Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Tremendous uncertainty’ for cancer research as US officials target mRNA vaccines

      by

      As US regulators restrict Covid mRNA vaccines and as independent vaccine advisers re-examine the shots, scientists fear that an unlikely target could be next: cancer research.Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines have shown promise in treating and preventing cancers that have often been difficult to address, such as pancreatic cancer, brain tumors and others.But groundbreaking research could stall as federal and state officials target mRNA shots, including ending federal funding for bird flu mRNA vaccines, restricting who may receive existing mRNA vaccines and, in some places, proposing laws against the vaccines.The Trump administration has also implemented unprecedented cuts to cancer research, among other research cuts and widespread layoffs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).At least 16 grants involving the word “mRNA” have been terminated or frozen, according to the crowdsourced project Grant Watch, and scientists have been told to remove mentions of mRNA vaccines from their research applications, KFF Health News reported in March.Researchers fear that therapeutic cancer vaccines will get “swept up in that tidal wave” against mRNA vaccines, Aaron Sasson, chief of surgical oncology at Stony Brook University, said in April.When it comes to mRNA breakthroughs, “the next couple of years are the most critical”, Elias Sayour, a professor for pediatric oncology research at the University of Florida, said.“If the progress we’ve made to date – which has been prodigious – if that is just stopped or stymied, it can absolutely affect the trajectory and the arc,” he said.The uncertainty around mRNA specifically, and research broadly, could also discourage researchers and institutions from beginning new projects, he said.“If we continue to seize on these gains in the next 10, 20 years, I do see a scenario where we’ve completely transformed how we take care of a large swath of human disease,” he said.Research on mRNA cancer vaccines has been under way for more than a decade, with more than 120 clinical trials on treating and preventing cancers. mRNA shots have shown promise for preventing the return of head and neck cancer; lymphoma; breast cancer, which accounts for 11.6% of all cancer deaths in the US; colorectal cancer; lung cancer; and kidney cancer, among others.Pancreatic cancer has a 10% survival rate and is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the US, but in a small study, about half of the patients who received an mRNA vaccine did not see their cancer return, and they still had strong immune responses three years later.Early mRNA vaccine trials also indicated the recurrence of melanoma could be cut in half. And a small study co-authored by Sayour on glioblastoma showed the vaccines started affecting the tumors within 48 hours.Like any vaccine, mRNA cancer vaccines train the body to recognize and destroy harmful cells.Unlike foreign pathogens, such as infectious diseases, cancer is caused by the growth of the patient’s own cells.Some cancer vaccines are highly personalized, using a patient’s own cancer cells to treat their tumors or train their immune system to kill off those dangerous cells if they recur.“The ability to create specific vaccines for patients has tremendous, tremendous promise, but that was technology not possible five or 10 years ago,” said Sasson. “It really is a shift in the paradigm of how we treat cancers.”Researchers are also investigating vaccines that would target cancer cells more broadly by identifying “fingerprints” of certain cancers, said Sayour.Additionally, the vaccines could be created for other conditions, such as type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, he said.“It has potential to get rid of a lot of the chronic morbidity we see from disease, to cure diseases that are degenerative, to overcome cancer evolution and cure patients,” Sayour said. “mRNA could be the healthcare that the movable-type printing press was for human knowledge.”Yet federal and state decision-makers have targeted mRNA vaccines in recent months.Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), reportedly overrode scientists at the agency to limit some Covid vaccines, including a new mRNA shot from Moderna, to children older than 12. Prasad also introduced similar limitations on the Covid shot from Novavax, which does not use mRNA.On Thursday, the FDA approved the original Covid mRNA vaccine from Moderna for children between the ages of six months and 11 years – but they narrowed its use to children with at least one underlying condition. (The vaccine for people older than 12 was approved in 2022.)Prasad argued, in two memos recently released by the FDA, that the risks of Covid had dropped, while “known and unknown” side-effects could outweigh the benefits of getting vaccinated.Covid remains a leading cause of death in the US, with 178 deaths in the week ending 7 June, the last week for which the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers complete data.At the meeting of the CDC’s advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) in June, two of the new vaccine advisers – appointed by the health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, after he fired the