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 Wildfire Smoke Exposure Affects Your Health

News Feed
Saturday, January 11, 2025

Firefighters continue battling Palisades fire as flames rage across Los Angeles, California, United States on January 09, 2025. (Photo by Official Flickr Account of CAL FIRE / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)Wildfire seasons are becoming more and more devastating and damaging for everyone.Wildfires aren’t just dangerous for the people and wildlife living directly around the flames, but also for those nearby who are exposed to heavy smoke. And because smoke can travel long distances, even people thousands of miles away from the fires can feel their effects. Scientists are actively learning about the harms linked to wildfire smoke, but early findings suggest that wildfire smoke can have a seriously detrimental effect on our short and long-term health. Why breathing in wildfire smoke is harmfulWildfire smoke contains a mixture of gases, liquids and solid particles. What concerns scientists the most about wildfire smoke is the fine particulate matter (called PM 2.5), or small pieces of liquid and gas that can stay suspended in the air. The smallest particles are the ones that can get deepest into the lungs and cause annoying symptoms — like a cough or shortness of breath — in the short term and more concerning health problems down the road, explained Colleen Reid, an environmental epidemiologist and health geographer with the University of Colorado Boulder.According to Reid, no level of PM 2.5 is considered safe — but at higher levels, the health effects are clearly worse.“A study from Montana found that seasons with record-high smoke were followed by more severe flu seasons, adding to the growing body of evidence that wildfire smoke can make people more susceptible to viruses and infections.”How wildfire smoke immediately affects usThese tiny particles can get deep into our lungs and enter the bloodstream, at which point they can travel to other organs and cause widespread inflammation, Reid explained. One report found that teens living near wildfires have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their blood. Wildfire smoke can cause sore throats, a cough, watery eyes, congestion, headaches and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. Smoke particles can also reach the brain and trigger cognitive issues. According to Rosana Aguilera Becker, an environmental health scientist with the University of California, San Diego, people who have asthma, respiratory illnesses or COPD are most at risk and have higher rates of hospital admissions due to smoke during wildfires. In areas close to wildfires, researchers have found a spike in inhaler refills among people who have asthma. Increases in visits to the emergency room for cardiovascular events and heart attacks have also been recorded in communities experiencing wildfires. What we know about the long-term health effectsThe effects don’t go away once the smoke clears. A study from Montana found that seasons with record-high smoke were followed by more severe flu seasons, adding to the growing body of evidence that wildfire smoke can make people more susceptible to viruses and infections. The long-term health consequences linked to wildfire smoke exposure are understudied, largely because this hasn’t been a big issue until recently. In the past, there would be a wildfire, smoke would shoot into the sky for a short period of time, then the clogged air would clear out. It wasn’t until the past few fire seasons that the air quality has been really bad over really large geographic areas for really long periods of time, Reid said.But there are some clues. Wildfire smoke is thought to be a risk factor for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. And through her research, Reid has found that when pregnant people are exposed to wildfire smoke, there’s a greater risk of the baby being born early or at low birth weight. A study conducted on monkeys found that primates exposed to wildfires as infants had worse pulmonary functioning and immune functioning later on in life. This brings up the question of “what happens to children when they’re exposed to wildfire smoke when they’re still developing,” Becker said. Evidence looking at the long-term health effects of other types of air pollution suggests that harmful air can impact our respiratory health, cardiovascular health and neurological health. One study found that kids who grew up in areas with polluted air, like Los Angeles, go on to experience worse lung function as adults.“We could assume, based on what we know, that there are similar things with wildfire smoke,” Reid said, noting that we really need more research on wildfire smoke specifically. Allen J. Schaben via Getty ImagesPeople can experience the effects of wildfire smoke even from thousands of miles away.Does proximity to the wildfire matter?Scientists know the most about smoke exposure in communities that are close to wildfires. But what happens when that air travels thousands of miles, as it did this summer when the jet stream brought Oregon’s wildfire smoke to the East Coast? According to Reid, there can definitely be health consequences in these places, too. In the past, air pollution that traveled long distances was minuscule, but the fires in Oregon and Canada showed us that wildfire smoke can travel far and at really high concentrations. This is an area scientists will need to look into in the coming years. There may be differences in how fresh smoke and older smoke affects our health — but, again, no level of PM 2.5 is safe. Our behaviors also play a role. When a fire erupts in the West, people are aware of the fire and know to stay in. You can smell it and you can see plumes of smoke spilling into the air. On the East Coast, where there are no plumes or traces of a campfire scent, some people may not take the necessary steps to protect themselves from inhaling bad air, Reid said. Here’s how to protect yourself from wildfire smokeYou can gauge the quality of the air around you by checking your local air quality index (AQI). Reid recommends the app Smoke Sense, which provides an air quality map and recommendations for what you should or shouldn’t do. Air NOW is another tool that sends local alerts about AQIs. If PM 2.5 levels are high, the best thing to do is stay inside and limit your outdoor activities, Becker said. It’s OK for most people to exercise at lower PM 2.5 levels, as the benefits of exercise are thought to outweigh the risks. We Need Your SupportOther news outlets have retreated behind paywalls. At HuffPost, we believe journalism should be free for everyone.Would you help us provide essential information to our readers during this critical time? We can't do it without you.Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.Whether you give once or many more times, we appreciate your contribution to keeping our journalism free for all.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.Whether you give just one more time or sign up again to contribute regularly, we appreciate you playing a part in keeping our journalism free for all.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.If you can afford an air purifier — they can be pricey! — get one with a HEPA filter. Keep your doors and windows closed. Older homes and rental properties tend to be leakier and allow more air pollution in. You can also purchase a MERV-13 filter and put it in a box fan or your AC unit. Make sure you’re regularly cleaning your car filters as they can collect a lot of particles over time. (You can find a list of filtering products certified by the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America here.)If you do venture outside when the PM 2.5 levels are high, bring a mask. N95 masks are the gold standard because they filter all of the air that you breathe in. Though surgical masks are less effective, they’re ultimately better than having no barrier between you and the harmful particles in wildfire smoke.

