Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Mehmet Oz confirmed by US Senate to lead Medicare and Medicaid

      by

      Former heart surgeon and TV pitchman Dr Mehmet Oz was confirmed on Thursday to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).Oz became the agency’s administrator in a party-line 53-45 vote.The 64-year-old will manage health insurance programs for roughly half the country, with oversight of Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. He steps into the new role as Congress is debating cuts to the Medicaid program, which provides coverage to millions of poor and disabled Americans.Oz has not said yet whether he would oppose such cuts to the government-funded program, instead offering a vision of promoting healthier lifestyles, integrating artificial intelligence and telehealth into the system, and rethinking rural healthcare delivery.During a hearing last month, he told senators that he did favor work requirements for Medicaid recipients, but that paperwork shouldn’t be used to reaffirm that they are working or to block people from staying enrolled.Oz, who worked for years as a respected heart surgeon at Columbia University, also noted that doctors dislike Medicaid for its relatively low payments and some don’t want to take those patients.He said that when Medicaid eligibility was expanded without improving resources for doctors, that made care options even thinner for the program’s core patients, which include children, pregnant people and people with disabilities.“We have to make some important decisions to improve the quality of care,” he said.Oz has formed a close relationship with his new boss, Robert F Kennedy Jr. He’s hosted the health secretary and his inner circle regularly at his home in Florida. He’s leaned into Kennedy’s campaign to “make America healthy again” (Maha), an effort to redesign the nation’s food supply, reject vaccine mandates and cast doubt on some long-established scientific research.The former TV show host talks often about the importance of a healthy diet, aligning closely with Kennedy’s views.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile Oz has faced some criticism for promoting unproven vitamin supplements and holistic treatments – staples of the “Maha movement” – he’s regularly encouraged Americans to get vaccinated.Oz will take over the CMS days after the agency was spared from the type of deep cuts that Kennedy ordered at other public health agencies. Thousands of staffers at the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes for Health are out of a job after mass layoffs that started on Tuesday.The CMS is expected to lose about 300 staffers, including those who worked on minority health and to shrink the cost of healthcare delivery. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Is the NHS in crisis? Join The Independent Debate as public satisfaction hits record low

      by

      A new poll has revealed a dramatic collapse in public satisfaction with the NHS, with almost two-thirds of people across England, Scotland, and Wales expressing their dissatisfaction. The British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey found that 59 per cent of respondents were “quite” or “very” dissatisfied with how the health service is run — the highest level recorded since the survey began in 1983.Concerns over access to care, long waiting times, and staffing shortages have contributed to this growing frustration. Worryingly, nearly one in ten people also reported experiencing harm due to NHS treatment or lack of access to care, with many suffering severe impacts.Despite this dissatisfaction, the majority of the public still believe in the founding principles of the NHS, calling for more funding and staff to restore trust in the system. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the Government has “taken the NHS off life support,” citing a £26 billion investment, an end to strikes, falling waiting lists, and two million extra appointments delivered early.But critics are warning that these figures should serve as a wake-up call, urging the government to take urgent action.So, what’s your experience? Have you been impacted by NHS delays or a lack of access? Do you think the health service is in crisis, or is it still delivering for patients?And crucially, what should be done to fix it? Should the government be investing more, or does the NHS need deeper structural reforms?We want to hear from you. Vote in our poll and share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most insightful responses and discuss the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the debate. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and share the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

