ReportWire

Tag: surgeon general

  • In Unprecedented Move, Six Former Surgeons General Warn That RFK Jr. Is Endangering America

    [ad_1]

    Since being appointed by President Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made a lot of unprecedented decisions while running the Department of Health and Human Services. Indeed, America’s newest health czar has largely thrown out all common wisdom when it comes to stuff like vaccines and whether you need a medical background to run the CDC.

    Kennedy has rolled out countless bizarre and harmful policies at the HHS over the past year, including attacks on the agency’s vaccine program. Earlier this year, under his supervision, the agency fired thousands of staff. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention saw many prominent staffers (including its director) step down in protest of Kennedy’s policies.

    As a result of RFK Jr.’s bizarre behavior and policy decisions, a large number of health professionals have publicly criticized him and called into question the legitimacy of his leadership. The latest voices to express concern are six former U.S. Surgeons General, who penned an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Tuesday. The article warns that Kennedy’s policies pose a “profound, immediate and unprecedented threat” to the nation, and that the HHS head is putting at risk. The letter reads:

    Over recent months, we have watched with increasing alarm as the foundations of our nation’s public health system have been undermined. Science and expertise have taken a back seat to ideology and misinformation. Morale has plummeted in our health agencies, and talent is fleeing at a time when we face rising threats — from resurgent infectious diseases to worsening chronic illnesses.

    The letter continues:

    Repairing this damage requires a leader who respects scientific integrity and transparency, listens to experts and can restore trust to the federal health apparatus. Instead, Kennedy has become a driving force behind this crisis.

    The letter stresses the bipartisan nature of the signees, noting that they represent a group of professionals “appointed by every Republican and Democratic president since George H.W. Bush.” The signees include Jerome Adams, Richard Carmon, Joycelyn Elders, Vivek Murthy, Antonia Novello, and David Satcher. Murthy served under both Biden and Trump during his first term. 

    The former health leaders point specifically to Kennedy’s attacks on vaccine science as a clear and present sign that he is not fit to lead the agency tasked with regulating vaccines. The letter notes:

    This year, as the United States faced its worst measles outbreak in more than 30 years, Kennedy de-emphasized vaccination and directed agency resources toward unproven vitamin therapies. The result: months-long outbreak, three preventable deaths and the first measles-related child death in the U.S. in over two decades.

    More recently, Kennedy removed every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing its scientific experts with individuals who often lacked basic qualifications, some of whom are vaccine conspiracy theorists. The new committee has already begun casting doubt on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, despite decades of data affirming its effectiveness and strong safety profile.

    The former health leaders are not alone. Over the past year, a variety of organizations have argued that Kennedy should be fired. Most recently, two separate psychiatric organizations said that RFK Jr. was unfit to serve, arguing that his decision to gut the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration had put lives at risk. Last month, over a thousand HHS staffers signed a letter to President Trump that stated that Kennedy had endangered “the nation’s health” and should be fired or forced to resign. Around the same time, 61 different health and advocacy organizations signed a separate letter similarly asking that Kennedy be let go. Earlier this year, nine former directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked that Kennedy be fired, noting that Kennedy’s activities “should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.” Gizmodo reached out to the HHS for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Lucas Ropek

    Source link

  • Surgeon General issues advisory on parental stress: The impact on children and families

    Surgeon General issues advisory on parental stress: The impact on children and families

    [ad_1]

    Parenthood is a chapter in people’s lives that changes them forever. Priorities, routines, and everything else shift for the safety and well-being of children. Mothers and fathers say that the sacrifice is worth it, but a new concern is rising among caregivers. Parental stress is stressors that impact parents’ and caregivers’ mental health and well-being. The severity of this matter is growing to the extent of where the Surgeon General has issued an advisory. Dr. Robin Gurwitch is a psychologist and professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center. She explores this topic and shares why we must check on mom and dad as much as the kids.

