health

mcdonald’s-e.-coli-outbreak-grows-by-50%-in-3-days-as-lawsuits-mount

McDonald’s E. coli outbreak grows by 50% in 3 days as lawsuits mount

Twenty-six more cases have been identified in a multistate E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to McDonald’s Quarter Pounder burgers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Friday.

The 26 new cases represent a 50 percent increase in the case count from October 22, bringing the total to 75 cases. With the new cases, health officials also reported 12 more hospitalizations, including one new adult case of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a severe complication to an E. coli O157:H7 infection. Three more states are also newly affected: Michigan, New Mexico, and Washington.

In all, the outbreak now stands at 75 cases, including 22 hospitalizations and two cases of HUS, across 13 states. The number of deaths linked to the outbreak remains at one. The most recent illness onset for the cases identified so far is October 10.

The states with cases now include: Colorado (26 cases), Montana (13), Nebraska (11), New Mexico (5), Utah (5), Missouri (4), Wyoming (4), and Michigan (2), and one case each in Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The source of the outbreak has not yet been confirmed, but investigators have focused on the beef patties and slivered onions used on McDonald’s Quarter Pounders. McDonald’s immediately pulled the popular burger off the menu and paused distribution of the slivered onions from affected restaurants when the CDC announced the outbreak Tuesday. McDonald’s considered the affected areas to be Colorado, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as portions of Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

Onions recalled and destroyed

On Wednesday, one of McDonald’s onion suppliers, Taylor Farms, recalled peeled and diced yellow onion products. Taylor Farms told Bloomberg earlier this week that its testing had not turned up E. coli, but that it decided to issue the recall anyway.

McDonald’s E. coli outbreak grows by 50% in 3 days as lawsuits mount Read More »

taco-bell,-kfc,-pizza-hut,-burger-king-pull-onions-amid-mcdonald’s-outbreak

Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King pull onions amid McDonald’s outbreak

On Thursday, Yum Brands—owner of KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell—followed that lead, saying it, too, would remove fresh onions from its chains’ menus at some locations, according to Reuters. Restaurant Brands International, owner of Burger King, also did the same.

“We’ve been told by corporate to not use any onions going forward for the foreseeable future,” Maria Gonzales, the on-duty manager inside a Burger King in Longmont, Colorado, told Reuters on Wednesday. “They’re off our menu.”

As of Thursday, the case count in the E. coli outbreak remained at 49 people in 10 states. Of those, 10 were hospitalized, including a child with a life-threatening complication. One older person in Colorado has died.

The states with cases include: Colorado (26 cases), Nebraska (9), Utah (4), Wyoming (4), and one case each in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

McDonald’s removed Quarter Pounders and slivered onions from restaurant menus in Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, and portions of Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. In a statement, McDonald’s said that for these restaurants, its onions are “sourced by a single supplier that serves three distribution centers. The fast-food giant continues to serve other beef burgers and diced onions at impacted locations.

Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King pull onions amid McDonald’s outbreak Read More »

bird-flu-hit-a-dead-end-in-missouri,-but-it’s-running-rampant-in-california

Bird flu hit a dead end in Missouri, but it’s running rampant in California

So, in all, Missouri’s case count in the H5N1 outbreak will stay at one for now, and there remains no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Though both the household contact and the index case had evidence of an exposure, their identical blood test results and simultaneous symptom development suggest that they were exposed at the same time by a single source—what that source was, we may never know.

California and Washington

While the virus seems to have hit a dead end in Missouri, it’s still running rampant in California. Since state officials announced the first dairy herd infections at the end of August, the state has now tallied 137 infected herds and at least 13 infected dairy farm workers. California, the country’s largest dairy producer, now has the most herd infections and human cases in the outbreak, which was first confirmed in March.

In the briefing Thursday, officials announced another front in the bird flu fight. A chicken farm in Washington state with about 800,000 birds became infected with a different strain of H5 bird flu than the one circulating among dairy farms. This strain likely came from wild birds. While the chickens on the infected farms were being culled, the virus spread to farmworkers. So far, two workers have been confirmed to be infected, and five others are presumed to be positive.

As of publication time, at least 31 humans have been confirmed infected with H5 bird flu this year.

With the spread of bird flu in dairies and the fall bird migration underway, the virus will continue to have opportunities to jump to mammals and gain access to people. Officials have also expressed anxiety as seasonal flu ramps up, given influenza’s penchant for swapping genetic fragments to generate new viral combinations. The reassortment and exposure to humans increases the risk of the virus adapting to spread from human to human and spark an outbreak.

Bird flu hit a dead end in Missouri, but it’s running rampant in California Read More »

shady-drugmaker-used-code-words-to-sell-knockoff-weight-loss-drug:-lawsuit

Shady drugmaker used code words to sell knockoff weight-loss drug: lawsuit

Starts with a T

Pivotal Peptides—which is not a licensed pharmacy or dispensary—did not respond to the letter. Instead, its website was modified to indicate that it was “down for maintenance,” and the company instructed customers to email directly. About 10 days later, Pivotal Peptides’ registered agent, Elizabeth Gately, then sent an email (which Lilly obtained) instructing customers to place tirzepatide orders using coded language.

“Good News,” the email read, “Pivotal Peptides … is still in business!”

“If a favorite product (starting with T) was your go-to, that name can’t be used in any correspondence with me or listed on my price sheet anymore,” Gately allegedly wrote. “Therefore, I need another identifier and decided (for now) to call this peptide ’11mg.'”

Gately went on to say that the codenamed product “is Pivotal Peptide’s [sic] bestseller,” and “it is the only T size available from PP right now except by special order.” The letter ended with: “Remember to order ’11 mg’ with the latest price to identify the product you want, if applicable, and no longer use T in our communication.”

Pivotal Peptides did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

In a statement emailed to Ars, a Lilly spokesperson said Pivotal Peptides and the other companies Lilly is suing are engaging in “conduct that poses serious risks to patient safety.” In the lawsuit, Lilly notes that even children could be ordering this DIY, research-grade drug.

“No one should ever be allowed to sell these untested, non-human grade or manipulated drugs to American consumers,” the statement continued.