    • 163 Shares122 Views

      in US Politics

      Trans soldiers served their country. Now the US is rolling back their healthcare

      by

      When Savannah Blake joined the air force at 22 years old, she was looking for stable employment and a way out of poverty. For the last few years of her service, she worked as a cyberdefense operator in the intelligence squadron. But the work, which involved overseeing computers operating drone surveillance, eventually took a toll on her mental health.“If I had to watch any more of this, I was going to not be alive anymore,” Blake said, who says she experienced suicidal ideations. “I just felt like the bad guy. I felt evil.”View image in fullscreenAfter seven years of service, Blake, who is trans, left the air force with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder and chronic depression. But she also left with the hope she could finally live as herself without fear of harassment from fellow service members. Last year, she began receiving estrogen through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Now she fears for the future of that care.“Every day, I wake up and I don’t know what the rules are anymore in the country I live in,” said Blake. “It’s becoming increasingly hard to see a future where we’re OK.”Blake is one of about 134,000 transgender veterans living in the US. It’s an alarming time to be someone like her. On his first day in office, Donald Trump issued an executive order recognizing only two sexes, stamping out gender identity in federal documents and public spaces. A series of other orders have attempted to restrict trans rights, including participation in sports, access to gender-affirming care for youth, educational materials in schools and military service.The crackdown has sent shock waves through the VA, which functions as one of the US’s largest healthcare providers, offering free or low-cost care to more than 9 million veterans. After Trump’s inauguration, some VA health centers began removing LGBTQ+ affiliated objects, including pride flags, rainbow magnets, stickers and posters.When Mary Brinkmeyer’s medical center ordered the removal of LGBTQ+ patient flyers and other affirming material days after Trump’s executive orders, she refused, and ultimately resigned. For nearly three years, she had worked as a psychologist and LGBTQ+ veteran care coordinator at the VA facility in Hampton, Virginia. Hospital leadership ordered her to stop LGBTQ+ outreach, advocacy and gender-affirming training to departments because it could be considered “gender ideology”.View image in fullscreen“We all have ethics codes in our professions that say that you’re supposed to do no harm, and that if you’re caught between institutional pressure and the ethics code, you’re supposed to resolve it in a way that’s consistent with the ethics code,” Brinkmeyer said.Brinkmeyer fears for the mental health of trans veterans, whom she saw experience “really intense suicidal crises” after Trump announced a ban on trans people enlisting in the military in 2017. After the election last November, some of her patients requested the removal of trans identifiers in medical records, and others withdrew from coverage over fears of being targeted and losing access to care. For many, those fears have become a reality.Rollbacks became official in March when the VA rescinded directive 1341, a policy that ensured “the respectful delivery of health care to transgender and intersex Veterans”, and announced the phasing out of gender-affirming medical care. The agency had been providing gender-affirming treatment including hormone therapy, prosthetics, hair removal, voice coaching and pre-surgical evaluation including letters of support for more than a decade. While cisgender veterans will still be able to access these treatments, veterans diagnosed with gender dysphoria are now excluded. Mental health services for trans patients and existing VA and military coverage for hormone therapy won’t be affected, according to the memo, which also formalizes banning trans patients from using facilities that align with their gender identity.View image in fullscreen“I am scared for the huge amount of people that are about to be forcibly separated, because the VA is not there to actually catch these people,” Blake said, referring to an influx of trans service members who could be forced out of the military under Trump’s transgender military ban. “I hate that the ladder was pulled up behind me.”‘A death sentence’The changes have put trans veterans seeking gender-affirming care in limbo. It has also created a climate of fear for the trans veterans already receiving hormone therapy, who worry it could be pulled at any time.View image in fullscreenThat’s the reality for Kaydi Rogers. While at the moment her hormone therapy will not be disrupted, she is terrified of losing access to estrogen if the VA continues its crackdown.Rogers spent about five decades acquiring estrogen pills through pharmacies in Mexico or friends with prescriptions.