Smoke from a fire can have a dangerous impact on your physical and mental health, even from thousands of miles away.

Firefighters continue battling Palisades fire as flames rage across Los Angeles, California, United States on January 09, 2025. (Photo by Official Flickr Account of CAL FIRE / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Wildfire seasons are becoming more and more devastating and damaging for everyone.

Wildfires aren’t just dangerous for the people and wildlife living directly around the flames, but also for those nearby who are exposed to heavy smoke. And because smoke can travel long distances, even people thousands of miles away from the fires can feel their effects.

Scientists are actively learning about the harms linked to wildfire smoke, but early findings suggest that wildfire smoke can have a seriously detrimental effect on our short and long-term health.

Why breathing in wildfire smoke is harmful

Wildfire smoke contains a mixture of gases, liquids and solid particles. What concerns scientists the most about wildfire smoke is the fine particulate matter (called PM 2.5), or small pieces of liquid and gas that can stay suspended in the air.

The smallest particles are the ones that can get deepest into the lungs and cause annoying symptoms — like a cough or shortness of breath — in the short term and more concerning health problems down the road, explained Colleen Reid, an environmental epidemiologist and health geographer with the University of Colorado Boulder.

According to Reid, no level of PM 2.5 is considered safe — but at higher levels, the health effects are clearly worse.

“A study from Montana found that seasons with record-high smoke were followed by more severe flu seasons, adding to the growing body of evidence that wildfire smoke can make people more susceptible to viruses and infections.”

How wildfire smoke immediately affects us

These tiny particles can get deep into our lungs and enter the bloodstream, at which point they can travel to other organs and cause widespread inflammation, Reid explained. One report found that teens living near wildfires have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their blood. Wildfire smoke can cause sore throats, a cough, watery eyes, congestion, headaches and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. Smoke particles can also reach the brain and trigger cognitive issues.

According to Rosana Aguilera Becker, an environmental health scientist with the University of California, San Diego, people who have asthma, respiratory illnesses or COPD are most at risk and have higher rates of hospital admissions due to smoke during wildfires. In areas close to wildfires, researchers have found a spike in inhaler refills among people who have asthma.

