How the Glucose Monitor Became a MAHA Fixation

To hear some of them tell it, the companies selling continuous glucose monitors have stumbled upon a heretofore unknown quirk of human biology. Seemingly healthy people, many of these companies argue, have 'glucose imbalances' that need to be monitored and, with dietary vigilance, eradicated. Millions of people are going through life eating bananas, not knowing that their blood sugar is rising with every bite. This must be stopped.
To this end, the companies market the continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, a quarter-size sensor that takes a near-constant measure of the glucose in the fluid between a person's cells. Once inserted into an arm, the sensor allows the wearer to monitor their blood-sugar levels on a phone app for $80 to $184 a month. Doing so allows you to 'see the impact of what you eat' (according to the start-up Lingo), to 'motivate behavior change and encourage healthier choices' (according to another called Levels), and to 'personalize your approach' to weight loss, because 'everyone's journey is different' (according to Nutrisense).
The gadgets have been revolutionary for many people with diabetes—previously the main available device for measuring blood sugar required users to prick their fingers multiple times a day. Many insurers cover CGM prescriptions for diabetics; they can pick up the devices at the pharmacy just as they would blood-test strips. But when I asked a half dozen experts whether people who don't have diabetes should wear CGMs, I got a resounding 'Meh.' 'It's a free country. People can pay money for whatever they feel like doing,' David Nathan, a diabetes expert at Harvard, told me. 'But from a medical point of view, I am personally unconvinced that they lead to any health benefit.'
Relying on a Harvard diabetes expert to give you diabetes advice, however, goes against the general ethos of the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement, many of whose members have been heavily promoting CGMs in recent months, including to people who don't have diabetes. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, talked them up in an April CBS interview as 'extraordinarily effective in helping people lose weight and avoid diabetes.' At his Senate confirmation hearing, before becoming Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Marty Makary said glucose monitors help people 'learn about what they're eating.' Casey Means, the wellness influencer whom President Donald Trump nominated for surgeon general, has said that more Americans should use CGMs too. (As it happens, she is a co-founder of Levels.) 'I believe CGM is the most powerful technology for generating the data and awareness to rectify our Bad Energy crisis in the Western world,' Means wrote in her best-selling book, Good Energy. (Bad Energy is her term for the metabolic dysfunction that she believes to be at the root of many chronic health problems.)
The devices are emblematic of the self-reliance that characterizes the MAHA movement. 'The Casey Means's of the world,' Alan Levinovitz, a James Madison University religion professor who has studied alternative health, told me in an email, 'are using the rhetoric of naturalness as a way of telling people they can have complete control and expertise over their own health—which is the natural way to be healthy, rather than outsourcing that wisdom to top-down elites.' Indeed, one of the chapters of Good Energy is titled 'Trust Yourself, Not Your Doctor.' (Means did not respond to a request for comment.)
CGMs appear to have trickled into MAHA world from the Joe Roganosphere, helped along by the fact that the devices, which in the past had been prescribed mainly to diabetics, were made available last year for purchase over the counter—that is, by anyone. Five years ago, Paul Saladino, a doctor who promotes an ' animal-based diet,' said on Rogan's podcast, 'This is the kind of stuff that really tells you about your metabolic health. There's no way to lie with a continuous glucose monitor.' Since then, CGMs have been endorsed on popular wellness podcasts such as Andrew Huberman's Huberman Lab and Dave Asprey's The Human Upgrade, and by pop-health doctors such as Peter Attia and Mark Hyman, the latter of whom called the CGM 'a gadget that has completely changed my life.' A wellness influencer known as the Glucose Goddess said that although they may not be for everyone, CGMs can be 'a pretty incredible tool to start to connect what you're eating with what's actually happening inside of your body,' and offers a guide to them on her website. Gwyneth Paltrow, the empress of Goop, was recently spotted wearing one.
Sun Kim, a Stanford endocrinologist, told me that a few years ago, 'I was literally contacted by a start-up almost every month who wanted to incorporate a CGM' into their products. Of course, some CGM companies do specialize in people who have diabetes and need around-the-clock monitoring. But Kim and others I spoke with told me they suspect that, to boost sales, CGM manufacturers are trying to expand their potential-customer base beyond people living with diabetes to the merely sugar-curious.