“I was desperate,” Rogers said. “I didn’t know any way of doing anything about what was going on with me. It was not a common thing back in the 70s and 80s to come out trans.”She finally switched to VA coverage because of the potential health risks of taking unregulated pills. But Rogers said if the VA ever stopped prescribing her estrogen, the desperation would return and she would again rely on self-medication for survival.Beyond her concerns about continued access to care, Rogers feels the loss of welcoming and safe spaces inside VA clinics. She says she tries to avoid drawing attention to herself during appointments, fearful of being harassed or attacked.“Before last year, every time I went to the VA, I went dressed as Kaydi and no one seemed to bother me or care,” Rogers said. “Now, not so much.”Other veterans share these safety concerns, including Lindsay Church, the executive director and co-founder of Minority Veterans of America. Church, who is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, has experienced harassment and discrimination inside VA clinics in the past, and began carrying a printed copy of directive 1341 to prove they were entitled to treatment that respected their gender identity. With that directive rescinded and no guarantee of protection, they’ve canceled VA appointments and sought care elsewhere.View image in fullscreenThe veterans affairs secretary, Doug Collins, stated that trans veterans “will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law”. In response to questions about the new policy, the VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, directed the Guardian to the press release from 17 March.Church said the discriminatory climate is having a chilling effect on trans veterans, regardless of whether their care plans have been discontinued under the VA’s new policy. “If I can’t use [my healthcare plan] because I’m scared of being harassed and intimidated, and experiencing physical violence in a bathroom, I can’t use the system,” they said.They called the policy reversal a “death sentence”.View image in fullscreen‘We tell them we will take care of you, and that’s a lie’Trans veterans face higher rates of homelessness, unemployment, PTSD and military sexual trauma compared with cisgender veterans. They are also twice as likely to die by suicide compared with cisgender veterans, and almost six times more likely than the general US population. Advocates and providers say these psychiatric and socioeconomic risk factors, when combined with the loss of an affirming medical environment, places an already vulnerable population even more at risk.One VA clinical social worker, who requested anonymity, said his LGBTQ+ patients don’t feel safe and are experiencing more suicidal ideations than before Trump took office.“I have seen an increase in suicide risk evaluations,” he said. “I’ve done more of those in the last two months than I’ve done the last two years.”View image in fullscreenAnother LGBTQ+ veteran care coordinator said a trans patient attempted suicide at her facility after Trump’s inauguration, and she fears there could be more people who attempt the same. She said notifying trans patients of the policy change has been heartbreaking.“I’ve worked for the past two and a half years to gain people’s trust, and now all of a sudden, I’m pulling out the rug from under them,” she said. “It feels terrible.”She had to tell one patient wanting to start hormone therapy that the VA could no longer help them, and is preparing the same message for trans patients on a months-long waitlist to begin treatment. While she has been looking for ways to provide alternatives, many of her trans patients live in rural areas where accessing gender-affirming care is difficult.Other VA employees see cutting trans healthcare as a betrayal of the benefits promised to service members when they enlist.“We’re asking these 17-year-olds to give their entire bodies to the US government,” said one VA nurse, who requested anonymity over fear of losing her job. “And they’re given one promise, which is that we will care for them. And this is part of care, whether you like it or not.”Gender-affirming medical care has been endorsed by every major medical association in the US, and medical providers say that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to decide how they care for their patients.“You’re giving so much to the military. You give your whole life, you have no say over where you live,” the nurse said. “Then we tell them we will take care of you, and that’s a lie. We’re lying to people – and not just trans veterans, all veterans.” More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump officials to cut Planned Parenthood family planning funds

