Parents Were Pushing for Safer Foods Long Before RFK Jr.'s MAHA
One of President Joe Biden's final acts was to ban the dye Red No. 3. Considering that it was first linked to cancer more than 30 years ago, this had a lot of people asking, 'what took so long?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient.
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
NIH plans heat up animal testing debate
WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya elaborated on his strategic priorities for the National Institutes of Health on Friday — and drew criticism from some animal rights advocates. His strategy focuses on plans Bhattacharya and his boss, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have previously touted, like prioritizing nutrition research, advancing artificial intelligence, focusing on research reproducibility and shifting to solutions-based health disparities research. 'Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, entrusted to NIH officials to invest in the nation's future,' Bhattacharya wrote in a statement published on NIH's website. 'By transparently establishing priorities and aligning our goals, we aim to demonstrate to the American public that we take this commitment seriously — and that we are doing all we can to honor their trust.' Falling short: But one priority area — moving away from animal testing in favor of alternative models and establishing an office to develop, validate and deploy those methods — was a sore point for animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. From PETA's vantage point, Bhattacharya's plan didn't go far enough. 'Dramatic change is essential, as we've seen how 'enhancing oversight' is a laugh-into-your-sleeve exercise, and 'considering non-animal methods' is a check box,' Kathy Guillermo, PETA's senior vice president of laboratory investigations, said in a statement. 'PETA urges him to remember that at the highest levels of the Trump administration, there are well-placed people rooting for NIH to break with career animal experimenters.' Animal testing state of play: In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a persistent critic of animal testing at the health agencies and co-sponsored 2022 legislation with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to permit drugmakers to use alternative methods to test their products. The health agencies have not shied away from the issue or from animal rights groups. Among the first policies that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration announced this spring was a move away from animal testing for research and drug development. According to public calendar disclosures, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with PETA in July. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. The Pete & Bobby Challenge. HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth are challenging Americans to complete 50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under 10 minutes. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. EXAM ROOM Health insurance companies pay vastly different prices for health services from one another— even when they're performed at the same hospital. Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, two of the largest health insurers in the U.S., negotiated rates for six inpatient procedures that varied by an average ratio of 9.1 nationwide, according to a report by health data analytics firm Trilliant Health. Sticker shock: The median rate for a coronary bypass — with no catheterization or major complications — is $68,194. However, negotiated rates ranged from $27,683 to $247,902. Rates even varied within the same health system. For example, Aetna pays $166,288 for a patient with diabetes to have major heart bypass surgery using a minimally invasive technique at Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, while UnitedHealthcare pays about half that rate. The report also found no correlation between aggregate measures of cost and quality within a sample of 10 top-tier hospitals. Health systems that have similar quality in care might have wildly different negotiated rates for the same health services, according to the report. High-quality care? The data raises questions about whether insurers deliver the best value for patient care. 'It actually creates a fiduciary duty for the employers to be using this sort of information to make sure they're providing high-value health benefits to their employees,' said Allison Oakes, chief research officer at Trilliant Health, who worked on the report. She believes that this data could help reduce some price disparity. 'The hope is we start to see some of this variation in prices shrink, which, without changing quality or access, could actually reduce spending by quite a bit,' she said. Unintended effect: Ben Handel, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that this kind of price transparency could lead to negotiated rates homogenizing. However, it might not necessarily bring down prices, he said. 'The other potential scenario is it raises prices,' he said. He notes that insurers' incentives vary by context. For example, when administrating a self-insured plan — where employers directly pay health costs and insurers provide only the network — they earn a percentage of each claim. 'Raising costs makes you more money,' said Handel.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran faces tough choice: Drink from the poisoned chalice or risk more strikes
Tehran often seemed to try to bluff its way forward, pretending it had lost nothing and was not much weaker in the world's eyes, while demanding "compensation" for the war. Iran has been squirming and kicking since its war with Israel – in which the IDF and the US air forces set its nuclear program back two years, took its ballistic missile program down several notches, and killed many of Iran's top military and intelligence officials – ended on June 24. After the war, Iran expelled the IAEA and refused to re-engage them for over a month. The Islamic Republic refused to talk to the US. It was willing to speak to the United Kingdom, Germany, and France (the E-3), but not in a real way that addressed its new dilemmas of losing much of its leverage. In fact, Tehran often seemed to bluff its way forward, pretending it had lost nothing and was not much weaker in the world's eyes, while demanding 'compensation' for the war. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is only the supreme leader in Iran. After years of playing nice with Khamenei out of fear that he might threaten them, the E-3 are now treating Tehran like the threat that it is – threatening it in return with a snapback of global sanctions by August 29 if it does not make some real concessions. This is a sort of checkmate for Iran because it has no cards to play this time. Anytime the IAEA or E3 condemned or threatened it in the past, it would build more nuclear centrifuges and enrich more uranium, making the West pay a price for applying pressure. But Israel has damaged its nuclear program so comprehensively, and Iran continues to be vulnerable in terms of lacking air defenses, meaning that it would take several months or maybe even a period of years for it to make any new meaningful nuclear progress. Any progress Iran makes would be baby steps Even then the progress would only constitute baby steps toward restoring what it had before Israel and the US set it back around two years – probably how long it would take to get fully back to where it was. And that is unlikely to happen because the Islamic Republic knows that Israel can and will strike again long before it gets close to the nuclear bomb threshold again. It could pull out the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but that threat carries much less weight than it did before the June war because now its nuclear program lies in shambles. So it can either concede giving up uranium enrichment for some period of time upfront – the ultimate and more permanent concession – or jump at the E3's interim concessions offer. The interim offer is: to extend the expiration of the global sanctions snapback mechanism by around six months from October 2025 until April 2026. By that time, Khamenei can hope that US President Donald Trump's attention will have deflected to something else. Who knows? Maybe the snapback may be extended more than once, and Khamenei can hope that a new and less aggressive leadership may emerge in Israel – though Israel is rather united regarding Iran. Iran's toughest hardliners will not like "rewarding" Israel Of course, extending the snapback may mean agreeing to a kind of unsaid uranium enrichment freeze for the next 6-8 months, but right now Iran is still digging through rubble and cannot enrich uranium anyway. Also, Iran's toughest hardliners will not like 'rewarding' Israel and the West for their attacks and may be leery of agreeing to let the West hold the snapback threat over it for another round of negotiations – but what are its alternatives? Of course, Khamenei faced a somewhat similar dilemma in June and decided to test Israeli and American resolve. It would seem that since nearly all of the military and intelligence people who advised him to stand tough against the West are now dead, he is now more likely to listen to the still-alive 'pragmatic' camp of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, which is telling him that talks are his only option to avoid another war and to stay alive. Either way, it seems that Khamenei can either 'drink from the poisoned chalice' of diplomatic concessions – a phrase coined by his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, when he cut a weak end-of-war deal with Iraq in 1988 – or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly. Solve the daily Crossword