Jake Leach, the president of Dexcom, maker of the over-the-counter CGM Stelo, told me via email, 'Stelo was originally designed for people who have Type 2 diabetes not using insulin and those with prediabetes, however, given the broad accessibility of this device, we are encouraged to see people without diabetes interested in learning more about their glucose and metabolic health.' A spokesperson for Dexcom pointed out to me that most people with prediabetes are undiagnosed. Fred St. Goar, a cardiologist and clinical adviser for Lingo, told me in a statement that CGMs can be beneficial for nondiabetics because 'understanding your body's glucose is key to managing your metabolism, so you can live healthier and better.'
Scant research exists on how many nondiabetic people are buying CGMs, but anecdotally, some providers told me that they are seeing an uptick. Nicola Guess, a University of Oxford dietician and researcher, said that '10 years ago, no, I never saw anyone without diabetes with a CGM. And now I see lots.' Mostly, she said, they're people who are already pretty healthy. In this sense, CGMs are an extension of the wearables craze: Once you have an Oura Ring and a fitness tracker, measuring your blood sugar can feel like the next logical step of the 'journey.'
Should people who aren't diabetic wear one of these? Health fanatics who have $80 a month to burn and want to see how various foods affect their blood sugar are probably fine to wear a CGM, at least for a little while. Spoiler: The readout is probably just going to show that eating refined carbs—such as white bread, pasta, and sweets—at least temporarily raises blood sugar to some degree.
Normal glucose patterns for nondiabetic people tend to vary quite a bit from meal to meal and day to day. Most nondiabetics' blood-sugar readings will typically fall within the 'normal' range of 70 to 140 milligrams per deciliter. But many healthy people will occasionally see spikes above 140, and scientists don't really know if that's a cause for concern. ('Great question' is a response I heard a lot when I asked.) In the studies he's worked on, Kevin D. Hall, a former National Institutes of Health nutrition scientist, has found that even in tightly controlled settings, people's blood-sugar levels respond very differently to the same meal when eaten on different occasions. Given all these natural deviations, a CGM may not be able to tell you anything especially useful about your health. And CGMs can be less accurate than other types of blood-sugar tests. In another study, Hall and his co-authors stuck two different brands of CGM on the same person, and at times, they provided two different blood-sugar readings. The conclusion, to Hall, was that more research is needed before CGMs can be recommended to nondiabetics.
What's more, blood sugar depends on sleep, stress, and exercise levels, and whether any given meal includes protein or fat. If you notice a spike after eating a banana, the banana might not be the reason. It might be the four hours of sleep you got the previous night, because sleep deprivation can affect the hormones that influence blood sugar. As a result, Guess said, 'a CGM cannot tell you whether a single food is right for you'—though some CGM enthusiasts make this promise. (A CGM can help you 'learn your reaction to individual foods and meals,' Means has written.)
For some people, tracking data does help nudge them toward healthier behaviors. If you get a clear readout from a CGM that your blood sugar has risen after you've eaten refined carbs, and it moves you to eat fewer refined carbs, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But researchers haven't found evidence yet that nondiabetic people eat better after wearing a CGM. And if you know how to read a CGM, you probably already know what a healthy diet looks like. You could just eat it. Anne Peters, a diabetes researcher at the University of Southern California, told me, 'You could just not wear it at all and tell yourself to eat more vegetables and a more plant-based diet and eat healthy, lean protein.'
Many of the biohackers who talk up CGMs also promote a low-carb, protein-heavy diet that would include a T-bone more readily than a Triscuit. (Asprey, the man behind The Human Upgrade, recommends putting butter in coffee.) The potential downside of glucose monitoring is that people who are (perhaps needlessly) alarmed by their CGM data will swap out healthy carbs such as fruit and whole grains for foods that are less healthy—butter, for example, or bacon and red meat. Those foods don't make an impact on blood sugar, but they can affect other markers of health, such as cholesterol and body fat. Eat a stick of butter, and your CGM will probably show a flat, pleasant line. But your arteries may protest.
