
NIH cuts spotlight a hidden crisis facing patients with experimental brain implants
She worried for her life, asking herself: 'Why am I putting myself through this?'
Seeger's predicament highlights a growing problem for hundreds of people with experimental neural implants, including those for depression, quadriplegia and other conditions. Although these patients take big risks to advance science, there's no guarantee that their devices will be maintained — particularly after they finish participating in clinical trials — and no mechanism requiring companies or insurers to do so.
A research project led by Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a Harvard University scientist, aimed to change that by creating partnerships between players in the burgeoning implant field to overcome barriers to device access and follow-up care.
But the cancellation of
hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants
by the Trump administration this year left the project in limbo, dimming hope for Seeger and others like her who wonder what will happen to their health and progress.
An ethical quagmire
Unlike medications, implanted devices often require parts, maintenance, batteries and surgeries when changes are needed. Insurance typically covers such expenses for federally approved devices considered medically necessary, but not experimental ones.
A procedure to replace a battery alone can cost more than $15,000 without insurance, Lázaro-Muñoz said.
While companies stand to profit from research, 'there's really nothing that helps ensure that device manufacturers have to provide any of these parts or cover any kind of maintenance,' said Lázaro-Muñoz.
Some companies also move on to newer versions of devices or abandon the research altogether, which can leave patients in an uncertain place.
Medtronic, the company that made the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, technology Seeger used, said in a statement that every study is different and that the company puts patient safety first when considering care after studies end.
People consider various possibilities when they join a clinical trial.
The Food and Drug Administration requires the informed consent process to include a description of 'reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant,' a spokesperson said. However, the FDA doesn't require trial plans to include procedures for long-term device follow-up and maintenance, although the spokesperson stated that the agency has requested those in the past.
While some informed consent forms say devices will be removed at a study's end, Lázaro-Muñoz said removal is ethically problematic when a device is helping a patient. Plus, he said, some trial participants told him and his colleagues that they didn't remember everything discussed during the consent process, partly because they were so focused on getting better.
Brandy Ellis, a 49-year-old in Boynton Beach, Florida, said she was desperate for healing when she joined a trial testing the same treatment Seeger got, which delivers an electrical current into the brain to treat severe depression. She was willing to sign whatever forms were necessary to get help after nothing else had worked.
'I was facing death,' she said. 'So it was most definitely consent at the barrel of a gun, which is true for a lot of people who are in a terminal condition.'
Patients risk losing a treatment of last resort
Ellis and Seeger, 64, both turned to DBS as a last resort after trying many approved
medications and treatments
.
'I got in the trial fully expecting it not to work because nothing else had. So I was kind of surprised when it did,' said Ellis, whose device was implanted in 2011 at Emory University in Atlanta. 'I am celebrating every single milestone because I'm like: This is all bonus life for me.'
She's now on her third battery. She needed surgery to replace two single-use ones, and the one she has now is rechargeable. She's lucky her insurance has covered the procedures, she said, but she worries it may not in the future.
'I can't count on any coverage because there's nothing that says even though I've had this and it works, that it has to be covered under my commercial or any other insurance,' said Ellis, who advocates for other former trial participants.
Even if companies still make replacement parts for older devices, she added, 'availability and accessibility are entirely different things,' given most people can't afford continued care without insurance coverage.
Seeger, whose device was implanted in 2012 at Emory, said she went without a working device for around four months when the insurance coverage her wife's job at Emory provided wouldn't pay for battery replacement surgery. Neither would Medicare, which generally only covers DBS for FDA-approved uses.
With her research team at Emory advocating for her, Seeger ultimately got financial help from the hospital's indigent care program and paid a few thousand dollars out of pocket.
She now has a rechargeable battery, and the device has been working well. But at any point, she said, that could change.
Federal cuts stall solutions
Lázaro-Muñoz hoped his work would protect people like Seeger and Ellis.
'We should do whatever we can as a society to be able to help them maintain their health,' he said.
Lázaro-Muñoz's project received about $987,800 from the National Institute of Mental Health in the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years and was already underway when he was notified of the NIH funding cut in May. He declined to answer questions about it.
Ellis said any delay in addressing the thorny issues around experimental brain devices hurts patients.
Planning at the beginning of a clinical trial about how to continue treatment and maintain devices, she said, would be much better than depending on the kindness of researchers and the whims of insurers.
'If this turns off, I get sick again. Like, I'm not cured,' she said. 'This is a treatment that absolutely works, but only as long as I've got a working device.'
