As of Friday, April 25, the US has confirmed over 900 measles cases since the start of the year. The cases are across 29 states, but most are in or near Texas, where a massive outbreak continues to mushroom in close-knit, undervaccinated communities.
On April 24, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had tallied 884 cases across the country. Today, the Texas health department updated its outbreak total, adding 22 cases to its last count from Tuesday. That brings the national total to at least 906 confirmed cases. Most of the cases are in unvaccinated children and teens.
Overall, Texas has identified 664 cases since late January. Of those, 64 patients have been hospitalized, and two unvaccinated school-aged children with no underlying medical conditions have died of the disease. An unvaccinated adult in New Mexico also died from the infection, bringing this year's measles death toll to three.
© Getty | Povorozniuk Liudmyla
Whether you’ve been in the workforce for a few years or a few decades, odds are you’ve tolerated a toxic boss; 71% of U.S. workers have had at least one such supervisor in their career, a 2023 Harris Poll showed. As with other ruinous relationships, toxic bosses are difficult to escape and any number of reasons, such as being unable to afford quitting your job, may keep you putting up with them. New research, however, offers an underlying reason for some employees’ willingness to work under an abusive leader.
Do you view your toxic boss as successful? This perspective makes you more likely to label their abuse as “tough love,” according to a study published last year in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Researchers at the Ohio State University Fisher College of Business also found that employees tended to think a high-performing boss could boost their own career—reproachful behavior notwithstanding.
“If someone is a good performer, we almost have this halo effect, or you assume that they have all these other positive traits particularly associated with leadership, which goes directly in the face of an abusive leader,” lead study author Robert Lount, PhD, an Ohio State professor of management and human resources, tells Fortune. “We were trying to reconcile these issues and how that might help understand when abusive behavior might not necessarily be encoded as abusive.”
In one part of the study, Lount and his colleagues surveyed nearly 600 full-time U.S. workers spanning an array of industries and positions, who had worked for their current supervisor for an average of five years. They used a pair of established scales—a 15-point measure of abusive supervision and a four-point measure of leader performance—that asked participants to evaluate statements such as “My boss ridicules me” and “My boss is superior to other bosses that I have worked with before.” Two weeks later, respondents further evaluated supervisors’ abusive or tough-love behaviors, reacting to language such as “I think my boss abuses team members” and “I would describe my boss as stern but caring.” Another two weeks after that, participants answered questions about their career expectations and hostility toward superiors.
While the workers polled projected their supervisors’ perceived success onto their own career ambitions, there’s no evidence those things are actually linked, Lount stresses.
“Just because sometimes people look at [abusive bosses] as tough-love bosses doesn’t suggest that being an abuser is going to be good or beneficial,” Lount says. “There are all sorts of other leader behaviors that are far more developmental and far more valuable than working under an abusive boss, which has been found time and time again to have really negative psychological consequences for employees.”
Such impudent workplace behavior spells trouble for employers, according to Donald Sull, DBA, a professor of the practice at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He also directs the MIT Sloan Management Review’s Culture 500, a database created in partnership with Glassdoor that ranks corporations on cultural values including integrity and respect.
“People often think that high performance is an excuse for abusive behavior—they confuse disrespectful and bullying behavior for maintaining high standards,” Sull tells Fortune via email. “But it’s possible to set the bar for performance high without berating or bullying people. And to the extent these toxic managerial behaviors drive high performers out of the organization, the abusive behavior undermines performance.”
Sull adds, “The sharpest test of whether a corporate culture truly respects employees is how senior leaders deal with managers who hit their numbers but abuse their teams.”
A leader’s top priority should be understanding and developing the people they manage—that’s what Bill Becker, PhD, a professor of management at the Virginia Tech Pamplin College of Business, teaches his MBA students. Yet not enough people in charge are equipped with the emotional and psychological skills to be in high-pressure positions and shepherd subordinates, he tells Fortune.
“Most bosses don’t come to work and say, ‘How can I be the biggest jerk today?’” Becker says, noting that when overwhelm is the probable cause of your supervisor’s unpleasant behavior, there’s opportunity for both of you to grow. “If you can be the bigger person and manage it and actually make things better, they’ll recognize that oftentimes [and] you’ll stand out.”
Anyone can succeed under a great boss, Becker says, but if you can find a way to flourish under a challenging one, you’ll be ahead of the curve. Even so, a fine line separates a thorny supervisor from a psychologically dangerous one.
“If you have a difficult boss, it’s more about them and it’s not about you,” Becker says. “Don’t see their behavior as a reflection of you and your worth and your value.”
It’s also well within the realm of possibility that your abusive boss could be a psychopath. No, that doesn’t mean they’re a serial killer; psychopathy is a common spectrum disorder that, in its most severe form, manifests in 1 in 100 people, according to the nonprofit PsychopathyIs. Adult psychopathic behaviors include frequent bragging, skilful lying, superficial charm, and trouble maintaining relationships.
In a 2021 Fortune commentary, Simon Croom, PhD, a professor of supply chain management at the University of San Diego Knauss School of Business, discussed the prevalence of corporate psychopathy: “My colleagues and I found in our research that 12% of corporate senior leadership displays a range of psychopathic traits, which means psychopathy is up to 12 times more common among senior management than among the general population.”
Unrecognized psychopathy in senior management, Croom wrote, could have disastrous financial and ethical consequences for businesses, employees, and customers—not to mention society at large.
“It’s just their modus operandi to manipulate people and abuse people, and do whatever it takes to gain power over them or get them to do what they think needs to be done,” Becker tells Fortune. If that sounds like your boss, “there’s just no changing a psychopath, there’s no managing a psychopath. All you can do is insulate yourself as best as possible, and that might be the time when you really want to look to at least move out from underneath that leadership.”
Abuse takes many forms and can morph across employment environments. It’s also subjective.
“People bandy about terms like ‘toxic’ and ‘abusive’ to cover a lot of behavior that they don’t like,” Sull says. “What one person might view as abusive, another might see as candid.”
Sull’s own research, based on more than a million Glassdoor reviews, suggests egregious behavior such as outright harassment is rare. Nevertheless, a supervisor’s abuse doesn’t have to be overt to evoke negative reactions in employees, he says.
“Managers who are disrespectful, noninclusive, or undermine others qualify as toxic even if they don’t exhibit the extremes of abusive behavior,” Sull says.
