One shot of an RSV vaccine protects adults ages 60 or older
from RSV-associated hospitalization and critical illness during two consecutive
RSV seasons, according to a study published in JAMA on August
30 by the IVY Network research group.
RSV causes substantial seasonal illness during fall and
winter in the U.S., with an estimated 100,000-150,000 hospitalizations and
4,000-8,000 deaths occurring annually among adults 60 or older.
The results reinforce the recommendations for RSV vaccines
in older adults and lay the groundwork for understanding how long a single dose
of the vaccine may be effective, according to Wesley Self, MD, MPH, principal
investigator for the IVY Network and Senior Vice President for Clinical
Research at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
"These results clearly demonstrate that the RSV
vaccines prevent hospitalizations and critical illness due to RSV infection
among older Americans," Self said. "It is exciting to see the public
health benefits of this new vaccination program."
Theoretically, a complete phaseout of fossil fuels could prevent up to 82% of all avoidable deaths from human-caused air pollution, the review found.(Credit: European Society of Cardiology)
Global analysis shows the “profound impact” of pollution and
other environmental hazards on cardiovascular health
Cardiovascular disease—the world’s leading cause of death—is
increasingly driven by polluted air, toxic chemicals, plastics, noise, and
extreme temperatures, according to a sweeping new review in Cardiovascular Research that
calls for stricter environmental regulations to protect public health.
Heart attacks, strokes, arrhythmias, and heart failure
killed more than 20 million people in 2021, accounting for nearly one-third of
all global deaths. The new analysis by a team of international scientists found
increasing evidence that hazardous exposures are a major culprit in millions of
these deaths worldwide each year, especially among vulnerable
populations.
Air pollution, the most significant environmental risk,
contributes to approximately 8.3 million deaths annually, with more than half
due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), while two million people lost their lives
in 2019 due to chemical exposures from contaminated soil and water.
While these drivers may appear unrelated, they are all forms
of pollution—particularly from industry-produced toxins.
Chemicals used in pesticides and phthalates in plastics, for instance, have been linked to
heart damage and increased cardiovascular disease risk.
Meanwhile, fine particulate matter (PM2.5)—particles less
than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, primarily from fossil fuel emissions—can
worsen and contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease. Tiny
particles can enter the lungs and bloodstream, causing cell damage, blood
vessel injury, and atherosclerosis (narrowing and hardening of arteries), all
of which contribute to a higher
risk of blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.
Theoretically, a complete phaseout of fossil fuels could
prevent up to 82% of all avoidable deaths from human-caused air pollution, the
researchers found.
When Donald Trump recently claimed, during what was supposed to be a press conference about an EU trade deal, that wind turbines were a “con job” that “drive whales loco”, kill birds and even people, he wasn’t just repeating old myths. He was tapping into a global pattern of conspiracy theories around renewable energy – particularly wind farms. (Trump calls them “windmills” – a climate denier trope.)
Like 19th century fears that telephones would spread diseases, wind farm conspiracy theories reflect deeper anxieties about change. They combine distrust of government, nostalgia for the fossil fuel era, and a resistance to confronting the complexities of the modern world.
And research shows that, once these fears are embedded in someone’s worldview, no amount of fact checking is likely to shift them.
A short history of resistance to renewables
Although we’ve known about climate change from carbon dioxide as probable and relatively imminent since at least the 1950s, early arguments for renewables tended to be seen more as a way of breaking the stranglehold of large fossil-fuel companies.
The idea that fossil companies would delay access to renewable energy was nicely illustrated in a classic episode of The Simpsons when Mr. Burns builds a tower to blot out the sun over Springfield, forcing people to buy his nuclear power.
Meanwhile, advocates of renewables – especially wind – often found it difficult to build public support for wind, in part because the existing power providers (mines, oil fields, nuclear) tend to be out of sight and out of mind.
Three new studies show high-dose flu vaccines carry a lower
risk of myocarditis and cardiovascular events, and flu vaccination offers
protection against acute heart failure when administered to hospitalized
patients.
Although the protective effects may be small, the first two
studies describe high-dose vaccines outperforming standard seasonal influenza
vaccines in older adults.
Currently, high-dose vaccines are recommended for use
in adults 65 years and older, and they contain roughly four times the
antigen—the part of the vaccine that produces antibodies against influenza
virus—as standard-dose flu vaccines.
Myocarditis risk lower with high-dose vaccine
In the first study, based on findings from the Pragmatic
Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness of High-Dose Influenza Vaccines
(DANFLU-2 trial) in JAMA Network Open, the risk of myocarditis or
pericarditis, or inflammation of the cardiac muscle or membrane around
it, was lower in people receiving the high-dose inactivated flu vaccine
than in those getting a standard-dose vaccine.
