health

rfk-jr’s-plan-to-ban-fluoride-supplements-will-“hurt-rural-america,”-dentists-say

RFK Jr’s plan to ban fluoride supplements will “hurt rural America,” dentists say

fluoride, health / /

“Harmful”

While fluoride can kill bacteria, particularly at high levels, it’s used in oral health to inhibit the demineralization of tooth enamel while enhancing the remineralization of tooth surfaces, the ADA clarifies.

The best way to get fluoride is through drinking water, the ADA says. But supplements are a safe alternative if a child lives in an area without fluoridated water or if they mostly drink bottled water. Given rampant false and controversial claims about fluoride, more communities are now abandoning it. This week, Florida became the second state after Utah to ban fluoridation state-wide.

“Yes, use fluoride for your teeth, that’s fine,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a news conference after signing the ban into law. “But forcing it in the water supply is basically forced medication on people. They don’t have a choice.”

ADA President Brett Kessler worries what children in places such as Utah and Florida will do to get adequate fluoride if the ban on supplements goes through. “In non-fluoridated communities, especially rural areas, fluoride supplements are the only chance for individuals to get the appropriate amount of fluoride to prevent tooth decay,” Kessler said in the statement. The move will be “particularly harmful to the most vulnerable and those who lack access to care,” he added.

While Makary said that the FDA will conduct a safety review of  fluoride supplements, the conclusion seems to be foregone, with the HHS writing that it is already “initiating action to remove” the products.

The ADA noted that places that have removed fluoride from drinking water, such as Calgary, Canada, and Juneau, Alaska, have seen increases in dental decay, particularly among children and low-income populations.

“Proposals like this stand to hurt rural America, not make them healthier,” Kessler said.

RFK Jr’s plan to ban fluoride supplements will “hurt rural America,” dentists say Read More »

from-birth-to-gene-edited-in-6-months:-custom-therapy-breaks-speed-limits

From birth to gene-edited in 6 months: Custom therapy breaks speed limits

clinical trial, CRISPR, fda, gene therapy, health, mutation, Science / /

In the boy’s fourth month, researchers were meeting with the Food and Drug Administration to discuss regulatory approval for a clinical trial—a trial where KJ would be the only participant. They were also working with the institutional review board (IRB) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to go over the clinical protocol, safety, and ethical aspects of the treatment. The researchers described the unprecedented speed of the oversight steps as being “through alternative procedures.”

In month five, they started toxicology testing in mice. In the mice, the experimental therapy corrected KJ’s mutation, replacing the errant A-T base pair with the correct G-C pair in the animals’ cells. The first dose provided a 42 percent whole-liver corrective rate in the animals. At the start of KJ’s sixth month, the researchers had results from safety testing in monkeys: Their customized base-editing therapy, delivered as mRNA via a lipid nanoparticle, did not produce any toxic effects in the monkeys.

A clinical-grade batch of the treatment was readied. In month seven, further testing of the treatment found acceptably low-levels of off-target genetic changes. The researchers submitted the FDA paperwork for approval of an “investigational new drug,” or IND, for KJ. The FDA approved it in a week. The researchers then started KJ on an immune-suppressing treatment to make sure his immune system wouldn’t react to the gene-editing therapy. Then, when KJ was still just 6 months old, he got a first low dose of his custom gene-editing therapy.

“Transformational”

After the treatment, he was able to start eating more protein, which would have otherwise caused his ammonia levels to skyrocket. But he couldn’t be weaned off of the drug treatment used to keep his ammonia levels down (nitrogen scavenging medication). With no safety concerns seen after the first dose, KJ has since gotten two more doses of the gene therapy and is now on reduced nitrogen scavenging medication. With more protein in his diet, he has moved from the 9th percentile in weight to 35th or 40th percentile. He’s now about 9 and a half months old, and his doctors are preparing to allow him to go home from the hospital for the first time. Though he will have to be closely monitored and may still at some point need a liver transplant, his family and doctors are celebrating the improvements so far.

From birth to gene-edited in 6 months: Custom therapy breaks speed limits Read More »

germ-theory-skeptic-rfk-jr.-goes-swimming-in-sewage-tainted-water

Germ-theory skeptic RFK Jr. goes swimming in sewage-tainted water

bacteria, health, robert f kennedy jr, sewage / /

When you don’t believe in germ theory, the world is your oyster—or maybe your bathtub.

