A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) previously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because when [H5N1] constantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a $1 billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated $100 million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled $776 million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics:

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy JrTasos Katopodis/Getty One of the top vaccine experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, resigned on 4 June – a week after Robert F Kennedy Jr announced that covid-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for most children and pregnancies. The announcement set off several days of confusion around who will have access to covid-19 vaccines in the US going forward. In practice, there hasn’t been a drastic change to access, though there will probably be new obstacles for parents hoping to vaccinate their children. Still, Kennedy’s announcement signals a troubling circumvention of public health norms. “My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,” said Panagiotakopoulos in an email to colleagues obtained by Reuters. Panagiotakopoulos supported the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has advised the CDC on vaccine recommendations since 1964. But last week, Kennedy – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – upended this decades-long precedent. “I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the covid vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant woman has been removed from the CDC recommended immunisation schedule,” he said in a video posted to the social media platform X on 27 May. Despite his directive, the CDC has, so far, only made minor changes to its guidance on covid-19 vaccines. Instead of recommending them for children outright, it now recommends vaccination “based on shared clinical decision-making”. In other words, parents should talk with a doctor before deciding. It isn’t clear how this will affect access to these vaccines in every scenario, but it could make it more difficult for children to get a shot at pharmacies. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter The CDC’s guidance on vaccination in pregnancy is also ambiguous. While its website still recommends a covid-19 shot during pregnancy, a note at the top says, “this page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule.” Kennedy’s announcement contradicts the stances of major public health organisations, too. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) have come out opposing it. “The CDC and HHS encourage individuals to talk with their healthcare provider about any personal medical decision,” an HHS spokesperson told New Scientist. “Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship.” However, Linda Eckert at the University of Washington in Seattle says the conflicting messages are confusing for people. “It opens up disinformation opportunities. It undermines confidence in vaccination in general,” she says. “I can’t imagine it won’t decrease immunisation rates overall.” Research has repeatedly shown covid-19 vaccination in adolescence and pregnancy is safe and effective. In fact, Martin Makary, the head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), listed pregnancy as a risk factor for severe covid-19 a week before Kennedy’s announcement, further convoluting the government’s public health messaging. Kennedy’s announcement is in line with some other countries’ covid policies. For example, Australia and the UK don’t recommend covid-19 vaccines for children unless they are at risk of severe illness. They also don’t recommend covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy if someone is already vaccinated. Asma Khalil, a member of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says the UK’s decision was based on the reduced risk of the omicron variant, the cost-effectiveness of vaccination and high population immunity. However, these factors can vary across countries. The UK population also tends to have better access to healthcare than the US, says Eckert. “These decisions need to carefully consider the risks and benefits relative to the national population,” says Khalil. The HHS didn’t answer New Scientist’s questions about whether a similar analysis guided Kennedy’s decision-making. What is maybe most troubling, however, is the precedent Kennedy’s announcement sets. The ACIP – an independent group of public health experts – was expected to vote on proposed changes to covid-19 vaccine recommendations later this month. But Kennedy’s decision has bypassed this process. “This style of decision-making – by individuals versus going through experts who are carefully vetted for conflicts of interest, who carefully look at the data – this has never happened in our country,” says Eckert. “We’re in uncharted territory.” She worries the move could pave the way for Kennedy to chip away at other vaccine recommendations. “I know there are a lot of vaccines he has been actively against in his career,” she says. Kennedy has previously blamed vaccines for autism and falsely claimed that the polio vaccine caused more deaths than it averted. “What it speaks to is the fact that [Kennedy] does not see value in these vaccines and is going to do everything he can to try and devalue them in the minds of the public and make them harder to receive,” says Amesh Adalja at Johns Hopkins University. Topics:

If you wanted to get a COVID vaccine during pregnancy, to protect yourself and your future baby from the virus, that may soon be difficult to impossible. According to a short video posted on X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is also a noted anti-vaccine activist, said that the COVID-19 vaccine “has been removed” from the list of vaccines recommended in pregnancy, as well as the list of vaccines recommended for healthy children. This announcement sidesteps the usual regulatory process, and it’s not clear exactly what will happen next—but here’s what we know. The announcement may not be entirely validRFK, Jr made the announcement in a video where he stood alongside the NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary. Notably, nobody from the CDC was present. The FDA approves vaccines, but it’s the CDC that is in charge of recommendations. (It is not clear who the CDC’s acting director actually is, or whether there is one.) Normally, the CDC has an advisory panel called ACIP (the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices) that reviews scientific evidence to make recommendations for vaccines. They’ll vote on whether a given vaccine should be recommended for everybody in a group of people. Their decisions are then passed to CDC leadership, who make the final call as to whether the vaccine gets officially recommended for that group. Vaccines are not usually added or removed to the recommended list by the CDC without consulting with ACIP, and they definitely aren’t usually added or removed by tweeting a video. Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine policy, posted on LinkedIn that the announcement may not be legally valid if it’s not immediately followed by supporting documentation. She says: “Under administrative law, to avoid being found arbitrary and capricious, an agency's decision has to meet certain criteria, including explaining the agency's fact finding, a connection between the facts and the decisions, etc. A one minute video on Twitter doesn't quite get you there.” So far, the CDC’s web page on vaccines recommended in pregnancy still says that “A pregnant woman should get vaccinated against whooping cough, flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).” The adult and child vaccine schedules still include COVID vaccines.Strangely, this move on behalf of the CDC contradicts the one we reported about recently from the FDA. The FDA plans to require extra steps (possibly unethical and/or impractical ones) to approve new COVID vaccines for healthy children and adults. But these steps don’t apply to people who are at high risk for complications of COVID. The FDA’s policy announcement included a list of those high risk health conditions—which includes pregnancy.Why it matters which vaccines are “recommended”Recommending a vaccine doesn’t just mean expressing an opinion; the Affordable Care Act requires that vaccines recommended by ACIP must be covered by most private insurance and Medicaid expansion plans without any cost sharing. That means no deductible and no copay—so these vaccines must be free to you out of pocket if you fall into a group of people for whom they are recommended. The recommended vaccines include all the standard childhood vaccines, plus your seasonal flu shot, and other vaccines that are recommended for adults, for people who are pregnant, and so on. The full schedules are here. If you’ve gotten a COVID shot, a flu shot, a tetanus shot, a shingles shot—the shot’s inclusion on this list is why you were able to (probably) get it for free.So taking a vaccine off the recommended list means that it could be prohibitively expensive. GoodRX, which keeps tabs on pharmacy prices, reports that COVID shots may cost $200 or more out of pocket, plus any applicable administration fee that the provider might charge.Taking a vaccine off the recommended list may also mean it won’t be covered by the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to children who don’t have coverage for them through health insurance.Whether or not the vaccine actually gets taken off the list, the recent HHS announcement has another impact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that “Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit.” The ACOG statement also pointed out a few ways in which removing the vaccines from the recommended list is not “common sense and good science,” as the HHS announcement claimed. ACOG writes: “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families.”

Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are an extremely effective and convenient form of birth control for many people—but it can also very painful to get one inserted. Current medical guidelines say that your doctor should be discussing pain management with you, and they also give advice to doctors on what methods tend to work best for most people. The newest set of guidelines is from ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These guidelines actually cover a variety of procedures, including endometrial and cervical biopsies, but today I'll be talking about the IUD insertion portions. And in 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's released new contraceptive recommendations that include a section on how and why providers should help you with pain relief. Before we get into the new recommendations and what they say, it’s important to keep in mind that that not everybody feels severe pain with insertion—the estimate is that insertion is severely painful for 50% of people who haven't given birth, and only 10% of people who have, according to Rachel Flink, the OB-GYN I spoke with for my article on what to expect when you get an IUD. (She also gave me a great rundown of pain management options and their pros and cons, which I included in the article.)  I’m making sure to point this out because I’ve met people who are terrified at the thought of getting an IUD, because they think that severe pain is guaranteed and that doctors are lying if they say otherwise. In reality, there’s a whole spectrum of possible experiences, and both you and your provider should be informed and prepared for anything along that spectrum.Your provider should discuss pain management with youThe biggest thing in both sets of guidelines is not just the pain management options they discuss, but the guideline that says there is a place for this discussion and that it is important! You’ve always been able to ask about pain management, but providers are now expected to know that they need to discuss this with their patients. The ACOG guidelines say: "Options to manage pain should be discussed with and offered to all patients seeking in-office gynecologic procedures." And the CDC says: Before IUD placement, all patients should be counseled on potential pain during placement as well as the risks, benefits, and alternatives of different options for pain management. A person-centered plan for IUD placement and pain management should be made based on patient preference.“Person-centered” means that the plan should take into account what you want and need, not just what the provider is used to doing or thinks will be easiest. (This has sometimes been called “patient-centered” care, but “person-centered” is meant to convey that you and your provider understand that they are treating a whole person, with concerns outside of just their health, and you’re not only a patient who exists in a medical context.) The CDC guidelines also say: “When considering patient pain, it is important to recognize that the experience of pain is individualized and might be influenced by previous experiences including trauma and mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety.” The ACOG guidelines, similarly, say that talking over the procedure and what to expect can help make the procedure more tolerable, regardless of how physically painful it ends up being. (Dr. Flink told me that anti-anxiety medications during insertion are helpful for some of her patients, and that she’ll discuss them alongside options for physical pain relief.)Lidocaine paracervical blocks may relieve painThere’s good news and bad news about the recommended pain medications. The good news is that there are recommendations. The bad news is that none of them are guaranteed to work for everyone, and it’s not clear if they work very well at all. The CDC says that a paracervical block (done by injection, similar to the numbing injections used for dental work) “might” reduce pain with insertion. Three studies showed that the injections worked to reduce pain, while three others found they did not. The CDC rates the certainty of evidence as “low” for pain and for satisfaction with the procedure. The ACOG guidelines also mention local anesthetics, including lidocaine paracervical blocks, as one of the best options for pain management. Dr. Flink told me that while some of her patients appreciate this option, it’s often impossible to numb all of the nerves in the cervix, and the injection itself can be painful—so in many cases, patients decide it’s not worth it. Still, it’s worth discussing with your provider if this sounds like something you would like to try.Topical lidocaine may also helpLidocaine, the same numbing medication, can also be applied to the cervix as a cream, spray, or gel. Again, evidence is mixed, with six trials finding that it helped, and seven finding that it did not. The ACOG guidelines note that sometimes topical lidocaine has worked better than the injected kind. Unfortunately, they also say that it can be hard for doctors to find an appropriate spray-on product that can be used on the cervix.The CDC judged the certainty of to be a bit better here compared to the injection—moderate for reducing pain, and high for improving placement success (meaning that the provider was able to get the IUD inserted properly). Other methods aren’t well supported by the evidence (yet?)For the other pain management methods that the CDC group studied, there wasn’t enough evidence to say whether they work. These included analgesics like ibuprofen, and smooth-muscle-relaxing medications. The ACOG guidelines say that taking NSAIDS (like ibuprofen) before insertion doesn't seem to help with insertion pain, even though that's commonly recommended. That approach does seem to work for some other procedures, though, and may help with pain that occurs after an IUD insertion. So it may not be a bad idea to take those four Advil if that's what your doc recommends, but it shouldn't be your only option. Or as the ACOG paper puts it: "Although recommending preprocedural NSAIDs is a benign, low-risk intervention unlikely to cause harm, relying on NSAIDs alone for pain management during IUD insertion is ineffective and does not provide the immediate pain control patients need at the time of the procedure." Both sets of guidelines also don't recommend misoprostol, which is sometimes used to soften and open the cervix before inserting an IUD. The ACOG guidelines describe the evidence as mixed, and the CDC guidelines specifically recommend against it. Moderate certainty evidence says that misoprostol doesn’t help with pain, and low certainty evidence says that it may increase the risk of adverse events like cramping and vomiting. What this means for youThe publication of these guidelines won’t change anything overnight at your local OB-GYN office, but it’s a good sign that discussions about pain management with IUD placement are happening more openly. The new guidelines also don’t necessarily take any options off the table. Even misoprostol, which the CDC now says not to use for routine insertions, “might be useful in selected circumstances (e.g., in patients with a recent failed placement),” it writes.Don’t be afraid to ask about pain management before your appointment; as we discussed before, some medications and procedures require that you and your provider plan ahead. And definitely don’t accept a dismissive reply about how taking a few Advil should be enough; it may help for some people, but that shouldn't be the end of the discussion. You deserve to have your provider take your concerns seriously.