Lilly’s lawsuits come amid a legal storm over compounded versions of the tirzepatide, which can be legally made by licensed pharmacies as long as tirzepatide is in shortage. On October 2, the Food and Drug Administration announced that the shortage had ended but then decided to reconsider the decision after being sued by compounding pharmacies.

On several occasions, the FDA has warned of safety concerns related to compounded versions of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs.

Shady drugmaker used code words to sell knockoff weight-loss drug: lawsuit Read More »

studies-of-migraine’s-many-triggers-offer-paths-to-new-therapies

Studies of migraine’s many triggers offer paths to new therapies


One class of drugs has already found success in treating the painful, common attacks.

Displeased African American woman holding her head in pain.

For Cherise Irons, chocolate, red wine, and aged cheeses are dangerous. So are certain sounds, perfumes and other strong scents, cold weather, and thunderstorms. Stress and lack of sleep, too.

She suspects all of these things can trigger her migraine attacks, which manifest in a variety of ways: pounding pain in the back of her head, exquisite sensitivity to the slightest sound, even blackouts and partial paralysis.

Irons, 48, of Coral Springs, Florida, once worked as a school assistant principal. Now, she’s on disability due to her migraine. Irons has tried so many migraine medications she’s lost count—but none has helped for long. Even a few of the much-touted new drugs that have quelled episodes for many people with migraine have failed for Irons.

Though not all are as impaired as Irons, migraine is a surprisingly common problem, affecting 14 percent to 15 percent of people. Yet scientists and physicians remain largely in the dark about how triggers like Irons’ lead to attacks. They have made progress nonetheless: The latest drugs, inhibitors of a body signaling molecule called CGRP, have been a blessing for many. For others, not so much. And it’s not clear why.

The complexity of migraine probably has something to do with it. “It’s a very diverse condition,” says Debbie Hay, a pharmacologist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “There’s still huge debate as to what the causes are, what the consequences are.”

That’s true despite decades of research and the remarkable ability of scientists to trigger migraine attacks in the lab: Giving CGRP intravenously to people who get migraines gives some of them attacks. So do nitric oxide, a natural body molecule that relaxes blood vessels, and another signaling molecule called PACAP. In mice, too, CGRP and PACAP molecules can bring on migraine-like effects.

All these molecules act as “on” switches for migraine attacks, which suggests that there must be “off” switches out there, too, says Amynah Pradhan, a neuroscientist at Washington University in St. Louis. Scientists have been actively seeking those “off” switches; the CGRP-blocking drugs were a major win in this line of research.

Despite the insights gleaned, migraine remains a tricky disease to understand and treat. For example, the steps between the molecular action of CGRP and a person experiencing a headache or other symptoms are still murky. But scientists have lots of other ideas for new drugs that might stave off migraine attacks, or stop ongoing ones.

“It’s important to have an expanded toolbox,” says Pradhan.

Deciphering migraine mechanisms

Migraine is the second most prevalent cause of disability in the world, affecting mainly women of childbearing age. A person may have one migraine attack per year, or several per week, or even ongoing symptoms.

Complicating the picture further, there’s not just one kind of migraine attack. Migraine can cause headache; nausea; sensitivity to light, sound or smell; or a panoply of other symptoms. Some people get visual auras; some don’t. Some women have migraine attacks associated with menstruation. Some people, particularly kids, have “abdominal migraine,” characterized not so much by headaches as by nausea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

Initially, the throbbing nature of the head pain led researchers to suspect that the root problem was expansion of the blood vessels within the membranes surrounding the brain, with these vessels pulsing in time with the heartbeat. But, as it turns out, the throbbing doesn’t really match up with heart rate.

Then researchers noticed that many signs that presage migraine attack, such as light sensitivity and appetite changes, are all regulated by the brain, particularly a region called the hypothalamus. The pendulum swung toward suspicion of a within-brain origin.

Today, scientists wonder if both in-brain and beyond-brain factors, including blood vessels releasing pain-causing molecules, play a role, as may other contributors such as immune cells.

What all these proposed mechanisms ultimately point to, though, is pain created not in the brain itself but in the meninges—a multilayered “plastic bag around your brain,” as described by Messoud Ashina, a neurologist at the University of Copenhagen and director of the Human Migraine Research Unit at Rigshospitalet Glostrup in Denmark. These membranes contain cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain and holds it in place. They also support blood vessels and nerves that feed into the brain. The brain itself cannot feel pain, but nerves in the meninges, especially the trigeminal nerve between the face and brain, can. If they’re activated, they send the brain a major “ouch” message.

Physicians and pharmacists already possess a number of anti-migraine tools — some to prevent future attacks, others to treat an attack once it’s started. Options to stop a current migraine attack in its tracks include over-the-counter painkillers, such as aspirin and ibuprofen, or prescription opioids. Triptans, developed specifically to counter migraine attacks once they’ve begun, are drugs that tighten up blood vessels via interactions with serotonin receptors.

However, scientists later recognized that constricting blood vessels is not the main way triptans relieve migraine; their action to quiet nerve signals or inflammation may be more relevant. Ditans, a newer class of migraine drugs, also act on serotonin receptors but affect only nerves, not blood vessels, and they still work.

For migraine attack prevention, pre-CGRP-era tools still in use today include antidepressants, blood pressure medications, epilepsy drugs, and injections of botulinum toxin that numb the pain-sensing nerves in the head and neck.

Most of these medicines, except triptans and ditans, weren’t designed specifically for migraine, and they often come with unpleasant side effects. It can take months for some preventive medicines to start working, and frequent use of triptans or painkillers can lead to another problem, the poorly understood “medication overuse headache.

A powerful new player

The CGRP drugs provided a major expansion to the migraine pharmacopoeia, as they can both prevent attacks from happening and stop ones that have already started. They also mark the first time that clues from basic migraine research led to an “off” switch that prevents migraine attacks from even starting.

CGRP is a small snippet of protein made in various places in the body. A messenger molecule that normally clicks into another molecule, called a receptor, on a cell’s surface, CGRP can turn on activity in the receiving cell. It’s found in pain-sensing nerve fibers that run alongside meningeal blood vessels and in the trigeminal ganglia near the base of the skull where many nerves are rooted. The molecule is a powerful blood vessel dilator. It also acts on immune cells, nerve cells, and the nerve-supporting cells called glia.