Over the weekend, America’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shared pictures on social media of himself fully submerged in the sewage-tinged waters of Rock Creek in Washington, DC. His grandchildren were also pictured playing in the water.

The creek is known for having a sewage overflow problem and posing a health hazard to any who enter it. The National Park Service, which manages the Rock Creek Park, strictly bars all swimming and wading in Rock Creek and the park’s other waterways due to the contamination, specifically “high levels of bacteria.”

A notice on the NPS website advises “Stay Dry, Stay Safe,” warning, “Rock Creek has high levels of bacteria and other infectious pathogens that make swimming, wading, and other contact with the water a hazard to human (and pet) health. Please protect yourself and your pooches by staying on trails and out of the creek. All District waterways are subject to a swim ban—this means wading, too!”

In images shared on social media, Kennedy can be seen getting fully underwater, including his head, and then splashing around with several of his grandchildren. Kennedy, who does not have any background in medicine or science, was a long-time anti-vaccine advocate before President Trump appointed him to be health secretary. In a 2021 book, Kennedy indicated that he does not believe in germ theory, the fundamental concept that microscopic pathogens, such as those abundant in sewage, are the cause of disease.

Germ-theory skeptic RFK Jr. goes swimming in sewage-tainted water Read More »

a-new-era-in-cancer-therapies-is-at-hand

A new era in cancer therapies is at hand

cancer, health, immunotherapy, syndication / /

New therapeutic strategies build on the success of immunotherapy.

In 2012, clinicians at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia treated Emily Whitehead, a 6-year-old with leukemia, with altered immune cells from her own body. At the time, the treatment was experimental, but it worked: The cells targeted the cancer and eradicated it. Thirteen years later, Whitehead is still cancer-free.

The modified cells, called CAR-T cells, are a form of immunotherapy, where doctors change parts of the immune system into cancer-attacking instruments. About five years after Whitehead’s treatment, the first CAR-T drugs were approved by the FDA and were heralded, along with immunotherapy more broadly, as one of the most promising modern cancer treatments. Today, there are seven FDA-approved CAR-T therapies, including the one used to treat Whitehead.

Since then, however, studies have linked CAR-T to fatal complications due to treatment toxicity, and the treatment has had a harder time addressing certain types of cancers, particularly solid tumors affecting the breast and pancreas, although some small clinical trials have been starting to show positive results for solid cancers. “After a decade, a decade and a half, we arrive at the point that there are patients who answer, most of the patients still do not answer,” said George Calin, a researcher at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Now experts say that new therapies are beginning to surpass challenges that previous treatments couldn’t, providing safer, more targeted delivery directly to tumors. These include drugs that contain radioactive substances, called radiopharmaceuticals, which are used to diagnose or treat cancer; medications that can influence the genes that spur or suppress tumor growth; and therapeutic cancer vaccines.

These approaches have shown promise in the lab, and researchers and companies are now conducting various stages of human clinical trials to explore their effectiveness. And some promising treatments have even gained approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The hope is that improving on these strategies will ultimately help treat even the most resistant types of cancer.

Despite researchers’ excitement for innovative treatments, there is rampant online misinformation and there are occasions in which companies have been found to tout and sell fake cures, said Kathrin Dvir, an oncologist and researcher at Moffitt Cancer Center.

But other scientists remain optimistic about the future of cancer research, Calin said: “All the time in science, you have to open the door with something new.”

Targeting is tough

Historically, one of the biggest challenges in cancer treatments has been the lack of specific targets. The typical standards of care — chemotherapy and radiation — kill off not only cancer cells, but also healthy ones. (This is one reason why cancer patients on these treatments experience hair loss, nausea, and other symptoms.) In recent years, scientists have thus aimed to develop therapies that only attack cancer cells, leaving the rest of the body unharmed.

One way to achieve this is through more precise targeting of the tumor. In one of these approaches, drugs act as a ferry, delivering radioactive molecules directly to the cancer. They do this by targeting proteins that are only present on the surface of specific tumors.

Take, for example, prostate cancer. Here, the cancerous cells are sensitive to radiation, so some researchers are working on drugs containing unstable chemical elements that emit radiation — radioactive isotopes, or radiopharmaceuticals — to facilitate imaging of the tumors and provide enough radiation to treat them.