      by

      The reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood said the Trump administration would cut federal family planning funding as of Tuesday, affecting birth control, cancer screenings and other services for low-income people.Planned Parenthood said that nine of its affiliates received notice that funding would be withheld under a program known as Title X, which has supported healthcare services for the poor since 1970.The Wall Street Journal reported last week the US Department of Health and Human Services planned an immediate freeze of $27.5m in family planning grants for groups including Planned Parenthood.Planned Parenthood says more than 300 health centers are in the Title X network and Title X-funded centers received more than 1.5m visits in 2023. It not say how much funding would be halted by the Trump administration.The White House and HHS did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. An HHS spokesperson said last week the department was reviewing grant recipients to ensure compliance with Donald Trump’s executive orders.Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, predicted that cancers would go undetected, access to birth control would be severely reduced, and sexually transmitted infections would increase as a result.“President Trump and Elon Musk are pushing their dangerous political agenda, stripping health care access from people nationwide, and not giving a second thought to the devastation they will cause,” McGill Johnson said in a statement.Trump has named billionaire Musk, who helped the president get elected, to head up an initiative to target government agencies for spending cuts.Conservatives have long sought to defund Planned Parenthood because it also provides abortions. However, US government funding for nearly all abortions has been banned since 1977. More

    • 150 Shares90 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump makes sweeping HIV research and grant cuts: ‘setting us back decades’

      by

      The federal government has cancelled dozens of grants to study how to prevent new HIV infections and expand access to care, decimating progress toward eliminating the epidemic in the United States, scientists say.The National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated at least 145 grants related to researching advancements in HIV care that had been awarded nearly $450m in federal funds. The cuts have been made in phases over the last month.NIH, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, is the largest funding source of medical research in the world, leaving many scientists scrambling to figure out how to continue their work.“The loss of this research could very well result in a resurgence of HIV that becomes more generalized in this country,” said Julia Marcus, a professor at Harvard Medical School who recently had two of her grants cancelled. “These drastic cuts are rapidly destroying the infrastructure of scientific research in this country and we are going to lose a generation of scientists.”In 2012, the FDA approved pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an antiviral drug taken once a day that is highly successful at preventing new HIV infections. While the drug has been a powerful tool to contain the virus, inequities remain in accessing those drugs and sustaining a daily treatment. Despite major progress, there are still 30,000 new infections each year in the US.Many of the terminated HIV-related studies focused on improving access to drugs like PrEP in communities that have higher rates of infections – including trans women and Black men. One of Marcus’s projects was examining whether making PrEP available over the counter would increase the use of the drug in vulnerable communities.“The research has to focus on the populations that are most affected in order to have an impact and be relevant,” said Marcus.Yet, this may be the justification for defunding so many HIV-related studies. A termination letter reviewed by the Guardian dated 20 March cited that “so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans.”The National Institutes of Health did not expand on why the grants were terminated in response to questions from the Guardian. In a statement it said it is “taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities. We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science.”Many researchers were left stunned by the scale of the cancellations since in 2019, Donald Trump announced in his State of the Union address a commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the country over the next 10 years. As part of this initiative, his administration negotiated a deal with drug companies to provide free PrEP for 200,000 low-income patients.“Scientific breakthroughs have brought a once-distant dream within reach,” said Trump in his address. “Together we will defeat Aids in America.”Amy Nunn, a professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, said she had even tailored grant proposals to fit the policy goals of the initiative, which included geographically targeting HIV prevention efforts. One of her studies that was terminated focused on closing disparities of PrEP use among African American men in Jackson, Mississippi.“They finally adopted those policies at the federal level,” Nunn said, noting that Trump was the first president to make ending the epidemic a priority. “Now they’re undercutting their own successes. It’s so strange.”Though hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds had been awarded for the grants, the terminations will not recoup all of that money for the administration, since many are years into their work. Some are even already finished.Nathaniel Albright learned earlier this month that an NIH grant supporting his doctoral research was cancelled even though his project had already been completed. A PhD candidate at Ohio State University, Albright is defending his dissertation at the end of the month. Still, Albright is concerned how the cuts impact the future of the field.“It’s created an environment in academia where my research trajectory is now considered high risk to institutions,” said Albright, who is currently struggling to find postdoctorate positions at universities.Pamina Gorbach, an epidemiologist who teaches at University of California, Los Angeles, had been following hundreds of men living with HIV in Los Angeles for 10 years to learn their needs. She had been awarded an NIH grant to better facilitate their treatment through a local clinic. Her funding was cancelled earlier this month as well.“It’s really devastating,” said Gorbach. “If you’re living with HIV and you’re not on meds, you know what happens? You get sick and you die.”Clinic staff in Los Angeles will likely be laid off as a result of the cuts, said Gorbach. Others agreed one immediate concern was how to pay their research staff, since the funds from a grant are immediately frozen once it is terminated. The NIH funds also often make up at least a portion of university professor’s salaries, all said they were most alarmed by the impact on services for their patients and the loss of progress toward ending the epidemic.“This is erasing an entire population of people who have been impacted by an infectious disease,” said Erin Kahle, the director of the Center for Sexuality and Health Disparities at the University of Michigan who lost an NIH grant.Scrapping an entire category of disease from research will have innumerable downstream effects on the rest of healthcare, she added.“This is setting us back decades,” said Kahle. More

    • 250 Shares175 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr says they are poisoning us, influencers call them unnatural – but what is the truth about seed oils?

