Woman's Mysterious Burning Feet Traced to Worms in Her Brain
A 30-year-old woman in the United States was told by doctors she had parasites in her brain after presenting to the hospital with a burning sensation in her feet.
The worms seem to have been unlucky souvenirs the woman unknowingly picked up while traveling in Thailand, Japan, and Hawaii.
Embedded in her central nervous system, the quiet invaders didn't 'make a peep' until 12 days after the woman had returned home. Only then did their presence cause an intense immune response that took a further week to diagnose.
Over several days, hot pain in the woman's feet crawled up her legs, trunk, and arms, before erupting in a splitting headache that even frequent doses of pain relief medication couldn't alleviate.
An initial visit to the emergency department turned up only a mild increase in disease-fighting white blood cells. But after days of unrelenting discomfort and a mild fever, the woman returned to a different hospital looking for answers.
Following treatment with intravenous anti-inflammatories and an anti-anxiety medication called lorazepam, her headache finally abated and she was discharged.
Once again, the symptoms persisted.
The next morning, when the woman woke, she began to pack for a vacation that she had not planned. Her roommate noticed her strange behavior and encouraged her to lie back down in bed. Hours later, when the woman was still showing signs of confusion, her partner took her to hospital.
"The development of confusion in this patient with sensory symptoms, headache, and possible intermittent fever suggests the possibility of encephalitis and further increases concern about a central nervous system infection," explains infectious disease specialist Joseph Zunt from the University of Washington.
Testing her blood, her doctors found no sign of parasites, and a CT scan of her head showed no red flags beneath her skull. Yet when medical staff performed a lumbar puncture, they found the patient's cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which bathes the brain and spinal cord, contained markers of eosinophilic meningitis – a rare form of brain infection that can be caused by parasites.
Based on the patient's recent travel and her symptoms, her doctors agreed she met the criteria for a presumptive diagnosis of angiostrongyliasis.
This insidious disease is also known as rat lungworm because it is caused by the parasite Angiostrongylus cantonensis, which starts its life cycle in the lungs of a rodent before spreading to slugs and snails.
Most people aren't eating uncooked slugs or snails, but if we bite into a fresh, leafy vegetable that one of these creatures has slimed, the parasite's larvae can end up in our bodies without us knowing it.
That's one of the reasons why washing green produce is so important when staying in parts of the world where rat lungworm spreads, including Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Australia. Undercooked crab or prawns can also be a vector, as these animals eat slugs and snails, too.
When the parasites infect human bodies, they can migrate to the pulmonary arteries, swimming into the central nervous system and threatening the life of the host.
Only occasionally are the larvae able to be seen in the brain for a definitive diagnosis. Usually, brain scans only hint at damage from these parasites. The image below, for instance, shows clear signals of lesions in parts of a 32-year-old's brain that are indicative of angiostrongyliasis.
Thankfully, the woman in the US had her brain saved from parasites by a two-week course of drugs that can cross the blood-brain barrier to treat angiostrongyliasis. The patient was also given a high dose of a steroid called prednisone to help alleviate inflammation in her brain.