More chaos CDC updates COVID vaccine recommendations, but not how RFK Jr. wanted Mixed messages only add to uncertainty about vaccine access for kids, pregnant individuals. Beth Mole – May 30, 2025 4:28 pm | 74 A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday updated its immunization schedules for children and adults to partially reflect the abrupt changes announced by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this week. In a 58-second video posted on social media on Tuesday, May 27, Kennedy said he was unilaterally revoking the CDC's recommendations that healthy children and pregnant people get COVID-19 vaccines. "I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule," Kennedy said in the video. The health agency's immunization schedules were not, in fact, updated at the time of the announcement, though. The Washington Post subsequently reported that the CDC was blindsided by the announcement. Five hours went by after the video was posted before CDC officials said they received a one-page "secretarial directive" about the changes, which was signed by Kennedy and puzzlingly dated May 19, according to the Post. Late Thursday, the CDC updated the immunization schedules. Contradicting what Kennedy said in the video, the CDC did not remove its recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. Instead, it added a stipulation that if a child's doctor agrees with the vaccination and parents "desire for their child to be vaccinated," healthy children can get vaccinated. In practice, it is unclear how this change will affect access to the vaccines. Health insurers are required to cover vaccines on the CDC schedules. But, it's yet to be seen if children will only be able to get vaccinated at their doctor's office (rather than a pharmacy or vaccine clinic) or if additional consent forms would be required, etc. Uncertainty about the changes and requirements alone may lead to fewer children getting vaccinated. In the adult immunization schedule, when viewed "by medical condition or other indication" (table 2), the COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for pregnancy is now shaded gray, meaning "no guidance/not applicable." Hovering a cursor over the box brings up the recommendation to "Delay vaccination until after pregnancy if vaccine is indicated." Previously, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended during pregnancy. The change makes it less likely that health insurers will cover the cost of vaccination during pregnancy. The change is at odds with Trump's Food and Drug Administration, which just last week confirmed that pregnancy puts people at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and, therefore, vaccination is recommended. Medical experts have decried the loss of the recommendation, which is also at odds with clear data showing the risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy and the benefits of vaccination. The President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) put out a statement shortly after the Tuesday video, saying that the organization was "extremely disappointed" with Kennedy's announcement. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families," ACOG President Steven Fleischman said. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 74 Comments

Male fertility rates have been plummeting over the past half-century. An analysis from 1992 noted a steady decrease in sperm counts and quality since the 1940s. A more recent study found that male infertility rates increased nearly 80% from 1990 to 2019. The reasons driving this trend remain a mystery, but frequently cited culprits include obesity, poor diet, and environmental toxins. Infectious diseases such as gonorrhea or chlamydia are often overlooked factors that affect fertility in men. Accumulating evidence suggests that a common single-celled parasite called Toxoplasma gondii may also be a contributor: An April 2025 study showed for the first time that “human sperm lose their heads upon direct contact” with the parasite. I am a microbiologist, and my lab studies Toxoplasma. This new study bolsters emerging findings that underscore the importance of preventing this parasitic infection. The many ways you can get toxoplasmosis Infected cats defecate Toxoplasma eggs into the litter box, garden or other places in the environment where they can be picked up by humans or other animals. Water, shellfish and unwashed fruits and vegetables can also harbor infectious parasite eggs. In addition to eggs, tissue cysts present in the meat of warm-blooded animals can spread toxoplasmosis as well if they are not destroyed by cooking to proper temperature. While most hosts of the parasite can control the initial infection with few if any symptoms, Toxoplasma remains in the body for life as dormant cysts in brain, heart and muscle tissue. These cysts can reactivate and cause additional episodes of severe illness that damage critical organ systems. Between 30% and 50% of the world’s population is permanently infected with Toxoplasma due to the many ways the parasite can spread. Toxoplasma can target male reproductive organs Upon infection, Toxoplasma spreads to virtually every organ and skeletal muscle. Evidence that Toxoplasma can also target human male reproductive organs first surfaced during the height of the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s, when some patients presented with the parasitic infection in their testes. While immunocompromised patients are most at risk for testicular toxoplasmosis, it can also occur in otherwise healthy individuals. Imaging studies of infected mice confirm that Toxoplasma parasites quickly travel to the testes in addition to the brain and eyes within days of infection. Toxoplasma cysts floating in cat feces. DPDx Image Library/CDC In 2017, my colleagues and I found that Toxoplasma can also form cysts in mouse prostates. Researchers have also observed these parasites in the ejaculate of many animals, including human semen, raising the possibility of sexual