Health Journal Online

Author: admin

  • Six Days Before World Cup Kickoff, New York Confronts the Most Complex Public Health Alert Landscape Ever Seen in the U.S.

    Six Days Before World Cup Kickoff, New York Confronts the Most Complex Public Health Alert Landscape Ever Seen in the U.S.

    The 2026 FIFA World Cup opens in six days. The first match at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, is scheduled for July 14 — but the tournament officially begins June 11, and within days, New York metropolitan area transportation hubs, hotels, fan festival sites, and outdoor venues will begin absorbing the first wave of what officials project will be more than one million international visitors over the 39-day tournament. Into that moment, New York City is carrying a public health burden that no American city has faced in the context of a major international event in the modern era: five simultaneous, documented disease activations, each with its own monitoring infrastructure, response protocols, and resource demands, all competing for the attention and bandwidth of the same institutional public health workforce.

    State health officials and experts quoted in CNBC’s comprehensive June 4 World Cup health analysis emphasized that the United States is well-prepared, with “a very robust system” and health departments that have been scaling up surveillance, hospital coordination, and monitoring for months. Dr. Margaret Aldrich of NYU Langone said the U.S. is “better prepared, honestly, than we ever have been for high-consequence infectious diseases.” Infectious disease physician Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, writing in STAT News, noted that the most likely infectious disease threats at the World Cup will “look much more familiar than frightening headlines suggest” — not Ebola, but the highly transmissible respiratory viruses that thrive in exactly the conditions a World Cup creates.

    The Five Simultaneous Activations New York Is Managing

    The full complexity of New York’s public health posture requires enumerating all five concurrent activations: First, the hantavirus quarantine — two New York State residents under around-the-clock state trooper surveillance at residential addresses outside NYC through June 22, representing the only U.S. exposure to Andes virus, the only hantavirus capable of human-to-human transmission, following the MV Hondius cruise ship outbreak that killed three people worldwide. Second, the active measles situation — 11 confirmed New York State cases in 2026 (6 in NYC, 5 statewide), all unvaccinated adults linked to international travel, embedded in a national outbreak of 1,974 confirmed cases. Third, the Ebola preparedness posture — the WHO’s May 17 PHEIC declaration for the Bundibugyo outbreak in DRC (344 confirmed cases, 60 deaths) with the DRC national team entering the World Cup through Houston. Fourth, the NB.1.8.1 COVID-19 subvariant generating rising wastewater signals in the Northeast. Fifth, West Nile virus surveillance activation for the summer mosquito season.

    Each of these activations is, individually, a normal and manageable public health challenge for a city with New York’s infrastructure. Their simultaneous convergence, during the most intense international visitor period in the metropolitan area’s modern history, is what makes the summer of 2026 unprecedented. New York and New Jersey conducted a 50-agency simulation exercise in June 2025 specifically modeling a high-consequence infectious disease arrival via LaGuardia Airport during a mass gathering event. That simulation was designed for exactly this scenario. But simulations are conducted one scenario at a time. Reality is running five.

    The Measles Threat Is the Science Experts Are Most Focused On

    Of all the disease risks surrounding the World Cup, infectious disease experts have most consistently emphasized measles — not Ebola — as the pathogen most likely to cause a significant outbreak. As Dr. Kuppalli wrote in STAT, the reason is transmissibility. Ebola requires direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a symptomatic person. Measles’s R0 of 12–18 means a single infectious person can spread to 12 to 18 others in a susceptible population — through the air, in enclosed spaces, for up to two hours after the infected person has left the room. At a World Cup crowd of 82,000 people at MetLife Stadium, with international visitors from Mexico (10,920 cases in 2026), Guatemala (6,209 cases), and other Americas countries experiencing active outbreaks, the mathematical exposure potential from a single unidentified infectious case in an indoor concourse is not a model projection. It is a biological certainty.

    The Good News: New York’s Infrastructure Is Genuinely Ready

    In the interest of balance: the preparations New York has made are real and scientifically sound. Bellevue Hospital’s biocontainment unit has undergone additional training for the World Cup period. The Greater New York Hospital Association has conducted multiple video trainings on measles case identification. New York State’s infectious disease surveillance system is at heightened activation. The hantavirus quarantine infrastructure — deploying state troopers as monitors and state health officials for daily symptom assessment — is a demonstration that the system can respond to novel threats rapidly and effectively. Commissioner McDonald’s office has confirmed coordination across all five activations.