    “We should take this matter very seriously because the alternative is unthinkable. We are seeing mental health crises affecting our children and the adults that are taking care of them. If we do not see that this is a problem and take steps to change the course, then we’re not serving our next generation at all.” said Dr. Robin Gurwitch.

    The surgeon general released his advisory in August. Items considered stressors for parents and caregivers are financial strains, children’s health and safety, and time demands. Factors in today’s society, such as technology, social media, feelings of loneliness, and comparisons, are new stressors parents must encounter. The advisory states that about 41 percent of parents are so stressed that they cannot function. The impact of this stress can lead to mental health problems like depression and anxiety. These issues not only trickle down to the children but can affect the stability of the home and develop physical problems for the kids as well. According to the Surgeon General’s advisory, children of a primary caregiver who reported poor mental health were four times more likely to have poor general health and two times more likely to have mental, behavioral, or developmental disorders.

    “The Surgeon General’s report on parenting stress was incredibly timely and important. I think stress impacts families nationwide more than ever before, including our children. Our children are also being impacted by stress, and it’s not a one-way street,” said Dr. Gurwitch.

    In a recent Sci-Line presentation, a Duke University professor explained that parental stress builds on each other. Large amounts of parental stress can impede parents’ ability to be their best at work, at home, and in relationships. Dr. Gurwitch discusses how parental stress starts a vicious cycle of children being stressed by the parent and vice versa. Temper tantrums and meltdowns in younger children are one sign of the impact of parental stress on them. In teenagers, withdrawal and defiance are signs of impact.

    “When children are stressed, we often see it come out in behaviors. They have a harder time with sleep, a harder time with focus, and more anxiety and worry, which leads to challenges at school. This impacts parents trying to figure out how to help their children,” said Dr. Gurwitch.

    Dr. Gurwitch recommends walking, listening to music, and connecting with friends to relieve parental stress. She also advises creating a routine and encouraging people to use the same coping strategies used during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “If COVID taught us anything, it introduced new ways of dealing with stress. Whether it is taking a moment to watch something funny or taking a walk in the beauty of nature, it is about finding those quiet moments. Tapping into those activities you did during COVID can help relieve some of the stressors,” said Dr. Gurwitch.

    The Duke University professor is acting against parental stress through a program called C.A.R.E. (Child Adult Relationship Enhancement). This program provides trauma-informed skills to adults who interact with children and teens who have experienced trauma. The material in CARE can be used in any setting and caters to welfare and at-risk families.

    Parental stress is challenging, but Dr. Gurwitch hopes people can overcome it. She believes that if we recognize the problem and look at the variables causing it, we can find solutions to reduce it. Providing parents with the support they need is essential for them to become the best caregivers possible.

    “I wouldn’t be in this field if I didn’t believe in hope if I didn’t believe that change is possible. I believe we can have a different outcome with the support, and that’s our responsibility,” said Dr. Gurwitch. 

    [ad_2]

    Clayton Gutzmore

    Source link

  • Surgeon General Calls For Tobacco-Style Warning Labels On Social Media Platforms

    Surgeon General Calls For Tobacco-Style Warning Labels On Social Media Platforms

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is calling on Congress to require warning labels on social media, saying emergency action is needed as rampant use of the platforms has ignited a mental health crisis among adolescents.

    “It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,” he said in an opinion piece published in The New York Times on Monday.

    Such labels, like the ones mandated for cigarettes and other tobacco products, would regularly inform parents and adolescent users that “social media has not been proved safe,” which could improve behavior patterns, he said.

    U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said Monday that Congress needs to impose warning labels on social media platforms due to the significant mental health harms they can impose on adolescents.

    MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images

    Adolescents spend an average of 4.8 hours a day on social media, according to a Gallup survey conducted last fall. Those who spend more than three hours a day face a heightened risk for mental health problems, a 2019 study on social media’s mental health effects found.

    Social media giant Meta, which owns platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, responded earlier this year to child safety concerns by announcing new features that restrict teens from viewing certain content, including posts about drugs, nudity, self-harm, suicide and eating disorders. A Meta spokesperson also told NPR in January that the company is investing in age verification tools and technology that can better detect when users lie about their age.