I noticed these perverse incentives myself during my pregnancy, when I had gestational diabetes and wore a CGM to manage my blood sugar. A bowl of heart-healthy oatmeal would cause my blood-sugar reading to soar to an unacceptable 157, but a piece of cheesecake—with loads of fat balancing out the sugar—would keep it safely under my goal level of 135. At the time, I wanted to eat whatever kept my blood sugar low, for the sake of my baby. But few dieticians would advise healthy people to eat cheesecake instead of oatmeal every morning.
Glucose, after all, is just a small part of the picture of human health. 'Waist circumference, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, resting heart rate—they are much better measures of how healthy someone is than glucose,' Guess said. And watching a real-time readout of your blood glucose can become an obsession of sorts—not an entirely harmless one. 'Something being a waste of time is a net harm,' Guess told me. 'There is something unethical to me about filling people's heads with worries that never come to pass.'
Many of the researchers I spoke with said that if you are concerned you might have diabetes or prediabetes, you could just get an A1c blood test at your annual physical. Like a CGM, it, too, measures blood sugar, but much more cheaply and without requiring you to wear a device all the time. And if it shows that you're at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, you could do what doctors have suggested doing for decades now: Eat a diet rich in vegetables and lean proteins, and get some exercise most days. ('Duh,' Nathan said.)
One way for Kennedy and others in the Trump administration to find out if CGMs do all they say they do would be to fund studies on whether CGMs are helpful, and for whom. Quite the opposite is happening. Hall recently left Trump's NIH because he believed he was being censored when speaking about the results of studies that conflicted with Kennedy's views, and Nathan's diabetes-prevention study was recently frozen by the Trump administration. So far, the administration has ended or delayed nearly 2,500 NIH grants, including some related to researching blood glucose. If the Kennedy-led HHS department truly would like to make America healthy again, it could stop defunding the people studying Americans' health.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

Harvard researcher's work gives ‘hope' for Parkinson's. But the feds cut his funding

When Bence Ölveczky came to the U.S. from Hungary at the age of 28, it was the first place he didn't feel like a foreigner. 'This is a unique country because it's a country of immigrants. And that's why I felt at home; because nobody cared,' he told MassLive, during a recent interview in his office. The U.S. drew him because of its 'unparalleled scientific infrastructure' and collaboration between the government and its universities. However, it feels like the climate is changing. 'It's made America great,' Ölveczky, who holds a Ph.D. , said. 'And now we are sort of willingly giving up on that. That's the tragic part of this.' As a professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, he is feeling the ways the Trump administration is attacking not only the institution where he works but also his research. " The research that we are doing — it is not Harvard research," he said. ' We are doing government research.' The Trump administration has frozen or cut nearly $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard, citing antisemitism at the university. The administration has claimed the university failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza. Read more: Federal judge delays decision over Trump admin barring Harvard foreign students At the same time, the federal government has revoked most of the institutions' research grants. This has a significant impact on Ölveczky's lab, which uses rats to better understand how the brain learns new motor skills and generates more complex behaviors. It also has the potential to affect an entire generation of researchers who may decide not to come to the U.S. or to Harvard because of the federal government's actions, he said. Two of his federal grants were terminated by the National Institutes of Health in May. His lab focuses on addressing the function of the basal ganglia, which goes awry in people with Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease, according to a court filing in an ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration. With more time, his work could help inform rehabilitation therapeutics for people with those diseases or even those who have had strokes, he said. 'It's an inspiration to me that we could help in the treatment of these,' he said. Taking an elevator to the basement in a Harvard building, passing through white door after white door, there are several rooms filled with rats. Some are kept in clear cages behind closed cabinets. Opening one of the cabinets, two black and white rats in separate cages appear. One with wires attached to its head immediately walks to the front of its clear cage to put its nose and minuscule teeth through a hole at the front. Other rats are stacked high, while not undergoing testing or recuperating from surgery, sometimes even doubled up in a cage for socialization, snuggled up next to each other. Each rat is taught a task. One task is pressing down on a joystick at a certain angle for a reward. 