Publisher Health

The agency issued designs for front-of-package lists that food companies would be required to include.The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday proposed requiring new nutrition labels on the front of food and beverage products, a long-awaited move aimed at changing eating habits associated with soaring rates of obesity and diet-related illness that are responsible for a million deaths each year.The new label, a small black-and-white box similar to the Nutrition Facts box on the back of packaged goods, is designed to help consumers quickly understand which products contain excessive amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fat. Those three nutrients are implicated in the nation’s skyrocketing rates of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.More than 60 percent of American adults suffer from those three chronic illnesses, which are estimated to account for $4.5 trillion in annual health care costs, according to the F.D.A.In contrast to the mandatory back-of-package Nutrition Facts panels, which list a product’s ingredients, calorie count and serving size, the front-of-package labels would rank the contents of sugar, fat and salt as high, medium or low to indicate whether the amounts exceed or fall short of the recommended daily values set by the F.D.A.“Nearly everyone knows or cares for someone with a chronic disease that is due, in part, to the food we eat,” Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the F.D.A., said in a statement. “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go.”The proposal follows three years of research by agency scientists, who considered the front-of-package labels used by other countries. After reviewing studies on the effectiveness of those labels, the F.D.A. tested prospective designs with focus groups to determine whether the information they conveyed was easy to comprehend.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.

Analysis found that more than 64,000 Palestinians may have been killed by traumatic injury in the first nine months of the war.Deaths from bombs and other traumatic injuries during the first nine months of the war in Gaza may have been underestimated by more than 40 percent, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.The peer-reviewed statistical analysis, led by epidemiologists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, used modeling in an effort to provide an objective third-party estimate of casualties. The United Nations has relied on the figure from the Hamas-led Ministry of Health, which it says has been largely accurate, but which Israel criticizes as inflated.But the new analysis suggests the Hamas health ministry tally is a significant undercount. The researchers concluded that the death toll from Israel’s aerial bombardment and military ground operation in Gaza between October 2023 and the end of June 2024 was about 64,300, rather than the 37,900 reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.The estimate in the analysis corresponds to 2.9 percent of Gaza’s prewar population having been killed by traumatic injury, or one in 35 inhabitants. The analysis did not account for other war-related casualties such as deaths from malnutrition, water-borne illness or the breakdown of the health system as the conflict progressed.The study found that 59 percent of the dead were women, children and people over the age of 65. It did not establish what share of the reported dead were combatants.Mike Spagat, an expert on calculating casualties of war who was not involved in this research, said the new analysis convinced him that Gaza casualties were underestimated.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.

Sana Biotechnology said a type 1 diabetes (T1D) patient received an allogeneic primary islet cell transplantation without immunosuppression. The company’s engineered cell product (UP421) uses a novel hypoimmune technology, and results of the first-in-human trial at 4 weeks showed pancreatic beta cell survival and function.
In a phase IIb/III trial of linsitinib for moderate to severe thyroid eye disease, treatment with the highest dose of the investigational, oral insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor inhibitor resulted in a statistically significant proptosis responder rate of 52% at week 24, according to maker Sling Therapeutics.
A database developed by researchers at Mass General Brigham ranked 50,000 processed foods and offers potential alternatives. (Nature Foods)
Investigational atumelnant, a once-daily oral adrenocorticotropic hormone receptor antagonist, significantly reduced morning androstenedione levels in a 12-week phase II study of people with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, said developer Crinetics Pharmaceuticals.
In the phase III OASIS 4 study, investigational elinzanetant significantly reduced frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms caused by adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with or at high risk of developing hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, said Bayer.
North Dakota became the first state to cover GLP-1 drugs for diabetes or obesity in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. (Becker’s Payer Issues)
And Medicare will now cover tirzepatide (Zepbound) for obstructive sleep apnea in patients with obesity after last month’s FDA approval for that indication. (CNBC)
A novel injectable GLP-1/GIP receptor dual agonist (HRS9531) achieved a 21.1% placebo-adjusted weight loss at week 36 in a phase II trial of Chinese adults with obesity or overweight, said Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Kailera Therapeutics.
A national survey by Orlando Health found that 56% of Americans didn’t know that bariatric surgery could boost fertility.
The FDA cleared Euroimmun’s automated chemiluminescence-based immunoassay test for free testosterone, said Revvity.
In new draft guidance for anti-obesity drug development, the FDA set an efficacy threshold of 5% weight loss over a year for future products. (Endpoints News)
Although Medicaid reimbursement for glucagon products for severe hypoglycemia increased from 2012 to 2023, less than 100,000 glucagon prescriptions were dispensed in 2023, likely only a fraction of the potential need based on the high-risk population. (JAMA)
Obesity at the time of a pediatric cancer diagnosis was independently associated with worse survival, especially for kids with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and central nervous system tumors, a large cohort study found. (Cancer)