Already, the field of radiopharmaceuticals has seen growth following successes like the brand name drugs Pluvicto for prostate cancer and Lutathera for neuroendocrine tumors, which reportedly offer improved quality of life compared to traditional treatments. Additionally, using radioisotopes for imaging could also allow researchers to diagnose and classify patients much better to provide personalized care, said Jason Lewis, a radiochemist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. And while radiopharmaceutical therapy can have side effects, he added, it’s “designed to minimize radiation to healthy tissues.”

Other therapies, called antibody-drug conjugates, act similarly: They shuttle molecules that can kill the cancer cells via antibodies that can dock on tumors. About a dozen of such drugs have been approved by the FDA for various types of cancer.

There are also new vaccines to help the immune system ward off cancer, using the key approach behind a type of COVID-19 vaccine — mRNA technology. For example, one of the companies that developed one of the COVID-19 shots, BioNTech, is working on a vaccine called BNT116 designed to elicit immune reactions to treat a type of lung cancer, which is currently recruiting about 150 participants across the world to undergo safety testing.

mRNA therapeutic vaccines for cancer, which use messenger RNA as blueprint material so the body can create proteins that are unique to the tumor to help elicit an immune response, may offer several advantages. The shots can be personalized, for instance, to the patients’ own tumors, said Siow Ming Lee, an oncologist at University College London Hospitals and one of the lead researchers of the trial. Other vaccines are also in the works. “We are in this sort of new era now,” he said.

Another type of genetic molecule could also be a target to help treat cancer. Some RNAs, called microRNAs, can act on genes that are responsible for tumor growth. Researchers like Calin are developing small molecules that bind to cancer-related microRNAs, to turn them off and try to halt the disease’s spread.

With FDA approvals, human clinical trials underway and, with promising preclinical data for many of these therapies, the researchers who spoke to Undark said that the future appears bright. “We’re not just seeing these dramatic improvements in outcomes and survival for patients with some indications, but the quality of life,” Lewis said.

New approaches, new problems

As more of these latest cancer technologies do get approved for treatment, new approaches can bring new problems, experts say. For example, with radiotherapeutics, one big challenge is to source enough radioisotopes for the drugs, and have a specialized workforce to handle radioactivity, said Lewis. For microRNAS, it’s tricky to identify exactly which type to target for a particular cancer, Calin emphasized.

And there are also companies that are trying to capitalize on new, unproven technologies and drugs prematurely. The company ExThera Medical, for instance, has been charging patients tens of thousands of dollars for unproven therapies, according to a recent report by The New York Times.

“All over the world, there are many so-called new therapeutics that are not well-tested and not well-developed,” said Calin. Dvir encounters misinformation at her clinic almost daily, she said. “Maybe some of those have some data in the preclinical, in animal studies — it doesn’t mean that it works on the human because we need data before you expose people to those therapies.”

Although the FDA faces budget cuts, some of the researchers and clinicians that Undark spoke to insist that the agency will weed out bad science. If not, the clinicians that Undark spoke with said that they can also help guide patients toward evidence-based treatments.

Ultimately, researchers want to continue to improve these treatments to see if they might work in tandem. “I think the name of the game in the next five to 10 years is combinations,” said Dvir. Already, there are trials looking at precisely how using different approaches together might boost their ability to treat cancer, she adds. “We know that these drugs work in synergy. It’s just finding the right combination that is effective but not too toxic.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

A new era in cancer therapies is at hand Read More »

when-doctors-describe-your-brain-scan-as-a-“starry-sky,”-it’s-not-good

When doctors describe your brain scan as a “starry sky,” it’s not good

health / /

A starry sky can be stunning—even inside a hospital emergency room.