transmission. Knowing that Toxoplasma can reside in male reproductive organs has prompted analyses of fertility in infected men. A small 2021 study in Prague of 163 men infected with Toxoplasma found that over 86% had semen anomalies. A 2002 study in China found that infertile couples are more likely to have a Toxoplasma infection than fertile couples, 34.83% versus 12.11%. A 2005 study in China also found that sterile men are more likely to test positive for Toxoplasma than fertile men. Not all studies, however, produce a link between toxoplasmosis and sperm quality. Toxoplasma can directly damage human sperm Toxoplasmosis in animals mirrors infection in humans, which allows researchers to address questions that are not easy to examine in people. Testicular function and sperm production are sharply diminished in Toxoplasma-infected mice, rats and rams. Infected mice have significantly lower sperm counts and a higher proportion of abnormally shaped sperm. In that April 2025 study, researchers from Germany, Uruguay, and Chile observed that Toxoplasma can reach the testes and epididymis, the tube where sperm mature and are stored, two days after infection in mice. This finding prompted the team to test what happens when the parasite comes into direct contact with human sperm in a test tube. After only five minutes of exposure to the parasite, 22.4% of sperm cells were beheaded. The number of decapitated sperm increased the longer they interacted with the parasites. Sperm cells that maintained their head were often twisted and misshapen. Some sperm cells had holes in their head, suggesting the parasites were trying to invade them as it would any other type of cell in the organs it infiltrates. In addition to direct contact, Toxoplasma may also damage sperm because the infection promotes chronic inflammation. Inflammatory conditions in the male reproductive tract are harmful to sperm production and function. The researchers speculate that the harmful effects Toxoplasma may have on sperm could be contributing to large global declines in male fertility over the past decades. Sperm exposed to Toxoplasma. Arrows point to holes and other damage to the sperm; asterisks indicate where the parasite has burrowed. The two nonconfronted controls at the bottom show normal sperm. Rojas-Barón et al/The FEBS Journal, CC BY-SA Preventing toxoplasmosis The evidence that Toxoplasma can infiltrate male reproductive organs in animals is compelling, but whether this produces health issues in people remains unclear. Testicular toxoplasmosis shows that parasites can invade human testes, but symptomatic disease is very rare. Studies to date that show defects in the sperm of infected men are too small to draw firm conclusions at this time. Additionally, some reports suggest that rates of toxoplasmosis in high-income countries have not been increasing over the past few decades while male infertility was rising, so it’s likely to only be one part of the puzzle. Regardless of this parasite’s potential effect on fertility, it is wise to avoid Toxoplasma. An infection can cause miscarriage or birth defects if someone acquires it for the first time during pregnancy, and it can be life-threatening for immunocompromised people. Toxoplasma is also the leading cause of death from foodborne illness in the United States. Taking proper care of your cat, promptly cleaning the litter box and thoroughly washing your hands after can help reduce your exposure to Toxoplasma. You can also protect yourself from this parasite by washing fruits and vegetables, cooking meat to proper temperatures before consuming and avoiding raw shellfish, raw water and raw milk. Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Let’s start with one unambiguous fact: More children are diagnosed with autism today than in the early 1990s. According to a sweeping 2000 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a range of 2–7 per 1,000, or roughly 0.5 percent of US children, were diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. That figure has risen to 1 in 35 kids, or roughly 3 percent.The apparent rapid increase caught the attention of people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who assumed that something had to be changing in the environment to drive it. In 2005, Kennedy, a lawyer and environmental activist at the time, authored an infamous essay in Rolling Stone that primarily placed the blame for the increased prevalence of autism on vaccines. (The article was retracted in 2011 as more studies debunked the vaccine-autism connection.) More recently, he has theorized that a mysterious toxin introduced in the late 1980s must be responsible. Now, as the nation’s top health official leading the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has declared autism an “epidemic.” And, in April, he launched a massive federal effort to find the culprit for the rise in autism rates, calling for researchers to examine a range of suspects: chemicals, molds, vaccines, and perhaps even ultrasounds given to pregnant mothers. “Genes don’t cause epidemics. You need an environmental toxin,” Kennedy said in April when announcing his department’s new autism research project. He argued that too much money had been put into genetic research — “a dead end,” in his words — and his project would be a correction to focus on environmental causes. “That’s where we’re going to find an answer.”But according to many autism scientists I spoke to for this story, Kennedy is looking in exactly the wrong place. Three takeaways from this storyExperts say the increase in US autism rates is mostly explained by the expanding definitions of the condition, as well as more awareness and more screening for it.Scientists have identified hundreds of genes that are associated with autism, building a convincing case that genetics are the most important driver of autism’s development — not, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has argued, a single environmental toxin.Researchers fear Kennedy’s fixation on outside toxins could