      by

      It’s curious that something so bland could cause so much controversy. Most of us have a bottle of seed oil, normally called vegetable oil in the UK, in our kitchens – a nearly tasteless but very useful fat that has been a commonplace cooking ingredient for decades.And yet this previously unremarkable golden liquid has sparked online furore and vicious debate. Nutrition influencers on social media have described it as “toxic”, “inflammatory”, “unnatural” and the root cause of the obesity epidemic.The US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has caused controversy with his views on subjects from vaccines to fluoride in drinking water, has said the population is being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils and urged people to revert to “traditional” fats such as butter, lard and beef dripping for better health.Last month the Wall Street Journal reported that fast food chains were promoting their shift away from seed oils after Kennedy’s criticisms. He even made a televised visit to a branch of Steak ’n Shake to praise its decision to cook fries in beef tallow instead.So should we really be ditching our bottles of vegetable and sunflower oils and covering everything in lard?Seed oils have been in widespread use since about the 1950s and, as well as being used for home cooking, are also in many ultra-processed foods. They include rapeseed (known as canola in the US and generally labelled as vegetable oil in the UK), sunflower, soya bean, corn, grapeseed, rice bran, sesame and safflower. While you can buy cold-pressed seed oils, the most common production method involves using a solvent (normally hexane) to extract the oil from the plant. It is correct that hexane is a toxic substance, but it is almost entirely removed from the final product by the refining process – the EU allows a maximum residual limit of 1mg per kilo.The refining process includes bleaching and deodorising, both of which critics have jumped on to claim that seed oil is “unnatural” and therefore “bad”.Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, who has spent his career researching dietary fat and health, explains: “The processing actually takes out potentially toxic material.”Sarah Berry, professor of nutritional sciences at King’s, agrees: “The end product, in my opinion, is very safe to eat.”The next allegation against seed oils is that they are “inflammatory”. This assumption is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the science, says Berry.View image in fullscreenSeed oil critics claim that the type of omega-6 fatty acid present in them (called linoleic acid) can be inflammatory, whereas omega-3 – the other essential polyunsaturated fatty acid, found in foodstuffs such as oily fish, flaxseed and chia seeds – can reduce inflammation.“Because the enzymes used to convert omega-3 into anti-inflammatory chemicals are the same ones used to convert omega- 6, their argument is that having too much seed oil will mean the enzymes are stolen away from the omega-3,” says Berry.“This isn’t true. It’s true from a theoretical biochemical pathway. It’s true in mice upon unrealistic stimuli. But it is absolutely not true in humans.” In fact, randomised, controlled trials show that linoleic acid has either a neutral or, in most studies, an anti-inflammatory effect in humans.“The idea that linoleic acid is some sort of toxic thing is absolute nonsense,” says Sanders. “It’s an essential nutrient. Of the essential fatty acids it’s the most important one. If you’re deficient, it impairs immune function and platelet function doesn’t work.”It also has a potent cholesterol-lowering effect, says Berry, who is chief scientist at nutrition company Zoe. “It has been shown to reduce blood cholesterol significantly. Because of this and based on the current evidence I would say that not only are seed oils not bad for us, they are a healthy part of our diet.”Sanders attributes much of the decline in cardiovascular disease we’ve seen in the past 50 years to our increased consumption of seed oils. A few weeks ago, a study that followed 200,000 adults over 33 years found that those who replaced a tablespoon of butter a day with the same amount of plant-based oil such as soya bean or rapeseed had a 17% reduction in risk of death from all causes. The study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine also found a 17% reduction in risk of death from cancer.“Our study found that higher butter intake was associated with increased deaths from all causes and cancer, while higher intake of plant-based oils was associated with lower deaths from all causes, cancer and cardiovascular disease,” said lead study author Yu Zhang, a graduate student at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.Priya Tew, from Dietitian UK, says some of the confusion might have come from a 1960s study: “It showed men with heart disease had a higher intake of seed oils. But this was through margarines that also contain trans fats, which we know increase the risk of heart disease.”A similar logic applies to the argument that, as our intake of seed oils has risen – which it has more than 200-fold over the past 50 to 70 years – so too have our rates of chronic disease.“Association does not mean causality,” says Berry. “Think what else has changed; our food landscape is almost unrecognisable compared with 70 years ago. It’s estimated 60% of the seed oils we consume come from ultra-processed food which has many other chemicals that are unhealthy for us and processes that affect the healthfulness of the food.”In other words, it’s not the seed oil that’s the problem.Berry’s recent statements about seed oils have landed her in hot water. After appearing on a podcast explaining that seed oils are healthy, she received relentless hate mail, including being told she’s “the most hated scientist in America”.“It nearly got to the point where I was going to stop speaking out on the topic so I didn’t have to be subjected to such horrible comments and meanness. But then I thought, that’s exactly what they want. They want to shut down the real evidence, so it just galvanised me to speak out about it even more.”As always, with nutrition, it’s better to consider overall diet than to hyper-fixate on one ingredient. But these kind of messages don’t tend to get as much traction. “Human nature is such that we are more susceptible to risk and scare headlines,” Berry says. “They’re going to get more clicks than a balanced, boring nutrition scientist like myself saying seed oils are fine as part of a balanced diet.”Sanders says you don’t have to ditch your seed oils and you shouldn’t swap them for butter or lard. “The seed oil scare is all just gossip. It’s not based on any good science at all.” More