previous 17 advisers – broached the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, indicating future scrutiny of these shots.Vicky Pebsworth, a registered nurse who has volunteered for years with the National Vaccine Information Center, said she was “very concerned” about side-effects from the Covid mRNA shots and asked for more data on safety, including “reproductive toxicity”.Shortly before being appointed to the ACIP, Pebsworth and the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center argued that the FDA should not recommend mRNA Covid-19 shots for anyone “until adequate scientific evidence demonstrates safety and effectiveness for both the healthy and those who are elderly or chronically ill”.At the June ACIP meeting, Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, said he believed mRNA side-effects were “being reported at rates that are far exceeding other vaccines even when you normalize to the number of doses, which does suggest something, I think”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPreviously, Levi argued: “The evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death, especially among young people. We have to stop giving them immediately!”Another new ACIP adviser, Robert Malone, has also repeatedly argued against mRNA vaccines.In 2021, Kennedy, then chair of the anti-vaccine organization Children’s Health Defense, petitioned the FDA to revoke all approvals, and ban future approvals, of all Covid vaccines. He has called Covid shots the “deadliest vaccine ever made”.In May, Kennedy changed Covid vaccine recommendations from “should” to “may” for children, and eliminated the recommendation for pregnant women entirely.Also in May, the US canceled $766m in contracts for research on mRNA vaccines against H5N1 bird flu. Investment in the mRNA vaccine was not “scientifically or ethically justifiable”, Andrew Nixon, the HHS communications director, said in statements to the media, adding that the “mRNA technology remains under-tested”.Millions of mRNA vaccines have been given around the world, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in multiple studies.Bans or limitations on mRNA vaccinations have been introduced in seven states. One such bill in Idaho sought to pause “gene therapy immunizations” for 10 years – a category in which they incorrectly place Covid vaccines, and which could affect other therapeutics.Similarly, in Washington state, commissioners in Franklin county passed a resolution urging the local health facility to stop providing and promoting gene-therapy vaccines; they also incorrectly included Covid mRNA shots in this category.“There’s this scorched-earth mentality now, but I’m hopeful that once the dust settles, we’ll be able to reinstate or allow vaccine work for cancer purposes to proceed,” Sasson said.Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US, and two in five people will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime.There are currently only two FDA-approved vaccines that prevent cancer – hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) – and both have been targeted by anti-vaccine activists.In January, Trump hosted the launch of Stargate AI at the White House. The project could eventually identify cancers and develop mRNA vaccines in days, Larry Ellison, the chair of the tech company Oracle who is involved with the project, said at the launch.The project will be funded by private, not federal, dollars, but the work on cancer would draw upon research on cancer and mRNA, among other fields.Yet the Trump administration has slashed other critical funding for cancer research, prevention and treatment.The administration canceled more than $180m in grants through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the first three months of its term, and proposed cutting $2.7bn from the cancer center in the next NIH budget.The administration has cut back funding for some family planning providers, which frequently offer screenings for HPV and other cancer markers.Lawmakers have also made enormous cuts to Medicaid and insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which could mean uninsured and underinsured people wait longer for cancer treatment – or forgo it entirely.“There’s the potential for great harm, for massive public health issues to be set aside during this really broad approach of canceling research,” said Sasson. “There’s significant harm that’s going to happen by these sweeping changes.”For scientists who still have funding or those who are entering the field, “there’s tremendous uncertainty as to what the future will look like”, Sasson said.But he is optimistic that mRNA vaccines for cancer and other illnesses will be able to move forward.Scientists are often portrayed as “just trying to survive” funding cuts, but that’s not entirely accurate, said Sayour, before adding: “I don’t think many people in my field do this because they’re just trying to survive. I would want nothing more, honest to God, than to put myself out of business. We do this because we want to make a difference.”Sayour echoed concerns about both indirect and direct forces shaping progress on mRNA vaccines.“But I also want to be optimistic that our best days are ahead of us,” he said. More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘No one outside the NHS will understand’: Doctors and their families defend strike action

