ReportWire

Tag: news desk

  • Why Thousands of Nurses Are Striking in NYC

    Almost 15,000 nurses at several major New York hospitals are on strike, raising concerns about how staffing shortages could affect the city’s health care system.

    The strike, which began on Monday morning, came as contract negotiations stalled after months of bargaining, according to the nurses’ union, New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA). It is impacting some of the city’s top medical centers: Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Morningside and West, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and Montefiore Medical Center.

    Here’s what to know about the situation.

    Why are nurses on strike?

    The strikers’ specific demands vary between the several institutions the nurses walked out of, but the nurses’ union broadly said that its members were demanding improvements to staffing levels, health benefits, and protections against workplace violence.

    “Hospital management refuses to address our most important issues—patient and nurse safety,” NYSNA President Nancy Hagans said in a press release. “It is shameful that the city’s richest hospitals refuse to continue healthcare benefits for frontline nurses, refuse to staff safely for our patients, and refuse to protect us from workplace violence.”

    “Nurses do not want to strike,” Hagans continued, “but our bosses have forced us out on strike.”

    Hospital officials, though, have called some of the union’s requests too expensive and defended nurses’ salaries; a spokesperson for Mount Sinai told The New York Times that nurses there make an average of $162,000 a year, and that NYSNA’s asks would raise that amount to $275,000 over three years.

    “The health care system is under siege financially,” Kenneth E. Raske, the president of the trade group Greater New York Hospital Association, told the Times. “The demands of the union are so outrageous that there is no way they can concede to what the union is asking for.”

    What could the strike mean for patients?

    On Friday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order in anticipation of the strike, declaring a “disaster emergency” in multiple counties in and around the city due to predicted “severe staffing shortages” that she said “are expected to impact the availability and delivery of care, threatening public health and safety.” 

    The order noted that the strain on hospitals could be exacerbated because of the surge in flu cases in recent weeks. The New York City Health Department reported on Thursday that more than 128,000 cases of the flu had so far been recorded in the city since the flu season began, amid a wider spike in both cases and hospitalizations driven by a new variant of influenza A called “subclade K.” The department noted that the city had seen a two-week decline in new cases following a record-setting week in December, but cautioned New Yorkers that “flu season is far from over.” The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave its own warning about ongoing risks on Friday, saying that “elevated influenza activity is expected to continue for several more weeks.”

    The hospitals affected by the strike are still open, and have hired travel nurses to temporarily cover for workers who are on strike, The Associated Press reported. But the strike could mean that impacted medical institutions may have to transfer patients to other hospitals and cancel or reschedule surgeries because of insufficient staffing levels.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • CDC Slashes Universal Vaccine Recommendations

    As flu cases in the U.S. are rising dramatically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, overseen by the Trump Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a noted vaccine skeptic, announced that it is endorsing fewer routinely-recommended vaccinations for all children.

    As part of the new schedule, HHS will no longer broadly recommend influenza, COVID-19, rotavirus, and other previously recommended immunizations. It now recommends 11 vaccines for all children, down from previously recommending vaccinations to protect against 18 different diseases in 2024.

    That’s happening as flu cases in the U.S. have reached their highest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the CDC, with children and teenagers among the worst affected.

    “After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent,” Kennedy said in a press release. “This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health.”

    Restoring trust in the public health system is a key reason behind the move, according to the government. A poll published last February by the AAMC Center for Health Justice found that from 2021 to 2024, public trust in institutions—including medical institutions, social services, fire departments, and others—declined. The decline in trust was sharpest for pharmacies and hospitals. Trust was lowest among members of Gen Z, adults living in rural areas, adults earning lower annual incomes, and individuals with less than a college degree.

    But physicians, immunologists, and other medical experts have criticized the move as sowing distrust of vaccines and creating confusion among patients and healthcare providers. Some have argued that it may also lead healthcare providers to recommend fewer vaccinations.

    “At a time when parents, pediatricians and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations,” Andrew D. Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. “This is no way to make our country healthier.”

    What’s new?

    The CDC organizes childhood immunization recommendations into three categories: recommendations for all children; recommendations for high-risk groups; and recommendations based on “shared clinical decision-making.” The latter category requires patients to consult a healthcare provider before receiving a vaccine.

    Under the new schedule, the CDC continues to recommend vaccinations for all children for chickenpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, pneumococcal conjugate, Haemophilus influenzae type b (HiB), measles, mumps, and rubella. The schedule also recommends one dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) shot, as compared to previously recommending two doses.

    Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)—a common respiratory virus affecting the lungs and the leading cause of hospitalizations for infants in the U.S.—is no longer broadly endorsed for all children. Instead, it is now recommended for high-risk groups.

    Immunizations for rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, and hepatitis A and B are now based on shared clinical decision-making.

    The CDC report reasons that broadly recommending fewer vaccines “allows for more flexibility and choice, with less coercion.” Senior HHS officials reportedly cited “a drop in vaccine uptake of routine vaccinations for children” as a reason for the change. That includes plummeting measles vaccination rates amid several measles outbreaks across the U.S. last year.

    No vaccines were taken off the schedule entirely, and all of the vaccines will still be available and covered by the Affordable Care Act and other federal insurance programs.

    “No family will lose access,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said. “This framework empowers parents and physicians to make individualized decisions based on risk, while maintaining strong protection against serious disease.”

    The new schedule follows a Dec. 5 presidential memorandum directing the HHS and the CDC to align the list of recommended vaccines in the U.S. with those in “peer, developed countries.” At the same time, the CDC’s vaccine advisors voted to narrow the agency’s hepatitis B recommendation for newborns.

    “President Trump directed us to examine how other developed nations protect their children and to take action if they are doing better,” Kennedy said.

    Medical experts have criticized the method, arguing that the review took only a month and is based on consensus among peer countries rather than scientific data. The new schedule is more similar to that of Denmark, a country of just 6 million people compared with 343 million in the U.S. For example, the CDC report cites Denmark as being “the first peer nation to remove its universal recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine for children” in 2022.

    “The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America’s families. America is a unique country, and Denmark’s population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own,” Racine said.

    “For decades, leading health experts, immunologists, and pediatricians have carefully reviewed new data and evidence as part of the immunization recommendation process, helping to keep newborns, infants, and children protected from diseases they could be exposed to in the United States as they develop and grow,” Racine added. “Today’s decision, which was based on a brief review of other countries’ practices, upends this deliberate scientific process.”

    The report was led by Tracy Beth Høeg, acting director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and Martin Kulldorff, a chief science and data officer at the HHS. The changes were made in consultation with experts at the CDC, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and CMS. It did not, however, invite formal public comment or consultation with vaccine manufacturers, officials reportedly said.

    Public health nonprofit Trust for America’s Health, the Big Cities Health Coalition, and the National Association of County and City Health Officials criticized the move in a joint statement.

    “For decades, each change to the schedule was discussed openly by experts, with both benefits and risks considered. However, today’s announcement places increased burden on parents and health providers to navigate an increasingly complex system and assure access to these life-saving products,” the statement said.

    Rising flu cases

    The new recommendations come amid the first “moderately severe” influenza outbreak of the season in the U.S., according to CDC data released on Monday. The CDC assesses the severity of an outbreak within a season using data beginning from Oct. 1, when influenza activity typically begins to rise. The CDC tracks a flu season from early fall to the following late summer.

    At least 11 million people have contracted the flu, 120,000 people have been hospitalized for it, and 5,000 people have died from it this season, according to the CDC. Those numbers may still increase, as the flu season typically continues till May. Last week, New York health officials reported the highest number of flu hospitalizations recorded in a single week, with more than 4,500 hospitalizations in the seven-day period ending Jan. 2.

    Read More: When Should I Go to the Doctor With Cold Symptoms?

    Children and teenagers have been hit particularly hard, with influenza being the reason for more than 20% of emergency department visits for children aged 5 to 17 and more than 18% of visits for children under the age of 4 in the last week of 2025. Nine children have died so far this season due to the flu. Last flu season, 289 children—most of whom were not fully vaccinated—died due to the flu in the highest levels of pediatric deaths recorded since mandatory tracking began in 2004.

    The flu refers to an infection caused by any of four types of influenza viruses A, B, C, and D. Influenza A and B are the most common causes of seasonal outbreaks in humans. Medical experts across the board recommend annual vaccinations to ward off the flu.

    Flu symptoms include fever, chills, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, tiredness, vomiting, and diarrhea.

    Last fall, experts told TIME that lagging vaccination rates were likely responsible for a surge of influenza cases across Asia. Factors like the weather can also impact behavior such as crowding indoors, which can increase the spread of influenza, experts said.

    “The key is to stay up to date with vaccinations,” Dr. Paul Tambyah, a former president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, said in October.

    “There is still time to get a flu shot and remember, flu can be treated with antiviral medication if started within 48 hours of symptom onset and your doctor deems appropriate,” New York State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement.

    Around 43% of the U.S. population are vaccinated against the flu, the CDC reported on Monday.

    The most frequently reported cases of the flu in the U.S. this season have been due to a mutation of the H3N2 strain. Tambyah previously told TIME that because the influenza virus is able to evolve rapidly, having been previously inoculated or infected may not ensure immunity to new variants.

    Nevertheless, experts broadly agree that keeping up with vaccinations is the best way to minimize the impact of the flu, including reducing the spread of influenza and protecting against severe infection or death.

    “Immunizations are the most effective defense we have against a host of deadly and painful illnesses. Ensuring all children receive the vaccines they need on time stops diseases from spreading in the community and ensures healthy childhood development,” the joint statement from public health nonprofits and coalitions said. “Creating new barriers to immunizations, as today’s announcement does, will make it harder for children to have the opportunity to grow up healthy and strong.”

    Miranda Jeyaretnam

    Source link

  • How to Talk to Your Family About Politics Over the Holidays

    The holidays can be a stressful time—and if you’re planning to spend it with loved ones who have clashing political views, the prospect of getting into an argument can make things all the more anxiety-inducing.

    There’s an old adage that advises people to avoid talking about politics altogether. And while that may be the best option to protect yourself in certain situations, experts tell TIME that sometimes, broaching the discussion could actually be good for people’s familial relationships.

    “I would absolutely encourage people to have these conversations,” says Lynn Bufka, the American Psychological Association’s head of practice and a licensed clinical psychologist. “I think it’s one of the problems that we have in our country right now—that we’re not listening to people with perspectives different than ours.”

    But she and Sarah Herstich—a licensed clinical social worker based in Horsham, Pennsylvania—both recommend keeping certain matters in mind if you’re going to have those discussions. Here’s their advice about how to have productive conversations with family members about politics over the holidays.

    Consider where and when you’re going to have the conversation

    Bufka suggests that people think about the best time and place to discuss the subject. Her recommendations: Avoid doing it when everybody has been drinking, for one thing. And consider having the conversation in a more private setting. Not everyone at the dinner table may want to talk about politics, she notes. Having the discussion around a lot of people could also make one person feel like they’re being ganged up on if their viewpoint puts them in the minority among the people present, which could make them defensive right off the bat.

    “Do you have the conversation around the family dinner table, or do you go on a walk with somebody, move away from the crowd, so that you can both be, perhaps, a little more honest and vulnerable with what each person’s perspective is?” Bufka says. 

    “Sometimes,” she suggests, “it can be helpful to have hard conversations when you’re doing something together, like going on a walk or making cookies or something that you can share in an activity while you’re having the conversation.”

    Try to understand their point of view or find common ground

    Bufka encourages people to approach conversations about politics from the perspective of wanting to understand the other person’s point of view, rather than trying to convince them to change their mind. 

    “If you’re willing to say, ‘I want to understand these people I care about, and what’s why I want to have the conversation,’ then you’re setting yourself to be far more successful,” she says. There’s “no guarantee that your conversation partner is going to be coming at it the same way, and maybe you need to introduce that and say, ‘I know we don’t see eye to eye on X, and it might be scary for us to talk about it, but I’d like to try.’”

    And even if you and your loved one disagree on political issues, remember that there may be some common ground, experts urge. Both parties may want to see the economy grow, for instance, but disagree on what that looks like or how to get there, Bufka says. Finding that common ground could help bridge the distance between them.

    “If it’s someone you really care about, remembering that there’s likely some common ground, some common value that you can come back to,” Herstich says. “I think so often, we’re all so polarized that we forget that we can be in a relationship with people that believe different things.”

    That common ground, she says, may simply be that you both value your relationship and don’t want to lose it. Just reminding yourself of that could help ease some tension in the conversation.

    Don’t directly attack them

    Conversations about politics can become heated, but Bufka recommends avoiding insulting or disrespecting the person you’re talking to. Don’t say things like “you’re an idiot” or “you’re stupid,” or even “how could you ever have that point of view?”, she says. Comments like that aren’t going to help you move towards a place of understanding.

    “If you’re disrespecting the person, you’re not really improving your relationship with them, and you’re very unlikely to be moving towards any shared understanding or a possibility of understanding their perspective,” Bufka says. “It’s also not, as adults, what we want to teach the kids around us—that the way to communicate with people is that we disrespect them.”