    • 200 Shares166 Views

      in US Politics

      My child has autism. Trump and RFK Jr linking it to vaccines scares parents like me

      by

      It was a moment when Donald Trump’s larger-than-life presence on the global stage became unexpectedly personal.Near the end of his one-hour, 40-minute speech to a joint session of Congress on 4 March, the US president diverted from his favoured themes of a new golden age of American greatness and grievances against his adversaries to address a more unlikely topic: autism.The president drew his audience’s attention to Robert F Kennedy Jr, his controversial, newly confirmed choice as health secretary, and charged him with one overarching responsibility.“Not long ago, you can’t even believe these numbers – one in 10,000 children had autism,” Trump intoned. “Now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36 think of that. So we’re going to find out what it is. And there’s nobody better than Bobby.“Good luck. It’s a very important job.”It was not the first time that Trump had waded into the controversy swirling around autism – a neurodivergent condition affecting an estimated 75 million people worldwide. Nor was it the first occasion that he had touted Kennedy’s credentials as being able to tackle it.But the high symbolism of the setting brought home to me, a watching journalist, with sobering clarity that a life-changing decision, taken for the most pressing of family reasons, had taken on unforeseen contours.Just over two years ago, my wife and I had moved to the United States so that we could better address the needs of our son, who had been diagnosed with autism just before his third birthday. We had gradually despaired of finding a practical solution in the Czech capital of Prague, where we previously lived, and where state-of-the-art therapeutic remedies were still fledgling works in progress.America, by contrast, seemed to be a land of possibility and innovative approaches and to offer a more amenable environment to our circumstances – and had the added attraction that we all held US citizenship.In the period since our arrival, we found progress uneven, but engaged an outstanding therapist who made up for our difficulties navigating the Maryland state education system. I shifted my career from one centered in Europe, to covering US politics – and the second Trump administration.Now here – in the highest shrine of US democracy – was the graphically vivid figure of Trump digressing from his usual weaving script to elevate the very topic that had brought us to America’s shores to a national priority.It was not, to put it mildly, exactly what we had envisioned.The uptick in the autism trend Trump cited was exaggerated; while the most recent US autism statistics, recorded in 2020, did indeed record one in 36 children in the US having received a diagnosis of autism, the jump was less dramatic than he described – comparing with a rate of one in 150 in 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Nevertheless, the undoubted spike in instances of the condition meant that his proclaimed zeal to find a cause resonated with many, us included.The catch lay in his choice of Kennedy, who has declared that autism is caused by vaccines – a scientifically baseless theory which Trump himself has previously indulged – as the lead figure in a national crusade to discover a cause.I spoke with other parents of children with autism, who used a range of pejorative adjectives to deride this conviction; among them “dangerous”, “scary”, “batshit crazy”, “despicable” and “disgusting”.Kennedy’s views carry weight which, experts fear, will be lent still greater authority by his new health portfolio. The CDC is reportedly now planning a large study into potential connections between vaccines and autism.“Were I the father of a child with autism, I would be really angry at the anti-vaccine community for taking this story hostage and for diverting resources and attention away from the real cause, or causes, of autism,” said Paul Offit, a pediatrician specialising in immunology and author of the 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets, which rebutted the alleged links between the condition and vaccines.“There’s financial or emotional burdens that make it hard enough for parents, but to have this offered as a reason for why a child has autism is just spurious and in some ways malicious, because I think it puts the burden on the parent.”Belief in the alleged connection between vaccinations and autism gained traction after a 1998 study conducted by a British physician, Andrew Wakefield, and published in the Lancet asserted a causal link with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy in Britain, with the then prime minister, Tony Blair, pressured to say whether his baby son had been administered the MMR shot.But research underpinning the finding was later debunked as fraudulent, leading to the Lancet retracting the paper and Wakefield being struck off the UK medical register. Multiple subsequent studies have found no connection between the vaccine and autism.Despite the countervailing evidence, suspicions persisted – fuelled in no small part by Kennedy himself, who has shown himself unmoved in the face of challenge.My personal interest in Kennedy and his views on vaccines was piqued after hearing a 2023 podcast interview with the New Yorker. He was adamant under questioning from the magazine’s editor-in-chief, David Remnick, who – disclosing himself as the parent of a child with “quite severe” autism – asked if he had second thoughts about “slinging around theories … that don’t have any great credibility among scientists”.