      by

      As resident doctors prepare for another walkout, doctors, NHS staff, and their families have hit back at criticism, taking to the Independent’s comments with passionate, first-hand accounts of life on the front line.Our wider community is sharply split over the upcoming industrial action and their demand for a 29 per cent pay rise. With one reader insisting that doctors “should be ashamed”.Amid the division, however, several medics defended the strike as a last resort after years of burnout, pay erosion and understaffing. Many noted that doctors face job insecurity, rising costs of training, and little respect from the public.While one parent recalled their son working 90+ hour weeks over the festive period, another said that the “greedy doctors” narrative was not just wrong but “heartbreaking”, and accused the government of breaking the NHS on purpose. But not everyone backed the British Medical Association’s decision to strike. One medic called the 29 per cent pay demand “excessive” and warned the walkout could further harm patient care.Here’s what they had to say:90-hour weeksThe gods were very kind to me, and I had three kids. All of them of similar intellect. My eldest son decided to carve a career in commerce, as did my daughter. My younger son, from the age of about fourteen, set his sights on the medical profession. 20+ years later, my younger son is now a consultant working in the NHS. My older son’s basic salary is circa 2.5 times that of my younger son. But he also gets quite substantial bonuses, a share issue at the end of each financial year and mainly works from home roughly 8–9 hours per day, 5 days per week.One might conclude from that anyone wanting to enter the medical profession as either a nurse or doctor must be utterly bonkers… But thank heaven they do!When my younger son was an ST1 (Speciality Trainee year 1) we were all sitting round the dinner table on Christmas Day, and it emerged that he had managed to get Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day off. Upon enquiring how he had managed this, his reply was to the effect: “I will take the pain when I go back.” It subsequently emerged that his first two weeks back were both 90 hours, and the third week was 93 hours. His observation about the 93 hours: “I wouldn’t want to see me after 93 hours.”TemplerDo you support the doctor’s strike? Share your thoughts in the comments.Looking back, I had it easyOur daughter went through the FY1/2 (foundation training), SHO (Senior House Officer), Reg, S/Reg, now an NHS Consultant and working for the first time in the one place…She had the same horrific working conditions as I did when training, but she had the EWTD (The European Working Time Directive ) to contend with – where they still worked crazy hours but the management couldn’t admit to being short-staffed, so getting any ‘overtime’ became extremely difficult…Looking back, I had it easy…ScoobytheDogNo one outside the NHS will understandI do not think that anyone outside the NHS will truly understand what it is like to be a resident doctor or appreciate the demands of the job. Five or six years of medical school, over £100k in debt, exam fees through your 20s and 30s, and training bottlenecks, not to mention the emotional labour and the responsibility of keeping people alive.In clinical years of medical school, we spend most of our days on the wards, essentially working unpaid. Medical school is exhausting, but it is worth the effort to become a doctor. In our final year, we are randomly allocated to work in any hospital in the United Kingdom to undertake two years of foundation training. This process does not consider one’s family commitments, relationships or grades in medical school.Whilst scheduled working hours are capped, there are weeks where one may be on the rota to work up to 72 hours. Of course, often people stay overtime due to staff shortages and workload. There are often too many patients and not enough doctors or nurses to cover the wards. Lunch breaks are often 10–15 minutes, or do not happen at all depending on the clinical picture.The emotional toll of seeing so much suffering, disease and death, and the weight of being the one to break bad news to patients and their loved ones, is heavy. Especially when consultations are rushed due to the volume of patients and staff shortages. Many times, your doctors are going through similar things in their personal lives – a parent with cancer, a brother that died the night before – but we put our own pain and humanity aside, we show up and we care for those that need us. The nature of the job makes burnout likely, and coupled with erosion of salaries and a decline in public respect for the hard work that doctors put in – is it a wonder people are leaving the NHS to pursue work as a doctor elsewhere? In other countries the job may be equally as emotionally demanding in a given moment, but the staffing in the hospitals will be better, the public will show you more respect, and you may work the same (or fewer!) hours for better pay, enjoying a better work-life balance – which is inevitably better for one’s own mental health and wellbeing. Not to mention, speciality training is shorter and less competitive abroad.The strikes and the pay rise are needed to boost morale and retain our home-grown talent. Unfortunately, many fail to realise that the more doctors that leave the NHS, the worse the staff shortages and waiting times get, and the harder it becomes for NHS staff to keep the NHS running, contributing further to staff burnout and staff leaving.BlueAlpacaThe fact people look at this as pure greed is heartbreakingI’ve seen family and friends who work as doctors, nurses, cleaners etc. struggling on a daily basis. Often working as a single doctor on a ward with countless patients and working unimaginable hours, which takes a massive toll on them – for how dangerous it is for them, on top of being treated horribly by patients and upper management alike.A comment I always see made is “doctors are not as nice as they used to be”, which I understand, but what is overlooked is that almost all NHS staff are overworked, on long shifts and have been treated horribly. The previous government made the NHS unmanageable (in my eyes on purpose), and staff are still working their hardest to fix it.The fact people look at this as pure greed is truly heartbreaking and it takes away from what these heroes are doing and putting up with on a daily basis. The government should be ashamed at trying to vilify the backbone of society for simply asking for better working standards.ConMakepeaceWell-deserved remunerationA lot of commentators obviously have no idea of current working conditions within the NHS. Doctors have multiple degrees and train for seven years before they start their practical training. “Junior doctor” is a deeply resented title by the way, as is “trainee doctor”.They then have further training to specialise – again, up to five years.They have ruinous professional subscriptions to the Royal College, MDU, BMA, etc.Many professional courses are paid for out of their own pockets. On-call is expected whatever your family circumstances – Christmas, Easter, school holidays. Doctors have had a 30 per cent wage cut. All they are seeking is a return to their well-deserved and earned remuneration.When a doctor reaches consultant level their wages cross the upper tax levels, which means they earn less than when they were training! Many of the doctors now training in the UK are planning on emigrating to other countries who pay their worth. The choice is yours – support your doctors or lose them and end up relying on poorly trained, unqualified physician associates. Believe me, you will really start whining then.YarblesI emigrated for moneyDoctors have always been exploited by the NHS and continue to be so. When I was an NHS consultant, pay was poor and then I lost two elevenths of that meagre salary to be graciously “allowed” to see private patients – but unbelievably was required to “give essentially the whole of my time to the NHS”! It took me only a short time to realise I was being treated as a “mere employee to do as I was told”, so I emigrated to the USA where I instantly earned (literally) TWENTY times as much as the NHS paid. I returned to Britain when I didn’t need to work again. It is a waste of effort to complain about NHS exploitation of its staff – just use your skills elsewhere. Bon chance! The ClaymoreAs a medic, I do not support this strikeAs a medic myself I am not in support of this strike or the requested pay rise, and I am ashamed of my own union (BMA). I do not like the way the NHS is going. It was always seen as a vocation, meaning that when you sign up for med school you know what you are taking on. But today it has so many problems caused by successive governments, and now this excessive pay request threatens its sustainability.FlossieDoctors have no job securityFew people realise that doctors have no job security. Following their two-year post-qualification training there are insufficient speciality training places available, and so they either have to scramble around to find one of the few short-term 12-month fellowship contracts or they are out of work. Added to that, they have to suffer the ignominy of having their assistants (Physician Associates) paid £10,000 per annum more than them. If that happened in teaching there would be outrage. All resident doctors are trying to do is fight for reasonable pay compared to PAs and job security. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.TuscanSPay should keep up with inflationEveryone deserves for their pay to have kept up with inflation since 2008. Everyone includes doctors and other NHS staff.DoctorSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘Who do they think they are?’ Readers clash over NHS doctor strikes

