Saudi Arabia Reports Five Heat Exhaustion Cases Among Pilgrims, Urges Precautions Amid Soaring Temperatures
All those affected received immediate medical attention and are currently in a stable condition, according to the ministry of health, which added that health teams were on high alert to respond swiftly to similar cases as part of the Kingdom's commitment to safeguarding the health and safety of pilgrims.
The country's National Center for Meteorology has forecast hot to extremely hot weather conditions at the holy sites during this year's Hajj season.
According to the center, maximum temperatures are expected to range between 40°C and 47°C, while minimum temperatures will vary between 27°C and 32°C. Humidity levels are projected to fluctuate between 15 percent and 60 percent.
In a post on its X account, the ministry urged pilgrims to stay hydrated, avoid prolonged exposure to direct sunlight, and follow official health guidelines, such as using shaded walkways, wearing appropriate protective gear, and seeking help at the first signs of fatigue.
'If not treated promptly, heat exhaustion can escalate to heat stroke within 10-15 minutes — a life-threatening medical emergency,' the post stated.
The ministry also advised pilgrims who experience heat exhaustion symptoms to begin immediate cooling measures, such as washing their hands, faces and necks with cold water and moving to a cooler area, as well as drinking plenty of cold water to rehydrate.
In its post, the ministry identified headache, excessive sweating, nausea, dizziness, and severe thirst as key clinical symptoms of heat exhaustion.
Multilingual awareness campaigns have been launched, and field preparedness has been reinforced, particularly in response to seasonal heat risks.
The ministry had announced the health sector's readiness to receive pilgrims, revealing a 60 percent increase in bed capacity compared with last year.
Fahad Al-Jalajel, the minister of health, recently confirmed the deployment of over 50,000 medical and technical personnel to serve pilgrims and emphasized the stability of the health situation, with no reported outbreaks or epidemics, according to the Saudi Press Agency.
'Health efforts began early in pilgrims' homelands by analyzing international health risks and issuing clear health requirements, including vaccinations against yellow fever, meningitis, polio, COVID-19, and influenza,' SPA reported, citing Al-Jalajel.
The minister underscored the role of the health certificate as the first line of defense during the Hajj season, noting that the Kingdom's health system launched its services with the arrival of the first Makkah Route Initiative flight.
As part of the Kingdom's comprehensive preparations, 14 land, air, and sea ports have been fully equipped, delivering more than 50,000 health services so far, including 140 surgical procedures, 65 cardiac catheterizations, and six open-heart surgeries, the minister said.
To combat heatstroke risks, Al-Jalajel announced a series of measures in coordination with the Royal Commission for Makkah City and Holy Sites. These include planting more than 10,000 trees, installing 400 additional water coolers and misting fans, and expanding shaded pedestrian pathways to protect pilgrims from extreme heat.
The ministry of health has also intensified awareness efforts through multilingual campaigns, stationing field teams, launching media programs, and organizing medical missions to ensure important health information reaches all pilgrims.
Al-Jalajel further revealed the establishment of a new 200-bed emergency hospital in Mina, developed in collaboration with Kidana Development Co.
In addition, three new field hospitals with more than 1,200 beds have been set up in partnership with the ministries of national guard, defense, and interior.
These were inaugurated 'alongside 71 emergency points, 900 ambulances, 11 evacuation aircraft, and over 7,500 paramedics,' Al-Jalajel told SPA.
