mandating participation, nor will it subsidize employers that choose to offer the coverage.
“With what we signed, Americans will be able to opt in to specialized coverage, just as they get vision and dental insurance, they can get fertility insurance for the first time,” Trump said. He claimed that the fertility coverage “will reduce the number of people who ultimately need to resort to IVF, because couples will be able to identify and address problems early.”
“The result will be healthier pregnancies, healthier babies, and many more beautiful American children,” Trump added.
Only about one in four large employers currently provides in vitro fertilization coverage, according to a report from KFF, a nonprofit research organization, and very few states require insurance companies to cover fertility treatments. While some insurance plans already include such benefits, most patients pay out of pocket for procedures that can cost $15,000 to $25,000 per cycle, often requiring multiple rounds.
Trump said the new drug pricing deal would reduce the cost of Gonal-F and other fertility medications by as much as 73%. EMD Serono said in a statement that “eligible patients” will be able to purchase its fertility drugs at an 84% discount from list prices.
Still, it remains unclear how much the lower drug prices will reduce the total cost of IVF, since medications are only one component of the procedure. Patients must also pay for ultrasounds, anesthesia, laboratory work and embryo storage—costs that together can exceed $20,000 per round.
The announcement represents a partial fulfillment of a campaign promise that Trump made in 2024, when he declared that his administration would ensure all Americans had access to fertility treatment. “Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” he said in an August 2024 interview with NBC News. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”
Trump has repeatedly highlighted infertility as a family issue, casting his approach as a way to build and expand American families. The issue took on new urgency for Republicans last year, after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF should be considered children—a decision that prompted some clinics to pause operations and forced GOP leaders to clarify their positions. Trump quickly distanced himself from the ruling and urged Alabama lawmakers to protect access to IVF.
Infertility affects roughly one in six women of reproductive age, according to the World Health Organization, and IVF accounts for about 2% of all births in the United States.
While Trump’s announcement drew praise from some fertility advocates, others noted that the plan relies heavily on voluntary employer participation and does not guarantee coverage for those who need it most. Critics also questioned whether the discounts negotiated by the administration would meaningfully lower costs for middle-income families who must still pay out of pocket for other parts of treatment.
[ad_2]
Nik Popli
Source link
[ad_1]
One evening in 2019, when I was a pediatrics resident, I admitted a two-month-old to the hospital for observation after a minor surgery. I explained to the baby’s mother that I planned to order acetaminophen—commonly sold over the counter as Tylenol—every six hours, because the baby had an obvious source of pain. If pain still kept the baby from eating, sleeping, or calming down, the mother could ask for an opioid. I was just leaving the room when the mother stopped me to ask about the acetaminophen.
“Doesn’t it cause autism?” she said.
“I’m not familiar with any research linking Tylenol to autism,” I told her. “But I’ll look into it and get back to you.” In the meantime, we agreed to use both the acetaminophen and the opioid as needed, instead of administering them on a schedule.
When I sat down at a hospital computer, I was surprised to find that the mother’s question had a basis in mainstream research. Small studies had associated acetaminophen exposure in utero with a baby’s risk of developing autism. But this wasn’t the same as saying that Tylenol caused autism. Perhaps whatever the drug was treating—for example, fevers, infections, or painful chronic conditions—contributed to autism, and acetaminophen did not.
For babies under three months, as for pregnant women, Tylenol is considered the safest medicine for fever. (Ibuprofen and similar medications, NSAIDs, have been associated with kidney injury in babies.) I continued to order it for patients, if a little more cautiously. Then, in 2024, a more rigorously controlled study of more than two million children born in Sweden found no connection between acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders. As the epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina has written, “the evidence leans heavily towards correlation, not causation. (Tylenol is not the cause.)”
Last week, during a press conference, President Trump contradicted existing research by urging women to “tough it out” and avoid Tylenol during pregnancy. “Fight like hell not to take it,” he said. On Friday, he wrote on Truth Social, “DON’T GIVE TYLENOL TO YOUR YOUNG CHILD FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON.” Medical groups disagreed. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advised women to continue using Tylenol when needed. “Misleading claims that the medicine is not safe and is linked to increased rates of autism send a confusing, dangerous message to parents and expectant parents and does a disservice to autistic individuals,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said.
Now doctors are reporting that pregnant women are hesitating to use the medicine, even when professionals recommend it for pain or for fever. One reason that Trump’s claims are difficult to dispel is that he makes them sound certain. Doctors, in contrast, can say that the strongest research does not show a link between Tylenol and autism, and that medical professionals consider it the best option for pain and fever in pregnancy. But we know that there is uncertainty in medical research, and so we speak with care.