      by

      As resident doctors prepare for another walkout, readers responded with a flurry of passionate – and polarised – opinions on the latest NHS pay dispute.Some voiced sympathy for doctors, arguing that pay should have kept pace with inflation since 2008. They warned that failing to restore salaries would fuel burnout, debt, and emigration, further weakening an NHS already short on staff and resources.Others pointed to the gruelling hours and training required, noting that doctors deserve better pay and respect. Several also criticised Health Secretary Wes Streeting for “reneging” on promises.But not all were supportive. Some readers described the 29 per cent pay demand as excessive and out of touch, especially after the 22 per cent uplift secured last year. Many were frustrated by long waits for appointments and poor patient outcomes, questioning whether increased pay alone would improve services.Here’s what you had to say:I have little sympathy for NHS staffTo be honest, over the last 15 years or so, I’ve noticed a significant shift in the attitude of GPs and doctors towards their patients. Often, my GP seems indifferent to my healthcare needs, and I find myself being passed from pillar to post when I need my injection for a specific condition. My GP blames the hospital, while the hospital points the finger back at the GP surgery for not administering it.I’ve also observed a marked change in the attitude of those who handle phone calls. When I need to see my GP, I’m frequently told to book a telephone appointment or given a mere 5 to 10 minutes to discuss my concerns. Often, my issues aren’t truly addressed; it feels more like I’m having a chat with my next-door neighbour rather than receiving proper medical attention. What frustrates me further is that the hospital and GP surgery I attend are often much less busy than they were 15 years ago. Yet, they still offer appointments at least four weeks later. It’s ridiculous! If the government has been playing games over the past 15 years, I believe NHS staff, including those in surgeries, have had a part in it. Therefore, I have little sympathy for NHS staff demanding pay rises that exceed the average UK rates.At present, the NHS seems to think it’s doing a great job, but that’s often not the case. Doctors from countries like Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Mexico, China, Thailand, and Vietnam are often well-trained and willing to work for less, without compromising healthcare services for patients. Meanwhile, our newly trained doctors often have aspirations to move to countries like Australia, the USA, and Canada, which sometimes gives the impression that they feel stuck in their jobs here in the UK.KatherineTateIsBackDo you support the walkout? Let us know your views in the comments.Everyone needs to join with the doctorsEveryone else needs to join with the doctors, stand alongside them and fight against the scourge of low wages that the people of the United Kingdom are expected to accept as recompense for the work they undertake.The doctors are leading the way – people need to get on board or get out of the way.IndythinksterPay and inflationEveryone deserves for their pay to have kept up with inflation since 2008. Everyone includes doctors and other NHS staff.Doctor Outcomes not up to standardIt wouldn’t be quite as bad if the NHS had a patient outcome half as good as most of our comparable European neighbours.Admittedly the NHS is underfunded compared with many Western European countries, but wasn’t Boris supposed to fix everything with his red bus?YetAnotherNameNow they want more?In 2024, junior doctors received an average pay increase of 22 per cent over two years, which translated to an annual increase of between £9,000 and £16,000. Now they want 29 per cent on top of this. Who do they think they are? The nation has finite resources and cannot divert money meant to provide better facilities and medicines for patients into their pockets.Pomerol95 The public will not forgive StreetingNo, Streeting, the public will not forgive you. Doctors were promised pay restoration. You have reneged on that.The English NHS has fewer doctors, nurses and beds per capita than the health services of comparable nations, including Scotland – a crucial factor in determining health outcomes and waiting lists.Not paying doctors adequately is not going to improve that situation. And if they aren’t paid adequately, they will never pay off the vast student debts they have accrued – or they may even leave the country, leaving the public purse to pick up the entire tab as well as losing their not insubstantial investment entirely.NorthwingDoes it make any sense to be a GP anymore?Does it make any sense to be a GP anymore, looking at their salary range? Clever people get paid more elsewhere, for less training (costly) and less work. I missed any plan for this issue in Streeting’s 10-year NHS plan.MpWhat a messWhat a mess, caused in part by the unfortunate fact that the more you pay anyone, the more valuable they think they are. It doesn’t help that the NHS requires doctors to do a five-year degree course and then a couple of years practising, only to be able to prescribe medicine if it’s on the NICE list and they have a blood test to justify it. No wonder doctors have decided to pursue money instead of a rewarding career.Why hasn’t this inept government rolled out computer technology for diagnosis?And freed up doctors to do more interesting and demanding work? What a mess, and not the slightest sign of improvement.MrBishiMy respect is wearing thinNot again. So, junior doctors who are learning and need supervision demand a 29 per cent pay rise. By what rationale did they decide to train as doctors? Students will have researched their potential earnings, but as soon as they qualify, they feel justified in demanding higher than other professional groups.Since Covid, getting to see a trained professional, a GP or specialist, has meant increasingly long waits, investigations delayed, diagnosis and treatments… how long is a piece of string? Many doctors these days only work part-time. If you want more pay, work longer hours. Like the rest of us. My respect for these hard-working professional carers and healers has worn very thin. They demand we respect them – where is the respect for those in need?ChuckiethebraveA huge shift in doctors’ attitudesThere has been a huge shift in attitude among many doctors and reception staff (trained by the GPs to be barriers to care). Out-of-hours care is lousy. A lot of the doctors just don’t care. And remember, the doctors get their medical qualification for peanuts – to become a doctor in the US requires a four-year bachelor’s degree followed by four years of medical training – that’s many hundreds of thousands of dollars of training that must be paid back. Perhaps junior doctors would feel better about their pay if they took a minute to understand the cost of their training to the British taxpayer.AnyoneAfter the pandemic, they deserved a reward — but…After the nightmare of the pandemic, NHS health workers deserved a reward for their dedication under awful circumstances. But doctors need to understand that they were given an unprecedented rise under Blair’s government, that they had a generous uplift last year, and that most other workers have not seen a real rise in their salaries for many years. As someone who has been waiting more than three years to get a diagnosis for mobility problems, I will certainly not be supporting the doctors.SlampsWant to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US posts highest annual measles case tally in 33 years amid Texas outbreak