    This response comes as the company faces a federal lawsuit from dozens of states, accusing it of seeking to maximize young users’ engagement while developing addictive features. The CEOs of Meta, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) and other social media companies were also hammered before Congress earlier this year over parents’ claims that social media platforms contributed to their children’s suicide, exploitation or overdose deaths.

    A warning label placed on the platforms would inform parents and adolescent users that “social media has not been proved safe,” Murthy said.
    A warning label placed on the platforms would inform parents and adolescent users that “social media has not been proved safe,” Murthy said.

    A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on Murthy’s opinion piece and recommendations.

    In the piece, Murthy outlined his own suggested safeguards for younger social media users, including restrictions on certain features like push notifications, autoplay and infinite scroll, which he said “prey on developing brains and contribute to excessive use.”

    Social media platforms should also be prohibited from collecting sensitive data from children, and these platforms should be required to share all of their data on health effects with independent scientists and the public, he said.

    “While the platforms claim they are making their products safer, Americans need more than words. We need proof,” he said.

    A more recent warning label for cigarette packs is seen after its release from the Food and Drug Administration. Murthy wants similar mental health warnings for social media platforms.
    A more recent warning label for cigarette packs is seen after its release from the Food and Drug Administration. Murthy wants similar mental health warnings for social media platforms.

    Murthy’s recommendations touched on parents, educators and heath care workers as well.

    School classrooms, he said, should be phone free, and doctors, nurses and other clinicians should educate patients about social media’s harmful effects.

    At home, parents should restrict social media use “until after middle school” and households should have “phone-free zones” around bedtime, meals and social gatherings “to safeguard their kids’ sleep and real-life connections — both of which have direct effects on mental health,” he said.

    “This is much easier said than done, which is why parents should work together with other families to establish shared rules, so no parents have to struggle alone or feel guilty when their teens say they are the only one who has to endure limits,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Surgeon General Calls On Congress To Require Social Media Warning Labels, Like Those On Cigarettes – KXL

    Surgeon General Calls On Congress To Require Social Media Warning Labels, Like Those On Cigarettes – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (Associated Press) – The U.S. surgeon general has called on Congress to require warning labels on social media platforms similar to those now mandatory on cigarette boxes.

    In a Monday opinion piece for The New York Times, Dr. Vivek Murthy said that social media is a contributing factor in the mental health crisis among young people.

    Murthy said that the use of just a warning label wouldn’t make social media safe for young people, but would be a part of the steps needed.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Florida’s Experiment With Measles

    Florida’s Experiment With Measles

    [ad_1]

    The state of Florida is trying out a new approach to measles control: No one will be forced to not get sick.

    Joseph Ladapo, the state’s top health official, announced this week that the six cases of the disease reported among students at an elementary school in Weston, near Fort Lauderdale, do not merit emergency action to prevent unvaccinated students from attending class. Temporary exclusions of that kind while an outbreak is ongoing are part of the normal public-health response to measles clusters, as a means of both protecting susceptible children and preventing further viral spread. But Ladapo is going his own way. “Due to the high immunity rate in the community, as well as the burden on families and educational cost of healthy children missing school,” he said in a letter released on Tuesday, the state’s health department “is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance.”

    That decision came off as brazen, even for an administration that has made systematic efforts to lower vaccination rates among its constituents over the past two years. Ladapo’s letter acknowledges the benefits of vaccination, as well as the fact that vulnerable children are “normally recommended” to stay home. Still, it doesn’t bother giving local parents the bare-minimum advice that all kids who are able should get their MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) shots, Dorit Reiss, a professor and vaccine-policy expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. “I wouldn’t have expected him, in the middle of a measles outbreak, to be willing to sacrifice children in this way.”

    The Florida Department of Health has not responded to a request for comment on Ladapo’s future plans, should this situation worsen. For the moment, though, he has chosen to lower the guardrails from their standard height. It’s an escalation of his, and Florida’s, broader push against established norms in public health, especially as they relate to vaccination. So what happens now?