    Set boundaries, and know when to end the conversation

    The conversation may reach a point when you and the people you’re talking with have to agree to disagree. Bufka and Herstich recommend establishing that boundary, and knowing when to end the discussion and respectfully walk away. And if you anticipate the conversation is going to be really challenging, you may want to plan an out. Herstich suggests that if the discussion becomes too difficult, people could say “I have to take a little break” or change the subject to something that’s less tense. The most important thing to keep in mind if you’re having this type of conversation is “maintaining your integrity and maintaining safety within the relationship,” Herstich says.

    In certain cases, it may be too hard to have the conversation at all. Both Bufka and Herstich say that some people may experience real risks in engaging in these discussions—for instance, people who feel marginalized in the current political climate and don’t feel safe around their families.

    “It really depends on the person—it depends on the dynamic and the family, and if politics are a part of the regular conversation,” Herstich says. “If the trajectory is typically poor—if someone typically talks about politics with family and it goes south fast—then probably building boundaries around not talking about politics over the holidays can be a really supportive move.”

    But, she says, “If you have a family dynamic where people are open and they don’t dehumanize one another and it can feel productive and people can feel heard, even if they disagree, then that’s a different story.”

    Go easy on yourself

    If you’re struggling because your family members hold different political beliefs and you feel that you have to restrict the time you spend with them because of it, Herstich recommends that you be kind to yourself.

    “The grief in it is real—the grief of losing the relationship that you maybe hoped would be or that you even thought that you had,” she says. “Be really gentle with yourself.”

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Congress Left Without a Health Care Deal. What Comes Next?

    Congress has left for the year without reaching a health care deal, leaving Affordable Care Act subsidies that have helped lower insurance prices for roughly 22 million Americans to expire on Dec. 31 without taking action to address the surge in costs that is expected to follow.

    As the end of the subsidies looms, families and individual Americans are bracing for immediate impacts. Monthly payments for millions of ACA marketplace enrollees are set to double or even triple without the tax credits that have made their premiums cheaper. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the lapse could leave roughly 4 million more Americans uninsured, with analysts warning of broader impacts over the coming years

    The enhanced subsidies were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and extended by Democrats in 2022. For many lower-income Americans, they have resulted in free or nearly free coverage. For higher-earning recipients, they have dramatically reduced premiums. The lowered costs have contributed to a surge in enrollment, particularly among Americans in Republican-led Southern states, where coverage previously lagged.

    Read more: What the End of Obamacare Subsidies Could Mean for Your Health Coverage

    Democrats have pushed for months to further extend the subsidies, making it a key demand in the spending standoff that shut down the government this fall. A group of Senate Democrats ultimately broke with the party to reopen the government on the condition that a vote on an extension measure would occur in December. But lawmakers have now left Washington without holding one.

    Four swing-district House Republicans did defy party leadership and join a Democrat-led discharge petition to force a vote on a three-year extension in the chamber. Speaker Mike Johnson, who refused to bring the issue up for a vote before the holiday recess, will be required to do so after Congress reconvenes in the new year. The vote is expected the week of Jan. 5 when the House returns to session.

    Even if the bill passes the House when it comes up for a vote next month, Senate Republicans are likely to block it, as they did in the case of a similar Democratic proposal earlier this month. But some lawmakers have expressed hope that it could help lawmakers move closer to passing a health care bill.

    “I do believe if the bill comes to the floor, not only will it pass, but it’ll give the Senate the ability to come back with a bipartisan compromise and actually get something passed into law,” Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, one of the Republicans who signed on to the discharge petition, said Wednesday on NBC’s “Meet The Press Now.”

    Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told NBC News that the House passing the bill would “keep momentum going,” but declined to voice support for it.

    “What we’re trying to do is to put together a bipartisan bill that would have reforms plus a two-year extension,” Collins said. “That is the best approach, in my opinion, and we’re making good progress.”

    Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” with Jonathan Karl, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries brushed off comments from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who said a clean three-year extension would be dead on arrival in the Senate. Jeffries said Thune “is not serious about protecting the health care of the American people.”

    “It will pass, with a bipartisan majority, and then that will put the pressure on John Thune and Senate Republicans to actually do the right thing by the American people: pass a straightforward extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits so we can keep health care affordable for tens of millions of Americans who deserve to be able to go see a doctor when they need one,” Jeffries said.

    Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, meanwhile, said Sunday he remains opposed to extending the subsidies, instead promoting an alternative health care proposal centered on expanding Association Health Plans, which would allow consumers to band together to negotiate lower insurance premiums.

    Paul, earlier this month, was the only Republican senator to vote against a GOP proposal to establish government-funded health savings accounts.

    “We have health care in our country for poor people. It’s called Medicaid. All of the rest of the stuff has not worked,” Paul said in an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC. “Obamacare has been a failure. President Obama said it would bring premiums down; premiums have gone through the roof. Every time we give more subsidies, the premiums go higher.”

    A Republican proposal passed by the House on Wednesday, which does not include an extension of the subsidies, also appears unlikely to get traction in the Senate. “I would expect the vote count if it were just purely this wouldn’t be probably the same as it was last week,” Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican of North Carolina, told NBC News, appearing to reference the failure of a separate GOP bill in the Senate.

    In the meantime, subsidies are set to return to pre-pandemic levels before Congress returns, leaving millions to navigate sharp premium increases. And amid the anticipated price changes, the deadline for open enrollment on the ACA marketplace for the year is fast approaching on Jan. 15. Experts have suggested some options for Americans to consider as they look for ways to keep their coverage more affordable.

    Read more: Where Surging Obamacare Prices Could Hit the Hardest Next Year

    Each party has pointed fingers at the other for rising health care prices. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump delivered a 20-minute-long address in which he blamed Democrats for the high costs while claiming his administration’s policies offered relief. “It’s the Unaffordable Care Act,” he said. “The Democrats are responsible.”

    Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are placing blame on their Republican counterparts for failing to take action as the expiration date for the ACA subsidies approaches.

    “Republicans still have a chance to lower costs on health care. But they still seem as determined not to as ever,” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told Semafor.

    Another deadline is also coming up in the new year: The short-term spending bill Congress passed in November, reopening the government, will only fund the government until Jan. 30, meaning it will once again shut down if lawmakers can’t reach a deal by that date.

    Trump told a crowd of supporters at a rally in North Carolina on Friday that Democrats would again “close down the government,” accusing them of being “beholden” to insurance companies.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, has insisted that Democrats will not link a spending bill to renewed subsidies in the new year. 

    Speaking to Punchbowl News,Schumer noted that the enhanced Obamacare subsidies will have expired by Jan. 30 and said Republicans have shown they are incapable of striking a bipartisan deal. He added that Democrats feel they have succeeded in making health care a top issue for voters next November.

    “As of Jan. 1, that is a different time than before because the ACA [subsidies] expired,” Schumer said. “On the other hand, we’d like to get an appropriations bill done. That’s a Jan. 30 deadline … We’re trying to work with the Republicans to get it done.”
    “We’re working on appropriation bills to prevent another shutdown, now,” said Democrat Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, acknowledging the human stakes of legislative stalemate.“Let’s see what January brings. But people are hurting. Everything’s getting more expensive.”

    Nandika Chatterjee

    Source link

  • How Plasma Donations Help Pay the Bills—and Treat Patients

    Catherine Rolfes was between jobs and starting to think about how to make some extra cash to put toward her bills when her sibling suggested they visit a plasma donation center.

    At that point, “I’ve never donated plasma,” recalls the 27-year-old, who lives near Columbus, Ohio. “I donated blood back in high school twice, and both times I had a bad reaction. So I was like, I don’t know. But then the bills started getting a little expensive. It’s $125 [to donate]—that’ll come in handy. So I’m like, we’ll go.”

    The U.S. is among only a handful of countries that allow donors to receive financial compensation for giving their plasma, the liquid part of blood. Donors here can receive anywhere from $30 to upwards of $100 per visit, and are permitted to donate plasma as frequently as twice a week, another rarity around the world. Regular donors can make hundreds of dollars a month.

    Experts credit the compensation for making the U.S. one of the few countries that are self-sufficient in supplying plasma for their own patients—and the single biggest contributor to the global plasma supply. Plasma from U.S. donors is used in life-saving treatments and therapies for people all over the world.

    But the practice of paying donors has raised ethical questions for some: Critics say that it can be exploitative of people in need of money. 

    “It’s a really complex issue,” says Emily Gallagher, an associate professor of finance at the University of Colorado Boulder who has studied compensation for plasma donation. “Generally speaking, the developed countries that allow [paid donation] are the only ones that are able to meet their own domestic plasma needs in terms of the medications that come out of this.”

    “And the medication is life-saving—there are many, many people around the world who would not survive without it,” she continues. “At the same time, there are real reasons to be concerned about allowing for these compensated markets.”

    ‘You’ve given us our life’

    For years, Kelli Fairfax didn’t know what was wrong. She was always sick, and it wasn’t until she reached her 30s that she learned why: In 2001, she was diagnosed with Common Variable Immune Deficiency (CVID), an immune system disorder that causes low levels of antibodies in the blood, which can make people with the condition more susceptible to infection.

    “When I got diagnosed, it really changed my life,” says Fairfax, a 55-year-old who lives in San Antonio, Texas.

    There’s no cure for CVID, but there is a treatment. Replacement immunoglobulin therapy provides a patient with antibodies when their body can’t make them on its own, enabling them to better fight off infection. People with CVID need to receive the treatment for the rest of their lives; Fairfax receives hers every week.

    That therapy relies on an essential component: donated human plasma.

    “I’m just so thankful,” Fairfax says of plasma donors. “I go to donor stations and I go and I thank them. You know, we call it liquid gold.”

    “These people don’t have to do this,” she continues. “We’re thankful because you’ve given us our life.”

    Plasma mainly consists of water, but it also contains important proteins such as gamma globulin—which helps fight off infections—and anti-hemophilic factor—which helps the blood clot properly. Donated human plasma is used to create life-saving treatments for a variety of health conditions. Those include primary immunodeficiencies, such as CVID, that impair the body’s ability to fight off infections, as well as bleeding disorders like hemophilia and some types of cancer. Plasma is also used for more everyday medicine, including for critical care patients who have experienced trauma or burns

    While such patients may only need that treatment for a certain period of time, others—like Fairfax—will need plasma-derived therapies for the rest of their lives. And the number of plasma donations needed to sustain a patient’s treatment varies depending on their condition. Treating one person with hemophilia for a year, for instance, requires roughly 1,200 plasma donations, according to estimates by the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA), a trade association representing more than 1,000 donation centers in North America and Europe, and manufacturers of plasma protein therapies. For patients with Alpha-1, a genetic condition that can damage the lungs and liver, a year of treatment requires about 900 donations.

    “There is such a need for donated plasma because for many of these patients, this is the therapy they rely on, but it is not a cure; it is something that they need for their lifetime to lead a healthy, productive life,” says Anita Brikman, the president and CEO of the PPTA.

    In 2022, 1.26 million people in the U.S. received a plasma-derived therapy at some point over the course of the year; around the world, the total was around 16.5 million, according to the Marketing Research Bureau, which provides market data about the plasma industry.

    “You look across the world, when we think about these patient populations—you can see why the need is so significant,” Brikman says.

    Donating to help people—and pay the bills

    Bethany Beinlich donated plasma for the first time over the summer. The 22-year-old, who lives in Austin, Texas, heard about donating from her brother-in-law, who did it in college. When she first decided to donate, she was waiting to start her new job, and she wanted some extra “fun money.” And she wanted to help people.

    “As a radiation therapist, I am working with cancer patients and I understand how there are different treatments for cancer that are being discovered right now that are using plasma,” she says. So as well as helping her earn some cash, donating is also rewarding for her, knowing that patients could be helped by it.

    At first, Beinlich went twice a week. She doesn’t go as frequently now, but she visits a center when she can.

    Estimates for the number of plasma donations in the U.S. each year vary, but Brikman says the PPTA pegs it at roughly 45 million. Plasma donation involves blood being drawn from a donor, the plasma being separated out, and other components of the blood—such as red blood cells and platelets—being cycled back into the donor. The process is widely considered to be safe, and, for many donors, it’s smooth and simple. Some people may experience mild reactions, such as lightheadedness, but health experts say that can often be avoided by drinking water and eating a healthy meal.

    Overall, Beinlich’s experience has been positive; she’s never had a bad reaction. If anything, she wishes she had done it in college to help pay some of her bills.

    For Rolfes, it wasn’t the most pleasant experience at first. She visited a plasma donation center for the first time in mid-October. But after she was hooked up to the machine and the donation process began, she started feeling ill.

    “I felt like I was sweating profusely,” she says. “I was hot and then I was cold, and I was literally physically shaking and I was seconds away from passing out.”

    “I was very scared,” she says. “It was like this impending doom.”

    She told a staff member that she wasn’t feeling well, and they gave her an ice pack and gatorade and stopped the donation process. The issue, a staff member told her afterward, was that she didn’t eat or drink enough before donating, so her blood pressure dropped. After Rolfes rested for a while, staffers asked her if she wanted to continue, and she said yes. For the rest of the donation, she felt fine. And she left with $125 on a debit card, which she used to pay her gas bill and buy some food.