The antibullying advocacy group End Workplace Abuse breaks up such mistreatment into verbal abuse, sabotage, and mobbing. The following are just a few of the organization’s examples of each:
If you have the means to do so, leaving your job is the best way to free yourself from an abusive supervisor, according to Ben Tepper, PhD, coauthor of the study and professor of management and human resources at Ohio State. If you can’t, notify HR as soon as possible so they can begin to ameliorate the situation on their end while you get to work on coping strategies, he tells Fortune. This includes documenting negative interactions with your boss. In addition, behave like a formidable opponent, so to speak.
“People who engage in abusive boss behavior, they pick their targets very strategically. They don’t do it to everybody,” Tepper says. “They go after people who come across as weak and vulnerable, and so it’s in the interest of the individual who has been targeted to present themselves as a bad target. And you do that by being good at your job, by being confident, by activating your social network—surrounding yourself with other individuals who are competent and capable.”
Tepper also recommends reading a pair of books by Robert Sutton, PhD, a professor emeritus of management science and engineering at Stanford University: The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t and its successor, The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt.
Becker advises journaling about abusive incidents with your boss and returning to your entries with a fresh perspective. Once the heat of the moment has passed, you’ll be able to more objectively assess whether you and your supervisor have butted heads here and there or recognize a clear pattern of toxic behavior.
When in doubt, “I’m a big fan of therapy,” Becker says.
A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on July 12, 2024.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images
Merck is following Johnson & Johnson’s lead and reporting an expected financial hit from tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.
In an April 24 earnings call, executives said they expect $200 million in tariff-related costs in 2025. Merck lowered its full-year profit expectations from $8.88–$9.03 per share to $8.82–$8.97 per share.
The news comes a week after J&J executives said they expect $400 million in tariff-induced expenses in 2025.
Robert Davis, Merck’s chairman and CEO, said during the earnings call that the impact will primarily come from existing tariffs implemented “between the US and China, and to a lesser degree, Canada and Mexico.”
Although the threat of pharmaceutical tariffs looms following the Department of Commerce’s announcement on April 14 that the Trump administration is investigating the national security implications of pharmaceutical imports, Davis didn’t seem particularly worried.
“With respect to potential additional tariffs by the US specifically on pharmaceuticals, our global supply chain and current inventory levels put us in a good position to navigate potential near-term impacts,” he said.
When asked during the earnings call how Merck is preparing for potential pharmaceutical tariffs, Davis said the company has identified ways to “reposition” its manufacturing, including changing the priorities of existing plants, bringing on external manufacturing, and building internal manufacturing.
Merck has invested $12 billion in US-based manufacturing since 2018 and plans to invest an additional $9 billion through 2028, Davis said, adding that the company’s investments “are leading to more of our products for US patients being manufactured in the US as well as more opportunities for export.”
Zoom out. Merck isn’t the only drugmaker highlighting US investments.
J&J executives in March said the company plans to invest $55 billion in US manufacturing over the next four years. And in February, Eli Lilly executives said the company will invest at least $27 billion to open four new US-based plants over the next five years.
All three drugmakers have said their decisions to expand US manufacturing were due to the 2018 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which lowered the domestic tax rate for pharmaceutical companies.
Tax policy, rather than tariffs, is a “very effective tool to be able to build manufacturing capacity here in the US, both for medtech and pharmaceuticals,” J&J CEO Joaquin Duato said during the company’s earnings call.
A quick rundown. Merck’s worldwide sales for Q1 2025 were $15.5 billion, down 2% from Q1 2024.
Despite lowering 2025 profit expectations, the company said it still expects worldwide sales to fall between $64.1 billion to $65.6 billion this year.
Merck is also preparing for its blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda, which single-handedly accounts for more than 45% of the drugmaker’s global drug sales, to face patent expiration in 2028. Keytruda sales rose 4% during the quarter to $7.2 billion, up from $6.9 billion in the same quarter last year, though senior research analyst Daina Graybosch wrote in a note following Merck’s earnings call that this was just slightly below Leerink Partners’s expectations.
This report was originally published by Healthcare Brew.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images—Bloomberg
When experts recommend the best diets for healthy aging, heart health, or to help prevent cancer and chronic disease, they often emphasize fruits and vegetables, legumes, and lean proteins like chicken or fish. And while dietary recommendations are increasingly shifting more plant-based, chicken is still considered one of the healthier meat options—and Americans love it: On average, Americans consume over 100 pounds of chicken per year. But eating that much chicken may not be as healthy as once thought, according to a recent study published in the journal Nutrients.
In the study, researchers investigated the connection between poultry consumption, gastrointestinal cancers, and early death. Poultry refers to all forms of birds, including chicken, turkey, duck, and game birds like quail and pheasants. Examining data from 4,869 middle-aged Italian participants over 19 years, who answered surveys about their food and beverage consumption, researchers found that white meat consumption (rabbit and poultry) was highest among those who died of gastrointestinal cancers—colon, liver, pancreatic, stomach, esophageal, and rectal cancer, for example—with poultry intake accounting for 33% of their white meat intake.
People who consumed over 300 grams of poultry per week—about 3.5 three-ounce servings—had a 27% higher mortality rate from all causes. For men in particular, that rate jumped to 61%. For gastrointestinal cancer specifically, they found that consuming 100 to 200 grams of poultry per week was associated with a 65% increased risk of death from gastrointestinal cancer compared to other cancers, while participants who consumed over 300 grams of poultry every week were 127% more likely to die from gastrointestinal cancer, with this risk even greater at 161% for men.
According to the study, the less poultry consumed the better. While the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that adults should eat 26 ounces per week of lean meat and poultry (in a 2,000-calorie diet), following the study’s guidance of less than 300 grams per week would mean consuming no more than 10.5 ounces of chicken per week.
“Our results show that consumption of more than 100 grams per week of poultry was associated with an increased risk of death both from all causes and from gastrointestinal cancer,” the study authors wrote. As poultry consumption increased, so did mortality risk—and the results were even more pronounced for those who consumed higher portions of red meat.
Study participants, who at age 83, consumed less than 100 grams of poultry per week had half the mortality risk from gastrointestinal cancer than those who consumed more than that.
Researchers also suggested that the way chicken is cooked may affect how it impacts your health. White meat cooked at higher temperatures—like grilling or barbecuing—or for long periods in a stew could form high levels of agents that cause genetic mutation, which could influence the development of gastrointestinal cancers.
Researchers found that overall meat consumption plays a substantial role in mortality risk—even when following one of the most recommended diets for overall health.
Participants who died of non-gastrointestinal cancers had diets where red meat accounted for over 65% of their total meat intake, as compared to 56% and 58% among those who died of gastrointestinal cancers and other causes, respectively. Over half of cancer-related deaths occurred in people who consumed over 400 grams of meat every week—even when on the Mediterranean diet.
