Publisher Health

In an interview with Dr. Phil, the health secretary offered false information about vaccine oversight and revealed a lack of basic understanding of new drug approvalsHealth Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. advised parents of newborns to “do your own research” before vaccinating their infants during a televised interview in which he also suggested the measles shot was unsafe and repeatedly made false statements that cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination and the independence of the Food and Drug Administration.Mr. Kennedy made the remarks to the talk show host Dr. Phil in an interview that aired Monday on MeritTV to mark the 100th day of the Trump administration. He said, as he has in the past, that “if you want to avoid spreading measles, the best thing you can do is take that vaccine.”But Mr. Kennedy also made clear, as he has in the past, that he believes it is up to individuals to decide. In suggesting vaccines are unsafe, he contradicted decades of advice from public health experts, including leaders of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“I would say that we live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” the health secretary said, in response to a question from a woman in the audience who asked how he would advise a new parent about vaccine safety. “You research the baby stroller, you research the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”The phrase “I did my own research” became a cultural and political touchstone during the coronavirus pandemic, when proponents of vaccination, mostly on the political left, used it to denigrate those who had chosen not to get vaccinated. It became an internet meme and popped up on mock tombstones in Halloween-themed graveyards in liberal neighborhoods.The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Kennedy’s comments came amid the largest measles outbreak in about 25 years in the United States, which has included the deaths of two young children and an adult.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.

14 minutes agoShareSaveFergus WalshMedical editorShareSaveBBCA 29-year-old doctor from Bristol has had her eyesight saved after a “game-changing” test identified a mystery infection that had plagued her health for five years.Ellie Irwin suffered persistent inflammation in her right eye resulting in blurred vision and underwent intensive treatment to no avail. At one point she even considered having her eye removed.It was only after Ellie was offered a “last resort” analysis called metagenomics, that she was diagnosed with a rare bacterial infection which was cured with antibiotics.”It’s been transformative,” Ellie told the BBC. “I feel so fortunate.”Professor Carlos Pavesio, consultant ophthalmologist at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, says Ellie’s case is a “breakthrough in the diagnosis of infectious diseases”. “There are many patients we treat with chronic infections for years, but despite multiple tests we cannot identify the bug responsible,” he says.In 2019, while still at medical school, Ellie began suffering from inflammation in her right eye. All tests for infection came back negative and it was assumed she had an autoimmune condition.Ellie was prescribed steroid eye drops and immunosuppressants, some of which needed to be given by intravenous infusion.”It was completely dominating my life,” Ellie says. “I needed eye drops every single hour and it was difficult to balance that alongside starting work as a junior doctor. My vision was really variable, and I would have some bad days.”I was on so much medication and going to so many appointments, yet I didn’t feel I was getting any better.”The treatment and inflammation led to Ellie developing a cataract that had to be surgically removed, just after she graduated from medical school.Ellie says she eventually reached “breaking point”, and even began considering having her affected eye removed.”Whilst losing sight in one eye is terrifying,” she says, “my biggest fear was that it might spread to my left eye.”Ellie IrwinIt was one of Ellie’s doctors at Southmead Hospital in Bristol who suggested metagenomics – a last resort test not generally available to patients and only used where standard diagnostic tools have failed to identify or rule out infection.Metagenomics technology uses cutting-edge genomic sequencing, which can identify all bacteria, funghi or parasites present in a sample by comparing them against a database of millions of pathogens.A team at Moorfields Eye Hospital arranged for a sample of fluid to be taken from inside Ellie’s eye and sent to the metagenomics labs at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) – the only lab in the UK officially recognised to carry out these diagnostic tests for patients, and one of only a few in the world.Currently, the standard method for detecting bacterial infections is by trying to grow a sample of it in a Petri dish.For viruses, the most common diagnostic tool is a PCR test. These will be familiar to many from the pandemic, when millions sent off swabs in the post to confirm whether they had Covid.However, Dr Julianne Brown, principal clinical scientist at the GOSH metagenomics service, says PCR has some drawbacks.”The trouble with PCR is that you have to think of the viruses that might be causing an infection and do a separate test for each and every one,” she says. “So if you’ve got an infection with something that’s unexpected, rare or not previously known, you won’t find it.”Dr Brown says metagenomics is “an enormous step up – it’s a complete game-changer”.Ellie IrwinIn Ellie’s case, metagenomics diagnosed a rare strain of the bacterial infection leptospirosis found in South America.It is now presumed Ellie picked up the bug swimming in the Amazon river in 2018, while on a trip to Ecuador and Colombia.Ellie says it was an emotional moment when she was given the results of the test.”I broke down – I just had to cry. I never imagined that it would come back positive and be for something that was treatable,” she says. “I was given three weeks of antibiotics and within days my vision was clearer and the inflammation subsided.”A single metagenomics test costs around £1,300, which is far more than standard diagnostics. However, as the technology is developed that price is likely to fall rapidly.Virologist Professor Judy Breuer, who has been developing metagenomics at GOSH and University College London (UCL) for more than a decade, says her team currently receives three or four samples a week from hospitals around the UK for metagenomic testing in addition to those it carries out on its own patients.These are often samples from parts of the body that are normally sterile sites, where bacteria are not usually found such as the brain, central nervous system, liver and eye.”In the future, we think metagenomics will become a first line test and be able to diagnose infection in any sample, probably within the same day,” she says.It’s also likely to become faster, cheaper and easier to do, explains Dr Brown, meaning it will become available to more patients rather than just a small number who are severely unwell.Ellie IrwinResolving her eye problems has allowed Ellie to concentrate on her training as a GP and arrange her wedding. Ellie was married in Newcastle on 29 March, the same day the city celebrated Newcastle United’s win in the Carabao Cup.She says: “We got a shout-out from Ant and Dec and went up on a scissor lift above the Newcastle United fans, which was incredible.”Prof Breuer says she is thrilled with how the treatment is changing lives.”It is amazing to see the impact it is having for patients like Ellie.”

