Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How precision medicine is tackling stubborn cancers in 2024

News Feed
Tuesday, July 23, 2024

In 2022 alone, there were nearly 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths worldwide, per a report by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). By 2040, the NCI predicts, the number of new cancer cases per year will rise to 29.9 million, and the number of cancer-related deaths will climb to 15.3 million. And though biotech and medtech companies are innovating and devising several ways to effectively treat cancer, it remains the number-one cause of death by disease among children and adolescents in the U.S. For decades, cancer treatment has been a blunt force trauma approach, with treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy. While such treatments often yield good results, they can be brutal and have devastating effects on patients, attacking both healthy and cancerous cells alike. “These therapies can only take a patient so far because of resistance mechanisms that develop and/or tolerability and safety issues that arise,” says Ron Bentsur, CEO of the clinical stage biopharmaceutical company Nuvectis. This is where precision medicine steps in to help flip the script. By analyzing a patient’s tumor on a molecular level, and factoring in a patient’s genetics and environment, doctors can identify the specific mutations causing cancerous growth. This allows them to target therapies that exploit these weaknesses, maximizing effectiveness and minimizing side effects. Apart from regulatory bottlenecks that biopharmaceutical companies must navigate during clinical tests for personalized drugs developed for cancer patients, it’s often difficult to get the same results while treating patients. That’s true across the board—and with precision medicine. As Diana Azzam, an environmental health sciences professor at Florida International University, notes in The Conversation, “even though two people with the same cancer might get the same medicine, they can have very different outcomes.” Another barrier: certain types of cancers, like lung cancer for example, are classified as “cancers of unmet need” and difficult to diagnose and treat. But things are starting to change. A RAY OF HOPE Tara Bishop, founder at medtech VC firm Black Opal Ventures, says with precision medicine, we’re now seeing treatments for cancers that were previously thought untreatable—like lung, liver, and kidney cancers. She credits a number of developments over the past decade. “One is the idea of actually understanding things called biomarkers, which are either proteins that are on the surface of a cell or genetic changes of a tumor that we now can test for when we diagnose someone with cancer,” she says. “That concept of actually being able to understand at a cellular level what’s happening with a tumor and a cancer cell has allowed us to actually customize and personalize the treatments for those cancers.” For Nuvectis’s Bentsur, “precision medicine is increasingly growing in the quest to strike all types of cancers right at the heart.” Nuvectis is one of the few companies rewriting that story, he adds, with “the development of innovative precision medicines for the treatment of serious conditions of unmet medical need in oncology.” Precision medicine or targeted therapy started approximately 25-30 years ago in conjunction with the mapping of the human genome and other advances. “It allowed scientists, for the first time, to identify specific targets or mutations that play a role in the sustainability and growth of the cancer cells,” says Bentsur, “and to come up with drugs that could attack such targets by manipulating them.” INTO THE PRECISION MEDICINE HERD Nuvectis’s innovative drug pipeline includes two drug candidates (NXP800 and NXP900), which target difficult-to-treat cancer patient populations. NXP800, which has received approval for Fast Track Designation by the FDA alongside Orphan Drug Designation, targets cancers driven by mutations in the ARID1a gene—a mutation present in a significant subset of ovarian, endometrial, and cholangiocarcinoma cancers, leaving patients with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis—and has shown promise in preclinical trials. NXP900, on the other hand, targets advanced solid tumors and driven squamous cell cancers like esophageal, head, and neck cancers, which are often resistant to existing therapies. The drug has shown promise in preclinical trials. AI is also playing a role in the industry. The startup Optellum, for example, delivers AI-driven clinical decision support for early lung cancer diagnosis and recently launched its multimodal therapy AI guidance platform for life science research. Optellum CEO Johnathan Watkins says large health systems are often limited in their ability to deliver precision care outside of existing patient pathways due to financial and operational pressures. This is a challenge he believes “AI and ML technologies will help to reduce,” he adds, all while “improving patient outcomes.” Precision-medicine based oncology companies are a central part of this revolution, and have recently seen significant M&A action. Loxo Oncology rose to fame with Larotrectinib, a drug targeting a rare genetic mutation present in various cancers, and was recently acquired by medicine company Lilly. Similarly, Mirati Therapeutics, another pharma company focusing on developing drugs that target mutations in the KRAS gene, a notorious driver of several cancers, was recently acquired by global biopharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb. Most notable, Seagen, a world-leader in ADC technology, a transformative modality that is emerging as a powerful tool across a broad range of cancers designed to preferentially kill cancer cells, was acquired by Pfizer for a whopping $43 billion.  For Watkins, the next five years present significant opportunities for precision care solutions to move up the value chain. “We’ve already seen this with the move from therapeutics into diagnostics, but screening and discovery are areas where AI can play an even bigger role to improve existing care and ensure patients receive the best care possible,” he says.