“We believe it is beneficial to moderate poultry consumption, alternating it with other equally valuable protein sources, such as fish,” the authors wrote. “We also believe it is essential to focus more on cooking methods, avoiding high temperatures and prolonged cooking times.”
For more on diet and health:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
Once upon a time, “my doctor” was the only answer a person would give if asked who they trusted when making personal health decisions. And while that still remains the most popular answer, it’s far from the only one—especially when it comes to those ages 18-34, or Gen Z and younger millennials, who put almost as much trust in friends, family, and even social media.
People in that age group are also most likely to drop a medical provider or lose trust in one over political differences, according to the eye-opening findings of a new special report from global communications firm Edelman, released on Thursday.
It represents a “transformation” in the way healthcare is viewed, writes Edelman U.S. health chair and global health co-chair Courtney Gray Haupt in an analysis of the report. “Traditional health authorities are not disappearing, they’re being supplemented,” she says. “Influencers, peers, patients and social creators are now key players in the health narrative.”
Among the key findings about generational beliefs in the Edelman’s Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health include:
“We are navigating a generational transition in how health is understood, trusted and shared,” Haupt notes. “This is not a trend—it’s a structural reorientation. Organizations must recalibrate their approach to reflect a world where trust is local, expertise is diversified, and emotional authenticity is a key currency.”
Speaking directly to healthcare organizations, she advises that, to lead in this new era, they must “meet all generations, but especially our youth, where they are—on the platforms they use, in the styles they speak and through the voices they already trust. Empathy isn’t just an ethical compass—it’s a business strategy and an imperative for the healthcare community globally.”
Much of the new attitudes around this “parallel health ecosystem” for younger generations, believes Edelman CEO Richard Edelman in his own analysis of the findings, have emerged within the context of COVID.
“Nearly seven in 10 young adults report that their lives were disrupted by COVID guidelines, from missing school to working from home,” he says, citing an earlier special report on the impacts of the pandemic. “They feel left behind and discriminated against as a result of the pandemic.”
It all led, he believes, to what were the main revelations of the report—that young adults have become self-reliant when it comes to medical information, that they put equivalent amounts of trust on various sources for medical advice, and that they are avid sharers of health-related news items, with nearly 60 percent of young people sharing such stories, compared to 24 percent of those 55 and older.
“The clear message to the healthcare community,” Edelman writes, “is that COVID has changed the game for communicators from inside out to outside in. Specifically, the elites are no longer in control of information, whether public health authorities or scientific institutions. Personal experiences cataloged on social media now carry enough weight to rival the believability of data provided by Government or even healthcare providers.”
Correcting misinformation and disseminating scientific facts, he concludes, “is the true public health emergency that must be treated with urgency.”
More on Gen Z:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
As more people are becoming aware of the toxic chemicals lurking in everyday items—from skin care products to drinking water, they’re taking steps to reduce their exposure. New research highlights that even skin and hair products intended for children contain harmful chemicals that could potentially put their health and development at risk, according to a September 2024 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Researchers from George Mason University collected medical data from 630 children aged 4 to 8 from 10 different locations across the U.S., to gauge children’s level of exposure to hormone-disrupting phthalates and phthalate-replacement compounds from personal-care products.
They asked parents and guardians for demographic information and a list of cosmetic products, including lotions, soaps, shampoos, oils, and sunscreen, that were applied to the child’s skin in the previous 24 hours prior to their examination. Then they collected urine samples from the children.
They found that using such products—especially multiple products—was associated with higher levels of phthalates in children’s urine—with the highest levels of phthalates and phthalate replacements in the urine of non-Hispanic Black children.
“This is the first study to suggest that different skin care products used by young children may differentially increase exposure to endocrine-disrupting phthalates and phthalate replacements in young children,” said Michael Bloom, lead author and professor in the department of global and community health at George Mason University.
Phthalates and phthalate-replacement compounds are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, meaning they may interfere with the body’s hormones. Some—namely diethyl hexyl phthalate, or DEHP—are commonly used to make plastic in toys or packaging more flexible, while others—like diethyl phthalate (DEP)—are used as fragrances in products like lotions, shampoos, and conditioners.
Bloom noticed that the levels of each type of phthalate found in the children’s urine varied depending on the combination of products used. For instance, children who were reported to use lotions and oils had more of the fragrance-associated phthalates (DEP), while those who used a combination of shampoo, conditioner, and other products had higher levels of the phthalates used in the plastic containers (DEHP) in their urine. That means that not only are children exposed to the phthalates used as ingredients in personal care products, but also the chemicals from the plastic packaging are migrating into the products, creating another level of exposure.
“Looking at each product by itself isn’t necessarily realistic, because you don’t just use one product at once—you use multiple,” Bloom tells Fortune.
While Bloom’s study didn’t look at the health effects directly, previous studies have linked phthalates with neurodevelopmental problems like ADHD, issues with reproductive hormones and infertility—especially in males—and metabolic disease. Because of that, Bloom advises parents err on the side of caution and avoid products made with phthalates, especially as children are particularly vulnerable to potential detrimental developmental effects.
That being said, parents should know that phthalate exposure may not just be from personal care products—it could also come from other plastic containers, like those used for food and beverages.
“We really think this demands a precautionary approach. Let’s not wait for 20 years—let’s stop now and figure out if this is really a hazardous health effect and how to mitigate it,” he says. “If the developmental damage is done, it might not be something that can be repaired retroactively.”
Bloom says they aren’t sure of which products were associated with higher levels of phthalates because the study wasn’t analyzing brands—but that is their next step. For now, Bloom says there are general guidelines parents can use to hopefully limit their children’s exposure to phthalates and phthalate-replacements:
Bloom points out that the demographic disparities in phthalate exposure places certain groups at a greater disadvantage in reducing their exposure.
Because of that, Bloom recognizes that much of the change to reduce childhood exposure to phthalates needs to come from policy shifts.
“These changes need to be made on a policy level in order to take the burden off the parent. who already is juggling a lot, to determine whether or not the product they want to use they consider safe,” he says.
For more on public health:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
You’d can't walk around New York City and not see a handful of people delightfully sipping bright green elixirs. More people are getting on the matcha green tea train (I am one of them), and it may be a habit that helps with healthy aging.
Matcha green tea, made from shade-grown tea leaves, has become a growing staple in morning routines for those who crave its smooth taste and energy boost. Research suggests that matcha may also help older adults with cognitive decline have better sleep and emotional awareness.
