Health Archives - Genetic Literacy Project: Recent Episodes
None
From tampons to tap water, from cereal boxes to vaccines, nearly every modern health scare rests on the same myth: chemicals are killing us. This fear—chemophobia—has become one of the most powerful engines of misinformation worldwide.The World Health Organization (WHO) lists vaccine hesitancy as a top global health threat, but I’d argue that chemophobia is even more pervasive. It’s the common thread that links all forms of science rejection; it fuels fear around vaccines, food, medicine, agriculture, and cosmetics.
Chemophobia, the irrational fear or aversion to chemicals, is everywhere—whispered in parenting Facebook groups, shouted by influencers, amplified by media outlets that should know better, and weaponized by politicians.
Chemophobia is the hidden language of health misinformation.
You’ve seen it:
- Headlines about “heavy metals in tampons”
- Myths about vaccines containing “toxic” ingredients
- Legislative bans on synthetic food dyes
- Public outcry against fluoride in drinking water
- The Environmental Working Group’s annual Dirty Dozen list, warning about “toxic pesticides” in produce
- “Paraben-free” or “preservative-free” marketing slapped on cosmetics, sunscreens, and even foods
If you didn’t know better, you might think you and your family are in constant danger. You’re not. Instead of protecting people, chemophobia increases costs, reduces safety, harms public health, and stalls lifesaving science.
What Is Chemophobia?Chemophobia claims that synthetic chemicals are inherently harmful, while “natural” chemicals are safe—a textbook example of the appeal to nature fallacy.
Chemophobia gained traction in the mid-twentieth century, following real industrial disasters such as Love Canal, Three Mile Island, and the Bhopal gas leak. Those events, which led to justifiable concern, were used to demonize all “synthetic” chemicals.
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) fueled the flame:
“The chemicals to which life is asked to make its adjustment are no longer merely the calcium and silica and copper … they are the synthetic creations of man’s inventive mind … Such ingenious manipulations have produced a battery of poisons of truly extraordinary power.”
The origins of chemophobiaCarson was a gifted writer and a marine biologist. Her work contributed to the EPA’s creation and the restriction of DDT use, which previously helped eliminate endemic malaria in the United States during World War II.
While DDT saved lives from mosquito-borne disease, it caused ecological damage in birds, where exposure thinned bald eagle eggshells, leading to fragile eggs and high chick mortality. Once malaria was controlled and the off-target effects were understood, the ecological risks outweighed the benefits, though the danger was not to humans.**
Carson contributed to important scientific efforts in her field, but she wasn’t a chemist or toxicologist.
Yet, when she framed all “synthetic creations” as a “battery of poisons,” Carson unintentionally left a legacy of exaggerated distrust toward synthetic chemicals.
That distrust metastasized into today’s chemophobia, where people are terrified of anything artificial, even while scientific principles tell us that the source of a chemical has no bearing on its potential harm or safety.
Many of the most toxic chemicals are all-natural, including Botulinum toxin, abrin, ricin, arsenic, and cyanide.On the flip side, countless synthetic chemicals are lifesaving.Chemistry enables scientists to harness our knowledge, nature, and chemical synthesis to expand our health-improving resources.
Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) exists because chemists improved upon the natural compound salicin found in willow bark to make a safer and more effective pain reliever. Many lifesaving chemotherapies are synthetic derivatives of natural chemicals altered to improve effectiveness and safety (read more on that, below)
Chemophobia paints synthetic chemicals as universal villains. You’ve heard the commonly repeated claims:
- “I only want natural ingredients.”
- “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it.”
- “Vaccines are filled with harmful chemicals.”
- “GMOs aren’t natural, so they must be bad.”
Fear in a soundbite beats nuance, especially when leveraged as a marketing ploy by the wellness industry.
Their tactic: if synthetic is “bad,” then the “natural” alternatives they promote must be safer, healthier, more beneficial, and even more eco-friendly—because they are trying to convince you that modern science and tools developed by it are evil.
But your body doesn’t care if a molecule was isolated from a plant or synthesized in a lab.
Vitamin C is vitamin C (scientifically, it’s actually (5R)-5-[(1S)-1,2-Dihydroxyethyl]-3,4-dihydroxy-5H-furan-2-one), whether it’s extracted from a lime or fully synthesized in a laboratory.
Formaldehyde is formaldehyde (and yes, your body makes much higher levels of formaldehyde every day than you would ever encounter in a vaccine).
What matters is dose, not origin. All-natural botulinum toxin is a million times more toxic than synthetic sarin—yet people willingly inject that into their faces while fearing preservatives in bread.
This context is almost always omitted from public discourse, where media outlets, influencers, and even policymakers repeat false claims about chemicals without scientific evidence.
Even among individuals who vocally proclaim to support science, you see anti-science actions rooted in chemophobia. That’s why Democratic governors ban artificial food colorings without considering that they’ll be replaced with naturally derived coloring chemicals that are less studied, less safe, and more ecologically damaging (yes, I am talking to you, Gavin Newsom).
That’s why Democratic legislators move to restrict the use of glyphosate, one of the safest herbicides, while conveniently ignoring that this would force farmers to use weed control measures that are more toxic, less effective, and have broader ecological impacts. That’s also why European governments restrict genetic technologies in farming, even while they embrace the same science for cancer therapies.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPChemophobia Thrives on Low Chemistry LiteracyOnly 28 percent of Americans are civically scientifically literate, meaning they can find, understand, and apply science to policy decisions.
So, when voters are told fluoride is “toxic,” they predictably vote to remove it. When they’ve heard for decades that glyphosate causes cancer, despite data showing otherwise, they support bans.
And when new parents are bombarded with disinformation from Moms across America or the Environmental Working Group (EWG), they make choices that don’t actually protect their families but do drive profits for those very people spreading the fear. While many believe these organizations have their best interests in mind, they are major contributors to disinformation.
Moms Across America is an activist organization founded in 2013 that spreads pseudoscience and chemophobia about GMOs, pesticides, vaccines, and food additives.
EWG is a nonprofit and lobbying organization best known for its annual “Dirty Dozen” list and alarmist rankings of consumer products and foods. Most people don’t know that they also spread objective lies about vaccines—something they have attempted to scrub from their history. EWG is one of the biggest propagators of chemophobia, routinely exaggerating risks of chemicals for their financial benefit.
This isn’t just an American problem, either.
In Europe, 40 percent of adults say they’d prefer to “live in a world without chemicals,” and nearly a third openly fear them. Ninety-one percent don’t grasp that toxicity depends on dose, and 82 percent don’t realize that table salt is always sodium chloride (NaCl), whether isolated from nature or synthesized in a laboratory.
Too many people forget that chemistry shapes their existence—food, medicine, clean water, even their smartphones and homes—until it is used to stoke fear. Combine that with a “do your own research” culture where Google and TikTok pass for toxicology training, and chemophobia spreads unchecked.
Chemophobia Shapes Policy—and Not in a Good WayChemophobia doesn’t just distort individual choices; it influences lawmaking across political ideologies and harms public health as a result.
Chemophobia hinders the development of crops using genetic engineering that can withstand more extreme climates, grow in places that were previously inhospitable, and produce higher yields with fewer pesticides. Chemophobia drives anti-vaccine opposition, slows development of novel therapeutics, fuels unfounded fears about medicine ingredients, and erodes trust in evidence-based science and medicine.
Chemophobia leads to banning safe food ingredients and demonization of healthy fruits and vegetables, causing people to avoid nutritious food, which, unlike the pesticide residues they fear, actually does pose a health risk. Chemophobia forces consumer product companies to kowtow to public outcry and remove safe and effective ingredients (such as preservatives like parabens), increasing costs, reducing safety, damaging the environment, and legitimizing misinformation.
The most dangerous expression of chemophobia right now is RFK Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.Now that he has co-opted the Department of Health and Human Services, he is wreaking havoc on public health, trust in science, and our safety guardrails. MAHA gains appeal because it’s marketed as a bipartisan “health” platform: rhetoric around healthy foods, chronic health issues, and environmental contaminants.
But peel back the façade?
MAHA is a full-blown chemophobia manifesto, the magnum opus of RFK Jr.’s forty-year anti-science career. None of it will make Americans healthier.MAHA appeals to anti-GMO and anti-pesticide sentiment among left-leaning people who, ironically, have been misled by decades of anti-science rhetoric by RFK Jr. and his allies. Organic purity narratives blend with “ban preservatives” rhetoric, while building on distrust of corporations and “Big Food.” This same tactic fueled the original anti-vaccine activists, many of them left-leaning individuals concerned about toxic vaccine ingredients.
MAHA appeals to the right by branding chemophobia as government overreach: the FDA and EPA are “poisoning” citizens with vaccines, fluoridated water, and processed foods. It feeds broader anti-regulation, anti-institution ideology that led to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which removed FDA oversight of dietary supplements and drove exponential growth of the wellness industry.
Chemophobia is uniquely dangerous because it transcends political lines. RFK Jr. doesn’t need to persuade people on policy specifics; he only needs to stoke distrust in “chemicals” or legitimate qualified experts who try to educate people, and fear does the rest.
MAHA positions have already seeped into legislation.* The Department of Health and Human Services adopted a federal policy legitimizing falsehoods about thimerosal, used globally to prevent contamination in multi-dose vaccines. * They have halted $500 million in funding for mRNA vaccine research, claiming it is a “risky” technology. * Multiple states around the country are pursuing bans on “genetic medicines” based on the same reasoning. * This year Utah and Florida banned fluoridation of public water, even while nearly eighty years demonstrate its benefit for dental and overall health. * Legal challenges that block cultivation of golden rice, a lifesaving farming technology, have drawn support from environmental activists and conservative conspiracy platforms alike. * California food dye bans were cheered by left- and right-leaning wellness influencers similarly touting it as the path to healthy food. It isn’t; it instead legitimizes false claims that these colorings are harmful while global experts have asserted their safety.
Chemophobia is the common theme.Chemophobia thrives on the risk perception gap between real and perceived risks. People fixate on Red Dye 40 in snacks while ignoring real systemic factors that impact health, such as healthcare inequities, income inequality, and food deserts.. They avoid nutritious foods because of unfounded pesticide fears but freely consume unregulated supplements full of untested compounds. This double standard distorts personal decisions and public policy and harms society.
Chemophobia has staying power because it is applicable to every single topic in science and health. Today it’s food dyes, tomorrow it’s pesticides, next week it’s vaccines. The narrative doesn’t require data—only fear of the chemical boogeyman.
We All Must Recognize Chemophobia as a Global Health ThreatIf we want better health and smarter policy, we must confront chemophobia. That starts with science literacy—basic chemistry, toxicology, biology, and, yes, media literacy. Education matters, but so does accountability.
Stop confusing notoriety with expertise. A podcaster saying “trust me” is not a credential. Journalists need to quit amplifying clickbait and start quoting real experts, not wellness influencers. And elected officials must write laws based on evidence, not vibes, polls, or lobbyists’ checks. Scientists can contribute by meeting the public where they are, using plain language, acknowledging fears, and fact-checking loudly and often. If we don’t, misinformation gets a free pass.
Chemistry underpins everything—medicine, food, clean water, sustainability, climate science. Yet public fear of “chemicals” stalls progress, raises costs, and undermines safety. Chemophobia thrives because fear is profitable, politically useful, and amplified by powerful networks. Scientists fighting it do so on our own time, without the money or infrastructure backing the fear machine. Until society treats chemophobia as the public health crisis it is, we’ll keep losing ground.
Chemophobia isn’t a nuisance; it’s a global health threat. If you consider yourself a skeptic, this is your call to action: challenge chemical fearmongering wherever you see it—even in yourself. Our health, our safety, and our future depend on it.
Dr. Andrea Love, a microbiologist and immunologist, provides the facts (and the data!) on science and health topics. Follow Andrea on X @dr_andrealove
A version of this article was originally posted at Immunologic and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article.
A CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing therapy has halved people’s cholesterol levels in a small clinical trial — raising hopes that, with further study, gene editing could one day be harnessed to provide a one-stop treatment for a common cause of heart disease.
For the study, researchers used CRISPR to disable a gene, called ANGPTL3, that helps to regulate levels of fatty molecules, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or ‘bad’ cholesterol and triglycerides, in the blood. Both types of molecule are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and levels of both fell by roughly 50% in people who were treated with the highest dose of the therapy.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPSo far, only 15 people have received the treatment. But, if all goes well in future studies, investigators hope that gene editing might one day liberate many thousands of people from daily regimens of cholesterol-lowering medication.
…
“The dream scenario for me is getting these gene-editing therapies broadly applied,” says Kiran Musunuru, a cardiologist at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “These things are coming.”
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
“We thought SARS-CoV-2 would follow the same pattern as influenza, with a clear winter peak. But the virus has been present more or less all year round,” [says Gunnveig Grødeland, a professor of immunology at the University of Oslo and head of the Centre for Pandemics and One-Health Research (P1H).]
According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), test results show an increase in Covid-19 cases in Norway after the summer holidays.
That the virus still circulates year-round is surprising to researchers.
For a virus to keep spreading year-round, it needs to find people still vulnerable to infection – those who haven’t developed neutralising antibodies.
A possible explanation could have been that the coronavirus mutates faster than other viruses.
But that’s not the case, according to Grødeland.
“In fact, influenza, which has a strong seasonal pattern, changes far more rapidly than SARS-CoV-2,” she says.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe size of future infection waves depends on how susceptible the population is, and how long immunity lasts after vaccination or infection.
The virus’ ability to mutate and produce new variants is also a factor.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
In 50 years from now, our great-grandchildren will study how affluent societies in the 2020s willfully threw out advanced technologies and innovations that had brought great discoveries, saved lives, delivered incredible progress, higher living standards, and consumer well-being. What caused the loss of trust in scientific expertise that led to an academic research purge? It wasn’t our dogma-driven leaders that frittered away our trust in science and technology and it wasn’t even the poor choices by scientists themselves. Historians will find the root cause of the decline in prosperity, well-being and innovation being a small group of dogmatic activists, working with the remnants of a dying media to confuse and frighten the public.We are living in a time of war: a war on growth, investment, technologies and scientific progress. Key to this strategy is to destroy trust in experts, scientists and companies that had developed these technologies that have led to enormous growth in economies and public goods. This undermining of research, science and technology – a denormalization of growth and progress – is being done by taking scientists’ standard research and lab practices out of context, twisting the scientific method in a concerted effort to make them look corrupt and mal-intentioned.
This misrepresentation of scientists has become a well-used playbook to create fear and outrage against pesticides, plastics, chemicals, processed food, fossil fuels, vaping and the latest attack, painkillers. History will reveal how the real corruption was the political motivations of the activists and their loyal journalists who feigned ignorance as they processed and packaged the fears sold to them. Aided by unlimited funding pumped into their campaigns by foundations and opportunistic tort law firms using a group of compromised scientists to amplify doubt and outrage.
The Method Behind Their MadnessActivists think they’re very smart in taking responsible scientific practices out of context to make a story or campaign they can package as scandal. The scientific method demands that researchers question any and all scenarios or possibilities, but when activists and special interest groups (lawyers, NGOs, post-capitalist campaigners, Marxist degrowth academics…) find experts speaking with precision and responsibility, they question the scientists’ intentions.
When scientists are confronted with possible confounding evidence, respect for the scientific method dictates they look at it and question whether it might challenge their technologies or developments. The scientific method always involves questioning, retesting and seeking to improve on previous discoveries, theories or developments. But a journalist with an agenda would present such situations as: “Science is uncertain that their developments are safe!” or “Faced with confounding evidence, scientists chose not to act (ie, cover-up)!”
The media seem unable to look at the reality long enough to realize they are also being exploited by these master manipulators. As the scientist or expert is increasingly maligned in the popular discourse, the public is increasingly willing to believe the worst, especially if it involves industry researchers.
Here are three such cases of activists and their media selling off science to sell a story. While their playbook is easy to read, most have chosen to remain illiterate.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPEmily Kopp – Research OpportunistThe most recent misreporting on the scientific method insinuates that J&J scientists (now Kenvue) knew more than a decade ago that when pregnant women took their popular pain reliever, Tylenol, it “caused autism”. Emily Kopp published this great scoop taking several J&J email conversations out of context to argue that they knew all along that their product was dangerous and there was some industry cover-up to deny the public the truth. Conspiracy theorists love these types of gotchya reports as do the media (and grifters like RFK Jr).
“The weight of evidence is starting to feel heavy to me” was the line Kopp jumped on. Two scientists were starting to look at a large series of studies (including also studies on ibuprofen risks) and were sharing views as they sifted through the limitations and confounding factors in each publication. In another J&J email exchange from 2008, scientists were reacting to early claims by individuals questioning the link of prenatal use of Tylenol with autism. What the emails showed was how scientists were receiving information and looking more deeply into it. Gosh, what a scandal!
This is normal research for a scientist. Follow up, gather information, test again and re-evaluate. Research for a journalist like Emily Kopp, on the other hand, is to “Control F” a targeted word in thousands of FOIAed emails and then take the word out of context to amplify her conspiracy theory. Worse, unlike a scientist, Kopp lets the bias fill in the gap in her evidence. Scientists were talking about studies and letters suggesting a link and after further meetings, nothing came of it (therefore we can assume management covered up the autism link). The reality, whether Kopp wants to accept it or not, is that despite a few studies, the scientific consensus on prenatal Tylenol use, to this day, is that it is safe.
Many of the studies that were discussed in Kopp’s gotchya emails had serious flaws. But assumed corporate cover-ups are so much more interesting to report on. And Kopp bases her yellow journalism on the assumption that her readers are too stupid or too lazy to read the links to the texts she cherrypicked.
Kopp learnt journalism ethics from her limited time at US Right to Know (which seems to be running out of funding), where she picked up the scandal manipulation playbook left on her desk by her predecessor, the ethically-challenged Carey Gillam.
Carey Gillam: What did Monsanto Know?Much of the activist media hype around the “Shlock and Awe” Monsanto Papers campaign focused on a leaked email where Monsanto’s chief scientist, Donna Farmer, made several scientifically sound remarks. She stated: “We cannot say it [glyphosate] is ‘safe’…we can say history of safe use, used safely etc,”. No legitimate scientist would use the word “safe” which is non-existant except as an emotional feeling. Nothing, in toxicological terms, can be claimed to be safe, not even water. Scientists talk about “safe use” or “safer”. Farmer was talking like a scientist should, with precision, but the manipulative media, on the Monsanto hunt, fried her by taking her words out of context.
In another leaked email, Farmer states:
“you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”.
This is how scientists speak, precisely, about what they know and what they cannot know. Roundup formulations have a large number of chemicals, like surfactants (that are also used in detergents) that could be carcinogenic at very high doses. This was not an admission that Roundup was carcinogenic (as attention hounds like Carey Gillam tried to portray), but that there was only so much they could know. Gillam used it to claim Monsanto had not sufficiently tested the product, but could they have tested every chemical?
There are over 1000 chemicals in a cup of coffee. We have only tested 22 of them. This does not imply that all of the other chemicals in that coffee are carcinogenic. Mind you, of the 22 tested, Bruce Ames reminded us that 17 have been shown to be carcinogenic to rats. Perhaps the only difference is that there isn’t a feral pack of wolves trying to put coffee companies out of business by preying on our fear and ignorance.
Donna Farmer’s reputation was dragged through hot coals on the ashes of the Monsanto pyre by these manipulative, unwashed journalists when all she did was act in a scientifically responsible manner.
Naomi Oreskes: What did Exxon Know?Naomi Oreske’s strategy to tobacconize the fossil fuel industry by litigating the hell out of energy companies for the effects of climate change (a playbook methodically laid out in La Jolla in 2012) started with the New York Attorney General subpoenaing ExxonMobil. The thousands of files and emails, going back 40 years, were then scoured for evidence that Exxon had known about the risks of climate change from the use of their products and had run a campaign to cover it up. Sure enough they found a document suggesting that the company had information they withheld and this became the basis for the “Exxon Knew” campaign and the countless tort lawsuits now being conducted against Exxon and other energy companies.
As an aside, it should be noted that Oreskes played heavily in the campaign and has been paid consulting fees from three law firms suing ExxonMobil (that she was only forced to disclose under oath). So after all of her articles and books condemning scientists who take industry funding, we should start a campaign called: Oreskes Knew.
But what was the big document … the smoking gun? Like all large industries, their scientists conduct risk scenario-building exercises to develop more robust risk management preparations (often envisioning worlds 20 or 30 years into the future). I once worked on such an exercise with a company, and they are quite detailed, serious and responsible. One such scenario, of the five possible worlds we drew up in this exercise was that of a world where climate change was accelerating.
What ExxonMobil knew was that they had to draw up all possible scenarios to be able to manage the company over the long term. Smarmy academic activists like Oreskes thought they could take responsible research out of context. I suppose the money was good.
The scientists have merely been doing their jobs, responsibly, as they had been taught. But they have not done a good job teaching others what guides their actions and decisions (so opportunists fill in the blanks and turn an ignorant society against science, research and technology. They need to tell their stories and why they do what they do. When vulgar “investigative reporters”, with the support of well-funded agenda-driven activists, turn words and actions against the research community, they ignore the real story, the benefits of their discoveries and the fallout from public fear and distrust. The real story is left untold and trust is lost.
I would like to know how our great-grandchildren will interpret the end of this dreadful passage in history. When I am feeling optimistic, I would imagine the fate of these political activists and journalists ends in a shameful humiliation. Most of the time, though, my outlook is negative, and I worry our great-grandchildren will be living in some distorted Handmaid’s Tale dystopia where no one can trust anyone. If enough of us write about what is happening today, future generations might just be saved from the dogmatic ignorance that has cursed our contemporaries.
David Zaruk is the Firebreak editor, and also writes under the pen-name The Risk Monger. David is a retired professor, environmental-health risk analyst, science communicator, promoter of evidence-based policy and philosophical theorist on activists and the media. Find David on X @Zaruk
A version of this article was originally posted at Firebreak and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Firebreak on X @the_firebreak
From wellness influencers worried about Wi-Fi to crypto enthusiasts trading peer-to-peer coins, the CHD [Children’s Health Defense] conference offered something for everyone in the room. The campaign against vaccines, though, took center stage. As a pro-vaccine clinician, I was an outlier ….
Children’s Health Defense is less than a decade old, and this year’s conference was the first since the organization’s founder and former chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the helm as secretary at Health and Human Services. And while Kennedy goes to great lengths to convince a worried public that he isn’t an anti-vaxxer …, no such mealy-mouthed equivocation was on offer here.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPEven as we watch the almost daily destruction of health institutions in the U.S., this weekend was a reminder that we mustn’t underestimate the threat a movement like CHD represents. For the scientists and officials they accuse of causing an endless litany of health harms, there were no olive branches on offer, only the threat of orange jumpsuits and prison time.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
[The] UK’s science minister announced an ambitious plan: to phase out animal testing.…
The news follows similar moves by other countries. In April, the US Food and Drug Administration announced a plan to replace animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies with “more effective, human-relevant models.”
Animal welfare groups have been campaigning for commitments like these for decades. But a lack of alternatives has made it difficult to put a stop to animal testing. Advances in medical science and biotechnology are changing that.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPIn recent decades, we’ve seen dramatic advances in technologies that offer new ways to model the human body and test the effects of potential therapies, without experimenting on humans or other animals.
…
Today, multiple teams have created models of livers, intestines, hearts, kidneys and even the brain.
…
The UK government acknowledges that animal testing is still required by lots of regulators, including the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, and the World Health Organization. And while alternatives to animal testing have come a long way, none of them perfectly capture how a living body will respond to a treatment.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Several weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an article titled “The mysterious rise of cancer among adults in the Corn Belt.” It leads with Mackenzie Dryden, Winterset, Iowa, who was diagnosed with cancer at 18 years old.
Corn Belt, Iowa, the land. You know what’s coming. And sure enough, later in the article, there it is: “At the turn of the century, Iowa ranked 18th in the nation for cancer rates among adults under 50. Today, it’s fifth.” (It’s actually seventh.) And then comes this observation: “At the center of the controversy is glyphosate ….”
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP* IF glyphosate is the cause, one would think this would all be neatly proportional – it’s not. For instance, why the disparity between Iowa and Illinois? They’re essentially equivalent in terms of annual acreage, [but] Illinois’ cancer rate is roughly 8 points lower than Iowa. * Alternatively, Nebraska and Minnesota plant only two-thirds of Iowa’s acreage, yet those two states possess higher cancer rates among young people.
