
You need to start taking airborne fungal outbreaks seriously
As our planet gets increasingly warmer, we're seeing in real-time the myriad of ways our climate is changing: unbearably hot summers, extreme cold snaps, and more dangerous natural disasters. And when our environment changes, so do we — especially in regards to our health.
Valley fever, a fungal disease that invades our lungs, is one of these not-so-obvious public health concerns. The fungus, which is typically present in the Western United States, is projected to spread to new frontiers across the country, my former colleague Keren Landman reported back in 2023.
We knew then that climate change had played some kind of role. Now, more evidence is coming in about this looming public health threat. Last week, The Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) published a brief aimed at practicing doctors that drove home just how neglected Valley fever — and by proxy, other diseases like it — can be.
According to the brief, California's Department of Public Health recorded over 9,000 cases of Valley fever in 2023, the highest number of recorded cases on record. That same year, California had multiple storms that drenched the state over the course of a few weeks, after a long period of drought starting in 2020. These conditions — long spells of extremely dry weather followed by intense rain — are just right for Valley fever growth and in turn, infections.
The earliest recorded case of Valley fever dates back to the 1890s. For some people, it's totally asymptomatic. But for others, Valley fever can cause symptoms for weeks or months. And then there's the unlucky few whose infection travels outside of the lungs and into the skin, bones, or brain. Severe cases can be life-changing and even fatal.
According to the brief, Valley fever is pretty significantly underdiagnosed — cases may be up to 10 to 18 times higher than the 10,000 to 20,000 cases reported to the CDC annually. Doctors can miss the signs because the symptoms are similar to other respiratory infections: a cough, fever, feeling tired. That ends up delaying treatment for people who end up really needing it.
'There's some people who get really debilitating forms of this disease, where they are on lifelong treatment. They're in and out of the hospital,' said Pamela Lee, an infectious disease physician at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and one of the authors of the Valley fever brief. 'And one of the things that I worry about is that sometimes people can almost dismiss this disease.'
Climate change is doing more than just making the days hotter or the weather more extreme. It's shifting how preexisting diseases grow and spread — and increasing the burden on often underprepared communities and health institutions. In addition to Valley fever, we're seeing the exacerbation of harmful algal blooms in places like Florida, the spread of malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitos in non-endemic areas, and hot days exacerbating already prevalent air pollution inequities in Eastern North Carolina.
Despite how increasingly important this intersection between climate change, disease, and health is becoming, there still are challenges — from the scientific to the political — in doing research that unravels these connections. It's not enough for these new risks to be observed. Quantifying the health impacts of neglected diseases and public health outbreaks that are attributable to climate change is critical to understanding how we adapt, and the scale of the imminent risks that lie ahead.
'I think this is another one of those kinds of things that we need to be thinking about as a prevalent and chronic threat that's going to be riskier for some people more than others — but that no one is totally free from risk,' said Daniel Swain, co-author of the brief and Future Perfect 50 honoree.
Coccidioides, the fungus that causes Valley fever, lives in the soil of arid states. Once the fungal spores in the ground are dispersed into the air, often by the wind or human activities like construction projects and farming, it takes inhaling just a few spores to be infected.
But what's driving the growth in Coccidioides is an era of weather whiplash: rapid swing from one weather extreme to another. In the case of the fungal spores that cause Valley fever, shifts from extremely dry to extremely wet weather are the perfect conditions for Coccidioides to thrive.
'It's actually not just enough for it to be dry all the time, or the fungus would never actually grow. It's also not enough for it to be wet all the time, or it would never aerosolize,' says Swain. 'It actually does require that there be these transitions between wet and dry states in some form.'
Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.
People with jobs that disrupt soil in Valley fever hot spots can have a higher risk of getting infected, such as construction workers and agricultural workers. These workers also tend to have challenges in accessing healthcare, leaving them susceptible to forgoing a diagnosis and, if necessary, treatment.
'These are the types of patients that I see all the time where just going to the doctor takes away an entire day of income for them, and they can't afford that,' Lee told Vox.