Older adults in Japan with cognitive decline experienced better quality sleep and emotional perception when consuming two grams of matcha daily for a year compared to those who did not, according to a randomized controlled trial. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE last year, recruited adults between the ages of 60 and 85 with subjective or mild cognitive impairment who had a partner living with them to ensure they adhered to the matcha, or placebo regimen.
“The present study suggests regular consumption of matcha could improve emotional perception and sleep quality in older adults with mild cognitive decline,” the authors conclude. “Given the widespread availability and cultural acceptance of matcha green tea, incorporating it into the daily routine may offer a simple yet effective strategy for cognitive enhancement and dementia prevention.”
The global matcha tea marketplace was valued at $3.27 billion in 2021 and is celebrated for its many health benefits. Matcha contains a higher concentration of antioxidants than other green teas, which can help lower blood sugar and cholesterol. The powder can also support brain and heart health, and contains the amino acid L-theanine, which can help enhance feelings of relaxation and boost mood.
“Matcha is traditionally used in Japanese tea ceremonies and is known for its vibrant green color, delicate flavor, and unique health benefits,” Dr. Raghu Kiran Appasani, an integrative and addiction psychiatrist and founder of the MINDS Foundation, previously told Fortune. “The shade-growing process increases the chlorophyll and amino acid content of the tea leaves, which gives matcha its distinct umami taste and nutritional properties.”
The study was limited to a small sample size of older adults in Japan with mild cognitive impairment, so further research is needed to extrapolate the results.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Westend61—Getty Images
First, the good news: The overall cancer death rate has been on a steady decline—as have smoking rates, with only 11% of Americans now smoking cigarettes. As a result, cancers associated with tobacco smoking have fallen. Also, breast and colorectal cancer screening rates rebounded after decreasing or stalling during the pandemic.
But there’s bad news, too: Up-to-date screenings for cervical cancer are low, remaining below pre-pandemic levels and continuing what’s been a decline since the early 2000s. Meanwhile, rates of HPV vaccinations—highly effective against most cases of cervical cancer—have flattened.
Such was this week’s mixed cancer and cancer-prevention report from both the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) annual report on the status of cancer.
“Cancer prevention and early detection are central to the American Cancer Society’s goal to ensure everyone has an opportunity to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer,” Dr. Priti Bandi, a scientific director at the American Cancer Society and lead author of its new study, published in the the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. “These latest findings are encouraging, mainly the reduction in smoking rates and screening for certain cancers, but it’s clear urgent efforts are needed to address lagging cervical cancer prevention.”
The ACS news came right after that of the NIH, which reported on Monday in the journal Cancer that overall death rates from cancer declined steadily among both men and women from 2001 through 2022, even during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among men, it found, overall cancer incidence (rate of new cancer diagnosis) decreased from 2001 through 2013 and then stabilized through 2021. Among women, overall cancer incidence increased slightly every year from 2003 through 2021, except for 2020.
An estimated 40% of cancer cases in the U.S. can be attributed to modifiable risk factors, the ACS noted, including cigarette smoking, excess body weight, dietary factors, physical inactivity, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and cancer-causing infections, including HPV. Cancer screening tests can also prevent thousands of additional cancer cases and deaths, the study highlighted.
Highlights of the ACS report regarding cancer risks and screenings include:
“Our report underscores the need to strengthen efforts to improve access and receipt of preventive services, including cancer screening, HPV vaccination, and counseling and treatment for tobacco dependence,” said Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, a senior vice president at the American Cancer Society and senior author of the report. “We must also work to identify individuals of racially/ethnically diverse groups and socioeconomic positions who continue to be greatly affected by cancer to accelerate progress against the disease.”
Added Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, “These findings only further prove how investments in tobacco control have helped reduce the number of people falling prey to Big Tobacco’s deadly products and practices.” That control was largely thanks to federal agencies, she stressed, which is why recent government cuts to such agencies has the ACS “deeply concerned” that they will “jeopardize continued progress to reduce tobacco utilization nationwide.”
More on cancer:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
A resurgence of measles cases in the U.S., including one in Texas that recently infected more than 620 people and killed at least two children, is connected to a continuing decline in childhood vaccination rates. And if they continue to drop, warns a new study, it could pave the way for a measles comeback—and for rubella and polio, too.
But even if vaccine rates stay at current rates, measles could again become endemic (circulating in the U.S.) within two decades—and happen more quickly even with another small decline in immunization rates. Just a small increase, though, would prevent this.
So say the researchers of the Stanford Medicine-led study, published on April 24 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“We’ve seen a worrisome pattern of decreasing routine childhood vaccinations,” senior author Nathan Lo said in a news release. “There was a disruption to health care services during the pandemic, but declines preceded this period and have accelerated since then for many reasons. People look around and say, ‘We don’t see these diseases. Why should we vaccinate against them?’ There’s a general fatigue with vaccines. And there’s distrust and misinformation about vaccine effectiveness and safety.”
A thought leader in that area has been Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now Health and Human Services secretary, who founded the non-profit Children’s Health Defense in order to examine the link between routine childhood vaccinations and chronic disease in this country. Last week, he publicly vowed to get to the bottom of which “toxins” are causing autism, specifically, though he referred to one of the possible culprits as “medicines” rather than vaccines.
Researchers behind the new study—which also included scientists from Baylor College of Medicine, Rice University, and Texas A&M University—embarked upon their investigation because they were curious about when the impacts of the decline in vaccinations would be felt.
“Specifically,” said Lo, “we wanted to look at some key diseases that have been eliminated from the U.S. through vaccination, which means they’re not spreading within the country on an ongoing basis. These include measles, polio, rubella and diphtheria, which can have awful complications, like lifelong paralysis, birth defects and death.”
To do that, they used a large-scale epidemiological model to simulate all Americans, and then simulated how infections would spread under different vaccine conditions.
Eventually, said Lo, “you see sustained, ongoing transmission, meaning these diseases become endemic—they become household names once again.”
With measles—one of the most infectious diseases that exist, and more infectious than the others looked at in this study—researchers found that the U.S. is “already on the precipice of disaster,” said Lo.
If vaccination rates remain the same, he explained, “the model predicts that measles may become endemic within about 20 years. That means an estimated 851,300 cases over 25 years, leading to 170,200 hospitalizations and 2,550 deaths.” Measles is also more common globally, so travelers are most likely to bring it back, and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine is one of the most controversial, “partly due to a history of fraudulent medical research that raised safety concerns,” said Lo.
But the other diseases, the researchers found, are not likely to become endemic under current vaccination rates.
If vaccination rates were to fall even further, though, things would look more dire.