distract from genetic research that has facilitated the development of exciting new therapies that could help those with profound autism.Autism is a complex disorder with a range of manifestations that has long defied simple explanations, and it’s unlikely that we will ever identify a single “cause” of autism.But scientists have learned a lot in the past 50 years, including identifying some of the most important risk factors. They are not, as Kennedy suggests, out in our environment. They are written into our genetics. What appeared to be a massive increase in autism was actually a byproduct of better screening and more awareness. “The way the HHS secretary has been walking about his plans, his goals, he starts out with this basic assumption that nothing worthwhile has been done,” Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University who has worked with and studied children with autism for years, said. “Genes play a significant role. We know now that autism runs in families… There is no single underlying factor. Looking for that holy grail is not the best approach.”Doctors who treat children with autism often talk about how they wish they could provide easy answers to the families. The answers being uncovered through genetics research may not be simple per se, but they are answers supported by science.Kennedy is muddying the story, pledging to find a silver-bullet answer where likely none exists. It’s a false promise — one that could cause more anxiety and confusion for the very families Kennedy says he wants to help. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services in mid-April to discuss this agency’s efforts to determine the cause of autism. Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe autism “epidemic” that wasn’tAutism was first described in 1911, and for many decades, researchers and clinicians confused the social challenges and language development difficulties common among those with the condition for a psychological issue. Some child therapists even blamed the condition on bad parenting. But in 1977, a study discovered that identical twins, who share all of their DNA, were much more likely to both be autistic than fraternal twins, who share no more DNA than ordinary siblings. It marked a major breakthrough in autism research, and pushed scientists to begin coalescing around a different theory: There was a biological factor.At the time, this was just a theory — scientists lacked the technology to prove those suspicions at the genetic level. And clinicians were also still trying to work out an even more fundamental question: What exactly was autism? For a long time, the criteria for diagnosing a person with autism was strictly based on speech development. But clinicians were increasingly observing children who could acquire basic language skills but still struggled with social communication — things like misunderstanding nonverbal cues or taking figurative language literally. Psychologists gradually broadened their definition of autism from a strict and narrow focus on language, culminating in a 2013 criteria that included a wide range of social and emotional symptoms with three subtypes — the autism spectrum disorder we’re familiar with today.Along the way, autism had evolved from a niche diagnosis for the severely impaired to something that encompassed far more children. It makes sense then, that as the broad criteria for autism expanded, more and more children would meet it, and autism rates would rise. That’s precisely what happened. And it means that the “epidemic” that Kennedy and other activists have been fixated on is mostly a diagnostic mirage. Historical autism data is spotty and subject to these same historical biases, but if you look at the prevalence of profound autism alone — those who need the highest levels of support — a clearer picture emerges. (There is an ongoing debate in the autism community about whether to use the terminology of “profound autism” or “high support needs” for those who have the most severe form of the condition.) In the ’80s and ’90s, low-support needs individuals would have been less likely to receive an autism diagnosis given the more restrictive criteria and less overall awareness of the disorder, meaning that people with severe autism likely represented most of the roughly 0.5 percent of children diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. (One large analysis from Atlanta examining data from 1996 found that 68 percent of kids ages 3 to 10 diagnosed with autism had an IQ below 70, the typical cutoff for intellectual disability.)By 2025, when about 3 percent of children are being diagnosed with autism, about one in four of those diagnosed are considered to have high-support needs autism, those with most severe manifestation of the condition. That would equal about 0.8 percent of all US children — which would be a fairly marginal increase from autism rates 30 years ago. Or look at it another way: In 2000, as many as 60 percent of the people being diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability, one of the best indicators of high-support needs autism. In 2022, that percentage was less than 40 percent.As a recently published CDC report on autism prevalence among young children concluded, the increase in autism rates can largely be accounted for by stronger surveillance and more awareness among providers and parents, rather than a novel toxin or some other external factor driving an increase in cases.Other known risk factors — like more people now having babies later in their life, given that parental age is linked to a higher likelihood of autism — are more likely to be a factor than anything Kennedy is pointing at, experts say. “It’s very clear it’s not going to be one environmental toxin,” said Alison Singer, founder of the Autism Science Foundation and parent of a child with profound autism. “If there were a smoking gun, I think they would have found it.”While Kennedy has fixated on vaccines and environmental influences, scientists have gained more precision