But as our climate changes, researchers expect to see more than just a rise in the number of cases — they predict that infections will jump beyond its current geographical borders, too. Valley fever will likely spread to Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas in the next 75 years. It's a public health issue that's crossing borders where it hasn't before. 'This is an example of something that we were 100 percent sure has been around for a long time, but has a much greater public health burden that it used to and is probably expanding to new regions,' Swain said.
The spread of Valley fever imposes a financial cost, too. One study found that the economic burden associated with Valley fever in response to climate change could be $18.5 billion a year by 2090, from direct costs like hospitalization to indirect costs like loss of income. Yes, tens of billions of dollars a year from one disease alone.
Valley fever is just one, singular disease. Now, imagine the total human and economic toll of a heating planet that exacerbates the spread of other illnesses and public health crises. It's clearly a massive crisis — but one that researchers are still trying to quantify.
It's clear that our changing climate is having some sort of impact on human health. But exactly how climate change is playing a role, and to what extent it's driving infections and deaths, is still being figured out by researchers.
Colin Carlson, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale University School of Public Health, says there are diseases that researchers know are climate-sensitive, but are still missing observational epidemiological studies to show more concretely how climate change is attributable to the burden of these diseases.
'There is a huge amount of literature about climate and health,' Carlson told Vox. 'There's not as much literature about climate change and health.'
Carlson maintains a database of studies that compiles this specific literature called the Health Attribution Library. The papers in this database quantify the human health impacts (like deaths, injuries, or infections) of human-caused climate change. Dengue, malaria, heat deaths, and fire-related deaths from air pollution have attribution studies, while other diseases like cholera, yellow fever, and West Nile virus haven't. Beyond infectious diseases, public health concerns like spikes in depression and anxiety may also be attributable to climate change.
'We know that there is a huge, strong relationship between temperature and suicides, but we don't have a global estimate of how many temperature-attributable suicides there are, or how many are attributable to climate change,' says Carlson.
Part of the issue of doing health impact attributional studies is that, ultimately, it's difficult to do. One big challenge that researchers run into is lacking long-term, large-scale data. Carlson added that his lab did an attribution study on malaria because there was data to work with.
Of course, there are challenges beyond the scientific. The Trump administration's latest policies and actions don't bode well for the next four years of progress in climate and public health, domestically and abroad.
'I think the intersection of climate change and public health is particularly concerning because both seem to be partisan, ideological targets right now, specifically, individually,' says Swain. 'Together, they pose a huge threat to the health well-being and the economy of the US.'
Though many uncertainties lie ahead in the future of climate and public health research, and in turn, the future of human health, Carlson adds that attributional studies can be a point of progress for the people whose lives will be harmed by climate change.
'These attribution studies are incredibly useful in legal settings, because they can demonstrate that plaintiffs have a basis for their damages,' he said. 'When climate litigation has been successful, it has often been on the back of health.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
14 hours ago
- Medscape
Could One Shot Replace Flu and COVID-19 Vaccines?