    The immediate actionable guidance: New York City Health Department immunization clinics offer MMR vaccination without appointment throughout the five boroughs. For anyone who cannot document two doses of MMR vaccine — or was born between 1957 and 1968 and received the early formaldehyde-inactivated measles vaccine that provided only short-lived protection — vaccination now is the single most important health action available before the MetLife matches begin. The World Cup Final is on July 19. The window to complete two doses — which require at least 28 days between them — closed this week. A single dose now still provides 93% protection against a disease whose R0 is 18. Get vaccinated.

    Source link

  • Croup – discharge: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

    Croup – discharge: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

    Chi DH, Tobey A. Otolaryngology. In: Zitelli BJ, McIntire SC, Nowalk AJ, Garrison J, eds. Zitelli and Davis’ Atlas of Pediatric Physical Diagnosis. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2023:chap 24.

    Rodrigues KK, Roosevelt GE. Acute inflammatory upper airway obstruction (croup, epiglottitis, laryngitis, and bacterial tracheitis). In: Kliegman RM, St. Geme JW, Blum NJ, et al, eds. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 22nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2025:chap 433.

    Elluru R, Patel A. Pediatric infectious disease. In: Francis HW, Haughey BH, Hillel AT, et al, eds. Cummings Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2026:chap 192.

    Source link

  • How Big Is the Cancer Risk from Processed Meat?

    How Big Is the Cancer Risk from Processed Meat?

    I quantify the risks of colon and rectal cancers from eating bacon, ham, hot dogs, sausage, and lunch meat.

    In 2018, arguably the most prestigious cancer research institution in the world, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, published its report on processed meat, concluding that foods like bacon, ham, hot dogs, lunch meat, and sausage are cancer-causing, classifying processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen. “These findings,” concluded the director of the agency, “further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.” Critics questioned putting processed meat in the same carcinogenic classification as asbestos and tobacco. Or, as a pesticide company roughly put it, how can eating processed meat be in the same category as mustard gas?

    As I discuss in my video How Much Cancer Does Processed Meat Cause?, the classifications only relate to the strength of evidence that the agent causes cancer or not, not how much cancer. This doesn’t mean they all pose the same level of danger. It’s safer to eat a sandwich filled with pastrami than plutonium, even though they are both Group 1 carcinogens, which means both substances are known to cause cancer in people. So, just how dangerous is meat? The relative risk of colorectal cancer was 18% for every 50 grams eaten a day. But what exactly does that mean?

    Well, 50 grams is about one hot dog, or two breakfast links, or two slices of Canadian bacon or ham. So, a daily sandwich with one or two slices of baloney would increase your colorectal cancer risk by 18%. But a half-pound of pastrami on rye would bump it up more like 80%. Okay, but what does the 18% increased risk really mean? One way to look at it is absolute risk versus relative risk. Assuming that the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is about 5% (1 in 20), increasing your risk by about 20% would only bump up your absolute risk of getting colorectal cancer from 5% to 6%. Now, on a population scale, an 18% drop in risk could mean about 25,000 fewer cases of colorectal cancer every year in the United States, 25,000 fewer families a year dealing with that diagnosis, if we swapped out the daily baloney sandwich for hummus or if we chose veggie dogs instead. So, it all depends on how you look at it.

    Colorectal cancer is the United States’ second leading cause of cancer death for men and women combined, after lung cancer. So, if you don’t smoke, colon and rectal cancer may be your greatest cancer nemesis. But we can drop the risk of getting it by about a fifth with a single dietary tweak: cutting a serving of processed meat out of our daily diet.

    How does 18% increased cancer risk compare to other risky behaviors? In my testimony before the Dietary Guidelines Scientific Committee, I made what may sound like a hyperbolic metaphor. I asked, “We try not to smoke around our kids, why would we send them to school with a baloney sandwich?” That is not hyperbole. According to the Surgeon General, living with a smoker increases our risk of lung cancer by 15%. So, breathing second-hand smoke day in and day out increases our risk of lung cancer almost as much as eating a serving of processed meat day in and day out increases our risk of colorectal cancer.

    The meat industry responded by saying that we must consider the risks together with the benefits before we tell people what to eat or breathe. Think about all the baloney benefits—lunch meat isn’t just about cancer, but convenience.

    Indeed, processed meat isn’t just about cancer. An article railing against the World Health Organization’s “meat terrorism” cited the Global Burden of Disease studies comparing how many cancer deaths are caused by processed meat consumption compared to tobacco or alcohol use. But if you look at the study they’re referencing, the roughly 37,000 deaths attributable to higher processed meat intake are just the colorectal cancer deaths and don’t also include the 100,000 deaths from diabetes or the 400,000 deaths from heart disease. So, in actuality, we may be talking about half a million deaths attributable to processed meat, as you can see below and at 4:06 in my video.