Measles cases would skyrocket to 11.1 million over the next 25 years if vaccine rates fell even by 10%, said lead author Matthew Kiang. And if those rates were cut in half, he said, “we’d expect 51.2 million cases of measles, 9.9 million cases of rubella, 4.3 million cases of polio and 200 cases of diphtheria over 25 years,” all of which would lead to 10.3 million hospitalizations, 159,200 deaths—and an estimated 51,200 children with post-measles neurological complications, 10,700 cases of birth defects due to rubella, and 5,400 people paralyzed from polio.
“Measles would become endemic in less than five years, and rubella would become endemic in less than 20,” warned Kiang. “Under these conditions, polio became endemic in about half of simulations in around 20 years.”
In such a scenario, researchers note, those most at risk would be unvaccinated individuals, including babies not yet eligible for a first MMR dose (which is given at 12 months), as well as people who are immunocompromised.
Lo encouraged vaccine-hesitant parents to discuss the issue with their pediatrician “and believe in our health-care providers.”
And, added Kiang, “It’s worth emphasizing that there really shouldn’t be any cases at this point, because these diseases are preventable. Anything above zero is tragic. When you’re talking about potentially thousands or millions, that’s unfathomable.
More on measles:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
Sperm health is still incredibly overlooked in cases of infertility, and Dr. Neel Shah is eager to change the narrative.
“We've been looking at sperm as long as we've been looking at anything under a microscope, and yet, we still don't know a lot,” Shah, obstetrician and chief medical officer at Maven, a digital clinic serving women and families, tells Fortune.
Not enough men are getting routine semen analyses to test the health of their sperm, says Shah, despite that 50% of infertility cases are linked to men’s health. Between 18% and 27% of the time, men aren't tested during an evaluation of infertility. In the data he’s analyzed, Shah says about a third of IVF cycles occur without adequate testing of the sperm.
Doctors evaluate semen by examining its volume, sperm count, shape, and activity. “It's a really important biomarker for men's health,” says Shah, adding that the health of sperm helps draw a clearer picture of a man’s overall health and well-being. Often, sperm can show the signs of metabolic health issues first and should function as a “check engine light,” Shah says.
“When people's menstrual cycles are off because there’s a monthly sign, it's often tied back to something going on,” Shah says. “It's just that men's cyclical reproductive system is not as visible.”
More men getting tested can not only shed light on their health but also help alleviate pressure on women who are trying to conceive, and potentially point to less costly paths than IVF.
The financial and emotional burden of fertility care is real and disproportionately impacts women. A recent survey, published last week, conducted by Maven, looked at the hidden costs of fertility care. In the survey of over 1,000 women in the U.S., three in four said they experienced financial strain when navigating fertility treatments, with 83% cutting back on expenses and over half dipping into their savings. Over half, 65%, felt that the burden of infertility lay on their shoulders alone, and 52% say the journey has had a negative impact on their relationship.
“Women end up becoming the surrogate for what is a male issue,” Shah says. “Fertility in general has always been pinned on the woman, and that makes no sense. When people end up undergoing IVF, it is the woman who ends up taking the medications, and it's the woman who ends up undergoing the procedures.”
While the health of a woman’s eggs is largely fixed, there is a lot men can do to improve the health of their sperm, with changes seen in fewer than 60 days, Shah says.
“Sperm regenerates every 30 to 60 days. It's extremely sensitive to metabolic health and environmental exposures,” he says. “Sperm, we've seen, can be sensitive within 60 days to a better diet, for example, or exercising more.”
Many men, though, are reluctant to get a semen analysis when it has to be done in a clinic setting. But today, more at-home tests are available. While there are necessary protocols to follow around transportation and temperature when delivering samples, it’s a way for more men to play an active role in fertility.
“There's something about being on a fertility journey and actually seeing your semen parameters. It's very motivating to men,” Shah says. “If you live a healthier lifestyle, you'll produce sperm better.”
Here are the top three lifestyle habits that can help improve sperm count, quality, and mobility.
Diet is key to healthy sperm. “Men are very motivated by their count and by the mobility, like how wiggly [their sperm] are,” Shah says. “It also turns out those things are really sensitive to diet.”
One study finds that men who follow a Mediterranean diet, which consists mainly of plant-based foods, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and lean meats, are close to three times more likely to have healthy sperm. Men who eat less processed and red meats, a pillar of the Mediterranean diet, had higher sperm counts, Shah previously explained in a blog post.
While there’s no way to quantify how much exercise will benefit your sperm health, moving in general is essential.
National guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity exercise.
“We all have opportunities to be healthier than we are, but for men who have sort of borderline parameters, losing a little bit of weight, eating a little bit better, exercising a little more, can actually make a profound difference,” Shah says.
Smoking routinely can also negatively impact the health of sperm.
“Smoking and pot are really bad for sperm, and a lot of people might smoke casually,” Shah says. “Even a little bit of a reduction can make a huge difference.”
Finding ways to optimize your health and take preventive measures toward relieving the burden infertility has created for people is something all men can begin to think more about.
“Every dollar spent on male fertility would probably save two in IVF costs,” Shah says.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Maskot—Getty Images
For several years, Fred Neary had been seeing five doctors at the Baylor Scott & White Health system, whose 52 hospitals serve central and northern Texas, including Neary’s home in Dallas. But in October, his Humana Medicare Advantage plan—an alternative to government-run Medicare—warned that Baylor and the insurer were fighting over a new contract. If they couldn’t reach an agreement, he’d have to find new doctors or new health insurance.
“All my medical information is with Baylor Scott & White,” said Neary, 87, who retired from a career in financial services. His doctors are a five-minute drive from his house. “After so many years, starting over with that many new doctor relationships didn’t feel like an option.”
After several anxious weeks, Neary learned Humana and Baylor were parting ways as of this year, and he was forced to choose between the two. Because the breakup happened during the annual fall enrollment period for Medicare Advantage, he was able to pick a new Advantage plan with coverage starting Jan. 1, a day after his Humana plan ended.
Other Advantage members who lose providers are not as lucky. Although disputes between health systems and insurers happen all the time, members are usually locked into their plans for the year and restricted to a network of providers, even if that network shrinks. Unless members qualify for what’s called a special enrollment period, switching plans or returning to traditional Medicare is allowed only at year’s end, with new coverage starting in January.
But in the past 15 months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the Medicare Advantage program, has quietly offered roughly three-month special enrollment periods allowing thousands of Advantage members in at least 13 states to change plans. They were also allowed to leave Advantage plans entirely and choose traditional Medicare coverage without penalty, regardless of when they lost their providers. But even when CMS lets Advantage members leave a plan that lost a key provider, insurers can still enroll new members without telling them the network has shrunk.