    That experience didn’t deter Rolfes from returning later that month to donate again. This time, she drank a lot of water and ate a good, full meal beforehand, and the process went much more smoothly. She left the appointment with another $125, which she used to pay her electric bill and buy groceries. 

    Rolfes posted a couple TikToks about her first time donating, and received responses from people who said they relied on plasma-derived therapies and thanked her for donating. That was eye-opening, she says. She plans to continue donating, maybe once or twice a month.

    “It’s a good little extra money, and for a good cause too,” she says.

    The compensation debate

    There are only five countries that collect enough plasma donations domestically to meet the needs of their own patients: the U.S., Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, according to Peter Jaworski, a professor of strategy, ethics, economics, and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business who has studied the ethics and economics of plasma donation. All of those countries allow plasma donation centers to compensate donors.

    The U.S., though, is by far the biggest contributor to the world’s plasma supply—plasma collected in the U.S. accounts for nearly 70% of all the plasma collected globally for the manufacturing of plasma-derived therapies, Jaworski says. Many countries that can’t collect enough plasma domestically have to import medicine made from plasma donated in the U.S.

    “Not compensating donors would very likely result in a shortage,” says Mario Macis, a professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School who has studied compensation for blood and plasma donations. “Most other countries around the world are not self-sufficient when it comes to plasma donation. So compensating donors is very important to ensure an adequate supply—to make sure that patients who need plasma-derived therapies get it.”

    But some critics have objected to paying plasma donors, raising an ethical concern: What if the money places undue pressure on vulnerable people to donate? Does the promise of compensation exploit people who are struggling financially?

    According to surveys that Gallagher—the University of Colorado Boulder professor—helped conduct, plasma donors are more likely to be under the age of 35, Black, and male, compared to non-donors. Researchers also found that donors are less likely to be fully employed, are more likely to have incomes of less than $20,000, and are more likely to have poor credit scores.

    About 64% of the people surveyed said they donated plasma to pay for essential goods and emergencies, such as making their rent payments on time. Only 19% of the people surveyed said they did it to make some extra cash.

    In a study, which was published last year, Gallagher and her colleague found that the probability of young people taking out a payday loan decreases by about 18% within three years of a plasma donation center opening near them. These loans, Gallagher says, are “very expensive.” “They often don’t get repaid; they get rolled over again and again, and so they cause debt traps,” she says. Reducing the need to take out these types of loans, then, has a substantial impact on a community.

    Still, Gallagher says, “Societies have, for a very long time, debated the ethics of commercializing parts of the human body.”

    She notes that many people from low-income households struggle to avoid eviction, afford health costs that aren’t covered by insurance, and afford childcare, among other basic needs.

    “All of this creates moments of financial desperation, and a plasma center donation is a very quick way of accessing cash,” she says. “It often takes less than two hours, and you can walk away with a prepaid card with $50 on it. If you were to try and get a job at Starbucks, it could be easily two weeks before you would get paid. It’s really well designed for the needs of financially desperate people.”

    Brikman of the PPTA says that “there is no group targeted for plasma donation,” and that donation centers are spread out in various communities across the U.S. And industry experts also point out that donating plasma takes up a considerable amount of time—a donation visit can take about an hour and a half, so donors, they argue, should be compensated for taking the time out of their day.

    Some say that donors should be compensated to thank them for their donation. Fairfax says that “the least they can do” is pay plasma donors, who are “giving their time.”

    “There’s so much pearl clutching and hand wringing over this,” says Jaworski. “If I ever fell on hard times, literally the first thing I would do is start becoming a regular, frequent plasma donor. It’s not free money because you do have to give up a lot of your time, but it’s really good money, and it’s no big deal.”

    “In my mind, the most important moral issue when it comes to plasma,” he continues, “is are we collecting enough to meet the needs of patients? That’s the primary purpose of collecting blood and plasma in the first place.”

    Jana Mattheu shudders to think about what her family’s life would look like if there was a plasma shortage. Her son, Caden, was seven when he was diagnosed with CVID. Now in his 20s, Caden relies on weekly infusions—plasma-derived treatment that, Mattheu says, has given him “normalcy,” allowing him to work and live his life fully.

    “It’s as important as oxygen,” she says of plasma. And if compensation is going to entice people to be regular donors, she says, “I see absolutely nothing wrong with paying them for their time.”

    But, she continues, “I would like to believe in mankind that, if they said they weren’t going to pay people, that people would still want to go and help others. I do believe that that’s how people are. Most people in society want to be good people.”

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Blue Light-Maxxing? Using Your Phone At Night May Not Be So Bad

    For many years, the advice from scientists and experts to people of all ages has been pretty universal: using your phone before bed will mess with your sleep

    But findings from a new study conducted by Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) and the Université Laval paint a more complicated picture of the modern nighttime habit.

    The self-reported study asked more than 1,000 adults across Canada about their bedtime screen use and sleep health, and found that overall sleep health was similar between those who used screens every night, and those who didn’t use one at all. The worst sleep came from those who used their phones only a few nights a week.

    Whereas previous studies had blamed sleep disruption on the blue light emitted by phones and other LED screens—which some research says limits the body’s production of the sleep hormone melatonin—TMU researchers said those findings had not accounted for age, timing, or intensity of exposure.

    Read more: 20 Things You Shouldn’t Do Before Bed

    TMU Professor Colleen Carney, one of the study’s authors and a specialist in sleep and mood disorders, said other studies in the field had used experimental conditions that don’t reflect the average person’s day, and in some cases “stack the deck” to prove blue light is the culprit.

    “It is true that we do have those studies, but in order to get those results, these studies usually pick young adults who are closer to puberty, which is really important, because that makes you light sensitive. And then they keep them in the lab overnight and all through the day, they’re in dim light all day long,” Carney tells TIME.  “I think people have taken findings in this area and applied them much too broadly, and have not paid attention to studies that don’t find it.”

    Carney says the study found that it is equally important what people do on their phone, especially “if you’re engaging in things that make it really difficult to put it down, if you’re engaging in things that are upsetting or alerting on your phone.”

    The study, published in the journal Sleep Health in October, found that over 80% of participants reported using screens at bedtime in the past month, and nearly half reported using screens every night.

    Carney’s study follows a smattering of similar findings in recent years that suggest the blue light may have been unfairly maligned.

    The research has, for years, pointed in one direction: Blue light can disrupt sleep and potentially delay melatonin release, so limiting it is the best way to get a good night’s rest.

    Several studies have found that exposure to short-wavelength blue light reduces melatonin levels, thereby negatively impacting sleep. 

    A 2011 study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology found a link between blue light exposure and melatonin suppression. Another 2023 study published in Brain Communications measured sleep in adolescent boys and young adult men after reading with a physical book or with a blue-light-emitting phone. The findings supported the idea that melatonin can be suppressed by blue light, but also found that the negative effects could be mitigated if the phone was put away at least one hour before bed. An April 2025 study published in the journal Life underscored that blue light disrupts circadian rhythm and found that red light was a better alternative.

    Other studies found a strong link between phone use and poor sleep quality, but could not determine causation. 

    A 2016 study published in the journal PLOS ONE and covered by TIME found a strong link between phone use before bed and poor sleep, while making no conclusions about causation. The 30-day study measured the screen time of 653 adult participants across the United States.

    “We can’t exclude the possibility that people who just can’t get to sleep for some unrelated reason happen to fill that time by using their smartphone,” one of the study’s authors Dr. Gregory Marcus, told TIME in 2016. 

    In a 2024 National Sleep Foundation expert panel made up of 16 experts in sleep and pediatrics, published a consensus statement saying that screen use in general impairs sleep health in children and adolescents, but primarily due to content. The panel did not reach consensus on whether exposure to blue light from screen use before bed can impair sleep in adults.

    A March 2025 American Cancer Society study of over 122,000 participants found that daily screen use was associated with later bedtimes and about 50 minutes less of sleep each week. 

    Dr. Alex Dimitriu, a psychiatrist and sleep medicine doctor in Menlo Park, Calif., calls the study “fascinating, because it goes against a very large established body of research which suggests a clear effect on sleep quality from screen use,” citing the 2025 American Cancer Society study as an example.

    “The authors do acknowledge some interesting findings [including] that causality cannot be clearly determined from this study. And it is possible that good sleepers either use phones or they don’t, while poor sleepers aren’t sure what to do,” Dimitriu tells TIME.

    In Dimitriu’s professional opinion: “Screens are not good for sleep.”

    “I can stay up [for] hours scrolling through news articles, blogs, and social media posts. If I try reading a book, I’m out within 10 minutes. My patients feel the same,” he says. “Screens, besides being bright, are just too interesting.”

    The TMU research is not the first of its kind to suggest that blue light may not be the major factor in sleep disruption.

    Several other studies also indicate that research on blue light and sleep is mixed. A 2022 review in Frontiers in Psychology examined 24 studies to answer this exact question in young adults. One in five of the studies reported decreased sleep quality after blue light exposure, while one in three reported decreased sleep duration. Fifty percent of the studies showed decreased tiredness, consistent with blue light increasing alertness and improving cognitive performance during the daytime.

    “[I]n general, the specific effects of blue light exposure seem still to be a murky field and more investigations are needed before final firm and evidence-based conclusions can be drawn,” the study reads, although the researchers do say that blue light “might also have negative effects such as the decrease in sleep quality and sleep duration, which might worsen an athlete’s physical and cognitive performance and recovery.”

    The researchers at TMU note that younger people may be more vulnerable to the melatonin-suppressing effects of light, and many studies have found that nighttime exposure to light can particularly affect children and adolescents, not the adults that TMU’s study focuses on.

    “There may be reason to be cautious about excessive blue light exposure in the evening for teens as puberty increases light-sensitivity,” Carney said in the paper’s release.  “As we age, we are not as light sensitive and there are age-related effects of the eye that make light less disruptive.”

    Rebecca Schneid

    Source link

  • The Rise, Fall, and Potential Return of the Food Pyramid

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and man on a mission to “Make America Healthy Again,” has made no secret of his plan to change what he claims to be the country’s poison-riddled food culture. And he may soon bring back a relic from the past to help make that happen.

    Bloomberg reported that the Trump Administration is considering reinstating the food pyramid when HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) jointly update the U.S. Dietary Guidelines next month.

    “We’re about to release dietary guidelines that are going to change the food culture in this country,” Kennedy told reporters earlier this month. HHS and USDA update the guidelines every five years. 

    An HHS spokesperson told Bloomberg Thursday that “Kennedy is committed to new dietary recommendations that are rooted in rigorous science” and that “the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans will be a big part of the Trump Administration’s commitment to Make America Healthy Again.” A USDA spokesperson said the updated guidelines “will address the chronic disease epidemic plaguing our nation, by prioritizing whole, healthy, and nutritious foods.”

    TIME has reached out to both departments about the potential return of the food pyramid. Unnamed sources told Bloomberg that the visual is expected to focus on protein and whole foods, which Kennedy has long endorsed as he aims to steer the public away from ultra-processed food products.

    Here’s what to know about the rise of the food pyramid as a guideline for the American diet, how it fell out of favor, and why it just may make a comeback.

    The rise of the food pyramid

    Nutrition advice from the USDA first came as a warning. Wilbur O. Atwater, a chemist and renowned nutritionist, published in an 1894 Farmer’s Bulletin: “Unless care is exercised in selecting food, a diet may result which is one-sided or badly balanced that is, one in which either protein or fuel ingredients (carbohydrate and fat) are provided in excess. … The evils of overeating may not be felt at once, but sooner or later they are sure to appear.”

    Over the years, U.S. authorities have tried to make recommendations on what Americans should eat—and to create visuals so that the public can easily understand the dietary recommendations.

    In 1943, during World War II, the USDA issued dietary advice in the form of the “Basic Seven,” which took into consideration potential shortages in food rations, according to a chapter by Carole Davis and Etta Saltos in the 1999 book America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Three of the seven categories were dedicated to fruits and vegetables, and one slot each was dedicated to the following: milk and milk products; meat, poultry, fish, and eggs; bread, flour, and cereals; and butter or fortified margarine. But it didn’t recommend a portion size of each food group.

    A poster shows the Basic Seven food groups in 1943. USDA/National Archives

    In 1956, the Basic Seven was simplified to the Basic Four, organized into the groups: milk, meat, vegetable-fruit, and bread-cereal. It also provided rough daily serving suggestions for each group: four servings each for vegetable-fruit and bread-cereal, two for meat, and “some” for milk and milk products.

    A daily food guide providing choices for thrifty families in 1966.
    A USDA daily food guide in 1966. Courtesy of USDA

    In the 1970s, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines as Americans know it today began to take shape, as disease became increasingly linked to unhealthy diets. Dietary fat was increasingly under scrutiny, and in 1977, a Senate committee led by Sen. George McGovern (D, S.D.) released Dietary Goals for the United States that recommended consuming less sugar, sodium, and fat—and more complex carbohydrates and “naturally occurring” sugars.