A novel multicomponent messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, mRNA-1083, demonstrated noninferiority to standard influenza and COVID-19 vaccines in adults aged 50 years or older, eliciting higher immune responses against most influenza strains (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Victoria, and B/Yamagata) and SARS-CoV-2 ( Omicron XBB.1.5), according to a pivotal phase 3 study. METHODOLOGY: The mRNA-1083 is an investigational, multicomponent vaccine that combines the components of a hemagglutinin-based influenza vaccine (mRNA-1010) and a second-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccine encoding the spike glycoprotein's N-terminal and receptor-binding domains. Researchers present interim findings of a phase 3 trial that assessed the immunogenicity and safety of this vaccine in adults aged 50 years or older across the United States, enrolling participants between October 19, 2023, and November 21, 2023. They randomly assigned 8061 participants to receive either the mRNA-1083 vaccine plus placebo or the active comparator vaccines for seasonal influenza or COVID-19. Participants were stratified into those older than 65 years (n = 4017; 54.2% women) and those aged 50-64 years (n = 3998; 58.8% women). The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of humoral immune responses — measured by antibody levels — to mRNA-1083 vs active influenza and COVID-19 vaccines against vaccine-matched strains, 29 days post-vaccination. TAKEAWAY: The mRNA-1083 vaccine demonstrated noninferiority to the active comparator vaccines against the four influenza strains and SARS-CoV-2 in both age groups, as determined by a 97.5% CI lower bound greater than 0.667 for the geometric mean ratio and more than −10% for the seroconversion rate difference. In adults aged 50-64 years, mRNA-1083 elicited superior immune responses to all four influenza strains relative to the active comparator influenza vaccines, whereas in adults aged 65 years or older, superiority was observed for three strains (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria). Most local and systemic adverse reactions were grade 1 or 2 across vaccine groups. Grade 4 adverse reactions, all of which were systemic events (fever), were reported by two participants in each age group. In both age groups, no severe or serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest were deemed vaccination-related. No deaths or cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. IN PRACTICE: 'As such, an annual vaccination campaign with a multicomponent vaccine could occur during the seasonal period when the burden of respiratory hospitalizations is the greatest, while allowing for a standalone COVID-19 vaccine option for additional doses or if the vaccine is updated in the interim should any antigenically divergent strain emerge,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Amanda K. Rudman Spergel, MD, Moderna Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was published online on May 7, 2025, in JAMA . LIMITATIONS: The efficacy of mRNA-1083 was not established in the study and requires further investigation. Although the diversity of the study population mirrored that of the general US population, the results may not be generalizable to other geographic areas. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Moderna, Inc. Many authors were employees of Moderna and may hold stock or stock options.


Washington Post
15 hours ago
- Washington Post
The right simply can't let go of this deworming medication
In recent months, Republican governors in Idaho, Arkansas and Tennessee have signed bills allowing over-the-counter sales of the antiparasitic medicine ivermectin. Lawmakers from many other states, including West Virginia, South Carolina and Louisiana, are rushing to follow suit. Proponents hail these moves as a win for the 'medical freedom' movement. In reality, they symbolize the deep distrust of public health that resides at the heart of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. It's worth reviewing how ivermectin, a decades-old livestock dewormer, became such a hot-button political issue. Initially developed for veterinary care, the medication prevents and treats heartworms in dogs, cats and farm animals such as horses, cattle and pigs. It can also cure human parasitic infections and is the treatment of choice for onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, which is the second-most common infectious cause of blindness worldwide. In the United States, ivermectin pills are approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat onchocerciasis and another parasitic infection, strongyloidiasis. Early in the covid-19 pandemic, ivermectin joined the list of possible treatments for the novel coronavirus because laboratory data showed the drug could stop virus replication in cell culture. But these findings were not replicated in human trials. Two New England Journal of Medicine articles concluded that ivermectin did not reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations or deaths due to covid. A JAMA report examining higher doses of ivermectin also found no effect on preventing hospitalization or reducing symptom duration. A Cochrane analysis, considered the gold standard of medical reviews, assessed 11 trials and concluded there was no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing covid. This is how science should be done: A promising hypothesis is subjected to rigorous tests. All findings are considered equally, included the negative ones. If a drug is found to be ineffective against a certain disease, its use for that purpose is not warranted. But not everyone agreed with these core scientific principles. Despite evidence to the contrary, a group called America's Frontline Doctors continued to promote ivermectin as a 'safe and effective