    At least in any immediate sense, Ladapo’s decision may not do much harm. In fact, there’s good reason to believe that its effects will end up being minimal. Parents who have children at the school, Manatee Bay Elementary, have until today to decide whether to pull out those kids for the next three weeks. Many seem to have already done so: About 200 students, and six teachers, have been absent, according to local news reports. In the meantime, Broward County Public Schools’ superintendent said yesterday that just 33 students out of the school’s nearly 1,100 were still unvaccinated. Given those two facts—some degree of self-imposed isolation, and 97 percent of the community now having some level of immune protection—the virus will have a hard time spreading no matter what the rules for attendance might be.

    Disease modeling, too, suggests that the risk of a larger outbreak is low. For a study released in 2019, a team of researchers based at Newcastle University and the University of Pittsburgh simulated thousands of measles outbreaks at schools in Texas, the most populous state to allow nonmedical exemptions from routine vaccine requirements. The researchers looked at the extent to which a policy of sequestering unvaccinated kids would help to reduce the outbreaks’ size. In the median outcome, even without any school-wide interventions, they found that an initial case of measles spreads only to a small handful of people. Adding in the rule that unvaccinated kids must stay at home has no effect on transmission. When the school’s vaccination rates are assumed to be unusually low, the rule reduces the outbreak’s size by one case.

    Not all the modeling outcomes are so rosy. For the very worst-case scenarios, in which a case of measles emerges in a school where unvaccinated kids happen to be clustered, the study found that forced suspensions have dramatic benefits. A major outbreak in the Dallas–Fort Worth area, for example, might end up infecting 477 people in the absence of any interventions, according to the model. When unvaccinated kids are kept from going to school, that number drops by 95 percent.

    Hypothetical models can’t tell us what will happen in a real-life school with real-life kids, like the one in Weston, Florida. But given Manatee Bay Elementary’s reported vaccination rate, it’s fair to assume that Ladapo’s policy won’t be catastrophic. Indeed, it may well end up sparing a few dozen families from the fairly serious inconvenience of being out of school without having much effect at all on the outbreak’s final size.

    But is the sparing of that inconvenience worth the risks that still remain? (And how should one value the time of a parent who could have vaccinated their child but chose not to?) As Reiss points out, if this policy leads to even one more case in the current outbreak, it will have put one more kid at risk of hospitalization, long-term complications, or even death. Worst-case outbreak scenarios do occur from time to time, as we all know well by now; and the Weston outbreak getting much worse is certainly within the realm of possibility. Any public-health authority would have to weigh these odds in the face of a six-case cluster; and surely almost every statewide health authority would choose to err on the side of caution. In Florida, though, the scale appears to tip the other way. Ladapo has rolled the dice on doing less.

    That’s been his way since the very day he was appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis, in September 2021. Just hours after he was introduced, the state ended mandatory quarantines for low-risk students who had been exposed to COVID. The following March, just a few weeks after being confirmed into the job, Ladapo announced that Florida would be “the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children.” He continued to scale up from there: That fall, he recommended against the use of mRNA vaccines by any men under the age of 40. A year later, in October 2023, his office warned everyone under the age of 65 about the risks of getting an mRNA-based COVID booster. And then, finally, just last month, Ladapo came out with a warning that mRNA-based COVID vaccines “are not appropriate for use in human beings.”

    The man’s commitment to undermining vaccination is truly unparalleled among leading public-health officials. “As a surgeon general he stands alone,” Reiss told me. Yet Ladapo’s policy activism, however grotesque it might seem, has been bizarrely ineffective in practice. Take his March 2022 move to lead the way on not vaccinating young people against COVID. Media coverage of that announcement dwelled on reasonable concerns that this policy would dampen immunization rates; vaccine experts said it was a dangerous and irresponsible move that would “cause more people to die.” In practice, though, it seems to have done almost nothing. At the time of Ladapo’s announcement, 24.2 percent of Florida’s kids and 66.3 percent of its teenagers had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine. (The corresponding national numbers at the time were somewhat higher.) By the end of the year, and in spite of Ladapo’s contrarian guidance, Florida’s vaccination numbers for these age groups were up by about four and three points respectively—which is almost exactly the same amount, percentage-wise, as the increases in those numbers seen across the country.