Her symptoms abated with the combination treatment, and on her sixth day in hospital, she was able to go home – this time without hidden passengers in her brain.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
World's Most Common Painkiller During Pregnancy Linked to ADHD
Female Physicians Are Dying by Suicide at Astonishingly High Rates
Study Finds Humans Age Faster at 2 Sharp Peaks – Here's When
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Spokane health leaders warn Eastern Washington to face headwinds from medical research cuts
Jun. 14—Many Spokane health care leaders met Thursday to speak out against proposed federal medical research cuts that could risk millions of dollars and thousands of jobs in Eastern Washington. The Trump administration has proposed a 40% cut at the National Institutes of Health. If enacted, the billions of dollars of cuts could have profound impacts on medical research across the nation and in Spokane. The Life Sciences Washington roundtable in Spokane brought together community leaders from Spokane's private medical research industry, medical schools and hospitals to paint a dire picture if Congress approves Trump's proposed cuts. "Other countries have spent three decades trying to recreate what America has created when it comes to our research enterprise, and they haven't been able to do it," Life Sciences Washington President Marc Cummings said. "A 40 to 50% cut means we lose the whole pipeline for the future." University of Washington School of Medicine Vice Dean Suzanne Allen said the school system receives the most NIH funds out of any public medical school behind Harvard. According to Allen, the university has been awarded $1.2 billion in NIH research funding. Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, more than 30 NIH grants to the University of Washington have not been renewed or payment has been delayed. By the end of the month, Allen expects that number of grants to double. The university has laid off dozens of researchers and expects many more jobs will be lost in the coming months, including those in Spokane. The school also is accepting 30% fewer postdoctoral students this upcoming school year because it cannot fund these students' research. Without that training, there may not be enough qualified researchers if the funding is ever returned. "It's easy to tear something apart right now, and it's going to take us years to get back," Allen said. Though the cuts are currently halted by federal courts, the Trump administration also has tried to limit NIH grants' indirect costs to 15%. When researchers receive a federal grant, an additional amount is set aside for the university for building maintenance, equipment and other administrative costs. These funds cover costs incurred because of the research but do not directly relate to the research itself. Previously, each university negotiated with the federal government over the indirect reimbursement rate. The 15% cap would be much lower than the rates most universities have negotiated. Washington State University estimates this change could cost $20 million a year, while UW estimate its losses could exceed $90 million annually. WSU Spokane Chancellor Daryll DeWald said cuts could affect more than 2,000 university employees that rely on NIH funding. "It is affecting us in terms of number of students that we're training in the sciences and postdocs. It is job loss, but it's also affecting the pipeline," DeWald said. That lost funding cannot be replaced by the private sector, said Marcelo Morales, founder of A4 Ventures, a health care investment firm. Research is typically funded by the government early in the process, and private companies only invest in the few years before the research can be Federal Drug Administration- approved and commercialized. "Anything in the life sciences takes 15 years before you get going. It is just impractical for private capital. It's not going to happen," Morales said. One program specifically on the chopping block is NIH Small Business Innovation Research grant. These grants fund private companies to conduct these early stages of research that may not turn out to be profitable. Without that, private investors may see funding research as too risky an investment. "The impact of reductions in SBIR to a community like ours is particularly acute because we're not like Boston. We're not like San Francisco. We don't have massive amounts of risk capital, risk money that's waiting to be put back. We need this money," Morales said. The cuts across medical research also have downstream effects on other areas of the health care system. Jubilant HollisterStier is a Spokane-based manufacturer of sterile medical products. CEO Chris Preti fears cuts to medical research now could affect his company years down the line. "We need every other aspect in that value chain to be able to actually deliver so we can do our work," Preti said. And hospital executives said the fewer funding to Spokane's medical schools, the harder it will be to staff their hospitals. "Providence has about 136 residents who are post-medical school training in our hospitals, training in our rural centers and who are going to be the physicians of the future," Inland Northwest Washington Providence CEO Susan Stacey said. "It is the dominoes of fewer folks coming out of medical school, so funding is cut for residencies. So then there is not a local place to do their residency — so our next generation doesn't stay in Spokane. It's all very intertwined."
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Boston Globe
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants health agencies to use a lot more AI. After the MAHA report, experts have some concerns