____
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
3 Reasons to Buy Medtronic Stock
Key Points Medtronic is separating out its lower-margin diabetes care segment. It's also pouncing on a massive opportunity in robotic-assisted surgery. The healthcare leader has a terrific dividend-growth track record. 10 stocks we like better than Medtronic › Medical device specialist Medtronic (NYSE: MDT) has not been the best of investments over the past five years. The stock has significantly lagged the market over this period, thanks to weak business fundamentals, including slow revenue growth. The healthcare giant now faces additional obstacles, such as the threat of steeper tariffs due to President Donald Trump's aggressive trade policies. Even amid all that, Medtronic has plenty of redeeming qualities and could still be a solid investment for long-term investors. Here are three reasons why. 1. Medtronic is spinning off its diabetes care unit Medtronic recently announced that it will be spinning off its diabetes care unit, which will become a stand-alone, publicly traded company. Although sales of diabetes products have been growing faster than the rest of Medtronic's business, they have also been a drag on margins. During the company's fiscal year 2025, which ended on April 25, diabetes care accounted for 8% of revenue but only 4% of operating profits. Medtronic's other segments are not growing their sales as quickly, but they have more profitable margins. In an environment where the company may face higher manufacturing costs due to tariffs, management has chosen to focus on higher-margin opportunities. Diabetes care was also the healthcare specialist's only consumer-facing business; the others offer products to healthcare providers. The move could help Medtronic navigate the macroeconomic landscape better if Trump's tariffs remain in place. That's especially the case if the company can find other lucrative revenue growth opportunities. 2. A significant opportunity in robotic-assisted surgery Medtronic has been developing its robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system, Hugo, for years. It has been in use in other countries, though it's yet to get the regulatory nod in the United States. The medical device specialist decided to pursue this opportunity because the RAS market is severely underpenetrated. Intuitive Surgical's da Vinci system dominates the field and faces little competition for the range of procedures for which it's approved. Yet a couple of years ago, Medtronic pointed out that of all the procedures that could be performed robotically, fewer than 5% were. And over the long run, the demand for these kinds of surgeries will increase along with the world's aging population, since seniors are far more likely to face health issues that call for these kinds of interventions. The good news is that Medtronic's Hugo system recently completed clinical trials in the U.S. for urologic procedures. The company has requested clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that indication. It should be the first of many. The Hugo system could eventually become a crucial part of Medtronic's growth strategy and help improve its financial results over the long term, given the significant white space available in the industry. 3. A soon-to-be Dividend King Despite Medtronic's recent challenges, the company has continued to pay and raise its dividends. In fact, the company has raised dividends for 48 consecutive years. Most businesses don't survive nearly five decades, let alone pay dividends for that long. Medtronic's ability to do so speaks volumes about its underlying business. It's a well-established leader in its niche of the healthcare market, with significant footprint in the industry and a long and successful history of navigating this deeply regulated sector. All of those factors make Medtronic an excellent pick for income-seeking investors. It should continue rewarding shareholders with payout increases for a long time -- and in two years, it should become a Dividend King. Medtronic may not be one of the most exciting artificial intelligence (AI) leaders capturing Wall Street's attention, although the company is implementing AI across its business in ways that could pay off in the long run. Regardless, its recent moves in shedding its diabetes care segment and seeking clearance for its Hugo system, along with its consistent dividend streak, make Medtronic a reliable company to invest in for the long haul. Do the experts think Medtronic is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Medtronic make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,019% vs. just 178% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 841.12%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Intuitive Surgical. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Intuitive Surgical. The Motley Fool recommends Medtronic and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $75 calls on Medtronic and short January 2026 $85 calls on Medtronic. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Reasons to Buy Medtronic Stock was originally published by The Motley Fool


New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Stop obsessing over protein goals — the latest health craze — and just enjoy your food
The cookbook section of any used bookstore is a museum of past health trends. Browse through the stock and you'll trace the rise and fall of nutritional villains: eggs, butter, red meat and more — first demonized, then rehabilitated by the next wave of experts. We've all seen America's food rules shift beneath our feet, as nutritional gospel one year becomes heresy the next. In 2025, we're in the era of protein. More specifically, we're in the era of more protein. Advertisement Inspired by bodybuilders, weight-lifters and hardcore health gurus, packing on the protein has gone mainstream. But while these athletes need the nutrient to build muscle and maintain their exercise routines, the average carpooling mom has no such requirement. Yet grocery-store shelves shout their macronutrient stats like badges of honor: '18 grams per serving!' 