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.

RFK Jr. is wrecking public health — but we can (and will) survive this

News Feed
Sunday, April 13, 2025

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox. Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought. For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often.  Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations. But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing. “Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.” This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments. It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation.  Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making. And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid. Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.” Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.” Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.” In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.” Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore? “As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.” To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further. “There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’” None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.” Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.” “The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email. Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said. “Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.” Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.” Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling. “The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.” In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.” If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment. “Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.” Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks. “It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.” As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally. “As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.” Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it. “It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.” Read more about public health

There really is a way to make America healthy again. It's just not Kennedy's way

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox.

Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought.

For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often. 

Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations.

But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing.

“Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.”

This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments.

It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation. 

Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making.

And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid.

Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.”

Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.”

Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.”

In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore?

“As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.”

To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further.

“There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’”

None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.”

Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.”

“The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email.

Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said.

“Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.”

Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.”

Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling.

“The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.”

In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.”

If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment.

“Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.”

Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks.

“It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.”

As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally.

“As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.”

Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it.

“It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.”

Read more

about public health

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Check Your City: Air Pollution Linked to Slower Marathon Times

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Does the city you run in make a difference? Researchers say yes, it...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Does the city you run in make a difference? Researchers say yes, it does.When marathon runners hit the wall or fall behind their goal pace, they often blame fatigue, weather or nutrition. However, a study from Brown University published in Sports Medicine suggests a less obvious, environmental culprit: air pollution.Researchers analyzed a dataset of 2.6 million marathon finish times from major U.S. races, including those in Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, spanning 17 years and matched it to estimated pollution levels from weather stations. They found a direct link between slower average finish times and higher concentrations of fine particulate matter known as PM2.5.The data also showed that the fastest runners were more affected by this effect.PM2.5 refers to tiny pollutants smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. These particles are often the focus of air-quality health advisories, because they can travel deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing inflammation and chest constriction, reports The New York Times.The study revealed a measurable slowdown tied to PM2.5 levels. For every increase of one microgram per cubic meter increase in these tiny particles, the average finish time for runners dropped.In other words, on a day with even moderately elevated pollution, a runner's time could be slower by several minutes.The Los Angeles Marathon generally had the highest estimated median pollution levels and the slowest median finish times among the races studied. While this could owe to other factors like warmer weather and a hillier course, the overall pattern of slower finishes in more polluted races held true across all cities, even when comparing different years within the same marathon city.Boston had the fastest average finish time and one of the cleanest air levels among the cities, along with Minneapolis/St. Paul and New York City.What makes this finding particularly notable is that it affects even the fittest individuals. “What’s notable is that we’re looking at people who are all incredibly healthy,” Joseph Braun, a professor of epidemiology at Brown, told The New York Times. “But even among really healthy people, air pollution is having an important, albeit subtle, effect on your physiology.”Surprisingly, the slowdown was more pronounced for faster-than-average runners. Researchers suspect this may be because elite and competitive marathoners breathe in more air — and do so more rapidly — inhaling a larger dose of the pollution over the 26.2-mile course.PM2.5 primarily comes from the burning of fossil fuels — such as from power plants, gasoline or diesel vehicles — as well as from forest fires and wood burning. While air quality has improved in many U.S. regions, short-term spikes from sources like wildfire smoke have become a growing concern, The Times said. SOURCE: The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