Influenza is a known risk factor for developing myocarditis
or pericarditis, and this large Danish study looked at the prevalence of the
inflammatory condition across three flu seasons, from 2022 to 2025. Of 332,438
participants randomized, 331,143 did not have a history of myocarditis or
pericarditis.
Calling b.s. on Trump's phony climate denial "science"
By Jake Bolster
Image: Billy Burton
This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
More than 85 climate scientists declared the Department of Energy’s new climate report unfit for policymaking in a comprehensive review released Tuesday. The DOE’s report cherry-picked evidence, lacked peer-reviewed studies to support its questioning of the detrimental effects of climate change in the U.S. and is “fundamentally incorrect,” the authors concluded.
Scientists have accurately modeled and predicted the volume and impact of excess CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the 1970s, when Exxon workers first began measuring the impacts of their product on the planet’s atmosphere. Since then, climate science has matured into a crucial tool to help humans gauge how a warming planet may affect everything from weather and crops to the economy and mental health.
“This report makes a mockery of science. It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, in a statement accompanying the review.
“This report makes it clear DOE has no interest in engaging with the scientific community.”
If you’ve ever tried to lose weight, you’ve probably been told that cooking your own meals is the way to go. This has been backed up by a recent study, which found that people who ate home-cooked, minimally processed foods lost twice the weight to those who ate mainly ultra-processed, ready-made foods.
The recent study, which was published in Nature Medicine, involved 50 adults who were randomly assigned to eat either a diet high in ultra-processed foods or one with mostly minimally-processed foods. Both diets were designed to meet the UK’s national dietary guidelines.
Both groups lost weight, which makes sense as they consumed fewer calories than they usually did. However, the group that consumed mostly minimally processed foods ultimately consumed fewer calories overall – thereby losing more weight. They also saw slightly greater improvements to other measures of their health, such as having lower fat mass, reduced triglyceride levels (linked to heart health) and fewer cravings for unhealthy foods at the end of the study.
The ultra-processed foods group still lost weight and saw some improvements in blood lipids (fat) and blood glucose (sugar), but these changes were generally smaller than those seen in the minimally processed foods group.
As a dietitian, this is both an interesting and important piece of research – even though the results are not entirely surprising. In fact, a surprising result is that the consumption of ultra-processed food still resulted in weight loss.
The minimally processed diet group consumed fewer calories overall, which would explain why this group lost more weight. But the fact that this group saw greater improvements in other areas of their health highlights how health encompasses far more than calories or a number on the scales.
Why processing matters
Despite the bad press, food processing plays an essential role in food safety and preservation.
But how much processing a food has undergone seems to be the factor associated with worse health outcomes. These foods tend to have less fiber, more added fats, sugars and salt. This is because they’re designed to be tasty and long-lasting.
The most common definition of an ultra-processed foods are foods which are industrially produced and which contain extracts of original foods alongside additives and industrial ingredients. Think crisps or frozen ready meals.
The food system in much of the world has become increasingly reliant on ultra-processed foods, with these foods contributing to about half of food intake in the UK, Europe and the US. But there’s clear evidence that high intake of ultra-processed foods is linked with poorer health outcomes, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.
The more calorie-rich, less nutritious foods we consume, the more our health will suffer – as this recent study has confirmed. But how can you work out which foods are classified as “ultra-processed” and which are only “minimally processed”? In short, this depends on how much processing a food product has undergone to be ready for consumption.
Ultra-processed foods are industrially formulated products made mostly from ingredients extracted from foods (such as oils, starches and proteins) and additives.
Examples include sugary breakfast cereals, flavored yoghurts with sweeteners and thickeners, soft drinks, instant noodles, packaged biscuits and cakes, mass-produced bread with emulsifiers and reconstituted meat products – such as chicken nuggets.
Minimally processed foods are whole foods that are altered only to make them safer or easier to prepare. Importantly, this processing doesn’t change their nutritional value.
Examples include fresh, frozen or bagged vegetables and fruit, plain yoghurt or milk, whole grains (such as oats or brown rice), eggs, fresh or frozen fish, and tinned beans or tomatoes without added sugar or salt.
Including minimally processed foods
It can sometimes feel overwhelming to work out whether a food is ultra-processed or minimally processed.
Some advice that is often suggested for working out whether a food is ultra-processed include checking to see if a product contains more than five to ten ingredients and considering if it contains ingredients you wouldn’t use at home.