We naked apes need Band-Aids, but shedding the fur that speeds healing in other mammals may have helped us evolve other abilities.Watching wild baboons in Kenya, Akiko Matsumoto-Oda, an evolutionary biologist and primatologist at the University of the Ryukyus in Japan, had a front-row seat to the violence between these monkeys, especially the males.“I was struck by how frequently they sustained injuries,” she said, “and, even more, by how rapidly they recovered — even from seemingly severe wounds.”Compared with her own experiences with nicks and cuts, the baboons’ ability to heal seemed like a superpower.In a study published on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Dr. Matsumoto-Oda and her colleagues compared the healing rates of humans, chimpanzees, monkeys and mice. They found that human wounds took more than twice as long to heal as wounds of any of the other mammals. Our slow healing may be a result of an evolutionary trade-off we made long ago, when we shed fur in favor of naked, sweaty skin that keeps us cool.When possible, the researchers wanted to study healing in a way that was less violent and more controlled than watching wild baboons.To measure human healing, they recruited 24 patients who were having skin tumors removed at the University of the Ryukyus Hospital. To gather data on chimpanzees, which are some of our closest animal relatives, researchers observed five captive chimps at the Kumamoto Sanctuary of the Kyoto University Wildlife Research Center, which houses animals formerly used in pharmaceutical research. The chimps’ wounds, like those of wild baboons, mostly came from tiffs between the animals.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.

Animal testing remains a fundamental part of biomedical research. But as funding evaporates, mice, rats and even monkeys may be euthanized.On April 1, the Trump administration’s effort to slash government funding arrived in Morgantown, W.Va., where federal scientists spent their days studying health and safety threats to American workers. That morning, hundreds of employees at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health were notified that they were being terminated and would lose access to the building.Left behind were more than 900 lab animals. The institute ultimately managed to relocate about two-thirds of them — primarily mice, as well as a handful of rats — sending them to university labs, according to two facility employees who were recently terminated. The remaining 300 animals, however, were euthanized last week.Over the last few months, the Trump administration has taken aim at the American research enterprise, firing scores of federal scientists, rescinding active research grants and proposing drastic cuts to the funding that helps labs keep their lights on.These moves, which have left many of scientists out of work and disrupted clinical research, have profound ramifications for the lab animals that serve as the basis for much of the nation’s biomedical research.“There are going to be a lot of animals that are going to end up being sacrificed — killed,” said Paul Locke, an expert in laboratory animal law and the use of non-animal alternatives in research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.The ultimate toll is difficult to predict, experts said, in part because many of the administration’s actions are embroiled in legal battles. Animal research is also shrouded in secrecy; there are no definitive numbers on how many animals live in U.S. laboratories.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.