All this focus on glyphosate represents lost opportunity towards solving the real problem. That ultimately cheats all cancer patients (now, and in the future).
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
We are now in the second great wave of the genetic revolution, not defined by reading the human code of life, but by rewriting it. In recent years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved more than a dozen gene-editing and cell-based therapies.
Yet as transformative as this moment may be, the question ahead is not just how far genetic medicine can go, but how we can afford to go there. Each past revolution—from protein therapeutics to genome sequencing to CRISPR gene editing—expanded our ability to intervene in biology. The next must redefine how we pay for the cures we create.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe promise of gene therapy comes at an extraordinary price. Some treatments cost more than $3 million per patient. … While these prices reflect decades of research and production complexity, they also reveal deep flaws in how health systems value innovation.
Traditional pricing models do not work well for one-time cures. The U.S. fee-for-service system pays for each dose or procedure, which does not fit treatments that can eliminate disease.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
After trying unsuccessfully to treat his depression with medication over several decades, Noel Farris, a 43-year-old web developer based in Philadelphia, found a ketamine clinic through a friend’s recommendation. He’d heard that the drug helped people mentally dissociate from the disease. So last year, he met with the clinic’s doctor, who recommended three intravenous infusions per week for a month, at $400 a session. He never saw or talked to the doctor again.
Instead, he said, a nurse took his blood pressure, placed the IV, then left the room each session. He was told to avoid driving for a few hours but was allowed to return to work. After several months and several thousand dollars, he stopped, saying he felt temporarily lighter, but didn’t see any long-term difference.
But Farris’ experience was specific to that one Philadelphia clinic. If he’d gone to a different site, even in the same city, he likely would have received a different treatment plan: a different dose, a different number of infusions, and different after-care instructions. And he might have experienced a different result.
In Jacksonville, Florida, Kevin Beaugrand, a 33-year-old restaurant server, received IV ketamine infusions while connected to a pulse oximeter, a blood pressure cuff, and an electrocardiogram. A medical professional stayed with him for most of the hour-long session, and his mother drove him home. After six treatments in two weeks — combined with outside counseling sessions — he started to feel better and purchased about 20 sessions over three years, at a total cost of about $10,000.
Across the country in Spokane, Washington, Jake Reinert, a 26-year-old insurance adjuster, said they started taking Spravato, a ketamine-derived nasal spray also known as esketamine, in April 2024. The first clinic Reinert tried required them to come in twice a week for a month and monitored their blood pressure from another room. Reinert then switched to a private psychiatrist and now pays $50 a month for a ketamine nasal spray made at a local pharmacy. At one point, Reinert was taking ketamine every day, and now uses the spray four times a week.
For more than five decades, ketamine has been used as an inexpensive anesthetic in operating and emergency rooms. But in recent years, the drug has emerged as a last-chance treatment for depression. The market really took off after 2019, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Spravato, which is chemically related to ketamine, for treatment-resistant depression.
Ketamine itself, though, isn’t approved to treat any mental health condition, meaning it must be prescribed off-label. It’s now available across the U.S. through mail order and private IV infusion clinics, and in the form of nasal spray and medicated lozenges. And the drug has recently come into the national spotlight since billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk discussed his ketamine use in an interview, and suggested it could be an alternative to traditional antidepressants.
Evidence on the efficacy and safety of ketamine as a depression treatment is still evolving. But some patients who have tried other medications without success call the drug life changing. And it’s popular: More than 1,000 private IV ketamine clinics have reportedly cropped up in recent years. One 2023 market research report estimated the private ketamine market would double from $3.41 billion in 2023 to $6.9 billion in 2030.
Yet despite that popularity, there are few state regulations and little federal oversight about who can administer the drug, at what dose, and how many times. In fact, one state has pulled back on requirements to gather data about adverse events despite concerns of underreporting.
Experts say that lack of regulation and oversight is concerning and could be dangerous. While ketamine is unlikely to be fatal unless combined at high doses with other drugs, it’s regulated as a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it has potential for addiction and abuse, like Tylenol with codeine. Repeated use has also been associated with damage to the bladder and kidneys, and studies on the effects of long-term use are limited. Safety concerns led the United Kingdom to consider putting ketamine in the same restricted class as cocaine and heroin after “Special K,” as ketamine is also known, became widely used as a party drug.
In the U.S, much of the challenge with using ketamine as a depression treatment is related to its off-label use. When a drug that can have serious side effects, like Spravato, is prescribed, doctors follow a safety program set by the FDA, called a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. But such a program does not exist for ketamine.
In more than 30 interviews with private clinic owners, current and former federal sources and state government officials, researchers, and patients, Undark found that dosing, safety protocols, and administration methods varied significantly from provider to provider. One clinic director was unclear if they should be reporting serious adverse events like breathing problems and manic episodes to their state or to the FDA, which collects medical reactions in its national database. (An email to Undark that Emily Hilliard, deputy press secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, requested be attributed to an FDA spokesperson, noted that distributors of the drug are required to submit reports of adverse events “that are both serious and unexpected.”)
Several experts Undark interviewed could not point to a state-by-state list of regulations, and independent searches revealed limited information.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPAlthough medical providers at clinics must register with the Drug Enforcement Administration for approval to administer a controlled substance, that’s about the limit as far as regulations. Seth Mehr, who started his own ketamine clinic, Cascade Psychedelic Medicine, in Portland, Oregon in 2021, said he is frustrated by the lack of state and federal guidelines about how a ketamine clinic should operate, calling the system “a sea of non-answers.”
“You don’t have to register with anybody to open a ketamine clinic,” said Mehr, a former emergency room physician. “There’s not a gold standard set of rules as far as who needs to be there, how many people need to be there, what kind of safety equipment you can use, what dosing ranges you’re allowed to use. Really, none of that exists.”
For-profit clinics do have to adhere to general safety regulations and may face varying restrictions on how they can operate, depending on the state. But because treatments at such clinics are usually not covered by insurance, clinic directors can set their own prices and the number of sessions recommended — with little science to guide any standard.
Some in the field have tried to collect data on ketamine use for years, as the number of private clinics and telehealth businesses continued to grow.
Gerard Sanacora, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, who has long studied the impact of ketamine on depression, is among those who have called for a “ketamine registry,” to track dosage, treatment frequency, and adverse events.
But that, too, has its challenges, he said. “While it seems like such a simple thing — that we should be having some way of tracking this and registering it and everything else,” Sanacora said, adding that “it’s really hard to set up a regulatory control over it without dramatically limiting access to people that will need it to have their wisdom teeth extracted,” among other applications. He said that he has spoken to many regulatory agencies, including the FDA and National Institute of Mental Health, as well as professional societies, about increasing ketamine oversight and data collection.
“It really is one of these unique things that just seems to fall through the cracks,” Sanacora said.
Ketamine was first developed in 1962, and soon began to be used as a battlefield anesthetic in the Vietnam War. Army doctors had previously relied on a related compound, phencyclidine, otherwise known as PCP, but some patients experienced hallucinations and convulsions after use. Ketamine seemed to induce similar dissociative effects but was shorter-acting and safer.
It wasn’t until the 1990s that researchers became increasingly interested in its potential as an antidepressant. Studies began to find that subanesthetic doses of ketamine — meaning below the threshold dose for anesthesia — relieved symptoms of major depression and reduced suicidal thoughts.
Researchers and psychiatrists were excited about ketamine because it acts quickly and dissipates from the body within a few hours, compared to SSRIs — selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors — which can take weeks or months to have an impact and often have side effects like changes in appetite.
Although there are few studies addressing the long-term impact of ketamine efficacy, some small trials have shown that ketamine could have an impact in just a few hours where others failed, particularly for suicidal patients. One 2024 study of 75 people who received three ketamine IV infusion treatments over 11 days found that two-thirds of the participants experienced at least a 50 percent reduction in suicidality as measured by a self-reported questionnaire. And meta-analyses have found the drug to be a promising antidepressant.
Patients characterized the impact of ketamine treatments in different ways. Just one patient interviewed for this story described the ketamine experience as a high. Some said that ketamine allowed them to separate their thoughts from their emotions, or that they felt the weight of their depression lift.
Although everyone’s experience with IV infusion was slightly different, most people interviewed said their sessions lasted about 45 minutes to an hour. Some wore eye masks, some did not. And some listened to music. And while ketamine isn’t generally considered to be a classic psychedelic like LSD or psilocybin, it can induce a psychedelic effect at high doses.
“It sort of takes you out of your body into what feels like another realm or bubble or plane of existence,” said Beaugrand, the Florida restaurant server. He said he frequently listened to a reggae-version of Pink Floyd’s “The Dark Side of the Moon,” and would, at times, experience “visual hallucinations that make you leave your body when your eyes closed, are very vivid in real life, and it can be kind of disconcerting.”
Despite its promise as an antidepressant, doctors warn that ketamine is not a good choice for everyone. It raises blood pressure and heart rate, so isn’t recommended for people with uncontrolled heart disease. Several guidelines advise those with a history of mania or psychosis to avoid the drug. And there is concern about long-term use causing cognitive impairment and what’s known as “ketamine bladder,” which can cause the bladder to shrink and become irreversibly damaged.
Kimberly Juroviesky is a nurse practitioner and a captain in the Air Force who was disabled during active duty and started receiving ketamine treatments for chronic pain. She also is president of The Ketamine Taskforce, a volunteer organization aimed at improving education, access, and insurance coverage for ketamine.
“You watch any drug commercial on television and what are they going to say, ‘may cause kidney issues, may cause this, may cause that, may cause death,’” she said, noting that she now limits her ketamine treatments to once every four to six weeks. “That’s why you have to have guidelines, that’s why you have to use it appropriately.”
When the FDA approved the nasal spray Spravato — otherwise known as esketamine — it came with strict treatment guidelines: Clients had to have tried and failed at least two oral antidepressants first. Treatment also required a two-hour monitoring period in which a health care provider watched for serious side effects such as vomiting or dizziness.
Psychiatrists started using ketamine off-label in the late 2000s, after a study found that 71 percent of participants who received intravenous ketamine reported feeling better. But the number of clinics expanded significantly after Spravato was approved. And those clinics didn’t have to follow the strict guidelines required for Spravato.
When the Covid-19 pandemic hit a year later, the FDA allowed providers to prescribe controlled substances virtually. That’s when telehealth companies like Mindbloom became popular; they created online consults and sent medicated ketamine lozenges, called troches, through the mail. The lozenges release the drug more slowly than through an IV. Trapped in their homes, people reached out, looking for relief from their depression and fear.
While state boards of medicine oversee the medical practitioners administering the ketamine, and the Drug Enforcement Administration issues licenses to those prescribing controlled substances, it’s up to states to decide who can administer the treatments, what data to collect, if any, and what safety standards to impose, said Seth Mailhot, a former FDA investigator and compliance officer who specializes in FDA regulations for Husch Blackwell legal firm in Washington D.C.
This January, Mindbloom announced an injectable program, allowing patients to draw a dose from a vial of ketamine at home. Concerns about safety abounded, but Mailhot said it’s unclear if, in general, telehealth companies legally fall under the state where they send the product, or where the company is based.
Meanwhile, the landscape could change dramatically in the next couple years. During Covid-19, regulations passed to allow practitioners to prescribe controlled substances to patients after telehealth appointments. But those regulations are set to expire on Dec. 31, 2025.
Credit: WikimediaIn untangling the patchwork policies, Undark examined three states with contrasting ketamine approaches: Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon. Pennsylvania, recognizing the growth of private ketamine clinics, created a task force to develop general guidelines in 2020, early in the ketamine boom. Utah, at one point, appeared to have very strict rules for ketamine clinics. And Oregon’s guidelines for its ketamine clinics differ from its psilocybin centers, which were legalized in 2020.
Most states have guidelines — voluntary rules for ketamine clinics, not regulations. Regulations would take a legal process, and states would need the money and manpower to enforce those laws, whether it be through regular inspections or data collection, said Mailhot.
In Pennsylvania, the challenge was that when those guidelines were developed, it was unclear what potential issues might arise.
“We were aware that there were a lot of clinics opening up, but probably not with the appropriate providers or equipment, and we realized that this was a space that really wasn’t governed or regulated in Pennsylvania,” said Jessica Poole, a nurse anesthetist who served on the state’s task force and helped develop state guidelines for best dosing practices.
The current guidelines recommend strict monitoring, including blood pressure, cardiac, and neurological checks, and the availability of emergency equipment. But Poole said there are a lot of gray areas for clinics operating outside of hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities (ASFs), which specialize in outpatient procedures. The guidelines do not require clinic directors to report adverse events to state or federal agencies.
“There are not any strict black and whites on it when we’re talking about clinics outside of a hospital or an ASF unfortunately,” she said.
Although private ketamine clinics in Pennsylvania do not have to register with the state department of health, practitioners do need to have a DEA license and to follow the same license rules as any other business, according to Barry Ciccocioppo, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
The current guidelines also recommend that a physician or a certified registered nurse anesthetist who has adequate training and experience supervise any ketamine administration. But again, Poole said, those are only guidelines, not requirements.
In 2023, Evan Husted, an emergency room physician, opened Mindstream Medicine, a private ketamine clinic in Philadelphia, after, he said, he had a positive experience with ketamine himself. But he said the state guidelines were often unclear about safety protocol. For example, he was unsure if he was supposed to be reporting adverse events and to whom. (Pennsylvania guidelines call for monitoring for adverse events, but do not require adverse event reporting.)
As an emergency physician, Husted said he’s comfortable handling physical issues that may come up — for example, increased blood pressure and heart rate. But because he doesn’t have a psychiatric background, he chose not to accept bipolar patients or those with a history of psychosis, as some evidence suggests ketamine treatments can trigger rare manic episodes. The Pennsylvania guidelines, however, don’t stipulate which medical or psychiatric conditions should exclude patients from treatment. They simply caution that patients with high-risk coronary artery disease and poorly controlled psychosis are at increased risk for adverse events following ketamine infusion.
Husted said more guidelines are needed, both for patients and for the medical practitioners trying to provide a uniform treatment.
“You can go to 10 different clinics — not even in other parts of the state, but just other parts of the city of Philadelphia and the suburbs — and find people using ketamine in 10 different ways,” he said.
Among those major differences is dosing, which is largely left up to providers.
Some experts, like Sandhya Prashad, a practicing psychiatrist near Houston and president of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists, and Practitioners (ASKP3), caution against using high doses due to safety concerns.
But Husted, for one, said he believes patients get more out of a level of what he called “therapeutic intoxication,” though he said that dose differs dramatically from person to person.
“There’s no telling how much ketamine someone’s going to need to get to the level you’re trying to get them to,” Husted said, “and so I would be wary of regulations that tell me I can only give so many milligrams per kilogram [of body weight] and still be operating in good practice as a ketamine clinic.”
In contrast to Pennsylvania’s minimal oversight, Utah started out as a strict outlier. In 2017, the state passed a law requiring clinics to track adverse events related to outpatient anesthesia. However, the monitoring ended in 2023 despite a Utah Department of Health and Human Services task force recommendation that it continue until 2025, amid concerns of underreporting. Of the 14 adverse events reported during that time, eight of them involved dental procedures. It was unclear if any involved ketamine infusion clinics.
It was also unclear why the monitoring ended. Melanie Hall, communications director for the state Department of Commerce, which oversees the Division of Professional Licensing, said there was a “sunset” date of 2023 on the monitoring law: “We do not monitor the use of ketamine or any adverse events associated with it,” she wrote in an email.
Some clinic directors said the Utah oversight was helpful, particularly when Covid shut many of the clinics down and providers switched to providing ketamine via mail. When the pandemic shut down services, William Beesley, founder of Restorative Health — a clinic that offers ketamine treatments as well as weight management and hair loss therapies in Sandy, Utah — said he was able to call the state and see what they could provide, and under what circumstances.
Beesley also noted that the state keeps a controlled substances database so providers can confirm that patients are not getting ketamine from other clinics. According to Patrick Fitzgibbon, a spokesman from Utah’s Division of Professional Licensing, telemedicine prescriptions would be in the database if reported by the pharmacy.
“Utah’s systems seem to work better to me,” he said. “It’s a very, very, very complicated situation but the state is handling it better than the national government.”
Meanwhile, in Oregon, clinics face an additional challenge, as many of them provide both ketamine and psilocybin treatments. But the state takes a much stricter approach with the latter: Oregon requires providers at its psilocybin centers to take a verified training course, register with the state, and collect data on any events requiring emergency medical attention. Tim Heider, a spokesperson with the state’s health authority, noted in an email that the agency does not regulate ketamine.
It’s confusing for the clinic directors and the patients, said Mehr, the emergency room doctor who founded Cascade Psychedelic Medicine. The private clinic offers both ketamine and psilocybin treatments. Mehr said he remains with patients throughout the experience and asks them to seek additional mental health support as part of the treatment process.
Like Husted in Philadelphia, Mehr uses doses of ketamine high enough to induce a psychedelic state. He said he turns down about 10 to 15 percent of patients who apply for treatment due to mental health concerns or physical health issues. Patients typically start with sessions twice a week for a few weeks, and then taper from there. They generally move to sessions every other week for a few months, Mehr said, and then once a month after that. An individual session is $685, although a sliding scale is available. About 50 percent of the treatments are now partially covered by insurance, he said.
He said part of the problem is that there are so many organizations developing their own versions of guidelines. All of them are voluntary. The reality, he said, is that ketamine practitioners are held accountable by two entities: the legal system and the state medical boards, the latter of which will investigate if there is a complaint.
“Being accountable to a lawsuit and being able to demonstrate that you are practicing within community standards, that’s how a malpractice suit is defined,” he said. “Then there’s the boards themselves that regulate their providers the same way they do everything else.”
Eric Hermes, the national director of psychopharmacology and somatic treatments at the Veterans Health Administration Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, said the VA has two national programs to train personnel about ketamine, from clinical needs to developing ketamine programs at facilities. He said because IV ketamine is unregulated, providers tend to use higher doses because some feel that the length of dissociation is linked to overall effectiveness in treating depression long term, but that has not been proven in the research or in his experience.
Another challenge with ketamine, he added, is ending treatment: “What we’ve found in clinical treatment is that some patients, sometimes a large proportion of patients, don’t do well when you try to taper off ketamine.”
That results in some VA patients receiving what he called “long term serial treatments,” even though there is not a lot of data about the benefits and risks of long-term use.
In a 2023 article looking at legislative reform for psychedelic drugs including MDMA and psilocybin, Joshua Siegel, a psychiatrist then at Washington University, wrote that “legislative reform for psychedelic drugs has been proceeding in a rapid, patchwork fashion in the U.S.” For ketamine, he said, the legal situation is even more challenging, since it’s already an approved drug but is being prescribed off-label.
The lack of regulations could have serious consequences, said Siegel, now an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Psychedelic Medicine, because while overdoses with ketamine are uncommon, they do happen, particularly when combined with other drugs.
“You can overdose on ketamine and stop breathing,” he said. “But that’s not the case with LSD and psilocybin, where you don’t really see overdoses like you do with ketamine.”
Siegel pointed out that at least in a clinic, there is some medical oversight and someone is physically in the clinic in case something goes wrong. That’s not the case with mail-order services, leading to a higher-risk situation, he said.
Prashad, president of ASKP3, echoed safety concerns, particularly regarding dosing.
Patients have come to see her, “and they’ve seen someone else in the past that administered IV ketamine, and they gave them such high doses they were practically anesthetized,” she said. “There’s no data that suggests that that’s what you should be doing. In fact, there’s data that shows that that’s neurotoxic.”
ASKP3 is working to develop updated guidelines for drug type, dose, and frequency, though it would be voluntary for practitioners to follow them.
L. Alison McInnes, a psychiatrist and former medical director for Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s ketamine infusion therapy program, agreed with Mehr that enforcing those guidelines will likely only happen through patient lawsuits.
“If you have standard of care out there,” she said, “then malpractice courts have something to deal with.”
But Mailhot said it’s up to the states to create legislation — like Utah did requiring adverse event reporting. But most states haven’t issued more regulations because state legislators aren’t comfortable weighing in on the practice of medicine for fear of unintended consequences, he said.
He pointed to the effort it took to shut down opioid “pill mills,” noting that the government was able to track the biggest offenders through the number of prescriptions, but that’s harder to do with ketamine because it is not being tracked, and it is not being used in the same volume.
“When there’s enough of an outcry to the safety issues, they’ll crack down,” he said, noting that the country is currently in a “deregulation environment.” “But for now, you can’t stop everything from happening.”
While states and professional organizations are struggling to address the increasing number of private ketamine avenues, experts like McInnes are trying to work with clinics through an entirely different path: She’s the vice president of scientific affairs for Osmind, an electronic health record system specifically for clinicians administering psychiatric medications and treatments like ketamine.
As of late May, she said at least 200 clinics had signed up, including more than 250,000 patients. The record template includes vital signs, doses, any medication the patient is on, and any side effects. And there’s a new record for each infusion, she said.
The clinics and patients consent to use the data — without identifying factors — for research. Right now, McInnes is working on a paper in consultation with a researcher at Yale University comparing esketamine results with those from ketamine infusion therapy.
She said it would be helpful if there was a nationally recognized ketamine certification program for providers and those working in the field. Instead, she said, there are some “charismatic figures” offering training courses for thousands of dollars, but there’s no standardization.
McInnes said that, from her data, most people don’t need more than six ketamine infusions to treat their depression. But for many clinics, there is no end point for its use.
“It’s just really quite egregious,” she said.
For patients who work with ketamine, part of the challenge is figuring out how to use the drug as a tool and not a crutch.
Reinert, the insurance adjuster from Spokane, has been regularly taking ketamine since October 2024, increasing the dose to where they are now taking 140 mg several times a week. The treatment has been life changing, Reinert said. At one point, Reinert had taken a medical leave to deal with their depression but is now working full time and taking a full load of college courses, aiming for a degree in sociology.
“I’ve tried other antidepressants but this is the first that has launched me towards life goals,” they wrote in an email.
The challenge is that Reinert plans to move to Australia in a year, where ketamine treatments are much, much harder to find. They are working with their psychiatrist to come up with a plan to drastically reduce their use of the medication.
The longest Reinert has been off the drug was three weeks, and they said their mood plummeted. They were a little worried about life without ketamine.
“They say it’ll be six sessions, but from my experience it does seem to be a long-term thing,” Reinert said. “And once you stop, the benefits also stop.”
Dawn Fallik is a medical and science reporter specializing in data analysis. She worked as a staff writer for The Associated Press, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and has won awards for investigative reporting, feature writing, and column writing. She is now a professor at the University of Delaware. Find Dawn on X @dfallik
A version of this article was originally posted at Undark and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find Undark on X @undarkmag
Ever worried that skipping breakfast might leave you foggy at work? Or that intermittent fasting would make you irritable, distracted and less productive?Snack food ads warn us that “you’re not you when you’re hungry”, reinforcing a common belief that eating is essential to keep our brains sharp.
This message is deeply woven into our culture. We’re told constant fuelling is the secret to staying alert and efficient.
Yet time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting have become hugely popular wellness practices over the past decade. Millions do it for long-term benefits, from weight management to improved metabolic health.
This raises a pressing question: can we reap the health rewards of fasting without sacrificing our mental edge? To find out, we conducted the most comprehensive review to date of how fasting affects cognitive performance.
Why fast in the first place?Fasting isn’t just a trendy diet hack. It taps into a biological system honed over millennia to help humans cope with scarcity.
When we eat regularly, the brain runs mostly on glucose, stored in the body as glycogen. But after about 12 hours without food, those glycogen stores dwindle.
At that point, the body performs a clever metabolic switch: it begins breaking down fat into ketone bodies (for example, acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate), which provide an alternative fuel source.
This metabolic flexibility, once crucial for our ancestors’ survival, is now being linked to a host of health benefits.
Some of the most promising effects of fasting come from the way it reshapes processes inside the body. For instance, fasting activates autophagy, a kind of cellular “cleanup crew” that clears away damaged components and recycles them, a process thought to support healthier ageing.
It also improves insulin sensitivity, allowing the body to manage blood sugar more effectively and lowering the risk of conditions such as type 2 diabetes.