    And it’s not just colon and rectal cancer. If you look at the science since the IARC decision was published, processed meat may also increase the risk of prostate cancer, breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

    Unfortunately, research shows that “despite growing public health concerns about processed meat consumption, there have been no changes in the amount of processed meat consumed by US adults over the last 18 years.” Of course, it would have helped if the last Dietary Guidelines for Americans had happened to mention that processed meat was a carcinogen. Publishing “an explicit and science-based statement on processed meat” in the next Dietary Guidelines would certainly help. But the scientific committee made no such recommendation.

    Sadly, even those with colorectal cancer “hardly improve their overall lifestyle after diagnosis,” though that may be because “70% of cancer patients have never received nutrition advice from their [medical] providers during or after treatment.” That just blows me away.

    An article published in a scientific cancer-research journal stated that “despite the continued obfuscation of the issue by the meat industry—they learned well from the tobacco merchants—meat should continue to be a focus of public health action.” New York City is leading the way, passing legislation to ban processed meats from school meals. Not giving our kids carcinogens? What a concept!

    Meanwhile, the processed meat industry is trying to reformulate its products. It’s kind of like in the pharmaceutical area, where you try to mitigate the potential adverse effects of one drug by prescribing an additional drug. For example, fiber could be added to hot dogs to try to counterbalance the risk, potentially reducing the cancer load by changing how it’s processed instead of by banning processed meat altogether.

    Doctor’s Note

    If you missed the previous video, see IARC: Processed Meat Like Bacon Causes Cancer.

    For my full testimony on the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, check out Highlights from the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Hearing.



    Source link

  • “Transformative Advance” in Cancer Treatment Emerges in Dallas — New Pill Shows Rare Survival Jump in Pancreatic Cancer Patients

    “Transformative Advance” in Cancer Treatment Emerges in Dallas — New Pill Shows Rare Survival Jump in Pancreatic Cancer Patients

    For decades, a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was among the most devastating words a patient could hear from their physician. The five-year survival rate for metastatic pancreatic cancer — cancer that has spread to other organs by the time it is caught — has historically hovered around 3%. Standard second-line chemotherapy for patients whose cancer had stopped responding to first-line treatment offered a median overall survival of just 6.7 months. These were not numbers that inspired hope. They were numbers that ended conversations about the future and began conversations about end-of-life planning.

    That calculus may be changing. In one of the most significant oncology results of the decade, Revolution Medicines presented Phase 3 trial data for daraxonrasib on May 31, 2026 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in Chicago — the most important cancer research gathering in the world. The results were extraordinary: compared to standard chemotherapy, daraxonrasib nearly doubled overall survival for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who had already received prior treatment, extending median overall survival from 6.7 months to 13.2 months. It reduced the risk of death by 60%. One-third of patients on the drug achieved at least a 20% reduction in tumor size. For a cancer that has been called “undruggable,” this is a scientific watershed.

    The Molecular Breakthrough: Targeting KRAS for the First Time

    Understanding why daraxonrasib is historically significant requires a brief excursion into cancer genetics. The KRAS gene — Kirsten rat sarcoma viral proto-oncogene — is mutated in approximately 92% of pancreatic cancer cases, making it the most consistently mutated driver gene in this disease. For over four decades, KRAS was classified as literally undruggable: the protein it produces lacks the obvious binding pockets that most targeted therapies need to attach to and inhibit. Multiple generations of pharmaceutical researchers attempted to develop KRAS inhibitors and failed.

    Daraxonrasib belongs to a new class of drugs called pan-RAS inhibitors — molecules engineered to target the RAS protein family in an entirely new way, blocking its activity regardless of which specific RAS mutation is present. The RASolute 302 Phase 3 trial enrolled 500 participants with solid tumors harboring activating RAS mutations, with 300 mg selected as the Phase 3 dose after dose-escalation established the therapeutic window. The drug is administered orally once daily — an important practical advantage over intravenous chemotherapy that requires hospital infusion visits.

    Why This Matters Especially for Dallas and Texas

    The Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex is home to one of the most formidable oncology ecosystems in the United States. UT Southwestern Medical Center’s Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor Scott & White Health, Texas Health Resources, and the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center Network collectively serve the cancer care needs of tens of millions of Texans. Texas Cancer Registry data show pancreatic cancer among the leading causes of cancer death in the state for both men and women. In Tarrant and Dallas counties combined, hundreds of new pancreatic cancer diagnoses are made each year — the majority of them late-stage, given that pancreatic cancer is notoriously asymptomatic until it has already advanced.