Male health workers should be allowed to perform breast screening examinations to help relieve staff shortages, say experts.X-rays called mammograms are offered to women between the age of 50 and 71 every three years to check for signs of cancer, but can currently only be performed by female staff.The Society of Radiographers (SoR) has called for a change in policy due to “critical” staff shortages among radiographers who specialise in this area.Sally Reed, 67, who had two mastectomies after mammograms revealed breast cancer, told the BBC that “if something can save your life you should go for it” – whether it’s administered by a woman or man.But Sally also admits women who already don’t want to go for breast screening “would definitely be turned off by a man”.Breast X-rays, which look for cancers that are too small to see or feel, are only permitted to be undertaken by female health workers. Mammography is the only health examination carried out exclusively by female staff.According to radiographers, the vacancy rate among mammographers who specialise in breast exams is 17.5%.Among mammographers who assess women who have found a lump in their breast or have a family history of breast cancer, the figure is 20%. Changes to staffing were being discussed at the annual SoR conference, with discussions also taking place over whether transgender men should be included in the NHS breast screening programme. Sue Johnson, who represents the SoR, told the BBC: “The role of the radiographer has developed and evolved and there is a much broader scope to the job role than simply taking the images.”It’s a very desirable and enjoyable career and men are saying ‘we would like to access that same career and we could help deliver the service'”.Johnson said she believes this could help the recruitment of more radiographers and open up the job to more qualified people because “mammography doesn’t get as much publicity” as other health professions.The prospect of men performing mammograms has been explored unsuccessfully in the past, but Johnson believes “the world has changed” and that “the time is right” to start reconsidering the role.Sally Reed said having two mammograms 15 years apart were responsible for “saving” her life.She’s now had two mastectomies after two separate breast cancer diagnoses.Because of what she’s gone through, having a male radiographer “wouldn’t bother me at all”, she says.

The sugar tax applied to fizzy drinks is set to be extended to milkshakes and other milk-based drinks under new government plans.The government is consulting on proposals to end the exemption from the tax for dairy-based drinks, as well as non-dairy substitutes such as oats or rice.Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in her autumn budget last year that the government was considering widening the levy.The so-called sugar tax, known formally as the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL), applies to manufacturers and was introduced by the Conservative government in April 2018 as a means to tackle obesity.On Monday, the Treasury also confirmed proposals to reduce the maximum amount of sugar allowed in drinks before they become subject to the levy from 5g to 4g per 100ml.Some 203 pre-packed milk-based drinks on the market, which make up 93% of sales within the category, will be hit with the tax unless their sugar content is reduced in accordance with the proposals, government analysis says.The exemption for milk-based drinks was included because of concerns about calcium consumption, particularly among children.The Treasury said that young people only get 3.5% of their calcium intake from such drinks, meaning “it is also likely that the health benefits do not justify the harms from excess sugar”.”By bringing milk-based drinks and milk substitute drinks into the SDIL, the government would introduce a tax incentive for manufacturers of these drinks to build on existing progress and further reduce sugar in their recipes,” the Treasury said.The government estimates that 89% of soft drinks sold in the UK are not subject to the tax because of widespread reformulation by manufacturers since 2018.But it added that the levy had effectively created a “target” of just below the 5g threshold, and products had clustered below 5g as a result.The government consultation will run from Monday until 21 July.The SDIL has raised a total of £1.9 billion since its introduction in 2018, according to government statistics released last September. Revenue for HMRC for the 2023-24 financial year was £338 million.Opponents of the levy in recent years include the soft drinks industry, pubs and off licences. Some argue the levy disproportionately affects lower-income families and does little to tackle obesity.On the latest plans, industry body the Food and Drink Federation said it welcomed the chance to share its views in the consultation. It said “significant progress” had already been made and “many years of investment in research and development” had reduced sugar in soft drinks by 46% in the last five years, with a 30% sugar reduction in pre-packed milk-based drinks in the last three years.It added that food and drink manufacturers were facing a series of inflationary pressures and called on the government to “continue to create the right conditions for businesses to innovate and also be clear about their long-term goals to promote business confidence”.