Kristen Monaco is a senior staff writer, focusing on endocrinology, psychiatry, and nephrology news. Based out of the New York City office, she’s worked at the company since 2015.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Welcome to “Ask the Program Director,” a column from MedPage Today where your most pressing questions about residency — from the application process to life as a resident — are asked and answered. Want to submit a question? Comment below or email perspectives@medpagetoday.com.
Dear residency program director,
How should I prioritize self-care during training? I’m a first-year resident and even though I’m 7 months in at this point, I’m still struggling with the demanding hours. In-patient rotations are the toughest, and with spending 90 or more hours a week in the hospital, I feel like I have little time to do much more than eat and sleep. I feel like I’m neglecting my non-healthcare friends and family, and some of the hobbies I used to enjoy. I’m wondering if there’s a “right” approach to self-care to ensure that free time is used to recharge and not be more draining than it should.
Dear resident,
Thank you for submitting such an important question, given the high rates of burnout among clinicians throughout the country. We often hear about burnout among attending physicians, but as you’re quickly learning, burnout and mental health issues are just as relevant and real for trainees and medical students.
First of all, please know you are not alone and professional help is available if you need it. There is absolutely no shame in seeking help. Many residents struggle with the demanding hours of training and have difficulty finding time for many of their hobbies or spending time with loved ones.
In general, my best advice for improving well-being during residency is to be intentional with your tasks and time.
No matter how little time you have away from the hospital, you must set aside time to embrace your joys or modes of relaxation — this should be non-negotiable time that should never be compromised. This may mean blocking off time for exercise, reading a book, going to the movies, doing yoga, or just relaxing on the couch. Whatever the activity (or lack there of!), it should be treated as an appointment with yourself to enjoy hobbies and activities outside of work. This could be just 20 minutes a day. But when done regularly, that time adds up to 2 hours and 20 minutes of self-care time per week — with important benefits for your well-being.
Just as important as being intentional about time management is learning to say “no,” which is a skill I have only recently learned but wish I adopted earlier in my residency training. As medical professionals, we are often ambitious and like to take on many tasks; on the flip-side, we may be hesitant to decline opportunities, particularly when asked by supervisors or role models. However, sometimes it is important to take a step back and decline engagements, particularly when time is so limited.
Making the most of the small amount of free time you have is also essential. If you commute to the hospital, consider living within walking distance (if possible) or a short commute away, and use the saved time for a hobby or activity you love doing. Not only does this time saved add up, but also, the extra walking promotes cardiovascular health and well-being.
On that note, maintaining physical health and well-being should be a priority. This means prioritizing sleep (which you already seem to be doing), staying hydrated while at work, exercising when you can, and preparing energizing, nutritious meals at home when possible to avoid relying on unhealthy snacks at the hospital.
Finally, learn to recognize the signs of burnout. It is usually characterized by emotional exhaustion, a low sense of accomplishment at work, and not enjoying activities you once enjoyed. If you’re feeling this way, reach out to your program director or trusted mentors, or call the Physician Support Line to get the support you deserve.
As a residency program director myself, I must add that working 90 hours a week could be a violation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hours. Residents should only be working 80 hours per week, averaged over 4 weeks. However, I do understand this is not always practiced in all residency programs across the country. If you feel this has become a pervasive problem, you should consider speaking to your program director or your graduate medical education office at the hospital. At the end of the day, program directors want the best version of their residents to show up to work in order to optimize patient care, and tired sleep-deprived residents will not serve the hospital or program very well.
I hope you now feel better equipped with some strategies to improve your well-being.
Are you a medical student or resident? Please comment below or email us at perspectives@medpagetoday.com with other questions you’d like to have answered by a residency program director.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Higher consumption of green tea, but not coffee, was associated with fewer cerebral white matter lesions in prospective studies of aging in Japan. (npj Science of Food)
Latent herpes simplex virus type 1 was reactivated by repeated mechanical injury in a three-dimensional human brain tissue model, triggering aggregated amyloid and other pathological Alzheimer’s features. (Science Signaling)
Brain hypometabolism began to evolve during the prodromal stage of dementia with Lewy bodies, with changes on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET paralleling progressive symptoms. (JAMA Neurology)
Researchers identified a sex-specific deficiency in plasma free-carnitine levels in women with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease, but not men. (Molecular Psychiatry)
Medicare beneficiaries waited a median of 34 days to see a neurologist after a referral, 2018-2019 data showed. (Neurology)
Glymphatic clearance in mice was activated by norepinephrine-driven oscillations during non-rapid eye movement sleep. (Cell)
The average life expectancy of people diagnosed with dementia ranged from 8 years at age 65 to 4.5 years at age 85 for women, and from 5.7 to 2.2 years, respectively, in men, a meta-analysis reported. (The BMJ)
Retinal vascular analyses predicted incident stroke, U.K. Biobank cohort data suggested. (Heart)
Boston University researchers confirmed that former NFL tight end Frank Wycheck, who died at age 52 after a fall, had stage III chronic traumatic encephalopathy. (AP)
A RECOVER initiative study showed that 4.5% of participants met criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Journal of General Internal Medicine)
The American Academy of Neurology launched a new journal, Neurology Open Access.