New Study Links Wildfire Smoke to Premature Births

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it could also raise the risk of premature birth.A large study from the University of Washington found that pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke were more likely to deliver early.The findings, published Nov. 3 in The Lancet Planetary Health, are based on more than 20,000 births across the United States between 2006 and 2020.About 10% of babies in the U.S. are born early, which can lead to lifelong health problems. While air pollution has already been linked to preterm birth, this is one of the biggest studies so far to look specifically at wildfire smoke as a contributor, researchers said.“Preventing preterm birth really pays off with lasting benefits for future health,” said lead author Allison Sherris, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.“It’s also something of a mystery. We don’t always understand why babies are born preterm, but we know that air pollution contributes to preterm births, and it makes sense that wildfire smoke would as well," she added in a news release. "This study underscores that wildfire smoke is inseparable from maternal and infant health.”Researchers measured how often pregnant people were exposed to wildfire-related fine particle pollution, known as PM2.5, and how much they were exposed.The risk of preterm birth was higher when exposure happened in the second trimester, especially around week 21. Later in pregnancy, the biggest risk came from high levels of wildfire smoke, above 10 micrograms per cubic meter. The strongest link was seen in the Western U.S., where wildfire smoke has become more frequent and intense. “The second trimester is a period of pregnancy with the richest and most intense growth of the placenta, which itself is such an important part of fetal health, growth and development,” said co-author Dr. Catherine Karr, a professor of pediatrics and environmental health."So it may be that the wildfire smoke particles are really interfering with placental health," Karr added in a news release. "Some of them are so tiny that after inhalation they can actually get into the bloodstream and get delivered directly into the placenta or fetus.”Researchers say more work is needed to understand exactly how wildfire smoke affects pregnancy, but the evidence is now strong enough to take action for pregnant people."There’s an opportunity to work with clinicians to provide tools for pregnant people to protect themselves during smoke events," Sherris said. "Public health agencies’ messaging about wildfire smoke could also be tailored to pregnant people and highlight them as a vulnerable group."SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Light Pollution Harming Heart Health, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The bright lights of the big city might seem dazzling, but they can be...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The bright lights of the big city might seem dazzling, but they can be hard on your heart health, a new study says.People exposed to high levels of artificial light have an increasingly higher risk of heart disease, researchers are scheduled to report at a Nov. 10 meeting of the American Heart Association in New Orleans.Higher exposure to artificial light at night was associated with a 35% increased risk of heart disease within five years, and a 22% increased risk over 10 years, researchers found.“We found a nearly linear relationship between nighttime light and heart disease: the more night-light exposure, the higher the risk,” senior researcher Dr. Shady Abohashem, head of PET/CT cardiac imaging trials at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a news release.For the new study, researchers analyzed the health of 466 adults with an average age of 55 who’d undergone a PET or CT scan at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2008.The team compared the participants’ health and brain scans to their exposure to artificial light, based on their home address.Results showed that higher levels of artificial light caused brain stress activity and blood vessel inflammation.“Even modest increases in night-time light were linked with higher brain and artery stress,” Abohashem said. “When the brain perceives stress, it activates signals that can trigger an immune response and inflame the blood vessels. Over time, this process can contribute to hardening of the arteries and increase the risk of heart attack and stroke.”Over a decade, 17% of the people developed a major heart condition. Their light exposure was associated with risk of heart disease, even after accounting for other risk factors.Heart risks were even higher among people who lived in areas with high traffic noise, lower neighborhood income or other environmental factors that can add to stress, researchers said.To counter these ill effects, “people can limit indoor nighttime light, keeping bedrooms dark and avoiding screens such as TVs and personal electronic devices before bed,” Abohashem said.Cities also might improve folks’ health by reducing unnecessary outdoor lighting, shielding street lamps, or using motion-sensitive lights, researchers said.“These findings are novel and add to the evidence suggesting that reducing exposure to excessive artificial light at night is a public health concern,” Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, an American Heart Association spokesman, said in a news release.“We know too much exposure to artificial light at night can harm your health, particularly increasing the risk of heart disease. However, we did not know how this harm happened,” said Fernandez-Mendoza, director of behavioral sleep medicine at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.“This study has investigated one of several possible causes, which is how our brains respond to stress,” he explained. “This response seems to play a big role in linking artificial light at night to heart disease.”Researchers next plan to see whether reducing nighttime light exposure might improve people’s heart health.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: American Heart Association, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Turns Out, There Are 5 Sleep Styles — And Each Affects Your Brain Differently

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each...

THURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each night. Your overall sleep pattern could shape your mood, brain function and even long-term health.Researchers from Concordia University in Montreal identified five distinct sleep profiles that may help explain why some people feel well-rested while others struggle with fatigue, poor focus or emotional ups and downs.The findings, published Oct. 7 in PLOS Biology, show that these “sleep-biopsychosocial profiles” reflect a mix of biological, mental and environmental factors — from stress and emotions to bedroom comfort — that all affect how well you sleep.“People should treat their sleep seriously,” study co-author Valeria Kebets, a manager at Concordia’s Applied AI Institute, told NBC News. “It affects everything in their daily functioning.”The researchers identified five sleep profiles:1. Poor sleep and mental healthPeople in this group reported the worst sleep quality and higher levels of stress, fear and anger. They also had a greater risk of anxiety and depression.These individuals had poor mental health or attention issues but said their sleep felt fine, suggesting “sleep misperception,” or being unaware of underlying sleep problems, researchers said.3. Sleep aids and sociabilityThis group used sleep aids, but also reported strong social support and fewer feelings of rejection. However, they showed lower emotional awareness and weaker memory.4. Sleep duration and cognitionPeople sleeping fewer than six to seven hours a night scored lower on tests measuring problem-solving and emotional processing. They also showed higher aggression and irritability.5. Sleep disturbances and mental healthThose with issues like frequent waking, pain or temperature imbalance had higher rates of anxiety, substance use and poor cognitive performance.The study analyzed data from 770 healthy adults aged 22 to 36, using MRI scans and questionnaires about sleep, lifestyle and mood.Experts say the profiles could help doctors tailor sleep treatments in the future.“We really need to consider multiple sleep profiles in our research and clinic — the value of a multidimensional approach to data,” Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, who was not involved in the study, told NBC News.Sleep experts also say the research reinforces the importance of good rest for both mental and physical health.“Sleep is a more complex issue than just how much time you spend in bed,” Dr. Rafael Pelayo, a sleep medicine specialist at Stanford University, said in the NBC News report. “If I can improve your sleep, it has downwind effects on your overall health — not just your mental health, but your physical health.”SOURCE: NBC News, Oct. 8, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new study.Key measures of sperm quality appeared to drop among dozens of men participating in fertility treatments, researchers recently reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.“These results reinforce growing evidence that environmental exposures — specifically wildfire smoke — can affect reproductive health,” said senior researcher Dr. Tristan Nicholson, an assistant professor of urology in the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.“As we see more frequent and intense wildfire events, understanding how smoke exposure impacts reproductive health is critical,” she added in a news release.For the study, researchers analyzed semen samples from 84 men taken as part of intrauterine insemination procedures in the Seattle area between 2018 and 2022.Major wildfire smoke events hit Seattle in 2018, 2020 and 2022, researchers noted. The team compared the men’s sperm quality during and between these events.“This study takes advantage of our institution’s location in the Puget Sound region, where wildfire smoke events create distinct pre- and post-exposure periods in a natural experiment to examine how a sudden, temporary decline in air quality influences semen parameters,” researchers wrote.Results showed consistent declines in sperm concentration, total sperm count and sperm movement during wildfire smoke exposures.Wildfire smoke contains particle pollution that can invade a person’s organs through their lungs and bloodstream, researchers said.This exposure has previously been linked to lung cancer, respiratory disease, heart attack, stroke and mental impairment, but its effect on male fertility has not been well-studied, researchers said.Overall, the pregnancy rate among the men’s partners was 11%, and the live birth rate 9% — both at the low end of the average range, researchers noted.However, the team added that the study was not designed to fully evaluate the direct impact of wildfire smoke on reproductive outcomes.Researchers next plan to see what happens after wildfire smoke has dented a man’s fertility.“We are very interested in how and when sperm counts recover after wildfire smoke exposure,” Nicholson said. “Currently we are conducting a prospective pilot study of men in the Seattle area to evaluate how wildfire smoke affects sperm quality.”SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Oct. 1, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.