in mapping human genetics and identifying the biological mechanisms that appear to be a primary cause of autism. And that not only helps us understand why autism develops, but potentially puts long-elusive therapies within reach. It began with an accident in the 1990s. Steven Scherer, now director of the Center for Applied Genomics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, began his career in the late 1980s trying to identify the gene that caused cystic fibrosis — in collaboration with Francis Collins, who went on to lead the Human Genome Project that successfully sequenced all of the DNA in the human genome in the early 2000s. Scherer and Collins’s teams focused on chromosome 7, identified as a likely target by the primitive genetic research available at the time, a coincidence that would reorient Scherer’s career just a few years later, putting him on the trail of autism’s genetic roots.After four years, the researchers concluded that one gene within chromosome 7 caused cystic fibrosis. Soon after Scherer helped crack the code on cystic fibrosis in the mid-1990s, two parents from California called him: He was the world’s leading expert on chromosome 7, and recent tests had revealed that their children with autism had a problem within that particular chromosome.That very same week, Scherer says, he read the findings of a study by a group at Oxford University, which had looked at the chromosomes of families with two or more kids with autism. They, too, had identified problems within chromosome 7.“So I said, ‘Okay, we’re going to work on autism,’” Scherer told me. He helped coordinate a global research project, uniting his Canadian lab with the Oxford team and groups in the US to run a database that became the Autism Genome Project, still the world’s largest repository of genetic information of people with autism.They had a starting point — one chromosome — but a given chromosome contains hundreds of genes. And humans have, of course, 45 other chromosomes, any of which conceivably might play a role. So over the years, they collected DNA samples from thousands upon thousands of people with autism, sequenced their genes, and then searched for patterns. If the same gene is mutated or missing across a high percentage of autistic people, it goes on the list as potentially associated with the condition. Scientists discovered that autism has not one genetic factor, but many — further evidence that this is a condition of complex origin, in which multiple variables likely play a role in its development, rather than one caused by a single genetic error like sickle-cell anemia.Here is one way to think about how far we have come: Joseph Buxbaum, the director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, entered autism genetics research 35 years ago. He recalls scientists being hopeful that they might identify a half dozen or so genes linked to autism.They have now found 500 genes — and Buxbaum told me he believed they might find a thousand before they are through. These genetic factors continue to prove their value in predicting the onset of autism: Scherer pointed to one recent study in which the researchers identified people who all shared a mutation in the SHANK3 gene, one of the first to be associated with autism, but who were otherwise unalike: They were not related and came from different demographic backgrounds. Nevertheless, they had all been diagnosed with autism.Researchers analyze the brain activity of a 14-year-old boy with autism as part of a University of California San Francisco study that involves intensive brain imaging of kids and their parents who have a rare chromosome disruption connected to autism. The study, the Simons Variation in Individuals Project, is a genetics-first approach to studying autism spectrum and related neurodevelopmental disorders. Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via The Associated PressPrecisely how much genetics contributes to the development of autism remains the subject of ongoing study. By analyzing millions of children with autism and their parents for patterns in diagnoses, multiple studies have attributed about 80 percent of a person’s risk of developing autism to their inherited genetic factors. But of course 80 percent is not 100 percent. We don’t yet have the full picture of how or why autism develops. Among identical twins, for example, studies have found that in most cases, if one twin has high-support needs autism, the other does as well, affirming the genetic effect. But there are consistently a small minority of cases — 5 and 10 percent of twin pairs, Scherer told me — in which one twin has relatively low-support needs while the one requires a a high degree of support for their autism.Kennedy is not wholly incorrect to look at environmental factors — researchers theorize that autism may be the result of a complex interaction between a person’s genetics and something they experience in utero. Scientists in autism research are exploring the possible influence when, for example, a person’s mother develops maternal diabetes, high blood sugar that persists throughout pregnancy. And yet even if these other factors do play some role, the researchers I spoke to agree that genetics is, based on what we know now, far and away the most important driver.