But instead of celestial bodies sparkling in the night, doctors in South Korea were gazing at bright brain lesions punctuating a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The resulting pattern, called a “starry sky,” meant that their 57-year-old patient had a dangerous form of tuberculosis. The doctors report the case in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The man had previously been treated for the infection in his lungs but came into the hospital’s emergency department after two weeks of unexplained headaches, neck pain, and tingling in his right hand. The MRI and Computed-Tomography (CT) scans clearly revealed the problem: rare nodules and lesions, called tuberculomas, speckling his lungs and central nervous system, including both cerebral hemispheres, the basal ganglia deep inside the brain, the cerebellum at the back of the brain, the brain stem, and the upper spinal cord.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head with gadolinium enhancement revealed numerous small, spherical, peripherally enhancing nodules in the cerebral hemispheres (Panels A and B), basal ganglia, cerebellum, and brain stem, as well as in the upper spinal cord with surrounding edema (Panel C). Credit: NEJM, 2025

The condition, called CNS tuberculoma, is a relatively rare manifestation of tuberculosis, which typically infects the lungs but can invade any part of the body. It’s unclear exactly how tuberculomas form, but evidence suggests that the bacteria that cause tuberculosis—Mycobacterium tuberculosis—can spread around the body via the blood. M. tuberculosis can get past the blood-brain barrier, possibly by hiding inside a type of white blood cell called a macrophage, in a “Trojan horse” mechanism or by breaking through the barrier. Tuberculomas are thought to form when bacteria and macrophages clump together into masses that may contain calcifications or cheese-like dead tissue called caseum.

When doctors describe your brain scan as a “starry sky,” it’s not good Read More »

new-rsv-vaccine,-treatment-linked-to-dramatic-fall-in-baby-hospitalizations

New RSV vaccine, treatment linked to dramatic fall in baby hospitalizations

antibody, health, RSV, vaccine / /

For the new study, CDC researchers looked at RSV hospitalization rates across two different RSV surveillance networks of hospitals and medical centers (called RSV-NET and NVSN). They compared the networks’ hospitalization rates in the 2024–2025 RSV season to their respective rates in pre-pandemic seasons between 2018 and 2020. The analysis found that among newborns (0–2 months), RSV hospitalizations fell 52 percent in RSV-NET and 45 percent in NVSN compared with the rates from the 2018–2020 period. However, when the researcher excluded data from NVSN’s surveillance site in Houston—where the 2024–2035 RSV season started before the vaccine and treatment were rolled out—there was a 71 percent decline in hospitalizations in NVSN.

For a broader group of infants—0 to 7 months old—RSV-NET showed a 43 percent drop in hospitalizations in the 2024–2025 RSV season, and NVSN saw a 28 percent drop. Again, when Houston was excluded from the NVSN data, there was a 56 percent drop.

Lastly, the researchers looked at hospitalization rates for toddlers and children up to 5 years old, who wouldn’t have been protected by the new products. There, they saw RSV hospitalization rates were actually higher in the 2024–2025 season than in the pre-pandemic years. That suggests that the latest RSV season was more severe, and the drops in infant hospitalizations may be underestimates.

New RSV vaccine, treatment linked to dramatic fall in baby hospitalizations Read More »

trump’s-nih-ignored-court-order,-cut-research-grants-anyway

Trump’s NIH ignored court order, cut research grants anyway

doge, health, NIH, syndication, Trump, whistleblower / /

Officials testified that DOGE was directly involved in hundreds of grant terminations.

For more than two months, the Trump administration has been subject to a federal court order stopping it from cutting funding related to gender identity and the provision of gender-affirming care in response to President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

Lawyers for the federal government have repeatedly claimed in court filings that the administration has been complying with the order.

But new whistleblower records submitted in a lawsuit led by the Washington state attorney general appear to contradict the claim.

Nearly two weeks after the court’s preliminary injunction was issued, the National Institutes of Health’s then-acting head, Dr. Matthew J. Memoli, drafted a memo that details how the agency, in response to Trump’s executive orders, cut funding for research grants that “promote or inculcate gender ideology.” An internal spreadsheet of terminated NIH grants also references “gender ideology” and lists the number associated with Trump’s executive order as the reason for the termination of more than a half dozen research grants.

The Washington attorney general’s allegation that the Trump administration violated a court order comes as the country lurches toward a constitutional crisis amid accusations that the executive branch has defied or ignored court orders in several other cases. In the most high-profile case so far, the administration has yet to comply with a federal judge’s order, upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, requiring it to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March.

The records filed in the NIH-related lawsuit last week also reveal for the first time the enormous scope of the administration’s changes to the agency, which has been subject to massive layoffs and research cuts to align it with the president’s political priorities.

Other documents filed in the case raise questions concerning a key claim the administration has made about how it is restructuring federal agencies—that the Department of Government Efficiency has limited authority, acting mostly as an advisory body that consults on what to cut. However, in depositions filed in the case last week, two NIH officials testified that DOGE itself gave directions in hundreds of grant terminations.