    “This achievement exemplifies the strength of UT Southwestern as a premier institution for interdisciplinary patient care, discovery-driven research, and the development of breakthrough therapies,” said Dr. J. William Harbour, Chair of Ophthalmology at UT Southwestern, reflecting the institution’s broader commitment to breakthrough oncology. UT Southwestern’s Simmons Cancer Center is already offering novel whole-liver chemotherapy delivery for rare eye cancers — the first program in Texas and the surrounding region to do so — illustrating how Dallas’s premier academic medical center is positioned to rapidly adopt next-generation treatments as they receive regulatory approval.

    The ACS Cancer Statistics 2026: The Bigger Picture of Progress

    Daraxonrasib arrives at a moment of genuine, documented progress in cancer outcomes across the board. The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Statistics 2026 report records that the five-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined has reached a historic milestone of 70% during the 2015–2021 period — up from 49% in the mid-1970s. Since the cancer death rate’s peak in 1991, it has declined by 34%, with approximately 4.8 million cancer deaths prevented as of 2023. Prostate cancer death rates have decreased 53% since 1993. Colorectal cancer mortality is down 55% from its 1980 peak. Breast cancer death rates dropped 44% between 1989 and 2023. Metastatic melanoma five-year survival has more than doubled.

    For distant-stage cancers — the most advanced, metastatic presentations — the relative survival rate has doubled from 17% in the mid-1970s to 34% in the most recent data period. Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst, attributed the improvement to “more awareness of cancer risks and symptoms, much better screening, earlier diagnosis leading to earlier treatments,” and specifically to advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Daraxonrasib, if it receives FDA approval following the Phase 3 data, would represent precisely this kind of targeted advance — a drug designed for a specific molecular driver that is present in a specific tumor type, delivering outcomes that chemotherapy’s blunt-force approach never could.

    The One Critical Warning: Funding Threats to Future Progress

    The ACS 2026 report is explicit about a threat that must be named alongside the good news: “continued progress is threatened by proposed federal cuts to cancer research and health insurance.” The breakthroughs driving today’s improved survival rates — daraxonrasib, immune checkpoint inhibitors, CAR-T therapies, cancer vaccines — are the downstream product of decades of federal investment in basic science through the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Cutting that foundational research funding now, as multiple federal budget proposals have contemplated, would not produce savings — it would produce future deaths, from cancers that a funded scientific community would have learned to cure.

    For Dallas-area patients with pancreatic cancer, the immediate clinical question is access. Daraxonrasib is not yet FDA-approved — Revolution Medicines is expected to file for approval based on the Phase 3 data in the second half of 2026. Patients with pancreatic cancer harboring RAS mutations who have already received first-line chemotherapy should discuss clinical trial eligibility with their oncologist at UT Southwestern, Baylor Scott & White, or Texas Health Resources. Revolution Medicines’ clinical trial locator identifies open enrollment sites for ongoing RAS-inhibitor trials. This is the most important oncology news in pancreatic cancer in decades. Dallas’s world-class cancer infrastructure puts its patients in the best possible position to access it.

    RELATED ARTICLES ON MEDICALDAILY.COM

    Source link

  • Drop20

    Drop20

    Product Name: Drop20

    Click here to get Drop20 at discounted price while it’s still available…

    All orders are protected by SSL encryption – the highest industry standard for online security from trusted vendors.

    Drop20 is backed with a 60 Day No Questions Asked Money Back Guarantee. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean™, you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked.

    (more…)

  • A Meditation on the Art of Stopping (Extended)

    A Meditation on the Art of Stopping (Extended)

    In this practice, teacher Shalini Bahl reminds us that in its simplest form, mindfulness is just about stopping—stopping to notice, to breathe, to gently interrupt our engrained habits of thought with our quiet presence.

    We often think of mindfulness and meditation as a drawn-out, sustained exercise—when in reality, they’re just a collection of micro-moments of stopping, breathing, really noticing our own bodies and our own lives, getting distracted, and then coming back again. Over and over.

    As this week’s teacher Shalini Bahl puts it, today’s guided practice is about the art of stopping: letting go of our regular habits of the mind—the pushing, pulling, running in circles— and instead just being for a moment.

    This is an extended practice, but as a bonus, we’re also sharing a micro-practice version below that you can take into busy days.

    And don’t miss Shalini’s article on Mindful.org that’s all about the power of micro-practices to affect our daily choices.

    A Meditation on the Art of Stopping

    Read and practice the guided meditation script below, pausing after each paragraph. Or listen to the audio practice.

