Latest news with #NIH-supported
News18
30-06-2025
- Health
- News18
Why Are Younger People Suffering More Heart Attacks Post-COVID?
Last Updated: Heart attacks are rising among young adults post-COVID, driven by hidden risks and lasting effects of the virus. In recent years, heart attacks among young adults have been on the rise—a shift that has become more pronounced since the COVID-19 pandemic. Once considered a disease of older age, cardiovascular events are now increasingly seen in younger individuals due to a mix of direct viral effects, lifestyle disruptions, and hidden health risks. While initially recognized as a respiratory illness, COVID-19 has since been shown to exert significant and lasting effects on the cardiovascular system. The virus promotes inflammation in blood vessels, increases blood coagulability, and can trigger spikes in blood pressure—mechanisms that elevate the risk of heart attacks, particularly in patients with existing but often undiagnosed conditions such as high LDL cholesterol, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Dr. Sarita Rao, Senior Interventional Cardiologist, Apollo Hospitals, shares all you need to know: Emerging evidence supports this growing concern. A large-scale study involving over 150,000 individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection found substantially increased risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure, arrhythmias, and stroke—even in those with no prior heart disease. A recent NIH-supported study published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology further revealed that people infected during the pandemic's first wave had double the risk of major cardiovascular events, with those hospitalized facing up to a fourfold increase. This elevated risk persisted for up to three years post-infection, often rivaling or exceeding traditional risk factors like diabetes. Although mild COVID-19 cases do not appear to significantly raise heart attack risk directly, the broader lifestyle and environmental consequences of the pandemic have had a substantial impact on young adults' cardiovascular health. Importantly, vaccination has emerged as a protective factor. Studies from multiple countries—including India, the U.S., South Korea, and the U.K.—have demonstrated that vaccinated individuals are less likely to suffer from acute cardiac complications, largely due to reduced illness severity and better preservation of lipid profiles. Ultimately, the rise in heart attacks among younger adults is not merely a consequence of COVID-19 but a reflection of deeper, multifactorial vulnerabilities that the pandemic has brought to the surface. The convergence of genetic predisposition, sedentary lifestyles, unhealthy diets, environmental exposures, and chronic stress has created fertile ground for early cardiovascular disease. COVID-19 has acted as both a trigger and an amplifier of these underlying risks. Addressing this growing crisis demands a comprehensive approach—one that includes early cardiovascular screening, preventive care, promotion of healthy behaviors, and robust public health interventions. As we move forward in the post-pandemic era, prioritizing heart health in younger populations is essential to reversing current trends and securing a healthier future. Dr. Sarita Rao, Senior Interventional Cardiologist & Director Cathlab, Apollo Hospitals Indore
Los Angeles Times
09-06-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months.' 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. 'We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be 'a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' 'In recent years, Americans have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago,' spokesman Kush Desai said. 'The Trump administration is focused on restoring the Gold Standard of Science — not ideological activism — as the guiding principle of HHS, the NIH, and the CDC to finally address our chronic disease epidemic.' Woodward and Ellgren write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.
09-06-2025
- Health
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON -- In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent," he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: "We dissent." In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, more than 90 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. They went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say President Donald Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the abrupt termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya but also sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, was endorsed by 250 anonymous employees of the agency besides the 92 who signed. Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH," Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's own Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours," said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. But sudden cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. "So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because 'I don't want to be a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing cuts to grants. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes or the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts that 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and that the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. A Signal group became the place for participants to sort through NIH chatter on Reddit, discern rumor from reality and offer mutual support. The declaration took shape in that group and as word spread neighbor to neighbor in NIH offices. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation." Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. "I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this," she added. "And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.'