All of these features—a location in the meningeal nerve fibers with several actions that might be linked to migraine, like expanding blood vessels—pointed to CGRP being a migraine “on” switch. Further research also showed that CGRP is often found at higher levels in the body fluids of people who get migraines.

In a small 2010 study, 12 out of 14 people with migraine did report a headache after receiving intravenous CGRP; four of them also experienced aura symptoms such as vision changes. Only two out of 11 people who don’t normally get migraine attacks also developed a headache after CGRP infusion.

CGRP also caused mice to be extra sensitive to light, suggesting it could have something to do with the light sensitivity in humans, too.

The steps between CGRP in the bloodstream or meninges as a trigger and migraine symptoms like light sensitivity aren’t fully understood, though scientists do have theories. Ashina is pursuing how CGRP, PACAP, and other substances might trigger migraine attacks. These molecules all stick to receptors on the surface of cells, such as the ones in blood vessel walls. That binding kicks off a series of events inside the cell that includes generation of a substance called cyclic AMP and, ultimately, opening of channels that let potassium ions out of the cell. All that external potassium causes blood vessels to dilate—but it might also trigger nearby pain-sensing nerves, such as the trigeminal cluster, Ashina hypothesizes.

It’s a neat story, but far from proven. “We still don’t really know what CGRP does in the context of migraine,” says Greg Dussor, a neuroscientist at the University of Texas at Dallas.

In one possible model for migraine, various molecules can activate blood vessel cells to release potassium, which activates nearby neurons that send a pain signal to the brain. Various strategies that seek to interfere with this pathway, including the anti-CGRP drugs, are of great interest to migraine researchers.

In one possible model for migraine, various molecules can activate blood vessel cells to release potassium, which activates nearby neurons that send a pain signal to the brain. Various strategies that seek to interfere with this pathway, including the anti-CGRP drugs, are of great interest to migraine researchers. Credit: Knowable Magazine

Uncertainty about CGRP’s precise role in migraine hasn’t stopped progress in the clinic: There are now eight different blockers of CGRP, or its receptor, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for migraine treatment or prevention. The American Headache Society recently released a statement saying that CGRP drugs should be considered first-line treatments for migraine. Despite CGRP’s widespread presence across the body, blocking it results in few and generally mild side effects, such as constipation.

“It’s a good drug,” says Dan Levy, a neurophysiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who recently described the role of the meninges in migraine for the Annual Review of Neuroscience.

Questions remain, though. One is whether, and how well, CGRP blockers work in men. Since three to four times as many women as men have migraine, the medicines were mostly tested in women. A recent review found that while CGRP blockers seem to prevent future headaches in both sexes, they haven’t been shown to stop acute migraine attacks in men as currently prescribed. (Notably, men made up less than a fifth of those included in the studies as a whole, making it more difficult to detect any low-level effects.)

More data may settle the question. Hsiangkuo Yuan, neurologist and director of clinical research at Thomas Jefferson University’s headache center in Philadelphia, says he’s been tracking the effects of CGRP blockers in his patients and hasn’t seen much difference between the sexes so far in terms of CGRP-blocking antibodies, though there may be a difference in how people respond to small molecules that block CGRP.

Access to CGRP inhibitors has also become an issue. Many insurers won’t pay for the new drugs until patients have tried and failed with a couple of other treatments first — which can take several months. This led Irons, the Florida patient, to try multiple medications that didn’t help her before she tried several CGRP blockers. In her case, one CGRP drug didn’t work at all; others worked for a time. But eventually they all failed.

Searching for new “off” switches

Her case illustrates the need for still more options to prevent or treat migraine attacks, even as the CGRP success story showed there’s hope for new medicines.

“CGRP has really paved the way,” says Andrew Russo, a neuroscientist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City who described CGRP as a new migraine target for the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology in 2015. “It’s a very exciting time for the field.”

Physicians have a number of therapies that can treat migraine — from familiar painkillers such as acetaminophen to the newer ditans and CGRP blockers. Yet, many patients still struggle to find consistent symptom relief, motivating scientists to continue to search for new medications.

Physicians have a number of therapies that can treat migraine — from familiar painkillers such as acetaminophen to the newer ditans and CGRP blockers. Yet, many patients still struggle to find consistent symptom relief, motivating scientists to continue to search for new medications. Credit: Knowable Magazine

Russo and Hay, of New Zealand, are interested in building on CGRP action with a potential novel therapy. It turns out CGRP doesn’t hit just one receptor on the surface of cells, like a key that matches only one lock. In addition to the traditional CGRP receptor, it also binds and activates the AMY1 receptor—which itself can be activated by another molecule, amylin.

AMY1 receptors are found at key sites for migraine pain, such as the trigeminal nerves. In a small study, Russo and Hay found that injecting a synthetic version of amylin creates migraine-like attacks in about 40 percent of people with migraine. The researchers also discovered that in mice, activating AMY1 causes sensitivity to touch and light.

Again, that sounds like a migraine attack “on” switch, and Russo believes there’s a good chance that researchers can develop a drug that acts as an “off” switch.

Another promising “on” switch contender is PACAP. Like CGRP, it’s a small protein and signaling molecule. PACAP also appears in the trigeminal nerves that transmit migraine pain and seems to be elevated in some people experiencing a migraine attack. In rodents, PACAP causes expansion of blood vessels, inflammation in the nervous system, and hypersensitivity to touch and light. In a little over half of people with migraine, intravenous PACAP kicked off a fresh, migraine-like attack.

But, Russo says, “PACAP is more than just a CGRP wannabe.” It appears to work at least somewhat differently. In mice, antibodies that block PACAP do nothing against the light aversion activated by CGRP, and vice versa. That suggests that PACAP and CGRP could instigate two alternate pathways to a migraine attack, and some people might be prone to one or the other route. Thus, PACAP-blocking drugs might help people who don’t get relief from CGRP blockers.