Beyond that, the metabolic shifts triggered by fasting appear to offer broader protection, helping reduce the likelihood of developing chronic diseases often associated with overeating.
What the data showedThese physiological benefits have made fasting attractive. But many hesitate to adopt it out of fear their mental performance will plummet without a steady supply of food.
To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis, a “study of studies”, looking at all the available experimental research that compared people’s cognitive performance when they were fasting versus when they were fed.
Our search identified 63 scientific articles, representing 71 independent studies, with a combined sample of 3,484 participants tested on 222 different measures of cognition. The research spanned nearly seven decades, from 1958 to 2025.
After pooling the data, our conclusion was clear: there was no meaningful difference in cognitive performance between fasted and satiated healthy adults.
People performed just as well on cognitive tests measuring attention, memory and executive function whether they had eaten recently or not.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPWhen fasting does matterOur analysis did reveal three important factors that can change how fasting affects your mind.
First, age is key. Adults showed no measurable decline in mental performance when fasting. But children and adolescents did worse on tests when they skipped meals.
Their developing brains seem more sensitive to fluctuations in energy supply. This reinforces longstanding advice: kids should go to school with a proper breakfast to support learning.
Timing also seems to make a difference. We found longer fasts were associated with a smaller performance gap between fasted and fed states. This might be due to the metabolic switch to ketones, which can restore a steady supply of energy to the brain as glucose runs out.
Performance in fasted individuals tended to be worse when tests were conducted later in the day, suggesting fasting might amplify the natural dips in our circadian rhythms.
The type of test also mattered. When cognitive tasks involved neutral symbols or shapes, fasting participants performed just as well, or sometimes even slightly better.
But when tasks included food-related cues, fasted participants slipped. Hunger doesn’t create universal brain fog, but it does make us more easily distracted when food is on our minds.
What this means for youFor most healthy adults, the findings offer reassurance: you can explore intermittent fasting or other fasting protocols without worrying that your mental sharpness will vanish.
That said, fasting isn’t a one-size-fits-all practice. Caution is warranted with children and teens, whose brains are still developing and who appear to need regular meals to perform at their best.
Similarly, if your job requires peak alertness late in the day, or if you’re frequently exposed to tempting food cues, fasting might feel harder to sustain.
And of course, for certain groups, such as those with medical conditions or special dietary needs, fasting may not be advisable without professional guidance.
Ultimately, fasting is best seen as a personal tool rather than a universal prescription. And its benefits and challenges will look different from person to person.
David Moreau is a cognitive neuroscientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Auckland. Find David on X @davidwmoreau
A version of this article was originally posted at Conversation and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Conversation on X @Conversation_US
A West Coast biotech entrepreneur says he’s secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company to study how to safely create genetically edited babies, marking the largest known investment into the taboo technology.
The new company, called Preventive, is being formed to research so-called “heritable genome editing,” in which the DNA of embryos would be modified by correcting harmful mutations or installing beneficial genes. The goal would be to prevent disease.
…
Creating genetically edited humans remains controversial, and the first scientist to do it, in China, was imprisoned for three years. The procedure remains illegal in many countries, including the US, and doubts surround its usefulness as a form of medicine.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPStill, as gene-editing technology races forward, the temptation to shape the future of the species may prove irresistible, particularly to entrepreneurs keen to put their stamp on the human condition. In theory, even small genetic tweaks could create people who never get heart disease or Alzheimer’s, and who would pass those traits on to their own offspring.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
A group of Stanford University scientists posted a paper online in mid-September, describing a feat that could have been plucked from the pages of science fiction: They used artificial intelligence to design new viruses capable of killing bacteria.
Depending on your belief system, AI was doing what evolution, or God, or scientists working with genome-engineering tools aim to do.
“Machines are rethinking what it is to be human, what it is to be alive,” said Michael Hecht, a chemistry professor at Princeton University focused on designing novel proteins and artificial genomes. “I find this very unsettling and staggering. They are devising, coming up with novel life forms. Darwin 2.0.”
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPReactions span the gamut, from “this changes everything” to a scientific shrug. Are machines about to generate novel forms of life, including one that could kill us all? Or is this a powerful new tool — with capabilities that build on what people have been doing for years with more traditional techniques?
Depends who you ask.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
For nearly four decades, Americans who believe they have been harmed by a vaccine have had access to a little-known legal process called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) — often referred to simply as the vaccine court.Now, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a longtime critic of the system — has vowed to “revolutionize” or “fix” it, calling the program “biased,” unfair and punitive toward claimants. But transforming it wholesale would be far more complex — and potentially far more damaging to public health — than he seems to appreciate. Or perhaps he simply wants to open the door to the kind of vaccine-causes-injury suits and large settlements that were his forte as a tort lawyer.
The four-decade-old legal fix for a public health crisisThe vaccine court was created by Congress in 1986 amid a crisis in the nation’s vaccine supply. At the time, lawsuits over side effects from whooping cough (whole-cell pertussis) vaccine had driven several manufacturers out of the market, threatening shortages and risking the resurgence of deadly diseases.
To stabilize the situation, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which shielded vaccine makers from most lawsuits and established a specific process within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to handle vaccine injury claims. Instead of suing manufacturers directly, petitioners could bring cases before legal officials known as special masters.
The law also created a dedicated trust fund, financed by a 75-cent excise tax on every vaccine dose sold — to pay both compensation and attorneys’ fees. Some injuries with well-established causal links, such as certain allergic reactions or shoulder injuries from injection, qualify for automatic compensation. Others, where the science is disputed, go through evidentiary hearings involving physicians, attorneys, and medical experts.
This system has long been praised as an ingenious compromise — a humane and science-based way to deliver justice for the small number of people genuinely harmed by vaccines, while maintaining confidence in the nation’s immunization program.
A system in need of modernization. But by Kennedy?Still, much about the vaccine court reflects 1980s realities, not 21st-century ones. The number of special masters remains capped at eight, even as the caseload has surged with the inclusion of new vaccines. The $250,000 cap on damages for pain and suffering — set nearly forty years ago — has never been adjusted for inflation. And the three-year statute of limitations has proved too short for many petitioners who fail to file in time.
The program’s scope also remains uneven and seems arbitrary. Originally limited to childhood vaccines, it was only recently expanded to include shots given during pregnancy. Adult vaccines, such as shingles, are still excluded. Claims related to COVID-19 vaccines are routed through a separate emergency countermeasures system that has been widely criticized as opaque and inefficient.
Many experts across party lines support modest, bipartisan reforms to address these issues. Kennedy himself has mentioned several of these ideas.
What remains unclear is what Kennedy actually intends to do. His broad promise to “revolutionize” the vaccine court could mean anything from modest modernization to total dismantling.
The first path — pursuing incremental, congressionally approved reforms — would be the least disruptive and most achievable. But Kennedy’s rhetoric sometimes suggests more radical ambitions. Some of his statements imply a desire to overturn past vaccine-court rulings or even reopen long-settled questions about vaccines and autism.
Kennedy’s involvement in this system is uniquely perilous because he is not merely a critic of bureaucratic inefficiency but an activist who has built his career on sowing distrust in vaccines themselves. Unlike most reformers who seek to strengthen public-health infrastructure, Kennedy approaches the issue from the conviction that the system is fundamentally corrupt — a worldview that casts regulators, scientists, and courts as co-conspirators in a vast cover-up of vaccine manufacturers’ misdeeds. From his years leading anti-vaccine organizations to his amplification of scientifically debunked claims linking vaccines to autism and chronic illness, he has consistently blurred the line between policy skepticism and medical disinformation. He now has the power to reshape the very mechanism that guards vaccine confidence. That could legitimize pseudoscience under the guise of reform.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe autism precedentFrom 2002 to 2010, the vaccine court oversaw one of its largest and most complex legal proceedings: the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, which examined whether vaccines could cause autism. After eight years, 50 expert reports, 939 medical articles, and testimony from 28 scientific experts, the court concluded decisively that autism is not a vaccine injury.
These findings were and remain consistent with the global scientific consensus. Yet Kennedy has continued to challenge them, asserting that the special masters “prioritize the solvency” of the system over justice for claimants.
He has no direct authority to remove or replace the special masters, who are appointed for four-year terms by judges serving 15-year terms on the Court of Federal Claims. But he could, in theory, try to revise the official list of recognized vaccine injuries to include autism or other conditions — a complex administrative process requiring public comment, scientific justification, and credible evidence. Doing so without credible evidence would trigger legal challenges and near-universal opposition from medical and public health organizations.
Return to the civil courts?Kennedy could also undermine the vaccine court indirectly — for instance, by reshaping the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which determines which vaccines are covered — and which he has already reconstituted with a sorry assortment of anti-vaccine ideologues. Removing a vaccine from that list would again expose manufacturers to direct lawsuits, potentially making vaccine production unprofitable.
Kennedy has also supported legislation allowing claimants to bypass the vaccine court entirely and sue manufacturers in civil court — precisely the scenario Congress sought to avoid in 1986. That would potentially turn vaccine-injury claims into high-stakes jury trials, requiring plaintiffs to meet stricter standards of evidence and to face formidable corporate defendants.
Such a shift could vastly increase litigation, destabilize vaccine manufacturing, raise prices, discourage innovation, and undermine public trust — returning us to the crisis that prompted Congress to create the vaccine court in the first place.
The danger lies not only in the content of Kennedy’s proposals but in his ability to undermine public confidence in scientific evidence. As a cabinet-level official, his statements carry the imprimatur of federal authority; misinformation that once circulated on the fringe now emanates from the top of the nation’s health apparatus. This institutionalization of nescience and conspiracy thinking could erode trust in vaccines, embolden litigation built on junk science, and weaken the fragile social contract that keeps herd immunity intact. Thereby, Kennedy represents a greater threat than a single misguided reform effort; he embodies the convergence of populist politics and medical denialism, a combination that history shows can undo decades of progress in a single news cycle.
The stakes for public healthThe Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is an ingenious hybrid of science, law, and social policy that has compensated thousands of people while sustaining confidence in vaccines as a collective good. Reform is needed — more special masters, higher caps on compensation, broader coverage, and simpler filing rules — but radical, unjustifiable changes could undo decades of stability and progress.
As Kennedy proceeds with his review, he will face resistance not only from pharmaceutical companies but also from physicians, patient advocates, and public health professionals who understand how much is at stake.
Reforming the vaccine court requires careful evolution, not revolution. If its critics succeed in tearing it down rather than improving it, the result could be a return to the chaotic, litigious landscape that once threatened America’s vaccine supply — and, with it, the health of millions.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the Science Literacy Project. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Find him on his website: henrymillermd.org
A National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences paper is sounding the alarm about detectable per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in blood samples of North Carolina residents.
It sounds scary, but scientifically, there are two things to keep in mind:
- We can detect anything in anything in 2025.
- Presence is not pathology.
About the first Don’t Be Alarmed qualifier, it is important to know the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) don’t do any science at all. They do epidemiology, which is EXPLORATORY and why they grudgingly use terms like “correlated”, “suggests”, and “linked to.” That is not to say epidemiology isn’t important. We only learned that smoking and alcohol are killers due to epidemiology; we didn’t do clinical trials on humans and give them cancer.
Yet those successes turned the field into a money grab. Universities, led by Harvard’s School of Public Health, began to claim they found ‘smoking guns’ like cigarettes everywhere, from saturated fats to gluten, and then promoted miracle foods like kale and quinoa, and promoted miracle diets like the Mediterranean and vegetarian. No science needed, they looked at a spreadsheet of lots of products and matched them to outcomes. They still do, but now a lot of other schools do it also. Now government does also. When NIEHS epidemiologists look at enough spreadsheets and maybe add in ‘we believe mice are little people’ studies and find enough to declare statistical significance, they write a paper and publish it in their in-house, taxpayer-funded magazine.
There is a big problem with all of that, but let’s just talk about the methodology. Statistical Significance has been reduced by activist epidemiologists and the trial lawyers who fund them and their allies to a “P ≤ 0.05 Fetish” culture. Epidemiologists with an agenda want journalists and the public to believe a p < 0.05 result will mean a false positive rate of 5%. That is actually terrible in the real world, but to them it is compelling. Yet in reality, the false positive rate can be 76% — if the hypothesis is borderline impossible, like that a weedkiller that acts on a biological pathway only found in plants can magically cause human cancer.
Despite that, a company is on the hook for billions of dollars because Predatorts, as such lawyers in the industry are called by the politically neutral science community, don’t need evidence on their side; they only need jury members who don’t trust science. Like in San Francisco, where Robert Kennedy-style progressive distrust of science is still part of the cultural fabric. That’s why so many lawsuits get filed there.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPPhysicists would never allow one of their own to get away with that terrible confidence level, and if your ATM were so inaccurately handing out money, the government would have bank executives in jail.
Yet it’s a common metric for practical and even clinical significance in epidemiology and other soft fields like psychology.
The second Don’t Be Alarmed qualifier is a form of ‘the dose makes the poison.’ You know it is true that water is good for you but too much will kill you, just like aspirin and caffeine and lots of other things. Illiterate peasants in the 17th century knew it.
Modern epidemiologists deny it. They will accept studies using rats fed 10,000X real-world levels of chemicals because they claim they want to detect “hazard” and disclaim that they are computing risk. Yet in their press releases and media kits, epidemiologists in groups like IARC will talk about risk dozens of times, and advocate for bans.
When No Adverse Effect Levels were first created, we could detect parts per million. Anything below that was ‘nothing.’ Today, we can detect parts per quadrillion. That is 1,000,000,000 times more sensitive than 70 years ago. Are products suddenly less safe because detection one billion times greater can find the presence of a chemical? Not at all, presence is still not pathology. Yet every day we see claims about flame retardants and processed foods and pesticides, which use that methodology to claim we are being harmed.
We got claims that not only did vaccines cause autism, from the same political demographic claiming to be on Team Science today, but that pesticides also did. Unless they were pesticides, the National Organic Standards Board declared could be Certified Organic.
Nothing about that is scientific.
It is instead statistical homeopathy, but environmental Predatorts know that they don’t need science to convince a jury, they only need emotion. They need a juror who can be convinced that scientists at DuPont are risking the lives of their own children by pouring toxic chemicals into groundwater. Scientists do whatever they are told by their evil corporate overlords.
Does that sound like Secretary Kennedy now? It does, except NIEHS was saying all of these things before Trump was elected. The Biden administration made efforts to throw out all chemistry, biology and toxicology — science — in EPA guidelines and replace it with epidemiology. Which they called fuzzy-wuzzy “real world data” despite lacking any plausible biological mechanisms for how volunteers claiming they saw a dead frog can infer it was caused by farmers.
Real world data like in the recent NIEHS-funded paper claiming they can detect ultrashort-chain PFAS in water and in blood. Hint, hint for journalists who don’t know any better: Presence equals pathology.
It should work. Corporate media have repeated claims about everything from weedkillers being “linked” to cancer – only in a spreadsheet – to vaccines “correlated” to autism to pizza boxes “suggested” as endocrine disruptors, whatever that means.
Those are all claims made by epidemiologists and touted in newspapers like Guardian in the UK and New York Times in the United States.
Many epidemiologists don’t want to find true environmental harms, if any are left, they essentially exist to try and scare the public about science. The crossover among the U.S. covert activist group and France’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute should be alarming, and perhaps it will be now that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is in charge of American health policy. A man they all loved when he was a loyal organic-loving, raw-milk-drinking, vaccine-denying Democrat, so inside the circle, President Obama floated him to run EPA; a Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and a solar energy magnate was considered the perfect choice to ban everything, because Science Is A Corporate Conspiracy.
We can only dream that this newfound We Stand With Science mentality remains in fashion once the party that dominated American universities is back in power. Given the 25 years of denial and conspiracy theories that existed before Trump and Kennedy, it is unlikely.
Hank Campbell is the founder of Science 2.0 and the author of Science Left Behind. Follow Hank on X @HankCampbell
A version of this article was originally posted at Science 2.0 and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and the original article. Find Science 2.0 on X @science2_0
People are still debating whether the mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines remains in the body longer than it should. Some say it lingers and causes harm, others say that idea just doesn’t hold up. A new article in Stat brings the issue back into the spotlight. Chemistry explains what’s going on.The latest controversy regarding messenger RNA persisting in the body, potentially causing harm from COVID-19 vaccines, should be settled. Or is it?
Matt Herper’s new piece in Stat tackles the issue head-on with an interview with one of the co-inventors of the mRNA vaccines for COVID.
The Controversy
Discounting those who are simply anti-vaccine, some credible-sounding individuals still argue there’s an inherent safety issue with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because the mRNA supposedly persists. One of the most prominent is Dr. Retsef Levi, who now chairs ACIP’s working group on COVID-19 vaccines. As he put it:
“The initial safety paradigm was that the vaccine contents would only stay in the arm and be cleared after a short duration. Now we know that’s not true – so we need to understand the biodistribution and persistence of the mRNA, the spike protein, and the lipid nanoparticles, and what their respective risks are.”
— Retsef Levi, Brownstone.org
A Nobel Prize Winner Disagrees
Herper’s article contrasts these claims with the views of Dr. Drew Weissman, Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and co-laureate of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing mRNA vaccines.
Asked whether vaccine mRNA could persist for months in a rare patient, Weissman was unequivocal:
“It is absolutely impossible. mRNA is degraded incredibly rapidly. When you modify it, it’s a little slower. It’ll last 24 hours. It never, ever lasts six months. That’s just impossible.”
Why Chemistry Sides With Weissman
RNA is, by its very nature, a short-lived messenger, while DNA is built for stability and long-term storage. This isn’t speculation—it’s basic biology and chemistry. RNA’s fragility is exactly why cells use it for temporary instructions and DNA for the permanent archive. That simple fact, reinforced by both chemistry and biology, is why claims of vaccine mRNA persisting for months or years don’t hold up.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe Chemistry Behind RNA Instability
Behind all the noise is a fundamental, well-known chemical reaction called ester hydrolysis – the breaking of an ester bond by water, producing a carboxylic acid and an alcohol. (Figure 1) While this may seem irrelevant to vaccines, it is anything but.
Figure 1. Hydrolysis of an ester involves the addition of water, followed by the breaking of the ester bond (red hatched line), which forms its components – an alcohol and a carboxylic acid.
Phosphate esters, the backbone of DNA and RNA, can also be hydrolyzed. The process (Figure 2) is conceptually identical to that of esters.
Figure 2. Hydrolysis of phosphate esters is conceptually identical to that of “traditional” esters. Note that instead of a carboxylic acid, one molecule of phosphoric acid and two molecules of methanol are formed.
What does any of this have to do with the instability of RNA? Time to roll out the chemistry.
It’s All About Ring Size
Without getting into the details of organic chemistry, it’s useful to know that compounds, natural or synthetic, can exist in a linear (straight-chain) form, while others exist in a cyclic (ring) form. Linear molecules are flexible chains of atoms, whereas cyclic molecules are built around closed rings. Both types are common in nature, each suited to different biological roles (Figure 3).
Figure 3. (Top) Geraniol (acyclic) and menthol (cyclic), two common natural scents. (Bottom) Leucine (acyclic) and proline (cyclic) are both amino acids.
Messenger RNA Instability
This may sound obscure as it relates to COVID vaccines, but it is anything but. The propensity of acyclic molecules to form cyclic versions depends significantly upon the size of the ring that forms.
Figure 4. The ease of ring formation depends on size.
Open chains of three or four carbons (Left) rarely cyclize because their ends can only meet by forcing the atoms into highly strained angles, resulting in rings with severe ring strain. Chains of seven or more carbons (Right) are so flexible that their ends seldom align properly, making ring closure entropically unfavorable. By contrast, five- and six-carbon chains (Center) have just the right length and geometry for their ends to meet, form bonds with minimal ring strain, and react efficiently — which is why the vast majority of natural products contain rings of this size.
What does this have to do with the instability of RNA?
A lot. In Figure 5, we see a segment of RNA (Left). Note that a hydroxyl group (called 2′-hydroxy) is five atoms (double arrow) from the phosphorous atom of the phosphate ester. This makes RNA ideally suited to form a 5-membered cyclic phosphate (Right, red oval). Once this happens, the phosphate bond (red hatched line) breaks and the remaining RNA (blue oval) falls apart. In other words, RNA is built to break itself down.
Figure 5. Autocleavage of RNA.
By contrast, DNA contains a non-reactive hydrogen atom (green circle) instead of the hydroxyl group in the 2′ position (Figure 6). While this may seem like a small change in a huge molecule, the opposite is true. In the absence of the 2′-hydroxyl group, the same phosphate bond is exceptionally stable.
Figure 6. DNA, which lacks the 2′-hydroxyl group of RNA, is exceptionally stable.
Bottom Line (Science Only)
So, it really just comes down to this:
DNA differs from RNA by one oxygen atom, a seemingly trivial change in a huge molecule. But that’s all it takes to make RNA less stable than DNA. While RNA decomposes in minutes or hours, DNA can survive for centuries under favorable conditions.
People may argue about the safety of mRNA vaccines, but there is no argument about the difference between RNA and DNA. They have evolved for specific purposes, which are governed by the underlying organic chemistry – a science that has long been established and is independent of political considerations.
Josh Bloom is ACSH’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science. Josh earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry at the University of Virginia, followed by postdoctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania. Find Josh on X @JoshBloomACSH
A version of this article was originally posted at American Council on Science and Health and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find American Council on Science and Health on X @ACSHorg
For most of her career, vaccination was a routine, unremarkable part of Dr. McGuire’s work as a small animal veterinarian. But after the Covid-19 pandemic hit, she found herself having long, sometimes adversarial discussions with pet owners about the safety and necessity of vaccines. … Increasingly, pet owners insisted on spacing out shots or refused vaccines altogether, including for deadly and incurable viruses like rabies.
…
Over the last several years, the anti-vaccine movement has gained ground in the United States, fueled, in part, by the politicization of the Covid-19 vaccines and the increasing power of vaccine critics like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPBut antipathy toward vaccines is also spilling over into veterinary medicine, making some people hesitant to vaccinate their pets.
…
The phenomenon has clear parallels to the anti-vaccine movement in human medicine and could, experts fear, lead the nation down a familiar path, resulting in a loosening of animal vaccination laws, a decline in pet vaccination rates and a resurgence of infectious diseases that pose a risk to both pets and people.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Our editorials criticizing the Food and Drug Administration for torpedoing promising treatments must be hitting an intracranial nerve. Proof of their potency: Commissioner Marty Makary and his deputy Vinay Prasad devoted much of a recent FDA podcast to mischaracterizing them.
[The] spin doctors cried fake news rather than address the substantive arguments. If they really want to prove they’re not impeding life-saving treatments, they’ll approve Replimune’s RP1 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, which the agency rejected this summer.Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPAn analysis by RBC Capital Markets last week reported “a potentially worrisome increase in drug approval delays of late that could signal deeper systemic challenges at the Agency.”
Rejections rose to 15% from an average of 10%, and delays to 11% from 4%. Some non-approvals owe to manufacturing problems, but another culprit is an agency brain drain.
…
The drug last year received a “breakthrough” therapy designation from the agency after a pivotal trial showed that a third of patients who hadn’t responded to prior immunotherapy showed a strong response to RP1.
Melanoma doctors around the world have criticized the FDA rejection.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
The recent death of James Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the three-dimensional structure of the genetic material DNA, brought back memories. Although a leader and groundbreaking scientist, he was also known for the occasional insensitive comment and controversial views that reawakened the hushed field of eugenics. Watson and Crick shared the Nobel Prize in 1962. Watson went on to launch the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, and then to become Chancellor Emeritus of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.
I had two curious encounters with the man.
Futile journeyWatson earned his doctorate at Indiana University in 1950; I did the same 30 years later. I heard him speak when he visited the campus, in Bloomington, when I was a grad student in genetics, but I was too sleep-deprived to remember anything. Shortly after Francis Crick died in 2004, I decided to interview Dr. Watson while he was still around. He’d agreed to sit down for a chat, perhaps because we had some things in common. I was writing for The Scientist at the time, working on a book about gene therapy, and was also the author of several textbooks. Watson wrote genetics textbooks, too, such as The Molecular Biology of the Gene, as well as books on his observations on life, such as Avoid Boring People, and of course, The Double Helix.