In addition to the number of ingredients, it’s also the type of ingredients that matter. Ultra-processed foods often contain added sugars, refined starches, emulsifiers, stabilizers and flavorings that serve cosmetic purposes (such as improving color, texture or taste), rather than preserving the food’s freshness or safety.
Minimally processed foods will not contain these types of ingredients, nor will they have as many ingredients on their label.
It’s also important to be aware of smoked meats. While this is a common preservation method, most commercially available smoked meats – such as bacon, ham or sausages – are considered ultra-processed because of the curing agents and other additives they contain. While plain smoked fish (such as smoked salmon) is still classed as a processed food, it uses fewer curing agents and additives than other smoked meat products.
A diet rich in minimally processed foods usually means more fiber, more nutrients and fewer calories – all of which can support weight and long-term health, as this recent study showed. So if you’re keen to include more minimally processed foods in your diet, here are a few tips to help you get more onto your plate:
build meals around vegetables, whole grains and pulses
use tinned or frozen products for convenience and to save time while cooking
choose plain dairy products without sugar or fruit purees, then add your own fruits, nuts and seeds for flavor
healthy meals don’t have to be complicated. Aim to include a protein source, a wholegrain carbohydrate and plenty of veggies or fruits at each meal
batch cook meals when you have time and freeze them if possible.
As a dietitian, it’s important to point out that there’s a distinction between the potential harms of excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods and the essential role processing can play in ensuring food safety, preservation and accessibility.
It’s also important not to panic about enjoying the occasional biscuit or ready meal, and we should avoid demonizing convenience foods – especially for those who face barriers such as limited mobility or lack of cooking facilities. Because remember, the group that ate a diet high in ultra-processed foods but met dietary guidelines still lost weight and saw health benefits in the study.
Eating well doesn’t mean that you need to completely eliminate ultra-processed foods. But shifting the balance towards eating more minimally processed foods, with more home-cooked meals where possible, is a step in the right direction.
Ever since Robert F Kennedy (RFK) Jr was appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been under pressure to abandon its traditional evidence-based approach to public health in America and across the world.
That pressure came to a head last week with the sacking of recently appointed CDC director Susan Monarez. According to her lawyers, the longtime government scientist, who had been in the role less than a month, was targeted after she refused to “rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives”.
Monarez will be replaced by Jim O'Neill, deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services. Critics note he has no medical or scientific training.
On the same day as Monarez’s firing, three senior officials resigned. They included the CDC’s chief medical officer, and two others with leadership roles in areas including vaccines and emerging diseases.
I worked at the CDC between 1986 and 1995. Almost all of my work was with activities overseas.
While the CDC is a key institution overseeing and funding public health in the US, it’s also instrumental in global health. Consequently, turmoil at the CDC could have an impact not just in the US, but around the world.
Vaccine skepticism: a threat to public health
Soon after the inauguration of Donald Trump for the second time in January 2025, threats to American public health became clear. RFK Jr was confirmed as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in February, with authority over the CDC.
By April, 25% of CDC staff had been fired and its contract spending was cut by 35%. Cancelled CDC programs included those focused on the prevention of lead poisoning in children, environmental health, and sexually transmitted infections including HIV.
In 2019–20, more than 5,700 people became infected when a measles outbreak ravaged the island nation of Samoa. Some 83 people died, most of them children.
In the lead up, a number of ads spread vaccine misinformation on Facebook, sowing doubt about safety of the measles vaccine. Some were found to have been funded by the Children’s Defense Fund, an organization founded by RFK Jr.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Children's Defense Fund is mis-identified above. It is venerable civil rights and anti-poverty advocacy group that doesn't deserve to be tied to RFK by the author's error. Bobby Jr.'s anti-vaxxer group is called Children's Health Defense. - Will Collette
RFK Jr’s department has dismissed and replaced the 17 expert members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with eight new people – a number of whom have reportedly expressed anti-vaccination views.
During RFK Jr’s tenure so far, his department has:
Where are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said earlier in the year that the document, which guides millions of dollars in federal spending every year, would be released before August.
Christopher Gardner, a member of the committee that drafts the DGA, tells Sentient that he and his team were “completely ghosted” by the Department of Health and Human Services after handing over their recommendations, and that the agency hasn’t communicated anything about its process to committee members.
“No one will tell us the name of a person who's working on it,” says Gardner, who also serves as the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. “It’s a black box. We have no idea.”
Sentient has reached out to the USDA and HHS for comment on this article, but neither agency has replied.
The dietary guidelines are issued jointly by the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services. Federal law requires the government to release an updated version every five years, and it serves a dual purpose: To advise everyday Americans on how to adopt a healthy diet, and to guide the federal government’s various food programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and SNAP. In total, the guidelines influence over $40 billion in federal spending every year.
