Miller Gardner: Toxicology Report Determines Cause Of Death For Ex-Yankee's Son
Carbon monoxide poisoning killed the 14-year-old son of former New York Yankees star Brett Gardner, a Costa Rican official announced on Wednesday.
A toxicology report confirmed lethal levels of carboxyhemoglobin ― a compound that forms in exposure cases ― in the blood of Miller Gardner, the official said in a statement reported by CRHoy.com.
Miller died in a hotel room March 21 while on vacation in Costa Rica with his family.
Randall Zúñiga, director of the Judicial Investigation Agency, said the autopsy found a 'layer' on the boy's organs that is normally present when someone is exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide, Associated Press reported.
'It's important to note that adjacent to this room is a dedicated machine room, where it's believed there may be some type of contamination toward these rooms,' Zúñiga said, per AP.
Earlier this week Zúñiga pointed to carbon monoxide as the likely cause of death.
The official added Wednesday that additional tests were conducted to detect substances such as fentanyl and they came back negative, according to CRHoy.com.
The tragic circumstance and twists in the case grabbed the nation's attention for weeks.
After the entire family felt unwell the previous night following dinner at a local restaurant, authorities initially believed the teen died of 'asphyxiation due to intoxication related to food poisoning. Then that was ruled out.
Miller was an honor roll student who played baseball and football at Pinewood Preparatory School in Summerville, South Carolina, according to his obituary.
A 'private celebration of life' for Miller is being planned, the obit reported.
Brett Gardner played 14 years as an outfielder for the Yankees, including the World Series-winning 2009 season.
Death Probe Of Ex-Yankee Star's Son Takes Another Disturbing Turn
New Details Revealed On Cause Of Death Of Ex-Yankee Brett Gardner's Son (Update)
Former Yankees Star Brett Gardner's Teen Son Dies After Unexpected Illness
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Business Upturn
3 days ago
- Business Upturn
Cardio Slim Tea Introduces Herbal Blend Inspired by Costa Rican Wellness Traditions
By GlobeNewswire Published on June 7, 2025, 02:58 IST Austin, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cardio Slim Tea, a wellness-focused beverage company, today announced the release of a new herbal tea blend inspired by Costa Rican cultural traditions centered around mindful living and natural daily rituals. Formulated with a focus on simplicity and nature, Cardio Slim Tea features plant-based ingredients long associated with lifestyle practices that encourage moments of balance and reflection. The tea is designed to be part of a broader wellness routine that emphasizes calm and intentional self-care. 'Our vision was to create a wellness tea that reflects time-tested herbal knowledge and the simplicity of natural living,' said a spokesperson for Cardio Slim Tea. 'We believe that Cardio Slim Tea can support mindful daily rituals rooted in nourishment and reflection.' The caffeine-free blend is available in both loose-leaf and bagged formats and contains no artificial ingredients or preservatives. It is crafted with convenience and ritual in mind, making it suitable for regular enjoyment throughout the day. Key product characteristics include: Botanical ingredients inspired by Costa Rican wellness customs Thoughtfully formulated for lifestyle-focused routines Naturally caffeine-free and free from artificial preservatives Available in both loose-leaf and bagged formats 'Many individuals are seeking approachable ways to reconnect with daily moments of calm,' added the Cardio Slim Tea spokesperson. 'This tea is intended to complement that intention.' Additional product details and preparation suggestions are available on the company's official website at About Cardio Slim Tea Cardio Slim Tea is a wellness beverage company focused on blending traditional herbal inspiration with modern convenience. With a commitment to clean ingredient sourcing and thoughtful formulation, the company offers plant-based teas that support everyday rituals of simplicity and balance. For more information, visit MEDIA CONTACT [email protected] Phone: +971 058 5015 926 Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. GlobeNewswire provides press release distribution services globally, with substantial operations in North America and Europe.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Game theory explains why reasonable parents make vaccine choices that fuel outbreaks
When outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles occur despite highly effective vaccines being available, it's easy to conclude that parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided, selfish or have fallen prey to misinformation. As professors with expertise in vaccine policy and health economics, we argue that the decision not to vaccinate isn't simply about misinformation or hesitancy. In our view, it involves game theory, a mathematical framework that helps explain how reasonable people can make choices that collectively lead to outcomes that endanger them. Game theory reveals that vaccine hesitancy is not a moral failure, but simply the predictable outcome of a system in which individual and collective incentives aren't properly aligned. Game theory examines how people make decisions when their outcomes depend on what others choose. In his research on the topic, Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash, portrayed in the movie 'A Beautiful Mind, showed that in many situations, individually rational choices don't automatically create the best outcome for everyone. Vaccination decisions perfectly illustrate this principle. When a parent decides whether to vaccinate their child against measles, for instance, they weigh the small risk of vaccine side effects against the risks posed by the disease. But here's the crucial insight: The risk of disease depends on what other parents decide. If nearly everyone vaccinates, herd immunity – essentially, vaccinating enough people – will stop the disease's spread. But once herd immunity is achieved, individual parents may decide that not vaccinating is the less risky option for their kid. In other words, because of a fundamental tension between individual choice and collective