It ought to be possible for doctors to be more definitive. Pregnancy is not a rare condition—millions of people get pregnant each year—yet those who experience it are frequently told that there’s not enough research to guarantee that a medicine is safe. When a pregnant woman needs medicine, whether for lupus or for high blood pressure, she may feel that she faces an impossible choice: suffer through a condition that may itself harm her or her baby, or else allow an uncontrolled experiment inside one’s own body. Isn’t there a better way?
Many of the rules that govern research on human beings date back to the Nuremberg Code, a response to Nazi doctors who conducted brutal experiments in concentration camps. To this day, research participants must consent; trials must be stopped if there is evidence of substantial harm. In the nineteen-sixties, the public became aware that thalidomide, a widely used nausea drug, had caused birth defects in an estimated eight thousand children outside of the United States. The drug became a case study for the growing field of bioethics. In 1977, the F.D.A. excluded not only pregnant women but also women “of childbearing potential” from early-stage clinical trials, which focus on safety and toxicity. Drugs are instead tested for toxicity in pregnant animals—usually, rats and rabbits—which often respond very differently than humans.
According to Ruth Faden, the founder of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, these efforts to protect women and babies had unintended consequences. In fact, she said, public responses to thalidomide were a “misreading of history.” Thalidomide wasn’t systematically tested on pregnant women. If it had been, then its risks likely would have been discovered sooner, and fewer children would’ve been affected.
In the nineteen-nineties, the F.D.A.’s exclusion of women “of childbearing potential” ended, and the National Institutes of Health established guidelines to encourage women in general to participate in research. In 2018, the Common Rule, which establishes scientific practices for twenty federal agencies, was revised to make it easier for researchers to include pregnant women. But, in 2024, a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine asserted that that “very little progress has been made on research involving pregnant and lactating women.” Too often, Faden told me, pregnant women are still viewed as fragile vessels who need to be sequestered from the world. “We need to protect women through research, not from research,” she said.
Thoughtful safety protocols would be necessary to ethically include pregnant women in research studies. Medicines whose mechanism could plausibly harm a fetus—those that inhibit crucial nutrients such as folate, for example, or that stop cells from dividing—would be excluded. So would drugs that have worrisome effects in pregnant animals. As in any research study, participation would need to be voluntary, and the trial would need to be more likely to benefit women than to harm them. If scientists started to suspect that women or their babies were being harmed, the trial would need to be paused or stopped altogether.
[ad_2]
Rachel Pearson
Source link
[ad_1]
In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Donald Trump and Congress put into place a program that allowed people on Medicare to get their health care over the Internet.
The policy proved wildly popular. Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries received telehealth services in 2020 in an effort to keep their distance from hospitals and doctor’s offices during the pandemic.
But the program is set to expire Sept. 30 without Congressional action, which would leave millions of seniors suddenly unable to access the telehealth care that allowed them to avoid long drives and crowded waiting rooms. The program has been threatened before—Congress had to extend it in 2021, 2022, 2023, and in March 2025—but telehealth advocates say that they have little hope that the program will be saved in time for services to avoid disruption.
“People are going to go to sleep tonight having had telehealth coverage since the beginning of the pandemic—and most of them have used it one way or another,” said Kyle Zebley, the executive director of ATA Action, the advocacy arm of the American Telemedicine Association, on Sept. 30. “They will wake up in the morning not having that coverage.”
Two of those people are Dan and Doreen Nishimi, who are 82 and 78 respectively and who live in Elk Grove, Calif. Doreen, who had surgery for breast cancer last year, says she vastly prefers using telehealth to check in with her oncologist rather than driving the 27 miles round-trip to the office. And Dan, who has pulmonary hypertension and interstitial lung disease, says the video visits help save him from difficult trips to the doctor in which he needs to bring an oxygen tank and use a scooter. Traveling has gotten even more difficult in recent weeks after Doreen pinched a nerve in her spine and is now unable to lift Dan’s scooter.
“If you don’t have video visits, I would never see a doctor because I have such a hard time getting out of the house,” he says. He has a video visit scheduled with his primary care doctor next week.
Read More: Why Obamacare Is About to Get a Lot More Expensive
Another program called acute hospital care at home, which allows convalescing patients to be discharged and receive monitored care at home, is also set to expire Sept. 30 without Congressional action. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has said that all patients must be discharged or returned to the hospital on Sept. 30.