    1. Start by coming to a comfortable posture where you feel supported. If you need more cushions or something to support your back so you feel the elongation along the back of your spine and rolling your shoulders up, back, and down. Rest your hands facing palms up or palms down. When you feel ready, lower or close your eyes.
    2. Receive the sound of the bells as an invitation to the mind to be fully present. To this body, to this breath. Notice the fact that you’re breathing. There’s no need to change your breath in any way. If it’s shallow, let it be shallow, if it’s deep, let it be deep. Just rest your awareness in this breath, entering your body, following it as far as it wants to go. Notice the slight pause when the in-breath changes to out-breath. Then rest in the awareness of that exhale until the out-breath fully leaves your body. And then the pause, resting in that pause before the breath enters the body. 
    3. Follow this cycle of breathing at your own pace, resting in awareness. You’re not thinking about your breath, you’re really starting to sense the breath, the coolness, the touch of the breath as soon as it enters your nostrils. Feel it move in your body, the expansion, as you breathe in, in your lungs, in your chest, in the belly, wherever you feel it. As you inhale, breathe in and then exhale, really sensing that contraction, the letting go. 
    4. Every time your mind wanders, which it will, just notice that with kindness. Let go of that thought for now, knowing you can always return to the plans, to your thoughts, after the practice. For now, just let go of those thoughts and return back to this awareness of the breath. 
    5. Just for these few moments, let go of any rushing, of any judging, of expectations. Allow yourself to breathe just the way you are, as you are. Give your full care and attention to every inhale. To every exhale. And the spaces in between. 
    6. When you’re ready, find one place in your body where you can really feel the direct sensations of breathing. It could be the touch of the breath in the nostrils or the upper lip region where you feel the coolness of the new breath entering the nose, the tingling in your nostrils, or the warmth as you exhale, touching your upper lip. 
    7. If it feels more natural for you, you can turn your attention to feel your breath in the region of your chest or your belly. Find that one place where you can feel the direct experience of breathing. For the next few minutes, stay there with the direct sensations of breathing. Again, keep it effortless, just a very gentle resting in that awareness of the breath. 
    8. If it feels dull, you can open your eyes a little bit. Make your inhale more conscious. If your mind is really active, give more attention to the exhale, the slowing down of your exhale. 
    9. What we are practicing here is the art of stopping and letting go—letting go of our distractions, of our regular habits of the mind, of pushing, pulling, running in circles. We’re just being here, fully present to your breath, allowing yourself to feel your breath directly. 
    10. Notice your expectations of what’s next, of how things should be, even how this practice should be. Notice how your attachments can get in the way of your experience of inner calm in this moment. Soften the grip of those attachments and just return to your direct experience of the breath. Just this one breath. 
    11. Now, expand your awareness of this breath, of the feeling of this breathing in your whole body. You can stay either focused on that one place or you can expand the awareness of this breath moving through your body. Feel your whole body breathing in, breathing out. Notice those micro-moments of letting go of distractions and staying present. 
    12. Before we end this practice, take a few moments to listen within to what’s present. Just listen, taking a few moments to listen as your mind and body are a little calmer. Maybe there’s clarity of way you can bring in more of this practice of inner calm in your life, whether it’s in your relationships, with yourself, in your work. Just listen within to where this practice of inner calm can be most skillful, most beneficial to you and your loved ones. May we carry forward these qualities of inner and outer calm in all our actions and interactions.

    Micro-practice here:



    Source link

  • New Cancer Treatments Show Promise Against Some of the Deadliest Tumors, Researchers Report

    New Cancer Treatments Show Promise Against Some of the Deadliest Tumors, Researchers Report

    Recent advances in cancer research are offering new hope for patients with some of the most difficult-to-treat forms of the disease, with scientists reporting encouraging results from experimental therapies targeting pancreatic, lung, and head and neck cancers.

    The developments were highlighted during presentations at major oncology meetings and reported by The Guardian on June 1, as researchers unveiled data suggesting that several next-generation treatments may improve outcomes for patients who have exhausted standard options. The Guardian report

    One of the most closely watched breakthroughs involves daraxonrasib, an experimental pill designed to target RAS-driven cancers. According to reports from oncology researchers cited by The Guardian, the drug nearly doubled median survival among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in a recent clinical trial. Pancreatic cancer remains one of the deadliest malignancies worldwide, with survival rates lagging behind many other major cancer types. (The Guardian)

    Researchers also reported progress in head and neck cancer treatment using amivantamab, a targeted therapy that has demonstrated tumor reduction in patients whose disease continued to progress despite chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Trial findings showed that a significant number of participants experienced measurable responses to the treatment, raising hopes for a patient population with limited therapeutic options. (The Guardian)