    Or compare Florida’s experience to that of Nevada, a state which had very similar child and teen vaccination rates in March 2022: 23.1 percent and 64.0 percent. Through the end of 2022, while Ladapo was discouraging his constituents from getting shots, that state’s Democratic governor was engaged in a large-scale effort to do just the opposite. And yet the results were essentially the same: Nevada’s rates increased by pretty much the same amount as Florida’s.

    For all of Ladapo’s efforts to dampen his state’s enthusiasm for life-saving interventions, Florida’s age-adjusted rates of death from COVID do not appear to have increased relative to the rest of the country, at least according to reported numbers. In this way, one of the nation’s loudest and most powerful voices of vaccine skepticism seems to be shouting into the wind. His proclamations and decisions to this point have been exquisitely effective at producing outrage, but embarrassingly feeble when it comes to changing outcomes. Even taken on its own terms, as a means of changing public-health behavior, Ladapo’s anti-vaccine activism has been a demonstrable failure.

    Perhaps this week’s decision to relax the rules on fighting measles will mark just one more step along that path: Once again, Florida’s surgeon general will have taken an appalling stance that ends up having no effect. But then again, now could be different. By the time Ladapo got around to undermining COVID shots, more than two-thirds of the state’s population, and 91 percent of its seniors, were already fully vaccinated. The damage he could have done was limited, by definition. But the measles outbreak in Weston is unfolding in real time. More such outbreaks are nearly guaranteed to occur in the U.S. in the months ahead. Reiss worries that Ladapo’s new idea, of choosing not to separate out unvaccinated kids during a school outbreak, could end up spreading into other jurisdictions. “If this becomes a precedent, that becomes a bigger problem,” she told me.

    For the first time since taking office, Ladapo may finally have a real opportunity to make a difference through his vaccination policy. That’s a problem.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • The Enigma of ‘Heat-Related’ Deaths

    The Enigma of ‘Heat-Related’ Deaths

    [ad_1]

    The autopsy should have been a piece of cake. My patient had a history of widely metastatic cancer, which was pretty straightforward as far as causes of death go. Entering the various body cavities, my colleague and I found what we anticipated: Nearly every organ was riddled with tumors. But after we had completed the work, I realized that I knew why the patient had died, but not why he’d died that day. We found no evidence of a heart attack or blood clot or ruptured bowel. Nothing to explain his sudden demise. Yes, he had advanced cancer—but he’d been living with that cancer the day before he died, and over many weeks and months preceding. I asked my colleague what he thought. Perhaps there had been some subtle change in the patient’s blood chemistry, or in his heart’s electrical signaling, that we simply couldn’t see? “I guess the patient just up and died,” he said.

    I’m a hospital pathologist; my profession is one of many trying to explain the end of life. In that role, I have learned time and again that even the most thorough medical exams leave behind uncertainty. Take the current spate of heat-related fatalities brought on by a summer of record-breaking temperatures. Residents of Phoenix endured a month of consecutive 110-degree days. People have been literally sizzling on sidewalks. And news organizations are taking note of what is said to be a growing body count: 39 heat deaths in Maricopa County, Arizona; 10 in Laredo, Texas. But the precision of these figures is illusory. Cause of death cannot be measured as exactly as the temperature, and what qualifies as “heat-related” will always be a judgment call: Some people die from heat; others just up and die when it happens to be hot.

    Mortality is contested ground, a place where different types of knowledge are in conflict. In Clark County, Nevada, for example, coroners spend weeks investigating possible heat-related deaths. Families are interviewed, death scenes are inspected, and medical tests are performed. The coroner must factor in all of these sources of information because no single autopsy finding can definitively diagnose a heat fatality. A victim may be found to have suffered from hyperthermia—an abnormally high body temperature—or they may be tossed into the more subjective bucket of those who died from ”environmental heat stress.”