Judy George covers neurology and neuroscience news for MedPage Today, writing about brain aging, Alzheimer’s, dementia, MS, rare diseases, epilepsy, autism, headache, stroke, Parkinson’s, ALS, concussion, CTE, sleep, pain, and more. Follow

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will review a potential national Medicare coverage policy for renal denervation for patients with hypertension, Medtronic announced.
The FDA said Philips is recalling the monitoring service application used with mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry and offering data reprocessing for some patients.
In the RESILIENT trial, mobile health cardiac rehabilitation did not significantly improve outcomes in older adults who went home after being hospitalized for ischemic heart disease. (JAMA Network Open)
In two studies, artificial intelligence (AI) models, trained on 12-lead electrocardiogram features, were able to predict future development of heart failure in the general population and mortality in patients with acute chest pain. (European Heart Journal)
AI was also able to predict risk of stroke using measurements from the retina’s intricate vascular network in a U.K. Biobank cohort study. (Heart)
A cardiovascular polypill, containing a statin and three half-dose antihypertensives, could be considered high-value for an underserved population, according to economic modeling. (JAMA Cardiology)
Among veterans, hypertension control rates varied across the country by race and ethnicity, suggesting that areas with low rates of hypertension control would benefit from interventions to address disparities. (Journal of the American Heart Association)
For stroke patients with incomplete reperfusion after mechanical thrombectomy, adjunctive intra-arterial tenecteplase showed promise for getting them closer to complete recanalization in an observational pilot study. (Stroke)
A study showed that the changes to donor heart allocation in the last decade have not benefited infants and children with cardiomyopathy or adults with congenital heart disease. (Circulation)
In a prespecified analysis of the FINEARTS-HF trial, heart failure patients who received finerenone (Kerendia) had an initial decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate — but it was not clear that this was a predictor of poor outcomes. (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)
There was also a reduced risk of new-onset diabetes associated with use of finerenone in another FINEARTS-HF analysis. (Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology)
Among patients with end-stage heart failure and low pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, left ventricular assist device therapy was associated with milder but significant improvements in functional capacity and quality of life compared with those with high pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. (Circulation: Heart Failure)
An international study showed that the quality of care for patients with acute heart failure is worse in lower-income countries. (eClinicalMedicine)
Preclinical work suggested that cholesterol-lowering therapy can also dampen PIN1 activity, a driver of bladder cancer. (Cancer Discovery)

Nicole Lou is a reporter for MedPage Today, where she covers cardiology news and other developments in medicine. Follow