At least 41 hospital systems have dropped out of 62 Advantage plans serving all or parts of 25 states since July, according to Becker’s Hospital Review. Over the past two years, separations between Advantage plans and health systems have tripled, said FTI Consulting, which tracks reports of the disputes.
CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said it is “a routine occurrence” for the agency to determine that provider network changes trigger a special enrollment period for their members. “It has happened many times in the past, though we have seen an uptick in recent years.”
Still, CMS would not identify plans whose members were allowed to disenroll after losing health providers. The agency also would not say whether the plans violated federal provider network rules intended to ensure that Medicare Advantage members have sufficient providers within certain distances and travel times.
The secrecy around when and how Advantage members can escape plans after their doctors and hospitals drop out worries Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees CMS.
“Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans deserve to know they can change their plan when their local doctor or hospital exits the plan due to profit-driven business practices,” Wyden said.
The increase in insurer-provider breakups isn’t surprising, given the growing popularity of Medicare Advantage. The plans attracted about 54% of the 61.2 million people who had both Medicare Parts A and B and were eligible to sign up for Medicare Advantage in 2024, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
The plans can offer supplemental benefits unavailable from traditional Medicare because the federal government pays insurers about 20% more per member than traditional Medicare per-member costs, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises Congress. The extra spending, which some lawmakers call wasteful, will total about $84 billion in 2025, MedPAC estimates. While traditional Medicare does not offer the additional benefits Advantage plans advertise, it does not limit beneficiaries’ choice of providers. They can go to any doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare, as nearly all do.
Sanford Health, the largest rural health system in the U.S., serving parts of seven states from South Dakota to Michigan, decided to leave a Humana Medicare Advantage plan last year that covered 15,000 of its patients. “It's not so much about the finances or administrative burden, although those are real concerns,” said Nick Olson, Sanford Health’s chief financial officer. “The most important thing for us is the fact that coverage denials and prior authorization delays impact the care a patient receives, and that’s unacceptable.”
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, representing insurance regulators from every state, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, has appealed to CMS to help Advantage members.
“State regulators in several states are seeing hospitals and crucial provider groups making decisions to no longer contract with any MA plans, which can leave enrollees without ready access to care,” the group wrote in September. “Lack of CMS guidance could result in unnecessary financial or medical injury to America’s seniors.”
The commissioners appealed again last month to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Significant network changes trigger important rights for beneficiaries, and they should receive clear notice of their rights and have access to counseling to help them make appropriate choices,” they wrote.
The insurance commissioners asked CMS to consider offering a special enrollment period for all Advantage members who lose the same major provider, instead of placing the burden on individuals to find help on their own. No matter what time of year, members would be able to change plans or enroll in government-run Medicare.
Advantage members granted this special enrollment period who choose traditional Medicare get a bonus: If they want to purchase a Medigap policy—supplemental insurance that helps cover Medicare’s considerable out-of-pocket costs—insurers can’t turn them away or charge them more because of preexisting health conditions.
Those potential extra costs have long been a deterrent for people who want to leave Medicare Advantage for traditional Medicare.
“People are being trapped in Medicare Advantage because they can't get a Medigap plan,” said Bonnie Burns, a training and policy specialist at California Health Advocates, a nonprofit watchdog that helps seniors navigate Medicare.
Guaranteed access to Medigap coverage is especially important when providers drop out of all Advantage plans. Only four states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and New York—offer that guarantee to anyone who wants to reenroll in Medicare.
But some hospital systems, including Great Plains Health in North Platte, Nebraska, are so frustrated by Advantage plans that they won’t participate in any of them.
It had the same problems with delays and denials of coverage as other providers, but one incident stands out for CEO Ivan Mitchell: A patient too sick to go home had to stay in the hospital an extra six weeks because her plan wouldn’t cover care in a rehabilitation facility.
With traditional Medicare the only option this year for Great Plains Health patients, Nebraska insurance commissioner Eric Dunning asked for a special enrollment period with guaranteed Medigap access for some 1,200 beneficiaries. After six months, CMS agreed.
Once Delaware’s insurance commissioner contacted CMS about the Bayhealth medical system dropping out of a Cigna Advantage plan, members received a special enrollment period starting in January.
Maine’s congressional delegation pushed for an enrollment period for nearly 4,000 patients of Northern Light Health after the 10-hospital system dropped out of a Humana Advantage plan last year.
“Our constituents have told us that they are anticipating serious challenges, ranging from worries about substantial changes to cost-sharing rates to concerns about maintaining care with current providers,” the delegation told CMS.
CMS granted the request to ensure “that MA enrollees have access to medically necessary care,” then-CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure wrote to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).
Minnesota insurance officials appealed to CMS on behalf of some 75,000 members of Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare Advantage plans after six health systems announced last year they would leave the plans in 2025. So many provider changes caused "tremendous problems,” said Kelli Jo Greiner, director of the Minnesota State Health Insurance Assistance Program, known as a SHIP, at the Minnesota Board on Aging. SHIP counselors across the country provide Medicare beneficiaries free help choosing and using Medicare drug and Advantage plans.
Providers serving about 15,000 of Minnesota’s Advantage members ultimately agreed to stay in the insurers' networks. CMS decided 14,000 Humana members qualified for a network-change special enrollment period.
The remaining 46,000 people—Aetna and UnitedHealthcare Advantage members—who lost access to four health systems were not eligible for the special enrollment period. CMS decided their plans still had enough other providers to care for them.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
More older adults are staying in the workforce.
As people live longer, many older adults are forgoing retirement at the traditional age of 65. While many want to continue working to stay engaged and connected, others can not afford any alternative.
Today, over 11 million older adults are in the workforce. By 2030, when all baby boomers are 65 and older, nearly 10% of the workforce will comprise older adults.
With significant demographic changes already at play in the five-generation workforce, finding a place to work into older age is more relevant than ever.
Seniorly, a digital senior living directory platform, analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, and the Federation of Tax Administrators to rank the best and worst states (plus the District of Columbia), for older workers.
Factoring in a state’s median income, income tax, remote-work policies, labor-force participation, business growth rate, and age-related workplace discrimination, states in the Northeast and West were rated highest as the best places for older adults to work, while Southern states were at the bottom.
Washington topped the list “due to its strong business environment, with no personal income tax and the highest rate of new business growth last year (88.6%),” according to the report. “It also has a high median income for senior households ($63,963) and a strong work-from-home culture (22.4% of older adults are remote).”
It was followed by New Hampshire and Alaska.