In 2022 alone, there were nearly 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths worldwide, per a report by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). By 2040, the NCI predicts, the number of new cancer cases per year will rise to 29.9 million, and the number of cancer-related deaths will climb to 15.3 million. And though biotech and medtech companies are innovating and devising several ways to effectively treat cancer, it remains the number-one cause of death by disease among children and adolescents in the U.S. For decades, cancer treatment has been a blunt force trauma approach, with treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy. While such treatments often yield good results, they can be brutal and have devastating effects on patients, attacking both healthy and cancerous cells alike. “These therapies can only take a patient so far because of resistance mechanisms that develop and/or tolerability and safety issues that arise,” says Ron Bentsur, CEO of the clinical stage biopharmaceutical company Nuvectis. This is where precision medicine steps in to help flip the script. By analyzing a patient’s tumor on a molecular level, and factoring in a patient’s genetics and environment, doctors can identify the specific mutations causing cancerous growth. This allows them to target therapies that exploit these weaknesses, maximizing effectiveness and minimizing side effects. Apart from regulatory bottlenecks that biopharmaceutical companies must navigate during clinical tests for personalized drugs developed for cancer patients, it’s often difficult to get the same results while treating patients. That’s true across the board—and with precision medicine. As Diana Azzam, an environmental health sciences professor at Florida International University, notes in The Conversation, “even though two people with the same cancer might get the same medicine, they can have very different outcomes.” Another barrier: certain types of cancers, like lung cancer for example, are classified as “cancers of unmet need” and difficult to diagnose and treat. But things are starting to change. A RAY OF HOPE Tara Bishop, founder at medtech VC firm Black Opal Ventures, says with precision medicine, we’re now seeing treatments for cancers that were previously thought untreatable—like lung, liver, and kidney cancers. She credits a number of developments over the past decade. “One is the idea of actually understanding things called biomarkers, which are either proteins that are on the surface of a cell or genetic changes of a tumor that we now can test for when we diagnose someone with cancer,” she says. “That concept of actually being able to understand at a cellular level what’s happening with a tumor and a cancer cell has allowed us to actually customize and personalize the treatments for those cancers.” For Nuvectis’s Bentsur, “precision medicine is increasingly growing in the quest to strike all types of cancers right at the heart.” Nuvectis is one of the few companies rewriting that story, he adds, with “the development of innovative precision medicines for the treatment of serious conditions of unmet medical need in oncology.” Precision medicine or targeted therapy started approximately 25-30 years ago in conjunction with the mapping of the human genome and other advances. “It allowed scientists, for the first time, to identify specific targets or mutations that play a role in the sustainability and growth of the cancer cells,” says Bentsur, “and to come up with drugs that could attack such targets by manipulating them.” INTO THE PRECISION MEDICINE HERD Nuvectis’s innovative drug pipeline includes two drug candidates (NXP800 and NXP900), which target difficult-to-treat cancer patient populations. NXP800, which has received approval for Fast Track Designation by the FDA alongside Orphan Drug Designation, targets cancers driven by mutations in the ARID1a gene—a mutation present in a significant subset of ovarian, endometrial, and cholangiocarcinoma cancers, leaving patients with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis—and has shown promise in preclinical trials. NXP900, on the other hand, targets advanced solid tumors and driven squamous cell cancers like esophageal, head, and neck cancers, which are often resistant to existing therapies. The drug has shown promise in preclinical trials. AI is also playing a role in the industry. The startup Optellum, for example, delivers AI-driven clinical decision support for early lung cancer diagnosis and recently launched its multimodal therapy AI guidance platform for life science research. Optellum CEO Johnathan Watkins says large health systems are often limited in their ability to deliver precision care outside of existing patient pathways due to financial and operational pressures. This is a challenge he believes “AI and ML technologies will help to reduce,” he adds, all while “improving patient outcomes.” Precision-medicine based oncology companies are a central part of this revolution, and have recently seen significant M&A action. Loxo Oncology rose to fame with Larotrectinib, a drug targeting a rare genetic mutation present in various cancers, and was recently acquired by medicine company Lilly. Similarly, Mirati Therapeutics, another pharma company focusing on developing drugs that target mutations in the KRAS gene, a notorious driver of several cancers, was recently acquired by global biopharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb. Most notable, Seagen, a world-leader in ADC technology, a transformative modality that is emerging as a powerful tool across a broad range of cancers designed to preferentially kill cancer cells, was acquired by Pfizer for a whopping $43 billion.  For Watkins, the next five years present significant opportunities for precision care solutions to move up the value chain. “We’ve already seen this with the move from therapeutics into diagnostics, but screening and discovery are areas where AI can play an even bigger role to improve existing care and ensure patients receive the best care possible,” he says.