Dr. Francis Crick (left) and Professor James Watson with a model of the DNA molecule whose structure they discovered in 1953So, I journeyed 14 hours on Amtrak during a single day, going from Schenectady, New York to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, arriving early afternoon. Watson was prompt, polite, very well dressed, and charming. And then I asked my first question.
“Dr. Watson, which do you think was more significant, deducing the structure of DNA, or sequencing the human genome?”
He sat back, smiled, and stroked his chin, seemingly deep in thought. It wasn’t a bad question to start. A pause, then …
“Ricki, do you consider yourself a girl or a woman?”
I came prepared with a list of questions about science in general and genetics in particular, but never could get him to answer me seriously. I didn’t even get enough material to publish my intended article, nor add anything to my human genetics textbook. At least I was reimbursed for the train fare. Perhaps I’d get another chance, if Dr. Watson spoke at a conference I was attending.
Genome pioneerSeven years later, Watson was the first speaker at the opening session of the 12th International Congress of Human Genetics in Montreal in October, 2011. He was on a panel of “genome pioneers” who were among the first to have their genomes sequenced — which was then a very big deal. Watson’s sequence was second, following that of Craig Venter, who led the private effort to sequence the first genome.
The session was led by Kevin Davies, who wrote “The $1,000 Genome” (2010), Editing Humanity: The CRISPR Revolution and the New Era of Genome Editing (2021), and is writing a book on sickle cell disease due out next year. Science journalists attend these meetings, and we were told we could freely quote from lectures, so Watson’s comments were widely circulated (mostly minus the more offensive ones).
I quoted from the session in Why I Don’t Want to Know My Genome Sequence, an article published on the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism website. A useful roundup of Dr. Watson’s greatest hits can be found at Goodreads. Watson’s quotable quotes ranged from the blunt — “No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?” — and profound — “Our goal should be to understand our differences” — to “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”
He was sexist and racist and spoke as if he would say anything that popped into his head — something that these days very few people can get away with.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPHere is a dialogue from when I heard Watson speak about genome pioneers. Select audience questions are in CAPS, Watson’s responses in italics, and my commentary and explanation follow.
*WHY DID YOU HAVE YOUR GENOME SEQUENCED?*
I thought, why not? I had no objection, with the exception of not wanting to know ApoE4. My grandmother had Alzheimer’s in her 90s, and the fact that I was in my 70s and didn’t have it didn’t reassure me I wouldn’t in my 90s.
At Watson’s request, the gene ApoE4 and the surrounding DNA were intentionally left out of his published genome sequence because he didn’t want to know. At that time, people with two copies of a variant of this gene were thought to have a 15-fold increased risk of Alzheimer’s, and people with one copy a 3-fold increased risk. However, recent studies have found that women are at higher risk, ApoE4 interacts with other genes in ways that affect risk; and additional ApoE4 variants have been identified. As far as I know, he never publicly reported developing Alzheimer’s and lived to age 97.
*WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT WAS USEFUL?*
Finding that I am a slow metabolizer of antipsychotics and beta blockers. I have a slightly irregular heartbeat, and the doctor put me on beta blockers. Two put me to sleep. Now I take them once a week, so knowing I’m a slow metabolizer was a real medical benefit. It also may have explained a mystery concerning my son. He almost died of neuroleptic malignant syndrome from an antipsychotic. I now know that if I go psychotic, I will tell people I can’t take those drugs.
*WAS ANY GENOME INFORMATION NOT HELPFUL?*
They told me I had something that should have killed me, a mutation in a DNA repair gene. And so, I decided not to think about it. I didn’t go and look it up. Then they told me I was one base pair off the bad one. They also told me I was a carrier for BRCA1, so I thought I would have to phone my nieces because their mother had breast cancer. But before that I asked Mary-Claire King (who identified BRCA1 and BRCA2), and she said no, I had a harmless variant. So, I’m glad I didn’t call my nieces because then they would have paid that disgraceful sum of money to Myriad Genetics.
*WHO SHOULD HAVE THEIR GENOMES SEQUENCED?*
I’d like to see children who have mental illness sequenced with their parents. My son has schizophrenia. The moment you have a son who is not normal, you wonder if you are the cause, or if you could have done something differently. Finding a mutation would make parents see that it was just genetic injustice, not anything they did. Knowing that won’t make their child healthy, but they won’t have the double whammy of thinking they did something wrong. I think an educated society doesn’t like genetics because it is so deterministic, and they would prefer it if you could have diets so you wouldn’t have a mentally ill child.
It is my belief that about 5% of children are born with rather bleak long-term futures. They really won’t be able to take care of themselves. They might become homeless later in life, and I think making people aware of this goes back to Hermann Müller, who worried about mutational load. We should think this way again.
Evolution means mutations, and there are going to be losers who, 20,000 years ago, would not have lived very long. But now in our so-called compassionate society, we should take care of them, but we do so very badly as they age. There are some born losers. It’s not that their parents were bad. But what’s the ethical responsibility to take care of the genetic losers? Having set up the ELSI research program, I suspect that all the programs put together have yielded nothing of value. They’re talking about minor things. The major issue is, what do we do with people with mad genes? That’s never discussed.
Hermann Muller won the 1946 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering that X-rays induce mutations, and, relevant to Watson’s comment, writing a seminal book on eugenics, Out of the Night: A Biologist’s View of the Future (New York: Vangard, 1935.)
ELSI stands for The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications part of the Human Genome Project.
“The unraveling of a Nobel Prize: How Hermann Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize: A front for eugenics,” by Edward J. Calabrese from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Dima Yazji Shamoun of the University of Texas, Austin, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, asserts that Muller’s research attempted to legitimize eugenics. It’s possible that Muller’s coining of the phrase “genetic load” for dangerous spontaneous mutations inspired Watson’s use of the term “genetic losers (which for him, may have been a neutral statement and not a judgment).
*HAS YOUR SON INFLUENCED YOU TO HAVE YOUR GENOME SEQUENCED?*
My son would say yes, but he didn’t want to. He doesn’t want to discuss it. I would have a completely different view, that we might be able to help him and he should have no choice, but that is the sort of thing brought up at ELSI meetings. I find them counterproductive to help the people born with genetic disease.
I’m very conscious of genetic losers – other people want to deny their existence. Other people want to cure them.
*ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE FLOOD OF DATA FROM SEQUENCING GENOMES?*
I’m more worried that we’ll get the flood of information, and we won’t use it because of excessive concern about privacy. Right now, I’d be pragmatic, be as free as possible with sequencing genomes, and then if disaster is the result, we’ll try to correct it. I’d hate for anyone to say ‘you can’t tell your child that he has a DNA change.’ I think parents, within limits, should have control over what their children know, and trying to regulate that would be just awful.
I’m very happy the $1000 genome exists. Genetics will help us to understand why people don’t fit in. Every time someone goes into a children’s hospital with a serious disease, it would be immoral NOT to sequence him.
ClosureAt the end of the panel discussion in 2011, I was among the crowd of mostly young people (graduate students and post-docs) with Y chromosomes who approached Dr. Watson — I’d wanted to ask him to review my soon-to-be-published gene therapy book. I was very dressed up (rare for me) and the only XX in the immediate vicinity. Dr. Watson turned on the charm and talked to me for nearly five minutes, ignoring the XY groupies.
I was embarrassed at the attention, and escaped as soon as I could politely do so. Despite his friendliness, he never responded to my follow-up request to review my book, and never acknowledged having received it when I sent him one of my personal copies.
James Watson was certainly unique, and contributed much to science. But in reading over his comments once again, here in 2025, I couldn’t help but be reminded of another older man in a position of great power who regularly blurts out offensive things that others wouldn’t even think, yet dare say out loud.
Perhaps Watson said some of the things that he did because the echo chamber of social media had yet to come along — although I suspect that wouldn’t have stopped him. Among other targets, he lampooned religious people, those with weight problems, and even scientists like himself:
“The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don’t have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand.” (answer to student, date not known)
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.” (2000, public statement on obesity)
“One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.” (The Double Helix, 1968)
But my favorite quote evokes the consequences of what he and Francis Crick accomplished:
“I never dreamed that in my lifetime my own genome would be sequenced.”
Ricki Lewis is a science writer with a PhD in genetics. She regularly contributes articles to PLOS Blogs: DNA Science. She is author of the textbook Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications and The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy. Follow her on her website
It’s a great time to be a MAHA-pilled anti-vaxxer, because there are so many fun conferences to attend. … The MAHA Institute has hosted a series of round tables on everything from women’s health to autism, most recently convening a distinguished cohort of professional wellness influencers and disgraced academics to “find out how the medical journal ecosystem became a swamp of corruption.” I’m sorry I missed that one, since as a journal editor, I am always looking to improve my “academic gatekeeping” and “weaponized retraction” skills.
The world is lousy with MAHA events, as I discovered when reading this breathtaking account of the Freedom Summit, a mishmash of fringe evangelical far-right politics, Charlie Kirk beatification, and good old-fashioned pseudoscience capitalism, with John Galt Mortgage Company financial products and 5G-repelling Faraday cages among the goods and services on offer. … But none of this holds a candle to what is surely the MAHA event of the year: the Children’s Health Defense Moment of Truth conference,kicking off … in Texas!
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is the anti-vax organization founded by US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which he led until 2023. CHD (along with the MAHA Institute and MAHA Action) currently operates a massive anti-vax, anti-public health propaganda machine for HHS. They have cranked the CHD bullshit machines to maximum output, to celebrate their ascendance and usher in the new Dark Ages.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPDay 1 kicks off with a reunion of the sexy Hollywood superstars that made the movie Vaxxed. In other words, anti-vax media mogul Del Bigtree and OG MMR hater Andrew Wakefield willchat with CHD CEO Mary Holland ….
…
Any CHD conference with Andrew Wakefield in attendance must contain some classical vaccines-cause-autism content, especially since he just dropped that report with McCullough. This year’s agenda does not disappoint.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
It is quite possible that the most immediate threat AI poses to humanity is not that its superhuman intelligence will beat us in the game of natural selection, but that it will unleash the power of artificial selection to the advantage of some people over others.
…
AI techniques are not only reading and writing genomic data: they are also creating the tools needed to make more effective CRISPR gene editors, the leading method to manipulate genetic material.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPFor the vast majority of geneticists, these developments are exciting for all the right reasons.
…
But a growing range of capabilities and expertise in gene therapy also raises ethical questions: Where will this use of genetic engineering stop? Will enhancement beyond medical purposes, for example to improve cognition or athletic performance, be on the table? Which blurry gradations between medical and enhancement purposes will be permitted? The answers to these questions will determine the extent to which humanity will redirect the processes that have defined the biological boundaries of our species; they will also determine whether we hardwire genetic inequalities into populations.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
We’ve been working on this article for weeks. Poring over studies on the Tylenol-autism topic. Just before we got it scheduled to post… another soundbite.At today’s Cabinet meeting, Health Secretary RFK Jr. claimed that “children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism,” adding “it’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol.” President Trump backed him up, saying there’s “a tremendous amount of proof or evidence, I would say as a non-doctor.”
Here’s just the tip of what’s wrong with this claim: Kennedy mentioned “two studies,” but didn’t specify which. A quick search turns up two likely candidates. One is a 2015 Danish registry study that found a modest statistical bump in autism diagnoses among circumcised boys, especially under age five. The authors themselves highlighted big limitations—such as incomplete circumcision data and the inability to prove causation. (By the way, the study never mentioned Tylenol, acetaminophen, or any pain medications. The researchers were investigating whether the circumcision procedure itself – the pain and stress – might be linked to autism.) The other is a 2013 ecological paper that used circumcision rates as a stand-in for acetaminophen exposure. Even its authors described it as “hypothesis-generating,” not proof. And just to underline how shaky the circumcision link was, a 2015 published critique of the Danish study pointed out that its autism findings rested on very small numbers and questionable assumptions.
But RFK Jr.’s real logical leap is collapsing these into one neat story: some circumcised boys get Tylenol for pain, and some are later diagnosed with autism—therefore, Tylenol causes autism. That’s like saying umbrellas cause car accidents because both are more common on rainy days. The studies don’t actually connect those dots. The Danish analysis wasn’t about Tylenol at all, and the ecological paper was little more than circumcision-as-proxy guesswork.
Kennedy’s stance? “None of this is positive, but all of it is stuff we should be paying attention to.” This immediately brought to mind that scene in Dumb and Dumber—when Lloyd Christmas hears his chances with Mary are “one out of a million” and responds: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”
Now, on to what we actually came here to discuss: the broader claims about Tylenol and autism that have pregnant women wondering if they really need to “tough it out”…
At a press conference on September 22, the Trump administration urged pregnant women to “tough it out” and avoid Tylenol, citing a link to autism. The claim surprised many, including the researchers whose work is being cited. Scientists say that’s not what the research shows. The strongest evidence to date shows that if there is any link, it’s not a cause-and-effect relationship.
Here’s what you should know…
For starters, acetaminophen is the active ingredient in Tylenol and many other over-the-counter medications, making this warning broader than just one brand.
The Review That Doesn’t Say What They ClaimThe centerpiece of the government’s claim is a review of 46 studies published in August. Yes, 27 studies reported some association between acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental issues. In science and public health, “association” means that two things are related or connected in some way, but it does not mean that one causes the other. A third thing might be influencing the relationship and causing both of the first two things to happen at the same time. The review’s own lead author, Dr. Didier Prada, confirmed: “We cannot answer the question about causation—that is very important to clarify.”
He even used a perfect analogy: ice cream sales and violent crime both rise in summer, but nobody thinks Rocky Road causes assault. (Association, not causation.)
They also relied on the Navigation Guide, a framework built for environmental toxins, not medications. With medications, we can measure exactly what people took and when. But with environmental toxins—think lead paint from childhood homes or industrial chemicals from old factories—researchers have to guess based on decades-old records. The Navigation Guide was designed for those messy situations. Applied to medications—where we have prescriptions and clear records—it treats weak hints like strong evidence. Medical standards like GRADE correctly start with more skepticism about observational studies; the Navigation Guide doesn’t. Small, questionable associations get inflated into findings that seem more certain than they are.
The review gave high ratings to studies with fundamental flaws—including one where every single baby had detectable acetaminophen in their cord blood, making a true unexposed comparison impossible—while penalizing a massive Swedish sibling study for not having trimester-specific timing data. Reviews like this are extremely sensitive to how studies are weighted—small changes in weighting can flip the overall conclusion from positive to negative. When the methodology lacks transparency about these crucial decisions, readers can’t evaluate whether the conclusion reflects the data or the authors’ choices.
Finally, the review leaned heavily on ‘dose-response’ as a sign of causation. If a drug is harmful, higher doses should mean higher risk. But most dose-response patterns came from small or poorly adjusted studies. In the large Swedish sibling study—our best evidence—the gradient vanished once family factors were controlled (as indicated by the purple line below). Low, medium, or high use all showed essentially the same risk which hovered around no effect (as indicated by the black dashed line at HR=1), suggesting the apparent dose-response patterns indicated in red, blue, and green came from confounding by genetics, maternal health, or the underlying condition being treated rather than the medicine itself.
Image created by Unbiased Science. Adapted from Table 2 in Ahlqvist VH, Sjöqvist H, Dalman C, et al. Acetaminophen use during pregnancy and children’s risk of autism, ADHD, and intellectual disability. JAMA. 2024;331(14):1205-1214. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.3172Credibility matters, too. The senior author, Harvard Dean Andrea Baccarelli, disclosed he was a paid expert witness for plaintiffs suing acetaminophen manufacturers. When a federal judge reviewed his testimony last December, she ruled it “lacked scientific evidence“ and dismissed every case.
What The Swedish Study ShowsThe administration is overlooking the most rigorous evidence available: Sweden’s sibling study, which followed essentially every child born over two decades—2.5 million in total, including 186,000 exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy.
Looking at the population as a whole, researchers initially saw a slight association: about a 5% increased autism risk with acetaminophen use. But when they compared siblings—one exposed, one not—the link vanished. Same parents, same household, shared genes… but different exposure. The risk dropped to zero.
If acetaminophen truly caused autism, exposed siblings would show higher rates. They didn’t. As neuroscientistSam Wang explains, that likely demonstrates the crude link was reflecting family factors—genetics, socioeconomic status, maternal illness—not the drug itself.
Critics likeNIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya argue that sibling studies can “wash out” real effects by over-controlling. But that misunderstands their purpose. When siblings share genes and family environment but differ in exposure, comparing them isolates the drug’s effect. If acetaminophen truly caused autism, exposed siblings would have higher rates than unexposed siblings. When that difference vanishes, it reveals the association was driven by shared family factors, not the medication itself. Moreover, suppose sibling designs truly “washed out” real effects. In that case, we’d still see them in other well-controlled studies—but the best prospective cohorts with biomarker validation show the same null results once properly adjusted.
Out of all the studies included in the review, the Swedish study did the best job of including additional variables in its statistical analysis. These variables, especially parental diagnosis of autism, could affect acetaminophen usage and risk for autism in their children. Even after accounting for more than 25 additional variables, the study found a slight increase in risk of autism with acetaminophen use during pregnancy. However, this effect disappeared when comparing siblings to each other, which suggests that unmeasured household and genetic factors—not captured by any of the studies—are what actually drive the apparent association between acetaminophen and autism.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThose 27 Studies: What They Actually ShowThe government continues to cite the “27 studies” that showed a positive association in the Baccarelli study. But many weren’t about autism at all, instead looking at general behavior problems. Others relied on mothers trying to remember medications years after their child was diagnosed—an obvious setup for recall bias (mothers of children with autism naturally scrutinize their pregnancy memories more intensely, potentially “remembering” more medication use). In contrast, the Swedish study recorded acetaminophen use prospectively during pregnancy and captured prescription data through pharmacy records.
Image created by Unbiased Science
This diagram illustrates recall bias in research. When studies ask about medication use years after pregnancy, the results can be skewed because memory works differently depending on context. Some parents may review their pregnancy choices in detail (e.g., those with children diagnosed with autism), while others may be less likely to do so. This natural difference in how much people have reflected on past events can create patterns in the data that don’t represent actual cause and effect. What researchers can measure through surveys (blue) may not match the real relationship they’re trying to study (black).
The authors couldn’t actually combine the studies into a traditional meta-analysis (a statistical method that pools data from multiple studies to get a clearer picture of whether there’s a real effect). The exposure and outcome measures were too different—some asked about ‘any use,’ others counted days, some split by trimester, and one measured drug metabolites in cord blood. So they fell back on vote-counting: tallying how many studies showed an association versus no association, without considering their size, strength, or reliability. That meant a Spanish cohort of 2,600 children based on parental recall was put on the same footing as Sweden’s national sibling study of 2.5 million births with genetic controls.
Patterns are telling: when mothers reported acetaminophen use prospectively, before knowing outcomes, the associations were weaker or absent. When asked years later, after a diagnosis, the associations were stronger. That’s not causation—that’s recall bias.
And even the positive findings were modest, typically 20-30 percent increased risk. At first glance, that sounds substantial. But these numbers come from observational studies, which are notoriously prone to bias. When researchers account for family genetics, maternal health, or the reasons Tylenol was taken in the first place, the apparent increase often disappears. In other words, what looks like a sizeable association on paper may actually be a mirage created by confounding and recall bias. The few stronger signals came from tiny, self-reported studies. In contrast, the largest, best-controlled evidence—the Swedish sibling study—found no effect once family factors were considered. Most crucially, none of the studies could separate the drug itself from the reason it was taken. As Yale researcherZeyan Liew points out, fever in pregnancy is a known risk factor for developmental delays.
The Real Dangers of “Toughing It Out”While the president tells women to tough it out, let’s be clear about what he’s asking them to endure. Untreated fever during early pregnancy nearly doubles the risk of neural tube defects and is linked to heart defects and oral clefts. These aren’t theoretical risks—they’re established medical facts.
Many pregnant women experience fever and pain during pregnancy. What alternatives exist? NSAIDs like ibuprofen are contraindicated in pregnancy, especially after 20 weeks. Aspirin carries bleeding risks. Opioids bring obvious concerns. As one analysis warns, creating panic about the only safe option will cause real, preventable harm.
The Timeline That Doesn’t Add UpImage created by Unbiased Science. Data sourced from https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/data-table.htmlAcetaminophen (Tylenol) entered U.S. markets in 1955, more than ten years after autism was first described by Psychiatrist Leo Kanner in 1943. If acetaminophen were a major causal driver, we’d expect a surge in the 1960s–70s as use became widespread. Instead, recorded autism rose mainly in the 1990s as diagnostic criteria broadened and diagnostic substitution occurred, especially in California. (Doctors did more strongly discourage aspirin in pregnancy by the 1990s, likely nudging some women toward Tylenol, but acetaminophen was already widely used and autism rates didn’t spike then—the increase in autism diagnoses aligns with changing diagnostic criteria.)
At the press briefing, officials pointed to aCalifornia MIND Institute study claiming those diagnostic shifts couldn’t explain the rise. But the study made a basic error: it retroactively applied 2002 criteria to children from the 1980s and 90s without re-examining them. That’s like lowering the passing score on a driving test and insisting the test hasn’t gotten easier.
California’s own Department of Health laterreanalyzed the same population and found what the MIND study missed: between 1987 and 1994, autism diagnoses rose by 9.1 per 10,000 while diagnoses of intellectual disability fell by 9.3 per 10,000. The increase and decrease tracked almost exactly—classic diagnostic substitution, not a new epidemic.
The president’s claim that countries without Tylenol don’t have autism? Cuba has both acetaminophen (sold as paracetamol) and documented autism services. Lower recorded rates likely reflect underdiagnosis and reporting constraints.
The “Consensus” That Isn’tThe administration points to a 2021 statement signed by 91 scientists calling for “precautionary action.” But they recommended exactly what doctors have always said: use acetaminophen only when medically indicated, at the lowest effective dose, for the shortest time. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) immediately responded at that time, warning against frightening women away from necessary treatment. Notably, that consensus was not based on any new research findings—it was a reinterpretation of existing observational studies that major medical organizations found unconvincing. ACOG reaffirmed in September 2025 that “acetaminophen remains the analgesic and antipyretic of choice during pregnancy” when used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration. Of course, the ‘lowest effective dose’ language isn’t unique to acetaminophen—it’s standard medical and legal boilerplate for virtually all medications during pregnancy. It’s good practice for everyone, pregnant or not, to take only what’s needed.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Dr. Jess Steier | Unbiased Science (@unbiasedscipod)
We did take note that the Swedish study reports only 7.5% of mothers used acetaminophen versus 50-65% in the U.S. While this might partly reflect measurement issues (the study asked about ‘medications’ generally without specifically prompting about acetaminophen), the sibling analyses still found no increased risk among those identified as users. The stark difference between Swedish and American usage rates—whether real or artifactual—does raise questions about pain management during pregnancy. Are Americans quicker to reach for medication? That’s a conversation worth having about judicious use. But it’s separate from whether acetaminophen causes autism. The Swedish sibling analyses found no increased risk, suggesting the answer to that specific question is clear.
What We Can Actually Say With ConfidenceAfter examining all the evidence: If acetaminophen has any effect on autism risk—and that’s an enormous if—it would be so small we can’t detect it in millions of children. It would be one tiny factor among many in a condition that’s 80-90% heritable, with over 100 genes identified as contributors.
The government’s transformation of these uncertainties into absolute declarations isn’t just bad science—it’s dangerous. Pregnant women will suffer through treatable fevers and pain. Some will experience preventable complications. All based on a certainty that doesn’t exist in the data.
A Message to MothersIf you’re pregnant and scared, or if you’re a mother wondering if that Tylenol you took somehow “caused” your child’s autism: The premise of this entire debate—that autism is something to be prevented or blamed on someone—is fundamentally wrong.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Dr. Jess Steier | Unbiased Science (@unbiasedscipod)
The best evidence shows no causal link. Can I promise with 100% certainty that acetaminophen never affects neurodevelopment? No scientist can promise that about anything.