Clinical research so far hints that anti-PACAP treatments indeed might help. In 2023, the Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck announced results of a trial in which they dosed 237 people with an antibody to PACAP. Those who received the highest dose had, on average, six fewer migraine days in the four weeks following the treatment than they did before receiving the medication, compared to a drop by only four days in people who received a placebo.

Then there’s Ashina’s work, which unites many of the “on”-switch clues to suggest that PACAP, CGRP and other molecules all act by triggering cyclic AMP, causing blood vessel cells to spew potassium. If that’s so, then drugs that act on cyclic AMP or potassium channels might serve as “on” or “off” switches for migraine attacks.

Ashina has tested that hypothesis with cilostazol, a blood vessel dilator used in people who have poor circulation in their legs. Cilostazol boosts production of cyclic AMP and, Ashina found, it caused attacks in a majority of people with migraine.

He also tried levcromakalim, another blood vessel opener that lowers blood pressure. It’s a potassium-channel opener, and this, too, caused migraine attacks for all 16 people in the study.

To Ashina, these experiments suggest that medicines that turn off migraine-inducing pathways at or before the point of potassium release could be of benefit. There might be side effects, such as changes in blood pressure, but Ashina notes there are potassium-channel subtypes that may be limited to blood vessels in the brain. Targeting those specific channels would be safer.

“I personally really like the potassium-channel track,” says Russo. “I think if we can find drugs targeting the ion channels, the potassium channels, that will be fruitful.”

Hopeful for opioids

Russo is also upbeat about work on a new kind of opioid. Traditional opioids, whether from poppies or pharmacies, work on a receptor called mu. Along with their remarkable pain-dulling abilities, they often create side effects including constipation and itching, plus euphoria and risk for addiction.

But there’s another class of opioid receptors, called delta receptors, that don’t cause euphoria, says Pradhan, who’s investigating them. When delta-targeting opioid molecules are offered to animals, the animals won’t self-administer the drugs as they do with mu-acting opioids such as morphine, suggesting that the drugs are less pleasurable and less likely to be habit-forming.

Delta receptors appear in parts of the nervous system linked to migraine, including the trigeminal ganglia. Pradhan has found that in mice, compounds acting on the delta opioid receptor seem to relieve hypersensitivity to touch, a marker for migraine-like symptoms, as well as brain activity associated with migraine aura.

Encouraged by early evidence that these receptors can be safely targeted in people, two companies—PharmNovo in Sweden and Pennsylvania-based Trevena—are pursuing alternative opioid treatments. Migraine is one potential use for such drugs.

Thus, the evolving story of migraine is one of many types of triggers, many types of attacks, many targets, and, with time, more potential treatments.

“I don’t think there’s one molecule that fits all,” says Levy. “Hopefully, in 10, 15 years, we’ll know, for a given person, what triggers it and what can target that.”

This story originally appeared in Knowable Magazine.

Photo of Knowable Magazine

Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens.

Studies of migraine’s many triggers offer paths to new therapies Read More »

judge-slams-florida-for-censoring-political-ad:-“it’s-the-first-amendment,-stupid”

Judge slams Florida for censoring political ad: “It’s the First Amendment, stupid”


Florida threatened TV stations over ad that criticized state’s abortion law.

A woman holding an MRI displaying a brain tumor.

Screenshot of political advertisement featuring a woman describing her experience having an abortion after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Credit: Floridians Protecting Freedom

US District Judge Mark Walker had a blunt message for the Florida surgeon general in an order halting the government official’s attempt to censor a political ad that opposes restrictions on abortion.

“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid,” Walker, an Obama appointee who is chief judge in US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote yesterday in a ruling that granted a temporary restraining order.

“Whether it’s a woman’s right to choose, or the right to talk about it, Plaintiff’s position is the same—’don’t tread on me,'” Walker wrote later in the ruling. “Under the facts of this case, the First Amendment prohibits the State of Florida from trampling on Plaintiff’s free speech.”

The Florida Department of Health recently sent a legal threat to broadcast TV stations over the airing of a political ad that criticized abortion restrictions in Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act. The department in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration claimed the ad falsely described the abortion law, which could be weakened by a pending ballot question.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group that launched the TV ad and is sponsoring a ballot question to lift restrictions on abortion, sued Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and Department of Health general counsel John Wilson. Wilson has resigned.

Surgeon general blocked from further action

Walker’s order granting the group’s motion states that “Defendant Ladapo is temporarily enjoined from taking any further actions to coerce, threaten, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to television stations, broadcasters, or other parties for airing Plaintiff’s speech, or undertaking enforcement action against Plaintiff for running political advertisements or engaging in other speech protected under the First Amendment.”

The order expires on October 29 but could be replaced by a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect while litigation continues. A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for the morning of October 29.

The pending ballot question would amend the state Constitution to say, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

Walker’s ruling said that Ladapo “has the right to advocate for his own position on a ballot measure. But it would subvert the rule of law to permit the State to transform its own advocacy into the direct suppression of protected political speech.”

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel recently criticized state officials, writing that “threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government’s views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech.”

State threatened criminal proceedings

The Floridians Protecting Freedom advertisement features a woman who “recalls her decision to have an abortion in Florida in 2022,” and “states that she would not be able to have an abortion for the same reason under the current law,” Walker’s ruling said.

Caroline, the woman in the ad, states that “the doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom. Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine. Amendment 4 is going to protect women like me; we have to vote yes.”

The ruling described the state government response:

Shortly after the ad began running, John Wilson, then general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, sent letters on the Department’s letterhead to Florida TV stations. The letters assert that Plaintiff’s political advertisement is false, dangerous, and constitutes a “sanitary nuisance” under Florida law. The letter informed the TV stations that the Department of Health must notify the person found to be committing the nuisance to remove it within 24 hours pursuant to section 386.03(1), Florida Statutes. The letter further warned that the Department could institute legal proceedings if the nuisance were not timely removed, including criminal proceedings pursuant to section 386.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Finally, the letter acknowledged that the TV stations have a constitutional right to “broadcast political advertisements,” but asserted this does not include “false advertisements which, if believed, would likely have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida.” At least one of the TV stations that had been running Plaintiff’s advertisement stopped doing so after receiving this letter from the Department of Health.