In 2022 alone, there were nearly 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths worldwide, per a report by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). By 2040, the NCI predicts, the number of new cancer cases per year will rise to 29.9 million, and the number of cancer-related deaths will climb to 15.3 million. And though biotech and medtech companies are innovating and devising several ways to effectively treat cancer, it remains the number-one cause of death by disease among children and adolescents in the U.S.

For decades, cancer treatment has been a blunt force trauma approach, with treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy. While such treatments often yield good results, they can be brutal and have devastating effects on patients, attacking both healthy and cancerous cells alike. “These therapies can only take a patient so far because of resistance mechanisms that develop and/or tolerability and safety issues that arise,” says Ron Bentsur, CEO of the clinical stage biopharmaceutical company Nuvectis.

This is where precision medicine steps in to help flip the script. By analyzing a patient’s tumor on a molecular level, and factoring in a patient’s genetics and environment, doctors can identify the specific mutations causing cancerous growth. This allows them to target therapies that exploit these weaknesses, maximizing effectiveness and minimizing side effects.

Apart from regulatory bottlenecks that biopharmaceutical companies must navigate during clinical tests for personalized drugs developed for cancer patients, it’s often difficult to get the same results while treating patients. That’s true across the board—and with precision medicine. As Diana Azzam, an environmental health sciences professor at Florida International University, notes in The Conversation, “even though two people with the same cancer might get the same medicine, they can have very different outcomes.”

Another barrier: certain types of cancers, like lung cancer for example, are classified as “cancers of unmet need” and difficult to diagnose and treat.

But things are starting to change.

A RAY OF HOPE

Tara Bishop, founder at medtech VC firm Black Opal Ventures, says with precision medicine, we’re now seeing treatments for cancers that were previously thought untreatable—like lung, liver, and kidney cancers. She credits a number of developments over the past decade. “One is the idea of actually understanding things called biomarkers, which are either proteins that are on the surface of a cell or genetic changes of a tumor that we now can test for when we diagnose someone with cancer,” she says. “That concept of actually being able to understand at a cellular level what’s happening with a tumor and a cancer cell has allowed us to actually customize and personalize the treatments for those cancers.”

For Nuvectis’s Bentsur, “precision medicine is increasingly growing in the quest to strike all types of cancers right at the heart.” Nuvectis is one of the few companies rewriting that story, he adds, with “the development of innovative precision medicines for the treatment of serious conditions of unmet medical need in oncology.”