The minister urged pilgrims to follow health guidelines and affirmed that the Kingdom's health system is operating at full capacity to ensure a safe and healthy Hajj season for all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
6 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Most COVID Lung Abnormalities Heal Over Time, New Guidelines Confirm
Up to half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung abnormalities on chest CT scans long after the acute infection is over. Many fear these changes mean lasting damage or worsening lung disease. However, new guidelines on treating long COVID confirm that lung abnormalities usually stabilize or even improve over time. 'The lungs are an organ, like skin, that are in constant contact with the environment. Because of that, they have a significant amount of stem cells in reserve and cells ready for healing,' Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times. Researchers found that in patients with lung damage following a COVID-19 infection, around 90 percent who continued to show lung abnormalities at the time of hospital discharge began to see improvements one to three years after infection. After a COVID-19 infection, roughly six in 100 people are estimated to develop persistent symptoms that can last for months to years—a condition known as long COVID. Common complaints include fatigue, joint and muscle aches, breathlessness, headaches, and difficulty concentrating, often called 'brain fog.' Symptoms typically improve over time—usually within four to nine months. Lung recovery tends to follow a similar trajectory. After infection, the lungs can show changes that resemble scarring—such as inflammation, collapsed air sacs, or temporary thickening of lung tissue—but these often heal on their own, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of Independent Medical Alliance, who is not one of the authors of the treatment guideline, told The Epoch Times. Based on Varon's clinical experience, most patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-related lung issues show improvement on scans and of symptoms within three to six months. However, he noted that some people, especially older adults or those who had severe illness, can have lingering lung changes or symptoms for a year or more. In COVID-19, the early lung damage is mostly due to inflammation, not permanent destruction, he said. Once the infection clears and inflammation goes down, the lungs can start to heal, absorbing fluid and repairing tissue, a process that can take several months. 'The body has the capacity to heal,' Dr. Pierre Kory, founder of Leading Edge Clinic, which treats long COVID patients, told The Epoch Times. COVID is typically an acute illness that heals over time rather than a chronic inflammatory condition—though in some cases, lingering lung inflammation or fibrosis can persist, he said. Many post-COVID lung changes seen in scans are not signs of permanent damage. They often reflect the lung's natural healing process after inflammation, similar to what's seen in other viral pneumonias or recovery from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Over time, these abnormalities often fade as the tissue repairs itself. Unlike chronic conditions such as interstitial lung disease, which involve ongoing triggers and progressive scarring, post-COVID changes are typically non-progressive. However, older patients who had been on mechanical ventilation or had severe or critical initial infection were more likely to have persistent lung changes, possibly due to the extent of initial lung injury. Chest CT scans often reveal lung changes long after COVID-19 infection that may look severe on imaging. These include ground glass opacities, which are hazy areas suggesting inflammation, or fibrous strands, thin bands of tissue left over from healing. However, many of these findings are residual effects from the infection, not signs of irreversible damage. 'Radiologic findings often lag behind clinical recovery and must be interpreted within a broader clinical framework,' said Varon, 'I have seen patients that have 'white lungs' for months and are doing well.' The disconnect between imaging and the actual patient condition may lead to confusion, unnecessary follow-up, or even overtreatment of long COVID. 'Some patients report persistent symptoms despite near-normal imaging,' Varon said, likely due to lingering viral effects or nervous system issues rather than actual lung damage. 'The key takeaway is that both lung damage and symptoms often improve—but not always in synchrony, and not always completely,' he said. That's why an individualized, symptom-based follow-up approach remains essential in managing long COVID patients. The new guidelines specifically address the tendency to over-interpret nonspecific findings as signs of progressive lung disease. The new consensus advises using CT only when clinically indicated, such as in patients with persistent or worsening respiratory symptoms. Mislabeling can also lead to costly treatments, repeated imaging, and even affect life insurance or disability claims. 'These medications can cost up to $60,000 per year—and patients may not really need them,' Varon said. The new guidelines suggest providers request follow-up chest CT only in patients whose respiratory symptoms persist or worsen three months after infection, with those symptoms lasting at least two months and with no other identifiable cause. They also recommend low-dose protocols for follow-up imaging to reduce radiation exposure. CT was invaluable early in the pandemic, especially when RT-PCR testing was unreliable, Varon said, but its continued use in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic long COVID patients is often unnecessary. The guidelines also urge radiologists to avoid using terms such as 'fibrosis' or 'interstitial lung disease,' which often imply progressive or permanent scarring, when describing nonspecific residual findings. The bigger concern, Kory said, is the tendency to over-label nonspecific findings, like ground-glass opacities or mild fibrotic changes, as definitive signs of fibrotic interstitial lung disease. 'I see this in my practice every single day,' he said. 'These interpretations can trigger unnecessary anxiety, inappropriate referrals, and misguided treatment plans.' Kory takes a symptom-focused approach, monitoring patients clinically and repeating imaging only if conditions worsen. 'My experience in general is that yes, most things in medicine are overused, including imaging,' he said.