      by

      The annual tally of measles cases in the US is the highest in 33 years, as an ongoing outbreak in west Texas continues to drive cases.The latest figures mean Americans will have to look back to 1992 to find a worse year with the vaccine preventable disease. The official tally very likely undercounts the scope of the outbreak, experts told the Guardian.“When you talk to people on the ground, you get the sense that this outbreak has been severely underestimated,” said Dr Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Confirmed cases appear to be the “tip of a much bigger iceberg”, he said.Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000. However, as the pandemic disrupted routine childhood visits to the doctors and anti-vaccine organizations saw their coffers swell during the pandemic, measles vaccination rates have fallen below a critical threshold to prevent outbreaks in some communities.As of 4 July, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Outbreak Response Innovation counted 1,277 measles cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 1,267 cases, but has not updated its data since 2 July.“The number of new cases has slowed down, but I don’t think there’s any reason to suggest this will be our last,” said Dr Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert and dean for the national school of tropical medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.He later added: “It’s a very dark epidemic that never had to happen.”The latest national tally will eclipse 2019, when unvaccinated members of New York City’s isolated orthodox Jewish community drove a large outbreak, and the nation ended the year with 1,274 confirmed measles cases.Americans will need to look back to 1992 to find a higher annual measles tally. In 1992, the CDC confirmed 2,126 cases, with the largest outbreaks in Kentucky and Texas. Texas has confirmed 753 cases in 2025, according to the state health department, opening up the possibility that Texas could exceed the 1992 annual total as well.The enormous outbreak comes as Donald Trump’s health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who once ran an influential anti-vaccine group, has injected upheaval into US vaccine policy and spread misinformation about treatments for the disease.Measles is a viral disease characterized by a top-down rash, high fever, runny nose and red, watery eyes. The virus is one of the most infectious diseases known to medicine. There is no cure for measles. The best way to prevent measles is by getting vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR), which is 97% effective with two doses.Although most people recover, as many as one in five infected children require hospitalization; one in 20 get pneumonia and one in 1,000 can develop encephalitis, which can lead to lifelong disability, according to the CDC. The disease can also weaken the host’s immune system and lead to more future infections. In rare cases, measles can cause an incurable degenerative brain disorder. The US has already seen three deaths from measles this year, both in otherwise healthy children.Before a measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, an estimated 3-4 million Americans were sickened each year, 48,000 were hospitalized and an estimated 400-500 died, according to the CDC. From 1994 to 2023 in the US alone, the CDC estimates the measles vaccine saved 85,000 lives and prevented 104m illnesses.Although the vaccine has been wildly successful, it has also been the target of sustained misinformation by people who have a financial stake in reduced vaccine uptake.In 1998, a British doctor hypothesized a link between the MMR and increasing autism rates. The doctor, Andrew Wakefield, was later found to have committed fraud, failed to report conflicts of interest and lost his license. The article was retracted.Reams of science has since examined and re-examined the evidence, and found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Still, the debunked connection has found an afterlife as a talking point for anti-vaccine groups who have attracted a vocal minority of parents. The overwhelming majority of Americans still vaccinate children against measles.Now, alongside longtime anti-vaccine talking points about autism and “medical freedom”, Hotez said a new threat was the, “very pernicious health and wellness and influencer movement that’s got a big profit motive”.Outbreaks appear to be “occurring in the same [parts] of the US that had some of the lowest Covid vaccination rates”, said Hotez, introducing the possibility that anti-vaccine sentiment is “spilling over to childhood immunizations”.In June, Kennedy unilaterally fired all 17 expert members of a CDC advisory panel on vaccines and stacked the committee with seven ideological allies. The advisory committee is a key link in the vaccine distribution pipeline.Among those allies now serving on the committee are medical professionals with fringe beliefs and known anti-vaccines advocates. In June, the group met for the first time, and said it would form a new committee to re-evaluate the childhood vaccine schedule.“We’ve not only eliminated measles, we’ve eliminated the memory of measles,” said Offit. “People don’t remember how sick this virus can make you – or how dead it can make you.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Planned Parenthood sues Trump administration over funding cuts in big bill

      by

      Planned Parenthood sued the Trump administration on Monday over a provision in Donald Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill that would strip funding from health centers operated by the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider.In a complaint filed in Boston federal court, Planned Parenthood said the provision was unconstitutional, and its clear purpose is to prevent its nearly 600 health centers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements.Planned Parenthood said that would have “catastrophic consequences”, given that the health centers serve more than 1 million patients annually through Medicaid, the US government’s insurance program for low-income people. More than 80 million people use Medicaid.“The true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion,” Planned Parenthood said in its lawsuit.The lawsuit continued: “Stripping away this patient volume and reimbursements for care provided will result in the elimination of services, laying off staff and health center closures. The public health consequences for Medicaid patients and non-Medicaid patients alike will be dire and compounding.”The organization has estimated that the defunding could force roughly 200 Planned Parenthood clinics to shutter. Blue states, which are home to more people on Medicaid, would probably see a disproportionate number of closures.Since it is illegal to use Medicaid to pay for most abortions, Planned Parenthood clinics rely on the insurance program to reimburse them for providing services like birth control, STI tests and cancer screenings. But if blue-state clinics are forced to close, people will no longer be able to seek abortions at those clinics – a possibility that has led some abortion rights supporters, including Planned Parenthood, to call the Trump bill’s provision a “backdoor abortion ban”. Planned Parenthood provides an estimated 38% of US abortions.“We’re facing a reality of the impact on shutting down almost half of abortion-providing health centers,” Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood Federation of Americas’s CEO, told the Guardian last week. “It does feel existential. Not just for Planned Parenthood, but for communities that are relying on access to this care.”Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit asks the courts to declare the Trump bill’s provision unconstitutional on numerous grounds, or to at least preserve Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics that do not provide abortions. The reproductive health giant suggests in the lawsuit that Congress did not understand its structure when it passed the provision. The Planned Parenthood technically consists of a mothership group, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and nearly 50 regional affiliate groups that operate as independent entities.Medicaid is overseen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. That agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Planned Parenthood is being buffeted by intense financial headwinds. This spring, the Trump administration froze tens of millions of dollars earmarked for family planning providers who participate in Title X, the nation’s largest family planning program. Although several of those providers have since had their funding restored, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson said last week their affiliates had not received funding.The US supreme court also ruled in late June in favor of South Carolina in a case involving the state’s attempt to kick Planned Parenthood out of its state Medicaid reimbursement program. Red states may see that ruling as a blessing to their own efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.Even if Planned Parenthood’s Monday lawsuit succeeds, the organization will probably have to grapple with the consequences of that supreme court ruling for years to come. More