    Very few deaths undergo such an extensive forensic examination in the first place. Most of the time, the circumstances appear straightforward—a 75-year-old has a stroke; a smoker succumbs to an exacerbation of his chronic lung disease—and the patient’s primary-care doctor or hospital physician completes the death certificate on their own. But heat silently worsens many preexisting conditions; oppressive temperatures can cause an already dysfunctional organ to fail. A recent study out of China estimated that mortality from heart attacks can rise as much as 74 percent during a severe, several-day heat wave. Another study from the U.S. found that even routine temperature fluctuations can subtly alter kidney function, cholesterol levels, and blood counts. Physicians can’t easily tease out these influences. If an elderly man on a park bench suddenly slouches over from a heart attack in 90-degree weather, it’s hard to say for sure whether the heat was what did him in. Epidemiologists must come to the rescue, using statistics to uncover those hidden causes at the population level. This bird’s-eye view shows a simple fact: Bad weather means more death. But it still doesn’t tell us what to think about the man on the bench.

    Research (and common sense) tells us that some individuals are going to be especially vulnerable to climate risks. Poverty, physical labor, substandard housing, advanced age, and medical comorbidities all put one in greater danger of experiencing heat-related illness. The weather has a way of kicking you while you’re down, and the wealthy and able-bodied are better able to dodge the blows. A financial struggle as small as an unpaid $51 portion of an electricity bill can prove deadly in the summer. In the autopsies I’ve performed, a patient’s family, medical record, and living situation often told a story of long-term social neglect. But there was no place on the death certificate for me to describe these tragic circumstances. There was certainly no checkbox to indicate that climate change contributed to a fatality. Such matters were out of my jurisdiction.

    The public-health approach to assessing deaths has its own problems. Mostly it’s confusing. Reams of scientific studies have reported on hundreds of different risk factors for mortality. Sultry weather appears to be dangerous, but so do skipping breakfast, taking naps, and receiving care from a male doctor. Researchers have declared just about everything a major killer. A few months ago, the surgeon general announced that feeling disconnected is as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day. The FDA commissioner has said that misinformation is the nation’s leading cause of premature death. And is poverty or medical error the fourth-leading cause? I can’t keep track.

    With so many mortality statistics at our disposal, which ones get emphasized can be more a matter of politics than science. Liberals see the current heat wave—and its wave of heat-related deaths—as an urgent call to action to combat climate change, while conservatives dismiss this concern as a mental disorder. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed concluded that worrying about climate change is irrational, because “if heat waves were as deadly as the press proclaims, Homo sapiens couldn’t have survived thousands of years without air conditioning.” (Humans survived thousands of years without penicillin, but syphilis was still a net negative.) Similarly, when COVID became the third-leading cause of death in the U.S., pandemic skeptics said it was a fiction: Victims were dying “with COVID,” not “from COVID.” Because many people who died of SARS-CoV-2 had underlying risk factors, some politicians and doctors brushed off the official numbers as hopelessly confounded. Who could say whether the virus had killed anyone at all?

    The dismissal of COVID’s carnage was mostly cynical and unscientific. But it’s true that death certificates paint one picture of the pandemic, and excess-death calculations paint another. Scientists will be debating COVID’s exact body count for decades. Fatalities from heat are subject to similar ambiguities, even as their determination comes with real-world consequences. In June, for example, officials from Multnomah County, Oregon—where Portland is located—sued oil and gas producers over the effects of a 2021 heat wave that resulted in 69 heat-related deaths, as officially recorded. This statistic will likely be subjected to intense cross-examination. The pandemic showed us that casting doubt on the deceased is a convenient strategy.

    No matter how we count the bodies, extreme weather leads to suffering—especially among the most vulnerable members of society. A lot of people have already perished during this summer’s heat wave. Their passing is more than a coincidence—not all of them just up and died.

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Mazer

    Source link