In Mississippi, the worst state for older workers, labor participation among older workers was low, and there were 188 complaints of age-based discrimination per 100,000 workers.
Here are the top 10 best states for older workers:
1. Washington
2. New Hampshire
3. Alaska
4. Maryland
5. Colorado
6. Connecticut
7. Massachusetts
8. South Dakota
9. Utah
10. Vermont
Here are the top 10 worst states for older workers:
42. Oklahoma
43. Georgia
44. South Carolina
45. North Carolina
46. Louisiana
47. Kentucky
48. West Virginia
49. Alabama
50. Arkansas
51. Mississippi
For more on aging:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Moon Safari—Getty Images
It's one thing to humble brag by posting a slew of photos of your cute kid to social media. But what's the emotion behind those actions? If it's pure pride and awe that you're feeling, then you're likely in a pretty good parenting place.
At least that's the theory behind new research out of Rochester University, published this week in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Science after a team conducted a series of studies involving nearly 900 parents to look at how parental pride and awe affect aspects of well-being.
"Parental pride and awe are common and beneficial feelings parents can have with their children," said the lead author, graduate student Princeton Chee, in a news release. "Parents may feel proud when their child does something they worked hard to succeed in and accomplish. They may feel awe when their child does something amazing or completely unexpected that make them feel like saying 'woah' or 'wow.'"
While both pride and awe proved beneficial, the feeling of awe appeared to have more profound effects on overall well-being. "We find that awe can actually strengthen parental well-being more broadly and holistically, compared to pride, making parents lives feel happier, more meaningful, and richer in experiences," Chee noted.
Awe, the study found, connects parents to something larger than themselves, including the concept of parenthood itself, while pride is more about ego and accomplishments.
For example, the study found, although pride experiences most frequently centered on a child’s talent, experiencing awe was equally dispersed across talent, love/kindness, growth, and special
moments.
It's likely why awe showed stronger associations with purpose and meaning for parents.
"Awe in particular can help parents fully immerse themselves by making time feel like it's slowing down during extraordinary moments," said Chee.
The researchers wanted to find ways for parenthood to be rewarding, particularly in the wake of the U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, calling parental stress a public health issue just last year.
"Our research finds that one way in which parenthood can be rewarding, rather than detrimental," said Chee, "is through feeling pride and especially awe with one's child."
Awe, the researchers point out, needn't be reserved for major moments. "It doesn't have to be only once in a lifetime, extraordinary experiences in which parents feel awe," says Chee, but can be felt "through things as simple as weekend outings and quality time spent with one's child."
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
Climate tipping points pose grave risks to human health—and, unsurprisingly, approaching them while tipsy only makes the fallout more blistering, according to a case study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In this week's issue, NEJM spotlights the effects of the climate crisis on clinical health with a series of case studies. One is the searing story of an inebriated gentleman who regrettably took a one-minute walk while barefoot during the unprecedented 2021 Northwest heat dome. The man walked across asphalt during the extreme weather, in which air temperatures reached as high as 42° C (108° F). That's about 21° C (38° F) above historical averages for the area.
Asphalt can absorb 95 percent of solar radiation and easily reach 40° F to 60° F above air temperatures on hot days. It's unclear how hot the asphalt was when the man walked across it, but it was clearly hot enough to melt some flesh.
© Getty | dosmass
Vitamin D plays an important role in your energy levels and the health of your bones, brain, heart, and gut. Now, researchers say this powerhouse vitamin may also play a crucial role in lowering risk for colorectal cancer, which has been on the rise in younger adults, becoming the leading cause of cancer death for men under 50, and the second leading among women under 50, according to the American Cancer Society.
A study published in the journal Nutrients has linked vitamin D levels with colorectal cancer risk. Reviewing data from 50 different studies on vitamin D and colorectal cancer, researchers found that those with the highest dietary intake of vitamin D (80 ng/mL) had a 25% decrease in colorectal cancer risk compared to those with the lowest amount (10 ng/mL). Additionally, data from the Nurses’ Health Study—a large, long-term U.S. study that has investigated the risk factors for the top chronic diseases in women—revealed that women with the highest vitamin D intake had a 58% lower risk of colorectal cancer compared to those with the lowest intake.
“Maintaining optimal vitamin D levels and adequate dietary intake is crucial in preventing CRC and improving patient prognosis,” the study authors wrote.
Researchers state that vitamin D plays a crucial role in immune system regulation enhancing the function of important organs of the immune system like the spleen and lymph nodes, while boosting T-cell activity—a type of white blood cell that helps prevent infection and fight cancer.
Adequate vitamin D levels also can support overall gut health. The study authors state that vitamin D can support receptors in your gut to improve calcium absorption and strengthen your intestinal barrier, which allows your gut to absorb nutrients while keeping out harmful bacteria.
Vitamin D deficiency can weaken the intestinal barrier, which allows unwanted substances from the intestine to enter the bloodstream, causing inflammation, which fuels cancer growth, the authors wrote. But they found that having high vitamin D levels can help reduce that inflammation.
About 35% of U.S. adults are vitamin D deficient, according to the Cleveland Clinic—and the study authors note that it is particularly common among adults ages 19 to 44.
The daily recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D is 600 IU for those aged 1 to 70, while older adults are recommended to take 800 IU per day. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends 400 IU of vitamin D per day for infants.
Talk with your doctor before taking vitamin D or any supplement, as it can interfere with certain medications, according to the Mayo Clinic, including cholestyramine, a cholesterol-lowering drug, the heart medicine digoxin, steroids, stimulant laxatives, and certain blood pressure medications such as diltiazem and verapamil.
Be careful with your dosage, too—excessive vitamin D can be toxic. Vitamin D toxicity leads to hypercalcemia, according to the Mayo Clinic, which can cause upset stomach and vomiting, weakness, frequent urination, and may also lead to bone pain and kidney issues such as kidney stones. Check with your doctor about the appropriate dose.
Beyond supplementation, research suggests that five to 30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., preferably daily, but at least twice a week, without sunscreen can help you meet your vitamin D needs.
You can also get vitamin D through food, including:
For more on supplements:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Getty Images
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading the latest public discourse on autism—holding a press conference last week at which he vowed to get to the bottom of the “toxins” he believes are causing the spike in prevalence and decrying how the neurodevelopmental disorder affects society. “Autism destroys families,” he said, “and more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which is our children.”
But plenty parents of affected kids were not impressed.