The Department of Health claimed the ad “is categorically false” because “Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act does not prohibit abortion if a physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is less than 6 weeks.”

Floridians Protecting Freedom responded that the woman in the ad made true statements, saying that “Caroline was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer when she was 20 weeks pregnant; the diagnosis was terminal. Under Florida law, abortions may only be performed after six weeks gestation if ‘[t]wo physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.'”

Because “Caroline’s diagnosis was terminal… an abortion would not have saved her life, only extended it. Florida law would not allow an abortion in this instance because the abortion would not have ‘save[d] the pregnant woman’s life,’ only extended her life,” the group said.

Judge: State should counter with its own speech

Walker’s ruling said the government can’t censor the ad by claiming it is false:

Plaintiff’s argument is correct. While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff’s political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.”

State officials must show that their actions “were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” Walker wrote. A “narrowly tailored solution” in this case would be counterspeech, not censorship, he wrote.

“For all these reasons, Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” the ruling said. Walker wrote that a ruling in favor of the state would open the door to more censorship:

This case pits the right to engage in political speech against the State’s purported interest in protecting the health and safety of Floridians from “false advertising.” It is no answer to suggest that the Department of Health is merely flexing its traditional police powers to protect health and safety by prosecuting “false advertising”—if the State can rebrand rank viewpoint discriminatory suppression of political speech as a “sanitary nuisance,” then any political viewpoint with which the State disagrees is fair game for censorship.

Walker then noted that Ladapo “has ample, constitutional alternatives to mitigate any harm caused by an injunction in this case.” The state is already running “its own anti-Amendment 4 campaign to educate the public about its view of Florida’s abortion laws and to correct the record, as it sees fit, concerning pro-Amendment 4 speech,” Walker wrote. “The State can continue to combat what it believes to be ‘false advertising’ by meeting Plaintiff’s speech with its own.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Judge slams Florida for censoring political ad: “It’s the First Amendment, stupid” Read More »

us-vaccinations-fall-again-as-more-parents-refuse-lifesaving-shots-for-kids

US vaccinations fall again as more parents refuse lifesaving shots for kids

Measles, whopping cough, polio, tetanus—devastating and sometimes deadly diseases await comebacks in the US as more and more parents are declining routine childhood vaccines that have proved safe and effective.

The vaccination rates among kindergartners have fallen once again, dipping into the range of 92 percent in the 2023–2024 school year, down from about 93 percent the previous school year and 95 percent in 2019–2020. That’s according to an analysis of the latest vaccination data published today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The analysis also found that vaccination exemptions rose to an all-time high of 3.3 percent, up from 3 percent in the previous school year. The rise in exemptions is nearly entirely driven by non-medical exemptions—in other words, religious or philosophical exemptions. Only 0.2 percent of all vaccination exemptions are medically justified.

The new stats mean that more parents are choosing to decline lifesaving vaccines and, for the fourth consecutive year, the US has remained below the 95 percent vaccination target that would keep vaccine-preventable diseases from spreading within communities. In fact, the country continues to slip further away from that target.

Based on data from 49 states plus the District of Columbia (Montana did not report data), 80 percent of jurisdictions saw declines in vaccinations of all four key vaccines assessed: MMR, against measles, mumps, and rubella; DTaP, against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough); VAR, against chickenpox; and polio.

Vulnerable kids

Coverage for MMR fell to 92.7 percent in 2023–2024, down from 93.1 percent in the previous school year. That means that about 280,000 (7.3 percent) kindergartners in the US are at risk of measles, mumps, and rubella infections. Likewise, DTaP coverage fell to 92.3 percent, down from 92.7 percent. Polio vaccination fell to 92.6 percent from 93.1 percent, and VAR was down to 92.4 percent from 92.9 percent.

US vaccinations fall again as more parents refuse lifesaving shots for kids Read More »

there’s-another-massive-meat-recall-over-listeria—and-it’s-a-doozy

There’s another massive meat recall over Listeria—and it’s a doozy

Another nationwide meat recall is underway over Listeria contamination—and its far more formidable than the last.

As of October 15, meat supplier BrucePac, of Durant, Oklahoma, is recalling 11.8 million pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products after routine federal safety testing found Listeria monocytogenes, a potentially deadly bacterium, in samples of the company’s poultry. The finding triggered an immediate recall, which was first issued on October 9. But, officials are still working to understand the extent of the contamination—and struggling to identify the hundreds of potentially contaminated products.

“Because we sell to other companies who resell, repackage, or use our products as ingredients in other foods, we do not have a list of retail products that contain our recalled items,” BrucePac said in a statement updated October 15.

Depending on the packaging, the products may have establishment numbers 51205 or P-51205 inside or under the USDA mark of inspection. But, for now, consumers’ best chance of determining whether they’ve purchased any of the affected products is to look through a 342-page list of products identified by the US Department of Agriculture so far.

The unorganized document lists fresh and frozen foods sold at common retailers, including 7-Eleven, Aldi, Amazon Fresh, Giant Eagle, Kroger, Target, Trader Joe’s, Walmart, and Wegmans. Affected products carry well-known brand names, such as Atkins, Boston Market, Dole, Fresh Express, Jenny Craig, Michelina’s, Taylor Farms, and stores’ brands, such as Target’s Good & Gather. The recalled products were made between May 31, 2024 and October 8, 2024.

In the latest update, the USDA noted that some of the recalled products were also distributed to schools, but the agency hasn’t identified the schools that received the products. Restaurants and other institutions also received the products.

There’s another massive meat recall over Listeria—and it’s a doozy Read More »

drugmakers-can-keep-making-off-brand-weight-loss-drugs-as-fda-backpedals

Drugmakers can keep making off-brand weight-loss drugs as FDA backpedals

The judge in the case, District Judge Mark Pittman, granted the FDA’s request, canceling an October 15 hearing, and ordering the parties to submit a joint status report on November 21.

Drugmakers respond

The move was celebrated by the Outsourcing Facilities Association (OFA), which filed the lawsuit.

“We believe that this is a fair resolution in light of the agency’s rash decision to take the drug off of the list at a time when the agency has acknowledged ‘supply disruptions,’ which immediately created a major access issue for patients everywhere,” OFA Chairperson Lee Rosebush said in a statement. “Most important, should the FDA repeat its removal decision when a shortage still genuinely exists, we will return to court.”