The lawsuit offers an unprecedented view into the termination of more than 600 grants at the NIH over the past two months. Many of the canceled grants appear to have focused on subjects that the administration claims are unscientific or that the agency should no longer focus on under new priorities, such as gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Grants related to research in China have also been cut, and climate change projects are under scrutiny.

Andrew G. Nixon, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH’s parent agency, told ProPublica in an email that the grant terminations directly followed the president’s executive orders and that the NIH’s actions were based on policy and scientific priorities, not political interference.

“The cuts are essential to refocus NIH on key public health priorities, like the chronic disease epidemic,” he said. Nixon also told ProPublica that its questions related to the lawsuit “solely fit a partisan narrative”; he did not respond to specific questions about the preliminary injunction, the administration’s compliance with the order or the involvement of DOGE in the grant termination process. The White House did not respond to ProPublica’s questions.

Mike Faulk, the deputy communications director for the Washington state attorney general’s office, told ProPublica in an email that the administration “appears to have used DOGE in this instance to keep career NIH officials in the dark about what was happening and why.”

“While claiming to be transparent, DOGE has actively hidden its activities and its true motivations,” he said. “Our office will use every tool we have to uncover the truth about why these grants were terminated.”

Since Trump took office in January, the administration has provided limited insight into why it chose to terminate scientific and medical grants.

That decision-making process has been largely opaque, until now.

Washington fights to overturn grant termination

In February, Washington state—joined by Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, and three physicians—sued the administration after it threatened to enforce its executive orders by withholding federal research grants from institutions that provided gender-affirming services or promoted “gender ideology.” Within weeks, a federal judge issued an injunction limiting the administration from fully enforcing the orders in the four states that are party to the suit.

The same day as the injunction, however, the NIH terminated a research grant to Seattle Children’s Hospital to develop and study an online education tool designed to reduce the risk of violence, mental health disorders and sexually transmitted infections among transgender youth, according to records filed in the court case. The NIH stated that it was the agency’s policy not to “prioritize” such studies on gender identity.

“Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,” the notice stated, without citing any scientific evidence for its claims. The NIH sent another notice reiterating the termination four days later.

The Washington attorney general’s office requested the termination be withdrawn, citing the injunction. But the administration refused, claiming that it was in compliance as the termination was based on NIH’s own authority and grant policy and was not enforcing any executive order.

The Washington attorney general asked the judge to hold the administration in contempt for violating the injunction. While the request was denied, the court granted an expedited discovery process to better assess whether the administration had breached the injunction. That process would have required the administration to quickly turn over internal documents relating to the termination. In response, the administration reinstated the grant for Seattle Children’s Hospital and declared the discovery process moot, or no longer relevant. However, US District Judge Lauren J. King, who was appointed by former President Joseph Biden, permitted it to continue.

Whistleblower documents reveal sweeping changes at NIH

In recent months, whistleblowers have made the plaintiffs in the lawsuit aware of internal records that more closely connect the grant terminations to the administration’s executive orders.

In an internal spreadsheet of dozens of grants marked for cancellation at an NIH institute, the stated reason for termination for several was “gender ideology (EA 14168),” including the grant to Seattle Children’s Hospital.

The rationale appears to reference Executive Order 14168, which banned using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” again seeming to conflict with the administration’s stance that the termination was not based on the executive orders. The termination dates of the grants, according to the spreadsheet, were after the injunction went into effect.

Another internal document, which provides extraordinary insight into the administration’s efforts to reshape the NIH, also states the executive order was the impetus for grant terminations.

In the March 11 memo from Memoli, the NIH cataloged all actions that the agency had taken thus far to align with the president’s executive orders. In a section detailing the steps taken to implement the “gender ideology” executive order, one of the 44 actions listed was the termination of active grants.

“NIH is currently reviewing all active grants and supplements to determine if they promote gender ideology and will take action as appropriate,” the memo stated, noting that the process was in progress.

While the administration has said in court filings that it is following the judge’s injunction order, the Washington state attorney general’s office told ProPublica that it disagreed.

“Their claim to have complied with the preliminary injunction is almost laughable,” said Faulk, the office’s deputy communications director. “The Trump administration is playing games with no apparent respect for the rule of law.”