“We need to figure out how other types of genetics and also environmental factors affect autism’s development,” Scherer said. “There could be environmental changes…involved in some people, but it’s going to be based on their genetics and the pathways that lead them to be susceptible.”While the precise contours of Health Department’s new autism research project is still taking shape, Kennedy has that researchers at the National Institutes of Health will collect data from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and somehow use that information to identify possible environmental exposures that lead to autism. He initially pledged results by September, a timeline that, as outside experts pointed out, may be too fast to allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of the research literature. Kennedy has since backed off on that deadline, promising some initial findings in the fall but with more to come next year.RFK Jr.’s autism commission research risks the accessibility of groundbreaking autism treatmentsIf Kennedy were serious about moving autism science forward, he would be talking more about genetics, not dismissing them. That’s because genetics is where all of the exciting drug development is currently happening.A biotech firm called Jaguar Gene Therapy has received FDA approval to conduct the first clinical trial of a gene therapy for autism, focused on SHANK3. The treatment, developed in part by one of Buxbaum’s colleagues, is a one-time injection that would replace a mutated or missing SHANK3 gene with a functional one. The hope is that the therapy would improve speech and other symptoms among people with high-needs autism who have also been diagnosed with a rare chromosomal deletion disorder called Phelan-McDermid syndrome; many people with this condition also have Autism spectrum disorder.The trial will begin this year with a few infant patients, 2 years old and younger, who have been diagnosed with autism. Jaguar eventually aims to test the therapy on adults over 18 with autism in the future. Patients are supposed to start enrolling this year in the trial, which is focused on first establishing the treatment’s safety; if it proves safe, another round of trials would start to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness.“This is the stuff that three or four years ago sounded like science fiction,” Singer said. “The conversation has really changed from Is this possible? to What are the best methods to do it? And that’s based on genetics.”Researchers at Mount Sinai have also experimented with delivering lithium to patients and seeing if it improves their SHANK3 function. Other gene therapies targeting other genes are in earlier stages of development. Some investigators are experimenting with CRISPR technology, the revolutionary new platform for gene editing, to target the problematic genes that correspond to the onset of autism.But these scientists fear that their work could be slowed by Kennedy’s insistence on hunting for environmental toxins, if federal dollars are instead shifted into his new project. They are already trying to subsist amid deep budget cuts across the many funding streams that support the institutions where they work. “Now we have this massive disruption where instead of doing really key experiments, people are worrying about paying their bills and laying off their staff and things,” Scherer said. “It’s horrible.” For the families of people with high-needs autism, Kennedy’s crusade has stirred conflicting emotions. Alison Singer, the leader of the Autism Science Foundation, is also the parent of a child with profound autism. When I spoke with her, I was struck by the bind that Kennedy’s rhetoric has put people like her and her family in. Singer told me profound autism has not received enough federal support in the past, as more emphasis was placed on individuals who have low support needs included in the expanding definitions of the disorder, and so she appreciates Kennedy giving voice to those families. She believes that he is sincerely empathetic toward their predicament and their feeling that the mainstream discussion about autism has for too long ignored their experiences in favor of patients with lower support needs. But she worries that his obsession with environmental factors will stymie the research that could yield breakthroughs for people like her child.“He feels for those families and genuinely wants to help them,” Singer said. “The problem is he is a data denier. You can’t be so entrenched in your beliefs that you can’t see the data right in front of you. That’s not science.”See More:

يدورُ معظم ما نعتقده عن النوم في فلك العبارة الشهيرة “الطيرُ المبكر يلتقط الدودة أولًا”، بالطبع اعتدنا العبارة حتى غدت شبه قانون يعزز لدينا شعورًا بخطبٍ ما إن كنّا من المخالفين لذلك. إن تمعنا قليلًا في هذه المقولة ستراود ذهننا تساؤلاتٌ كثيرةٌ من قبيل: هل سينخفض إنتاجي إن لم أكن من هذه الطيور المبكرة؟ ماذا لو أنّني لا أستطيع التركيز سوى ليلًا؟ كيف تحيا كائنات كالخفافيش والبوم وهي التي (اعتادت) حياة الليل، وهنا أتحفظ بالكامل على ما بين قوسين؟ هل الليل للنوم فقط؟ ألم يُحي أولئك الشعراء والعلماء ليالٍ بطولها سحرتهم خلالها نجوم الليل، فتغنوا بها أو كانت هدفًا لدراساتهم، وغيرها الكثير. إيقاع الساعة البيولوجية انتقل بتساؤلك إلى مستوى آخر، أطرحه على الملأ، لمّح مجرد تلميح إلى أنّك كائنٌ ليلي. ستنهال عليك النصائح من كلِّ حدبٍ وصوبٍ، سيجمع الجميع على أنَّ الأمرَ برمته خطأٌ وهو خطؤك. سيسدي لك البعض نصائحًا من قبيل: اذهب إلى سريرك يوميًّا في الوقت ذاته، تجنّب الشاشات الرقمية مساءً، لا تجبر نفسك على الإغفاء، نعم الأمر بأكمله ملقى على عاتقك. ولكنّ الحقيقة هي أنَّ عدم قدرتك على النوم ليست بسببك دومًا، وأجرؤ على القول (غالبًا). تذكّر البومة التي نجحت عبر تاريخٍ طويل من وجودها على الأرض في البقاء، وحمت أعشاشها وصغارها من الدخلاء والمفترسين. خلاصة القول لقد نجحت كصنفٍ حيّ في البقاء، ولو كانت حياتها الليلية خطأً لأقصاها منطق الاصطفاء الطبيعي. إنّ للبومة الليلية ساعة داخلية تختلف تمامًا وظيفيًّا، ولإجبارها على الاستيقاظ المبكر آثارٌ خطيرة على حالتها الصحية. إنّنا إذ نقيّم جميع المخلوقات استنادًا إلى المقولة الشهيرة آنفة الذكر، كأننا نحكم على سمكةٍ في سباقٍ للجري أو الطيران. لإنهاء ذلك وللخروج من الإطار الذي أحاطتنا به هذه المقولة علينا أن ندرك أنَّ داخلَ كلّ كائنٍ حي ساعةٌ تحفظ نظامه وتُعرف بإيقاع الساعة البيولوجية Circadian Rhythm. وبالنسبة للبشر، تتوضع هذه الساعة في جزءٍ من دماغنا يُدعى الغدة النخامية Hypothalamus، وتُعرف بأنّها تنظم دورات نومنا، لكنّها تشتهر كذلك بمسؤوليتها عن مساعدة أعضاء الجسم الأساسية كالدماغ والقلب والرئتين للعمل بتناغم، ويختلف إيقاع الساعة البيولوجية من شخصٍ لآخر ومن نوع لآخر. فعلى سبيل المثال، تشعر البومة الليلية بالتعب في وقتٍ متأخر عن شعور نظيرتها الطيور التي تستيقظ باكرًا به، ويعود ذلك لإنتاجها كمياتٍ كبيرة من هرمون النوم، الميلاتونين، في وقتٍ متأخر من الليل. اقرأ أيضا: كيف تنجز في يوم واحد أكثر مما ينجزه معظم الأشخاص في أسبوع! هل نمط حياتنا الحديثة يشتّت التركيز؟ وكيف يمكن تجنب ذلك؟ اختلاف أنظمة النوم… هل هو ظاهرة اجتماعية؟ لِمَ لا ندع البومة وشأنها، ما الجديد حولها… وهي التي سبقتنا في الوجود على سطح البسيطة. ببساطة، لا تكمن المشكلة في البومة، فالبومة على ما يرام ما دمنا لا نحشر أنوفنا في أنظمتها، بل هي في أنظمتنا الحياتية كبشر، والتي استندت معظمها على نموذج الطائر المبكر، لقد جعل المجتمع من ذلك مشكلةً في العقود الأخيرة، إذ تشير الإحصائيات إلى أنّ يوم عمل الأمريكيين يتركز بين الساعة السادسة صباحًا والسادسة مساءً، ولدى سؤالهم عن تصنيفهم أنفسهم، سيجيب ثلثهم بأنَّهم كائنات (بومات) ليلية، ما يعني أنّهم سيكونون أعلى إنتاجيةً ليلًا من العمل بين الساعتين السابقتين. تُدعى هذه الظاهرة اختلاف التوقيت Jetlag، ويشبه ذلك اختلاف التوقيت الذي تشعر به بعد رحلةٍ جويةٍ لكنّه أسوأ، فهو لا يزول بعد عدّة أيام. يعني ذلك أنَّ معرفتك المكان الذي تقف فيه بالنسبة للنوم لن يحلّ المشكلة، أي أنّك لن تكون بمنأى عن اختلاف التوقيت، فلاختلاف التوقيت الاجتماعي آثاره على بومات الليل في العالم؛ لأنّه حتى لو حصلت على المقدار المناسب من النوم، فإنَّ عملَ ساعتك البيولوجية خارج السرب أمرٌ له عواقبه. فعلى سبيل المثال، لقد وجدت إحدى الدراسات أنَّ مقابل كلّ ساعة يخرج فيها إيقاع ساعتك البيولوجية عن السيطرة، تزداد مخاطر إصابتك بالبدانة بنسبة 33%، كما تزداد مخاطر تعقيدات صحية أُخرى ترافق البدانة، ولا تقف المشكلة عند حدودها الجسدية، ففي دراسةٍ أُخرى سُجِّلت أعراض اكتئاب حاد لدى الأشخاص الذين يسجلون فارقًا في إيقاع ساعتهم البيولوجية بمقدار ساعتين. ما هي الفئات العمرية التي يظهر لديها ذلك؟ بالطبع لن نلحظ ذلك عند الأطفال (الأصحاء) الذين يغطون في نومٍ عميق معظم وقتهم في عامهم الأول، وسيفرض عليهم النظام المدرسي لاحقًا نمطًا معينًا مألوفًا من النوم والاستيقاظ، ولن نلحظه كذلك عند من تقدم بهم العمر، والذين تقل ساعات نومهم كثيرًا. سيبدو ذلك جليًّا لدى المراهقين والشباب، فقد حذّر مركز السيطرة على الأوبئة الأمريكي CDC من الآثار الجسيمة المترتبة على ذلك، حيثُ تبدأ معظم المدارس الحكومية في أمريكا يومها في وقتٍ مبكرٍ جدًا قبل 8:30 صباحًا، ما يعني وفقًا للمؤسسة غير الحكومية “Rand Corporation” تكلفة للبلاد أكثر من 9 مليارات دولار سنويًا سببها التدريس الذي لا طائل منه، والحوادث المرورية التي يسببها مراهقون متعبون يقودون سياراتهم. ذو صلة لحسن الحظ، هذا الإيقاع ليس بالأمر الجامد، فقد تبيّن أنَّ الإشارات الضوئية يمكن أن تحفزه حين يضرب الضوء أعيننا. لذا، عليك عندما تستيقظ أن تأخذ حمامًا صباحيًّا قوامه أشعة شمس الصباح، وإن كان ذلك بعيد المنال، تأكّد من الإضاءة الجيدة لمنزلك فقد يضفي ذلك مزيدًا من البهجة على صباحك حتى وإن كنت من أولئك الذين يستيقظون ليلًا، ولا تجعل من ذلك مصدرًا لمزيدٍ من القلق حول إنتاجيتك، فمعظم عباقرة هذا العالم كائناتٌ ليلية يغريها الليل بهدوئه ويحفزها على الإبداع.

Gone CDC can no longer help prevent lead poisoning in children, state officials say Under Trump, the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was cut. Beth Mole – May 23, 2025 11:54 am | 97 The three recalled pouches linked to lead poisonings. Credit: FDA The three recalled pouches linked to lead poisonings. Credit: FDA Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Amid the brutal cuts across the federal government under the Trump administration, perhaps one of the most gutting is the loss of experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who respond to lead poisoning in children. On April 1, the staff of the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was terminated as part of the agency's reduction in force, according to NPR. The staff included epidemiologists, statisticians, and advisors who specialized in lead exposures and responses. The cuts were immediately consequential to health officials in Milwaukee, who are currently dealing with a lead exposure crisis in public schools. Six schools have had to close, displacing 1,800 students. In April, the city requested help from the CDC's lead experts, but the request was denied—there was no one left to help. In a Congressional hearing this week, US health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told lawmakers, "We have a team in Milwaukee." But Milwaukee Health Commissioner Mike Totoraitis told NPR that this is false. "There is no team in Milwaukee," he said. "We had a single [federal] staff person come to Milwaukee for a brief period to help validate a machine, but that was separate from the formal request that we had for a small team to actually come to Milwaukee for our Milwaukee Public Schools investigation and ongoing support there." Kennedy has also previously told lawmakers that lead experts at the CDC who were terminated would be rehired. But that statement was also false. The health department's own communications team told ABC that the lead experts would not be reinstated. While Milwaukee continues to struggle, a Stat report Friday hints at losses yet to come. Looking back at the national scandal of lead-contaminated apple-sauce pouches, Stat reported that at least six of the CDC scientists and experts who worked on that nationwide poisoning event are gone. The poisonings were first revealed in cases in Hickory, North Carolina, where officials relied on help from the CDC to track down the source. The CDC's investigation subsequently identified 566 lead-poisoned children across 44 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, and helped get the tainted applesauce off shelves, Stat noted. If the poisonings had happened now, "we wouldn’t have been able to do the broad outreach to tell all the state lead programs to look out for this, and we wouldn’t have been able to measure the impact because CDC is the one that does that across state lines," one laid-off CDC worker told the outlet. Further, the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program is what funded the three North Carolina epidemiologists who collect and process lead-testing data. The funding runs out in October, and with the program now wiped out, it's unclear what will happen. "It’s hard to sleep through the night," Ed Norman, head of the children’s environmental health unit at North Carolina’s health department, told Stat. He tried asking CDC staff what happens after October, but everyone he had been in touch with is gone. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 97 Comments