2 hours agoShareSaveNikki FoxHealth correspondent, BBC EastLewis AdamsBBC News, EssexShareSavePA MediaThe chair of England’s first public inquiry into mental health deaths vowed to “seek out the truth” – despite difficulties getting documents from the NHS.The first key evidence sessions in the Lampard Inquiry – examining more than 2,000 deaths at NHS inpatient units in Essex between 2000 and 2023 – have begun in London.Baroness Lampard said although the hearing was “breaking new ground”, 21 legal notices had been issued to NHS organisations to force them to submit evidence.”We will seek out the truth,” she said, adding she would not hesitate to use her legal powers “to the fullest extent necessary to compel the production of evidence where it’s not provided”.Baroness Lampard said the inquiry was of “national significance” as it focussed on “the big critical concerns about what went wrong over almost a quarter of a century”.RICHARD DANIEL/BBCCounsel to the inquiry, Nicholas Griffin KC, said: “We have been unimpressed with a significant number of requests for deadline extensions… and the number of occasions where providers have not given the material expressly asked for.”He said there were problems with the condition of paper records, “missing documents” and providers, including private ones, sending information late.Mr Griffin said it was a criminal offence to suppress, conceal, alter, or destroy relevant evidence and said providers should be properly resourced to respond to the inquiry. He said the inquiry should not be delayed because of it.RICHARD DANIEL/BBCThe original government investigation into the deaths of inpatients stalled after only 11 out of 14,000 staff agreed to take part.But Mr Griffin said the inquiry was still facing barriers in the flow of information.He said the inquiry team had asked providers and regulators for a reassurance that they would not take action against staff if they provided information to the inquiry or failed to provide it in the past.He said almost all, including the largest providers, declined to give such undertakings and said the inquiry was reflecting on what further steps to take.Over the next three weeks, Baroness Lampard will hear from care regulators, experts, and the chief executive of the Essex Partnership NHS University Trust (EPUT).She said she would confront difficult topics “head on” and promised to keep those affected at the “heart of the inquiry,” adding that she wanted to make “lasting, positive recommendations to improve mental healthcare” across England.RICHARD DANIEL/BBCMelanie Leahy, whose 20-year-old son Matthew died under NHS care, was joined by fellow campaigners outside the hearing at Arundel House.She said: “It’s been years of heartbreak, unanswered questions and fighting just to be heard.”Ms Leahy, who campaigned for more than a decade for an inquiry, said it was a real chance to get the truth.”At Matthew’s inquest, they [those in charge of EPUT] walked out of the back door and didn’t speak to anybody, let’s bring them out now.”Campaigners and lawyers acting for bereaved families have alleged mental health services are still unsafe.It is understood the inquiry team has referred ongoing concerns to regulators.Mr Griffin said they would be looking at what recent inquests and deaths may reveal about the extent to which the issues in Essex “are really being addressed”.Nottingham Trent UniversityHe said Dr Emma Ireton, an associate professor from Nottingham Law School, would be producing a report on how the inquiry’s final recommendations will be implemented.EPUT chief executive Paul Scott has apologised for deaths under his trust’s care.He said: “As the inquiry progresses, there will be many accounts of people who were much loved and missed over the past 24 years and I want to say how sorry I am for their loss.”Evidence is due to continue until 15 May and will resume in July.Baroness Lampard is expected to produce her recommendations for change in 2027.More on this storyRelated internet links

Prescription charges in England will be frozen this year – for the first time since 2022.The charge for a single item will remain at £9.90 in 2025-26, the government has announced.Three-month and annual prescriptions prepayment certificates will also be frozen and existing exemptions will continue. Charges only apply in England as prescriptions are free in the rest of the UK.Nearly nine in 10 prescriptions in England are already dispensed free of charge, with children, over 60s, pregnant women, people with certain medical conditions and those on lower incomes exempt from paying.A three-month prescription prepayment certificate costs £32.05 while a 12-month certificate costs £114.50.Rachel Power, chief executive of Patients Association which campaigns for improvements in health and social care, said freezing the charges was a “positive step”. But she warned that it did little to tackle the “deep inequalities” in what she described as an outdated system.She said the medical exemption criteria had remained virtually unchanged since the late 1960s, with nearly three million people in England living with long-term conditions not eligible for an exemption because they were not recognised 60 years ago or people rarely survived into adulthood. Conditions which are not currently on the medical exemption list include Parkinson’s disease, cystic fibrosis and motor neurone disease.”We urge the government to go further – to commit to a full review of the medical exemption list and prescription charges,” Ms Powers added.Health is a devolved area of government. Prescription fees were abolished by Wales in 2007, Northern Ireland in 2010 and Scotland in 2011 under the powers available to their respective governments.