“I’ve read the science on autism and I can tell you … If it didn’t come from the vaccines, then where is it coming from?” Kennedy responded.Scientists say there are multiple potential answers to that question, including genetics, drugs taken during pregnancy, age of conception – albeit none giving a definitive explanation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“When you hear about autism and its causes, the first thing people think is vaccines, which is the one thing you can say it’s not,” Offit said.Caught in the crossfire of this conflict between science and dogma are parents struggling to cope with a condition whose manifestations can be maddening, challenging and bewildering.Autism is a wide spectrum condition and children with it come in a surprising variety of types. Some – like my son – are functional, verbal and teachable, with aspects of high intelligence; others are non-verbal and may have severe intellectual disabilities; many others may fall somewhere in between.“If you’ve met one child with autism, you’ve met one child with autism,” goes the refrain among many specialists.Common to all, however, are atypical behaviours that for the parents, are life-changing and force them to make painful adaptations, sometimes at high financial cost.A complaint frequently heard about Kennedy’s views is that they heap stigmatisation on their children and unwarranted blame on the parents.“It puts a stigma on our children that their parents did something wrong when they were pregnant with them, and thus it’s the parents fault,” said Davina Kleid, 38, an executive assistant in a real estate development company in Maryland, whose nine-year-old daughter has autism.Kleid feared Kennedy’s views have the potential to unleash an eventual crackdown conjuring scenes resembling The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s novel dystopian novel depicting a bleak patriarchal future and female subjugation.“Who knows? Maybe I could be arrested for having a child on the spectrum, because they’re going to say that I did something to purposely cause her to have this condition,” she said. “There’s nothing wrong with my child. It’s how she was born. I’m not ashamed of it, and I don’t think anyone should be ashamed of it.”Madeline, a publisher from Maryland who requested that her real name not be disclosed, said Kennedy’s views amounted to a disparagement of her 24-year-old son, who was born at the height of the MMR controversy arising from the Wakefield paper but who showed signs of developmental delay before being vaccinated.“It is just insulting that people would think that it would be better to get measles or mumps or pertussis or whooping cough than to have autism,” she said. “And RFK Jr has said as much. It’s like this is worse than getting these terrible, life-threatening diseases.”Lux Blakthorne, 33, a professional gardener living in Chester county, Pennsylvania, said fears for the future over her non-verbal, nine-year-old autistic son, Kai, had prompted her to make plans to emigrate to Germany, the country of her ex-husband’s birth and where she said provisions for autism had made great strides.The breaking point, she said, would be cuts to Medicaid, the public healthcare system that Kennedy oversees and which pays for Kai’s daily needs including education at a special private facility.An added factor is a recent White House executive order banning puberty blocking medication for those under 18, a measure aimed at stymying gender-affirming care for transgender youth but which, Blakthorne says, would prevent her trying to mitigate harmful autism-related behaviour that is likely to be exacerbated by the onset of puberty.“I think RFK sees disabilities as a problem that needs to be fixed,” said Blakthorne. “He has a dangerous belief system, and it’s not science- or fact-based.”Yet amid the negativity, the Autism Science Foundation, a research group, says Kennedy has a unique opportunity to discover its causes.“Many of us in the autism community give RFK credit for wanting to study the causes of autism,” said Alison Singer, the foundation’s president and the mother of a daughter with autism.“What would be very positive is if as health secretary, he can declare profound autism as a national public health emergency,” she said.“That would open up a variety of actions he could take, like making additional grants, entering into new contracts [and] really focusing funding on investigating the causes of autism, treatments and prevention.” More