Time of India
09-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
NIH scientists go public to criticize Trump's deep cuts in public health research
Cardboard tombstones symbolizing canceled research grants at the NIH Visitors Center in Bethesda (AP) WASHINGTON: In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. "Dissent, he said, "is the very essence of science. " That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to "policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." It says: "We dissent." In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, more than 90 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter - and their careers on the line. Confronting a 'culture of fear' They went public in the face of a "culture of fear and suppression" they say President Donald Trump 's administration has spread through the federal civil service. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," the declaration says. Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It addresses the abrupt termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. "Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million," it says, "it wastes $4 million." The mask comes off The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya but also sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, was endorsed by 250 anonymous employees of the agency besides the 92 who signed. Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. "I want people to know how bad things are at NIH," Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's own Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. "He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours," said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. Cancer research is sidelined As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. But sudden cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. "So much of it is gone - my work," she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because "I don't want to be a collaborator" in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. "We have a saying in basic science," he said. "You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. "We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future," he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing cuts to grants. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes or the NIH. Dissenters range across the breadth of NIH Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts that "NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety" and that the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who "braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health." The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. A blunt ax swings This has forced "indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science," the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. A Signal group became the place for participants to sort through NIH chatter on Reddit, discern rumor from reality and offer mutual support. The declaration took shape in that group and as word spread neighbor to neighbor in NIH offices. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, "NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation." Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. "There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared," said Norton, who has three young children. "I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. "Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this," she added. "And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise."
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Science is Utah's quiet engine — don't stall it with cuts to important funding
Science quietly powers Utah's prosperity. From lifesaving diagnostics at ARUP Laboratories and cutting-edge biotech startups to clean energy research at Utah State and drought-resistant crops developed through university partnerships, science is behind much of what makes life in Utah better, longer and more secure. In 2024, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded over $300 million to Utah institutions. That funding supported thousands of jobs, helped launch companies, and enabled groundbreaking research in everything from cancer treatments to Alzheimer's to rare disease therapies. Public health advances that benefit every Utahn — urban or rural — almost always begin through federally funded research. But now, that progress is in jeopardy. Proposed cuts and restrictions to NIH funding could have devastating effects on Utah's research institutions and economy. The plan to slash NIH's overall budget by nearly half, coupled with a proposal to reduce the indirect cost reimbursement to universities from around 50% to 15%, would mean far less money to cover the real costs of doing science. Basics like lab space, utilities, data storage and administrative support aren't luxuries — they're the infrastructure that makes research possible. For public universities like the University of Utah and Utah State, this isn't just a budget concern. It's a structural threat. Without adequate indirect cost support, universities would either have to drastically scale back research activity or shift the financial burden to students and state taxpayers. Both options would weaken Utah's competitive edge in science and technology. The consequences would ripple far beyond campus. Utah is known for its 'Industry' motto — a title that honors the resourcefulness and hard work that built our communities. Today, that industrious spirit thrives in our biotech labs, clean tech startups and health research centers. But industries can't thrive without innovation. Utah's life sciences sector depends on a steady pipeline of NIH-supported talent and discoveries emerging from research. Companies like Recursion, Myriad Genetics and BioFire Diagnostics thrive because of academic partnerships and access to skilled graduates. Pulling funding would slow innovation and shrink the talent pool. But it's not just about economics. It's about people. NIH funding supports clinical trials that help Utah families battling cancer. It funds suicide prevention programs in our schools, mental health outreach in rural counties, and pediatric care innovations at Primary Children's Hospital (PCH). It supports research for Native American communities and families dealing with chronic conditions like diabetes and asthma. Without that funding, many of these programs would disappear. I've seen the impact of public health investment firsthand. After I tested positive for latent tuberculosis as a student, I received free weekly treatment and health monitoring through the Utah County Health Department. It was science-backed care, delivered through a local system supported by federal resources. Without that treatment, I could have developed active tuberculosis — a threat not just to me but also to others. The system worked because it was built on scientific research and proactive policy. That kind of safety net doesn't happen without sustained funding. Furthermore, my nephew, Wesley, was cared for at PCH when he was just four months old. He was diagnosed with polyarteritis nodosa, a rare autoimmune disease that causes inflammation and damage to the heart. The NIH not only funds various programs at PCH but also was crucial to backing the science that led to properly diagnosing and saving Wesley. These cuts hurt the next generation. Graduate students and early career scientists — many of whom come from Utah — rely on federal research grants to get their start. If funding dries up, so do those opportunities. We risk losing promising young minds to other careers or other countries. This is not a partisan issue. Scientific progress should never be about politics. Every Utahn benefits from the medications they take, the clean water they drink, the safe food they eat and the medical care they receive. All of these are underpinned by science. Restricting it weakens our shared safety net and quality of life. Utah is built on hard work, innovation and foresight. Cutting science funding now would undermine the very foundation that allows us to adapt, compete and care for our communities. Science works for Utah — let's keep it that way.