Scientists use careful language like “no evidence of harm,” not because we haven’t studied it properly, but because we can’t ethically do the randomized experiments that would prove causation. We must rely on observational data, which is inherently less definitive. And we can’t study every possible combination of dose, timing, genetics, and environmental factors. While we can’t scientifically declare “Tylenol definitely doesn’t cause autism” (proving a negative is nearly impossible), the evidence strongly suggests that for the vast majority of people, acetaminophen use during pregnancy doesn’t meaningfully increase autism risk.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Dr. Jess Steier | Unbiased Science (@unbiasedscipod)
The desperate search for environmental “causes” of autism distracts from what really matters—ensuring autistic individuals get the support, accommodation, and acceptance they need. Your child’s neurology is not your fault, not a tragedy, and not something that needs to be fixed.
The truth is less dramatic than the president’s announcement: there’s no credible evidence linking acetaminophen to autism. The real harm isn’t in taking necessary medication. It’s in the suffering that will result from transforming uncertainty into false certainty, correlation into causation, and weak associations into federal mandates—leaving pregnant women to endure treatable pain and fever based on a scientific conclusion that doesn’t exist.
Jess Steier is a public health scientist dedicated to bridging the gap between complex scientific evidence and public understanding. Jess is the Founder of Unbiased Science, CEO of Vital Statistics Consulting, and Executive Director of The Science Literacy Lab (a 501c3 non-profit organization), she has built her career on translating complex scientific concepts into accessible language while maintaining unwavering commitment to scientific integrity.
Elana Pearl BenJoseph is a physician with a focus on pediatrics, health communication, and public health. Find Elana on LinkedIn
Izzy Brandstetter Figueroa is an epidemiologist, educator, and statistics consultant for Unbiased Science. Find Izzy on LinkedIn
Paige Boklaschuk is an epidemiology student who loves to go down rabbit holes about reproductive health, nutrition, global health, and exercise science. Find Paige on LinkedIn
A version of this article was originally posted at Unbiased Science and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Unbiased Science on X @unbiasedscipod
Surgeons in China have for the first time transplanted a section of liver extracted from a genetically modified pig into a human cancer patient ….
The surgeons, who described the procedure in a paper in The Journal of Hepatology, grafted the portion of pig liver onto the left lobe of a 71-year-old patient’s liver after removing the larger right lobe, where a tumor the size of a grapefruit had grown. … The patient’s body did not reject the organ graft, which enabled the remaining left lobe of the patient’s own liver to regenerate and grow, the scientists said.
The porcine liver lobe was removed 38 days after the transplant, when complications developed …. The patient, who had advanced disease, died a little over five and a half months later.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPWhile American surgeons have in recent years transplanted hearts and kidneys from genetically modified pigs into a small number of living patients, they have shied away from liver xenotransplantation, which poses particularly complex challenges.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
When it comes to brain cancer incidence rates, we have to distinguish between a scientific approach and a blinkered approach determined to find evidence of what it wants to find.What about claims that cell phones and radio frequency (RF) energy can cause brain damage. Not surprisingly, back in March, none other than our Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., claimed on Fox & Friends that promoted unfounded claims that cellphones “produce electromagnetic radiation” and “cause cellular damage and even cancer.”. That’s unfounded although many people are convinced that’s a hard fact.
What many in the media has failed to report: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducts hazard assessments, not risk assessments. What’s the difference? IARC only determines categories, based on a limited number of studies, whether a substance could possibly cause cancer under some condition — not whether it’s likely to cause cancer in the real world, or at typical levels of exposure.
IARC’s hazard list is based on its seleciive of studies and sweeps in many innocuse substances and activities. The agency has classified exposure to such as drinking coffee, eating red meat, working as a hairdresser, sitting in the sun, and enjoying a glass of wine as “possible” or “probable” carcinogens. These categories say nothing about how much or how often exposure would be dangerous — only that cancer has been observed in some circumstance, often in unrealistic dose animal studies or extreme occupational settings. Hazard is possibility; risk is probability. IARC’s “possible carcinogen” label often tells us little about actual danger and when misrepresented by journalists or weaponized by activists cause panic and havoc.
This discussion is getting tiresome, and I’m loathe to feed the beast. But when people in academic positions at respected institutions make flimsy assertions that many people accept on faith and which can incite a confused warning from a state department of public health, people who are serious about evaluating the evidence have an obligation to speak up. And when the media or influential figures like RFK, Jr. make such declarations, it doesn’t serve science but does open up the possiibility for tort lawyers to exploit this distinction.
California moved in December 2021 to release guidelines telling the public how it can avoid harmful “radiation” from cell phones. “Some scientists and public health officials believe radio frequency (RF) energy may affect human health. This guidance document describes RF energy, lists some of the potential health concerns, and provides guidance on how people can reduce their exposure,” the document read.
There are two ways of approaching the question of brain cancer incidence. One is to examine the most comprehensive and reliable data on trends over recent decades to determine whether there has been any consistent, substantial change. If there are changes, one must then ask whether they reflect real changes, as opposed to artifactual changes due to improved diagnostic techniques or coding practices. Only then should one proceed to next step of considering possible causes.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPA second way of approaching the question is to look at statistics on time trends in the incidence of brain cancer, or specific types, latch on to some apparent increase and then invoke a favored explanation — in this case, exposure to cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This second approach minimizes the difficulty of identifying a solid trend in the statistics that is not due merely to chance variation or changes in data collection procedures. Furthermore, in its eagerness to find evidence of a rise in incidence, it concentrates only on increases and, thereby, ignores the overall pattern of the data. In doing so, it provides a classic example of how to misinterpret statistics.
Many readers will find what follows technical and tedious. But that is the whole point. It takes hard work to assess these kinds of data critically and determine what one can conclude from them. For example, the demonstration using regression analysis of a significant increase in cancer rates over an extended time period does not establish that there has been a steady increase in rates consistent with an environmental cause. I am writing this piece in this venue — rather than in a scholarly journal — because this question is being raised in the public arena. For this reason, the science relating to the question needs to be aired in the public arena.
There has, in fact, been an increase in the incidence of brain cancer in the U.S. as outlined in a 2012 paper by Zada et al. Researchers from the University of Southern California examined the incidence of glioma in 3 cancer registries over the period 1992 to 2006. The registries are the Los Angeles county cancer registry, the California Cancer Registry, and SEER 12, which combines data from 12 registries in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. It should be noted that Zada et al. report the results of regression analyses of trends in brain cancer rates, but in their paper there is no mention cell phones or of any other specific environmental factor.
The authors reported that in all three registries the age-adjusted incidence rate for all gliomas decreased over the 15-year period by 0.5% to 0.8 % per year. However, the incidence of glioma in the frontal lobe increased by 1.4% to 1.7% per year. Regarding glioblastoma (GBM), there was no significant increase in this type overall; however, glioblastoma occurring in the frontal and temporal lobes increased in all 3 registries by 2.4 to 3.0% annually and by 1.3 to 2.3% annually, respectively.
The incidence of GBM in the parietal and occipital lobes remained stable, whereas there was a decrease in “overlapping sites” by -2.9 to -3.6% per year. A tumor is assigned to “overlapping sites” when it is not clearly confined to a single region of the brain.
The key data in the paper make it clear that the increase in frontal lobe GBM is mainly confined to the period 2000 to 2003, particularly in the two largest registries. Similarly, for temporal lobe GBM there was no increase during the period 1992 to 2000. The increase is largely confined to the period 2000 to 2003. The next most common category is “overlapping GBM,” for which one sees a consistently declining trend after 2000.
Given that the rates for GBM occurring in different areas of the brain tend to fluctuate, it would be of interest to see what happens with more years of data beyond 2006. Does the upward trend continue? Does it flatten out? Does it turn downward?
In fact, we have data from the SEER 13 (SEER 12 plus the LA registry) for the period 1992 to 2014. SEER 13 covers approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population. Looking at data for this longer period, it becomes clear that the rates, and trends in rates, differ considerably in the periods 1992-2002 versus 2003-2014. The rates jump, or step up, after 2002, rather than rising in a steady fashion. For the period 2003 to 2014, there is no significant increase in rates for all GBMs, frontal lobe GBMs, or temporal lobe GBMs. The rates for frontal lobe and temporal lobe GBMs are flat for the period 2003-2014. The step up relative to the earlier period could reflect changes in classification noted in the Dutch paper – one in 2000 and one in 2007 (referred to in my previous column). For “overlapping GBM” there is a clear downward trend in rates from 2000-2014. Some of this reduction must be reflected in the increasing rates in other areas of the brain. All of this suggests that changes in coding of the anatomical sub-site within the brain provide the most plausible explanation for the observed trends, rather than an environmental cause.
Taking things one step further, we have data for a larger set of registries — SEER 18, which includes SEER 12 and LA, for the period 2000 to 2014. In this larger dataset the incidence of glioblastoma (overall, for frontal lobe, and for temporal lobe) was flat from 2003 through 2014.
All of this indicates that, contrary to the assertions of “microwave activists” eager to discern evidence of the impact of radiofrequency energy on brain cancers or some subset of brain cancers, there is no evidence of a consistent upward trend in the rates of any of these entities over the last 12 years.
One other point deserves mention. The activists pointed to the Zada et al. paper as providing evidence of an increase over time in GBM incidence. As we have seen, rather than a consistent increase over the whole period, GBM in the frontal and temporal lobes showed a stepped increase in the period 2000 to 2003 with stable rates thereafter.
But while the activists are eager to point to these increases, which, as argued above, are most likely artifacts of changes in coding or diagnosis, they overlook another point. This is that the temporal lobe is considered the part of the brain that would receive the greatest exposure to RF, whereas exposure of the frontal lobe would be considerably lower. But the data analysis by Zada et al. indicates that the increase is stronger for frontal lobe cancers.
It’s easy to be fooled when looking for trends in cancer statistics and to find things in the data that support your hypothesis. But unless the change is large and sustained, and confirmed in independent datasets, it behooves one to be cautious in one’s claims. Only time and better data (larger datasets and more carefully-analyzed data) will tell whether a slight increase is indicative of a real trend in the data that signals something meaningful.
The value of establishing the“baseline” incidence of brain cancer is that it will allow us to identify a real and substantial change when and if this occurs.
Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist and the author of Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks. Find Geoffrey on Twitter @GeoKabat
This article previously appeared on the GLP on March 22, 2022.
Threats of federal shutdowns have become routine in the past decade, but this closure could be different: US President Donald Trump’s administration has encouraged mass firings of federal workers — a group that includes tens of thousands of scientists — during the lapse in funding.
…
If the shutdown lasts more than a few days, it will directly affect non-government researchers: both the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would stop awarding new grants.
…
Shutdowns “can have a significant impact on the scientific research enterprise, and a lot of that does depend on how long a shutdown is”, says Joanne Padrón Carney, the chief government-relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science ….
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPAlthough many scientists worry about the effect of a shutdown, some, including some federal researchers, see this as an opportunity for Congress to derail the Trump team’s activities, which have already included substantial lay-offs, budget cuts and disruption to research.
…
“American science, the gold-standard and world-leading science and innovation enterprise, is being destroyed,” said Mark Histed, a neuroscientist at the NIH in Bethesda.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Studying the effects of coffee is particularly challenging. Isolating for a beverage with over 1000 compounds is so tricky that all studies tend to be population effect studies or literary reviews.
Improvements in isolation techniques have, however, helped scientists dive deeper into the ways certain coffee compounds are affected by the way we prepare our coffee ….
Kim Y, eta al (2019) show coffee consumed at the rate of 3 to 4 cups (80-100mg of caffeine each) daily does reduce all-cause mortality …. Meta-analyses and literature reviews show that coffee consumption benefits the full range of cardiovascular health, cognitive disorders, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, inflammation, cancer, and heart disease.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPTo gain the benefits of coffee-drinking, how it is roasted and brewed are more important than whether you’re using organic or conventional beans. … Using a medium roast and brewing it for three minutes is the most effective way to extract its beneficial compounds.
…
All-day coffee drinkers experience fewer health benefits than morning drinkers, possibly because they are more likely to ingest more than the recommended four cups a day.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
You get older every day. But how old are your cells and organs, really?
…
Biological age and chronological age don’t always match up. We all know people who appear to be protected from aging …., [said Dr. Douglas Vaughan, the director of Northwestern University’s Potocsnak Longevity Institute and its Human Longevity Laboratory].
…
We measure peoples’ biological age by performing a series of tests. We do a DEXA scan to find body composition; we measure cardiac and vascular aging; we test gait speed and grip strength and pulmonary function. We also use molecular-based tools and AI-based biological age clocks.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThere are biological age clocks that anyone can order online and try for themselves at home. What do you think of those?
I wouldn’t endorse any of them right now. There’s more to it than one single test, so I think we still have a lot of work to do to figure out what combination of tests are actually the best and which are the most informative for the average person.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
A major report on the global food system has found that less than 1 per cent of the world is eating a diet that’s good for the planet and human health.
But switching to a healthier eating pattern could prevent up to 15 million premature deaths per year, while cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 per cent.
These are the findings of a report by the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission. The report brings together the expertise of nutritionists, climate scientists, economists, doctors, social scientists and agriculturalists from more than 35 countries around the world.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP“If everyone ate a healthy diet, we would be able to feed 10 billion people in 2050 with 7 per cent less land than we use today,” study author Dr Fabrice DeClerck, chief science officer at EAT, [said]. “Never in the history of human food production have we occupied less of a resource to feed more people.”
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
When scientists cracked the human genome in 2003 – sequencing the entire genetic code of a human being – many expected it would unlock the secrets of disease. But genetics explained only about 10% of the risk. The other 90% lies in the environment – and diet plays a huge part.Worldwide, poor diet is linked to around one in five deaths among adults aged 25 years or older. In Europe, it accounts for nearly half of all cardiovascular deaths.
But despite decades of advice about cutting fat, salt or sugar, obesity and diet-related illness have continued to rise. Clearly, something is missing from the way we think about food.
For years, nutrition has often been framed in fairly simple terms: food as fuel and nutrients as the body’s building blocks. Proteins, carbohydrates, fats and vitamins – about 150 known chemicals in total – have dominated the picture. But scientists now estimate our diet actually delivers more than 26,000 compounds, with most of them still uncharted.
Here is where astronomy provides a useful comparison. Astronomers know that dark matter makes up about 27% of the universe. It doesn’t emit or reflect light, and so it cannot be seen directly but its gravitational effects reveal that it must exist.
Nutrition science faces something similar. The vast majority of chemicals in food are invisible to us in terms of research. We consume them every day, but we have little idea what they do.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPSome experts refer to these unknown molecules as “nutritional dark matter”. It’s a reminder that just as the cosmos is filled with hidden forces, our diet is packed with hidden chemistry.
When researchers analyse disease, they look at a vast array of foods, although any association often cannot be matched to known molecules. This is the dark matter of nutrition – the compounds we ingest daily but haven’t been mapped or studied. Some may encourage health, but others may increase the risk of disease. The challenge is finding out which do what.
FoodomicsThe field of foodomics aims to do exactly that. It brings together genomics (the role of genes), proteomics (proteins), metabolomics (cell activity) and nutrigenomics (the interaction of genes and diet).
These approaches are starting to reveal how diet interacts with the body in ways far beyond calories and vitamins.
Take the Mediterranean diet (filled with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, olive oil and fish, with limited red meat and sweets), for example, which is known to reduce the risk of heart disease.
But why does it work? One clue lies in a molecule called TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide), produced when gut bacteria metabolise compounds in red meat and eggs. High levels of TMAO increase the risk of heart disease. But garlic, for example, contains substances that block its production. This is one example of how diet can tip the balance between health and harm.
Beyond the food on your plate lies a universe of different molecules. Danijela Maksimovic/ShutterstockGut bacteria also play a major role. When compounds reach the colon, microbes transform them into new chemicals that can affect inflammation, immunity and metabolism.
For example, ellagic acid – found in various fruits and nuts – is converted by gut bacteria into urolithins. These are a group of natural compounds that help keep our mitochondria (the body’s energy factories) healthy.
This shows how food is a complex web of interacting chemicals. One compound can influence many biological mechanisms, which in turn can affect many others. Diet can even switch genes on or off through epigenetics – changes in gene activity that don’t alter DNA itself.
History has provided stark examples of this. For example, children born to mothers who endured famine in the Netherlands during the second world war were more likely to develop heart disease, type 2 diabetes and schizophrenia later in life. Decades on, scientists found their gene activity had been altered by what their mothers ate – or didn’t eat – while pregnant.
Mapping the food universeProjects such as the Foodome Project are now attempting to catalogue this hidden chemical universe. More than 130,000 molecules have already been listed, linking food compounds to human proteins, gut microbes and disease processes. The aim is to build an atlas of how diet interacts with the body, and to pinpoint which molecules really matter for health.
The hope is that by understanding nutritional dark matter, we can answer questions that have long frustrated nutrition science. Why do certain diets work for some people but not others? Why do foods sometimes prevent, and sometimes promote, disease? Which food molecules could be harnessed to develop new drugs, or new foods?
We are still at the beginning. But the message is clear – the food on our plate is not just calories and nutrients, but a vast chemical landscape we are only starting to chart. Just as mapping cosmic dark matter is transforming our view of the universe, uncovering nutritional dark matter could transform how we eat, how we treat disease and how we understand health itself.
David Benton is a Professor Emeritus (Human & Health Sciences), Medicine Health and Life Science at Swansea University.
A version of this article was originally posted at Conversation and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Conversation on X @Conversation_US
To understand thirst in mammals, think of it less as the body stating a fact to the brain—“I need water”—and more as the brain monitoring its environment, the body. Like an ecologist sampling a river, the brain examines blood’s chemical composition to learn what the body needs.
In nearly all cases, the so-called blood-brain barrier protects the brain from bacteria, viruses, or other dangers circulating in the blood. But there are a few exceptions where the brain directly interfaces with blood, including in the circumventricular organs, deep in the brain near the hypothalamus.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPTwo of these organs—the vascular organ of lamina terminalis (OVLT) and the subfornical organ (SFO)—are sensory organs not unlike a nose or an ear. They act like scientists dipping a bucket into the body’s river of blood to test its health. The brain infers the body’s salt and water needs from that data and funnels the information to neural circuits in even deeper regions, which then can trigger what we experience as thirst—the scratchy throat, dry mouth, and foggy brain that accompany desire for water.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
A new mRNA vaccine stopped allergens from causing dangerous immune reactions and life-threatening inflammation in mice, according to researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Cincinnati Children’s. The vaccine, outlined in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, may one day be tested and tailored to a variety of seasonal and food allergies.
“This is a potential breakthrough for millions of people worldwide who suffer from life-threatening allergies,” said Nobel laureate Drew Weissman, MD, PhD ….
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP[Scientists] tweaked the mRNA to instruct cells to produce proteins that resemble certain allergens. By presenting these proteins in a controlled way, the vaccine didn’t cause allergic reactions but did instruct the immune system to respond more appropriately in the future. And, when mice were later exposed to the respective allergens, the vaccines worked.…
Because the mRNA can be tailored to encode proteins from different allergens, the platform could be adapted to treat a wide range of allergic conditions—from seasonal pollen allergies to food sensitivities and asthma.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
The past few weeks have been bruising for public health. First, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., side-by-side President Trump — wrongly claimed that taking Tylenol during pregnancy has triggered an “autism epidemic.”As if that weren’t damaging enough, just days later, in a talk at the United Nations, Kennedy rudely brushed aside the U.N. proposed declaration on cancer, diabetes, and non-communicable diseases, using the stage to push MAHA talking points.
“The United States will walk away from the declaration, but we will never walk away from the world or our commitment to end chronic disease,” he said. Spouting MAGA healthcare priorities, Kennedy then bashed the delegates and the U.N. for promoting abortion and “radical gender ideology.” He ended by torpedoing the declaration.
It was pure theater. The UN had not broached reproductive rights, let alone abortion or gender ideology. Kennedy’s solution for preventing diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular illnesses? Eat less ultra-processed food and ban synthetic dyes.
This is familiar territory. Earlier this year, Trump pulled the U.S. from the U.N.’s World Health Organization, accusing it of mishandling the coronavirus pandemic and of its supposed “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms.”
Such unwarranted abdications of science-based policy and international cooperation have left a significant gap in the United States’ ability to track and respond in a timely way to public health threats.
Filling the federal voidThe dysfunction of U.S. domestic public health policy — and Washington’s resistance to international coordination — is poised to cost millions of lives. In response, a collection of professional societies has formed the Vaccine Integrity Project (VIP) to fill the leadership vacuum.
Led by independent experts such as University of Minnesota epidemiologist Professor Michael Osterholm, VIP has assumed the kind of data synthesis and risk-benefit analysis traditionally performed by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. In its first public session, the VIP walked thousands of physicians and state health officers through presentations about COVID-19, influenza, and RSV vaccines across age groups and pregnancy. Its conclusion was unequivocal: The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks, and no credible autism signal emerges from the data.
“We needed an analysis that wasn’t going to change because the politics changed,” Dr. Osterholm said.
With the project’s output — slides, transcripts, Q&A — the VIP has quickly become the de facto reference point for public health leaders who cannot wait for a politicized federal advisory committee to regain its footing. CIDRAP
During an August VIP webinar viewed by more than 9,000 people, researchers presented analyses of updated COVID-19 vaccines.
“What you’re about to hear is an analysis typically done by CDC,” Dr. Osterholm said.
State health officials tuned in to gauge whether Kennedy’s changes to guidance had any merit. “There weren’t new safety concerns,” said California’s public health director, Dr. Erica Pan, whose state is endorsing the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other professional groups, rather than the knee-capped CDC.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPBudding initiativesThe backlash against the Trump administration has triggered one of the most consequential shifts ever in modern American public health: the rise of decentralized, science-first initiatives that operate outside and sometimes contradict the federal apparatus. Groups such as the VIP now provide practical, evidence-based guidance on disease prevention and other urgent health issues. States, too, are moving independently or banding together to fill the gap. Here are some examples:
| Coalition / Region | States Involved | What They’re Doing / How They Differ | | West Coast Health Alliance | California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii | Issued joint vaccine recommendations (for COVID-19, influenza, RSV) that go beyond or depart from CDC guidance. | | Northeast Public Health Collaborative | Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (and NYC) | Voluntary coalition to coordinate vaccine recommendations, public health planning, data sharing, etc. | | Individual States Breaking from FDA / CDC Restrictions | New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Colorado, New Mexico | These states have taken steps to maintain broader vaccine access (e.g., allowing pharmacists to vaccinate more broadly) even when federal restrictions would limit that access. |
The most decisive action has come from states intent on guaranteeing continuity. California, for example, enacted a statute requiring insurers to cover any vaccines endorsed by its own health department and empowering the department to publish state-level immunization schedules — explicitly “to protect access amid federal uncertainty.”
Within days, the department posted an updated page that directly countered Washington: reaffirming routine vaccines, clarifying RSV guidance, and pledging to “stand together” with the medical community to keep coverage intact. However, many states are unlikely to safeguard their populations so proactively and aggressively.
The response isn’t limited to state action. Academic centers are now live-streaming evidence reviews in real time, openly sharing their methods and warnings. Specialty societies are writing clinical guidance that pharmacies and pediatric practices can implement immediately.
A few individual academics are even helping to fill the void. Caitlin Collins, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the director of the Center for Outbreak Response Innovation, has done a heroic job with her newsletter, Force of Infection. For the October 4th issue, for example, she and her team painstakingly searched state by state to check on the current activity of influenza, Covid-19, and RSV.
What was once, in effect, a single national operating manual — crafted by federal advisory committees and agency scientists and copied everywhere — is becoming a mosaic. For now, that diversity is a feature rather than a flaw.
In addition, organizations across the country are drafting contingency plans, anticipating that Kennedy may restructure the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — whose recommendations determine which screenings insurers must cover. Without those guardrails, coverage for mammograms, colonoscopies, lung-cancer scans, and other tests could no longer be assured under private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.
In the era of Trump, Kennedy, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, and their acolytes, the nation is witnessing the rise of state-driven and health professionals-led alternatives to federal healthcare recommendations and policies. These emerging networks—rooted in state health departments and professional societies — are becoming indispensable for physicians and patients who no longer trust and rely on federal pronouncements.
Fragmented futureThe rise of a parallel public health-guidance system is unprecedented in modern U.S. history. It signals not only a collapse of trust in Washington’s leadership but also the resilience of professional networks determined to preserve evidence-based care.
Yet, fragmentation carries risks of its own. Patients may be forced to navigate conflicting messages from Washington, state agencies, newly-created independent health advisory associations, and their own doctors. Uneven access to trustworthy guidance could widen health disparities, leaving the most vulnerable populations exposed to preventable harm.