'Some of these animals have been in their training for a year or more,' Ölveczky said. The rats do these tasks so the researchers can better understand how complex behaviors are generated by the brain. However, the lab is also researching how autism affects brain function and behavior. They had planned to apply for federal funding for this work, which has been privately funded that is ending this year. Read more: As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up In collaboration with the University of Washington, Stanford University and the Salk Institute, the lab has also created a virtual rodent controlled through an artificial neural network, according to Ölveczky's court affidavit. It is able to be trained to mimic the behavior of real animals and has the potential to transform how researchers study the brain by comparing hypothesis testing through the virtual rodent and juxtaposing it to experiments in real animals, he said. By studying rats at the Ölveczky Lab, it is also ultimately about giving families who are struggling with Parkinson's or stroke hope for recovery, he said. 'To some degree, knowing that there are people out there working on the mechanisms that underlie the disease, particularly for neurodevelopmental disorders like autism or childhood disorders ... I think give folks hope,' he said There is so much more that could be learned in the lab, Ölveczky said. Nobody knew that studying the saliva of a lizard would lead to the 'most revolutionary obesity drug,' he said, referring to Ozempic. 'The bargain this country made was to invest in basic research and understand that the rewards are going to accumulate over time. And this is also why normal tax-paying Americans won't necessarily feel the immediate effects of any of these funding cuts,' he said. 'What you would have to do is compare the alternative reality — the reality when there was no research — versus the reality where there is research, and those two are very different. But that would become apparent in some years from now," he said. Ölveczky has been looking for non-federal funding. However, that is even more difficult as other institutions are experiencing a scaling back of funding as well. The lab may not be able to finish its experiments, analyze its data or write publications without federal funding, according to Ölveczky's affidavit. Slashing research funding isn't about saving money for the U.S., Ölveczky said. In fact, it has the opposite effect, he said. 'This is the most wasteful thing that's happened to biomedical research. You build up a research enterprise, and it takes an incredible amount of money to gain the trust of the world, frankly. Everybody's coming here,' he said. 'The fact that this is done in the name of sort of eliminating waste is just absurd,' he said. Using 'rainy day' funds given to him from his promotion a decade ago, he has been able to keep staff on — but these funds will dry up within the year, he said. He runs a lab with 10 to 12 people. His grants largely funded the salaries of postdoctoral students and technicians, reagents, animal care costs, instruments and publication costs. Being forced to let them go would be devastating, as they have institutional knowledge about the lab and how it works. Even if he were to later find funding, those people would be difficult to replace, and ultimately it would take time and more money to get them up to speed, he said in an affidavit. Read more: 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty In addition to potential layoffs, around 100 rats would also have to be killed because the lab won't have the funding to keep going. He said he refuses 'to believe that people in Congress don't see' the impact the funding cuts will have on research. 'I hope we can reverse course, but the worry I have is when will some of these things become irreversible?' he said. Even if the cuts at Harvard don't happen, the proposed cuts at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation through President Donald Trump's budget are going to be 'devastating,' Ölveczky said. 'There are two things going on — Harvard being targeted for political reasons and the whole scientific enterprise across the country being decimated. And that's going to have incredibly negative effects on the prosperity and the ability to push innovation and grow,' he said. It isn't like the United States is alone in its scientific progress; other countries like the U.K., Portugal, Sweden and Denmark are able to provide similarly enriching research environments, he said. It is challenging to encourage students and researchers to come to Harvard right now. 'Fundamentally, my biggest concern with this whole situation is that we're losing a generation of scientists,' Ölveczky said. There are postdoctoral students in his lab who are 'sacrificing a lot' to be in his lab, when they could work in the private research space and make more money. 'They're really devoted to pushing the frontiers of science,' he said. 'And those guys are being discouraged.' Read more: As Trump cuts funding, these Harvard scholars consider leaving US — and academia That is especially true for international students at Harvard, as the Trump administration has attempted to block Harvard international students from entering the country or enrolling at the institution. 'I have an incoming graduate student from Taiwan, who's phenomenal by all accounts, and I can't encourage him about this situation because the degree of uncertainty and anxiety associated with this whole situation is not something that I would necessarily want for myself if I had other options,' Ölveczky said. He is settled in the U.S. now as an American citizen. However, only a few short years ago, that wasn't the case. If he were 28 years old again and making the move again out of Hungary for his doctoral degree, he said there would be 'no chance' of him coming to the U.S. These US colleges are among the top 100 best global universities, US News says 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty MIT joins group of universities suing the DOD over funding cuts As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up 20 NIH grants restored to UMass system after judge rules against Trump admin Read the original article on MassLive.