    Separately, investigators presented early clinical trial data for GRWD5769, an experimental immunotherapy-enhancing drug developed to help the immune system recognize cancer cells more effectively. In a Phase 1 study involving patients with advanced cancers, tumors shrank in multiple participants, including those with lung, bowel, bladder, liver, cervical, and head and neck cancers. Researchers said the therapy works by disrupting a mechanism that allows cancer cells to evade immune detection. (The Guardian)

    The findings come amid growing concern over the global cancer burden. According to figures cited by The Guardian, cancer causes nearly 10 million deaths each year worldwide, while approximately 100,000 new diagnoses are made daily. Experts have also raised concerns about increasing cancer incidence among younger adults, a trend that continues to be investigated. (The Guardian)

    Despite the positive developments, researchers cautioned that many of the treatments remain experimental and require additional testing before broader adoption. Larger clinical trials will be needed to confirm long-term benefits, assess safety, and determine which patients are most likely to respond.

    Still, oncology experts say the recent results underscore a broader shift toward precision medicine, where therapies are increasingly designed to target specific genetic and biological characteristics of tumors rather than relying solely on conventional treatment approaches. (The Guardian)

    Source: The Guardian reported on June 1 that emerging cancer therapies, including daraxonrasib for pancreatic cancer, amivantamab for head and neck cancer, and the investigational drug GRWD5769, are showing promising results in clinical studies, fueling optimism among cancer researchers despite ongoing challenges in treatment and diagnosis. (The Guardian)

    Related Links:

    Source link

  • Deceased Donor Islet Cell Transplantation 101

    Deceased Donor Islet Cell Transplantation 101

    Source: Breakthrough T1D
    Related MedlinePlus Pages: Islet Cell Transplantation

    Source link

  • The Backlash to IARC’s Report that Meat Probably Causes Cancer

    The Backlash to IARC’s Report that Meat Probably Causes Cancer

    How did the meat industry, government, and cancer organizations respond to the confirmation that processed meat, like bacon, ham, hot dogs, and lunch meat, causes cancer?

    “It is rare, in the history of nations, that one finds good reasons to render homage to the generosity and altruism of governments and those in power: the birth of the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] presents one of those rare occasions.” It all started with a single letter from a grieving husband, relating his wife’s suffering after being diagnosed with cancer, cascading into an open letter calling for governments to devote half of 1% of their military budgets to fight for life by attacking one of the greatest plagues that weighs on humanity. And 18 months later, the IARC was born in the World Health Organization. What was its overarching motive? Cancer prevention.

    As I discuss in my video, IARC: Processed Meat Like Bacon Causes Cancer, the IARC is best known for its monographs, book-sized reports evaluating whether or not some suspected carcinogen does in fact cause cancer. They are “generally accepted as close to a final word” as there is on whether or not something is carcinogenic. And its 114th monograph, published in 2018, focused on meat. After considering more than 800 different studies and thoroughly reviewing the scientific literature, a group of 22 experts from 10 countries concluded its 500-page report by saying, “Consumption of red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” But processed meat was placed as a Group 1 carcinogen, the highest level of certainty, meaning that according to the best available evidence, the consumption of processed meat causes cancer.

    So, that means foods like bacon cause cancer. Ham, hot dogs, breakfast links, and lunch meat cause cancer. But its definition also includes, for example, turkey deli slices. Specifically, eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer, cancers of the colon or rectum, which is the second most deadly cancer worldwide, after lung cancer, which is caused largely by smoking. “Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S.,” as well, and it doesn’t just strike older people. It is also a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer earlier in life.

    The meat industry wasn’t happy, calling it a “dramatic and alarmist overreach.” Speaking of dramatic and alarmist overreach, one agricultural group in Italy sent out a press release: Just say no to terrorism on meat.

    The gloves were off. The meat industry in Canada tried to pressure the government to cut off funds to the IARC, asking the Health Minister to pull all funding from the agency after it dared to question meat. The U.S. meat industry did the same thing. It’s no surprise that the IARC is “under siege by corporate interests” trying to challenge their cancer evaluations on Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide and meat, discredit the agency, and undermine financial backing. For example, internal documents have revealed Monsanto scientists “casually discussing ‘ghost-writing’ scientific papers and suppressing science that conflicts with corporate assertions of Roundup’s safety.”

    The chemical industry has joined the corporate cacophony, calling the IARC monographs “dubious and misleading.” These are classic strategies straight out of the tobacco industry playbook. “But there is little to suggest that, as a corporate actor, ‘Big Tobacco’ differs fundamentally from, eg, ‘Big Booze’ or ‘Big Food.’”