Depositions reveal DOGE links

In depositions conducted last month as part of the lawsuit, the testimony of two NIH officials also raised questions about why the research grants were terminated and how DOGE was involved.

Liza Bundesen, who was the deputy director of the agency’s extramural research office, testified that she first learned of the grant terminations on February 28 from a DOGE team member, Rachel Riley. Bundesen said she was invited into a Microsoft Teams video call, where Riley introduced herself as being part of DOGE and working with the Department of Health and Human Services.

Riley, a former consultant for McKinsey & Co., joined HHS on January 27, according to court filings in a separate lawsuit, and has reportedly served as the DOGE point person at the NIH.

The executive order detailing DOGE’s responsibilities describes the cost-cutting team as advisers that consult agency heads on the termination of contracts and grants. No language in the orders gives the DOGE team members the authority to direct the cancellation of grants or contracts. However, the depositions portray Riley as giving directions on how to conduct the terminations.

“She informed me that a number of grants will need to be terminated,” Bundesen testified, adding that she was told that they needed to be terminated by the end of the day. “I did not ask what, you know, what grants because I just literally was a little bit confused and caught off guard.”

Bundesen said she then received an email from Memoli, the NIH acting director, with a spreadsheet listing the grants that needed to be canceled and a template letter for notifying researchers of the terminations.

“The template had boilerplate language that could then be modified for the different circumstances, the different buckets of grants that were to be terminated,” she said. “The categories were DEI, research in China and transgender or gender ideology.”

Bundesen forwarded the email with the spreadsheet to Michelle Bulls, who directs the agency’s Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration. Bundesen resigned from the NIH a week later, on March 7, citing “untenable” working conditions.

“I was given directives to implement with very short turnaround times, often close of business or maybe within the next hour,” she testified. “I was not offered the opportunity to provide feedback or really ask for clarification.”

Bulls confirmed in her own deposition that the termination list and letter template originally came from Riley. When Bulls started receiving the lists, she said she did what she was told. “I just followed the directive,” she said. “The language in the letters were provided so I didn’t question.”

Bulls said she didn’t write any of the letters herself and just signed her name to them. She also said she was not aware whether anyone had assessed the grants’ scientific merit or whether they met agency criteria. The grant terminations related to gender identity did not stem from an independent agency policy, she testified, appearing to contradict the administration’s assertion that they were based on the agency’s own authority and grant policy.

As of April 3, Bulls said she had received more than five lists of grants that needed to be terminated, amounting to “somewhere between five hundred and a thousand” grants.

Most grant recipients endure a rigorous vetting process, which can involve multiple stages of peer review before approval, and before this year, Bulls testified that grant terminations at the NIH have historically been rare. There are generally two main types of terminations, she said, for noncompliance or based on mutual agreement. Bulls said that she has been “generally involved in noncompliance discussions” and since she became the director of the office in 2012, there had been fewer than five such terminations.

In addition to the termination letters, Bulls said she relied on the template language provided by Riley to draft guidance to inform the 27 centers and institutes at the NIH what the agency’s new priorities were to help them scrutinize their own research portfolios.

Following the depositions, the Washington state attorney general’s office said that the federal government has refused to respond to its discovery requests. It has filed a motion to compel the government to respond, which is pending.

Riley, Bundesen, Bulls, and Memoli did not reply to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

While the administration did not answer ProPublica’s questions about DOGE and its involvement in the grant terminations, last week in its budget blueprint, it generally justified its proposed cuts at the NIH with claims that the agency had “wasteful spending,” conducted “risky research” and promoted “dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

“NIH has grown too big and unfocused,” the White House claimed in its fiscal plan, adding that the agency’s research should “align with the President’s priorities to address chronic disease and other epidemics, implementing all executive orders and eliminating research on climate change, radical gender ideology, and divisive racialism.”

Jeremy Berg, who led the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH from 2003 to 2011, told ProPublica that the administration’s assessment of the institution was “not fair and not based on any substantial analysis or evidence,” and the proposed cuts “would be absolutely devastating to NIH and to biomedical research in the United States.”

“It is profoundly distressing to see this great institution being reduced to a lawless, politicized organization without much focus on its actual mission,” he said.