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

‘Devastating': 10 Harvard researchers detail ‘essential' work set to be cut by Trump

From a fruit fly database, to developing 'organ chip' technology, to the study of deer mice — all of it could have serious implications for understanding, finding cures for or helping alleviate human diseases, Harvard University researchers say. And yet, those explorations are among thousands of federal research grants and billions of dollars the Trump administration has cut in recent months. In court filings, Harvard — global research mecca — claims it is being targeted by a 'government vendetta,' as President Donald Trump strips much of its federal money and contracts in the name of addressing antisemitism. But what research is actually being done at Harvard? And does it matter if it gets cut? MassLive is profiling 10 researchers, using interviews and court affidavits, whose work will be entirely stopped or severely affected by federal government cuts. A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore 367 National Institutes of Health grants as part of two lawsuits, but the order doesn't apply to a broad swath of grants, including the huge numbers at Harvard. There have been 2,282 NIH grants terminated nationally, amounting to nearly $3.8 billion of lost funding as of June 4, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. The funding cuts at Harvard have led to layoffs at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, as every one of its direct federal grants has been terminated. The school has even taken to social media to ask for donations. Read more: As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up Harvard announced it has committed $250 million of 'central funding' to support research affected by suspended and canceled federal grants. However, even with the boost of funding from the university, research is threatened and could be significantly affected without federal money, according to Harvard researchers. Overwhelmingly, researchers told MassLive that while Harvard may be the facilitator for the work they're doing, it's not 'Harvard research' — rather, it's research for the world. They also argued that the cuts are wasteful and costly because they stop research prematurely, making all funding that came before it nearly useless. Position: Genome database coordinator, a staff scientist position in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Harvard University Victoria Jenkins extracts, interprets and archives data to keep FlyBase, the world's central repository for fruit fly research, running. The website is a free treasure trove of 32 years' worth of data for scientists across the world to access. Fruit flies are genetically similar to humans — nearly 70% — making them cheap and accessible test subjects to work with. The site contains information about every fruit fly gene and genome. 'We're the Wikipedia of fruit fly research,' Jenkins said in an interview. 'There really isn't a second version of what we do. We are the one resource for this information.' In May, FlyBase's grant funding from the National Institutes of Health was terminated. Now, researchers are searching for other forms of funding to, at the very least, preserve the website as is. Jenkins said Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, addiction, traumatic brain injuries and birth defects have all been modeled in flies as researchers work to make scientific breakthroughs. Six Nobel Prize projects have been awarded to fruit fly-related research. And the results are all found on FlyBase, which is a multi-university partnership between Harvard, Indiana University, University of New Mexico and the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'Every fly researcher around the world relies on us for historical data and everything new that gets produced,' Jenkins said. Position: Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University When Bence Ölveczky came to the U.S. at the age of 28 from Hungary, it was the first place where he didn't feel like a foreigner. 'This is a unique country because it's a country of immigrants. And that's why I felt at home because nobody cared,' he told MassLive. Now it feels like the climate is changing. He isn't able to encourage students to come to the university. At the same time, he is piecing together funding for his research after the funding terminations. He is working to understand how rats learn, which will inform rehabilitation, helping people who have had strokes or have Parkinson's. 'It's an inspiration to me that we could help in the treatment of these,' he said. Using 'rainy day' funds he received a decade ago from when he was promoted, he hasn't had to lay off staff yet — but these funds will dry up within the year, he said. In addition to potential layoffs, around 100 rats would also have to be euthanized because the lab won't have the funding to keep going. Position: Professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He is also the chair of the Department of Biostatistics. For over three decades, John Quakenbush has been working in biomedical research, investigating the mechanisms that cause healthy people — and ultimately their cells — to become diseased. Despite his decades of experience, he said he is looking at leaving the United States. 'I stand behind Harvard in its decision to fight for its First Amendment rights,' Quakenbush said in an interview. 