Precision medicine or targeted therapy started approximately 25-30 years ago in conjunction with the mapping of the human genome and other advances. “It allowed scientists, for the first time, to identify specific targets or mutations that play a role in the sustainability and growth of the cancer cells,” says Bentsur, “and to come up with drugs that could attack such targets by manipulating them.”

INTO THE PRECISION MEDICINE HERD

Nuvectis’s innovative drug pipeline includes two drug candidates (NXP800 and NXP900), which target difficult-to-treat cancer patient populations.

NXP800, which has received approval for Fast Track Designation by the FDA alongside Orphan Drug Designation, targets cancers driven by mutations in the ARID1a gene—a mutation present in a significant subset of ovarian, endometrial, and cholangiocarcinoma cancers, leaving patients with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis—and has shown promise in preclinical trials. NXP900, on the other hand, targets advanced solid tumors and driven squamous cell cancers like esophageal, head, and neck cancers, which are often resistant to existing therapies. The drug has shown promise in preclinical trials.

AI is also playing a role in the industry. The startup Optellum, for example, delivers AI-driven clinical decision support for early lung cancer diagnosis and recently launched its multimodal therapy AI guidance platform for life science research. Optellum CEO Johnathan Watkins says large health systems are often limited in their ability to deliver precision care outside of existing patient pathways due to financial and operational pressures. This is a challenge he believes “AI and ML technologies will help to reduce,” he adds, all while “improving patient outcomes.”

Precision-medicine based oncology companies are a central part of this revolution, and have recently seen significant M&A action. Loxo Oncology rose to fame with Larotrectinib, a drug targeting a rare genetic mutation present in various cancers, and was recently acquired by medicine company Lilly. Similarly, Mirati Therapeutics, another pharma company focusing on developing drugs that target mutations in the KRAS gene, a notorious driver of several cancers, was recently acquired by global biopharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb. Most notable, Seagen, a world-leader in ADC technology, a transformative modality that is emerging as a powerful tool across a broad range of cancers designed to preferentially kill cancer cells, was acquired by Pfizer for a whopping $43 billion. 

For Watkins, the next five years present significant opportunities for precision care solutions to move up the value chain. “We’ve already seen this with the move from therapeutics into diagnostics, but screening and discovery are areas where AI can play an even bigger role to improve existing care and ensure patients receive the best care possible,” he says.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

New Flu Variant Could Bring Another Severe U.S. Season

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough...

THURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough winter in the United States, experts warn.The strain, called subclade K, has caused a rise in flu cases in the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan. And now signs suggest it is beginning to take hold across the United States as flu activity rises.According to the latest U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FluView report, reported flu activity in the United States remains low but is climbing quickly.Last year’s flu season was the worst the United States had seen in nearly 15 years and led to at least 280 child deaths, according to the CDC.Most cases this year are from the H3N2 virus and about half of those belong to the subclade K variant, the same strain that fueled a difficult flu season in the Southern Hemisphere.Because it wasn’t circulating widely when strains were selected for the vaccine update, this year’s flu shot targets close strains of the virus."It’s not like we’re expecting to get complete loss of protection for the vaccine, but perhaps we might expect a little bit of a drop-off if this is the virus that sort of dominates the season, and early indications are that’s probably going to be the case," Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, told CNN.Early findings from the UK Health Security Agency suggest the variant carries seven genetic changes on a major part of the virus, making it a bit harder for the body's immune system to recognize.Even so, they found that the flu shot has reduced the risk of hospitalization or emergency care by about 75% in children and 30% to 40% in adults so far this season.What worries experts even more is that fewer Americans appear to be getting the flu shot.Data from IQVIA shows that pharmacies gave 26.5 million flu vaccinations from August through October, down from 28.7 million during the same period last year."I’m not surprised," Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said.She said recent debates about vaccine safety have "left people confused but possibly at the worst have left people worried about getting vaccinated."Australia’s flu shot rates also fell this year and the country went on to record more than 443,000 cases."What they saw in Australia is that they had a bad season. And so it’s concerning for you and us, what’s coming," Dr. Earl Rubin, division director of infectious disease at Montreal Children’s Hospital, told CNN.Several early indicators already show flu levels rising in the U.S.The WastewaterSCAN network found type A flu in 40% of samples in November, up from 18% in October, according to Marlene Wolfe, an assistant professor in the department of environmental health at Emory University in Atlanta.Only four U.S. monitoring sites in Maine, Vermont, Iowa and Hawaii have officially crossed the threshold for declaring flu activity high, but experts say the trend is clear.While it’s not yet clear whether subclade K could cause more severe illness, a rise in infections alone could cause hospitalizations to skyrocket, Rubin noted."It’s not too late. Go and get your flu shot," Dr. Adam Lauring, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, said.These results are preliminary and have not yet been peer-reviewed.The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has more on the flu vaccine.SOURCE: CNN, Nov. 18, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Thousands of US Hazardous Sites Are at Risk of Flooding Because of Sea Level Rise, Study Finds

