(NEW YORK) — With the approval process underway for young children’s COVID-19 vaccines, the White House is preparing a rollout to doctors’ offices, pharmacies and children’s hospitals across the country.
“If in fact [the Food and Drug Administration] authorizes and [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommends, we’re going to immediately launch a comprehensive nationwide effort to ensure that parents can get their youngest kids vaccinated, easily, and do so at locations that they know and they trust,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters on Wednesday.
Two brands of vaccines — Pfizer and Moderna — are expected to be available as early as the week of June 21 if the review processes at the FDA and CDC find they are safe and effective for kids under 5. Both companies have said their vaccines are just that and released initial efficacy data. More information will be presented next week to the FDA and CDC.
The administration estimates that 85% of children under the age of 5 live within five miles of a potential vaccination site, another administration official said.
The government opened up orders to states on Friday and has so far received requests for around 2.3 million doses. There were five million doses available for initial orders, and another five million will be available to order soon.
Administration officials cautioned not to read into the underwhelming order numbers and said it has been common over the past two years for them to come in slowly at first.
“I wouldn’t focus on those early numbers. Our experience is that the longer the ordering stays open, the more likely the states come forward,” an official said.
“We’re not too worried or focused on that, we’ll continue to do these outreach,” the official added.
So far, states have ordered 58% of the available Pfizer doses and 34% of the available Moderna doses.
Officials said some jurisdictions had ordered only Moderna, while others ordered only Pfizer. They said they didn’t have an explanation because it was too early in the process.
But, if polling is any indication, it will be an uphill battle to convince parents to vaccinate their young kids. A recent survey from Kaiser Family Foundation found just one in five parents are eager to vaccinate their children right away.
Officials said they planned to lean into existing networks to get vaccine information out to families, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, mom blogs and PTAs, as well as groups specific to communities of color, like the League of United Latin American Citizens.
“We have learned from our previous campaigns, and one of the most important lessons that we’ve learned is that we know who people listen to when making decisions, and there are trusted people in their lives,” a senior administration official said.
“Some of them are doctors, some of them are community leaders,” the official said.
The official said the goal was twofold, both to get the vaccine to convenient places for families and to make sure they have the information they need about the vaccines.
The process to authorize vaccines for the youngest age group begins on Wednesday, when the FDA’s independent panel of advisors meet to review the data and ask questions of the vaccine companies.
Pfizer’s vaccine comes in three doses given in smaller amounts over a longer period of time, while Moderna’s is a two-dose vaccine given in slightly larger amounts over a shorter period.
If the panel approves, the FDA is expected to then authorize within a day or so.
That kicks the process over to the CDC’s group of advisers, who are expected to review the vaccine data on June 17 and 18 before voting. Then, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky can issue a final recommendation for the vaccines and doses can begin being administered.
Vaccines are expected to arrive to clinics and doctors offices the weekend after the FDA and CDC’s advisory committees meet, so long as the FDA issues its authorization for emergency use of one or both vaccines.
The White House then expects vaccines will start to be administered on the Tuesday after the long weekend of the federal holiday Juneteenth.
Abel Uribe/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Since an initial voluntary recall on J.M. Smucker peanut butter in May, multiple other products — from protein power snacks to baked goods — have been added to a growing list of related items consumers should avoid, the Food and Drug Administration announced recently.
In addition to the initial Jif brand peanut butter products that were first recalled in multiple states due to Salmonella infection risk, 18 other companies that further processed the peanut butter by either repackaging it or using it as an ingredient have issued their own recalls as well.
“The FDA, along with CDC and state and local partners, are investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Senftenberg infections linked to certain Jif peanut butter products produced at the J.M. Smucker Company facility in Lexington, Kentucky,” the agency said in its recall announcement. “CDC’s review of epidemiological information indicates that five out of five people reported consuming peanut butter and four of the five people specifically reported consuming different varieties of Jif brand peanut butter prior to becoming ill.”
The FDA conducted Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) analysis on a sample from the brand’s facility that the agency said matched “the strain causing illnesses in this current outbreak.”
“Consumers, restaurants, and retailers should not eat, sell, or serve any recalled Jif brand peanut butter, including recalled products that contain the recalled Jif peanut butter,” the FDA recommended. “Consumers should also avoid feeding recalled peanut butter to pets or other animals, including wild birds.”