'But I'm looking, at this point in my career, at potentially two years with almost no external research funding — maybe longer. And, as you get to that point, and you're not doing research anymore, picking back up and starting up again becomes more difficult. Even securing federal research grants becomes difficult.' Part of Quakenbush's research is attempting to uncover a 'fundamentally important but understudied problem in health.' He is both unpacking how sex and age interact to influence disease risk and how diseases differ between biological males and females. Without the funding, he doesn't know what'll happen next, but said sex is important to understand how nearly every disease has different ways it manifests or responds to therapy. " The political agenda that we don't want to acknowledge different genders or we don't even want to go beyond individual sexes is sort of ridiculous because disease strikes us all right? Independent of who we voted for, who we love, what church we go to or don't go to," Quakenbush said. Position: Associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health When describing the affects of federal research cuts in a recent court filing, Shoba Ramanadhan used the word 'devastating' multiple times. Four of her federal grants have been terminated or ended early. They included research related to the impact of climate change-caused heat stress and cancer-focused outreach to immigrants, refugees and minority communities. 'I work closely with communities that have been subject to discrimination in the United States, such as racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ groups,' Ramanadhan wrote in her court affidavit. 'Given historical and current abuses of power, these communities are understandably skeptical of scientists and academic researchers. It can take us anywhere from 5 to 15 years to build the requisite trust and relationships with a community and partner on research.' Ramanadhan warned that if her projects can't be completed, 'people in the communities we serve will not be supported to engage in cancer prevention activities, such as breast cancer screening or vaccination against HPV.' She also expressed concerns that an entire cohort of faculty working toward tenure, herself included, could lose the opportunity to achieve it because of federal research cuts. Kelsey Tyssowski Position: Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Departments of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology and Molecular & Cellular Biology at Harvard University. Without funding for Kelsey Tyssowski's work, she may have to leave academic science entirely. Her pathway to getting a tenure-track job has been halted by federal funding cuts. Her research only has funding until the end of the month — then it is up to tenure faculty to determine if she will have any left. A canceled grant from the National Institutes of Health was supposed to cover her salary through March 2026 and the first three years of research in her own lab. 'I have to get a job this year. And this year it's going to be very hard to get a tenure track faculty job because there's hiring freezes everywhere,' Tyssowski said. 'If I can't stay in this job here, I almost certainly have to leave academia.' Tyssowski's research involves skilled movement, complex learned movements that can be reproduced accurately and efficiently and take entire body coordination to do, like climbing. She is pioneering a new way to study skilled movement through deer mice — whose skilled movement might have evolved in a way that humans and primates have. This could provide significant understanding on how human brains engage in skilled movement, and ultimately, in treating diseases such as ALS, where skilled movement is the first thing to go. If she leaves academia, the work that she has been doing is at risk of completely vanishing. 'No one will do this research. I won't do this research. It will just go away,' she said. Position: Social epidemiologist and director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Rita Hamad has spent nearly 20 years studying the effects of social policies on health, poverty and education. Specifically, how policies can have the power to lift up marginalized communities and improve their health, or make it worse. It is an 'unbelievably devastating time for science in general, but particularly for us that study health equity,' she said in an interview. Hamad has seen three of her NIH grants canceled. One was used to study how neighborhood socioeconomic factors affect risk for Alzheimer's and dementia. 'We need to know what about communities we can intervene in to improve these risk factors,' she said. 'If you don't have that information, you're not preventing any cases of dementia.' A second grant was used to examine the effects of school segregation on the cardiovascular health of youth and young adults. Research so far has shown that children who experience school segregation have a higher risk of worse health in childhood and years later, she said. 'All of that research is grinding to a halt, doing a disservice to people of all backgrounds,' Hamad said. 'Clinging to whatever I can,' Hamad said she's trying to remain hopeful that her grant funding will be restored and the damage 'reversible.' 'We're not just here to get a paycheck,' she said. 'We're here to make the world a better and healthier place.' Position: Founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University With Donald Ingber's ongoing work, the U.S. had a better chance at exploring Mars. But the federal government has instructed him to cease his projects. Ingber and his team have been working to develop human 'organ chip' technology — 'tiny, complex, three-dimensional models with hollow channels lined by different types of cells and tissues that recapitulate the structure and function of human organs,' he wrote in a court affidavit. One of Ingber's projects was using the organ chip to study the effects of microgravity and radiation on astronauts during spaceflight. Ingber was developing specialized bone marrow chips incorporating cells from individual astronauts. The specialized chips were scheduled to fly aboard the Artemis II mission to the moon, scheduled for early 2026, alongside the astronauts who donated the cells, Ignber said. 