A new study finds that thousands of hazardous sites across the U.S. are at risk of flooding due to sea level rise that could pose public health threats to neighboring communities

If heat-trapping pollution from burning coal, oil and gas continues unchecked, thousands of hazardous sites across the United States risk being flooded from sea level rise by the turn of the century, posing serious health risks to nearby communities, according to a new study.Researchers identified 5,500 sites that store, emit or handle sewage, trash, oil, gas and other hazards that could face coastal flooding by 2100, with much of the risk already locked in due to past emissions. But more than half the sites are projected to face flood risk much sooner — as soon as 2050. Low-income, communities of color and other marginalized groups are the most at risk.With even moderate reductions to planet-warming emissions, researchers also determined that roughly 300 fewer sites would be at risk by the end of the century. “Our goal with this analysis was to try to get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future," said Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles who co-authored the paper published in the science journal Nature Communications.“We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience," she added, speaking at a media briefing Wednesday ahead of the study's release. The study was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and builds on previous research from California. Climate change is driving and accelerating sea level rise. Glaciers and ice sheets are melting, and the sea's waters are expanding as they warm. In many places along the coastal U.S., sea level rise is accelerating faster than the global average because of things like erosion and land sinking from groundwater pumping, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thomas Chandler, managing director at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University who was not involved in the research, said it’s “a really important study” that the public, policy makers and government agencies “need to make note of.” Derek Van Berkel, an associate professor in the school for environment and sustainability at University of Michigan who was also not involved in the study, wasn't surprised to learn about the disproportionate risks. What was “alarming” was considering the magnitude of “feedback effects” from flooding, he said. How researchers approached the data The study's researchers started by identifying and classifying tens of thousands of hazardous sites near the coasts of Puerto Rico and the 23 states with coastline. Next, they wanted to know each site's projected future flood risk. They did this by calculating how likely each year coastal flooding could inundate a site using historical sea level measurements and projected sea level rise in 2050 and 2100 under low and high emissions scenarios. Lastly, they identified and classified communities as being at-risk if homes are located within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of a hazardous site with a high threat of future flooding, and compared those communities' characteristics with other coastal neighborhoods with no at-risk sites nearby. But researchers did not include all types of hazardous facilities, such as oil and gas pipelines, nor did they account for groundwater upwelling or more intense and frequent storms in the future, which could lead to underestimates. On the other end, the flood-risk model they used could have overestimated the number of threatened sites. “It is important to note that previous disasters, such as hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Harvey, did result in a lot of toxic contamination from oil and gas pipelines,” Chandler said. The 5,500 at-risk sites includes 44% that are fossil fuel ports and terminals, 30% power plants, 24% refineries and 22% coastal sewage treatment facilities. Most of the sites — nearly 80% — are in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. Potential health impacts from exposure to hazards People exposed to flood waters near industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, said Sacoby Wilson, professor of global, environmental and occupational health at the University of Maryland during the briefing. Symptoms can include bloody or watery diarrhea, severe stomach cramps or vomiting and fever. Those living near industrial sites like refineries could be exposed to heavy metals and chemicals that can cause rashes, burning of the eyes, nose and throat, headaches or fatigue, added Wilson, who was not involved in the study. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events.” Longer term, some of these exposures could contribute to cancer, liver, kidney or other organ damage, or have reproductive effects, he said. For Chandler, the Columbia University director, the study highlights the need to heavily invest in hazard mitigation. “It's really important for federal, state and local governments in the United States to address these factors through multi-stakeholder resilience planning and encouraging local governments to integrate climate risk assessments into their mitigation strategies.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