    One recurring corporate talking point is that the IARC never met a carcinogen it didn’t like. But the vast majority end up being categorized as just possibly carcinogenic to humans, or there really aren’t sufficient data to make a determination either way, as you can see below and at 4:20 in my video.

    The agency only spends time looking at substances for which there is already “an existing body of scientific literature indicating a degree of carcinogenic hazard to humans.” So, no wonder many of them end up, indeed, carcinogenic.

    How did the IARC respond to all the criticism? The World Health Organization received questions, concerns, and clarification requests after the publication of its meat and cancer report. It basically replied: Hey, we never told anyone to stop eating processed meat—your body, your choice. The report just indicated that consuming less of these products can reduce the risk of a leading cancer killer. So, you like cancer? You do you.

    The IARC is just a research organization that evaluates evidence on what causes cancer; after that, what you do with that information is up to you. The American Cancer Society was nice and clear when it came to alcohol. When it comes to cancer, “it is best not to drink alcohol.” But the organization got a bit wishy-washy with processed meat, suggesting people can get away with just limiting their intake. The European Commission was a little clearer. To reduce our risk of cancer, we should eat lots of whole grains, pulses (which are beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils), fruits, and vegetables; limit sugary, fatty, salty foods; and straight-up avoid soda, sausage, and other processed meats. After all, in answering the question of how much meat is safe to eat, the IARC replied that it’s unknown whether a safe level exists, period.

    Doctor’s Note

    So, How Much Cancer Does Processed Meat Cause? That video is coming up next.

    And, it’s not just cancer. For example, see The Effects of Processed Meat on Lung Function.

    I previously covered Monsanto and its Roundup pesticide (now owned by Bayer), see related posts below.



    Source link

  • ACA Enrollment Fraud Now Tops 6 Million — And Taxpayers Are Footing a Billion Bill

    ACA Enrollment Fraud Now Tops 6 Million — And Taxpayers Are Footing a $27 Billion Bill

    A sweeping new report released today confirms what critics of the Affordable Care Act have warned for years: millions of ineligible individuals are receiving federally subsidized health coverage, draining tens of billions in public funds through a system riddled with structural loopholes and almost no accountability.

    6.2M+
    Improper enrollees (2026 est.)    		 $27B
    Annual taxpayer cost (2025)    		 ~96%
    Fake GAO apps approved (2024-25)

    In what is shaping up to be one of the most significant federal health care accountability stories of the year, the Paragon Health Institute released findings today — confirmed by The Washington Post — estimating that roughly 6.2 million people on the ACA’s health insurance exchanges are improperly enrolled in subsidized coverage. That figure represents approximately one in four of all exchange enrollees, according to the think tank’s analysis.

    The report lands as Congress continues debating the future of COVID-era enhanced subsidies that have ballooned ACA enrollment numbers — numbers now called into serious question by researchers, federal watchdogs, and the courts alike.

    “Roughly a quarter of all ACA exchange enrollees may be receiving coverage they are not entitled to — paid for by American taxpayers.”

    — Paragon Health Institute, June 2026

    HOW IT HAPPENED

    The story of ACA fraud is inseparable from the pandemic. When Congress passed enhanced subsidies in 2021 that effectively made silver and bronze plans free for low-income enrollees, brokers and insurers quickly found ways to exploit the windfall. Income verification requirements were loosened. Enrollment could be triggered through Direct Enrollment pathways with minimal scrutiny. And crucially, the financial penalty for overstating income — and thus receiving excess subsidies — was capped so low it created almost no deterrent.

    The result, according to Paragon’s research, was a surge in fraudulent sign-ups driven by three overlapping groups: enrollees who deliberately misstated their income; unscrupulous brokers who falsified applications to earn commissions; and a class of enrollees who were signed up entirely without their knowledge or consent, with insurers and agents pocketing the subsidy payments.

    The scale of that last category is particularly alarming. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data show that nearly 12 million ACA enrollees — 35% of all exchange participants — filed zero medical claims in 2024, up from just 3.5 million in 2021. Researchers describe many of these as “phantom enrollees”: people who have no idea they are technically covered, or who have other insurance entirely.