    • 188 Shares149 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘Lofty ambition, very little detail’: Readers react to Labour’s 10-year plan for the NHS

      by

      Labour’s recently unveiled 10-year plan for the NHS has sparked a lively debate among Independent readers, many of whom are cautiously weighing its promises against the past.The plan, unveiled last week by Sir Keir Starmer and Health Secretary Wes Streeting, includes ambitious goals such as “a doctor in your pocket” through a greatly enhanced NHS smartphone app, 24/7 health advice, easier online appointments, and a shift towards preventative medicine and neighbourhood health centres.When we asked whether you thought Labour’s 10-year NHS plan could deliver real improvements, nearly half (47 per cent) of readers said no, citing a lack of funding, staff, and detail. Another 28 per cent said the ambition is right, but delivery will be the real test, while 25 per cent believed it is the bold, long-term reform the NHS requires.Many said the plans represent a welcome move towards modernising a service often criticised for being stuck in analogue times.Yet, despite the optimism around the digital and structural reforms, several readers remained sceptical about whether the plan could deliver the improvements the NHS so desperately needs, with concerns focusing on funding, staffing shortages, and the lack of detailed delivery mechanisms.With the NHS under constant pressure from an ageing population and rising demand, the question of how these reforms will be implemented was front and centre.Here is what readers had to say about the plan’s prospects and challenges:‘All just empty words and no delivery’I can say that I am going to travel to the Moon and back – but if I don’t say how I intend to do it, how I intend to pay for it, and how anyone will know that I have done it, it is all just empty words and no delivery. The NHS has a huge recruitment/retention problem, and it is going to need tens of thousands of extra staff. In addition, Streeting has run away from Social Care, which is the one thing that will solve the NHS crisis. So like every other plan, it will not be resourced properly – but there will be lots of highly paid executives involved, working out of fancy offices, until the next plan comes along…ListenVeryCarefully‘Prevention is not a quick fix’Prevention work is already undertaken by Public Health departments in local authorities, in collaboration with the NHS. This is absolutely nothing new. Councils spend millions on Public Health preventive work. The problem is that prevention can take years to show an effect or to realise savings for the NHS. Many people don’t seem to get that. Preventive work is not a quick fix. To be honest, I am sick of successive governments and highly funded think tanks producing report after report when we already know the answers.Flossie‘They know the answers’The announcement is very short on detail, particularly on how they will help prevent ill health. Successive governments have commissioned reports on diet, exercise, and active travel for years – they know the answers. Why the reluctance to announce them and any sort of delivery plan?Holly‘Like a nurse reorganising the Houses of Parliament’Again, the government is seduced into reorganising the organisers and office teams. Non-clinical people always do this, and it makes no difference – it’s like a nurse reorganising the Houses of Parliament. Plain hopeless. Emperor’s new clothes.Having been through five of these restructures, I can say they never change or improve anything. As always, they want less clinical activity and more admin…Diane1234‘We can’t afford an NHS that fixes everything’The biggest problem with the NHS is that we want it to fix every ailment – from cuts and scrapes to organ transplants. Sooner or later, we have to face up to the fact that we can’t afford an NHS that tries to fix everything, including things we should take responsibility for, such as obesity.Issuing painkillers to just about every patient who has a procedure is also ludicrous, as paracetamol or ibuprofen costs about 39p a pack in a no-frills supermarket.Using the NHS should be limited to “must do” and “could do” – not “it would be nice if I could use it because I’m too idle to sort out my minor problem myself”.We are nearing the point where we will need to pay a small charge for all the high blood pressure pills and statins issued to the older population. They’re all on them.onmyown‘Primary prevention works – but it’s never been prioritised’Primary prevention has always been the Cinderella service within our health system, because it is not “sexy” and requires hard graft to change attitudes and promote health. But quite simply, it works.As a retired health visitor with more than 40 years in practice, I can categorically state that if you invest in taking health into the community, it will work.For too long, resources have been directed into much more expensive tertiary care. I really hope this time they mean it.HappilyRetiredWoman‘Nothing new’This is nothing new – we’ve been trying to transfer care from hospitals to communities for years (since Thatcher and “care in the community”). This appears to be a blueprint to shut down more hospitals or reduce funding. This isn’t what’s needed – just the opposite.Community services are already stretched. Doctors’ surgeries are reducing services, and waiting times are too long. Pharmacies are closing down and being sold due to a lack of funding.This 10-year plan is just the usual political BS that won’t get to grips with the real problems.ChrisMatthews‘This is the future – and it’s already happening’A very good idea. Not far from where I live, there are two modern NHS clinics where diagnostic procedures are performed without the need to travel miles to the general hospital.This is the future, and this is what has already been done in many more advanced European countries.Pomerol95‘Abolish the CQC – there’s £50m saved’I recently changed my GP because I was unhappy with the service. The contrast between the two services is stark, and I wondered how it could be that there is such inconsistency at such a basic level.My old