treatment' for covid-19. Another group, now called Independent Medical Alliance, promoted a conspiracy theory that drug companies were suppressing data that ivermectin could be repurposed for covid treatment. Legislators eager to end pandemic precautions invited these providers to speak at hearings. One physician told a Senate committee that ivermectin offered miraculous prophylaxis against the coronavirus, saying, 'If you take it, you will not get sick.' Many right-wing media influencers talked up ivermectin, including Fox News's Laura Ingraham and podcaster Joe Rogan, who said he took it himself when he had covid. By late 2021, ivermectin sales had increased to more than 10 times their pre-pandemic rates. People unable to acquire prescriptions from their doctor started buying products intended for animals, prompting the FDA to issue warnings that people were becoming seriously ill from consuming formulations meant for horses, cattle and sheep. Families desperate to save loved ones dying from covid sued hospitals to compel them to give the drug against their doctors' recommendation. In other words, ivermectin had entered the covid-19 culture war. Like masking and vaccines, the drug became a shorthand for one's political allegiance. Skeptics of vaccines began to see ivermectin as their fail-safe. If they contracted covid, they would just take it as their 'treatment.' Heck, they could even take it to prevent catching the virus, so they didn't even need masks or vaccines. They didn't trust research showing that ivermectin wasn't effective; they believed mainstream medicine was in cahoots with drug companies to 'force' vaccinations. And they could point to plenty of 'experts' who touted ivermectin as much as they did. It's not surprising that these sentiments have culminated in legislation permitting access to ivermectin without a doctor's prescription or even a pharmacist consultation. Now that advocates have notched this success, they are applying the same playbook to reduce vaccine availability. Many states have attempted to pass legislation to ban or even criminalize administration of mRNA vaccines, referring to the technological advancement that allowed scientists to develop coronavirus shots at record speed. The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The same people pushing for unrestricted availability to a medication also want to take away the choice to access others. Apparently, 'medical freedom' only applies to therapies that mainstream medicine advises against. These advocates are gaining ground. The federal government has announced plans to limit who can receive coronavirus vaccines, and just last week, Kennedy's Department of Health and Human Services pulled hundreds of millions of dollars previously committed to developing bird flu vaccines. We have entered the upside-down world where unproven treatments are celebrated and prevention is sacrificed on the altar of contrarianism.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Blood test-guided treatment cuts breast cancer risk
Treating breast cancer patients with AstraZeneca's experimental pill camizestrant at the first sign of resistance to standard therapies cut the risk of disease progression or death by half, a finding that could be practice changing, experts say. The results, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago, mark the first use of a blood test called a liquid biopsy to indicate the need for a change in treatment in women with a common form of breast cancer, even before tumour growth can be detected on imaging. The early switch approach in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resulted in a 56 per cent reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, said Dr Eleonora Teplinsky, an oncologist at Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care and an ASCO breast cancer expert. "When patients progress on scans, we're already behind," Teplinsky said at a media briefing. She said an early switch approach, before disease progression, allows doctors "to essentially stay ahead of the curve." Camizestrant is not yet FDA-approved, but Teplinsky said she believes the data will likely result in a new treatment paradigm. The trial involved 3256 patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the most common type in which hormones such as oestrogen fuel cancer growth. These cancers lack high levels of HER2, another cancer driver. Women in the trial had at least six months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors that block hormones fueling the cancer, as well as targeted drugs called CDK4/6 inhibitors such as Novartis' Kisqali, Pfizer's Ibrance or Eli Lilly's Verzenio, which block an enzyme that fuels cancer growth. About 40 per cent of patients treated with aromatase inhibitors develop mutations in the oestrogen receptor 1 gene called ESR1 mutations, a sign of early drug resistance. Camizestrant and similar drugs called selective oestrogen receptor degraders, or SERDS, block oestrogen receptor signaling in cancer cells. In the trial, researchers used blood tests to identify 315 patients with signs of early drug resistance and then randomly assigned them to either switch to camizestrant plus the CDK4/6 inhibitor or continue with standard treatment plus a placebo. The researchers found that it took 16 months for the disease to progress in women who got camizestrant, compared with 9.2 months in those who continued on standard therapy, a statistically significant difference in a measure known as progression-free survival. No new side effects were reported and few patients from either group dropped out due to side effects. "This is going to be very impactful for our patients," said Dr Hope Rugo, head of breast medical oncology at City of Hope in Duarte, California. The question, she said, is how do doctors incorporate the testing into clinical practice.