Living at Mar-a-Lago puts Trump at risk for this major health issue, according to a new study
President Trump's most recent annual physical revealed he's in 'excellent health,' going so far as to point to his 'frequent victories in golf events' as evidence.
But a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests his love of the game and residence at Mar-a-Lago may be putting him at risk of an unexpected health condition.
3 President Trump's recent annual physical revealed he's in 'excellent health,' noting his 'frequent victories in golf events.'
AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
Living within a mile of a golf course carries a whopping 126% higher risk of developing Parkinson's disease versus living more than 6 miles away, according to data from over 5,500 people.
The risk decreased with distance but remained elevated up to 3 miles away.
Advertisement
Researchers attribute this increased risk to potential exposure to pesticides used in golf course maintenance.
These chemicals can leach into groundwater or become airborne, exposing nearby residents.
The risk was notably higher for individuals relying on groundwater sources for drinking water, especially in areas where the groundwater is more susceptible to contamination.
Mar-a-Lago — Trump's private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida — features a golf course and is situated in a region with a high water table, potentially increasing vulnerability to groundwater contamination.
Advertisement
3 Mar-a-Lago — Trump's private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida — features a golf course and is situated in a region with a high water table.
Getty Images
It's important to note that the study suggests an association, not causation, between proximity to golf courses and increased Parkinson's risk — but the findings align with previous research on pesticides.
'Many studies have investigated whether pesticides increase the risk of developing Parkinson's in different populations around the world,' Katherine Fletcher, lead researcher at Parkinson's UK, said in a statement.
'The results have been varied, but overall suggest that exposure to pesticides may increase the risk of the condition. However, the evidence is not strong enough to show that pesticide exposure directly causes Parkinson's.'
Advertisement
3 Around 1.1 million people in the US are estimated to have Parkinson's disease.
highwaystarz – stock.adobe.com
Around 1.1 million Americans are estimated to have Parkinson's.
While there is no cure for the neurodegenerative disorder, treatment options are evolving.
A recent study suggested psilocybin — the psychedelic compound that gave 'magic mushrooms' their trippy reputation in the 1960s — is showing serious promise for improving mood and motor function in people with Parkinson's.
Tavapadon — a new drug that mimics dopamine by targeting certain receptors in the brain — has demonstrated potential in clinical trials by reducing motor fluctuations and maintaining symptom control with fewer side effects than traditional therapies.
And Produodopa — a continuous infusion therapy first administered in the UK — was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration last fall.
Advertisement
Experts recommend lowering your risk of developing Parkinson's by exercising and eating a healthy diet.
That may mean giving up fast food — fore-ever.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
38 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Widely-used drug can seriously increase women's odds of living to age 90
Time to re-up that AARP subscription. A popular prescription drug already in millions of medicine cabinets could be the key to unlocking a longer life for women. New research published in the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences found that those taking this widely-used diabetes drug had a great shot at making it to the big 9-0. JackF – No, it's not Ozempic — it's called metformin, and almost 20 million Americans are estimated to be taking it to help manage their Type 2 diabetes. Like other diabetes drugs, this decades-old, dirt-cheap medication works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Also used to treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), metformin has often been hailed as a 'wonder drug' due to its other health benefits, including improving fertility in women, aiding in weight management and even reducing the risks of heart disease and certain cancers. This new study set its sights on promising research indicating it may also have anti-aging effects. Researchers analyzed the data of 438 postmenopausal women — half of whom were on metformin, the other half of whom took another diabetes drug called sulfonylurea. Like other diabetes drugs, metformin works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Halfpoint – They found that those in the metformin group had a 30% higher chance of making it to 90 when compared to the sulfonylurea group. The study has a few limitations, the most notable of which is that it had no control group — meaning none of the participants weren't on diabetes medication — as well as a relatively small sample size. However, one of its strengths was a follow-up period of 14-15 years, which is much longer than the average randomized controlled trial. All told, the new study adds to an increasing body of research on the geroscience hypothesis, which posits that 'biological aging is malleable and that slowing biological aging may delay or prevent the onset of multiple age-related diseases and disability,' the researchers wrote. The new study backs up previous research published last year which showed that metformin can slow aging and also prevent disease in healthy older adults. 'I don't know if metformin increases lifespan in people, but the evidence that exists suggests that it very well might,' Steven Austad, a senior scientific adviser at the American Federation for Aging Research who studies the biology of agin, told NPR. While scientists figure out how to biohack our systems, this little pill may just propel you into your golden years.
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump's research budget plan hits the ringer
WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya offered a lukewarm defense of the 40 percent cut the Trump administration has proposed for his agency during testimony before a Senate Appropriations panel Tuesday. Asked to defend the administration's fiscal 2026 budget plan, which also calls for a major agency reorganization, Bhattacharya repeatedly demurred, saying 'the budget is a collaboration between Congress and the administration.' Bhattcharya also distanced himself from President Donald Trump's fight with universities and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which led a cost-cutting campaign before Bhattacharya's March confirmation. Bhattacharya called that period — when the NIH proposed to cap the rates it pays university grantees to cover their administrative costs, laid off hundreds of probationary workers, and began an assault on universities Trump accuses of anti-semitism — 'a very bumpy time.' His testimony annoyed Democrats. In one representative exchange, Illinois' Dick Durbin asked Bhattacharya to take responsibility for Trump's move to freeze funding for Northwestern University, based in a Chicago suburb, leading to a tense back-and-forth. 'The buck stops in your office,' Durbin said. 'I know it does,' Bhattacharya responded. Why it matters: Bhattacharya is under fire from Democrats and many of his own employees for the cuts the administration has already made, which include about 2,500 jobs, and slowed grant funding that's reduced awards given out by $1.6 billion compared to last year. He's sought to reassure them that now that he's in charge further agency moves will be more carefully considered and that funding will again flow, though some of the grantees will be different. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Doctors and their spouses go to the emergency room 20 percent less often than others, a Harvard study found. Why? Doctors can write their own prescriptions. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Danny Nguyen at dnguyen@ Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: Dannyn516.70, CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. WORLDVIEW GOP lawmakers are pushing back on President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, our Meredith Lee Hill reports. It's one of the first signals that the Republicans who control Congress aren't happy with everything Trump's Department of Government Efficiency did and aren't likely to rubber stamp Trump's fiscal 2026 budget proposal. State of play: The disagreement over PEPFAR stems from Trump's request that Congress rescind $400 million in money it has already asked the administration to spend on global health programs. That includes some funding for the HIV and AIDS relief program. Then-President George W. Bush created PEPFAR in 2003 and it's since been credited with saving 25 million lives, mostly in Africa. In order to shore up support for the rescission package, White House officials have conveyed to GOP leaders that they will not only maintain life-saving treatments under PEPFAR but will also — in response to concerns from more than a dozen House Republicans — preserve some prevention programs as well, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the private assurances. Speaker Mike Johnson's whip team conveyed the altered plans in conversations and text messages with lawmakers, our Meredith Lee Hill reports. Even so: White House budget director Russ Vought told appropriators last week that the Trump administration wants to take 'an analytical look' at 'the prevention itself' and instead fund 'life-saving treatment' for people with AIDS. But Vought said the White House is still planning to scale down PEPFAR and other programs. 'It is something that our budget will be very trim on,' Vought said of funding AIDS prevention work, 'because we believe that many of these nonprofits are not geared towards the viewpoints of the administration. And we're $37 trillion in debt. So at some point, the continent of Africa needs to absorb more of the burden of providing this health care.'