Still, a messy parallel system is preferable to passivity in the face of unscientific — and potentially dangerous — advice from federal officials. “If the official voice of public health is compromised, then the responsibility falls on us,” said one physician involved in the Vaccine Integrity Project.
The stakes are high. Vaccination schedules, cancer screenings, and even guidance on treating fevers during pregnancy may seem like narrow clinical issues, but they are among the cornerstones of modern preventive medicine. If they are undermined, the consequences could echo for decades. And they are only a symptom of a deeper government malaise: the failure to entrust public policy to evidence-driven leaders.
The parallel universe of public health may not yet match the federal government in scale, but its influence is growing. For doctors and patients searching for reliable guidance, it may offer the best hope in an era when science itself has become contested terrain.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the Science Literacy Project. A veteran of the NIH and FDA, he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Find him on his website: henrymillermd.org
Sugar-sweetened beverages, the liquid delight promising a moment of joy and delivering a lifetime (?) of regret. Positioned as a public health disaster by some, how much blame can we pin on SSBs? With so many other lifestyle culprits in play, it’s worth asking: Are they the real villain or just the easiest scapegoat in our quest for better health?Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are quickly digested, triggering insulin release and other regulatory pathways leading to visceral fat accumulation, insulin resistance in the liver and skeletal muscles, and weight gain. The resulting excess body fat and metabolic dysfunction further stimulate inflammatory cytokines, increasing the risk of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. As a result, SSBs can contribute to the onset of cardiometabolic diseases, i.e., diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as well as excess weight gain, which makes its own contribution to diabetes and CVD.
The contribution of SSBs to the onset of diabetes and CVD can be approximated by calculating the population attributable risk (PAR). PAR quantifies the proportion of cases of a disease, diabetes, and CVD, in this instance, in a population that can be attributed to a specific risk factor, SSBs. It is a useful policy tool for identifying areas of intervention and prioritizing resources.
As with any calculation or modeling, there are underlying assumptions. In the case of PAR, there is an assumption that the risk factor is causal, that there is a uniform risk across the population or subgroups, that the risk factor remains stable, not increasing or decreasing over the time interval, and that the calculation excludes confounders. A new study reported in Nature Medicine looks at the Global PAR for SSBs, diabetes, and CVD. Their calculations cannot exclude confounders, so the findings provide uncertain guidance to policy-makers; however, numbers often have a halo of unfounded certainty.
SSBs were any beverage with added sugars and ≥50 kcal per 8 oz serving. They excluded 100% fruit and vegetable juices, noncaloric artificially sweetened drinks, and sweetened milk. The consumption of SSB among “2.9 million individuals from 118 countries representing 87.1% of the global population” came from various surveys and methodologies.
- Globally in 2020, consistent with findings reported in 2018, adults consumed an average of 2.6 8 oz (248 g) servings per week (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 2.4–2.8)
- Globally, regionally, and nationally, men had modestly higher energy-adjusted SSB intake than women.
- SSB intakes were generally higher in all world regions at younger than older ages.
- Contrary to the common narrative of SSB consumption in the US, SSB intakes were higher among the more educated adults in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean and lower among more educated in the Middle East and North Africa.
The PAR for SSBs in the onset of type 2 diabetes was estimated at 9.8%; for cardiovascular disease, the PAR was 3.1%. The PAR associated with diabetes was slightly greater in men, the higher-educated, the urban, and peaked in the 45-49 age group. The PAR for CVD followed the pattern of diabetes for gender and urbanicity, but education played no role, and age was an increasingly smaller factor for CVD’s PAR.
“Globally, we found that 2.2 million new cases of T2D and 1.2 million new cases of CVD in 2020 were attributable to SSBs—representing about 1 in 10 new T2D and 1 in 30 new CVD cases.”
Of course, from a policy perspective, the most frequently applied method is taxation and education. Mexico was the first country to put an SSB tax in place, resulting in a 6.3% reduction in expected purchases and a 16.2% increase in water purchases. Despite that, the “greatest absolute numbers of new [type 2 diabetes] cases attributable to SSBs were in Mexico. How could that be?
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe researchers offer up commercial interests – an easy target. As they write,
“Mexico faces industry opposition to its soda tax, including industry-supported reports questioning the efficacy of the tax to reduce intakes and suggesting harms to jobs and the national economy, as well as amplified marketing through advertising, price reductions and bonus products.”
Despite all of those foreseeable actions on the part of commercial interests, the tax effectively reduced consumption – it just didn’t reduce the incidence of diabetes. The researchers point to two further factors.
First, in addition to the declines being inadequate (and the silent thought that a higher tax will further reduce consumption), other risk factors in the lifestyle, including consumption of highly refined grains and physical inactivity, are at play. Moreover, in considering the rise in SSB consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa, they point to a growing educated middle class who are transitioning to a “Western diet.” For the mathematically inclined, the attributed risk of any factor is impacted by the contribution of other factors. For example, the role of SSBs in CVD competes with the role of smoking, hypertension, and cholesterol for prominence. A population that has a large population of heavy smokers may repress any effect that can be statistically identified as coming from SSBs.
A more salient point is that there is a lag as differing nutrition alters our health; more importantly, there is a generational component. Tobacco use declined as those raised in a time and place where smoking was “normalized” died out and was replaced by a generation raised and educated on the health risks of smoking. They are correct that even this small impact of SSBs on our cardiometabolic health will require “concerted multigenerational efforts over many years.”
While sugar-sweetened beverages are undeniably a contributing factor to the global rise in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, the story is far from simple. Tackling their impact requires more than taxes and education—it demands a holistic strategy that blends personal responsibility and policy intervention. It begins with a more realistic understanding of its role and impact.
Dr. Charles Dinerstein, M.D., MBA, FACS is the Medical Director at the American Council on Science and Health. He has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon. He completed his MBA with distinction in the George Washington University Healthcare MBA program and has served as a consultant to hospitals. While no longer clinically active, he has had his writing featured at KevinMD and Doximity.A version of this article was originally posted at American Council on Science and Health and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find American Council on Science and Health on X @ACSHorg
Women tend to live longer than men. There are traditional explanations: Men smoke more. They drink more. They tend to engage in riskier behavior.
But the fact that this lifespan gap holds true regardless of country or century indicates something deeper is also at play. A growing body of evidence suggests that women’s relative longevity may derive, in part, from having double X chromosomes, a redundancy that protects them against harmful mutations.
That theory was further bolstered … with the publication of the most sweeping analysis to date of the lifespan differences between males and females in more than 1,000 mammal and bird species.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPIn men, “if there’s any deleterious mutations or any mutations that will reduce the lifespan, you don’t have a backup,” said Fernando Colchero, who is … with the Max Planck Institute.
For their study, Colchero [and] colleagues collected data on the lifespans of 528 mammal species and 648 bird species kept in zoos. The team found that most other mammals are like humans, with the females of nearly three-fourths of mammal species outliving their male counterparts.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Late last month, Daily Caller published a bombshell report claiming that Johnson & Johnson, the former manufacturer of Tylenol (acetaminophen), quietly conceded that its pain reliever might be linked to autism. “SCOOP: Tylenol Maker Privately Admitted Evidence Was Getting ‘Heavy’ For Autism Risk In 2018,” the story’s headline announced. “The pharmaceutical company behind Tylenol privately acknowledged the likelihood of an association between its drug in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism,” reporter Emily Kopp alleged, citing “company documents” she obtained from the law firm Keller Postman LLC, which is suing the maker of Tylenol. The story exploded on social media, garnering millions of views and thousands of retweets—including from federal agencies like Health and Human Services, now led by Robert F Kennedy, Jr.There was a critical problem, however: the internal company documents explicitly refuted a causal association between Tylenol use and autism. Johnson & Johnson’s experts, tasked with evaluating the possible link between acetaminophen and the neurodevelopmental disorder, panned the low-quality evidence cited by critics. “There is no proven link between the two [our emphasis],” a 2012 email from one company scientist plainly stated. A second email in the same chain of messages explained why: “Review of the cases identified confounders or lack of information which preclude a causal assessment.”
Kopp excluded these clear refutations of the Tylenol-autism link from her story, though she implied that the company’s tone had shifted by 2018, quoting one J&J scientist as saying “The weight of the evidence is starting to feel heavy to me.” But an internal evidence review prepared for company executives the same year confirmed that its experts remained skeptical of the association. Evaluating all the evidence available at the time, they noted that studies linking Tylenol to autism were hampered by confounding, meaning another factor beyond acetaminophen exposure was the likely cause of autism. “There are limitations of the individual studies that make it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis,” the presentation concluded.
Meta-analysis is a method of combining and analyzing data from multiple studies on the same topic to reach a more conclusive answer than any one study could provide. The individual studies linking acetaminophen and autism were so limited—so hampered by confounding—they couldn’t be combined for a meta-analysis, J&J scientists found.
The most recent evidence review, published in August 2025, purporting to show a link between Tylenol and autism didn’t include a meta-analysis for the same reason. “[W]e did not conduct [a meta-analysis] due to significant heterogeneity across studies in exposure assessment…” the authors wrote. In sum, the advocates of the acetaminophen-autism association were forced to concede publicly the same point J&J’s scientists made privately.
What do we make of all this? The best evidence to date indicates that the risk of autism is heavily influenced by a variety of genetic factors. For example, multiple studies have shown that pregnant women with neurodevelopmental disorders experience more pain during pregnancy and thus tend to use more Tylenol, explaining the association between the drug and subsequent autism diagnosis in their children. “So let’s be clear,” GLP contributor Dr. Andrea Love observed in a recent story, “autism is overwhelmingly genetic, sometimes influenced by biological and developmental factors like maternal fever, but not acetaminophen.”
Bottom line: The Daily Caller report is fundamentally flawed. It selectively cited private communications and scientific research to support a predetermined conclusion. There is no evidence showing that Tylenol causes autism.
Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines Daily Caller’s allegation in more detail.
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
‘No nasties’, ‘non-toxic’, ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘mineral’ – there are a multitude of health buzzwords sprinkled through grocery store shelves aimed to conjure up images of wellness and protection from ‘bad chemicals’.
…
While we’re all well aware that we shouldn’t take health or diet advice from social media, our feeds are so full of warnings about the dangers of seed oils, chemical sunscreens, pesticides, deodorants, receipts, additives and synthetic ingredients that we end up unable to remember if we got our information from an expert or our screens.
The news throughout our feeds is already so grim and fear-mongering, but now the wellness world’s content is driving us to fear chemicals, too.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPProfessor Mick Sherburn from ANU’s Research School of Chemistry [says] it’s not the chemical label we should be paying attention to, but the dosage.
…
“Chemicals are everywhere – air, water, food, even our own bodies are made of them. It is impossible to eliminate chemicals from our lives, because chemicals – by definition – constitute everything that has physical substance,” Sherburn says. “That’s why the phrase “chemical-free” makes no scientific sense.”
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
A groundbreaking study in Nature’s npj Aging Journal (July 2025), just made waves by showing that psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” might extend our lifespan, as shown in its mice subjects. The findings are bold enough to have some calling psilocybin a potential “geroprotective agent”—a compound that could slow aging at the cellular level.Mushrooms are gaining traction everywhere.
But before you swap your salmon and spinach for psychedelic microdoses, here are four things that research on the benefits of psilocybin reveals—and why, for now, your best anti-aging prescription may still be on your plate.
1. Psilocybin’s Big Anti-Aging BreakthroughThe July 2025 study marks the first time psilocybin’s anti-aging effects were tested at both the cellular and organism level.
The Results That Stunned Researchers: In human cells: Fibroblasts, cells that connect other tissues or organs in the body, treated with psilocin (the active metabolite of psilocybin)lived up to 57% longer. Furthermore, markers of cellular aging dropped significantly, including the preservation of telomeres—the DNA “shoelace caps” that protect chromosomes. * In aged mice (~60 human years): Monthly 5-15mg/kg doses of psilocybin boosted 10‑month survival rates to 80%* compared to 50% in untreated controls. The mice lived 30% longer, had less oxidative stress, improved DNA repair, and experienced longer telomeres (protection of chromosomes from deterioration). Even physical signs of aging—graying fur, hair loss, slowed mobility—improved.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThese results can be explained by psilocybin’s several mechanisms of action.
In particular, this compound appears to activate serotonin receptors found on nearly all cell types—not just in the brain. It may also switch on SIRT1, often referred to as the “longevity gene,” reduce oxidative stress by boosting the antioxidant pathway Nrf2 while dialing down Nox4, a major source of damaging free radicals, and support DNA repair by reducing GADD45a expression.
Expert TakeAs the below researchers can attest, the excitement surrounding psilocybin’s effect on longevity is palpable. However, human trials are still years away. Additionally, these effects were observed at high, intermittent doses, not at microdosing levels.
But its potential for long-term human health cannot be underestimated:
“Psilocybin appears to slow the ‘wear and tear’ that accompanies aging. Mice and cells are healthier and live significantly longer…
Most cells in the body express serotonin receptors, and this study opens a new frontier for how psilocybin could influence systemic aging processes, particularly when administered later in life.”
– Dr. Louise Hecker, senior study author, Emory University
2. Microdosing: More Mirage than MiraclePsilocybin microdosing is the practice of taking trace amounts of the chemical compound, as opposed to larger doses taken for the anti-aging study.
Microdosing, a trend that really took hold during the lock-down days of Covid, is one of Silicon Valley’s favorite “biohacks” for creativity and focus. However, the evidence for mental clarity remains underwhelming.
What the Studies Show* A 2022 double-blind trial at Maastricht University found no measurable cognitive or creativity gains despite participants reporting improved mood and focus. * A 2024 systematic review concluded that most reported benefits are expectation-driven, not biological.
Expert Take“It may only work in some people and not in other people, so it makes it hard for us to measure it under laboratory conditions” states Dr. Harriet de Wit of University of Chicago.
3. Functional Mushrooms: Helpful, but Not RevolutionaryNon-psychedelic mushrooms like lion’s mane get plenty of attention for brain health. A 2023 placebo-controlled study showed that 1.8 grams per day improved cognitive response time and reduced stress after four weeks.
But experts caution these effects are modest and unlikely to dramatically alter aging or brain health. Think of lion’s mane as a “supporting actor,” not the star.
4. Food: The Evergreen Anti-Aging MVPWhile psilocybin research is exciting, decades of nutrition science still make diet your most proven mental and metabolic upgrade.
The MIND Diet AdvantageA cohort of nearly 93,000 adults found that:
- Strict adherence to the MIND diet (Mediterranean + DASH) lowered dementia risk by 9%.
- Improving adherence over time dropped risk by up to 25%.
Unlike isolated supplements, whole foods deliver nutrients in combinations your body evolved to use.
To paraphrase the findings of Dr. Russell Sawyer in the REGARDS cognitive study:
Your salad is still beating psilocybin by decades. The most powerful anti-aging tools are still on your plate.
The Science of Food-Driven Cognitive SupportPsilocybin’s early research is thrilling, but decades of nutrition science already show that certain whole foods can influence many of the same biological pathways linked to brain health, mental clarity, and even slower cognitive aging.
Here’s the science behind key foods—and why they work:
Fatty Fish (Salmon, Mackerel, Sardines)Key Compounds: EPA and DHA omega‑3 fatty acids
- How They Work:
- DHA is a structural fat that makes up ~40% of the brain’s gray matter. It helps keep neuronal membranes flexible, improving synaptic signaling and neurotransmission.
- EPA lowers neuroinflammation by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines that impair cognition when chronically elevated.
- Both improve BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor), a protein crucial for neuroplasticity and learning.
Leafy Greens (Spinach, Kale, Swiss Chard)Key Compounds: Folate, vitamin K1, lutein, and nitrates
- How They Work:
- Folate and B vitamins reduce homocysteine, an amino acid linked to neurodegeneration when elevated.
- Vitamin K1 supports sphingolipid synthesis, a key component of neuronal membranes.
- Lutein accumulates in brain tissue, where it acts as an antioxidant, protecting neurons from oxidative stress.
- Dietary nitrates enhance cerebral blood flow by boosting nitric oxide production, improving oxygen and nutrient delivery to brain tissue. In the Rush University MIND diet study, 1–2 servings of greens per day made participants cognitively 11 years “younger” than those who rarely ate them.
Berries (Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries)Key Compounds: Anthocyanins and other polyphenols
- How They Work:
- Polyphenols activate the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway (the same one psilocybin influenced in the aging study), reducing oxidative stress and inflammation.
- They modulate gut microbiota, increasing short-chain fatty acids that cross the blood-brain barrier and regulate neuroinflammation.
- Some anthocyanins can cross into brain tissue directly, improving neuronal signaling and memory formation in the hippocampus. Clinical trials show 12 weeks of daily blueberry supplementation improves delayed recall and executive function in older adults.
Nuts & Seeds (Walnuts, Flaxseed, Pumpkin Seeds)Key Compounds: Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), magnesium, and polyphenols
- How They Work:
- ALA (a plant omega‑3) converts in small amounts to EPA/DHA, providing mild anti-inflammatory benefits.
- Magnesium regulates NMDA receptor activity, crucial for synaptic plasticity and learning.
- Walnuts, in particular, contain polyphenols that suppress oxidative stress in brain tissue. High nut consumption (5+ servings/week) in the PREDIMED trial correlated with better memory and slower cognitive decline.
Fermented & Fiber-rich Foods (Kefir, Yogurt, Lentils, Whole Grains)Key Compounds: Prebiotic fibers and probiotic bacteria
- How They Work:
- Fibers feed beneficial gut bacteria, increasing production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate, which have anti-inflammatory effects in the brain. Clinical studies link higher SCFA levels with better cognitive flexibility and lower risk of age-related cognitive impairment.
- Gut microbes influence serotonin synthesis—90% of serotonin is produced in the gut—and modulate the gut-brain axis.
Dark Chocolate & Green TeaKey Compounds: Flavanols and L-theanine
- How They Work:
- Flavanols enhance cerebral blood flow and support BDNF expression.
- L-theanine modulates alpha brain waves, promoting a calm yet alert mental state—similar to meditation. [HP2]
Why This MattersMany of these mechanisms—lowering oxidative stress, supporting BDNF, preserving membrane integrity, and even activating Nrf2—mirror the pathways psilocybin is now being investigated for. But unlike psilocybin, which is still experimental, these foods have decades of human data supporting their safety and effectiveness.
Until we have a better picture of psilocybin’s benefits, here are some things you can do now and what to watch for as the research progresses:
| Do Now | Watch for Later | | Eat a plant-diverse, whole-food MIND-style diet | Follow human clinical trials on psilocybin geroprotection | | Include oily fish, nuts, colorful fruits & vegetables | Look for studies testing safe dosing & timing protocols | | Manage sleep, stress & exercise—diet works best with lifestyle habits | Avoid microdosing as an “anti-aging” strategy |
As Dr. Hecker herself stressed, “Translating these results to human therapies will take years of careful research. For now, lifestyle still matters more than any single compound.”
The Bottom Line
Magic mushrooms might have potential, hallucinogens aside. Keep an eye on the science, but keep filling your plate with plants, healthy fats, and whole grains. Because when it comes to mental clarity and aging well, the most powerful medicine is still food, exercise, and sleep.
Hayley Philip is a graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara with degrees in Sociology and Marketing. Hayley leads the Dirt to Dinner team in debunking popular fad diets, fast-nutrition, and myths about ‘quick’ dietary fixes. Hayley also researches and writes about the intersectionality of regeneration and sustainable growing methods that will safely produce enough food for future generations.
A version of this article was originally posted at Dirt to Dinner and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find Dirt to Dinner on X @Dirt_To_Dinner
Sex is important. Romantic, typically sexual, partnerships are often among the most central relationships in individuals’ lives, providing a host of personal, health, social and economic benefits.But what about people who don’t have sex?
In a new study, my colleagues and I looked at the differences between mature adults who had never had sex and those who had. We found sexlessness is associated with a range of genetic, environmental, physical and mental factors – but much still remains unclear.
Life without sexSome people – often described as “asexual” – simply don’t desire sex.
However, those who do but are unable to find suitable and willing partners may be vulnerable to poor mental health and loneliness, social embarrassment, and economic disadvantages (for example due to not cohabiting with a partner). People involved in online “incel” (involuntary celibate) cultures may even be at risk of radicalisation.
So it is important to understand more about people who don’t have sex.
Knowing the characteristics associated with sexlessness would help to understand its causes and consequences. It may even inform strategies to remove barriers to people finding fulfilling partnerships.
To find out more, we studied about 400,000 UK residents aged between 39 and 73, and a further 13,500 Australian residents aged between 18 and 89. Around 1% of both men and women had not had sex.
Our team – led by Laura Wesseldijk, Abdel Abdellaoui and Karin Verweij from Amsterdam UMC, and me – examined associations between sexlessness and genes, the social environment, and various physical, cognitive, personality and mental health traits.
Sex ratios and income inequalityWe found sexless men tended to live in regions of the UK with relatively fewer women.
In both men and women, sexlessness was more common in regions with higher income inequality.
These new findings align with those of an earlier study of “incel” posts on social media. It found they were more likely to originate from regions of the United States with relatively fewer women and higher income inequality.
Wellbeing and other factorsWe also looked for characteristics that were more common among people who had never had sex.
Sexless individuals tended to feel more nervous and lonely and less happy, and had fewer visits from friends and family. They were also less likely to have someone to confide in or to believe that life is meaningful.
These findings confirm the entanglement of sex and wellbeing.
People who had never had sex tended to use drugs and alcohol less, be more educated, and to have started wearing glasses from a younger age.
Men with lower grip strength and arm muscle mass (proxies for general upper body strength) were less likely to have had sex. There were no such correlations among women.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPFamiliar stereotypesThe overall pattern we observe among sexless people – intelligent, academically successful, with less physical strength and more social isolation – aligns with existing stereotypes of lower romantic success, especially in adolescence.
Our participants were middle-aged adults, or older.
However, wearing glasses at an early age, and other stereotypically “nerdy” features, may disrupt adolescent dating experiences. This in turn may affect one’s romantic confidence into adulthood.
No gene for sexlessnessWe also had genetic data about all participants. This meant we were able to analyse whether genetic differences were associated with having had or not had sex.
Using what’s called a genome-wide association analysis, we found genes accounted for 15% of the variation in whether or not individuals had had sex.
However, there were no individual genes with large effects. Rather, there were many genes, each with tiny effects.
Links to intelligence, introversion and other traitsOur genetic analyses also let us detect genetic correlations with any other traits that have been genetically analysed, even if in separate studies. A genetic correlation indicates the genes associated with one trait are also associated with another trait.
In this way, we found an array of interesting links between sexlessness and other traits.
In particular, there was a strong genetic correlation not only with education but also measured intelligence. There were also correlations with higher income and socioeconomic status.
Sexlessness was also positively genetically correlated with introversion, autism spectrum disorder and anorexia. However, it was negatively genetically correlated with drug and alcohol disorders and also depression, anxiety and ADHD.
Cause and effect is hard to discernOur results paint a complex picture. One major aspect of uncertainty is what causes underlie the pattern of associations we found.
For example, not having had sex may cause unhappiness. But unhappiness may also make it more difficult to find a partner, or a third factor could cause both unhappiness and difficulty finding a partner.
Another aspect of uncertainty is that the participants only reported whether or not they had had sex, not whether they had ever desired sex. Many sexless individuals in the sample may be asexual.
However, some of our results are difficult to explain via asexuality – for example, the link with the local ratio of men to women, and the negative association with male strength. Our results likely reflect a mixture of voluntary and involuntary sexlessness.
A step forwardOur study represents a large step forward in understanding sexlessness. However, more nuanced assessment of desire and sexuality will be key to better characterising how sexlessness relates to the interplay between genes, local environments, sexuality and culture.
Studies of more people using more advanced methods may also be able to tease apart cause and consequence.
There should be no value judgement on individuals who do not have sex, whether voluntarily or otherwise. By studying this trait, we only aim for a deeper understanding, which generally benefits all concerned.
Brendan Zietsch is an Associate Professor at the University of Queensland. His research focuses on combining evolutionary and genetic approaches to human behavior.