Photo of ProPublica

Trump’s NIH ignored court order, cut research grants anyway Read More »

trump-admin-picks-covid-critic-to-be-top-fda-vaccine-regulator

Trump admin picks COVID critic to be top FDA vaccine regulator

COVID-19, fda, health, nazis, pandemic, vinay prasad / /

Oncologist Vinay Prasad, a divisive critic of COVID-19 responses, will be the next top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, agency Commissioner Martin Makary announced on social media Tuesday.

Prasad will head the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which is in charge of approving and regulating vaccines and other biologics products, such as gene therapies and blood products.

“Dr. Prasad brings the kind of scientific rigor, independence, and transparency we need at CBER—a significant step forward,” Makary wrote on social media.

Prasad, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is perhaps best known for his combative social media postings and criticism of the mainstream medical community. He gained notoriety amid the COVID-19 pandemic for assailing public health responses, such as masking and vaccine mandates.

In an October 2021 newsletter, titled “How Democracy Ends,” Prasad compared the country’s pandemic responses to the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The post led New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan to rebuke Prasad, writing in The Cancer Letter that the comparison is “ludicrous, dangerous, and offensive,” before adding “imbecilic.”

Prasad has also criticized the FDA for approving COVID-19 booster vaccines. Last year, he accused his predecessor as the head of the CBER, Peter Marks, of being “either incompetent or corrupt” for allowing the approvals.

“Absurd”

More recently, Prasad has heaped praise on new FDA Commissioner Makary, while continuing to criticize Marks. In early March, Prasad called Makary “smart, thoughtful, and disciplined” and “exactly what we need at the FDA.” Later in the month, he continued to take shots at Marks, writing: “You could replace Peter Marks with a bobblehead doll that just stamps approval and you would have the same outcome at FDA with lower administrative fees. Maybe something DOGE should consider.”

Trump admin picks COVID critic to be top FDA vaccine regulator Read More »

health-care-company-says-trump-tariffs-will-cost-it-$60m–$70m-this-year

Health care company says Trump tariffs will cost it $60M–$70M this year

baxter, health, hospital, iv bags, pharmaceuticals, supply chain, tariffs / /

In the call, Grade noted that only a small fraction of Baxter’s total sales are in China. But, “given the magnitude of the tariffs that have been enacted between the two countries, these tariffs now account for nearly half of the total impact,” he said.

The Tribune reported that Baxter is now looking into ways to dampen the financial blow from the tariffs, including carrying additional inventory, identifying alternative suppliers, alternative shipping routes, and “targeted pricing actions.” Baxter is also working with trade organizations to lobby for exemptions.

In general, the health care and medical sector, including hospitals, is bracing for price increases and shortages from the tariffs. The health care supply chain in America is woefully fragile, which became painfully apparent amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Baxter isn’t alone in announcing heavy tariff tolls. Earlier this week, GE Healthcare Technologies Inc. said the tariffs would cost the company around $500 million this year, according to financial service firm Morningstar. And in April, Abbott Laboratories said it expects the tariffs to cost “a few hundred million dollars,” according to the Tribune.

Health care company says Trump tariffs will cost it $60M–$70M this year Read More »

texas-goes-after-toothpaste-in-escalating-fight-over-fluoride

Texas goes after toothpaste in escalating fight over fluoride

cavities, CDC, fluoride, health, Oral health, texas, toothpaste, water / /

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating two leading toothpaste makers over their use of fluoride, suggesting that they are “illegally marketing” the teeth cleaners to parents and kids “in ways that are misleading, deceptive, and dangerous.”

The toothpaste makers in the crosshairs are Colgate-Palmolive Company, maker of Colgate toothpastes, and Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co., which makes Crest toothpastes. In an announcement Thursday, Paxton said he has sent Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to the companies.

The move is an escalation in an ongoing battle over fluoride, which effectively prevents dental cavities and improves oral health. Community water fluoridation has been hailed by health and dental experts as one of the top 10 great public health interventions for advancing oral health across communities, regardless of age, education, or income. But, despite the success, fluoride has always had detractors—from conspiracy theorists in the past suggesting the naturally occurring mineral is a form of communist mind control, to more recent times, in which low-quality, controversial studies have suggested that high doses may lower IQ in children.

The debate was renewed earlier this year when the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences finally published a particularly contentious study after years of failed scientific reviews. The study claims to find a link between high levels of fluoride exposure and slightly lower IQs in children living in areas outside the US, mostly in China and India. But the study’s methodology, statistical rigor, risk of bias, and lack of data transparency continue to draw criticism.