“I just look at the source—this is a man who strapped a whale’s head to the top of the family car,” Kim Covell, autism advocate and mom to a 26-year-old mostly nonverbal autistic son, tells Fortune, pointing out that his comments ignore “proven science” and explaining that she is taking RFK Jr.’s comments with a grain of salt. “I honestly think that science and reason will prevail in the end—and this is just a blip, an extremely unfortunate blip, on the autism timeline.”
Some parents, though, were outraged.
“Autism didn’t ‘destroy my family,’” Stephanie Hanrahan, self-described autism mom, activist, and TEDx speaker shared on Instagram. “It is incredibly dangerous to say autism destroys lives. We cannot make broad statements (and laws) based off individual experiences. It is careless and insensitive. It dehumanizes a group of people who are NOT an epidemic because they are NOT a disease. They are simply a different neurotype.” Her autistic son plays baseball, she added, and her autistic daughter is an advocate who plays the piano and writes poetry.
“Clean the water and food. Improve environmental toxins. Do research,” Hanrahan added, “But don’t ever say my children are a burden.”
Official organizations also put out statements responding to Kennedy’s statements. The Autism Society called them “harmful, misleading, and unrealistic,” stressing that the way he spoke about autistic individuals was “stigmatizing” and that the idea that vaccines cause autism (a specific allegation that RFK Jr. did not mention during the press conference, referring to “medicines” instead) “has been thoroughly debunked.” The Autism Science Foundation noted that his assertions lacked scientific evidence, and that he “made a series of clear misstatements during his press event, including that adults with profound autism don’t exist.”
Autism Speaks, meanwhile—which has faced its own controversies in the past, including for allegedly promoting stigma —called the press conference “extremely disappointing and damaging,” noting that it joined many others “in their concern with how the autistic community is being misportrayed.”
Much of the fireworks took place on social media, where angry and disappointed parents took on RFK Jr.’s assertions.
Kate Swenson, coauthor of New York Times best-selling parenting memoir Autism Out Loud and mother to a 14-year-old with autism, also took to Instagram. She shared an anecdote about how her younger son, 12, reacted to RFK Jr.’s comments. “‘Autism didn’t wreck our family, did it mom?’…I honestly froze for a second. Before I could answer he started talking again. ‘I don’t think it did, mom. Cooper didn’t wreck anything. Our family is good.’ And then he quickly said, ‘But it is hard sometimes.’ …The siblings are so wise. They are always learning, watching, and absorbing.” Swenson added, “I think sometimes when topics are in the headlines we forget that we are talking about real people and families.”
On a different Swenson post, another mom of a son with autism, Maddie Curry, left a comment, noting that RFK Jr’s “rhetoric” is “extremely dangerous for the entire autism community,” and stressing that there has already been a lot of research on autism and its causes, including those that her family has participated in. “The implication that RFK Jr is the first person to care is so painful for families and for the scientific community,” she wrote. “We also have to hold our politicians to the minimum standard—speak about our autistic community with dignity and respect.”
Nicole Gottesmann, a blogger and advocate for her nonverbal autistic son, posted that she had been trying to block out the news lately, but that while on vacation with her family, she caught RFK Jr.’s press conference—turning her happiness into “sadness, despair, and fear.”
“Leading with how these individuals will never pay taxes or have a job made it clear that the intention is to eradicate autism. He stated that autistic individuals will never go on a date, write a poem, play sports, etc. He further stated that Autism destroys families! I am here to say this is just untrue and disgusting on so many levels,” she wrote alongside photos of herself and her partner with their son.
She added, “He is nonspeaking and his life has so much meaning. Just like every other autistic individual! How dare he judge my child, my family and determine that Gabe is worthless. My family was not destroyed by autism … RFK’s words have caused many of us pain.”
Stephanie Loglisci, mother of twins and a single, posted to her 31,000 Instagram followers, “When my twins were diagnosed with autism, it gave me the gift of better understanding and celebrating the unique way they experience the world … The only thing destroying our belief is the lack of knowledge, misinformation and ignorance that the US government is spreading about our kids.”
While Brittany, head of the popular Instagram account Autism Mama’s Crew, posted, simply, “RFK’s comments were DANGEROUS,” and “Autism doesn’t destroy families. The lack of support does.”
In a Sunday opinion piece for the Guardian, autism dad John Harris agreed that Kennedy’s words are dangerous—and that they, for him, prompt fear.
“Kennedy’s pronouncements are not only about what causes autism; they also reflect an age-old perception of autism as an aberration, and many autistic people as “ineducable” and beyond help,” he writes. “This surely blurs into populists’ loathing of modern ideas about human difference: once you have declared war on diversity, an attack on the idea of neurodiversity will not be far away.”
Still, of course, not everyone agreed—including some parents of kids with autism who were in agreement with RFK Jr. and pleased to see his attention to the issue.
“Autism does destroy families,” posted a mother in the comments section of the Autism Mama’s Crew post. “As an autism mom I feel devastated to see my children not meet their milestones. I wish they didn't have autism.” Another added, “this is the truth no one wants to say/ face! YES we love our babies…but i literally wish everyday my two boys weren’t autistic…Autism is beautiful but it is NOT our friend.”
Mary Holland, attorney, anti-vaccine activist, mother to a grown son with autism, and now the CEO of the RFK Jr.-founded Children’s Health Defense, said in a video posted to the website, “I have been waiting for that speech for over 20 years, so I am very grateful to the secretary for finally saying from an important public platform that this is an epidemic and we need to find the causes and we need to stop it.”
On X, a man posted a photo of his daughter with her face obscured. “This is my daughter. She has autism. She cannot dress, groom, or toilet herself,” he wrote. “She hasn’t spoken a word in her life. Her nonverbal communication is touches and gestures. She’s the best thing in my life, but there is something wrong with her. Thank you RFK.”
On Sunday, Kennedy clarified some of his comments with an appearance on Fox News. “There are many kids with autism who are doing well,” he said. “I was referring specifically to that 25%, the group that is non-verbal.”
Still, for many, the damage was done.
“It triggered me in ways I can't even describe,” actor, advocate, and autism mom Holly Robinson Peete posted about the press conference to her 1.5 million Instagram followers. She recalled the day her adult son was diagnosed, at 3, and she believed he would never be able to do many things in his future.
"Now he's mostly checked off and shattered most of the 'nevers' off of that list," she said. "So when I hear someone like Robert F. Kennedy describe our kids as family destroyers, I feel the weight of every parent who's ever had to fight three times, four times as hard just to prove their child's worth. It plays into every stereotype and stigma and every person with autism has ever had to fight."
What RFK Jr. is peddling here, she added, "is not just ignorance, it is institutionalized hopelessness."
More on autism:
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Alex Wong/Getty Images
Login