    Then, in 1980, the USDA and the HHS released the seven-point Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as the overconsumption of sugar, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium steadily gained recognition as risk factors for developing chronic diseases. To illustrate what a healthier diet would look like at the time, the USDA, in cooperation with the American National Red Cross, presented consumers with “The Food Wheel: A Pattern for Daily Food Choices” in 1984.

    The "Food Wheel: A Pattern for Daily Food Choices" was created by the USDA in collaboration with the American Red Cross.
    The “Food Wheel: A Pattern for Daily Food Choices” was created by the USDA in collaboration with the American Red Cross. Courtesy of USDA

    Four years later, the food guide was released in a pyramid format. The width of the pyramid level roughly indicated the proportion of food servings: at its base were bread, rice, cereal, and grains, which should have the largest servings; and at its apex were fats and sweets, which should be consumed sparingly.

    The food pyramid in 1992.
    The Food Guide Pyramid. National Archives and Records Administration

    The fall of the food pyramid

    But even the pyramid drew flak for still being broad and vague. For instance, it recommended that Americans eat 6 to 11 servings of grains, but details such as serving sizes and which specific food items within each category were healthier options (like brown rice compared to white rice) remained unclear. Critics also highlighted how it failed to account for individual differences in dietary requirements, such as across different age and health demographics.

    To address those concerns, work began in 2003 to update the pyramid, and two years later, the a new version was released, called MyPyramid. It was outfitted with stairs, meant to remind Americans of the need for exercise, and its food divisions were flipped to the side, in bands of varying colors to represent different food groups: orange for grains, green for vegetables, red for fruits, yellow for oils, blue for milk, and purple for beans and meats.

    The MyPyramid (L), a new symbol and interactive food guidance system that replaces the old Food Guide Pyramid, in Washington, on April 19, 2005.
    A display shows the new MyPyramid (left) that replaces the old Food Guide Pyramid, in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 2005. Joe Raedle—Getty Images

    In 2011, the U.S. abandoned the food pyramid in favor of what it called MyPlate, which used a plate to represent what the average person should eat per the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Tom Vilsack, then the Agriculture Secretary, described MyPlate as a “simple, visual, research-based icon that is a clear, unmistakable message about portion size.”

    MyPlate’s recommendations are easy to follow: half of a plate should contain fruits and vegetables, and roughly a quarter each for grains and protein. A smaller plate to the side was for dairy. The goal, as then-First Lady Michelle Obama presented it, was to make the American plate look like the one shown in the MyPlate graphic.

    MyPlate_blue
    A MyPlate graphic, which replaced the MyPyramid. MyPlate.gov/USDA

    The potential return of the food pyramid

    Details on what a new dietary guideline visual will look like are still under discussion, Bloomberg reports.

    Kennedy, who as HHS Secretary oversees nutrition standards, has vocally advocated against ultraprocessed foods, which he claims are “poisoning” Americans, blaming such products for causing chronic diseases and high national obesity rates.

    But Kennedy has also peddled misinformation about food. He’s spoken out against seed oils like canola and soybean, even though experts have touted their health benefits, and has endorsed beef tallow as a replacement. He has also embraced raw milk, even though food safety experts have warned of the high risk of contracting food-borne illnesses from consuming it.

    The forthcoming guidelines have caused anxiety among nutritionists, given Kennedy’s beliefs. At a July event in Colorado, Kennedy said the guidelines will “stress the need to eat saturated fats,” which are associated with health risks. That same month, Kennedy also promoted full-fat dairy products, criticizing what he described as an “attack on whole milk, cheese, and yogurt” as he announced his overhaul of the nation’s dietary guidelines.

    HHS Secretary Kennedy And Agriculture Secretary Rollins Make Announcement
    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. eats an ice cream cone during a press conference on the steps of the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., on July 14, 2025. Michael M. Santiago—Getty Images

    “The dietary guidelines that we inherited from the Biden Administration were 453 pages long,” Kennedy said in August, though the current guidelines are only 164 pages. “They were driven by the same commercial impulses that put Froot Loops at the top of the food pyramid.”

    While the food pyramid may be brought back, albeit likely with different details, Kennedy has indicated that the new guidelines in total will be just a few pages long.

    Kevin Klatt, a research scientist and instructor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology at University of California, Berkeley, says that such a reform reflects “a bit of a misunderstanding of the role of the Dietary Guidelines.”

    “The title indicates they are ‘for Americans’ but the user is not actually intended to be the American public,” Klatt said in August. “Since 2005, the dietary guidelines have really been intended to be used by healthcare professionals and as a policy document. The current administration seems to want to roll that back, and doesn’t seem to acknowledge that it’s a policy document.”

    Chad de Guzman

    Source link

  • Health Panelists Talk Vaccines, Weight Loss, and the Importance of Respectful Discussion

    Three panelists engaged in a spirited discussion about longevity and disease prevention at a TIME100 Talks event moderated by TIME senior health correspondent Alice Park in New York City on Wednesday.

    Dr. Raj Panjabi, senior partner of the bioplatform innovation company Flagship Pioneering, leading its Preemptive Health and Medicine Initiative; Jillian Michaels, creator of The Fitness App and host of the podcast Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels; and Dr. Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and president of the Academy for Health and Lifespan Research, joined Park on stage to discuss topics ranging from vaccines to weight-loss drugs.

    During the conversation, Park asked Panjabi, who previously served as White House Senior Director for global health security and biodefense during the Joe Biden Administration, about growing mistrust in vaccines in the U.S. Panjabi emphasized that it’s important to approach any claim made about vaccines “with curiosity” and “help folks understand the science.” 

    He said, for instance, that scientists learned that the COVID vaccine was more effective at preventing hospitalizations than it was at preventing infection. In the first two years after the COVID vaccine was distributed in the U.S., more than 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million deaths were prevented, according to a 2022 report from The Commonwealth Fund.

    “The takeaway that I have, from the work of vaccinations, is that it is still a proven, effective intervention. It’s worth studying them, continuing to study them, but then it’s worth actually looking at the data,” Panjabi said.

    Park went on to ask Michaels what questions she has about the safety of vaccines, in light of a post on X in September in which she said, “If we can recognize the undeniable success of vaccines historically, why is it treated as dangerous or taboo to raise legitimate questions about how we use them today?” 

    Michaels has sparked controversy in the past for expressing support for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, led by prominent vaccine skeptic and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A New York Times story published over the summer described Michaels as “concerned vaccines haven’t been studied vigorously enough (though she does not consider herself broadly anti-vax).”

    Michaels replied that her questions weren’t necessarily about safety but about some aspects of the vaccine schedule. She criticized the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, which protects against a highly infectious disease that can damage the liver, is given at birth. 

    Critics, like Michaels, have questioned why a newborn should be vaccinated against a virus that can be transmitted through unprotected sex or shared needles. “Parents want to know these things,” she said. (Public health experts have emphasized that the sooner the vaccine is administered, the greater the chances of preventing early childhood exposures, including mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B.)

    Panjabi said that a key part of recommending any medical intervention—whether that be vaccines or drugs—is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. He urged people to have respect for one another when engaging in those discussions.

    Park turned the conversation to GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, asking Barzilai if they are a good thing, to which he replied “definitely yes.” He said that “obesity accelerates aging,” so treating that can address that issue. And he cited new research that suggests that GLP-1 weight-loss drugs may have other positive health effects, such as reducing the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

    The topic sparked a question from an audience member. Andrea Deierlein, director of Public Health Nutrition and associate professor at the New York University School of Global Public Health, expressed concerns that the drugs could be used to replace other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. Barzilai replied that exercise, diet, sleep, and social connectivity are “good for everyone,” but as people age, it becomes harder to “optimize” those aspects of a healthy lifestyle.

    “What we determined is that there are drugs that could, when you’re old, change the rate of your aging,” Barzilai said. But, he said, in a conclusion that spoke to the state of play across the topic: “How we’re going to do it and to whom is still a discussion.”

    TIME100 Talks: Living Better, Longer—Reimagining Healthcare from Sickcare to Wellcare was presented by Shaklee.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Trump Pledges to Intervene in Cartoonist Scott Adams’ Cancer Treatment

    President Donald Trump said he would personally intervene to try to help a prominent supporter with his cancer treatment.

    Scott Adams, who created the workplace-set comic strip ‘Dilbert’ in 1989 and who revealed in May that he had prostate cancer that had spread to his bones and expected to only live months longer, said in a social media post on Sunday that he would be asking Trump for help to bring forward his treatment schedule from Kaiser Permanente, after the California-based healthcare provider “dropped the ball” in scheduling his intravenous infusion. The cartoonist said he had been approved to be treated with Pluvicto, a targeted radioligand therapy used to treat prostate cancer that was approved by the FDA in 2022. Adams appealed to Trump to reach out to Kaiser and get them to “respond and schedule it for Monday. That will give me a fighting chance to stick around on this planet a little bit longer.”

    “On it!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday, with a screenshot of Adams’ X post. Prior to Trump’s post, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to Adams on X: “Scott. How do I reach you? The President wants to help.” Trump’s son Don Jr. also had responded to Adams’ post on X: “Going to make sure that my dad sees this. We’re all praying for you, keep fighting!”

    It’s not clear how Trump will be able to intervene. TIME has reached out to Kaiser Permanente and the White House for comment. The medical provider, which said it has treated over 150 patients with Pluvicto in Northern California, told Reuters that Adams’ oncology team “is working closely with him on the next steps in his cancer care, which are already underway.”

    Some on social media have criticized the Trump Administration for personally responding to Adams’ appeal while stripping research institutions of public funding that has fuelled scientific breakthroughs like Pluvicto. The drug was developed by researchers at the German Cancer Research Center and University Hospital Heidelberg in Germany, while research at Purdue University and Johns Hopkins funded through the U.S. National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health contributed to its development.

    “It is not a cure,” Adams said of Pluvicto. “But it does give good results to many people.” Adams has not yet publicly responded to Trump’s post.

    Here’s what to know about Adams and his connection to Trump.

    Longtime cartoonist

    Adams created Dilbert in 1989, while working at California-based telephone service provider Pacific Bell. The now-68-year-old became a full-time cartoonist in 1995, after the strip grew in popularity across the U.S.

    Dilbert was adapted into an animated TV series of the same name in 1999, which was helmed by Adams and Seinfeld writer Larry Charles. The series won a Primetime Emmy Award in the year it premiered, and ran for two seasons on UPN before being canceled in 2000. In 2020, Adams claimed that the show had been canceled because he was white and the network wanted to cater to Black American viewers.

    Adams has since gained controversy over other comments related to race and politics, many of which he made on his video podcast Real Coffee with Scott Adams and on social media. During a February 2023 livestream, Adams referenced a Rasmussen Reports poll that asked respondents if they agreed with the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” The phrase has been associated with the alt-right movement after it gained popularity in 2017 and has been co-opted as a slogan by white supremacists, according to the Anti-Defamation League. After pointing out that 26% of Black respondents disagreed with the statement and 21% were unsure, Adams called Black people a “hate group” and said “the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people; just get the fuck away.”

    In the same episode, Adams also said he moved to a neighborhood with a “low Black population” and that “it makes no sense whatsoever, as a white citizen of America, to try to help Black citizens anymore.”

    Several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the USA Today Network, as well as distributor Andrews McMeel Syndication dropped Dilbert in response to Adams’ comments. Book publisher Portfolio also dropped a forthcoming non-Dilbert book by Adams that was slated for release that September. Adams defended his remarks, calling them hyperbole, “meaning an exaggeration,” and said his words had been taken out of context. He relaunched the strip as Dilbert Reborn on Locals, a subscription website.

    Adams has reportedly been a controversial figure among cartoonists, particularly after he called people not vaccinated against COVID the real “winners” of the pandemic and questioned the official death toll of the Holocaust.

    Adams has published several books unrelated to Dilbert, particularly themed around religion. His 2001 novella God’s Debris describes a pandeistic philosophy, while his 2004 novel The Religion War tells the tale of a man on a mission to stop a calamitous war between Christians and Muslims. In 2017, Adams told Bloomberg that his religion-themed books, not Dilbert, would be his “ultimate legacy.”

    Commentator on Trump

    In 2015, Adams began writing about Trump in blog posts predicting his electoral victory in the 2016 presidential election. Adams endorsed Trump for President, just as he endorsed Republican nominee Mitt Romney for the 2012 election. He also criticized Trump’s opponent and 2016 Democratic nominee whom he’d initially endorsed, Hillary Clinton, suggesting that a Clinton presidency would diminish the status of men.

    He has described his views as being “left of” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I, Vt.), who ran in the 2016 Democratic primary. At the same time, Adams said in 2016, “I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party,” a view he reaffirmed in his 2017 Bloomberg interview.

    Adams’ blog posts later evolved into daily videos shared on Periscope, which became an official video podcast in 2018. In 2020, Trump shared on X (then known as Twitter) an episode of the podcast in which Adams mocked then-presidential nominee Joe Biden.

    Diagnosed with prostate cancer

    In May, after former President Biden revealed his own prostate cancer diagnosis, Adams shared on his podcast that he also has prostate cancer. He told viewers that the cancer had spread to his bones, including his spine, and that taking ivermectin and fenbendazole had not helped. In June, he said he was in so much pain that he had prepared for physician-assisted suicide but was then able to manage his pain through testosterone blockers.