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

All women ages 65 and older and at-risk postmenopausal women under 65 should be screened for osteoporosis to prevent fractures, according to a final recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
USPSTF said with “moderate certainty” that screening for osteoporosis to prevent osteoporotic fractures has a moderate net benefit in all women 65 and older and in postmenopausal women ages 40 to 64 who have at least one risk factor for osteoporosis (both grade B recommendations).
Evidence is still insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening in men (I statement), said Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, of the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and colleagues. “Clinicians should use their clinical judgment regarding whether to screen for osteoporosis” in men, the task force stated in JAMA.
The USPSTF recommendations are broadly consistent with those from 2018 — the last time the task force addressed the topic — and are meant for patients without known osteoporosis or a history of fragility fractures. The recommendations do not apply to patients with secondary osteoporosis due to underlying medical conditions or from use of medications linked to bone loss.
Data underpinning the recommendation statement included 145 unique studies assessed in a systematic evidence review, which showed that osteoporosis screening was associated with reduced hip fractures (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.93) and major osteoporotic fractures (pooled RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99) compared with usual care. Absolute risk differences were five fewer hip fractures and six fewer major osteoporotic fractures per 1,000 participants screened.
While the recommendations are largely congruent with the USPSTF’s 2018 statement, there are some “subtle revisions” that “may result in substantive changes in screening of younger postmenopausal women in clinical practice,” said accompanying editorial authors Kristine Ensrud, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Carolyn Crandall, MD, MS, of the University of California Los Angeles.
“The 2018 statement recommended assessing risk of osteoporosis in these women using a formal clinical risk assessment tool, whereas the 2024 Recommendation Statement recommends screening those at increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture as estimated by clinical risk assessment,” the editorialists wrote.
“Additionally, the screening test for both younger and older postmenopausal women in the 2018 recommendation is specified broadly as bone measurement testing. By contrast, the 2024 statement is more specific and defines screening as central (hip or lumbar spine) dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mineral density (BMD) testing with or without fracture risk assessment,” they added.
When deciding which postmenopausal women under 65 to screen, the USPSTF recommended that clinicians first take stock of risk factors for osteoporosis — including low body weight, parental history of hip fracture, cigarette smoking, and excess alcohol consumption.
And then for women with at least one of those risk factors, clinicians should use a clinical risk assessment tool (without BMD assessment) to identify patients who warrant screening. These include the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) — the most studied tool — the Fracture Risk Calculator, and the Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator. Other risk assessment tools, like the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument and the Osteoporosis Self Assessment Tool (OST), generally require fewer risk inputs than tools designed to predict fracture risk, they added.
According to the USPSTF, “FRAX predicts the 10-year probability of hip fracture or [major osteoporotic fracture] for persons aged 40 to 90 years by using demographic and clinical factors alone or in combination with BMD measured at the femoral neck. Risks predicted by FRAX alone and by BMD alone are similar, but both are less accurate than risks predicted by FRAX plus BMD.”
Predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women under 65 is “formidable,” said Ensrud and Crandall, and called it “surprising” that the USPSTF continues to suggest use of FRAX in its screening strategy for younger postmenopausal women given the tool’s “poor performance” in predicting osteoporosis fracture risk in this age group.
“Use of a simple time-efficient tool such as the OST appears to be a preferable strategy, although tools designed to identify osteoporosis also perform poorly in long-term fracture prediction in younger postmenopausal women,” Ensrud and Crandall suggested.
Discussing the change from screening via bone measurement testing to central DXA BMD, Nicholson and fellow task force members noted that “centrally measured DXA correlates with bone strength and clinical fracture outcomes and uses low doses of radiation. Fracture risk at a specific site is best predicted if bone density is measured at that site.”
“It is important that they did not recommend using the radius for screening,” said Susan Marie Ott, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, in another accompanying editorial in JAMA Network Open. She pointed out that some other organizations have recently suggested treating patients on the basis of findings of a T-score lower than -2.5 at any location, including the distal radius.
The USPSTF fell short of recommending a specific screening interval. While screening intervals tended to vary across studies reviewed, transition to osteoporosis typically occurred quicker for individuals with lower baseline T scores and older age, the task force said.
If screening indicates the patient requires treatment, the USPSTF listed the following approved drugs for treatment and prevention: bisphosphonates, denosumab, romosozumab (Evenity), parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, calcitonin, and estrogen (with or without progesterone). Clinicians should keep in mind that any treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools that used fixed fracture risk treatment thresholds not specific to race and ethnicity may be less likely to identify Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients as high risk, making them potentially less likely to be treated compared with white patients of the same age, BMD, and clinical risk profile. Similarly, risk models that don’t take into consideration comorbidities like diabetes may underestimate risk.
When it comes to treatment, “it may be reasonable to avoid strict application of risk assessment tool treatment thresholds at the individual level to account for additional risks (e.g., fall risk) not considered in risk assessment tools like FRAX,” the task force explained.

Kristen Monaco is a senior staff writer, focusing on endocrinology, psychiatry, and nephrology news. Based out of the New York City office, she’s worked at the company since 2015.