    • 163 Shares152 Views

      in UK Politics

      Chlorinated chicken: Is it safe and will it be sold in British supermarkets?

      by

      British negotiators are in “intense discussions” with the United States on closer trade ties, the chancellor has said, in an attempt to ease the impact of Donald Trump’s looming tariffs.One of the products being touted as part of the free trade deal is chlorine-washed chicken – a controversial method of cleaning farmed animals to kill bacteria.While evidence suggests the chlorine wash itself is not harmful, critics argue treating chicken with the chemical will allow for poorer hygiene earlier on in the production process.Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said he would agree to allow American chlorine-washed chicken to be sold in the UK as part of a free trade deal with the US. He said, as part of a deal, US President Trump “would want US agricultural products to be sold in Britain”.However, Liz Webster, founder of Save British Farming, told The Independent: “The British public is rightly appalled by chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef. We are an animal-loving nation that values high standards, and we must not trade them away.”But what exactly does the evidence on chlorine-washed chicken show?Chlorinated chicken or chlorine-washed chicken refers to chicken carcasses that have been washed or dipped in water containing chlorine dioxide. This is done to kill organisms that could make you ill, such as E coli, campylobacter and Salmonella.Is it bad for me?If you ate a large amount of chlorinated chicken – the equivalent to 5 per cent of your body weight in one day –you could potentially be exposed to harmful levels of the chemical compound known as chlorate, according to the European Commission.“Long-term exposure to chlorate in food, particularly in drinking water, is a potential health concern for children, especially those with mild or moderate iodine deficiency,” according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).A high intake of chlorate on a single day could be toxic for humans as it can limit the blood’s ability to absorb oxygen, leading to kidney failure, while chronic exposure to chlorate can inhibit iodine uptake.However, there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health at risk. The EFSA has said that chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers. Is it cleaner than non-chlorinated chicken?A 2014 report by US non-profit Consumer Reports found that 97 per cent of 300 American chicken breasts tested contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli. Around half of the chicken breasts tested also contained at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more antibiotics.In general, you are over seven times more likely to get food poisoning in the US than in the UK, according to data from the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Moreover, a 2018 study from the University of Southampton found chlorine-washing was not totally effective in killing pathogens on fresh vegetables. The research also suggested that chlorinating foods “can make foodborne pathogens undetectable”, rather than eliminating them.Chlorinated chicken was first banned by the EU in 1997. The EU stipulates that chicken can only be washed in water or substances explicitly approved by the European Commission.Those who are against chlorine washing claim that, rather than the chlorine itself being the problem, it’s what the chlorine is hiding. Treating the carcasses this way can enable lower standards of hygiene and animal welfare – farmers can rely on chemicals to kill off harmful bacteria at the end of the process, rather than maintaining high standards at every stage.However, Ken Isley from the US Department of Agriculture, said: “I think the concerns and fear are unfounded. I would stack US food safety and our food safety record against anywhere in the world.”How can I tell if chicken has been chlorinated?In the US, chickens are not labelled as having been washed in chlorine.Some of those lobbying for the UK to accept US imports of chlorine-washed chicken have argued that it should be up to consumers to decide, as long as it’s clearly labelled. However, according to Sustain, an organisation that campaigns for better food and farming, there is currently “no requirement for food producers to inform UK consumers about whether or not chlorine was used, neither are restaurants nor caterers required to say where their meat is from.” Unless the limitations of current UK food labelling legislation are addressed, it is hard to see how British consumers would know whether their chicken had been treated with chlorinated water.The US also regards specific labelling of country of origin as an illegitimate barrier to its exports and pushes to have the practice banned as part of trade agreements it signs with other countries.Will chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal with the US?The prospect of a new UK-US trade deal has raised new concerns that US chlorine-treated chicken could enter UK markets, something the British public has historically been strongly against. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has previously ruled out concessions on chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef, insisting Labour won’t change their stance. According to the most recent significant polling on the subject, which was carried out in 2020, 80 per cent of the British public are against allowing imports of chlorinated chicken, and the same percentage are against permitting chicken products that have been raised with hormones.Following pressure from the British public, former prime ministers Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were compelled to rule out compromises on hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken in future trade deal negotiations with the US. More