    According to Adams, he has already been approved for Pluvicto. The drug was first approved for medical use in the U.S. in March 2022 and in the European Union in December 2022 for patients whose prostate cancer has progressed after previous treatments. In March, its indication was expanded by the FDA to be used by certain adults with metastasized prostate cancer earlier in their treatment journey.

    Pluvicto, alongside standard care, has been shown to reduce the risk of progression or death in patients by 28%, according to Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis.

    Miranda Jeyaretnam

    Source link

  • Texas Sues Tylenol Makers Over Claims of Links to Autism

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the pharmaceutical companies behind Tylenol for “deceptively marketing” the medication as a safe option for pregnant mothers.

    The lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, which Paxton filed on Tuesday, claimed that the companies knew that being exposed to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, before birth or in early childhood leads to an increased risk of autism and other health conditions but hid that information from consumers.

    President Donald Trump claimed that using Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of a child having autism in a September announcement, after Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promised earlier in the year to find what “has caused the autism epidemic.”

    Leading obstetrics experts and medical associations, however, have largely disputed the claimed link and the quality of the studies the Trump Administration has cited when making it. 

    “Suggestions that acetaminophen use in pregnancy causes autism are not only highly concerning to clinicians but also irresponsible when considering the harmful and confusing message they send to pregnant patients, including those who may need to rely on this beneficial medicine during pregnancy,” Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said in September. “In more than two decades of research on the use of acetaminophen in pregnancy, not a single reputable study has successfully concluded that the use of acetaminophen in any trimester of pregnancy causes neurodevelopmental disorders in children.”

    Read more: Trump Links Tylenol Use During Pregnancy to Autism. What Does the Science Show?

    Paxton, however, pointed to the Trump Administration’s claims in his state’s lawsuit, alleging that the pharmaceutical companies had long had access to evidence cited by the Administration but declined to take action. 

    “These corporations lied for decades, knowingly endangering millions to line their pockets,” Paxton said in a press release. “By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again.”

    The Texas lawsuit is the first a state government has filed against the pharmaceutical companies over the alleged link between Tylenol and autism. But hundreds of families with children with autism or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have filed legal challenges over similar claims. 

    Kenvue, which spun off from Johnson & Johnson in 2023 and has sold Tylenol since, has repeatedly defended the medication’s safety and denied allegations that it misled customers. “Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products. We are deeply concerned by the perpetuation of misinformation on the safety of acetaminophen and the potential impact that could have on the health of American women and children,” the company said in response to the lawsuit. “We stand firmly with the global medical community that acknowledges the safety of acetaminophen and believe we will continue to be successful in litigation as these claims lack legal merit and scientific support.”

    Johnson & Johnson told multiple news outlets in a statement that it “divested its consumer health business years ago, and all rights and liabilities associated with the sale of its over-the-counter products, including Tylenol (acetaminophen), are owned by Kenvue.” TIME has reached out to Johnson & Johnson for comment. 

    A New York federal judge dismissed some of the lawsuits earlier this year due to a lack of reliable scientific evidence. The plaintiffs are appealing the decision. Many of the other cases are still moving through the court system.

    In addition to the allegations that the companies hid the risks of taking acetaminophen, Paxton’s lawsuit also alleges that Johnson & Johnson sought to evade liability for its actions by spinning off Kenvue. Prior to the spinoff, Johnson & Johnson sold Tylenol for more than six decades.

    The legal challenge is one of several the Texas Attorney General has filed against health and pharmaceutical companies. 

    Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate, has previously filed lawsuits against Eli Lilly—alleging that the company bribed medical providers to prescribe GLP-1 medications and others it manufactures—and Pfizer. Paxton filed an appeal in the latter lawsuit, in which he claimed the company unlawfully misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine, after a district court dismissed the case. Pfizer has previously said that the lawsuit was without merit and that “representations made by the company about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based.” A spokesperson for Eli Lilly in August said the company intends to “vigorously defend against” the lawsuit, pointing to previous court rulings that found similar accusations lacked merit.

    The Texas Attorney General and the top prosecutors of many other states, won a $700 million settlement against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit that accused the company of making misleading claims about its talc-based baby powder.

    Solcyré Burga

    Source link

  • Measles Outbreak in South Carolina Sparks Concern

    More than 130 unvaccinated students at two schools in South Carolina are being quarantined after they were exposed to measles, amid an ongoing outbreak in the state—a sign, public health experts warn, that cases could continue to rise this school year.

    On Tuesday, the South Carolina Department of Public Health confirmed the 16th case of measles in the state so far this year. Last week, public health officials said in a media briefing that more than 100 unvaccinated students at Global Academy and Fairforest Elementary School were exposed to measles and would be excluded from school for 21 days, which is when the period of potential disease transmission has ended.

    Of the 16 cases in the state, five are people who were exposed in school settings and have been quarantining at home over the past few days, according to South Carolina health officials.

    Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says the fact that the students in South Carolina were exposed to measles demonstrates why people should be worried about rising cases as children return to the classroom.

    “We’ve had a growing population of susceptible children whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them,” Offit says. “This is the most contagious human infection, and it’s not surprising that as kids go back to school, and we enter the winter and early spring months, that you see this virus once again surging.”

    The outbreak in South Carolina comes amid surging measles cases across the country. This summer, measles cases in the U.S. reached a 33-year record high, causing public health experts to warn that other diseases could experience a similar resurgence. Minnesota is also in the midst of an outbreak; as of last week, there are 20 confirmed or probable cases in the state so far this year.

    Public health officials have stressed that the best way to protect against measles is to get vaccinated with the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which is typically administered in childhood in two doses. Experts have said that a successful vaccination program was a large part of the reason that measles was declared eliminated from the country more than two decades ago. But vaccination rates have plummeted in recent years, and measles cases have soared.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), when more than 95% of people in a community are vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella, “most people are protected through community immunity.” But the CDC’s data show that only 92.7% of kindergarteners were vaccinated during the 2023-2024 school year. That number has dropped to about 90% in some parts of South Carolina, according to state public health officials.

    Read More: Do You Need a Measles Vaccine Booster?

    As of last week, the CDC has confirmed 1,563 cases of measles so far this year. Many of those cases are from an outbreak in Texas that began in late January, which sickened more than 700 people and killed two unvaccinated children in Texas and an unvaccinated adult in New Mexico. 

    In August, Texas health officials declared that the outbreak was over, but they cautioned that the threat posed by the disease was not. At the time, Offit said that while the Texas outbreak had subsided, he feared that case numbers would surge again in a matter of months. 

    Offit also expresses concern that the national case numbers confirmed by the CDC are an undercount. He criticizes Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic who has made a number of changes to the country’s immunization policy, for undermining health agencies’ ability to track and monitor the disease.

    “Not only do I think this is getting worse, I think we’re not going to know about it because the surveillance capacity has been so diminished by our Secretary of Health and Human Services,” Offit says.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • CDC ‘Not Functional’ After Trump Administration Orders Mass Firings

    Dozens of employees were fired from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) late on Friday, as the Trump Administration made good on its promise to begin mass firings in response to a prolonged government shutdown.

    The layoffs targeted leaders in departments related to respiratory diseases, chronic diseases, injury prevention and global health, the New York Times reported. Roughly 70 Epidemic Intelligence Service officers, also known as “disease detectives”, the entire staff and editors of the CDC’s publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), and the agency’s Washington office were all notified of their termination, according to the report.

    It comes as the agency is still reeling from months of uncertainty after a change in leadership and priorities under new Health and Human Services (HHS) head Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Read more: Exclusive: Inside the CDC Exodus and RFK Jr.’s Anti-Vaccine Crusade

    Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said Friday’s layoffs would be a death blow for an agency that has already been gutted by previous cuts under Kennedy’s leadership.

    “CDC will have lost its ability to detect outbreaks and respond to them. It will no longer be able to track diseases, in America and around the globe. That includes infectious threats like flu, foodborne illnesses, and Ebola, as well as chronic diseases and injuries,” she said.

    Rasmussen added that the loss of the MMWR would remove the CDC’s ability to communicate with the public.

    “Together, this means the CDC is not functional. It cannot carry out any of its mission,” she says. “America has no national public health agency any more.”

    Other physicians, including Michelle Au, Georgia State Representative and anesthesiologist, noted on social media that the U.S. is “barreling into respiratory season—when viruses like flu, COVID, and RSV surge—flying blind.”

    The CDC did not respond to a request for comment from TIME.

    It comes at a time when the country’s top public health agency has dealt with blow after blow, from a tragic shooting at their Atlanta headquarters, to Kennedy’s firing of former CDC director, Susan Monarez. 

    Read More: The CDC Shooting is a Dark Sign for Science and America

    The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had told federal agencies to plan for reductions in force (RIFs) in the event of a government shutdown, caused by a disagreement about healthcare and subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

    The gap between the two parties is primarily due to a Democratic demand to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies for low-and middle-income Americans, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

    Read More: Republicans Say Democrats Want to Give Healthcare to Illegal Immigrants. Here Are the Facts

    The White House and Republicans have sought to blame Democratic leaders for the shutdown, and President Donald Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that firings would target those who are “Democrat-oriented.”

    “These are largely people that the Democrats want and many of them will be fired,” Trump said. “It will be a lot.”

    The mass firings come just two months after the CDC experienced a mass exodus of top officials from the agency, who said they were prompted to resign in August after Kennedy sidelined officials and ignored scientific research and protocols since he was assigned to his role to lead the department.

    “Having worked in local and national public health for years, I have never experienced such radical non-transparency, nor have I seen such unskilled manipulation of data to achieve a political end rather than the good of the American people,” the CDC’s former vaccine chief Dr. Demetre Daskalakis said in his resignation statement.

    In a hearing with Senate lawmakers after her ousting by Kennedy, former director Monarez described heated meetings with the HHS head, who she says called the CDC “the most corrupt federal agency” in the government and asked her to fire vaccine scientists without cause.

    “I was fired for holding the line on scientific integrity,” Monarez said.

    Rebecca Schneid

    Source link

  • Abortions Appear to Be Decreasing, a Post-Roe First

    For many Americans, getting an abortion has become far more difficult since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. But even in the face of states imposing new restrictions and clinics shutting down, the number of abortions continued to climb each year—until, it seems, this one.

    About 518,940 abortions were provided by clinicians in states without near-total abortion bans in the first six months of 2025—a 5% decrease compared to the same period the year before, according to new research released by the Guttmacher Institute, which studies and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights. The number of people traveling across state lines for an abortion in that time also fell—by about 8%—compared to the same period in 2024.

    The new findings mark a reversal of the trend seen in previous research the Guttmacher Institute has released: past data revealed that the number of abortions provided by clinicians in most of the U.S. jumped up by 11% in 2023, the year after the court’s decision, compared to 2020. In 2024, that number increased just slightly—by less than 1%—compared to the year before. Out-of-state travel that year, though, saw a small decrease compared to 2023.

    While the number of people traveling across state lines for abortions has continued to fall this year, that figure is still “significantly higher” than it was before Roe was overturned, researchers noted.

    Isabel DoCampo, a senior research associate at Guttmacher who worked on the new analysis, suggests that one explanation for the overall decline in the group’s findings could be that the growing use of so-called shield law provisions means that more people in states with near-total bans may be receiving abortion pills in the mail via telehealth, rather than having to travel across state lines.

    DoCampo tells TIME that researchers only analyzed the abortions provided by clinicians in states without near-total bans, so Guttmacher’s estimates don’t include abortion pills sent to states with near-total bans under shield laws, or self-managed abortions. That means, she says, that “we shouldn’t consider these estimates to reflect trends in abortion nationwide.”

    Rather, DoCampo says that the data “highlight that shield laws, I think, are a critical option that people are making use of.” 

    “This is an innovation of the last couple years that I think has been incredibly important, and it’s important that policymakers and advocates continue to protect and expand these provisions because it’s clear that they’ve been incredibly important to the abortion access landscape in the U.S.,” she continues.

    Read More: What Are Abortion Shield Laws?

    Another explanation for the trend could be the increasing burden of traveling across state lines to access care, which DoCampo says points to “the need for policymakers to address some of these financial strains.”

    DoCampo also points out that there’s variation in the data between states.

    The declines in the number of abortions provided were largest in states that implemented a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy in 2024, and in states that bordered those with near-total bans. In Florida, for instance, there were 27% fewer abortions provided by clinicians in the first six months of 2025 compared to the same period the year before. Florida implemented a six-week ban in 2024; before that, the state had a 15-week ban.

    Illinois, which DoCampo says is a major destination for people traveling from other states to access abortion care, has seen a significant decline in the number of out-of-state travelers so far this year. And that drop accounted for nearly three-quarters of the overall decrease in the number of abortions provided in the state. “Declining travel is the primary source of the decline in caseloads in Illinois,” she says.

    Meanwhile in New York, the number of abortions provided by clinicians in the state declined by roughly 5%, but the number of people traveling to the state to access care increased by about 51%. DoCampo says that was likely because there were more people traveling from Florida to New York, given Florida’s new restrictions on abortion.