Advertisement And with the apparent inclusion of material imagined by AI, referred to as hallucinations, in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report, they see an ominous sign for the administration's ability to deploy it safely. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'If they were proceeding more apace, and I'm not talking about glacial government pace, I'm talking about responsible pace, this wouldn't happen,' said Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington and entrepreneur who studies AI. 'The presence of these embarrassing missteps just shows that it's amateur hour.' Kennedy has expressed ambitious but vague plans, usually in the context of cutting costs. He has outlined his vision during several congressional hearings, including one to replace the use of animals in experimental testing and some steps in clinical trials. 'We're phasing out most animal studies . . . because we can accomplish a lot of those goals on safety and efficacy with AI technology,' Kennedy said. Advertisement He also mentioned using AI to analyze data that HHS and other agencies have collected on patients, such as people on Medicare and Medicaid. He said they've recruited experts to 'transform our agency for a central hub for AI.' So far, the Food and Drug Administration has announced computer and AI modeling. 'In the long-term (3-5 years), FDA will aim to make animal studies the exception rather than the norm for pre-clinical safety/toxicity testing,' the FDA said in its road map. But the mistakes in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report have experts skeptical of HHS's ability to use AI correctly. The report cited sources that do not exist and had garbled footnotes, The agency declined to answer definitively whether AI was used on the report and why it contained nonexistent citations, but rather only highlighted the substance of the report. It also did not offer specifics about protocols for responsible AI use. 'HHS is addressing the risk of AI-generated errors through rigorous validation, human oversight, and strict quality controls,' a spokesperson said in a statement. 'AI tools are designed to support — not replace — expert judgment.' Advertisement Experts say the specifics of how AI is implemented will bethe true measure of whether the efforts at HHS will succeed or end up being harmful. 'I'm actually deeply optimistic about what [AI] can do in a lot of areas, including the ones that the secretary mentioned,' said Ziad Obermeyer, a physician and researcher at the University of California Berkeley who studies AI in biomedicine. 'What my research has shown is that it actually comes down to some of the really boring details that make the difference between a good, powerful algorithm that helps people, and one that really messes things up.' Republicans who work on AI issues in the Senate supported Kennedy's goals but also agreed on the importance of rolling it out with the right protections. 'This is going to be the future,' said Indiana Senator Todd Young. 'I mean, we'd be doing something wrong if, if the head of our health agency wasn't talking about using AI.' The two general use cases that Kennedy has mentioned, replacing steps in clinical trials and analyzing patient data, have some potential issues in common, including that AI can generate false information. But they also have risks unique to each case. Privacy, for example, is a serious concern with patient data. If not properly stripped of identifying factors, even supposedly anonymized data can be re-identified, as has happened in some cases. 'The most secret private information that people have is their health care data, and so AI should not be used in any way that does not have the strongest possible safeguards,' said Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat. 'We could have an absolute privacy catastrophe.' Advertisement Harvard Law School professor I. Glenn Cohen, who studies medical ethics and AI, said that the idea holds great potential, but that the administration would need to be very transparent about how it is protecting data and would be wise to run smaller pilot studies first. 'The 'move fast and break things' ethos of Silicon Valley may be appropriate in some parts of life — I don't really care if you're doing it for the order of Instagram postings," Cohen said. 'But it's not a philosophy we advocate for physicians or an attitude I think most people want health care to take.' The key limitation of AI is that it is only as good as the dataset used to build it. In specific areas where scientific data is really good and outcomes are predictable, such as in the structure of proteins, scientists have built powerful AI tools. AI can also help doctors and patients assess symptoms. But those are different from the discovery of new information, experts say, which is what a lot of science and clinical trials for novel treatments are designed to explore. Allison Coffin is a researcher at Creighton University who studies hearing loss, including that caused by certain medicines. She uses mostly zebra fish in her work, but also rodents. She says her lab is working on AI tools to help identify potential toxins in order to conduct more targeted research. But, she said, AI would always be used as an idea generator for testing in animals, not to replace them. 'That's an excellent case for AI, because AI can rapidly assess millions of potential drug structures. But you would still want to test their efficacy for new therapies in an animal,' Coffin said. 'I would never want to take a medication that hadn't been given to a living creature before, and I would think most people wouldn't. Do we want to be the first to take medication because a computer model says that it's safe?' Advertisement Other scientists questioned the ability of the government to do the cutting-edge research necessary after the administration's deep cuts to research funding and staff. 'Honestly I'm struggling for what to say,' wrote Sean Eddy, a Harvard scientist who works on building computer models for biology and genomic research. 'I just don't see how it makes sense for HHS to talk about delivering innovative technological breakthroughs while they're destabilizing and belittling the US scientific research enterprise. . . . Every lab at Harvard that does this kind of research, including my own, has had all their federal funding terminated.' Experts also question whether Kennedy understands where AI technology actually is today versus its potential capacities. Many cited cautionary tales of much lower-stakes AI deployment gone wrong, such as companies that 'Doing things like simulating an entire body in order to save clinical trials is just grossly unrealistic where we sit right now,' said Gary Marcus, a professor emeritus at New York University and critic of AI enthusiasm. 'If we're lucky, we can do it in 40 [years], but we certainly can't now. That's just a pipe dream.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Boston Globe
How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations
On Monday, Kennedy, long a vaccine skeptic, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On the social platform X, he promised not to replace the panel's experts with 'ideological anti-vaxxers.' On Wednesday, Kennedy Advertisement For years, Kennedy has argued that American children receive too many shots and has falsely claimed that vaccines are not tested in placebo-controlled studies. Critics fear he is now setting the stage for a rollback of federal recommendations. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 14, 2025. HAIYUN JIANG/NYT 'I'm very, very worried about young children in this country,' said Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine at the University of Washington and one of the committee members who was fired. If the panel's new members 'don't believe in vaccines, then I think it puts us in a very dangerous place.' Advertisement Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University, predicted that the new committee would move to pare back the childhood vaccination schedule 'relatively quickly.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in a message on X. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.' He also acknowledged that the panel would 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well.' The upheaval arrives as measles infections approach the highest level in decades; whooping cough has risen significantly, too, compared with this time last year. Steep cuts to global immunization programs also make it more likely that infectious diseases, such as polio, may reach American shores. Alarmed, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked Kennedy to provide all communications and documents related to the dismissal of the committee and a 'detailed description of the rationale for removing each individual' by June 24, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times. The American Medical Association called for an immediate reversal of the purge and resolved to 'identify and evaluate' alternative sources of advice on vaccines. It is unclear whether Kennedy will appoint more members -- there is no required minimum -- before the next scheduled meeting at the end of June. And no one can say whether or how the decisions of the reshaped panel may diverge from current recommendations. Advertisement But any softening of federal recommendations regarding vaccination would ripple through the nation in unpredictable ways. Access to the shots eventually may depend on where you live, which insurance policy you hold and which doctor you see, experts said. 'That obviously is going to decrease the number of people who are protected with these vaccines,' said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the health commissioner of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am concerned about what that means about herd immunity, what that means about outbreaks and infections.' Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover the cost of any vaccine recommended by the ACIP. Losing that endorsement means that some insurance companies may choose not to pay for immunizations. Nor could those shots be offered for free through the Vaccines for Children program. The measles vaccine can cost up to $250 and the four-dose polio series up to $340. 'You'd essentially have a two-tier system where people who have cash at hand can purchase their own vaccines if they're not recommended, and those who don't have the money may have to go without,' said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford University and one of the fired panelists. The panel could take a more measured approach, perhaps advising that a doctor's sign-off should be required for some immunizations. The vaccines program would still cover it, but reimbursement from private insurers would be more difficult to enforce, Hughes said. The Vaccines for Children program was created after a measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 led to tens of thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. More than half of the infected children were unvaccinated even though many had seen a doctor, because they could not afford the shots, according to the CDC. Advertisement Cutting back on free access to immunizations 'is not a strategy to even think about -- only vaccinating potentially the half of the population that has health insurance,' Chu said. If measles continues to resurge, for example, even vaccinated people will be at risk, she said. Vaccinations are not profitable for clinics, and reduced demand could mean that fewer places bother to offer the shots. 'In places where you know there's a large anti-vax sentiment, there may not be financial incentive, or any incentive, to keep those vaccines in stock,' she said. ACIP makes recommendations for immunizations. But the authority to mandate them rests with the states. Even if the federal government walked away from some recommendations, most, if not all, states are likely to maintain the current mandates for school-age children, said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials. 'Even where legislators are chipping away at requirements and mandates, there's a commitment to protect children,' she said. Still, she added, 'our members are very confused.' Now some scientists are considering establishing alternatives to federal guidance on vaccines. 'The new ACIP cannot be trusted to oversee unbiased and scientifically sound vaccine policy development,' said Michael Osterholm, a public health researcher at the University of Minnesota. He and other experts have formed a new group, called the Vaccine Integrity Project, to offer science-based advice on immunization. Members of the ACIP are usually vetted thoroughly. It took more than four months for Roberts, who was set to join the panel in July, to be accepted, and several more weeks to fill out at least 50 forms, including disclosures of conflict of interest. The committee's members typically rotate in staggered four-year terms to ensure some continuity and institutional memory. Advertisement Mina Zadeh, a CDC scientist, has been named to oversee the committee, but the rest of her team has not been set up. Staff members who lead the committee's work groups may meet with her 'starting early next week,' according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by the Times. But the panel's next meeting is scheduled to begin June 25. Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician and expert on vaccine policy, said he worried the new members could not be prepared on such short notice and without the help of previous members or CDC personnel. 'This raises the question of whether the goal here is for ACIP to be able to do its job,' he added. 'Kennedy has accused the prior committee members of conflicts of interest and for rubber-stamping things, but I think that's exactly what we're looking at with this group.' This article originally appeared in .