    GOVERNMENT’S OWN TESTS CONFIRM THE HOLES

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted two rounds of undercover testing — and the results were stunning. In the first round, GAO submitted four fictitious applications for plan year 2024 using invalid Social Security numbers and fabricated identities. All four were approved, costing approximately $2,350 per month in fraudulent subsidies. In the second round, GAO submitted 20 fictitious applications for plan year 2025; 19 of the 20 were approved and, as of September 2025, 18 were still actively receiving subsidized coverage. Combined across both rounds, the exchange approved 23 of 24 fictitious applications — a 96% failure rate for basic fraud detection.

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) added its own corroboration, estimating 2.3 million improper enrollees just among those who overstated their income in the ten states that did not expand Medicaid — a fraction of the total picture. The CBO figure alone exceeds the total coverage losses Democrats claim will result from ending the enhanced subsidies, a point Republicans have seized upon in the ongoing budget debate.

    CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS MOUNT

    The fraud is not only a policy problem — it is increasingly a criminal one. In February 2025, a federal grand jury indicted Cory Lloyd and Steven Strong for a scheme that sought over $233 million in fraudulent ACA subsidies, of which the federal government paid at least $180 million. Both men targeted vulnerable, low-income individuals — including people experiencing homelessness, unemployment, and substance use disorders — and used street marketers who sometimes offered bribes to induce enrollment. Both were convicted by a federal jury in November 2025 and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison each, with $180.6 million in restitution ordered.

    In April 2026, the Department of Justice announced a separate but related resolution: AP of South Florida (APSF), the brokerage company where Lloyd had continued the scheme, agreed to plead guilty to one count of major fraud against the United States. The federal government had paid $141.5 million in unwarranted subsidies through APSF. In a parallel civil resolution, APSF’s parent company AssuredPartners agreed to pay $135 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations. The combined settlement exceeds $160 million. Court documents revealed that APSF employees stationed street marketers at homeless shelters, bus stops, and drug treatment clinics — sometimes offering cash or gift cards to obtain personal information. Some victims subsequently lost Medicaid access and faced increased costs for HIV medication, opioid treatment, and mental health drugs.

    FLORIDA: GROUND ZERO

    Florida has emerged as the leading state for ACA enrollment fraud. A Paragon county-level analysis found that in nearly every Florida county, ACA enrollment exceeds the estimated eligible population — in some counties by more than eleven times. Note: independent health policy researchers, insurers, and hospital groups have disputed Paragon’s methodology, contending the fraud estimates may be overstated. The state’s combination of high poverty rates, large uninsured populations, and a dense network of commission-driven insurance brokers created conditions that, according to federal prosecutors, allowed large-scale fraud to operate for years.

    WHAT REFORM COULD LOOK LIKE

    Critics of the ACA say the path forward is straightforward but politically difficult: allow the pandemic-era enhanced subsidies to fully expire, raise the subsidy repayment caps that currently let overpaid enrollees keep the excess with little consequence, and restore meaningful income verification requirements at the point of enrollment. CMS under the current administration has signaled support for tighter controls, with Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz stating in mid-2025 that the agency is “restoring integrity to ACA exchanges by cracking down on fraud.”

    Defenders of the program argue the fraud figures are overstated and that any tightening of enrollment rules will disproportionately harm low-income Americans who legitimately need coverage — a tension that is now at the center of one of Washington’s defining health policy battles. What is no longer in dispute, after years of accumulating evidence from GAO, CBO, CMS, and federal prosecutors alike, is that billions of taxpayer dollars have flowed to people who were never supposed to receive them.

    TIMELINE

    2021–2022 Biden-era COVID subsidies introduced; income verification requirements loosened. Lloyd-Strong and APSF fraud schemes begin operating across Florida.
    June 2024 Paragon publishes ‘The Great Obamacare Enrollment Fraud,’ estimating 5.0 million improper enrollees in 2024 (revised upward to 5.1M in May 2026).
    Dec 2025 Enhanced COVID subsidies expire. GAO releases undercover results: 23 of 24 fictitious applications approved across plan years 2024–2025. Paragon documents 6.4M+ improper enrollees in 2025.
    Feb 2025 DOJ indicts Cory Lloyd and Steven Strong for a scheme seeking $233M+ in fraudulent ACA subsidies (at least $180M paid), targeting homeless individuals and people in treatment programs.
    Nov 2025 Both Lloyd and Strong convicted by federal jury; each sentenced to 20 years and ordered to pay $180.6M in restitution.
    Apr 2026 APSF pleads guilty; AssuredPartners pays $135M civil settlement. DOJ total exceeds $160M — one of the largest ACA fraud resolutions on record.
    Jun 2, 2026 Paragon releases updated estimates: 6.2M+ improper enrollees in 2026, confirmed by Washington Post. Congressional reform debate intensifies.

    SOURCES & KEY LINKS

    Source link