DHL has lifted a suspension it had imposed on deliveries worth more than $800 (£603) to the US after negotiating “adjustments” to customs rules.Earlier this month, the delivery giant said it had stopped such shipments to US shoppers “until further notice” due to a “significant increase” in red tape from President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.However, DHL has now lifted the suspension after “constructive dialogue” between the delivery industry and the US government.A DHL spokesperson said it “values this positive development and the support of the federal government in making these changes”.US Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Commerce have been approached for comment.DHL’s reversal is the latest development in the ongoing tussle between businesses and the White House over US tariff policies.Previously, packages worth up to $2,500 could enter the US with minimal paperwork but, due to tighter customs checks that came into force alongside the tariffs earlier this month, the threshold has been lowered.DHL said last week the change had “caused a surge in formal customs clearances, which we are handling around the clock”.It said that while it was working to “scale up and manage this increase, shipments worth over $800, regardless of origin, may experience multi-day delays”.However, on Monday, DHL lifted the suspension after negotiations with customs authorities and other US government bodies.”The express industry… had a constructive dialogue with [the US government] to optimise customs regulations as to ensure critical goods still reach US businesses and consumers in a timely, safe and compliant manner,” a DHL spokesperson said.”Adjustments to US customs regulations will allow DHL to resume accepting business to consumer shipments with a declared value exceeding $800 into the US.”The back and forth between DHL and the White House comes as the US government looks to clamp down on deliveries under $800 – specifically those sent from China and Hong Kong. On 2 May, it intends to close a loophole allowing low-value packages to enter the US without incurring any duties.The removal of the so-called “de minimis” rule will affect the likes of the fast-fashion firm Shein and low-cost retail giant Temu.Shein and Temu have both warned that they will increase prices “due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs”.

34 minutes agoShareSavePhilippa RoxbyHealth reporterShareSaveGetty ImagesPeople who eat lots of ultra-processed foods (UPF) may be at greater risk of dying early, a study in eight countries including the UK and the US suggests.Processed meats, biscuits, fizzy drinks, ice cream and some breakfast cereals are examples of UPF, which are becoming increasingly common around the world.UPFs tend to contain more than five ingredients, which are not usually found in home cooking, such as additives, sweeteners and chemicals to improve the food’s texture or appearance.Some experts say it’s not known why UPFs are linked to poor health – there is little evidence it’s down to the processing itself and could be because these foods contain high levels of fat, salt and sugar.’Artificial ingredients’The researchers behind the study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, looked at previous research to estimate the impact of ultra-processed food intake on mortality.The study cannot definitively prove that UPFs caused any premature deaths.This is because the amount of ultra-processed foods in someone’s diet is also linked to their overall diet, exercise levels, wider lifestyle and wealth, which can all also affect health. The studies looked at surveys of people’s diets and at data on deaths from eight countries – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, UK and US.The report estimates that in the UK and the US, where UPFs account for more than half of calorie intake, 14% of early deaths could be linked to the harms they cause.In countries such as Colombia and Brazil, where UPF intake is much lower (less than 20% of calorie intake), the study estimated these foods are linked to around 4% of premature deaths.Lead study author Dr Eduardo Nilson, from Brazil, said UPFs affected health “because of the changes in the foods during industrial processing and the use of artificial ingredients, including colorants, artificial flavours and sweeteners, emulsifiers, and many other additives and processing aids”.By their calculations, in the US in 2018, there were 124,000 premature deaths due to the consumption of ultra-processed food. In the UK, nearly 18,000.The study says governments should update their dietary advice to urge people to cut back on these foods.What is ultra-processed food?There is no one definition that everyone agrees on, but the NOVA classification is often used. Examples include:cakescrispssupermarket breadready mealsprocessed meatchicken nuggetsfish fingersyoghurtstofubaby formula Still questions to answerThe numbers in the study are based on modelling the impact of ultra-processed foods on people’s health. Prof Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics, Open University, said the study makes lots of mathematical assumptions which make him cautious about what the findings mean.”It’s still far from clear whether consumption of just any UPF at all is bad for health, or what aspect of UPFs might be involved.”This all means that it’s impossible for any one study to be sure whether differences in mortality between people who consume different UPF amounts are actually caused by differences in their UPF consumption. “You still can’t be sure from any study of this kind exactly what’s causing what.”Dr Nerys Astbury, an expert in diet and obesity at the University of Oxford, also agrees there are limitations to the research.It’s been known for some time that diets high in energy, fat and sugar can increase the risk of diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart conditions and some cancers, which can lead to premature death.”Many UPF tend to be high in these nutrients,” she says, adding that studies to date haven’t been able to prove that the effects of UPFs are due to anything more than “diets high in foods which are energy dense and contain large amounts of fat and sugar”.This type of research cannot prove that consumption of ultra-processed foods is harmful, says Dr Stephen Burgess at Cambridge University.How physically fit someone is may be the main cause of poor health instead. But when numerous studies across many countries and culture suggest UPFs could be a risk to health, Dr Burgess says “ultra-processed foods may be more than a bystander”.