'This work is critical to our ultimate ability to explore Mars, because protecting astronauts from radiation toxicity remains a major barrier to the long-distance space travel necessary to explore the solar system,' he continued. The second project using the organ chip technology was studying how the human lung, intestine, bone marrow and lymph node respond to radiation, with the goal of identifying drugs 'that can mitigate the effects of that radiation.' Ingber said the work was important to improve public safety, 'as the country ramps up nuclear power production to support the energy-intensive artificial intelligence industry.' 'These countermeasures also would be available in the case of a nuclear attack and to alleviate toxic side effects in cancer patients who receive radiation therapy,' he said. Position: Professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Kept frozen by liquid nitrogen inside laboratories at Harvard University are more than 1.5 million biospecimens that have mere 'weeks' left until they spoil. Soon, there won't be enough money left to keep the freezers running. The nearly 50 years of collected human feces, urine, blood, tumors and even toenail clippings could have consequential implications for the future health of Americans, and yet, they're at risk of being lost if funding slashed by the Trump administration isn't restored. Read more: Trump cuts threaten 'irreplaceable' Harvard stockpile of human feces, urine The mother lode collection housed at Harvard has supported generations-long chronic disease risk studies that have fundamentally shaped significant scientific and medical advancements. The studies have led to major breakthroughs, including links between cigarettes and cardiovascular disease and alcohol consumption and breast cancer. The research also uncovered the dangers of trans fats, which the U.S. has now largely restricted. The biological samples collected during the studies are 'irreplaceable,' according to Walter Willett, one of the most sought-after nutritionists internationally. And some of the study participants could even die before the next check-in period, he said. 'No other institution in the world has this data,' Willett wrote in a May 30 court affidavit detailing the effects of federal funding cuts on his research. Position: Senior lecturer in the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Personally, Paige Williams, a Harvard faculty member of 34 years, stands to lose 90% of her salary due to revocations of NIH grants. Professionally, she fears the downstream effects on clinical research in the future, particularly when it comes to community trust. She cited some of her study participants — women living with HIV — who have already expressed feeling 'betrayed' when study activities abruptly stopped in May. 'As HIV researchers, we rely on the willingness of our study participants to share openly some of the most vulnerable and challenging aspects of their lives,' Williams wrote in a court filing. 'Our work thus depends on a foundation of trust between us and the participants we work with…' Williams primarily studies health outcomes in pregnant women and their children, and much of her work is HIV-centered. One of her terminated grants was a 20-year study evaluating the effects of anti-retroviral treatment for mothers with HIV and their children — currently in its final year. Because of the grant stoppage, her research team was essentially unable to procedurally finish two decades of work. In addition, they're slated to lose data they've collected, Williams wrote. 'Losing the data arising from such studies would be devastating for the entire scientific community and for the many Americans whose lives would be forever improved by scientific breakthroughs,' she said. Position: Professor of Health Economics and Policy in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health & interim department chair. Meredith Rosenthal's research focuses on a tool to lower medication alternatives to help reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients and increase medication adherence. She is aiming to understand how things may change based on people's socioeconomic statuses and geographic locations. Around 60% of Rosenthal's salary comes from research grants. One of her grants provides almost $2.5 million over three and a half years, and she has one year left. Her grant was canceled on May 15, according to court documents. 'I firmly believe that equity is an essential value in health policy. I have dedicated my career to improving health and affordability for everyone, both through my research and by overseeing the school's Office of Diversity and Inclusion (from 2013-2018) to improve diversity, equity and inclusion of those who work in the industry and on our campus,' she said. 'I worry that the Trump administration will label my focus on equitable access to healthcare as an 'ideologically capture' DEI program and demand that the school 'shutter' the program, particularly because of my former diversity-related administrative role, but because of the vagueness of the Demand Letters, I cannot be sure,' she said. Federal judge halts Trump's plans to keep Harvard from enrolling foreign students Harvard researcher's work gives 'hope' for Parkinson's. But the feds cut his funding These US colleges are among the top 100 best global universities, US News says 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty MIT joins group of universities suing the DOD over funding cuts Read the original article on MassLive.