Gulf Insider
08-08-2025
- Gulf Insider
Americans Reject Fall COVID Shot, Don't Trust CDC Or FDA
A new KFF (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation) poll reveals that the majority of Americans do not intend to get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, and less than half trust the CDC or FDA to ensure vaccine safety. The nationwide erosion of confidence in federal health agencies and their pharmaceutical partnerships is welcomed by those who have long called for accountability, transparency, and the restoration of informed consent in American Say 'No' to COVID Vaccine According to the KFF Health Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust, conducted July 8–14, 2025: 59% of U.S. adults say they will either 'definitely not' or 'probably not' receive a COVID-19 vaccine this fall. Only 21% say they will 'definitely get' the shot. Republicans are the least likely to receive the vaccine, with 59% stating they will 'definitely not' take it. Among White adults, 42% say they will 'definitely not' get the shot. These findings follow a growing body of evidence discrediting the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. 📊 Americans Say 'No' to COVID Shot as Trust in CDC, FDA Crumbles🚨 59% of Americans refuse the fall COVID jab📉 Fewer than half trust CDC/FDA on vaccine safety🧠 Even The Hill is admitting it—kind ofIn this report, I break down the KFF poll, the media spin, RFK Jr.'s… — Jon Fleetwood (@JonMFleetwood) August 5, 2025 A recent JAMA Health Forum study admitted that the shots 'saved far fewer lives than first thought,' especially in younger shots have been linked to 38,709 deaths, 221,030 hospitalizations, and a total of 1,665,264 injuries—though these numbers represent less than 1% of actual adverse events, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-commissioned report by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare. These staggering figures may help explain why a clear majority of Americans are now refusing the shot. Just 49% of U.S. adults say they have confidence in federal health agencies like the CDC and FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. Only 42% believe these agencies make decisions based on science rather than the personal views of agency officials. Just 37% believe the CDC and FDA act independently, without influence from outside interests. These numbers reflect the ongoing fallout from the COVID-19 response, which congressional investigators recently confirmed involved the CDC and White House using 'deeply flawed' messaging and 'overpromising' vaccine safety 'without evidence.' This collapse in public trust is unsurprising given the government's admitted reliance on arbitrary '6-feet' distancing rules, unproven mask mandates, and harmful lockdowns—none of which were grounded in transparent science, but all of which inflicted lasting damage on public health, the economy, and institutional credibility, according to a two-year investigation by the Congressional Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Public awareness of recent changes to U.S. vaccine policy remains limited, despite multiple headlines since the appointment of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—likely due to mainstream media blackout, institutional resistance, and a legacy press unwilling to cover reforms that threaten the pharmaceutical establishment. (This is why independent media is so important.) 52% say RFK Jr. has made changes to U.S. vaccine policy. Only 26% describe those changes as 'major.' 40% say they don't know enough to characterize the changes. Among parents, confusion is also evident: In fact, the CDC's updated guidance does not formally recommend the shot for healthy children, stating the decision should be made between the provider and the family. 48% are unsure whether federal agencies are currently recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children this fall. When asked whether RFK Jr.'s changes will make Americans safer: 36% said the changes will make people less safe. 20% said they will make people safer. 31% said they don't know enough to say. 13% believe the changes will not make a difference. The response is largely partisan: 62% of Democrats say RFK Jr.'s changes make people less safe. 41% of Republicans say the changes will make people safer. This split comes despite Kennedy's sweeping reforms—including pulling the CDC's COVID shot recommendation for children and pregnant women, banning mercury in flu vaccines, blocking the WHO's pandemic treaty, defunding Gates-linked GAVI, ending coercive hospital vaccine incentives, and firing all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel—each a bold move to restore public health integrity and medical freedom. However, health realists are still waiting for Kennedy to pull the deadly COVID shots from the market. The most trusted source for vaccine information remains personal healthcare providers: 83% of Americans say they trust their doctor 