A version of this article was originally posted at Conversation and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Conversation on X @Conversation_US
“Organic” might be the most abused word in the English language. Chemists, farmers, and marketers all use it—and none of them mean the same thing. The result is a label that can make Oreos, cigarettes, and even bottled water sound like health food. Tampons too.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t make this up.
HuffPost just published an interesting article titled “More And More People Suffer From ‘Chemophobia’ — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame.” They’re not kidding. As RFK Jr. continues to spread his nonsense about…pretty much everything, the terms “natural” and “organic” are being weaponized. Let’s take a look at what “organic” really means. You may be surprised.
“Organic” may be one of the most confusing words in the English language. Most people have a vague idea of what it means, but few know the actual definition—because there isn’t just one. Chemistry has one definition, agriculture has another, and marketers… well, they make it up as they go.
The chemistry definition is unambiguous and clear-cut, at least most of the time. Let’s start here.
THE CHEMICAL DEFINITION OF ORGANIC
In chemistry, the definition is based solely on chemical structure. With very few exceptions, a chemical is classified as organic if it contains at least one carbon atom, regardless of its source. This is why organic chemistry is referred to as “the chemistry of carbon.”
But there are exceptions. Carbon dioxide certainly contains an atom of carbon, but is classified as inorganic. Common inorganic chemicals include salt, ammonia, baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), and sulfuric acid. But, like carbon dioxide, baking soda also contains a carbon atom, yet is still classified as inorganic. What’s going on? For a chemical to be organic, there is an additional requirement. A hydrogen atom must be chemically bound to a carbon atom. Figure 1 demonstrates examples of carbon-containing chemicals, some of which are organic and some that are not.
Figure 1. Organic vs. inorganic. Formic acid (top) is organic because it contains a carbon-hydrogen bond (red arrow), but sodium bicarbonate, although similar in structure, is inorganic because it lacks this bond. Acetonitrile and sodium cyanide (bottom) are another example of the same rule. Confused? You should be.
BUT…
In organic chemistry, nothing is ever entirely straightforward. Both carbon tetrachloride and urea (Figure 2) are considered organic, despite neither molecule containing a carbon-hydrogen bond or a carbon-carbon bond. These exceptions arise from historical precedent rather than a strict definition.
Figure 2. Both carbon tetrachloride and urea are generally considered to be organic. Neither chemical has a carbon-hydrogen bond. These are rare exceptions.
THE AGRICULTURAL DEFINITION OF ORGANIC
The agricultural definition of the term is entirely different from that of chemicals. It specifies which practices (including the use of chemicals) are permitted for food so that it can receive the USDA Certified Label. According to the USDA:
“Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.”
The list of permitted pesticides for organic farming can be found here. This raises an interesting paradox, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Wrap your head around this.
Copper sulfate is an inorganic chemical, but it is approved for use in organic agriculture. Conversely, permethrin is an organic chemical that is used in conventional agriculture but is not permitted in organic farming. This is the kind of thing that turns pre-meds into English majors.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPHere are some other examples:
Boric acid, elemental sulfur, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), ammonium carbonate, and magnesium sulfate are all inorganic substances, but they are permissible in organic farming.
And…
High-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, red dye #40, glyphosate, BPA, neonicotinoid insecticides, and genetically modified foods are all organic chemicals (or contain them).
And just when you think the word couldn’t get more abused, along come the marketers.
THE MADNESS BEGINS
The following is just a sampling of some of the ways “organic” is misused. I kid you not.
.
Figure 4. 1) Now you can feel better about yourself when you’re stuffing your face with Oreos. 2) Organic tampons? No comment. 3) Great news! Now you can smoke all day and be comforted by the fact that your cigarettes were made from tobacco that was grown without chemicals! 4) Glyde condoms are arguably the winner here. They are vegan – made from a material that doesn’t involve harming animals. Better yet, the strawberry flavoring is organic! Seriously? If I want to enjoy some strawberry flavoring, there are far easier ways to taste it.
BOTTOM LINE
Chemistry’s definition of organic is clear. The agricultural definition is OK (sort of), but it clashes with the chemical definition. But the marketing definition is a carnival free-for-all. That’s how copper sulfate gets the organic stamp of approval while permethrin doesn’t, and how we end up with organic Oreos, organic cigarettes, and organic tampons. If you really want something organic, don’t waste time squinting at labels. Just look in the mirror—you’re built out of organic molecules.
Apparently, so is this:
Organic water. Utter madness. And can anyone who buys it ($83/quart) be absolutely sure that it didn’t come from a fire hydrant in Trenton?
I went into the wrong business.
Josh Bloom is ACSH’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science. Josh earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry at the University of Virginia, followed by postdoctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania. Find Josh on X @JoshBloomACSH
A version of this article was originally posted at American Council on Science and Health and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find American Council on Science and Health on X @ACSHorg
The rapid development of safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV2 demonstrated the agility and efficacy of mRNA vaccines. That platform—capable of being rapidly tailored to combat emerging viral threats—is now being explored to fight infectious diseases in livestock, offering a new frontier in animal health, food security, and global biosecurity.
But the political tides have shifted sharply. What began during the pandemic as fringe conspiracy theories about microchips and genetic reprogramming has metastasized into a full-blown national campaign against mRNA technology—with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kenney, Jr. at the head of it, amplified by misinformation echo chambers.
In speeches and official statements, Kennedy has claimed without evidence that mRNA shots “alter your DNA,” that they’re being “sneaked into the food supply,” and that farmers are “unknowingly turning their herds into biotech experiments.” Under his direction, HHS recently pulled federal funding for Moderna’s experimental mRNA-based vaccine to combat the growing H5N1 bird flu outbreak. “We cannot allow synthetic RNA to be slipped into the American food supply without exhaustive independent review,” Kennedy said, defending the move as a necessary precaution.
MAHA has amplified false claims that eating meat from mRNA-vaccinated animals could “infect” consumers with synthetic RNA. It has lobbied for state-level restrictions and pushed language describing mRNA as “genetic tampering” and “biological contamination.” The group has gone further in recent months, spreading debunked claims that avian flu outbreaks are being manufactured to justify mass poultry vaccinations.
“It’s the biggest story in American history,” Conservative Review has written
What is the way to ensure that mRNA gets into everyone’s body, even those smart enough to reject the injections? The industry has been pushing to place mRNA shots into cattle and other food, and such an effort has already been fast-tracked for research and approval in Australia. … Are we going to allow our life and liberty to continue to hang by a thread with no reforms?
They’ve accused pharmaceutical companies of orchestrating bird culls to pave the way for mRNA mandates in livestock. Their rhetoric echoes COVID-era conspiracies—blaming Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and “globalists” for engineering a takeover of the food system. The dominant theme, propagated on Rumble and elsewhere, is that consuming meat from a vaccinated animal is a back-door way to install the vaccination and its associated microchips in the vaccine-hesitant. Damn you Bill Gates.
Scientists and responsible health sites have responded to the misinformation outbreak, but it’s an uphill battle.
MAHA’s talking points have been adopted by legislators across the country and are now driving a wave of proposed anti-mRNA bills. The result: legislative hysteria.
In Missouri, where vaccine resistance runs deep, Republican lawmakers in 2023 proposed House Bill 1169, which would label meat from mRNA-vaccinated livestock as “gene therapy” and require special disclosure. The bill ultimately stalled, but it served as a template for a new wave of proposals now sweeping through conservative and libertarian-led states in 2025. Similar bills have emerged in Texas, Florida, South Dakota, and Iowa—mirroring MAHA’s rhetoric and enjoying implicit federal reinforcement under Kennedy’s HHS.
Meanwhile, on platforms like Rumble and Truth Social, and even on X, viral videos falsely warn that “you won’t be able to opt out” of mRNA exposure if animals are vaccinated. One popular post claims, “They couldn’t force the jab, so now it’s coming through your steak.” It’s fearmongering dressed up as consumer advocacy, and it’s working.
A growing number of consumers now report avoiding meat unless it’s labeled “mRNA-free,” despite the absence of any evidence that these vaccines remain active or pose health risks in cooked animal products. The stakes are immense. As zoonotic threats like avian influenza and African Swine Fever loom—and with H5N1 bird flu now infecting both cattle and humans—mRNA vaccines could be a critical tool to contain outbreaks and protect the food chain. Yet political grandstanding and conspiracy-driven activism threaten to halt progress, leaving farmers without options and public health at risk.
The science is clear. The disinformation is dangerous. And the cost of fear-driven policy may soon be measured in animal suffering, human illness, and food insecurity.
This protection does not have to and should not stop at humans. The vast majority of vaccinations are developed for use in non-human animals, namely livestock. The advent of mRNA vaccines provides a dramatic new way to improve animal health and husbandry, heighten biosecurity, and control food costs. It’s a win-win for consumers and farmers who will benefit from higher profits by raising healthier animals.
Animal vaccines need to be developed quicklyDespite the MAHA backlash, there is tremendous need for effective anti-virals, and mRNA vaccines fit the bill. First detected in 2018, African Swine Fever Virus wiped out 225 million pigs, fifty percent of China’s hog population, causing shortages and economic hardship for farmers. Almost 25% of the global pig population died of ASF from 2018-19.
Many animal populations are in danger. Marek’s Disease is a highly contagious herpesvirus in chickens that can sicken an entire flock. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) affects domestic pig populations, costing the industry almost a billion dollars per year. We all have heard of the tens of millions of chickens that were lost to avian influenza, driving up egg prices in 2022.
Credit: PRESSLABAside from diseases that affect animals, diseases like rabies, hepatitis E, and avian influenza are all passed to humans from infected animals. Current data strongly indicate that Ebola, SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV2 also emerged from animal intermediates. Strategic vaccination of wild animal repositories may have a significant effect on quelling future zoonotic outbreaks.
While there is clearly a need to vaccinate both domestic and wild animal populations, the problem is that current animal vaccines are manufactured using traditional technologies, such as inactivated viruses, live attenuated viruses, or protein subunits representing disease antigens to stimulate immune response. It can take years in even the best of circumstances to develop new vaccines.
The mRNA vaccines circumvent these onerous manufacturing steps, making them faster and far less expensive to develop and deploy. Identification of new variants can trigger quick adjustments in mRNA vaccine sequence to address rapid viral evolution. There is no question that there is tremendous potential for mRNA vaccines in resolving animal health issues.
What’s at stake?Human encroachment into natural areas, the harvesting of wild animals for food, and the density of domestic animals in production all set the stage for rapid propagation of new viral threats. Fortunately, the new mRNA technologies provide a fast way to respond, limiting impacts on biosecurity, food prices and even animal suffering.
The technology is not gene therapy as Missouri politicians and many vaccine rejectionists believe. The idea that injecting transient genetic information into a pig or cow can somehow reprogram the genetics of a human that eats a pork chop months later is simply ludicrous. If such things were possible we could use that technology to erase sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or dozens of other genetic diseases.
But the anti-vaccine disinformation machine has fired up, belching forth deceptive messaging that ultimately will challenge good technology from reaching the farmer’s field or remote bat cave.
The perpetrators on the ideological left and right that peddle false fears around mRNA vaccines in animals are the same ones telling us that GMO crops are killing us, COVID-19 was a hoax, and benign herbicides are poisons. This nonsense is now being embraced in the higheest echelons of the federal government, giving further credence to bankrupt ideas and awful science.
Why should we listen to them now?
Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta
When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was appointed secretary of Health and Human Services, some hoped that the responsibility of public office would temper his long-standing hostility toward vaccines. Instead, he is doing exactly what many of us feared: dismantling the systems that protect Americans from preventable infectious diseases.
For decades, major medical societies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have automatically endorsed [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations, confident that they were grounded in rigorous evidence.
…
Now, these societies must form their own expert panels and issue independent guidance.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPStates should then use the expert recommendations from these societies to shape their own vaccine policies. They can direct public health departments and clinicians to follow the guidance.
Most important, states must ensure that recommended vaccines remain free and accessible. Legislatures and insurance regulators should require both private insurers and Medicaid programs to cover all vaccines endorsed by medical societies or state advisory boards — with no out-of-pocket costs.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
FDA leaders say artificial intelligence has the potential to “radically increase efficiency” when analysing the vast volumes of data—often more than 500,000 pages—that companies submit with their approval applications. Last week, the agency introduced Elsa, an AI language model similar to ChatGPT, that could help prioritize facility inspections, summarize drug safety data, and perform other review-related tasks.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPBut some experts are skeptical of claims that AI can meaningfully speed the review of complex new drugs and high-risk medical devices. “I think that there is great potential here, but I’m not seeing the beef yet,” said Stephen Holland, a former health adviser to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
….
The FDA’s new priorities include re-evaluating chemicals in the U.S. food supply—a goal that has bipartisan support. “For all additives, the benefit-to-harm balance must be re-evaluated,” the agency leaders wrote.
….
As the FDA pushes forward with its ambitious new road map, the balance between faster approvals, public trust, and regulatory rigor will remain under close scrutiny.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
A recent trend in video-based online content features girls as young as 7 years demonstrating multistep skin care regimens, which may be affecting pediatric skin care practices. We aimed to conduct a systematic analysis of TikTok videos featuring skin care regimens with content creators aged 18 years or younger.
METHODS
Two investigators each created a new TikTok account, reporting themselves to be 13 years old. The “For You” tab was used to view relevant content until 100 unique videos were compiled. We collected demographics of content creators, number and types of products used, and total cost of regimens. We created a list of products used and their active and inactive ingredients. The Pediatric Baseline Series used in patch testing was used to identify ingredients with elevated risk of inducing allergic contact dermatitis.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPRESULTS
Content creator ages ranged from 7 to 18 years. Each video reviewed had an average of 1.1 million views. Regimens featured an average of 6 products, costing an average of $168/regimen. Only one-quarter of videos (26.2%) included sunscreen. The top 25 most-viewed videos contained an average of 11 and a maximum of 21 potentially irritating active ingredients. Twenty of the inactive ingredients are included in the Pediatric Baseline Series.
CONCLUSIONS
Skin care regimens on TikTok are costly, infrequently include sunscreen, and often involve exposure to ingredients that carry a risk of irritation, allergic contact dermatitis, and sun sensitivity. They offer little to no benefit for the pediatric populations they are targeting.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Over the last decade, a growing chorus of scientists has declared that biological sex is not binary. Properly assessing human diversity requires us to apply a broader definition of this word, the argument goes. “The term ‘biological sex’ has been used to sort all people into one of two groups,” a May open letter from hundreds of scientists to the UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities asserted. “However, a strict, binary categorization is an over-simplification.”
The letter – signed by more than 350 academics, clinicians, and activists – is carefully argued, meticulously footnoted—and fundamentally mistaken about a basic biological reality. “Such statements … are most astounding as they ignore or even reject the well-established biological concept of sex and, thus, they ultimately deny fundamental principles of biology,” a team of evolutionary biologists wrote in 2023, responding to similar statements published by several academic journals.
Evolution, a scientific concept as well established as gravity, excludes the idea of a sex spectrum by confirming that biological sex is a binary trait in humans and most mammals. Evolution has shaped organisms to maximize reproductive success, resulting in two distinct sexes—male and female—defined by their roles in producing sperm or eggs. Males produce small, mobile gametes (sperm), while females produce larger, resource-heavy gametes (eggs). This binary system, driven by the need for genetic recombination, is a fundamental mechanism of sexual reproduction, observable across species. “With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size,” the 2023 essay added.
Intersex conditions, which are rare (approximately 0.018% of the population) and often involve ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal variations, are medical anomalies, not evidence of new sexes or a spectrum. They do not alter the binary framework, as they typically derive from disruptions in male or female developmental pathways.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe notion of a “sex spectrum” conflates sex with gender identity or secondary sexual characteristics, ignoring the objective, gamete-based definition of sex. Evolutionary biology shows no mechanism for a continuum of sexes. Scientists who endorse the sex spectrum often prioritize social or ideological considerations over empirical evidence, denying the binary reality established by evolutionary pressures.
By rejecting these basic facts, sex-spectrum advocates undermine the rigor of biology, misrepresenting a field that relies on testable, reproducible evidence. They also fuel mistrust of science, making it even harder for experts to convince the public that their scientific and medical claims are grounded in solid evidence.
Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the science of reproduction and raise some critical questions about the sex spectrum.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
Three in four Americans take at least one dietary supplement, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many people take them with the intention to boost overall health or as an alternative to pharmaceutical drugs — but supplements are not medicines and “are not intended to treat, diagnose, prevent, or cure diseases,” the FDA says.
…
“What makes some [supplements] dangerous is the fact that most people think they cannot hurt and are always safe, so the suspicion is that a large amount of patients do not mention it to their doctor,” says [Dr. Julia Adamian, an internist at NYU Langone Health].
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe experts also warn against buying trendy supplement blends online or through social media. “If it’s from a brand that hasn’t been around for long, and it’s a proprietary formula or they’re not fully disclosing what’s in it, stay away from that stuff,” says [Dr. Zachary Mulvihill, integrative medicine expert at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian].
Vitamin A
Vitamin B6
St. John’s Wort
Black Cohosh
Tumeric
Kava
Green Tea Extract
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3) in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding the lower court’s ruling that a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender affirming care for minors does not violate the U.S Constitution’s 14th amendment equal protection clause. The Tennessee law, along with other states’ laws restricting gender affirming care, may stand. Access to gender affirming care in states without bans is not impacted by this decision.
As explained in the [Kaiser Family Foundation] brief, What to Know Ahead of the Supreme Court Case on Youth Access to Gender Affirming Care, the Supreme Court granted review for Skrmetti to resolve a split among circuits, and the ongoing questions about the constitutionality of these bans (see that brief for more background on the case). The question the Court considered was whether Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Embedded in its assessment, the Court considered whether the law results in sex-based classification and therefore should be reviewed with “heightened scrutiny” – that is, to show that the law is substantially related to achieving an important government objective – as opposed to the looser standard of “rational basis,” which only requires the state to show the law has a rational relation to the state’s legitimate objective.
What did the Court decide?
The Court found that because the Tennessee law classifies people based on age and medical diagnosis, it therefore does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status and as such does not trigger heightened scrutiny. “SB1 satisfies rational basis review. Under that standard, the Court will uphold a statutory classification so long as there is “any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”
Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Jackson stating that because SB 1 does classify individuals based on sex, the Court should use heightened scrutiny, and SB 1 would fail under heightened scrutiny. Justice Kagan joined most parts of Justice Sotomayor’s decision except she filed a separate dissent to clarify she has no conclusion about whether SB 1 would satisfy heightened scrutiny.
What is the impact?
The result of the Court’s ruling means that most of the bans on gender-affirming care enacted by other states may stand as well. As of June 2025, 27 states that have enacted gender affirming care bans for minors. Bans in 25 states remain in place as a result of the ruling. Bans in Montana and Arkansas are currently permanently blocked by court order. The challenge in Montana relates to the state constitution and not federal law, and is therefore not directly impacted by the decision and the law remains blocked. A federal court blocked the Arkansas law, finding it unconstitutional based on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The Due Process claim was brought by parents stating the law took away their ability to make decisions regarding their child’s healthcare. This injunction remains in place given its basis on Due Process claims. The bans in Arizona and New Hampshire restrict only surgical care, which was not at issue before the Supreme Court, and remain in effect. Ultimately, this case leaves the patchwork of access to gender affirming care for young people in the United States in place. If a minor lived in a state without access before the decision, that access remains barred. If a minor had access to gender affirming care prior to the decision, that access remains.
There was some question as to whether the Court would apply the reasoning in Bostock, an earlier case which found that in the employment setting, sex discrimination protections apply to gender identity and sexual orientation in hiring and firing. But the Court did not do so, stating, “The Court declines to address whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII [employment] context—unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor’s sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1.”
Notably, the Supreme Court heard this case narrowly on the basis of Equal Protection claims and many cases challenging state laws have been argued on multiple other grounds (including this case at the district and appellate courts). As noted, a federal district court has permanently blocked a similar ban on gender affirming care for minors in Arkansas, finding the ban violates the due process rights of parents of transgender minors. It is likely that additional cases will be filed against other state bans on due process grounds, and ultimately the Supreme Court could review a case in a future term raising 14th Amendment Due Process, Section 1557 (the Affordable Care Act’s major non-discrimination protections), or other claims. Additionally, as noted, the Montana Supreme Court has blocked its state ban on gender affirming care for minors based on provisions in the state constitution. Litigation challenging gender affirming care based on provisions in state constitutions will also continue in state courts, , and will likely result in varying interpretations of state constitutional protections for transgender minors.
25 State Laws that Prohibit Minor Access to Gender Affirming Care Remain in Place
As a result of the decision, minors across the US will continue to see their access to gender affirming care determined at least in part based on where they live. However, access to these services is being debated in venues beyond the judiciary, including in Congress and by the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration has taken a range of actions aimed at limiting access to gender affirming care, especially for minors and Congress too has taken up the issue. The reconciliation bill still being finalized includes a prohibition on Medicaid covering gender affirming care in Senate and House-passed versions. These efforts will likely face, and some cases already have faced, litigation. While the ruling on this case is quite limited (narrowly focused on equal protection claims and Tennessee’s ban), it could have some bearing on the outcome of future challenges.
A version of this article was originally posted at Kaiser Family Foundation and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Kaiser Family Foundation on X @KFF
Psychiatric diagnosis has taken on a new role in public life. Turbocharged by social media, “therapy speak” has permeated every corner of today’s culture. More and more people are diagnosing themselves with mental health and behavioral disorders, whether or not they’ve seen a licensed mental health care provider. In fact, many people are embracing a psychiatric diagnosis … to explain who they are, define their identities, and find community online.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThat’s sometimes a good thing. Society is more accepting than ever of mental health struggles and finding validation and support for one’s challenges, rather than hiding them or “muscling through.” But there is a dark side to this democratization of diagnosis.
Studies show that when psychiatric labels become part of a person’s identity, as seems to be the case for many people, they may actually impede recovery and self-understanding.
… This shift reflects more than just growing awareness of mental health struggles. It speaks to a cultural hunger to be seen, validated, and understood by our parents, peers, and society at large.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.
Researchers think that our minds are blank somewhere between 5 and 20 percent of the time … Athena Demertzi, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Liège, recently published a review paper on mind-blanking research. Neuroscientists face significant hurdles in adding color and detail to the mystery of an empty mind, but new research is trying to establish the edges of these formless thoughts.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe ultimate question for Demertzi is why mind blanking happens in the first place. Researchers are still trying to figure this out, although she suggests that the link to sleep and arousal may be a hint. “When we sleep,” says Demertzi, “Our neurons are getting rest by throwing away what has been accumulated throughout the day through the glymphatic system.”
…
We notice these “pit stops” in cognition as mind blanks. Ultimately, these blanks may be a way our brain maintains high function for the rest of our waking experience. “How can you sustain a continuous wakeful life if our brains are not helping a bit?” says Demertzi.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Another day, another cadre of chiropractors, naturopaths, and wellness influencers undermining scientific research and science-based medicine. But now, it is also the official position of US health agency leadership, which is even more dangerous.
As I’m sure you’ve started to learn, this is the business model of the wellness industry: if they cannot convince you that proven health interventions and legitimately trained experts are hiding things and lying to you, they don’t have a customer base.
One of the most infuriating and objectively harmful things they lie about?
That they are the ones focused on “root cause” medical issues—and that actual health professionals (and scientists) aren’t. In fact, this is the line of the Trump-appointed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who recently repeated this during a presser.
Let me be perfectly clear: they do nothing of the sort.
Science and medicine is ALL about identifying root causesIdentifying and understanding physiological processes is literally the foundation of biomedical research (I know, I hate when people use that word incorrectly too, but here it is properly used).
Investigating root causes is how we’ve discovered what causes countless diseases: acute and chronic, infectious and non-communicable.
It’s also how we’ve developed treatments and health interventions that save lives. If we can address the underlying cause of a disease, we can manage or cure it.
It’s why once-deadly illnesses, even things like type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disease), are now manageable.
The root cause? Death of pancreatic islet cells which are responsible for producing insulin, which binds to its receptor and promotes uptake of blood glucose into cells to be used for essential processes. The treatment? Administering insulin to compensate for the lack of those cells.
It’s how we eliminated smallpox—because we identified the root cause was the Variola virus. The cure? Vaccination to elicit protective immunity without the risk of illness and death.