'Protein-rich!' Advertisement Social-media influencers cheerfully explain how to sneak ever more protein into cookies, pancakes and even ice cream; cottage cheese is the new star of the show, blended into everything from pasta sauce to dessert bars. Ads hawk 'gourmet protein powders' to be dumped into your morning latte. Many women's Instagram feeds have become a stream of 'high-protein lunchbox' reels and 'six ways to eat 100g of protein' posts. Advertisement I recently watched as one food blogger, a former champion of plant-based eating, crammed half a rotisserie chicken into her mouth on camera. Her caption: 'Gotta hit those protein goals!' Curious about my own goals, I calculated how much protein I'd need to eat in a day to meet the online experts' frequently cited benchmarks. The result was nauseating: seven eggs for breakfast, a whole chicken breast for lunch, meat again for dinner, plus multiple high-protein snacks — Greek yogurt, nuts, cottage cheese, protein bars — to stay on target. This isn't just a quirky health trend. It's disordered eating with a veneer of wellness. Advertisement That's not to say protein is bad for you; quite the opposite. It's a vital macronutrient, essential for muscle repair, hormone production and immune function; it also provides a sense of fullness after meals, helping to maintain a healthy weight. For growing kids, pregnant women, aging adults and those recovering from illness or intense exercise, protein is especially crucial. The problem isn't the nutrient itself, but the obsessive, all-consuming fixation on it. Consider this: For a healthy, active 175-pound man, the National Institutes of Health recommends about 63 grams of protein per day. But the popular MyFitnessPal website advises that same man to aim for 164 grams, well more than double the federal guideline. 'The average man in the United States is overshooting the federal protein recommendation by more than 55%,' says Alice Callahan, a New York Times health reporter who holds a nutrition PhD, 'and the average woman by more than 35%.' What happens to all that extra protein? The body can't store it. Instead, the liver converts the surplus into energy — and if that isn't used, packs it on as fat. Advertisement So if we're already getting enough, why the obsession? Maybe it has something to do with who's leading the conversation. A 2017 study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that 49.5% of registered dietitians were at risk for orthorexia nervosa, a condition marked by an unhealthy fixation on eating 'correctly.' Another 13% were at risk for traditional eating disorders like anorexia, and 8% had previously received treatment for them. Advertisement In other words, the very people we look to for food guidance may be struggling with disordered eating habits themselves. Women are more prone to eating disorders than men by orders of magnitude — and the current protein craze is largely female-led. Compared to other nutrition fads, the high-protein trend might seem harmless; after all, it's not demanding the total elimination of food groups, or promoting outright starvation. Advertisement However, it's steeped in the same obsessive mindset. When every bite must be justified by its protein content, when food becomes math instead of nourishment, something has gone wrong. A healthy approach to protein centers on real, unprocessed foods like eggs, fish, beans, nuts, meat and dairy — not processed powders with ingredients you can't pronounce, or bars that taste like compressed chalk. You don't need to count every gram or hit some arbitrary benchmark. Just eat a variety of whole foods, and you'll get what you need. Food fuels our bodies, but it's also meant to be enjoyed. We shouldn't have to choke down dry chicken or gag on cottage-cheese brownies in the name of health. Advertisement Because if wellness doesn't include balance, sanity and flexibility, it isn't wellness at all. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars and is a homeschooling mother of six in greater Washington, DC.


NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
UCLA says it is losing some federal research funding
The California university UCLA said Thursday that it has been notified that it is losing federal research funding over alleged antisemtism, a move the chancellor called "a loss for America." 'UCLA received a notice that the federal government, through its control of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies, is suspending certain research funding to UCLA,' university Chancellor Julio Frenk said in a message to the campus community. 'This is not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants. It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do,' he wrote. The announced notice comes as the Trump administration has sought to pressure or retaliate against universities across the country following student protests on college campuses about the war in Gaza. Some Republican members of Congress and others have called the protests and some of the conduct antisemitic. Frenk in his message to the UCLA community said that the federal government used antisemitism as its reason for the loss of funding. "In its notice to us, the federal government claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons. This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination," he wrote. UCLA announced Tuesday that it has agreed to pay $6 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged discrimination, and which was brought by Jewish students and a faculty member. The lawsuit filed in June 2024 accused the university of failing to take action when pro-Palestinian protesters set up encampments on campus that spring. Frenk wrote in the message to the Bruin community — as the UCLA community is known — that antisemitism has no place on campus but acknowledged room for improvement. He said that the university has taken steps to combat it, and put in place policies about student protests. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Thursday. Frenk in his message to the university did not say how much federal funding will be suspended. He highlighted important work done by UCLA, which included helping to create what would become the Internet, and he said researchers "are now building new technologies that could fuel entire industries and help safeguard our soldiers." President Donald Trump during his campaign pledged to crack down on universities because of student protests against the war in Gaza, which Israel launched against Hamas after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, that targeted Israeli civilians, including at a music festival. There is now a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and this week t he United Nations said the U.N.'s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, showed mounting evidence of a worsening famine there. The IPC emphasized that its warning constituted an alert and was not a formal 'famine classification.' Columbia University in New York City was among the universities targeted by the Trump administration over allegations of antisemitism, and last week Columbia announced a settlement with the federal government in an effort to restore cut federal funding. Brown University in Rhode Island said Wednesday that it reached an agreement with the federal government to restore funding. The university said that agreement resolves three reviews of Brown's 'compliance with federal nondiscrimination obligations.'