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount.' Trust in government entities is notably lower: CDC: 57% Local public health departments: 62% State government officials: 43% HHS Secretary RFK Jr.: 37% However, RFK Jr. holds strong support among Republicans: 70% of Republicans trust RFK Jr. for vaccine information. Among MAGA-aligned Republicans, that figure rises to 77%. By contrast, only 11% of Democrats say they trust RFK Jr. Among adults who do plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, concerns about access are more common. But for the general population: Only 33% are concerned the vaccine might not be available. Only 34% of insured adults are concerned their insurance might not cover it. Among those unlikely to get the shot, concerns about access are negligible: Just 11% worry about vaccine availability. Only 14% are concerned about insurance coverage. This poll comes as the FDA expands its fast-track drug approval pipeline, clearing drugs for use in as little as 30 days. The agency has also confirmed plans to bypass normal clinical trial requirements for a new bird flu vaccine, using the same Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway as it did with the COVID shots. In this regulatory environment, the KFF data reflects what many have long warned: Americans are rejecting medical coercion, questioning agency integrity, and demanding informed consent. The message from the American people is clear: we're done being lied to, we're done being experimented on, and we're done trusting captured agencies to protect us—this is the beginning of a public health reckoning, and it's long overdue. Also read: Kremlin Confirms Trump-Putin Meeting 'In Coming Days', Possibly In UAE
Gulf Insider
07-08-2025
- Gulf Insider
The American Academy Of Pediatrics: Mining Children
American healthcare is currently providing us with an excellent lesson in what capitalism looks like in the absence of a moral framework. The biggest losers are America's children… The Union Profiting from Childhood Sickness The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children's faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP's members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner. The loss of trust in the medical profession since 2020 is fortunately removing the misconception that AAP-like medical societies were primarily altruistic, dedicated to the welfare of others rather than their members. The recent publication of AAP priorities, developed by its membership, should reinforce this loss of trust and so, despite its unusual callousness of approach, serve ultimately to strengthen public health by exposing more clearly the motivations of those profiting from rising illness. The AAP's first stated priority is to remove parents from any authority when it comes to decisions on whether to inject their children with various substances produced commercially by its sponsors. While this should be ridiculous, it has some chance of succeeding as the ultimate beneficiaries, apart from pediatricians, are the same pharmaceutical manufacturers who heavily sponsor the election campaigns of most members of the US Congress. Of relevance, promoting or abetting chronic disease in children ensures almost certain chronic disease through adulthood. The AAP is therefore helping to set up lifelong pharmaceutical consumers. Pharma companies are purely for-profit entities, and this is exactly what their CEOs and executives are charged by their shareholders with promoting. The AAP is simply acting as a very willing enabler. The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared 'expert' decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it). However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children. Firstly, what is not there. Among the ten priorities of the AAP of which the elimination of parental rights or religious or cultural exemptions over vaccination of children is the highest, there is not a single mention of what are perhaps the three most prominent issues facing children today, and widely discussed publicly; increasing obesity and the epidemic of autism that the CDC heralds as of extraordinary proportions. While the AAP notes this problem elsewhere, it concentrates on identification and management rather than cause identification. Nowhere among its ten priorities is there any expression of interest in identifying and addressing the causes of rising chronic illness. The closest is a mention of lower costs for childhood insulin injections. The AAP's priority list ignores diet and reducing levels of physical activity while actively promoting medicalization, seemingly oblivious to the quite catastrophic reduction in health status of the very populations they claim to be serving. Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary. The justification reported from AAP President Kyle E. Yasuda, M.D., FAAP for removing any remaining personal choice regarding prophylactic medical treatment (vaccination) is 'the measles outbreaks' in North America in recent years. Jesse Hackell, MD, chair of the AAP's Committee on Pediatric Workforce, notes that they were associated with the deaths of two children, the first in 'many years.' The AAP simply states, regarding safety, that vaccines are 'safe,' a stupid claim in medicine and biology in that adverse events do occur to injected organic substances and metal salts, and they vary from person to person (if rare events occur, then 'safe' is a relative term). Associations with recent DTP injection and sudden infant death are, for example, fairly well documented. Regarding measles, it is likely that many AAP members mean well, but are genuinely misinformed regarding the impact of mass vaccination. In wealthy countries including the United States, nearly all measles mortality ceased before mass vaccination was commenced. This is not controversial – it was once stressed in medical school and is well established in national health statistics. An underlying improvement in nutrition, particularly in micronutrient deficiencies, was a likely reason. Mass vaccination then greatly reduced circulation of the measles virus, but could have only a limited impact on overall mortality. Therefore, weighing costs of vaccination (adverse events) against a very low likelihood of averting early death or disability is a real issue, and to ignore it by just reiterating 'safe and effective' is ignorant and foolish. Measles vaccination is good at stopping transmission because it is very effective at preventing infections from being established. This efficacy is significant to the argument that having many vaccinated is a public good. Nearly all vaccinated people will be protected, and at no risk from the unvaccinated. Thus, mass measles vaccination really only makes sense if it is accepted that people should not have freedom to choose over their own bodies and healthcare, or that of their children. The very low measles mortality, far lower than drowning even before mass vaccination commenced in the United States, effectively removed an argument for overriding parental rights. Unless, of course, we are also going to ban children from swimming or walking near rivers or on a beach. Lastly, regarding concerns over vaccination, many parents are uncomfortable with the role of cells harvested from induced aborted fetuses, often still alive at the time of harvesting. Again, many AAP members may believe the rhetoric that this is untrue, but nonetheless it is factual. It is how we derive cell cultures to develop many vaccines, so the DNA of these dead unborn humans can still contaminate the injection. The AAP, as an institution, officially holds that cultural and religious concerns arising from this should be overridden. So, in the end, the AAP's argument seems to come down to one of two possible drivers. Either (1) they have an ideological belief that they should simply be the authority or decision-makers on children's healthcare rather than parents (a medical-fascist approach), or (2) they see their role as promoting an extremely lucrative market for their sponsors, from which they also directly benefit, and setting children up for an entire lifetime of chronic illness and pharmaceutical consumption. It is challenging to decide which is less noble. A third possibility is also possible. Most AAP members are simply going with the flow and have not actually stopped to think through the implications of their union's policies. However, the motivation for willfully ignoring rational thought probably does come down to a mixture of money and ego, which goes back to the two potential drivers mentioned above. The AAP will almost certainly continue its path of child polypharmacy, blind adherence to protocols based on the products of their sponsors, and denigration and exclusion of the opinions of parents who recognize the stark reality of deteriorating health in North American children. Parents reading the AAP's list of priorities would be foolhardy to then entrust their children to such care. Providing that politicians retain integrity and respect freedoms that most assumed were guaranteed in the US Constitution and through basic human rights norms, the AAP will fail in its endeavors and become increasingly irrelevant to public discourse. If they get their way, we will return further toward an approach we thought we had fought wars to overcome. Fundamental rights of each human to make their own way in life, and protect and oversee their children, underpin any decent societal model. In fascist societies, such decisions are removed and taken into the hands of experts and authoritarian institutions. The people must simply comply as slaves. Medical professions and their academies have a long history of supporting such approaches, and the AAP seems increasingly determined to replicate that path. It should receive all the respect that such an indecent approach deserves. Also read: Most Americans Won't Get COVID-19 Booster This Fall, Survey Says