Texas goes after toothpaste in escalating fight over fluoride Read More »

screwworms-are-coming—and-they’re-just-as-horrifying-as-they-sound

Screwworms are coming—and they’re just as horrifying as they sound

flies, health, parasite, screwworm / /

We’re on the verge of being screwwormed.

The biological barrier was breached, they’re slithering toward our border, and the US Department of Agriculture is now carpet-bombing parts of Mexico with weaponized flies to stave off an invasion.

This is not a drill. Screwworms are possibly the most aptly named parasites imaginable, both literally and figuratively. Screwworms—technically, New World Screwworms—are flies that lay eggs on the mucous membranes, orifices, and wounds of warm-blooded animals. Wounds are the most common sites, and even a prick as small as a tick bite can be an invitation for the savage insects.

Once beckoned, females lay up to 400 eggs at a time. Within about a day, ravenous flesh-eating larvae erupt, which both look and act like literal screws. They viciously and relentlessly bore and twist into their victim, feasting on the living flesh for about seven days. The result is a gaping ulcer writhing with maggots, which attracts yet more adult female screwworms that can lay hundreds more eggs, deepening the putrid, festering lesion. The infection, called myiasis, is intensely painful and life-threatening. Anyone who falls victim to screwworms is figuratively—well, you know.

Adult screwworm flies. Credit: USDA

Previous victories

Screwworms aren’t a new foe for the US. Decades ago, they were endemic to southern areas of the country, as well as the whole of Central America, parts of the Caribbean and northern areas of South America. While they’re a threat to many animals, including humans, they are a bane to livestock, causing huge economic losses in addition to the carnage.

In the 1950s, the US began an intensive effort to eradicate screwworms. The successful endeavor required carefully inspecting animals and monitoring livestock movements. But most importantly, it relied on a powerful method to kill off the flies.

The ploy—called the Sterile Insect Technique—throws a wrench into the unique lifecycle of screwworms. After the larvae feast on flesh, they fall to the ground to develop into adults, a process that takes another seven days or so during warm weather. Once adults emerge, they can live for around two weeks, again depending on the weather. In that time, females generally only mate once, but don’t worry—they make the most of the one-night stand by retaining sperm for multiple batches of eggs. While females lay up to 400 eggs at once, they can lay up to 2,800 in their lives.

Screwworms are coming—and they’re just as horrifying as they sound Read More »

seasonal-covid-shots-may-no-longer-be-possible-under-trump-admin

Seasonal COVID shots may no longer be possible under Trump admin

COVID-19, fda, health, makary, Trump, vaccines / /

Under President Trump, the Food and Drug Administration may no longer approve seasonal COVID-19 vaccines updated for the virus variants circulating that year, according to recent statements by Trump administration officials.

Since the acute phase of the pandemic, vaccine manufacturers have been subtly updating COVID-19 shots annually to precisely target the molecular signatures of the newest virus variants, which continually evolve to evade our immune responses. So far, the FDA has treated these tweaked vaccines the same way it treats seasonal flu shots, which have long been updated annually to match currently circulating strains of flu viruses.

The FDA does not consider seasonal flu shots brand-new vaccines. Rather, they’re just slightly altered versions of the approved vaccines. As such, the regulator does not require companies to conduct lengthy, expensive vaccine trials to prove that each slightly changed version is safe and effective. If they did, generating annual vaccines would be virtually impossible. Each year, from late February to early March, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization direct flu shot makers on what tweaks they should make to shots for the upcoming flu season. That gives manufacturers just enough time to develop tweaks and start manufacturing massive supplies of doses in time for the start of the flu season.

So far, COVID-19 vaccines have been treated the exact same way, save for the fact that the vaccines that use mRNA technology do not need as much lead time for manufacturing. In recent years, the FDA decided on formulations for annual COVID shots around June, with doses rolled out in the fall alongside flu shots.

However, this process is now in question based on statements from Trump administration officials. The statements come amid a delay in a decision on whether to approve the COVID-19 vaccine made by Novavax, which uses a protein-based technology, not mRNA. The FDA was supposed to decide whether to grant the vaccine full approval by April 1. To this point, the vaccine has been used under an emergency use authorization by the agency.

Seasonal COVID shots may no longer be possible under Trump admin Read More »