Disclosures
The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.Task Force members members received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Nicholson had no other disclosures. One co-author reported serving as chair for the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative Multidisciplinary Steering Committee and serving as chair on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist Practice Advisory Committee, and another reported grants from National Institute on Aging. No other disclosures were reported.The systematic review was funded under contract from the AHRQ, HHS to support the USPSTF. Kahwati had no additional disclosures. Co-authors reported additional support from a National Research Service Award training grant from AHRQ, by a National Research Service Award grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.Editorialists Ensrud and Crandall reported receiving an honorarium from the American College of Physicians; in addition Crandall reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health.Ott reported no disclosures.

Primary Source
JAMA
Source Reference: US Preventive Services Task Force “Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement” JAMA 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.27154.

Secondary Source
JAMA
Source Reference: Kahwati LC, et al “Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force” JAMA 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.21653.

Additional Source
JAMA
Source Reference: Ensrud KE, Crandall CJ “Fracture risk assessment as a component of osteoporosis screening — easier said than done” JAMA 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.27416.

Additional Source
JAMA Network Open
Source Reference: Ott SM “Research that could broaden the scope of bone density screening” JAMA Netw Open 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60746.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The second of two analyses intended to shape the upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines questions alcohol’s overall benefits.Among both men and women, drinking just one alcoholic beverage a day increases the risk of liver cirrhosis, esophageal cancer, oral cancer and various types of injuries, according to a federal analysis of alcohol’s health effects issued on Tuesday.Women face a higher risk of developing liver cancer at this level of drinking, but a lower risk of diabetes. And while one alcoholic drink daily also reduces the likelihood of strokes caused by blood clots among both men and women, the report found, even occasional heavy drinking negates the benefits.The report, prepared by an outside scientific review panel under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, is one of two competing assessments that will be used to shape the influential U.S. Dietary Guidelines, which are to be updated this year.The government has for several decades recommended a limit of two standard alcoholic drinks per day for men and one for women.In December, a review of the data by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine supported this advice, finding that moderate drinking was linked to fewer heart attack and stroke deaths, and fewer deaths overall, compared with no drinking.But some experts fear that the harms of moderate drinking have been understated, particularly the risk of cancer, which is the leading cause of death among people under 85, according to the American Cancer Society.In 2020, the last time the dietary guidelines came up for review, scientific advisers suggested lowering the recommendation to one drink daily for both men and women. That advice did not appear in the final guidelines.The analysis from the National Academies tied moderate drinking in women to a small but significant increase in breast cancer, but said there was insufficient evidence to tie alcohol to other cancers.This month, however, the U.S. Surgeon General, citing mounting scientific evidence, called for labeling alcohol with cancer warnings similar to those that appear on cigarettes. The report issued on Tuesday found that the increased cancer risk comes with any amount of alcohol consumption and rises with higher levels of drinking.Drinking is linked to a higher risk of death for seven types of cancer, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer as well as cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx and esophagus.Men and women are both vulnerable to these health harms, but women are much more likely to develop a cancer linked to drinking, the report said.“Among the U.S. population, the risk of dying from alcohol use begins at low levels of average use,” the report said. “Higher levels of alcohol consumption are linked with progressively higher mortality risk.”Those who consume more than seven drinks per week have a one in 1,000 risk of dying from a condition related to alcohol. The risk increases to one in 100 if consumption is more than nine drinks a week.This article will be updated.