welfare, relying solely on individual choice may not achieve public health goals. This makes vaccine decisions fundamentally different from most other health decisions. When you decide whether to take medication for high blood pressure, your outcome depends only on your choice. But with vaccines, everyone is connected. This interconnectedness has played out dramatically in Texas, where the largest U.S. measles outbreak in a decade originated. As vaccination rates dropped in certain communities, the disease – once declared eliminated in the U.S. – returned. One county's vaccination rate fell from 96% to 81% over just five years. Considering that about 95% of people in a community must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the decline created perfect conditions for the current outbreak. This isn't coincidence; it's game theory playing out in real time. When vaccination rates are high, not vaccinating seems rational for each individual family, but when enough families make this choice, collective protection collapses. This dynamic creates what economists call a free rider problem. When vaccination rates are high, an individual might benefit from herd immunity without accepting even the minimal vaccine risks. Game theory predicts something surprising: Even with a hypothetically perfect vaccine – faultless efficacy, zero side effects – voluntary vaccination programs will never achieve 100% coverage. Once coverage is high enough, some rational individuals will always choose to be free riders, benefiting from the herd immunity provided by others. And when rates drop – as they have, dramatically, over the past five years – disease models predict exactly what we're seeing: the return of outbreaks. Game theory reveals another pattern: For highly contagious diseases, vaccination rates tend to decline rapidly following safety concerns, while recovery occurs much more slowly. This, too, is a mathematical property of the system because decline and recovery have different incentive structures. When safety concerns arise, many parents get worried at the same time and stop vaccinating, causing vaccination rates to drop quickly. But recovery is slower because it requires both rebuilding trust and overcoming the free rider problem – each parent waits for others to vaccinate first. Small changes in perception can cause large shifts in behavior. Media coverage, social networks and health messaging all influence these perceptions, potentially moving communities toward or away from these critical thresholds. Mathematics also predicts how people's decisions about vaccination can cluster. As parents observe others' choices, local norms develop – so the more parents skip the vaccine in a community, the more others are likely to follow suit. Game theorists refer to the resulting pockets of low vaccine uptake as susceptibility clusters. These clusters allow diseases to persist even when overall vaccination rates appear adequate. A 95% statewide or national average could mean uniform vaccine coverage, which would prevent outbreaks. Alternatively, it could mean some areas with near-100% coverage and others with dangerously low rates that enable local outbreaks. All this means that the dramatic fall in vaccination rates was predicted by game theory – and therefore more a reflection of system vulnerability than of a moral failure of individuals. What's more, blaming parents for making selfish choices can also backfire by making them more defensive and less likely to reconsider their views. Much more helpful would be approaches that acknowledge the tensions between individual and collective interests and that work with, rather than against, the mental calculations informing how people make decisions in interconnected systems. Research shows that communities experiencing outbreaks respond differently to messaging that frames vaccination as a community problem versus messaging that implies moral failure. In a 2021 study of a community with falling vaccination rates, approaches that acknowledged parents' genuine concerns while emphasizing the need for community protection made parents 24% more likely to consider vaccinating, while approaches that emphasized personal responsibility or implied selfishness actually decreased their willingness to consider it. This confirms what game theory predicts: When people feel their decision-making is under moral attack, they often become more entrenched in their positions rather than more open to change. Understanding how people weigh vaccine risks and benefits points to better approaches to communication. For example, clearly conveying risks can help: The 1-in-500 death rate from measles far outweighs the extraordinarily rare serious vaccine side effects. That may sound obvious, but it's often missing from public discussion. Also, different communities need different approaches – high-vaccination areas need help staying on track, while low-vaccination areas need trust rebuilt. Consistency matters tremendously. Research shows that when health experts give conflicting information or change their message, people become more suspicious and decide to hold off on vaccines. And dramatic scare tactics about disease can backfire by pushing people toward extreme positions. Making vaccination decisions visible within communities – through community discussions and school-level reporting, where possible – can help establish positive social norms. When parents understand that vaccination protects vulnerable community members, like infants too young for vaccines or people with medical conditions, it helps bridge the gap between individual and collective interests. Health care providers remain the most trusted source of vaccine information. When providers understand game theory dynamics, they can address parents' concerns more effectively, recognizing that for most people, hesitancy comes from weighing risks rather than opposing vaccines outright. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Y. Tony Yang, George Washington University and Avi Dor, George Washington University Read more: Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease Driving the best possible bargain now isn't the best long-term strategy, according to game theory Measles is one of the deadliest and most contagious infectious diseases – and one of the most easily preventable The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