The move is also likely to please patients who have come to rely on cheaper, more readily available compounded versions of the drugs. For some, compounded products may have been their only access to tirzepatide.  Still, those drugs are not without risk. The FDA has repeatedly emphasized that compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and do not go through the same safety, efficacy, and quality reviews. And the agency has warned of dosing errors and other safety concerns with compounded versions.

The one party that is certainly unhappy with the FDA’s move is Eli Lilly, which had reportedly sent cease-and-desist letters to compounders. In an emailed statement to Ars, a spokesperson for Lilly said that there was sufficient supply of the company’s drug and continued use of compounded versions is unwarranted. “Nothing changes the fact that, as FDA has recognized, Mounjaro and Zepbound are available and the shortage remains ‘resolved,'” the spokesperson said.

Lilly also noted the FDA’s safety concerns about the compounded versions, adding that its own examination of some compounded products found impurities, bacteria, strange coloring, incorrect potency, puzzling chemical structures, and, in one case, a product that was just sugar alcohol.

“All doses of Lilly’s FDA-approved medicines are available and it is important that patients not be exposed to the risks in taking untested, unapproved knockoffs,” the spokesperson said.

In terms of the supply “disruptions” the FDA mentioned and that some patients and pharmacies have reportedly experienced, Lilly said that the supply chain was complex and there are many reasons why a given pharmacy may not have a specific dose at hand, such as limited refrigerated storage space.

Drugmakers can keep making off-brand weight-loss drugs as FDA backpedals Read More »

routine-dental-x-rays-are-not-backed-by-evidence—experts-want-it-to-stop

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence—experts want it to stop


The actual recommendations might surprise you—along with the state of modern dentistry.

An expert looking at a dental X-ray and saying “look at that unnecessary X-ray,” probably. Credit: Getty | MilanEXPO

Has your dentist ever told you that it’s recommended to get routine dental X-rays every year? My (former) dentist’s office did this year—in writing, even. And they claimed that the recommendation came from the American Dental Association.

It’s a common refrain from dentists, but it’s false. The American Dental Association does not recommend annual routine X-rays. And this is not new; it’s been that way for well over a decade.

The association’s guidelines from 2012 recommended that adults who don’t have an increased risk of dental caries (myself included) need only bitewing X-rays of the back teeth every two to three years. Even people with a higher risk of caries can go as long as 18 months between bitewings. The guidelines also note that X-rays should not be preemptively used to look for problems: “Radiographic screening for the purpose of detecting disease before clinical examination should not be performed,” the guidelines read. In other words, dentists are supposed to examine your teeth before they take any X-rays.

But, of course, the 2012 guidelines are outdated—the latest ones go further. In updated guidance published in April, the ADA doesn’t recommend any specific time window for X-rays at all. Rather, it emphasizes that patient exposure to X-rays should be minimized, and any X-rays should be clinically justified.

There’s a good chance you’re surprised. Dentistry’s overuse of X-rays is a problem dentists do not appear eager to discuss—and would likely prefer to skirt. My former dentist declined to comment for this article, for example. And other dentists have been doing that for years. Nevertheless, the problem is well-established. A New York Times article from 2016, titled “You Probably Don’t Need Dental X-Rays Every Year,” quoted a dental expert noting the exact problem:

“Many patients of all ages receive bitewing X-rays far more frequently than necessary or recommended. And adults in good dental health can go a decade between full-mouth X-rays.”

Data is lacking

The problem has bubbled up again in a series of commentary pieces published in JAMA Internal Medicine today. The pieces were all sparked by a viewpoint that Ars reported on in May, in which three dental and health experts highlighted that many routine aspects of dentistry, including biannual cleanings, are not evidence-based and that the industry is rife with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. That viewpoint, titled “Too Much Dentistry,” also appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The new pieces take a more specific aim at dental radiography. But, as in the May viewpoint, experts also blasted dentistry more generally for being out of step with modern medicine in its lack of data to support its practices—practices that continue amid financial incentives to overtreat and little oversight to stop it, they note.

In a piece titled “Too Much Dental Radiography,” Sheila Feit, a retired medical expert based in New York, pointed out that using X-rays for dental screenings is not backed by evidence. “Data are lacking about outcomes,” she wrote. If anything, the weak data we have makes it look ineffective. For instance, a 2021 systemic review of 77 studies that included data on a total of 15,518 tooth sites or surfaces found that using X-rays to detect early tooth decay led to a high degree of false-negative results. In other words, it led to missed cases.

Feit called for gold-standard randomized clinical trials to evaluate the risks and benefits of X-ray screenings for patients, particularly adults at low risk of caries. “Financial aspects of dental radiography also deserve further study,” Feit added. Overall, Feit called the May viewpoint “a timely call for evidence to support or refute common clinical dental practices.”

Dentistry without oversight

In a response published simultaneously in JAMA Internal Medicine, oral medicine expert Yehuda Zadik championed Feit’s point, calling it “an essential discussion about the necessity and risks of routine dental radiography, emphasizing once again the need for evidence-based dental care.”

Zadik, a professor of dental medicine at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted that the overuse of radiography in dentistry is a global problem, one aided by dentistry’s unique delivery:

“Dentistry is among the few remaining health care professions where clinical examination, diagnostic testing including radiographs, diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment are all performed in place, often by the same care practitioner” Zadik wrote. “This model of care delivery prevents external oversight of the entire process.”

While routine X-rays continue at short intervals, Zadik notes that current data “favor the reduction of patient exposure to diagnostic radiation in dentistry,” while advancements in dentistry dictate that X-rays should be used at “longer intervals and based on clinical suspicion.”

Though the digital dental X-rays often used today provide smaller doses of radiation than the film X-rays used in the past, radiation’s harms are cumulative. Zadik emphasizes that with the primary tenet of medicine being “First, do no harm,” any unnecessary X-ray is an unnecessary harm. Further, other technology can sometimes be used instead of radiography, including electronic apex locators for root canal procedures.