Reactions to the recent firing and resignations of top
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leadership continued to
reverberate over the Labor Day weekend, along with fallout linked to
controversy over recent federal COVID vaccine policies.
During the waning days of August, the White House fired
newly confirmed CDC director Susan Monarez, PhD, after she refused to rubber-stamp vaccine
directives from Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr. At the same time, four of the CDC’s top scientists resigned for similar
reasons, prompting deep
concerns from health leaders, medical groups, and lawmakers.
The upheaval at the CDC came in the same week the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) cleared
the updated COVID vaccines for use in the upcoming respiratory
virus season, which came with narrowed indications and other policy changes
that will make it for difficult for some groups to be vaccinated, including
lower-risk adults and young children.
Nine former CDC directors issue dire warning
On September 1, nine CDC directors who served under both
Democrat and Republican administrations going back to 1977 published an opinion
piece in the New York Times,
writing that the upheaval at CDC under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS over the
past several months is unlike anything the CDC or the county has experienced
before.
They referenced Kennedy’s promotion of unproven treatments
and downplaying of vaccines during the measles outbreak, weakening of key
programs including violence and injury prevention, and cancellation of vaccine
contracts that leave the country unprepared against future pandemic threats.
They also cited his reduced support for global vaccination efforts
and appointing people who align with his dangerous and unscientific views.
“We are worried about the wide-ranging impact that all these
decisions will have on America’s health security,” the former CDC directors
wrote, adding, “This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American,
regardless of political leanings.”
This clown, Jim O'Neill, is Bobby Junior's pick as acting CDC director after RFK drove out all the qualified department heads
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has
scaled back a federal-state surveillance program for foodborne pathogens.
As of July 1, the CDC's Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance
Network (FoodNet), which works with the Food and Drug
Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, and 10 state health
departments to track infections commonly transmitted through food, has reduced
required surveillance to two pathogens: Salmonella and Shiga
toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC).
Reporting of
illnesses caused by Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella,
Vibrio, and Yersinia is now optional, according to
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The story was first reported by NBC News, which
cited a set of CDC talking points that suggested reduced federal funding for
FoodNet was the reason for the move.
Extinct human relatives left a genetic gift that helped
people thrive in the Americas
By Kevin Stacey, Senior Writer for the Physical
Sciences, Brown University
A new
study provides fresh evidence that ancient interbreeding with archaic human
species may have provided modern humans with a genetic variant that helped them
adapt to new environments as they dispersed across the globe.
The study, published
in Science, focused on a gene known as MUC19, which is involved in the
production of proteins that form saliva and mucosal barriers in the respiratory
and digestive tracts.
The researchers show that a variant of that gene derived
from Denisovans, an enigmatic species of archaic humans, is present in modern
Latin Americans with Indigenous American ancestry, as well as in DNA collected
from individuals excavated at archeological sites across North and South
America.
The frequency at which the gene appears in modern human
populations suggests the gene was under significant natural selection, meaning
it provided a survival or reproductive advantage to those who carried it. It’s
not clear exactly what that advantage might have been — but given the gene’s
involvement in immune processes, it may have helped populations fight off
pathogens encountered as they migrated into the Americas thousands of years
ago.
A pair of new climate studies suggest an intensification of strong storms called nor’easters and other disruptive extremes affecting the East Coast of North America on an overheated planet.
Nor’easters generally form within about 100 miles of the East Coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts, often when cooler air from Canada meets warm, moist air over Gulf Stream waters.
Those contrasting air masses can start to spin with a nudge from the jet stream, fueling storms that can produce damaging winds, coastal flooding and intense, disruptive snowfall in the winter.
The strongest nor’easters are already significantly windier and rainier than they were in the middle of the 20th century, said University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, a co-author of a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A 2022 study showed a similar trend of intensification for storms forming over the Atlantic and hitting Europe, and that the track of those storms is moving northward, potentially putting unsuspecting areas more at risk.
“There are two reasons to look at the most intense nor’easters,” Mann said via email. “First, from an impact standpoint, they do the most damage, including coastal erosion, destruction and paralyzing snowfalls. The 1962 Ash Wednesday storm, with 84 mile per hour gusts, is a great example. In today’s dollars, it did $21 billion worth of damage.”
And just last February, a classic nor’easter described at the time as a “bomb cyclone” dropped several feet of snow over parts of Virginia and North Carolina and caused damaging flooding along parts of the Massachusetts coast, Eastern Long Island and the Jersey Shore.
