Scientists have launched their first in-human vaccine trial for a highly fatal virus.

Narcissistic people get more empathetic, generous and agreeable with age, according to new research into the personality trait.

1 hour agoBy 

1 hour agoGetty ImagesNine babies have died from whooping cough since November 2023, with cases continuing to rise, the UK Health Security Agency says.

An independent review of NHS performance in England has been ordered by the new health secretary.

2 hours agoBy 

A leading biochemist, she helped shape guidelines to protect a revolutionary new field in the ’70s while calming public fears of a spread of deadly lab-made microbes.Maxine F. Singer, a biochemist and federal health official who in the 1970s was instrumental in developing guidelines that protected the then-nascent field of biotechnology while calming fears that this new science would give way to the spread of deadly lab-produced microbes, died on Tuesday at her home in Washington, D.C. She was 93.Carnegie Science, a nonprofit research center in Washington, announced her death, saying Dr. Singer, a former 14-year president of the institute, had been treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema.The cracking of the genetic code in the 1960s had paved the way for new discoveries that allowed scientists to insert DNA from toads, fruit flies and viruses into bacteria to create organisms that would never exist in nature, a process known as gene splicing.The experiments allowed scientists to study genes in living cells. But some of the new organisms contained cancer-causing genes, and no one understood the new science well enough to know if the lab-made microbes were safe.Although discussed among scientists, the concerns did not come into public view until Dr. Singer, an administrator at the National Institutes of Health, and a colleague sounded an alarm in a letter published in 1973 in the journal Science, which was closely followed by academics and the news media.The letter, sent on behalf of scientists who had attended a genetics conference, noted that while gene splicing held great promise for human health, it also enabled the creation of organisms “with biological activity of an unpredictable nature.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

As health plans increasingly rely on technology to deny treatment, physicians are fighting back with chatbots that synthesize research and make the case.At his rehabilitation medicine practice in Illinois, Dr. Azlan Tariq typically spent seven hours a week fighting with insurance companies reluctant to pay for his patients’ treatments.He often lost.There was the 45-year-old man who spent five months in a wheelchair while his insurer denied appeal after appeal for a prosthetic leg. Or the stroke survivor who was rehospitalized following a fall after his insurer determined his rehab “could be done at home.”Over the course of Dr. Tariq’s 12-year career, these stories had become more common: The list of treatments that needed pre-approval from insurers seemed ever broadening, and the denials seemed ever rising.So in an effort to spare his patients what he deemed subpar care, and himself mountains of paperwork, Dr. Tariq recently turned to an unlikely tool: generative A.I.For a growing number of doctors, A.I. chatbots — which can draft letters to insurers in seconds — are opening up a new front in the battle to approve costly claims, accomplishing in minutes what years of advocacy and attempts at health care reform have not.“We haven’t had legislative tools or policymaking tools or anything to fight back,” Dr. Tariq said. “This is finally a tool I can use to fight back.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The Times wants to hear from patients and providers about medical practices affiliated with Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. Share your experience below.Health care in America is changing. The days of small, independent medical practices have mostly passed. Today, most doctors work for a large corporation. Acquisition sprees by hospitals, health systems, private equity firms and health insurers have given a relatively small number of companies outsize control over a $4.5 trillion industry with extraordinary consequences for people’s daily lives.Amid this wave of consolidation, one company stands apart. UnitedHealth Group, which owns the nation’s largest insurer, also employs or is affiliated with roughly 90,000 doctors — more than any other company. Through its lesser-known subsidiary Optum, it operates primary care practices, specialty clinics, home health agencies, urgent care centers and other facilities across the country.This combination is at the core of the company’s growth strategy and has led to record profits. The Times wants to understand what it has meant for Optum’s patients and medical professionals. We’d especially like to know about any changes that occur when Optum buys or contracts with a medical practice.Help The Times report on Optum.Step 1: Unsure whether Optum owns or contracts with your clinic? Click here to see a state-by-state list of Optum-affiliated practices. (Note: This list is not exhaustive.)Step 2: If you are a medical professional who has worked at an Optum-affiliated practice, if you are a patient at one, or if you have something else to share, please fill out the questionnaire below. (You’ll see provider questions first, then questions for patients.)Step 3: Share the link to this questionnaire within your networks so we can hear from more people.What happens when you share your story?A Times reporter may reach out to you to learn more about your story. We will not share your contact information outside the Times newsroom or use it for any reason other than to get in touch with you. And we will not publish any part of your response without verifying your information and hearing back from you. If you prefer to share your story anonymously, you can do so through our tips page.

Legal maneuverings followed a Supreme Court ruling last month that denied the Sackler family immunity from liability over its role in the opioid crisis.Purdue Pharma’s creditors and more than 40 states are preparing a barrage of legal actions against members of the Sackler family, less than two weeks after the Supreme Court denied them legal immunity for their role as the company’s owners in the opioid crisis.Purdue itself is supporting a proposal by a group of its creditors to sue individual Sacklers for transferring billions of dollars out of the company and into family trusts and overseas holding companies.The motions, some filed and others in the planning stage, are part of intense maneuvering to pressure the Sacklers to settle thousands of opioid lawsuits brought years ago against them and their company. Negotiations are expected to begin imminently in mediation sessions and are widely seen as a last-ditch effort to reach a deal. If one isn’t struck by Sept. 9, thousands of lawsuits against the company and family members, which have been on hold for nearly five years, are likely to proceed.The Supreme Court’s ruling, on June 27, effectively dissolved an agreement negotiated between the Sacklers and Purdue, the manufacturer of the prescription opioid OxyContin, and states, local and tribal governments as well as individuals and other groups. Under that plan, the Sackers had agreed to contribute $6 billion — but only on the condition that they be granted protection from all civil lawsuits involving opioid claims.The court said that although Purdue was entitled to liability protections, the Sacklers were not eligible. That is because Purdue sought bankruptcy restructuring, in which liability shields are commonly granted, but the Sacklers did not file for personal bankruptcy.The court’s ruling effectively toppled a Jenga tower that had been years in the making. Payments by Purdue and the Sacklers had been designated for opioid treatment and prevention and to compensate survivors.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.