“Just as it is now unimaginable that, in the past, shoe fittings for children were conducted using X-rays, in the future it will be equally astonishing to learn that the fit of dental crowns was assessed using radiographic imaging,” Zadik wrote.

X-rays do more harm than good in children

Feit’s commentary also prompted a reply from the three authors of the original May viewpoint: Paulo Nadanovsky, Ana Paula Pires dos Santos, and David Nunan. The three followed up on Feit’s point that data is weak on whether X-rays are useful for detecting early decay, specifically white spot lesions. The experts raise the damning point that even if dental X-rays were shown to be good at doing that, there’s still no evidence that that’s good for patients.

“[T]here is no evidence that detecting white spot lesions, with or without radiographs, benefits patients,” the researchers wrote. “Most of these lesions do not progress into dentine cavities,” and there’s no evidence that early treatments make a difference in the long run.

To bolster the point, the three note that data from children suggest that X-ray screening does more harm than good. In a randomized clinical trial published in 2021, 216 preschool children were split into two groups: one that received only a visual-tactile dental exam, while the others received both a visual-tactile exam and X-rays. The study found that adding X-rays caused more harm than benefit because the X-rays led to false positives and overdiagnosis of cavitated caries needing restorative treatment. The authors of the trial concluded that “visual inspection should be conducted alone in regular clinical practice.”

Like Zadik, the three researchers note that screenings for decay and cavities are not the only questionable use of X-rays in dental practice. Other common dental and orthodontic treatments involving radiography—practices often used in children and teens—might also be unnecessary harms. They raise the argument against the preventive removal of wisdom teeth, which is also not backed by evidence.

Like Feit, the three researchers reiterate the call for well-designed trials to back up or refute common dental practices.

Photo of Beth Mole

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence—experts want it to stop Read More »

why-a-diabetes-drug-fell-short-of-anticancer-hopes

Why a diabetes drug fell short of anticancer hopes


Studies suggested it could treat cancer, but the clinical trials were a bust.

Multi-pipettes

Pamela Goodwin has received hundreds of emails from patients asking if they should take a cheap, readily available drug, metformin, to treat their cancer.

It’s a fair question: Metformin, commonly used to treat diabetes, has been investigated for treating a range of cancer types in thousands of studies on laboratory cells, animals, and people. But Goodwin, an epidemiologist and medical oncologist treating breast cancer at the University of Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, advises against it. No gold-standard trials have proved that metformin helps treat breast cancer—and her recent research suggests it doesn’t.

Metformin’s development was inspired by centuries of use of French lilac, or goat’s rue (Galega officinalis), for diabetes-like symptoms. In 1918, researchers discovered that a compound from the herb lowers blood sugar. Metformin, a chemical relative of that compound, has been a top type 2 diabetes treatment in the United States since it was approved in 1994. It’s cheap—less than a dollar per dose—and readily available, with few side effects. Today, more than 150 million people worldwide take the stuff.

Illustration of French lilac plant.

The French lilac, Galega officinalis, has been used medicinally since medieval times, including for symptoms associated with diabetes. Investigations of the plant’s chemical galegine led to the development of metformin, a related molecule synthesized in the lab. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Metformin has a variety of effects, such as improving immune function and the body’s responses to insulin, which in turn regulates blood sugar. It can also slow growth of cancer cells in the lab. Many of these benefits seem to stem from metformin’s action in the cell’s powerhouses, the mitochondria, where it slows the production of energy and limits the generation of damaging chemicals called free radicals.

Researchers have considered metformin for treating a plethora of conditions, from glaucoma to polycystic ovary syndrome to pimples. “It really has a reputation of being a potential wonder drug,” says Michael Pollak, an oncologist and researcher at McGill University in Montreal. “There’s still a lot of work to be done on metformin.” (Pollak consults for biotechnology companies interested in metformin analogs as medicines.)

But the latest research has convinced Pollak and some others that treatment of cancers should be taken off the list.

More studies, but no proof

One of the first hints linking metformin to anticancer effects came in a short note in the British Medical Journal in 2005. Researchers analyzed medical records of almost 12,000 people from the Tayside region of Scotland who were newly diagnosed with diabetes between 1993 and 2001. Of those, more than 900 went on to develop cancer. Interestingly, those who’d taken metformin at some point during the study period were 23 percent less likely to have received a later cancer diagnosis.

This finding fueled further research on people with diabetes taking metformin and the risk for breast cancer, liver cancer, ovarian and endometrial cancer, and other types. The authors of a 2013 analysis, covering more than 1 million patients in 41 observational studies like the original one, concluded that metformin “might be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of cancer.” But such associations are not proof.

Researchers went on to explore the link in studies with cells in dishes and in lab animals, finding that metformin slowed growth of blood, breast, endometrial, lung, liver, stomach, and thyroid cancer cells. It also seemed to make cancer cells extra sensitive to chemotherapy drugs. In one mouse study, scientists grafted human breast, prostate, or lung cancer cells into the animals and treated them with either standard chemotherapy drugs, metformin, or a combination of both. The combination worked best, preventing tumor growth and prolonging relapse.

These findings made sense to researchers. Metformin treats metabolic problems in diabetes, and cancer has also been linked to metabolic issues such as obesity. Even before the 2005 British Medical Journal study, Goodwin had noticed that breast cancer patients with high insulin did worse than those with normal insulin levels.

That logic, plus the promising data, led scientists to conduct a number of randomized controlled trials—the gold-standard experiment in medicine. Researchers would enroll people with cancer and split them into two groups. One group would get standard cancer therapy plus metformin; the other group would get standard therapy plus a placebo, a pill containing no medication.

And metformin flopped, big time. While a number of studies are ongoing, trials for two types of cancer recently reported no benefit overall from metformin. In June 2024, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago, researchers reported a Canadian trial with 407 men with low-risk prostate cancer. The enrollees had been diagnosed within six months before starting the trial and had decided to monitor their cancer without starting immediate treatment. Half took metformin and half took a placebo. After biopsies at 18 and 36 months to test whether their disease had progressed, there was no difference between the two groups.

A larger British and Swiss trial including nearly 1,900 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed prostate cancer that had spread to other body parts was reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Barcelona, Spain, in September. This trial also found that metformin plus standard treatment, compared to standard treatment alone, did not improve overall prostate cancer survival in the study population.