GP had a CQC rating of “good”, but it was far from that. I dug around a bit and found that the last time the CQC had assessed the practice was in 2016 – nearly a decade ago.The problem with such rating systems, beloved of the competition-obsessed Tories, is that they’re actually worse than useless. They create an illusion of competence where it doesn’t exist.Plainly, it isn’t practical for one organisation to continuously monitor standards throughout the healthcare system, so it should be blindingly obvious that this is not an appropriate way to ensure consistency of service.Abolish the CQC – there’s £50m a year saved.RickC‘District hospitals and prevention – let’s hope it happens’Moving frontline services to community care centres would be a very positive move. Re-establishing the district hospital would be very popular.Shifting the emphasis to the prevention of illness and the improvement of public health systems is also a laudable aim. Let’s hope this can be achieved in 10 years!PaleHorse ‘Lofty ambition, very little detail’I cannot see anything concrete in this statement – plenty of lofty ambition, but very little detail.I like the idea of local health centres providing access to diagnostic services. If they are allowed to invest in new equipment, it will speed up the move to digital services.Moonraker2025 ‘Dangerous to cut cure before prevention pays off’Prevention vs cure is logically all very well – but do we know how to reliably prevent sickness that might put people in hospital? For many conditions, effective systems for prevention might take more than a decade to have much effect.So, no money is saved through needing less for cure for 10 years or more. It is very dangerous to run down curative services until we see the new investment in prevention paying dividends.I suppose Streeting will require the NHS to blame the unwell for not following prevention guidelines – as a sort of “not our responsibility: you did this to yourself”.Simplesimon‘So… it won’t happen’It would take a lot of cash; the NHS doesn’t have it because the Treasury doesn’t have it…It would require the UK economy to improve dramatically… It won’t.Or they could increase taxes, particularly for the wealthy, but they won’t do that, as it would upset their donors – and higher taxes aren’t why the donors put them in power…So… it won’t happen.ScoobytheDog‘Nothing really new here’After spending nearly fifty years working in the NHS, I think this all seems to have been said before. So nothing really new here, but the sentiment is a good one. How to deliver it will be the real test.Sparrow‘Remember Blair’s polyclinics?’If Labour don’t put in the funding and increase the staffing, this latest NHS plan will fail.Remember Blair’s polyclinics, anyone?rcourt130864‘No understanding of cause and effect’There seems to be no vision at all. No understanding of cause and effect. For example, the “food” industry, peddling its processed junk, has made people ill and obese. But rather than tackle the cause, expensive weight-loss drug injections are prescribed. Likewise, the alcohol industry. Either a lack of vision, or the government has been ‘bought off’ by wealthy pressure groups.Heisenberg97‘The NHS is a public service, not a business’It can work – the basic problem has always been that the NHS was never intended to be a business and cannot be run as one. It is a public service. Before the advent of business management techniques (plied by business consultants), it was the envy of the world as a health service, not measured by being a profitable public company-style business.I worked on this well over 20 years ago. Clinical and non-clinical should be treated separately. Fixed assets should be NHS-owned (not government-owned), giving them control over expansion, upgrades etc.Build a model based on the production side and the service side. The production side is more predictable and can be proactive. In the NHS, you could represent this by likening it to a catalogue of products: tests, scans, standard operations (hip, knee replacements etc.), and all post-operative support can be included as ‘products’.The supplier or deliverer of the individual products does not have to be the NHS, but coordination should be through an NHS functional system. The NHS could rent on-site space to a service provider who would, for example, equip an area where scans, x-rays etc. are provided to patients on referral from an NHS-approved doctor on an agreed service contract.I challenge the view that to outsource these services is ‘selling off’ the NHS.The service side of any operation, on the other hand, is always more reactive (as in any business) and needs skilled resources with the flexibility, training, and tools to provide support to the patient.They need the best resources to handle unclassified ‘breakdowns’ and set in motion a recovery plan that covers not just fixing the problem, but getting the patient back to normal (or a new normal).This is the NHS’s core function and is the public service that we all expect.ArcticFox‘Not a plan, just a wish list’First, it almost certainly isn’t a “plan” in the sense that anyone in business would recognise. I bet it is just a wish list of things they want to happen, much like the recently published “Modern Industrial Strategy”, lacking any detail as to how it’s actually going to be delivered, what the key milestones are, who is going to be responsible, what resourcing and cash is going to be dedicated towards it, and what the measures of success will be. Equally, I doubt there is any delivery structure in place, or transformation programme governance, or anything like that.Second, Labour is going to be out of office come 2028 or 2029 for the next 30 years, and whoever takes over from them will almost certainly tear this plan up. They don’t have ten years, and they must know that by now. So honestly, what’s the point in publishing a “ten-year plan”? It’s just performative at this stage.sj99Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is 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.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Nurse on new CDC vaccine panel said to have been ‘anti-vax longer than RFK’