Increases in visits to the emergency room for cardiovascular events and heart attacks have also been recorded in communities experiencing wildfires.

What we know about the long-term health effects

The effects don’t go away once the smoke clears. A study from Montana found that seasons with record-high smoke were followed by more severe flu seasons, adding to the growing body of evidence that wildfire smoke can make people more susceptible to viruses and infections.

The long-term health consequences linked to wildfire smoke exposure are understudied, largely because this hasn’t been a big issue until recently. In the past, there would be a wildfire, smoke would shoot into the sky for a short period of time, then the clogged air would clear out. It wasn’t until the past few fire seasons that the air quality has been really bad over really large geographic areas for really long periods of time, Reid said.

But there are some clues. Wildfire smoke is thought to be a risk factor for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. And through her research, Reid has found that when pregnant people are exposed to wildfire smoke, there’s a greater risk of the baby being born early or at low birth weight.

A study conducted on monkeys found that primates exposed to wildfires as infants had worse pulmonary functioning and immune functioning later on in life. This brings up the question of “what happens to children when they’re exposed to wildfire smoke when they’re still developing,” Becker said.

Evidence looking at the long-term health effects of other types of air pollution suggests that harmful air can impact our respiratory health, cardiovascular health and neurological health. One study found that kids who grew up in areas with polluted air, like Los Angeles, go on to experience worse lung function as adults.

“We could assume, based on what we know, that there are similar things with wildfire smoke,” Reid said, noting that we really need more research on wildfire smoke specifically.

Allen J. Schaben via Getty Images

People can experience the effects of wildfire smoke even from thousands of miles away.

Does proximity to the wildfire matter?

Scientists know the most about smoke exposure in communities that are close to wildfires. But what happens when that air travels thousands of miles, as it did this summer when the jet stream brought Oregon’s wildfire smoke to the East Coast? According to Reid, there can definitely be health consequences in these places, too.

In the past, air pollution that traveled long distances was minuscule, but the fires in Oregon and Canada showed us that wildfire smoke can travel far and at really high concentrations. This is an area scientists will need to look into in the coming years. There may be differences in how fresh smoke and older smoke affects our health — but, again, no level of PM 2.5 is safe.

Our behaviors also play a role. When a fire erupts in the West, people are aware of the fire and know to stay in. You can smell it and you can see plumes of smoke spilling into the air. On the East Coast, where there are no plumes or traces of a campfire scent, some people may not take the necessary steps to protect themselves from inhaling bad air, Reid said.

Here’s how to protect yourself from wildfire smoke

You can gauge the quality of the air around you by checking your local air quality index (AQI). Reid recommends the app Smoke Sense, which provides an air quality map and recommendations for what you should or shouldn’t do. Air NOW is another tool that sends local alerts about AQIs.

If PM 2.5 levels are high, the best thing to do is stay inside and limit your outdoor activities, Becker said. It’s OK for most people to exercise at lower PM 2.5 levels, as the benefits of exercise are thought to outweigh the risks.

We Need Your Support

Other news outlets have retreated behind paywalls. At HuffPost, we believe journalism should be free for everyone.

Would you help us provide essential information to our readers during this critical time? We can't do it without you.

Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.

Whether you give once or many more times, we appreciate your contribution to keeping our journalism free for all.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you.

Whether you give just one more time or sign up again to contribute regularly, we appreciate you playing a part in keeping our journalism free for all.

Support HuffPost

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

If you can afford an air purifier — they can be pricey! — get one with a HEPA filter. Keep your doors and windows closed. Older homes and rental properties tend to be leakier and allow more air pollution in. You can also purchase a MERV-13 filter and put it in a box fan or your AC unit. Make sure you’re regularly cleaning your car filters as they can collect a lot of particles over time. (You can find a list of filtering products certified by the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America here.)

If you do venture outside when the PM 2.5 levels are high, bring a mask. N95 masks are the gold standard because they filter all of the air that you breathe in. Though surgical masks are less effective, they’re ultimately better than having no barrier between you and the harmful particles in wildfire smoke.

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.