Before the pandemic, it was extremely difficult for Medicare patients to qualify to get telehealth care. They had to live in a rural area classified a certain way, and they had to receive their telehealth services in a certain type of location—often a medical office. Congress passed waivers to those rules in the beginning of the pandemic, which are often referred to now as Medicare telehealth flexibilities.
Usage of telehealth through Medicare has declined since 2020, to about 25% of patients in 2024, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But telehealth is still a lifeline for certain patients, including those who are immunocompromised or who live a long distance from their doctors’ office, says Mei Kwong, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy, a nonprofit that provides technical assistance to people with questions about telehealth policies.
Most mental-health telecare services under Medicare will continue after Sept. 30 because of a separate bill passed in 2021. But for other types of appointments, what will happen next is unclear.
Some providers may continue to offer telehealth to Medicare patients after Sept. 30, Kwong says. The telehealth flexibilities have been extended so many times in the past that many providers may assume they will be extended again, eventually—perhaps with retroactive payment for services rendered before Congress takes action. Smaller providers might not have the financial flexibility to do that, though. They may try to reschedule telehealth patients for a few weeks or months down the line, at which time they hope Congress will have acted.
Dr. James Marcin, director of the Center for Health and Technology at the University of California, Davis, who directs the system’s telehealth program, is urging administrators to continue business as usual and keep providing telehealth visits for Medicare patients, even though reimbursement is ending. It would be “disastrous” for many patients to have their visits rescheduled or to have to come to the doctor’s office in person and arrange for rides, childcare, and travel expenses, he says. UC Davis Health has 2,500 patients covered by Medicare scheduled for telehealth visits in October, he says.
Telehealth visits have been extremely helpful for patients who live many hours away, he says, and would otherwise have to come in for something quick like a medication check after surgery or a check-in on a chronic condition like arthritis. “We are thoughtful about these visits,” Marcin says. “If you need to come in and see someone, or have labs, you can, but we don’t want to force people to come in when it’s not necessary.”
Read More: Mississippi Declares a Public Health Emergency Over Infant Deaths
Some providers, including Mass General Brigham Medical Group, expanded their telehealth capabilities in recent years as patients have embraced the option. In 2021, Mass General Brigham launched a virtual urgent care service that allows doctors to see patients in Massachusetts and New Hampshire via telehealth 365 days a year from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., says Lindsay Gainer, president and chief operating officer of the Mass General Brigham Medical Group. That’s allowed doctors to help patients resolve complaints or be seen quickly and bypass expensive emergency room visits.
Doctors are also able to see patients virtually to deal with chronic disease management, Gainer says. Even though the practice gets compensated at a slightly lower rate for telehealth, virtual visits save money overall, she says, because doctors don’t need the office infrastructure and personnel that they might need if they were seeing someone in-person. Like UC-Davis, Mass General Brigham plans to keep offering telehealth to Medicare patients in the hope that Congress will resolve the issue quickly.
Even if Congress does eventually extend the telehealth flexibilities, there’s a need for a longer-term solution making telehealth under Medicare more permanent, says Sarah Hohman, director of government affairs at the National Association of Rural Health Clinics. For one thing, it is stressful for providers to keep nearing a cliff after which they won’t be compensated for providing telehealth to Medicare patients. For another, under current law, rural health clinics can only bill a very low amount for telehealth visits: $94.45, no matter what the visit is for.
This has forced rural health clinics to operate without adequate reimbursement since 2020, Hohman says. “If a facility is getting significantly less through telehealth, it’s a lot harder for them to invest in what are often very expensive technologies,” she says.
Read More: The World’s Richest Woman Has Opened a Medical School
Telehealth advocates worry that if the flexibilities are allowed to expire, private insurers may follow suit and stop offering coverage of telehealth services. “As Medicare goes, so goes the nation,” says Zebley, of ATA.
To many advocates, the failure of Congress to extend the Medicare telehealth flexibilities points to a large problem of how Congress has started to operate in recent years. Both the telehealth flexibilities and the acute hospital at-home care “should have been made permanent in a normal world of DC operating like it should,” says Zebley.
But Congress is less prone to doing standalone pieces of legislation anymore and instead keeps passing “extenders,” he says, which essentially kick the can down the road. (Enhanced premium tax credits, which made health plans through the Affordable Care Act much more affordable, are also set to end soon because a Congressional extender is expiring.)
Of course, even if Congress had acted, it might not have given telehealth advocates the breathing room they wanted. Proposed Democratic and Republican plans—none of which passed—would have extended the telehealth flexibilities a few months at most, he says—until October or November.
[ad_2]
Alana Semuels
Source link