Root cause is why we screen for various genetic disorders during pregnancy and at birth. It’s also WHY we were able to develop tests to be able to screen for them: because we identified the specific gene that is associated with the disease symptoms.
And it’s why we are continually expanding our tools and treatments to improve health outcomes—scientific inquiry is ALWAYS about understanding mechanisms (that’s a technical word for root cause, btw) that lead to biological effect.
Real science has a scientific term for “root cause”: etiologyEtiology is the study of causation. In biomedical science, it is the term we use to describe the cause of disease. And etiology is continually shaping how we design, conduct, interpret, and apply scientific research.
Ask your local wellness influencer what that word means, I dare you.
Wellness influencers want to ignore centuries of researchers, healthcare professionals, and public health experts are the actual ones doing root cause studies and healthcare.
Their use of the phrase “root cause medicine” to hawk their pseudoscience medical conditions, unproven diagnostic “tests”, supplement stacks, or “gut healing” detox protocols is egregious. Their claims are the antithesis of root cause medicine.
Science has always been root cause medicineLet’s harken to the 1700s, when sailors were plagued with fatigue, weakness, leg pain, irritability, gingivitis, anemia, poor wound healing, bleeding issues, joint swelling, internal bleeding, organ failure, and death for hundreds of years. These are the symptoms of scurvy, which, until the 1760s, wasn’t understood. Through [relatively] sophisticated inquiry, the root cause—vitamin C deficiency—was identified by James Lind, a British naval surgeon.
Vitamin C: Scurvy Savior or Immune Overdose? More of a Good Thing Isn’t Always BetterThe cure? Ensuring adequate intake of vitamin C. (for the story on how this got co-opted by wellness influencers, read the article above).
What else have scientists traced to root causes?Every single pathogen that causes disease in humansSalmonella. Listeria. Measles virus. Tularemia. Malaria. Rabies. Lyme disease. Influenza. Poliomyelitis. Smallpox. Respiratory Syncytial Virus.
We’ve even characterized pathogens that cause acute AND chronic health issues.
-
The human papilloma viruses (HPVs) cause plantar warts and genital warts, but several strains ALSO cause cancers. That’s a root cause if I ever heard one. As a result, scientists developed tests that can be used to screen for HPVs and pre-cancerous lesions. We’ve also developed the HPV vaccine—which is literally cancer prevention. Countries with high HPV vaccination rates are on track to literally eliminate several of these cancer types.
- It’s worth noting that RFK Jr. and his wellness peers demonize the HPV vaccine, which he personally profits off of through lawsuits targeting it.
- Hepatitis B virus infections, particularly during childhood, causes chronic hepatitis. This can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. Root cause has identified that, and also led to the development of another incredibly safe and effective vaccine that can prevent 30% of liver cancers. It goes without saying that this one is also demonized by those who claim to care about “root cause” medicine.
No RFK Jr., you can’t “pause” infectious disease research to focus on chronic diseaseBut it isn’t just infectious agents: scientific inquiry into root causes has also identified genetic factors, and lifestyle behaviors that cause (or manage) health issues.
Pathological and epidemiological studies discovered that smoking causes lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases. Led to tobacco regulation and hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
Root cause inquiry is WHY we use fluoride to improve dental health. Ironically, the wellness influencers who claim to be all in on “root cause” are trying (and in some instances, succeeding) on getting this banned.
In 1901 (yes, you read that right), dentist Frederick McKay noticed that individuals in Colorado Springs with brownish-tinged teeth had far lower rates of tooth decay. He, and others, conducted years of epidemiological analysis in the region, which led them to Bauxite, AR. There, they found the connection: higher levels of fluoride in the water supply from minerals in these regions. It only took him thirty years!
Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first city to add fluoride to its water in 1945. Within 11 years, dental caries rates plummeted by 60%, proving the health benefit of water fluoridation.
Fluoride: a natural substance that prevents tooth decayRoot cause science is also why we pasteurize milk, use refrigeration, and include preservatives in food. The root causes of foodborne illnesses are microorganisms that contaminate and grow in food. By preventing that microbial growth with food safety measures (developed by scientists, fyi), we prevent the illnesses that previously occurred when we ate poorly stored or prepared foods.
Raw milk is not safe to drink and doesn’t offer unique health benefitsRoot cause research has also identified allergens: normally benign substances that in some people, trigger an overreaction. It’s ALSO identified HOW that occurs: what cell types are behaving unusually and why it leads to the symptoms we associate with allergies. And it’s also identified how to treat, manage, and in some instances, cure those allergic reactions.
These are just the tip of the iceberg.
Lyme Disease was a root cause discovery by physicians and scientistsIn 1975, parents and physicians identified a cluster of kids in Lyme, Connecticut presenting with atypical arthritis—swollen knees and painful joints on one side.
Lyme, CT (and also my hometown, Norwich)It didn’t present like classic juvenile arthritis, so rheumatologists Drs. Allen Steere and Stephen Malawista collaborated with colleagues to follow a hunch that this was possibly infectious in nature.
Scientists and healthcare professionals tracked cases, collected medical histories, identified behavior patterns, looked at local ecology. They identified the culprit: a bacterium transmitted by the bite of a species of tick in New England. It was named Borrelia burgdorferi after Dr. Willy Burgdofer, a scientist at Rocky Mountain Labs (NIH) who identified the causative agent in 1981.
Science and medicine didn’t just manage symptoms of this bacterial infection, which would have involved anti-inflammatory medications.
It found the root cause. Infectious disease clinicians like Dr. Gary Wormser established effective treatment protocols (spoiler: common antibiotics are incredibly effective), scientists like Dr. Durland Fish studied tick biology to determine which tick species could transmit bacteria, how transmission occurs, and how we can interrupt the cycle. Others like Dr. Barbara Johnson developed the approved diagnostic tests for Lyme. Drs. Alan Barbour invented the growth media, Barbour-Stoenner-Kelly (BSK), that enables us to culture Borrelia burgdorferi in the lab for further research.
Gary, Durland, and Alan are Board Members of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, an organization created to combat Lyme misinformation. It’s my honor t be the current Executive Director, being among giants of the field (I did my PhD work in Lyme, if you are new here).
That’s how Lyme disease was identified—not by wellness influencers. On the flip side, wellness influencers profit off misinformation, sell fake tests and treatments, and target these experts who have pioneered research and treatment for Lyme.
Chronic Lyme Disease: fake diagnosis, but it’s more complicatedPhenylketonuria (PKU) is manageable today because science identified the root causePhenylketonuria (PKU) used to be devastating. Infants born with it can’t metabolize phenylalanine, an amino acid in food. Without that ability, phenylalanine accumulates to toxic levels, causing irreversible brain damage. (here is another example of the dose making the poison: even natural and essential substances can be toxic)
In 1986, scientists, not wellness grifters, discovered the root cause: genetic mutations in the PAH gene that encodes the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase, responsible for converting phenylalanine into tyrosine. That discovery enabled clinicians to understand how to manage PKU AND scientists to develop accurate and effective screening tests.
Today? Every newborn in the US (and most of the rest of the world) is screened within days of birth for PKU. If identified, dietary management to reduce exposure to phenylalanine allows kids to survive and live normal lives.
Before the etiology of PKU was determined, PKU patients and their families would sit helplessly as symptoms appeared, progressed, and ultimately cause seizures, permanent brain damage, and possible death. (PKU is why aspartame packets say they contain phenylalanine)
Root cause identified. Science-based solution implemented. Lives saved. No influencer detox protocol or celery juice involved.
Modern cancer treatments are because of root cause medicineCancers are hundreds of unique diseases, and every single cancer is unique to an individual. We’ve spent decades understanding its root causes—from modifiable risk factors to genetic mutations to viral triggers.
It’s why we know HPV causes cervical, penile, anal, vulvar, and oropharyngeal cancers. It’s why we know chronic Hepatitis B causes 30% of liver cancers. It’s why we know excess ultraviolet radiation exposure causes skin cancers—and why public health measures focus on sun protection methods (it’s the sun, not the sunscreen, y’all).
It’s how we’ve identified key classes of genes that increase risks of cancers: oncogenes, DNA repair enzymes, and tumor suppressor genes.
We don’t just “treat cancer.” We identify what’s involved in cancer in each patient, especially today. That’s why we have targeted immunotherapies like CAR-T cells that seek and destroy lymphomas and leukemias. Checkpoint inhibitors that point our immune cells at cancerous cells to eliminate them. We sequence tumors. We analyze pathways. We match drugs to mutations.
This is root cause medicine at its most sophisticated.
The irony? The same people who vilify “Big Pharma” benefit from the pharmaceutical developments that are the reason Americans live longer and healthier lives today.
Wellness influencers make up ‘root causes’ to sell snake oil and false promises
Pseudoscience thrives on making up “root causes” to attribute to a laundry list of unrelated and generic symptoms. If you’re feeling lethargic or fatigued, they’ll tell you that you have:
- Adrenal fatigue
- Leaky gut
- Toxic mold syndrome
- Parasites
- Hormone imbalances
- Mitochondrial dysfunction
- Microbiome dysbiosis
- Heavy metal toxicity
Why do influencers make up fake root causes? Because imaginary problems never get resolved—and for them, that means lifelong customers.
If your liver is “toxic,” gut is “leaky,” adrenals are “fatigued,” there’s always going to a new supplement, IV drip, or biohacking routine to try.
You’ll never be cured, but you’ll spend a lot of money on unproven and potentially dangerous products while neglecting actual underlying health issues that are causing symptoms. The business model of the wellness industry is exploitation under the guise of health.
Wellness influencers sell fake tests for fabricated health issues using false authority.The wellness industry loves to promote medical conspiracism—including accusing mainstream medicine of “just treating symptoms.” But are they altruistic? No.
- They sell and use unvalidated lab tests that are not relevant to your health.
- They pathologize normal lab values to convince you that you need to “hack” your blood glucose, vitamin D levels, or otherwise.
- They sell expensive testing regimens that science-based guidelines warn against.
- They recommend unnecessary and unregulated supplements based on false premises.
- They call it “functional” or “integrative” or “root cause” medicine—but it’s branding.
They don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals. They don’t share adverse event rates. They don’t run randomized controlled trials. They don’t actually understand human biology. And they don’t answer to any regulatory body—yet they say they’re the only ones who care about your health.
Root cause medicine IS biomedical science and public health. RFK Jr, MAHA, and the Trump Administration are erasing itIf someone is blaming vague causes that can’t be measured, tested, or cured and is conveniently selling you something they claim will fix it—that’s not medicine. That’s manipulation.
Science and medicine is complex, iterative, and slow. That’s why it’s an easy target for people who oversimplify and promise “quick fixes” for imagined health issues. We need to stop letting pseudoscience co-opt real scientific discovery and therapeutic development, because it is actively harming all of us.
Root cause isn’t a vibe. It’s virology. Pathology. Immunology. Genomics. Toxicology. Chemistry. PharmacologyAnd it—not wellness profiteering— is why you’re alive today.Now, more than ever, we all must join in the fight for science.
Thank you for supporting evidence-based science communication. With outbreaks of preventable diseases, refusal of evidence-based medical interventions, propagation of pseudoscience by prominent public “personalities”, it’s needed now more than ever.
More science education, less disinformation.
ImmunoLogic is written by Dr. Andrea Love, PhD – immunologist and microbiologist. She works full-time in life sciences biotech and has had a lifelong passion for closing the science literacy gap and combating pseudoscience and health misinformation as far back as her childhood. This newsletter is reproduced here wth permission. Follow on Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and Facebook, or support the newsletter by subscribing to her Substack.
About 3.5 million tonnes of sludge – the solid waste produced from human sewage at treatment plants – is put on fields every year as cheap fertiliser.
…
Unlike the cleaned water that is discharged from wastewater treatment plants, the sewage sludge, or biosolid as the industry calls it, is considered “exempted waste”.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPIn 2017 a report commissioned by the Environment Agency [EA] found that sludge contained potentially harmful substances, including microplastics and “forever chemicals”, at levels that “may present a risk to human health” and may create soil that is “unsuitable for agriculture”.
It said that “perhaps the biggest risk to the landbank” is from the spreading of physical contaminants such as microplastics into agricultural soil. The report also said it had heard evidence from EA staff indicating that some companies may be using wastewater treatment plants to “mask disposal of individual high risk waste streams not suitable for land spreading”.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
The current wave of food anxiety stems, in large part, from a misunderstanding of hazard versus risk. A substance can be hazardous at high doses but pose minimal risk at typical exposure levels. Yet social media influencers often highlight studies where ingredients caused harm in animals—at doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than any human would consume.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe irony is that many practices under attack actually reduce environmental and health risks. Take genetically modified organisms: A meta-analysis of 147 studies found that GMO adoption has reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and improved farmer profits by 68 percent. Without modern pesticides, global crop losses would be staggering: an estimated 78 percent for fruits, 54 percent for vegetables, and 32 percent for cereals. These figures represent millions who can currently afford healthy food—thanks to technologies we risk abandoning.
[W]hile not perfect, industrial-scale farming enables us to feed a global population that has more than doubled since 1960, using less land per calorie produced.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Every year, my colleagues and I put together a list of what we think are the top 10 breakthrough technologies of that year. When it came to innovations in biotech, there was a clear winner: lenacapavir, a drug that was found to prevent HIV infections in 100% of the women and girls who received it in a clinical trial.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPYou never hear “100%” in medicine. The trial was the most successful we’ve ever seen for HIV prevention. The drug was safe, too (it’s already approved to treat HIV infections). And it only needed to be injected twice a year to offer full protection.
This week, the results of a small phase I trial for once-yearly lenacapavir injections were announced …: All the volunteers still had the drug in their blood plasma a year after their injections, and at levels that earlier studies suggest will protect them from HIV infections.
I don’t normally get too excited about phase I trials, … [b]ut this trial seems to be different. Together, the lenacapavir trials could bring us a significant step closer to ending the HIV epidemic.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.
In a first-of-its-kind effort, the Texas legislature has passed a bill to require warning labels on foods such as Mountain Dew and white bread that contain certain artificial additives and dyes.
The measure, now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, would require a warning label prominently displayed on foods containing any of 44 artificial dyes and additives — a mandate that would apply to popular foods from Doritos and Skittles to Toaster Strudels and breads made with bleached flour.
It marks the first time a state, rather than the federal government, has tried to put its own warning labels on food.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP“This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired,” state Rep. Lacey Hull, who partnered with fellow Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst to sponsor the bill, told legislators before the House voted on May 25.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
Stunning advances in genetic science have revealed the subtle, insidious culprits behind these brutal [rare genetic] diseases and have started paving the way for treatments. But patients with these exceedingly rare mutations have fewer options and poorer prospects than those with more typical forms of these diseases — and many are now pinning hopes on experimental gene therapies.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPIt’s not just science that is working against these patients, it’s market forces. Drug companies are naturally going to look for medications that target the most common mutations.
“You need a sufficiently large number of patients in a major market in order for a company to be interested in going forward,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert, [which amounts to … “mutational discrimination.”
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.
[T]he authority of medical experts has crumbled under the combined weight of disillusionment and the flood of information now available at our fingertips. The COVID-19 pandemic turned tensions between doctors and patients from a slow burn into a conflagration through public health missteps, shifting guidance and perceived conflicts of interest. In the vacuum left by faltering institutions stepped a new breed of self-proclaimed experts — podcasters, YouTube video creators and social media personalities who eagerly declared themselves the new emissaries of truth.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPIn a world of viral videos, it is tempting to believe that easy access to information and a persuasive voice behind a microphone make expertise obsolete. But they do not. Real experts do not just talk the talk — they walk the walk, often quietly and without fanfare, day after day.
As we confront increasingly complex health challenges, from global pandemics to chronic disease, what we need is not louder voices filling the airwaves. We need true experts whose steady wisdom can guide us with clarity and care.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
According to the Genetic Literacy Project, “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GM (genetically modified). [58]
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPPro 1: Genetically modified (GM) crops have been proven safe through testing and use and can even increase the safety of common foods.…Pro 2: GM crops lower the price of food and increase nutritional content, helping to alleviate world hunger.…Pro 3: Growing GM crops leads to environmental benefits, such as reduced pesticide use, less water waste, and lower carbon emissions.…Con 1: GM crops have not been proven safe for human consumption through human clinical trials.…Con 2: Tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants may result in changes to the food supply that introduce toxins or trigger allergic reactions.…Con 3: Certain GM crops harm the environment through the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides.This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
The chatter about chemicals in tampons isn’t exactly a new thing; it’s more like a rerun of a series that just won’t quit. Women’s health issues often get the spotlight, but not in the way we’d hope — instead, they tend to become the stars of alarmist headlines. We’ve seen this show before: one minute it’s baby food, the next it’s your favorite moisturizer, and suddenly everyone’s in a tizzy over what’s lurking in our everyday products.
These conversations usually focus on safety, but let’s be real — they often miss the mark when it comes to understanding the difference between tiny traces of something and actual health threats.
The report “Blood, Sweat, and Pesticides: A Closer Look at Toxic Chemicals in Period Products” by the Women’s Environmental Network and Pesticide Action Network UK raises alarms about glyphosate found in tampons. The report, however, misses the mark in a few key areas. While it states that glyphosate levels were found at 40 times higher than the drinking water limit, it fails to provide proper context about what that really means. The detected levels are incredibly low — measured in parts per billion — and well within the safety limits set by regulatory bodies. Just because something can be detected doesn’t mean it’s harmful, and the report doesn’t fully acknowledge that.
The paper also leans heavily on the health concerns surrounding glyphosate without addressing the consensus from major health organizations that say glyphosate, when used as directed, is safe. It’s misleading to suggest that the mere presence of glyphosate in tampons poses a real risk to health when regulatory authorities have determined that these levels are not a concern. Here are 10 points to keep in mind as you read and/or discuss the report:
- Trace Levels Are Not a Concern: The levels of glyphosate detected in menstrual products are extremely low, measured in parts per billion. Regulatory agencies like the EPA and EFSA have established safety limits that are well above these trace amounts, indicating they do not pose a risk to human health.
- Regulatory Consensus: Major health organizations, including the U.S. EPA, EFSA, and various international regulatory bodies, have concluded that glyphosate is safe when used according to label instructions. They have reviewed extensive scientific data and found no convincing evidence linking glyphosate to cancer or other serious health risks.
- Not a Carcinogen: While the IARC classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” this classification is based on limited evidence. In contrast, comprehensive reviews by regulatory agencies have found no significant link between glyphosate and cancer.
- Absorption Rates Are Misleading: The claim that vaginal absorption of glyphosate is significantly higher than dermal absorption is based on comparisons that do not apply to glyphosate, which is hydrophilic and behaves differently than lipophilic substances. Additionally, the actual exposure from tampons is negligible.
- No Evidence of Neurotoxicity: Extensive studies have shown that glyphosate does not exhibit neurotoxic effects. Regulatory authorities have consistently found no evidence linking glyphosate exposure to neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease.
- Endocrine Disruption Claims Are Unsupported: Glyphosate has been evaluated for endocrine-disrupting activity and found to be negative in various screening assays. It does not interact with hormonal pathways in ways that would pose a risk to human health.
- Scientific Scrutiny: The research surrounding glyphosate has undergone rigorous peer review and scrutiny. Studies that claim glyphosate is harmful often lack robust scientific methodology or are based on non-relevant exposure routes.
- Ongoing Monitoring: Regulatory agencies like the EPA continuously monitor new research and studies regarding glyphosate. They have reaffirmed their position that glyphosate does not pose a significant risk to public health.
- Real-World Usage: Glyphosate is one of the most studied herbicides globally, and its safety has been confirmed through numerous studies over decades. Farmers and agricultural practices rely on it for effective weed control, which is essential for food production.
- Misinterpretation of Data: The report’s comparison of glyphosate levels in tampons to drinking water standards is misleading, as the drinking water limit applies to all pesticides and is not based on risk assessment principles. Regulatory limits for daily intake of glyphosate are set based on comprehensive risk assessments that ensure public health safety.
It’s worth noting that discussions around women’s health and children’s health often become alarmist and sensationalized in the media. This tendency can lead to unnecessary fear and anxiety, overshadowing the facts and scientific consensus. While it’s crucial to advocate for safety and transparency in health products, it’s equally important to avoid creating panic over issues that regulatory agencies have deemed safe. The focus should be on informed discussions rather than sensational claims, allowing individuals to make educated choices without being overwhelmed by fear. In this case, the report could have provided a more balanced view, helping the public understand the actual risks involved rather than contributing to a culture of alarmism around women’s health issues.
Key Resources:
- A shout out to HealthNerd who provides a reasoned context around this issue in this Substack. If you aren’t already, give him a follow.
- Is Glyphosate safe? Bayer CropScience
- Glyphosate Safety & Regulatory Guideline Modern Ag Alliance
- 17 Questions about Glyphosate Thoughtscapism
References:
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2014). Medical Management Guidelines for Parathion. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2015). Toxicological profile for glyphosate. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
- Andreotti, G., et al. (2018). Glyphosate use and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx233
- European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2022). Opinion of the committee for risk assessment on a dossier proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of glyphosate. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2015a). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal, 13(11), 4302. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2015b). Final addendum to the renewal assessment report — public version. Risk assessment provided by the rapporteur Member State Germany and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the active substance glyphosate according to the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC laid down in Commission regulation (EU) №1141/2010, October 2015. Retrieved from http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/outputLoader?output=ON-4302
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2015). Renewal assessment report on glyphosate. 31 October 2015. RMS: Germany, Co-RMS: Slovakia. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13626/renewal_assessment_report_addenda_en.pdf
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2017). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the potential endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate. EFSA Journal, 15(9), 4979. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4979
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2023). Álvarez, F., et al. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal, 21(7), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1995). National primary drinking water regulations: Glyphosate. Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/pdf/archived-consumer-fact-sheet-on-glyphosate.pdf
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Glyphosate interim decision. Retrieved from [link]
- Levine, S. L., Webb, E. G., & Saltmiras, D. A. (2020). Review and analysis of the potential for glyphosate to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathways. Pest Management Science, 76(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5983
- Milby, T. H. (1974). Occupational exposure to pesticides: Report to the Federal Working Group on Pest Management from the Task Group on Occupational Exposure to Pesticides. Special Collections, USDA National Agricultural Library. Accessed May 28, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/items/show/2318
- Mink, P. J., Mandel, J. S., Lundin, J. I., & Sceurman, B. K. (2011). Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: A review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 61(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.006
- National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2019). Effects of glyphosate and its formulations on DNA damage in HepaRG and HaCaT cell lines. Retrieved from [link]
- Puckett, G. J., & Hygnstrom, J. R. (2025). Pesticide poisoning: Managing risk and recognizing signs and symptoms. Nebraska Extension Circular EC2505. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Reeves, W. R., McGuire, M. K., Stokes, M., & Vicini, J. L. (2019). Assessing the safety of pesticides in food: How current regulations protect human health. Advances in Nutrition, 10(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy061
- Srikrishna, S., & Cardozo, L. (2013). The vagina as a route for drug delivery: A review. International Urogynecology Journal, 24(4). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23229421/
- Moser, V. C., et al. (2022). Glyphosate and neurological outcomes: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 25(4), 162–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2022.2083739
- Vorontsova, Y., et al. (2022). Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term. Clinical and Translational Science, 15(8). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35587540
Cami Ryan is a social and behavioral scientist working in agriculture at Bayer CropScience. Follow her on Medium here or on X @CamiDRyan.
A version of this article was originally posted at Medium and is reposted here with permission.
The availability of safe food is crucial for maintaining both nutritional well-being and overall health security. Estimates indicate that 1 in 10 people fall ill after consuming contaminated food, and globally, 420,000 people die each year due to unsafe food consumption….Traditional methods of detecting foodborne pathogens and other contaminants are often time-consuming and demand technologies that are rapid, highly sensitive, and hold a point-of-use application. Biosensors that utilise CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology stand as a suitable alternative offering immense potential for research and development (R&D), and scalability, thus ensuring food safety.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPSeveral kinds of CRISPR-based biosensor technology are currently under R&D for food safety applications. Notably, the detection of Listeria monocytogenes, the cause of listeriosis—a major foodborne illness—was facilitated through the development of a fluorescent-based CRISPR-Cas biosensor. A biosensor to detect E. coli O157:H7 in milk samples, which causes severe illness, was recently developed as well.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here