    Overall, however, DoCampo says the research indicates a reversing trend from previous years, when the number of abortions being provided was rising.

    Diana Greene Foster—a professor at the University of California, San Francisco who was not affiliated with Guttmacher’s research—agrees that the apparent overall decline in abortions provided so far this year could be due to people accessing care under shield laws, which the data don’t capture. But she says she is worried that some people may not be able to access pills via shield laws or travel out of state to get care.

    “A decrease, to me, just raises the concern that there could be people who want abortions who don’t get them,” Foster says. Foster conducted her own yearslong research project that found that people who were denied abortions experienced worse economic and health outcomes than those who did receive care.

    “My big concern is whether people who need to travel are able to travel,” she says. “We don’t know from this data that they’re not, but it is a concerning possibility.”

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Why Syphilis Cases in Newborns Are Rising

    The number of babies being born with syphilis in the U.S. kept increasing last year, even as the number of cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the country dropped, according to new government data.

    The overall number of reported STI cases fell 9% in 2024 from 2023, the third year in a row that case numbers have declined, provisional data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this week shows. But cases of syphilis in newborns, also known as congenital syphilis, increased for the twelfth straight year. Nearly 4,000 cases were reported in 2024—up almost 700% since 2015, when just under 500 were reported.

    The rise in congenital syphilis cases wasn’t as steep in 2024 as it has been in previous years—just under 2% from 2023. Dr. Bradley Stoner, the director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, says that it’s promising that the rate of increase is slowing, but that the rising case numbers are still concerning. 

    Only a couple decades ago, cases of congenital syphilis were nearly eliminated from the U.S. Congenital syphilis is preventable; syphilis can be cured with treatment, and if it’s treated during pregnancy, that can protect the fetus from becoming infected.

    But if left untreated, syphilis can be passed on to a fetus during pregnancy or delivery. Syphilis can damage organs such as the heart and brain, and can lead to blindness, deafness, and even death. Congenital syphilis can also lead to miscarriage and stillbirth.

    Stoner says that reductions in STI services at the state and local levels, as well as social and economic conditions such as poverty and lack of health insurance, have likely contributed to rising rates of syphilis, which in turn led to increasing rates of congenital syphilis. 

    Federal funding for STI prevention has seen drastic cuts since the early 2000s. The number of people living in poverty skyrocketed during that period, though it has since declined. And while the percentage of people who are uninsured has fallen since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, millions are still uninsured or underinsured. Other complications in accessing quality care could impact people with insurance as well.

    Elizabeth Finley, interim executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors, says part of the problem is that pregnant people’s access to health care or preventive syphilis care may vary. For instance, some people may not be able to access prenatal care consistently or at all. And some health care providers may be seeing syphilis cases for the first time in their careers.

    “You get this perfect storm of people who aren’t getting enough prenatal care to begin with for many, many reasons, and then you see providers who haven’t had to identify or test for syphilis in the past,” Finley says.

    There have also been intermittent drug shortages that have affected doctors’ ability to quickly treat pregnant people with syphilis, Finley says.

    She points out that the overall STI rates have gone up over the past decade or so as well.

    “Overall over the past 10 years, we’ve seen more cases,” Finley says. “Any time there are more STI cases in a community or more cases of any infection—and in this case, syphilis—in a community, you have an increased likelihood that pregnant women will be exposed to it and then that their infants or their fetuses will be exposed to it.”

    The overall prevalence of STIs in the U.S. is still high, with more than 2.2 million reported cases in 2024—up 13% since 2015, according to the CDC. Finley says that part of the reason for that is because the U.S. has “really divested significantly from prevention efforts.”

    The CDC noted a few areas of progress in addressing the problem: cases of the two most infectious stages of syphilis, known as primary and secondary syphilis, declined nearly 22% for the second year in a row. Stoner says he is hopeful that congenital syphilis will follow. And cases of gonorrhea and chlamydia continued to fall, too. The agency attributed those declines to the impact of public health initiatives, such as increased awareness about STIs and the use of prevention tools. Those tools include self-tests and the antibiotic doxycycline, which can be taken within 72 hours after sex to help reduce the risk of acquiring syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.

    “The data do suggest that we may be turning the corner on STIs,” Stoner says. “But the fact that congenital syphilis is still a major problem tells us that we have to accelerate progress to stop the STI epidemic and its most tragic consequences. These are preventable infections, and greater awareness and greater early intervention, I think, will help us get these infections under better control.”

    The CDC recommends that people get tested for syphilis three times over the course of their pregnancy. Stoner also encourages people of reproductive age to get tested for syphilis, and to have conversations with their partners about STis.

    Finley says that, while it’s been encouraging to see public health initiatives try to address this issue, there needs to be a “much more coordinated and intentional effort” to bring various government agencies together to tackle congenital syphilis. She adds that funding for STI prevention efforts have dropped significantly in recent years.

    “These syphilis cases in pregnant patients don’t happen in a bubble; they happen in a broader context, and right now that broader context is that our overall STI rates are too high,” Finley says. “This really does need to be a part of a broader effort to reduce STIs in the U.S.”

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • A Brief History of Trump’s False Health and Science Claims

    President Donald Trump on Monday repeatedly urged pregnant women not to take acetaminophen, claiming that doing so is linked to a “very increased risk of autism.” His remarks—which immediately drew warnings and pushback from experts—contradicts leading medical advice that acetaminophen, when used properly, is safe during pregnancy.

    The President, who does not have a medical background, provided no new evidence to support his assertion, and many respected medical organizations—including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine—have rejected the claim, emphasizing that years of research have found no causal link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism. Experts have also pointed out that acetaminophen helps manage pain and fever, both of which can be very dangerous to pregnant people and fetuses if left untreated. It is the only over-the-counter medication approved to treat fevers during pregnancy.

    Trump, who has appointed several vaccine and climate change skeptics to key positions in his administrations, has made a number of other false and questionable claims about health and science over the years. Here are some of the most notable ones.

    Read More: Trump Links Tylenol to Autism. What Does the Science Show?

    COVID-19

    Trump made numerous false claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic during his first term, including on many occasions downplaying the threat of the virus. In July 2020, for instance, he asserted that “99%” of the cases “are totally harmless”—which a majority of public-health experts and data, including from his Administration, had shown by then was not the case.

    Trump made misleading comparisons between the virus and the flu as well, writing in a social media post in October 2020: “Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!” Extensive data and research conducted by health and science experts have shown that COVID-19 is deadlier and more contagious than influenza viruses.

    The President also promoted unproven treatments for the virus, including suggesting that injecting disinfectant into the body could be a possible cure and proposing that researchers study whether hitting the body with “ultraviolet or just very powerful light” could help combat the virus. Doctors and public-health experts widely warned the public not to inject or ingest disinfectants, cautioning that doing so is dangerous.

    In March 2020, Trump promoted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, two antimalarial drugs, as possible treatments to the virus: “I think it could be something really incredible,” he said at the time. While he acknowledged that more research needed to be conducted, he also said that the drugs were showing “very, very encouraging results.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the country’s leading infectious disease expert, and other federal health officials pushed back on Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that there was no proven drug to treat the virus at the time, and that the two antimalarial drugs have potentially dangerous side effects.

    Climate change

    Trump has repeatedly denied the existence of climate change. In April 2022, he called it “a hoax;” the following year, he referred to it as “one of the greatest con jobs ever.” The overwhelming consensus among scientists, based on decades of research, is that the planet is warming and that the change is being caused by human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Trump has also suggested that, because cold weather events are still taking place, climate change can’t be happening. But many climate scientists have discredited this argument, saying that freezing events can take place even amid climate change—but as time goes on, those cold events will happen less often and won’t last as long.

    On Tuesday, Trump echoed his previous comments on climate change, calling it the “greatest con job ever perpetuated” and a “scam” while addressing the United Nations General Assembly.

    The President has also made a number of false or misleading statements regarding renewable energy while pushing to expand the production of fossil fuels, the use of which has been identified as the main source of humans’ greenhouse gas emissions. A vocal opponent of wind power, Trump has, for instance, claimed without evidence that the noise from windmills causes cancer. Research has found no such link.

    Read More: Here Are All of Trump’s Major Moves to Dismantle Climate Action

    Vaccines

    Soon after he was elected to his second term, Trump indicated that he would be open to changing the childhood vaccination schedule and suggested that there may be a link between vaccines and autism—a widely disproven claim.

    “The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible,” Trump said in an interview for TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year. “If you look at things that are happening, there’s something causing it.”

    In that interview, Trump didn’t explicitly state that vaccines cause autism, but he did say that his Administration would conduct “very serious testing.” 

    Earlier this month, Trump posted a video on social media that promoted the debunked connection. And during the same event on Monday where he contradicted medical experts with his claims about acetaminophen, the President again appeared to suggest a link between vaccines and autism, saying without providing evidence that “there are certain groups of people that don’t take vaccines and don’t take any pills that have no autism.”

    Autism is diagnosed more often now than it has been in the past, which researchers widely attribute to changes in how autism is defined and diagnosed. The debunked claim that vaccines are tied to autism stems from a 1998 study by British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet, which has since been refuted by numerous studies. In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study; the journal’s editor called the study’s claims “utterly false.” Wakefield lost his U.K. medical license that same year, after officials said that he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in conducting the research that led to its publication.

    Trump has not opposed vaccines or promoted misinformation on the topic to the same extent as some in his party, and has at times praised their effectiveness—even as his Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of prominent vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has made a number of recent changes to the country’s immunization policy that have alarmed experts. During the pandemic, in his first term, Trump oversaw the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, an achievement he has touted on multiple occasions. Earlier this month, he said that some vaccines are “so amazing” and “just pure and simple work,” appearing to express reservations about Florida’s plan to eliminate all vaccine mandates in the state.

    Abortion

    Trump has made several misleading statements about abortion since launching his first presidential campaign in 2015.

    Among them, he has claimed on multiple occasions that fetuses are killed just before birth or that babies are killed after they are born.

    Abortions later in pregnancy are rare; less than 1% of abortions in 2021 occurred after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Killing a baby after birth, meanwhile, would not be abortion but infanticide, which is illegal everywhere in the U.S.

    Read More: What Trump Has Done on Reproductive Health Care In His First 100 Days

    Gender-affirming care

    Days after Trump was sworn in for a second time, he signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order refers to gender-affirming care as “chemical and surgical mutilation” and claims that such care relies on “junk science.”

    Major respected medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed gender-affirming care for transgender patients, as well as other people seeking it, and opposed efforts to restrict access, saying gender-affirming care is based on evidence and can be medically necessary.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • What You Need to Know About Changes to Childhood Vaccines

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine advisory committee voted to stop recommending the combination vaccine protecting against measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox for children under the age of 4, indefinitely postponed a vote on the hepatitis B vaccine schedule, and moved away from a broad recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccine during a chaotic two-day meeting.

    On Thursday, in a vote of 8 to 3 with one abstention, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that children under the age of 4 no longer receive the MMRV shot, but get the MMR and varicella (chickenpox) vaccines separately. The committee was meant to vote on whether it would continue to recommend that all newborns should receive the hepatitis B vaccine, but decided on Friday to postpone that vote to a later date. On Friday afternoon, the committee rejected a proposal that would have recommended that state and local jurisdictions require a prescription for the COVID-19 vaccine, but diverged from previous guidance on who should get the shot.

    ACIP is a panel of experts that provides vaccine recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The committee members were recently appointed by the health secretary, after he removed all the previous members of the committee this summer. Many of the new panelists have expressed skepticism of vaccines or lack experience in the subject, sparking backlash from the medical and science communities, which have released their own immunization recommendations that conflict in important ways with the ACIP advice.

    Public health experts have widely credited the shots protecting against MMRV, hepatitis B, and COVID-19 for lowering the prevalence of diseases, but several ACIP members cast doubt over the safety and efficacy of the vaccines this week. At multiple points during the meetings, external experts, including those from well-established medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recent changes to the ACIP meeting processes. These experts, who historically served as liaison members to ACIP, were removed from ACIP’s working groups, where they provided their expertise in analyzing and vetting data on vaccines and presenting summaries of that research to the larger ACIP committee.

    Here’s what to know about the new recommendations.

    Until now, the CDC has recommended the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine or MMRV, which includes the varicella vaccine against chickenpox, and leaves the choice up to families and their physicians. Either vaccine can be given in two doses: first, to children aged 12-15 months, and second to children aged 4 through 6 years. On Thursday, ACIP recommended against the combined MMRV vaccine for children under the age of 4; guidelines for the separate MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine, though, remain the same.

    In a move that appeared at odds with that decision, ACIP also decided on Thursday to have the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program continue to cover the cost of the MMRV vaccine for children under the age of 4, in a vote of 8 to 1. The VFC program provides vaccines to about half of all children in the U.S. for free or at a lower cost. The vote sparked confusion among the committee members, and three ACIP members abstained—one of whom stated that he was doing so because he didn’t understand what he was voting for.

    “I’m going to abstain because I’m not quite sure what I’m voting for here,” Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine who is among the more experienced vaccine experts, having served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine expert committee during the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, said during the meeting. “I don’t want discrepancy between the children who get their vaccine from VFC and the children who don’t get their vaccine through VFC. That’s not right.”