RFK Jr.’s Miasma Theory of Health Is Spreading

The agency is picking up Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s argument that a healthy immune system can keep even pandemic germs at bay.

Last week, the two top officials at the National Institutes of Health—the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research—debuted a new plan to help Americans weather the next pandemic: getting everyone to eat better and exercise.The standard pandemic-preparedness playbook “has failed catastrophically,” NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and NIH Principal Deputy Director Matthew J. Memoli wrote in City Journal, a magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank. The pair argue that finding and studying pathogens that could cause outbreaks, then stockpiling vaccines against them, is a waste of money. Instead, they say, the United States should encourage people to improve their baseline health—“whether simply by stopping smoking, controlling hypertension or diabetes, or getting up and walking more.”On its own, Bhattacharya and Memoli’s apparently serious suggestion that just being in better shape will carry the U.S. through an infectious crisis is reckless, experts told me—especially if it’s executed at the expense of other public-health responses. In an email, Andrew Nixon, the director of communications at the Department of Health and Human Services—which oversees the NIH—wrote that the agency “supports a comprehensive approach to pandemic preparedness that recognizes the importance of both biomedical tools and the factors individuals can control.” But more broadly, Bhattacharya and Memoli’s proposal reflects the spread of a dangerous philosophy that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of HHS, has been pushing for years: a dismissal of germ theory, or the notion that infectious microbes are responsible for many of the diseases that plague humankind.In his 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, argues that modern scientists have blamed too much of infectious disease on pathogens, which he suggests are rarely problematic, unless the immune system has been compromised by poor nutrition, toxins, and other environmental stressors. He credits sanitation and nutrition for driving declines in infectious-disease deaths during the 20th century; vaccination, he has baselessly claimed, was largely ineffective and unnecessary. In his view, germs don’t pose a substantial threat to people who have done the work of “fortifying the immune system”—essentially, those who have taken their health into their own hands.In terms of general health, most Americans would benefit from improvements in diet and exercise. A strong emphasis on both has been core to the Make America Healthy Again movement, and in one important aspect, Kennedy and his allies are correct: The immune system, like other bodily systems, is sensitive to nutritional status, and when people are dealing with chronic health issues, they often fare less well against infectious threats, Melinda Beck, a nutrition and infectious-disease researcher who recently retired from the University of North Carolina, told me. Conditions such as obesity and diabetes, for instance, raise the risk of severe COVID and flu; malnutrition exacerbates the course of diseases such as tuberculosis and measles.But applied to widespread infectious outbreaks, the MAHA prescription is still deeply flawed. Being generally healthy doesn’t guarantee survival, or even better outcomes against infectious diseases—especially when an entire population encounters a pathogen against which it has no immunity. Although some evidence suggests that the 1918 flu pandemic strongly affected certain groups of people who were less healthy at baseline—including undernourished World War I soldiers—“relatively healthy people, as far as we could understand, were the main victims,” Naomi Rogers, a historian of medicine at Yale, told me. Smallpox, too, infected and killed indiscriminately. HIV has devastated many communities of young, healthy people.In his book, Kennedy relies heavily on the term miasma theory as a shorthand for preventing disease “through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses.” He’s employing that phrase incorrectly: Historically, at least, miasma theory referred to the notion that epidemics are caused by bad air—such as toxic emanations from corpses and trash—and was the predominant way of describing disease transmission until scientists found definitive proof of infectious microbes in the late 19th century. But his choice of words is also revealing. In pitting his ideas against germ theory, he plays on a centuries-old tension between lifestyle and microbes as roots of illness.In its early days, germ theory struggled to gain traction even among physicians, many of whom dismissed the idea as simplistic, Nancy Tomes, a historian at Stony Brook University, told me. After the idea became foundational to