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

RFK Jr. dismissing experts creates deadly vaccine hesitancy

Since 1964, pediatricians have looked to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding childhood vaccines. We represent more than 80 years of experience as pediatricians in Nashville and have benefitted from ACIP throughout our careers. On June 9, our clinic days were disrupted by the news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had dismissed all 17 ACIP members. These members are academic clinicians, epidemiologists, immunologists and infectious disease experts. Their service was driven not by money or fame, but by a commitment to the collective health of Americans. ACIP meetings were transparent, being broadcast live and then archived on YouTube, while agendas were posted well in advance of each meeting. The public could request to ask questions at meetings as well as review slide decks that were presented. Kennedy's implication that he was reconstructing the committee to prevent conflicts of interest is far from the truth. In order to preserve objectivity and limit corporate influence on their recommendations, ACIP members already disclose any potential conflict of interest in advance. If a member has a potential conflict, they are not permitted to participate in vaccine discussions, or to vote on that vaccine or any vaccine that a company might bring before ACIP – even if that member didn't work on that specific vaccine. Opinion: As a doctor, I know it will take more than dietary changes to Make America Healthy Again Kennedy also implied that ACIP only ever adds vaccines to the schedule, acting as a rubber stamp for industry. But ACIP recommendations came after analyzing evidence and weighing the benefits and risks. The 1972 decision to stop vaccinating for smallpox was a significant and very well-informed move, reflecting an in-depth understanding of both the science and the broader public health context. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The 2016 recommendation to reduce the number of doses for the HPV vaccine also shows that ACIP actively engaged in fine-tuning vaccination schedules based on the latest research, rather than to increase industry profits. It's crucial for these bodies to make decisions based on science, not external pressures or adherence to a certain ideology. As pediatricians, we have seen patients die from vaccine-preventable diseases. Our pediatric forefathers cared for children in iron lungs due to paralytic polio. Opinion: Please stop letting RFK Jr. make vaccine policies. His new COVID plan is deadly. Kennedy has planted the seeds of the anti-vaccination movement for more than two decades, despite evidence that contradicts his falsehoods. Due to the vaccine hesitancy and refusal he promotes, we are once again seeing more children succumb to vaccine-preventable diseases in America. So far in 2025, we have had pediatric deaths from measles and whooping cough, not to mention more than 200 deaths from influenza. Those numbers will only escalate in the future. Kennedy's decision to eliminate trustworthy members of the ACIP fundamentally changes the nature of this committee. Institutional memory and the trust of physicians were obliterated in one fell swoop. We hold little hope that HHS can put a new trusted committee together in time for the next scheduled ACIP meeting Jun 25-26, given Kennedy's preference for conspiracy theorists and other unqualified people. Through our careers as community pediatricians, we have been blessed by the opportunity to partner with wonderful families who desire what is best for their children. We fervently hope this relationship will be the most important factor when families make decisions regarding vaccinating their children. We call on our elected officials to reinstate the ACIP members Kennedy dismissed and to empower them to continue their work to limit damage from infectious diseases. Doing so will actually help make Americans healthier. James Keffer, MD; Chetan R Mukundan, MD; Jill Obremsky, MD; Elizabeth Triggs, MD; and David Wyckoff, MD, are local pediatricians practicing in different settings around Nashville. This column originally appeared in The Tennessean. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Kennedy's vaccine rhetoric puts children's health at risk | Opinion