The widely used diabetes and weight-loss medication Ozempic
has seen a rapid rise in popularity, and with it, mounting questions about its
potential side effects. One concern is the reduction of “lean mass” (body
weight that is not fat), which has led to speculation that the drug could be
lowering muscle mass and strength.
A recent study in mice found that muscle size did not
decrease as much as expected, yet some muscles still became weaker. This
finding underscores the need for clinical trials to better understand the
drug’s full impact in people.
“If we want to really help the individuals who may be losing
muscle mass, then we need to know that they’re actually losing muscle mass,”
says Katsu Funai, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and integrative
physiology in the University of Utah College of Health and the senior author on
the study. “We have data in mice that suggest that things are not as
straightforward as they might seem.”
As news broke lof the ouster of
newly confirmed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan
Monarez, PhD, and the resignations of some of the agency's top scientists,
reactions came fast and furious from public health leaders, professional
groups, and lawmakers.
The upheaval at the CDC comes just weeks after a gunman
attacked the campus, reportedly fueled by grievances about the COVID vaccine.
The CDC has also been rocked by watered-down COVID vaccine recommendations that
came from Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and
his surrogates who have announced new reviews of autism causes and COVID
vaccines, both hot-button issues of Kennedy and other vaccine critics.
Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for
Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota,
publisher of CIDRAP News, said the loss of top CDC staff is the result of
failed leadership of extremists at HHS, which oversees the CDC. "These
departures are a serious loss for America. They make our country less safe and
less prepared for public health emergencies."
How low should blood pressure go? New study has the answer
Mass General Brigham
Research led by investigators at Mass General Brigham
suggests that the health benefits of more aggressive blood pressure control
outweigh concerns about overtreating people with high blood pressure readings.
Results of the simulation study are published in Annals of Internal
Medicine.
The study used data from the Systolic Blood Pressure
Intervention Trial (SPRINT) trial, the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES), and other published literature to simulate
lifetime health outcomes -- including heart attack, stroke, and heart failure
-- for patients whose systolic blood pressure targets were set at <120 mm
Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <140 mm Hg. Recognizing that blood pressure
medication comes with side effects, the researchers also simulated and compared
the risk of serious events resulting from the treatment.
The simulation model also accounted for common errors in
patients' blood pressure readings based on what has been observed in routine
clinical practice.
Even when including this error rate, the simulation model
found the <120 mm Hg target prevented more cardiovascular events, such as
heart attacks, strokes, and heart failure than the <130 mm Hg target.
However, the lower target led to additional adverse events related to
treatment, such as falls, kidney injury, hypotension, and bradycardia. The
lower target also increased overall healthcare spending due to increased
antihypertensive use and more frequent visits with clinicians.
But it involves mRNA tech, which Bobby Kennedy has defunded
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
For a few dozen people in the world, the downside of living
with a rare immune condition comes with a surprising superpower -- the ability
to fight off all viruses.
Columbia immunologist Dusan Bogunovic discovered the
individuals' antiviral powers about 15 years ago, soon after he identified the
genetic mutation that causes the condition.
At first, the condition only seemed to increase
vulnerability to some bacterial infections. But as more patients were
identified, its unexpected antiviral benefits became apparent. Bogunovic, a
professor of pediatric immunology at Columbia University's Vagelos College of
Physicians and Surgeons, soon learned that everyone with the mutation, which
causes a deficiency in an immune regulator called ISG15, has mild, but
persistent systemic inflammation.
Slashed Autism Funding: RFK Jr. promised to identify the causes of autism but has eliminated parts of his agency actively investigating them and has cut millions in funding for autism research.
Silent on Rollbacks: Once an ardent environmentalist who took on big polluters, RFK Jr. has been silent on Trump’s dismantling of efforts to combat climate change and pollution.
Conflicting Priorities: RFK Jr. helps lead an administration that is reversing regulations on pollution and chemicals, including some linked to autism.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
Erin McCanlies was listening to the radio one morning in April when she heard Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promising to find the cause of autism by September. The secretary of Health and Human Services said he believed an environmental toxin was responsible for the dramatic increase in the condition and vowed to gather “the most credible scientists from all over the world” to solve the mystery.
Nothing like that has ever been done before, he told an interviewer.
McCanlies was stunned. The work had been done.
“That’s exactly what I’ve been doing!” she said to her husband, Fred.
West Nile Virus Detected in Johnston, East Providence,
and Cranston
The Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) and Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH)
have confirmed additional detections of West Nile Virus (WNV) in the state.
The
virus was found in mosquito samples collected by DEM in Johnston, East
Providence, and Cranston on August 18 and tested by the Rhode Island State Health Laboratories.
.webp)