    When the committee reconvened on Friday, the members took up the VFC vote again, and this time, the panel reversed their decision, with 9 voting yes and 3 abstaining, bringing the coverage in line with the ACIP’s new recommendation so the VFC program would not cover the MMRV shot for children under the age of 4. The separate MMR and varicella shots, though, will continue to be covered under the program.

    CDC officials presented data at Thursday’s meeting indicating that the MMRV vaccine carries a slightly increased risk of fever-related seizures in children aged 12-23 months, compared to the MMR vaccine. While some ACIP members expressed concerns over this potential side effect, other experts emphasized that these types of seizures can happen with many childhood illnesses, not just the MMRV vaccine, and frequently resolve on their own without long-term consequences.

    The majority of children—roughly 85%—get separate MMR and chickenpox shots; only about 15% get the combination MMRV vaccine, according to CDC data presented at the meeting. Still, many external experts in attendance at Thursday’s meeting criticized the proposed change in ACIP’s recommendation, saying that it would limit parents’ options and sow confusion among the public.

    “What we’re saying is we don’t trust parents to make a decision,” Meissner said. “If a parent wants to get a single dose, why are we taking away that option?”

    Dr. Jason Goldman, an internal medicine physician and president of the American College of Physicians who is a liaison to ACIP, voiced his objection to the change during Thursday’s meeting, saying that it doesn’t take into account the perspective of “actual practicing clinicians and how we deal with vaccine hesitancy and how we talk to our patients.” He expressed concern that changing the recommendation would “give license” to insurance companies to stop covering the cost of the MMRV vaccine in children under the age of 4.

    “I would argue that this recommendation is going to create more confusion among the public,” Goldman said. “You are taking away the choice of parents to have informed consent and discussion with their physician on what they want to do for the health and benefit of their children.” 

    “I urge this committee not to change the recommendations if they truly want to give the power to the parents to decide what is best for their child and allow them to make the choice in consultation with their physician,” he continued.

    After a heated debate between ACIP members and other experts, the committee decided to table a vote on possible changes to the hepatitis B vaccine schedule.

    The controversy centered around when the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, which protects against a highly infectious disease that can cause damage to the liver, is given. Currently, the CDC recommends that the vaccine is provided in three doses: the first, at birth; the second, between 1-2 months of age; and the third, between 6-18 months of age. ACIP discussed changing the recommendation so that the first dose of the vaccine would not be given until a child is at least one month old, unless the newborn’s mother is known to be infected with hepatitis B.

    CDC scientists presented data at Thursday’s meeting that demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the hepatitis B vaccine beginning with the first dose, emphasizing that the sooner the vaccine is administered after birth, the greater its effectiveness in preventing mother-to-child transmission of the disease. Scientists also pointed out that infants can be at risk of exposure to hepatitis B even if their mother tests negative for the disease—for instance, if the infant lives with someone who has chronic hepatitis B.

    “A universal birth dose provides a critical safety net for infants who may have unrecognized exposure to [hepatitis B] infection during pregnancy or early childhood, which can result in catastrophic outcomes,” Adam Langer, a CDC official, said during the meeting. “The sooner that an infant starts the hepatitis B vaccine series, the sooner that the baby will be protected against these early childhood exposures.”

    Public health experts have called the hepatitis B vaccine a significant public health intervention, crediting it for drastically reducing the number of cases of mother-to-child transmission in the country.

    Some external experts questioned why the timing of the doses was being discussed again, after it has been part of the routine childhood immunization schedule, if no strong data indicates that the birth dose is linked to safety concerns. Still, some ACIP members cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine, suggesting that only babies whose mothers have tested positive for hepatitis B should be vaccinated at birth.

    But Meissner said it’s “very hard” to identify people who are at a higher risk of exposure and infection to the disease; for instance, people who are homeless or participate in sex work may have inconsistent access to health care. Other experts also pointed out that many people aren’t aware that they have hepatitis B.

    “I think we’ve learned with many vaccines that the more we try and define a target group to vaccinate, the less successful we are,” Meissner said. “The optimal approach seems to be to have a standard recommendation.”

    Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an ACIP member and ob-gyn who has previously questioned the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots, said that pregnant people can be tested for hepatitis B in the facility where they give birth, and that those results can be received very quickly, within a matter of hours. But several experts argued that may not always be possible—for instance, not all pregnant people give birth in a hospital, or labs may be backed up and so test results may not be received quickly.

    “In a perfect world, we would know everybody that has hep B; they would all be under care, labs at a birthing hospital would all be done quickly, easily, and transparently,” Dr. Grant Paulsen, who is a liaison to ACIP from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, said during the meeting. “Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world and have to decide public policy based on what’s best for everyone, not just the anecdotes of my hospital or yours.”

    After a lengthy and heated discussion over the COVID-19 vaccine, ACIP decided on Friday not to recommend that state and local jurisdictions require a prescription to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The committee was divided, with 6 members voting yes and 6 voting no, and the decision ultimately went to the committee chair, Martin Kulldorff, who voted no.

    Both external experts and ACIP members expressed concerns that requiring a prescription would create additional barriers for people seeking the COVID-19 shot, particularly for people who live in rural areas, are uninsured or underinsured, or may not otherwise have consistent access to a health care provider.

    “It has always been clear that vaccines are a primary prevention public health strategy,” Dr. Amy Middleman, a liaison to ACIP from the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, said during the meeting. She argued that requiring a prescription for the shots would “overwhelm” doctors’ offices. “It’s alarming to me that for a primary prevention strategy, we [would] actually [be] adding access concerns and barriers, rather than diminishing them.”

    The committee voted unanimously to update the current immunization schedules for COVID-19 shots: for adults 65 and older, ACIP recommends that vaccination should be based on individual-based decision making; and for people between the ages of 6 months and 64 years, ACIP recommends that vaccination be based on individual-based decision-making, but “with an emphasis that the risk-benefit of the vaccination is most favorable for individuals who are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease and lowest for individuals who are not at an increased risk.”

    This change is at odds with most professional medical organizations, which continue to recommend yearly COVID-19 shots for people aged 6 months and older.

    Currently, the CDC recommends the vaccine for most adults ages 18 and older, and that parents of children between the ages of 6 months and 17 years make the decision in consultation with their doctors. At the moment, it is unclear how ACIP’s new recommendation would affect people’s access to the shots, but it could complicate access depending on individual state policies.

    The CDC director can either accept or reject ACIP’s recommendations. The acting director of the agency, Jim O’Neill, was recently tapped to replace Susan Monarez, who was the CDC director for less than a month before she was fired. She testified before a Senate committee on Wednesday that Kennedy pressured her to pre-approve every ACIP recommendation—orders that she said were “inconsistent with my oath of office.” She said that she refused to comply, which led to her firing.

    ACIP’s new recommendations are the latest in a series of changes to the country’s immunization policy, led by Kennedy.

    Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, said in May that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for pregnant women and healthy children. Multiple respected medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, released their own guidance that diverged from federal recommendations. 

    Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that this year’s COVID-19 vaccines would only be approved for people ages 65 and older, or people who are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of the virus. Previously, the shots were recommended for everyone older than 6 months.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Susan Monarez Testifies About ‘Tense’ Exchanges With RFK Jr.

    Susan Monarez, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), addressed the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Wednesday to testify on the recent turmoil at the public health agency. Monarez told Senators that before she was fired last month, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanded two things of her that she said were “inconsistent with [her] oath of office.”

    “He directed me to commit in advance to approving every [Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices] recommendation, regardless of the scientific evidence. He also directed me to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause,” Monarez claimed. “He said, if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign. I responded that I could not pre-approve recommendations without reviewing the evidence, and I had no basis to fire scientific experts.”

    “Vaccine policy must be guided by credible data—not predetermined outcomes,” she continued.

    Monarez told the committee that Kennedy was “very upset” when she said she wouldn’t pre-emptively approve vaccine recommendations from an advisory panel.

    “He was very upset. The entire meeting was very tense. He was very upset throughout the entirety of our discussion, and it was not a productive exchange of information,” said Monarez.

    Kennedy has yet to publicly respond to Monarez’s testimony. TIME has reached out to HHS for comment.

    Read More: CDC Director Susan Monarez Refuses to Leave as White House Seeks to Oust Her Weeks Into Job

    Last month, the Trump Administration said it had fired Monarez, who had only been at the helm of the agency for about a month. Her firing prompted several top CDC officials to resign, including then-Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, an emergency physician who also appeared before the Senate on Wednesday. 

    Monarez’s attorneys said she was “targeted” after she “refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts.” A few days later, nine former CDC leaders wrote a piece for the New York Times, accusing Kennedy of endangering Americans’ health.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said during Wednesday’s hearing that Monarez “stood up for protecting the well-being of the American people, and for that reason, she was fired.”

    Sanders went on to emphasize that the hearing was about far more than just Monarez’s firing. “The issue is deeper than that. It is about Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous war on science, public health, and the truth itself,” Sanders argued. “Unacceptably, we now have an HHS secretary who does not believe in established science, and who listens to conspiracy theorists and ideologues rather than doctors and medical professionals. It is absurd to have to say this in the year 2025, but vaccines are safe and effective.”

    Monarez echoed that sentiment during her own testimony. 

    “Today should not be about me. Today should be about the future of trust in public health,” she said. “I could have stayed silent, agreed to the demands, and no one would have known. What the public would have seen were scientists dismissed without cause, and vaccine protections quietly eroded, all under the authority of a Senate confirmed director with unimpeachable credentials. I could have kept the office, the title, but I would have lost the one thing that cannot be replaced: my integrity.”

    “Some may question my motives or mischaracterize my words; that is part of public life. But I am not here as a politician; I’m here as a scientist, a public servant, and a parent committed to protecting the health of future generations.”

    Since Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, was confirmed to run HHS earlier this year, he has overseen several changes to the country’s vaccination policy.

    In May, Kennedy said the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children. Several respected medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, released their own guidance, diverging from Kennedy’s recommendations.

    A month later, Kennedy removed all the members of a committee that offers recommendations on vaccines to the CDC. He replaced them with new members, some of whom appeared to share his vaccine skeptic views. In August, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that this year’s COVID-19 shots would only be approved for people ages 65 and older, or people who have a higher risk of developing serious illness—a considerable shift from previous guidance, which stated that the shots were recommended for everyone older than 6 months. The change has left many people uncertain about if they will be able to get their COVID-19 boosters this year. Amid the uncertainty, several states—including Massachusetts, California, Oregon, and Washington—launched their own initiatives to protect vaccine access.

    Read More: RFK Jr. Doubles Down on Vaccine Skepticism in Contentious Hearing

    Hundreds of public health workers signed an open letter in late August that urged Kennedy to “stop spreading inaccurate health information” and commit to protecting staffers, in the wake of a shooting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta just weeks before. The public health workers said the attack “came amid growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization—and now, violence.”

    Kennedy faced heated questioning from lawmakers during a Senate hearing earlier this month, including over his firing of Monarez and his recent changes to the country’s immunization policy.

    During the hearing, Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota, questioned Kennedy over his remarks on a podcast, when he cast doubt on the safety of vaccines.

    “When were you lying, Sir, when you told this committee that you were not anti-vax, or when you told Americans that there’s no safe and effective vaccine?” Smith asked Kennedy.

    “Both are true,” Kennedy responded.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • What States Are Doing to Ensure COVID-19 Vaccine Access

    States across the U.S. have taken steps to ensure that COVID-19 vaccines are widely accessible after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved updated shots with new restrictions.

    The agency last month authorized the new COVID-19 shots only for those over the age of 65 and people with underlying health conditions, a move that marked a major change from past policies and reportedly went against the recommendations of FDA scientists.

    The announcement came after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), following guidance from Health and Human Services Secretary and prominent vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stopped recommending the COVID-19 shot to healthy children and pregnant women earlier this year.

    At least two major medical associations have since issued vaccine guidance contradicting the Administration’s new advice: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends all children ages 6 to 23 months get the COVID-19 vaccine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggests all pregnant or breastfeeding women receive the shot.

    And many states are taking measures into their own hands. Here’s what you should know about what they’re doing.

    Arizona

    Governor Katie Hobbs signed an executive order last week to ensure statewide access to the COVID-19 shot. 

    The order directs the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and Board of Pharmacy (BOP) to make the recently approved COVID-19 vaccine—along with other vaccines—broadly accessible to Arizonans.

    “Vaccines are critical tools that safeguard public health and prevent serious illness,” Hobbs said in a press release. “Arizonans and their doctors deserve the freedom to access the COVID vaccine if it is right for them. With this Executive Order, we are following the science and ensuring that Arizonans have access to vaccines to keep themselves and their families safe.”

    Colorado

    A public health order from the Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) allows pharmacists to provide COVID-19 shots to anyone 6 months or older beginning Sept. 5. 

    Governor Jared Polis said in a statement announcing the new health order he was “taking action to ensure that Coloradans who want to can easily and conveniently get the safe and effective updated COVID vaccine, along with the flu vaccine, this Fall without having to go to a doctor first.”