      by

      One of the new members of a critical federal vaccine advisory board has argued for decades that vaccines caused her son’s autism – a connection that years of large-scale studies and reviews refute.Registered nurse Vicky Pebsworth is one of eight new members to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Acip), all hand-picked by the vaccine skeptic and Donald Trump’s health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.“She’s probably been anti-vax longer than RFK has,” said Dr David Gorski, a Wayne State University School of Medicine professor, who is considered an expert on the anti-vaccine movement.Kennedy fired all 17 of the committee’s previous members in June and stacked it with ideological allies. Pebsworth and Kennedy would have probably been known to each other, because their respective non-profits supported one another’s efforts.“If I had a child who I believed had been harmed by whatever – it doesn’t have to be vaccines – I wouldn’t then trust myself to be on a federal safety commission on that issue,” said Seth Mnookin, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor in science journalism who met and profiled Pebsworth in the mid-2000s.Pebsworth was also part of a 2020 lawsuit against Covid-19 vaccine mandates that aligns with Kennedy’s agenda. In a declaration to federal court, Pebsworth argued that “increases in the number of vaccines in the CDC schedule may be causally related to increases in the rates of chronic illness”, an assertion that appears to be based on a debunked study, but has long been a talking point of anti-vaccine activists.“They’re the oldest prominent organization,” said Mnookin, whose book is called The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear. The information center represents “the start of the modern-day anti-vaccine movement in the US”, said Mnookin.Pebsworth joined Acip from the National Vaccine Information Center, where she has served as volunteer research director since 2006, according to a résumé filed in the same case. The Guardian sent a list of questions and an interview request to Pebsworth, but did not receive a response.The National Vaccine Information Center started in Virginia as Dissatisfied Parents Together in 1982, before changing its name in 1995. The group went on to receive major funding support from Dr Joseph Mercola, once described as “the most influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation online”.Like other new members of Acip, Pebsworth comes to the role with medical credentials; she has a doctorate degree in nursing, taught college research courses and served as a consumer representative on federal panels.For decades, she has publicly argued that her son, Sam, was injured by the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1998 – despite evidence showing there is no connection between vaccines and autism.Pebsworth organized conferences about alternative treatments for autism as early as 2001, including one in Michigan where then-doctor Andrew Wakefield spoke and where she told a reporter she had placed her son on a restrictive diet and administered chelation therapy – a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. Neither has been found to effectively treat autism.“Back then in the early 2000s or the late 1990s, there were two main flavors of the anti-vax,” said Gorski.In Britain, Wakefield’s paper in the Lancet proposed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. His paper would be retracted in 2010 amid evidence of fraud and conflicts of interest.“But then there was the American flavor with mercury and thimerosal, which had been used in several childhood vaccines as a preservative,” said Gorski. “Back in the day we used to call them the ‘mercury militias’, but others used to call it the ‘mercury moms’.”Thimerosal is a vaccine preservative that has been used since before the second world war. Its safety is considered settled science and yet it has been the subject of misinformation for decades.A galvanizing moment for the anti-vaccine movement came in 2015, when one of the worst measles outbreaks in years tore through Disneyland in California. The outbreak prompted lawmakers to tighten vaccine requirements for schools, drawing parents into the fray and providing a platform for anti-vaccine groups.“I used to call anti-vax the pseudoscience that spanned the political spectrum – you could find leftwing anti-vaxxers, rightwing anti-vaxxers,” said Gorski. “But now it’s really, really built into the right,” he said. “You can’t deny that any more. It’s become part of rightwing ideology.”In 2017, Pebsworth testified before a Virginia house subcommittee against a school mandate for a meningitis vaccine. In 2020, as Americans anxiously waited for a Covid-19 vaccine, she warned Americans could face unknown consequences from the vaccines. Pebsworth later testified in 2021 before the University of Hawaii’s board of regents, arguing against Covid-19 vaccines.In most public testimony, Pebsworth identifies herself not only as the volunteer research director for the National Vaccine Information Center, but also as “the mother of a child injured by his 15-month well-baby shots in 1998”.“Groups like hers and probably even more prominently the Informed Consent Action Network have seen that most vaccine policy is at the state level,” said an expert in state vaccine law who declined to go on the record for fear of retaliation from the Department of Health and Human Services.“They have a list of model legislation they encourage supporters to try to get introduced,” the expert said. At the same time, the groups have failed to accomplish their “big swings”: getting schools to drop vaccine mandates.The expert continued: “My sense is that legislators know they’re hearing from a very vocal minority. Landslide majorities still support requirements. It’s lower than it was before the pandemic, but the public still understands the needs for these laws.”By 2017, Trump was weighing whether this vocal group could become part of his coalition. Before his first inauguration in early January 2017, Trump publicly said he was considering Kennedy to head a new committee on vaccines and autism.Only days before she was appointed to ACIP, Pebsworth and the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center argued against Covid-19 vaccines, stating in part: “FDA should not be recommending mRNA Covid-19 shots for anyone until adequate scientific evidence demonstrates safety and effectiveness for both the healthy and those who are elderly or chronically ill.” More than 270 million Americans have received Covid-19 vaccines, and the federal government has closely monitored for rare events.That old trope of thimerosal played a leading role in the first meeting of Kennedy’s reconstituted Acip panel. Committee members heard a presentation against thimerosal from Lyn Redwood, the former president of the World Mercury Project, which would become Kennedy’s anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense. A report on thimerosal’s safety by career CDC scientists was pulled from the meeting by Kennedy’s office.Ultimately, members recommended against seasonal influenza vaccines that contain thimerosal in a decision that shocked medical and scientific communities. Pebsworth abstained, arguing she wanted to vote separately on whether to recommend influenza vaccines.Pebsworth later said she wanted to vote separately on whether to recommend seasonal flu vaccines. She did not respond to questions from the Guardian about how she would have voted on flu shots, if she had the chance. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Can Labour’s 10-year plan finally fix the NHS? Join The Independent Debate

      by

      In one of the most ambitious health reforms in decades, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has unveiled Labour’s 10-year plan to “rebuild the NHS from the ground up” – shifting treatment out of hospitals and into local health centres and people’s homes.The plan, published on Thursday, promises to transform the NHS from “treatment to prevention,” prioritising early intervention, neighbourhood care, and digital innovation. Under the proposals, new health centres – open six days a week – will offer diagnostics, rehab, nursing, and even debt and employment support, aiming to reduce pressure on hospitals and bring care closer to home.Health Secretary Wes Streeting has called it a “once-in-a-generation” reform that will “turn the NHS on its head.” But critics argue that the vision is far from new – and question whether it can be delivered without significant new funding, staffing, and systemic change.Think tanks like the King’s Fund and Nuffield Trust welcomed the plan’s ambition but warned that without clear delivery mechanisms, capital investment, and joined-up working between services, the strategy risks repeating past failures.Now we want to hear from you. Will Labour’s 10-year plan finally fix the NHS? Or is it another big promise without the backing to make it real?Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll above – we’ll feature the most compelling responses 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. More