medicine, scientists still had to work to convince some members of the public that microbes could fell healthy people, too. In the early days of polio vaccination, when the virus still ran rampant in the U.S., some vaccine-skeptical Americans insisted that children were falling seriously ill primarily because their parents weren’t managing their kids’ nutrition well and “had disrupted the child’s internal health,” Rogers told me.Over time, as pharmaceutical companies made global businesses out of selling antibiotics, vaccines, and antivirals, the products became a symbol, for some people, of how germ theory had taken over medicine. Accepting vaccines came to represent trust in scientific expertise, Rogers said; misgivings about the industry, in contrast, might translate into rejecting those offerings. In that skeptical slice of the American public and amid the rise of alternative-wellness practitioners, Kennedy has found purchase for his ideas about nutrition as a cure-all.Since taking over as health secretary, he has on occasion made that distrust in germ theory national policy. In his book, he wrote that “when a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus.” Earlier this year, when measles raged through undervaccinated regions of West Texas, the secretary acted out his own miasmist theory of the outbreak, urging Americans to rely on vitamin-A supplementation as a first-line defense, even though deficiency of that vitamin is rare here.But germ theory is key to understanding why outbreaks become pandemics—not because people’s general health is wanting, but because a pathogen is so unfamiliar to so many people’s immune systems at once that it is able to spread unchecked. Pandemics then end because enough people acquire sufficient immunity to that pathogen. Vaccination, when available, remains the safest way to gain that immunity—and, unlike lifestyle choices, it can represent a near-universal strategy to shore up defenses against disease. Not all of the risk factors that worsen disease severity are tunable by simply eating better or working out more. For COVID and many other respiratory diseases, for instance, old age and pregnancy remain some of the biggest risk factors. Genetic predispositions to certain medical conditions, or structural barriers to changing health habits—not just lack of willpower—can make people vulnerable to disease, too.In their article, Bhattacharya and Memoli purport to be arguing against specific strategies of pandemic preparedness, most prominently the controversial type of gain-of-function research that can involve altering the disease-causing traits of pathogens, and has been restricted by the Trump administration. But the pair also mischaracterize the country’s current approach to pandemics, which, in addition to calling for virus research and vaccine development, prioritizes measures such as surveillance, international partnerships, and improved health-care capacity, Nahid Bhadelia, the director of the Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases at Boston University, told me. And Bhattacharya and Memoli’s alternative approach cuts against the most basic logic of public health—that the clearest way to help keep a whole population healthy is to offer protections that work on a societal level and that will reach as many people as possible. Fixating on personal nutrition and exercise regimens as pandemic preparedness would leave many people entirely unprotected. At the same time, “we’re basically setting up society to blame someone” in the event that they fall ill, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the pandemic center at the Brown University School of Public Health, told me.Kennedy’s book bemoans that the “warring philosophies” of miasma and germ theory have become a zero-sum game. And yet, at HHS, he and his officials are presenting outbreak preparedness—and the rest of public health—as exactly that: The country should worry about environment or pathogens; it should be either pushing people to eat better or stockpiling vaccines. Over email, Nixon told me that “encouraging healthier habits is one way to strengthen resilience alongside vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics developed through NIH-funded research.” But this year, under pressure from the Trump administration, the NIH has cut funding to hundreds of vaccine- and infectious-disease focused research projects; elsewhere at HHS, officials canceled nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of contracts geared toward developing mRNA vaccines.The reality is that both environment and pathogens often influence the outcome of disease, and both should be addressed. Today’s public-health establishment might not subscribe to the 19th-century version of miasma theory, but the idea that environmental and social factors shape people’s health is still core to the field. “They’re saying you can only do one thing at a time,” Bhadelia told me. “I don’t think we have to.”