    The order is effective until Sept. 4, 2026, unless rescinded or altered, the state said.

    Connecticut

    Connecticut took a series of measures in an effort involving multiple state departments to provide access to COVID-19 vaccines. 

    The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) released guidance for COVID-19 shots based on AAP recommendations and encouraged pharmacists to continue administering shots, despite the CDC’s new guidance.  

    The Connecticut Insurance Department (CID) affirmed in a statement that COVID-19 shots have to be covered by state insurance policies “regardless” of recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel that offers advice and guidance on vaccines to the CDC. Kennedy dismissed all the experts on the committee this summer and has since appointed new members.

    Illinois

    Governor JB Pritzker signed an executive order on Sept. 12 directing state agencies to develop their own vaccine guidance. 

    The “Statewide Vaccine Access Initiative,” led by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), seeks to “ensure Illinoisans can get the vaccines they need and can rely on science-based guidance,” according to the order.

    The order calls for the IDPH to partner with several other state agencies to “publish plain-language guidance, continue to support school-based vaccination efforts, and work with local health departments, community health centers, disability organizations, and rural providers to reach families statewide.”

    It also directs IDPH Director Dr. Sameer Vohra to issue a standing order allowing providers to administer vaccines recommended by the state’s Immunization Advisory Committee. The committee is set to meet Sept. 22 to establish fall vaccine recommendations, and by Sept. 26, per the order, the IDPH will use that advice to issue “clear public guidance.”

    Minnesota

    Governor Tim Walz issued an executive order on Sep. 8 directing the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to “expand its efforts to safeguard vaccine access in Minnesota in response to federal actions restricting vaccine availability at the federal level,” according to a press release

    The order primarily aims to “identify and remove barriers to access, while providing clear guidance to providers, insurers, and the public on vaccine safety, effectiveness, and availability.”

    Nevada

    The Nevada State Board of Pharmacy issued updated guidance on Sept. 5 that allows pharmacists to administer the new COVID-19 shot, as well as other vaccines approved by the FDA. CVS and other pharmacies had previously paused giving out the COVID-19 vaccine in the state, but said they would resume doing so after the new guidance was issued. 

    New Jersey

    The New Jersey Department of Health has implemented measures allowing anyone 6 months or older to receive the COVID-19 shot and pharmacists to administer the vaccine to people 3 years or older without a prescription. The executive directive and standing order were informed by recommendations from several scientific agencies, including the AAP and the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota, according to a press release.   

    New Mexico

    The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) issued a standing order on Sept. 11 permitting pharmacists and other health care providers to vaccinate people aged 6 months or older with the COVID-19 shot without needing a prescription from a doctor.  

    “We are clearing the way for New Mexicans who want the vaccine to get the vaccine,” said NMDOH Secretary Gina DeBlassie in a press release. “This standing order ensures that barriers don’t prevent people from protecting their health.”

    New York

    Governor Kathy Hochul issued an executive order on Sept. 5 allowing pharmacists to administer COVID-19 shots to anyone 3 years of older through Oct. 5. Executive Order 52, which declared a “disaster in the state of New York due to federal actions related to vaccine access,” also allows physicians and nurse practitioners to prescribe COVID-19 vaccines by pharmacists. 

    Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania’s State Board of Pharmacy allowed pharmacists to give out the COVID-19 shot based on recommendations from authorities other than the ACIP. Before that decision, ACIP guidance informed who could receive vaccines from pharmacists in the state. 

    The “newly approved sources of authority” include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), according to a statement issued by the commonwealth. 

    The statement confirmed that CVS would “resume administering vaccines as soon as possible at locations throughout Pennsylvania” following the board’s decision.

    Virginia

    State Health Commissioner Dr. Karen Shelton signed a standing order on Sept. 10 that allows pharmacists to give the COVID-19 vaccine to anyone between the ages of 18 and 64 with an underlying health condition without a prescription, as well as anyone above the age of 65.

    The standing order lets pharmacists offer vaccines “in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Immunization Schedule,” which may or may not follow recommendations from the ACIP, a press release noted.. 

    California, Oregon, and Washington

    The three states created the West Coast Health Alliance on Sept. 3 to “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys CDC’s credibility,” according to an announcement from their governors.

    Under the alliance, which the state leaders said aims to “ensure residents remain protected by science, not politics,” the states will provide coordinated health guidelines based on vaccine recommendations from “respected national medical organizations,” though each state can also pursue its own independent strategies. 

    In a joint statement, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson referenced the White House’s “blatant politicization” of the CDC and the president’s “mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists” as a “direct assault on the health and safety of the American people.”

    “California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk,” the governors said.

    Connor Greene

    Source link

  • What You Should Know About the ‘Kissing Bug’ Disease

    Millions of people around the world are estimated to have Chagas disease, a potentially fatal, parasitic illness that can lie dormant for years after the initial infection.

    Some 280,000 people in the U.S. are among them, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but the disease is not officially considered endemic to the country like it is in 21 others in the Americas. Public health experts argued in a report published in this month’s issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Emerging Infectious Diseases journal that it should be.

    “Increasing evidence” of the parasites that cause Chagas disease “challenges that nonendemic label,” the experts wrote, noting that “kissing bugs,” which can transmit the parasite to humans, have been identified in 32 states. The report acknowledged that data were “inadequate” to prove that the presence of the kissing bugs is increasing in the U.S., but said that the bugs are “increasingly recognized because of frequent encounters with humans” and “increased research attention.”

    “Labeling the United States as non–Chagas disease–endemic perpetuates low awareness and underreporting,” the experts wrote.

    You may never have heard about Chagas disease before. Here’s everything you need to know about it.

    How do you get Chagas disease?

    Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. The parasite can be spread to a person from an insect called the triatomine bug, more colloquially known as the “kissing bug,” according to the Mayo Clinic. If a kissing bug ingests blood from an animal infected with the parasite, then the bug can also become infected with it.

    Kissing bugs generally bite people while they sleep, and then defecate. Their feces leave parasites on a person’s skin, and the parasites can go into a person’s body via the eyes, mouth, or an open wound.

    Chagas disease doesn’t spread from person to person, but other sources of infection can come from eating uncooked food that has stool from bugs infected with the parasite, getting donor blood or a donor organ from an individual who was infected with the parasite, or being in a place where there are wild animals infected with the parasite.

    What are the symptoms?

    Many people who have been infected don’t have any symptoms.

    People with Chagas disease can have acute illness, and may experience relatively mild symptoms that can last for weeks or months, including swelling at the infection site, fever, rash, and body aches, among others, according to the Mayo Clinic. These symptoms generally dissipate over time, but if the infection isn’t treated, the disease can linger in the body and even progress to a chronic phase. 

    Some people may experience chronic symptoms 10 to 20 years after becoming infected, according to the Mayo Clinic, though the CDC notes that many people don’t experience symptoms even while in the chronic phase. But roughly 20-30% of people who are infected develop severe symptoms, including a range of heart issues—such as heart failure, irregular heartbeat, or even death—and digestive issues—such as an enlarged esophagus or colon, which could cause problems with eating or going to the bathroom.

    Where in the U.S. have “kissing bugs” been detected?

    Various species of kissing bugs are most commonly found in states in the southern part of the U.S., but have also been identified in several midwestern states. 

    Autochthonous human cases of Chagas disease, meaning infections that were acquired in the same region where the cases were reported, have been confirmed in at least 8 states: California, Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Arkansas, according to the report in the Emerging Infectious Diseases journal.

    How can you protect yourself?

    At the moment, there are no vaccines or drugs that can prevent someone from getting Chagas disease, according to the CDC. 

    But the Mayo Clinic recommends that people living in high-risk places take a number of steps to protect themselves, including using netting with insecticide over their bed, using insecticides to kill insects inside their home, and using insect repellent on their body. The Mayo Clinic also advises that people avoid sleeping in a mud or thatch house, since kissing bugs thrive in those environments.

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Trump Cracks Down on Drug Ads

    Donald Trump is ramping up pressure on drug companies to be more transparent about the risks associated with their prescription products.

    In a memorandum signed on Tuesday, the President ordered federal health agencies to enforce existing rules about misleading prescription drug advertisements.

    The order falls short of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pledge on the campaign trail last year to altogether “ban pharmaceutical advertising on TV” to solve the U.S.’s “chronic disease epidemic,” as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” movement. But Kennedy called the order a “historic change” in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. “In some cases, that might create an advertisement that’s four minutes long,” he said, as companies are required to list out their products’ side effects.

    TV ads won’t be the only ones affected by the order. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, in a video posted on X, said in the wake of the memorandum that the agency will send approximately 100 “enforcement action letters” and thousands of other warning letters to members of the industry, including online pharmacies, which have “increasingly been promoting drugs with no mention of side effects at all.”

    “We are taking drug marketing claims seriously and making our regulatory standards transparent,” Makary said. “Ultimately, we believe that decisions about what drugs to take belong between a patient and their doctor.”

    While the U.S. remains the only other country besides New Zealand to allow direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers, the new crackdown risks further upsetting a multi-billion-dollar industry that Trump has repeatedly targeted as Americans have increasingly grown sick of high drug costs.

    Here’s what to know.

    Why the U.S. is an outlier

    Across the globe, direct-to-consumer drug advertising faces restrictions: in the European Union, it is prohibited; in Australia, there’s a strict ban on prescription drug advertising; and in Canada, such ads are subject to stringent regulatory requirements. In 2007, during the 30th Annual Meeting of Countries participating in the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring, attendees made a “unanimous recommendation” to prohibit such advertising.

    Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has been found to pose some public health risks, including patients overdiagnosing themselves and seeking unnecessary treatments that could end up becoming more costly for them.

    But a full ban on direct-to-consumer drug advertising in the U.S. could run up against constitutionally-protected free speech.

    Short of a full ban, in 1985, the FDA established strict guidelines for advertising prescription drugs. If the manufacturer wanted to mention a condition that the drug is intended to treat, the guidelines required more information to be made available to consumers, including all possible side effects. But that required more ad bandwidth and more money, so many companies saw the guidelines as a de facto barrier. Most ads only mentioned the names of the drug or a reminder to seek medical advice, resulting in confusion among patients.

    But in 1997, the FDA relaxed its strict rules. The rationale was to “help promote greater consumer awareness about prescription drugs,” according to then-lead deputy FDA commissioner Michael J. Friedman. The change allowed ads that had “adequate provision” of information, which could mean mentioning side effects in part and redirecting consumers to doctors for other information on the drug. This led to a spending boom for direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. 

    Direct-to-consumer drug advertising continued to be big business: according to advertising data firm MediaRadar, drug companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.

    But advertising standards have declined as some advertisements have gone online. A 2015 study revealed that while 100% of the analyzed pharmaceutical social media posts included drugs’ purported benefits, only 33% discussed potential harms.

    Johns Hopkins University epidemiology professor Caleb Alexander said in 2023 that “while regulations governing drug advertising were designed to target drug manufacturers, we now live in an era where other parties—health care insurers, start-up clinics, telemedicine start-ups—are getting into the business of marketing prescription drugs. And quite a business it is. The problem is that these entities are not being held to any standard regarding what they can say about the drugs in question—products like ketamine, testosterone, and stimulants for the treatment of ADHD, to name a few—and they are not only misconstruing the evidence, in many cases, they are making outlandish, pants-on-fire claims about these products.”

    The FDA acknowledged in a statement on Tuesday that it failed to monitor and uphold these standards over the years. “The FDA used to send more than a hundred warning letters each year, and misleading ads were rare,” it said. “But over time, enforcement waned and the number of warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies dropped to one in 2023 and zero in 2024.”

    What will happen with Trump’s new order

    While the order will only enforce existing laws, the FDA said it will also study potential policies to amend the “adequate provision” standard, which was part of the 1997 change. That provision, the agency said, provided a “loophole” for companies to redirect consumers elsewhere for additional information on the drug while keeping the ad brief.

    During a Tuesday call with reporters, senior administration officials said the memorandum will also target ads on social media sites, such as Instagram and TikTok. 

    One official said, according to ABC News, that “there has been broad frustration with the increasing prevalence of these ads creating a misleading impression, specifically not disclosing side effects appropriately—ads that have encroached now into social media without proper disclosures, and ads of online pharmacies that are not following the same rules that many pharmaceutical companies follow.”

    How else Trump has cracked down on Big Pharma

    It’s not the first time Trump has targeted drug advertisements. During his first term, his Administration tried to require drugmakers to include their products’ sticker prices in TV ads, but a federal judge blocked it on the grounds that HHS was overstepping its authority.

    The latest crackdown on drug advertisements appears to be part of Trump’s broader pressure on the sector. 

    In July, Trump wrote to 17 pharmaceutical companies and demanded that they lower prescription drug costs to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations or the “most-favored-nation” (MFN) price. He gave the companies until Sept. 29 to comply, warning that if they “refuse to step up,” the federal government “will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices.”

    The President has also previously threatened that tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products could reach up to 250%, in an attempt to incentivize drug companies to bring back manufacturing operations to the U.S.—though those in the sector have warned that this could drive up the costs of medicines for Americans.

    Chad de Guzman

    Source link