A multinational study of breast cancer helmed by Goodwin also led to disappointment. The researchers enrolled more than 3,600 patients between 2010 and 2013; these patients had been diagnosed about a year before enrollment and had already undergone chemotherapy and surgery. In addition to standard cancer treatment, half received metformin and half received a placebo.

By 2016, it was clear that metformin wasn’t doing anything to enhance survival for about 1,100 participants with a particular cancer subtype. When the study wrapped in 2020, the researchers analyzed the rest of the patients, counting how many were alive and free of breast or any other form of cancer. Metformin made no difference in those results, or to survival overall, the team reported in 2022.

Fatal flaws in the research

In retrospect, researchers think they know why earlier studies oversold metformin’s potential. Many of the studies that examined medical records had a crucial flaw, says Samy Suissa, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill.

Here’s what happens: Researchers sift through old medical records to see if someone ever took metformin. Then they compare cancer rates among people who took the drug at any point to those who never took it. But you have to be alive to take metformin. Anyone who died, of cancer or other causes, before having a chance at a metformin prescription is left out of the calculations. This skews the results; it’s called the “immortal time bias.” It makes any drug, metformin or otherwise, look like it helps patients to survive because it can only be taken by people who are alive, says Suissa.

Plus, scientists are more likely to publish studies that show metformin is promising than ones where it makes no difference, skewing the scientific literature.

As for those studies of cells in dishes and of lab animals, many experiments used much higher doses of metformin than are used in people. Too much metformin risks a buildup of lactate, a byproduct of low oxygen metabolism that acidifies the blood and can be fatal.

Researchers still suspect metformin might treat specific subgroups of cancer. For example, the authors of the prostate cancer trial presented in Barcelona suggested that metformin might help patients whose cancer has spread to other tissues or multiple sites in their bones. And Goodwin saw a hint in her trial that it might help women whose cancers contain a certain version of a cell-growth gene called ERBB2. But it would require another trial, focused on women with that particular cancer, to prove it.

And there are now better treatments for those patients than there were more than a decade ago when Goodwin started her study, reducing the opportunity to test metformin. Goodwin doesn’t currently have the funding to follow up on this theory.

It may also be that the clinical trials recruited patients with cancers that were too far along. “I always thought we were asking too much of metformin,” says Victoria Bae-Jump, a gynecological oncologist at the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill. “Maybe it just needs to be earlier in the pathway of growth.” Bae-Jump is now testing metformin in women who have early-stage endometrial cancer or a precursor to it.

Others are investigating metformin for people who have precancerous lesions in their mouths. “The idea would be to keep them from progressing, or reverse the tissues to be more normal,” says Frank Ondrey, a head and neck cancer surgeon at the Masonic Cancer Center of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. In a small, uncontrolled study of 23 people, metformin halved lesion size in four of them. Ondrey is involved in two ongoing studies, one a randomized, controlled trial, to further test metformin in people with precancerous lesions; these should yield results within a few years.

Subdued expectations

Metformin is also being tested for other conditions such as dementia and a genetic disorder called fragile X syndrome. And perhaps the ultimate potential use for metformin is to slow aging itself. “I think it’s much easier to treat aging and prevent cancer than to treat cancer,” says Nir Barzilai, a geroscientist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and president of the nonprofit Academy for Health & Lifespan Research. Through its enhancement of insulin action and metabolism plus its minimization of free radical production, metformin influences all the key hallmarks of aging, such as problems with DNA, mitochondria and stem cells, says Barzilai.

He and colleagues are gathering funds for a randomized, controlled trial of metformin in 3,000 people age 65 through 79 who are showing signs of age-related disease already. The trial will test whether fewer people taking metformin die over six years. Barzilai, who is 68, says he is confident in metformin’s anti-aging ability and already takes the drug himself.

Others, mindful of what happened with cancer, are more circumspect. Pollak says that many of the studies in other areas of medicine are too small to prove metformin works, and Suissa notes that some of the studies finding benefits in populations taking metformin, including for longevity, have the same problems the oh-so-promising early cancer research did.

In short, Suissa says, “Don’t believe everything you hear.”

This story originally appeared in Knowable Magazine.

Photo of Knowable Magazine

Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens.

Why a diabetes drug fell short of anticancer hopes Read More »

rare-bear-meat-at-gathering-gives-10-people-a-scare—and-parasitic-worms

Rare bear meat at gathering gives 10 people a scare—and parasitic worms

If you’re going to eat a bear, make sure it’s not rare.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that once the beast has been subdued, all danger has passed. But you might still be in for a scare. The animal’s flesh can be riddled with encased worm larvae, which, upon being eaten, will gladly reproduce in your innards and let their offspring roam the rest of your person, including invading your brain and heart. To defeat these savage squirmers, all one must do is cook the meat to at least 165° Fahrenheit.

But that simple solution continues to be ignored, according to a report today in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In this week’s issue, health officials in North Carolina report that rare bear meat was served at a November 23 gathering, where at least 22 people ate the meat and at least 10 developed symptoms of a worm infection. Of the 10, six were kids and teens between the ages of 10 and 18.

The infection is from the roundworm Trichinella, which causes trichinellosis. While the infection is rarely fatal, the nematodes tend to burrow out of the bowels and meander through the body, embedding in whatever muscle tissue they come across. A telltale sign of an infection in people is facial swelling, caused when the larvae take harbor in the muscles of the face and around the eyes. Of the 10 ill people in North Carolina, nine had facial swelling.

Local health officials were onto the outbreak when one person developed flu-like symptoms and puzzling facial swelling. They then traced it back to the gathering. The report doesn’t specify what kind of gathering it was but noted that 34 attendees in total were surveyed, from which they found the 22 people who ate the rare meat. The 10 people found with symptoms are technically considered only “probable” cases because the infections were never diagnostically confirmed. To confirm a trichinellosis infection, researchers need blood samples taken after the person recovers to look for antibodies against the parasite. None of the 10 people returned for blood draws.

Rare bear meat at gathering gives 10 people a scare—and parasitic worms Read More »