Clinicians can help address environmental toxics in reproductive health, international experts say

In a recent opinion paper published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) addresses how exposures to environmental toxics — including endocrine disrupting chemicals — have a wide range of impacts on reproductive health, and how clinicians can play a role in addressing this issue.In short: Extensive research has linked exposure to environmental toxics with an increased risk of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, uterine fibroids, hormonally mediated cancers, menopause, and both female and male infertility. The key mechanisms behind these impacts include hormone disruption, oxidative stress, inflammation, and epigenetic changes that can affect multiple generations.FIGO emphasizes that harm from environmental toxics can be addressed, and that clinicians play a crucial role in ensuring environmental factors are meaningfully considered as a part of patient care. Key quote: “As trusted health advisors, obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYNs) have an essential role in integrating environmental health into routine gynecologic and fertility care.” Why this matters: In this opinion paper, FIGO argues that clinicians should incorporate environmental health into routine care, and provides practical strategies to do so. Some of these strategies include taking environmental histories, counseling patients on risk reduction and healthy lifestyles, recognizing high-risk settings (e.g., occupational exposures), and advising patients on simple steps to reduce exposure — particularly during sensitive windows like preconception, pregnancy, puberty, and menopause. Clinicians should be aware of regional environmental health alerts, such as air quality advisories or contamination events. In addition, clinicians can advocate for policy change.Related EHN coverage: Chemical mixtures may impact fertility and IVF success, new study findsUnderstanding how the environment affects pregnant people’s healthMore resources: Additional International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) statements and opinions relating to the environment:FIGO opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicalsFIGO calls for removal of PFAS from global useRemoval of glyphosate from global usageClimate Crisis and HealthStatement on Draft Strategy on health, environment and climate changeToxic chemicals and environmental contaminants in prenatal vitaminsDeNicola, Nathaniel et al. for International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. Sept. 26, 2025

In a recent opinion paper published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) addresses how exposures to environmental toxics — including endocrine disrupting chemicals — have a wide range of impacts on reproductive health, and how clinicians can play a role in addressing this issue.In short: Extensive research has linked exposure to environmental toxics with an increased risk of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, uterine fibroids, hormonally mediated cancers, menopause, and both female and male infertility. The key mechanisms behind these impacts include hormone disruption, oxidative stress, inflammation, and epigenetic changes that can affect multiple generations.FIGO emphasizes that harm from environmental toxics can be addressed, and that clinicians play a crucial role in ensuring environmental factors are meaningfully considered as a part of patient care. Key quote: “As trusted health advisors, obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYNs) have an essential role in integrating environmental health into routine gynecologic and fertility care.” Why this matters: In this opinion paper, FIGO argues that clinicians should incorporate environmental health into routine care, and provides practical strategies to do so. Some of these strategies include taking environmental histories, counseling patients on risk reduction and healthy lifestyles, recognizing high-risk settings (e.g., occupational exposures), and advising patients on simple steps to reduce exposure — particularly during sensitive windows like preconception, pregnancy, puberty, and menopause. Clinicians should be aware of regional environmental health alerts, such as air quality advisories or contamination events. In addition, clinicians can advocate for policy change.Related EHN coverage: Chemical mixtures may impact fertility and IVF success, new study findsUnderstanding how the environment affects pregnant people’s healthMore resources: Additional International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) statements and opinions relating to the environment:FIGO opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicalsFIGO calls for removal of PFAS from global useRemoval of glyphosate from global usageClimate Crisis and HealthStatement on Draft Strategy on health, environment and climate changeToxic chemicals and environmental contaminants in prenatal vitaminsDeNicola, Nathaniel et al. for International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. Sept. 26, 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.