The Biden administration on Tuesday released a “roadmap” for maintaining government defenses against infectious diseases, just as President-elect Donald Trump pledges to dismantle some of them.
The 16-page report recaps steps taken in the last 4 years against COVID-19, mpox, and other diseases, including vaccination efforts and the use of wastewater and other measures to spot signs of erupting disease outbreaks. It’s a public version of a roughly 300-page pandemic-prevention playbook that Biden officials say they are providing to the incoming administration.
Biden officials touted the steps they took to halt or prevent disease threats, but some public heath researchers offer a more mixed assessment of the administration’s efforts. Several experts, for example, said not nearly enough has been done to make sure an expanding bird flu pandemic in animals doesn’t turn into a global health catastrophe for people.
“Overwhelmingly you’ve heard a lot of frustration by outside experts that we’ve been under-reacting to what we see as a really serious threat,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence.
Public Health Experts Worry the Next Administration Could Do Less
Trump and his team plan to slash government spending, and Trump has endorsed prominent vaccine detractors for top government health posts. During the campaign last year, Trump told Time magazine that he would disband the White House office focused on pandemic preparedness, calling it “a very expensive solution to something that won’t work.”
Public health researchers also point to Trump’s first administration, when the White House in 2018 dismantled a National Security Council pandemic unit. When COVID-19 hit 2 years later, the government’s disjointed response prompted some experts to argue that the unit could have helped a faster and more uniform response.
In 2020, during the pandemic, Trump officials moved to pull the U.S. out of the World Health Organization. President Joe Biden reversed the decision, but Trump’s team is expected to do it again. Experts say such a move would, among other things, hurt the ability to gain information about emerging new outbreaks before they come to U.S. shores.
Officials with the Trump transition team did not respond to emails requesting information about its pandemic planning.
Many public health experts praise Trump for “Operation Warp Speed,” which helped spur the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. But several also noted that decades of planning and research under previous administrations laid the groundwork for it.
What Do Biden Officials Say They Accomplished?
COVID-19 vaccines did not start to trickle out to the public until after Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 election, and it was the Biden administration that stood up what it describes as the largest free vaccination program in U.S. history.
“President Biden came to office amidst the worst public health crisis in more than a century,” said Paul Friedrichs, MD, director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, in a statement. “He partnered with stakeholders across the nation and turned it around, ending the pandemic and saving countless lives.”
Friedrichs’s office was established by Congress in 2022. He said the administration has “laid the foundation for faster and more effective responses to save lives now and in the future.”
What Has Been Done to Prepare for Bird Flu and Other Threats?
The pandemic office, which released the report Tuesday, said it has taken steps to fight bird flu, which has been spreading among animal species in scores of countries in the last few years.
The virus was detected in U.S. dairy herds in March. At least 66 people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with infections, the vast majority of them dairy or poultry workers who had mild infections. But that count includes an elderly Louisiana man who died.
Among other steps, the administration is stockpiling 10 million doses of vaccine that is considered effective against the strain that’s been circulating in U.S. cattle, and spent $176 million to develop mRNA vaccines that could quickly be adapted to mutations in the virus, with late-stage trials “beginning shortly,” the document said.
Having measures in place to quickly develop and mass produce new vaccines is crucial, said Michael Osterholm, PhD, a University of Minnesota expert on infectious diseases.
“We don’t really have any understanding of what influenza virus will emerge one day to cause the next pandemic,” Osterholm said. “It sure isn’t this [bird flu strain], or it would be causing it [a pandemic] right now.”
The U.S. should maintain collaborations that train disease investigators in other countries to detect emerging infections, according to public health experts.
“We have to continue to invest in surveillance in areas where we think these infectious agents are likely to emerge,” said Ian Lipkin, MD, an infectious diseases researcher at New York’s Columbia University.
“I’m hoping that the Trump administration — as they are concerned about people coming across the border who may be infected with this or that or the other thing — will see the wisdom in trying to make sure that we do surveillance in areas where we think there’s a large risk,” he said.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The Princess of Wales revealed Tuesday that her cancer is in remission after an emotional visit to the hospital where she received treatment last year.
In a statement on social media, the princess offered her heartfelt thanks to those who helped her and husband Prince William navigate the treatment. She described her time as a patient as being “exceptional.”
“It is a relief to now be in remission and I remain focused on recovery,” she wrote. “As anyone who has experienced a cancer diagnosis will know, it takes time to adjust to a new normal.”
It was the first time the princess had offered any detail on her diagnosis. Earlier, she had simply said she had completed her chemotherapy, without offering any information on her prognosis for the future.
Kate, as she is commonly known, conducted the solo engagement at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, a world-leading state-of-the art cancer center known for its pioneering research. She expressed her gratitude to the medical team for their support even as she spoke with other patients receiving chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
“It’s really tough,” she said of chemotherapy. “It’s such a shock.”
During the visit, the princess shared her experiences with Katherine Field, 45. Gesturing to her arm and chest, she discussed the port mechanism used to deliver the drugs.
“I got so attached to it,” Kate said, joking that she had been almost reluctant when told that she “can have it taken out” now.
Her Kensington Palace office stressed that she would continue to return to public-facing engagements, albeit gradually. The palace described the visit as reflecting her “own personal cancer journey.’
The royal family was hard hit by health concerns last year, beginning with the announcement in January 2024 that the king would receive treatment for an enlarged prostate and Kate would undergo abdominal surgery.
In February, Buckingham Palace announced that Charles was receiving treatment for an undisclosed type of cancer. Six weeks later, Kate said she, too, was undergoing treatment for cancer, quieting the relentless speculation about her condition that had circulated on social media since her surgery.
She announced in September that she had completed chemotherapy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.