For a full list of the affected products, lot code information and further details about the recall click here. The agency said that list will be updated as it receives any notification of new recalls.
Additionally, the FDA has shared helpful information on how consumers may check for affected Jif products in their own home.
“Locate the lot code on the back of the jar, under the Best If Used By Date (the lot code may be next to the Best If Used By Date for cups or squeeze pouches). In the lot code, if the first four digits are between 1274 and 2140, and if the next three numbers after that are ‘425’, this product has been recalled and you should not consume this product,” the FDA wrote.
The FDA also recommends washing and sanitizing surfaces and utensils if someone used the recalled Jif brand peanut butter.
The initial Jif recall was first announced in May. At that time, the FDA reported several people had fallen ill after eating peanut butter products. All of those who reported brand information said they had eaten some variety of Jif peanut butter.
Among the list of recalled products were Jif Creamy and Crunchy Peanut Butters, in varying sizes, including “To Go” packs; Natural and Natural Honey Peanut Butters; and Jif Squeezable Pouches. Cases were reported across several states.
“Our top priority is ensuring our consumers understand the details of the recall and are supported,” Jif stated at the time. “We recognize your trust, and our reputation are built on our fundamental commitment to high standards for ingredients and manufacturing. We take your concerns seriously and are committed to producing safe, high quality peanut butter.”
(NEW YORK) — Queen Latifah is speaking out about her weight and why she’s angry at having been categorized as obese.
The actress and singer opened up on a new episode of “Red Table Talk” about the day a personal trainer told her she would be considered obese.
“She’s showing me different body types, and she’s telling me, this is what your BMI is, this is what your weight is, and you fall into this category of obesity,” said Latifah, referring to Body Mass Index, a measure of body fat based on height and weight, according to the National Institutes of Health.
“I was mad at that,” Latifah said in a preview clip for Wednesday’s episode of the Facebook Watch show. “It pissed me off. I was like, ‘What? Me?’ I mean, I’m just thick. She said you are 30% over where you should be. And I’m like, ‘Obesity?'”
Latifah also told the “Red Table Talk” co-hosts, Jada Pinkett Smith, Willow Smith and Adrienne Banfield-Norris, that her body has been the subject of scrutiny her entire career. She said the scrutiny was especially prominent in the early 90s when she starred on In Living Single.
“We looked like four women who live in Brooklyn, and that’s what we were supposed to be representing and we loved being able to do that,” Latifah said of herself and her three co-stars.
“But the word came down that we needed to lose weight,” she continued. “We’re on the number one show among black and Latino households in America, and you’re telling us we need to lose weight. Maybe you’re the one with the problem.”
Latifah’s comments about her BMI and the scrutiny she faced have prompted a conversation about the use of BMI to determine health, especially in women of color.
BMI is calculated using a person’s height and weight to sort people into categories like underweight or obese. But experts say it does not distinguish between excess fat, muscle or bone mass. That’s why health providers only use it as one of many tolls to help determine a person’s health.
Maya Feller, a New York-based registered dietitian, said BMI does not take body composition into account, which can impact women of color.
“For women of color, we tend to have more muscle mass and also be in bigger bodies,” said Feller. “So the BMI will falsely say that we are in the overweight or obese category and then we get flagged, but we may be healthy metabolically.”
In another example, BMI may “overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build,” according to the NIH.
Feller recommends that when it comes to health, a variety of factors beyond weight should be looked at by doctors and other health professionals.
“How’s your blood pressure? How’s your blood sugar? How are your lipids? We need to change the conversation to really be talking about metabolic health,” she said.
(NEW YORK) — With vaccine immunity waning, and concerns over a fall surge growing, officials from Moderna announced on Wednesday that data from its study on Omicron-containing bivalent booster, revealed that it offers superior antibody response against omicron — one month after injection — compared to the company’s current vaccine.
Moderna Chief Medical Officer Dr. Paul Burton told ABC News that he believes the company’s “highly effective” updated COVID-19 bivalent vaccine could be a “turning point” in the nation’s fight against the pandemic.
“The data are definitely better than I had even hoped,” Burton told ABC News in an interview. “Given the magnitude of effect — that seven-fold increase in antibody levels — we could for the first time, be at a vaccine that is truly effective with once yearly dosing because we know those antibody levels will decay.”
Moderna plans to file its data with the Food and Drug Administration “as quickly as possible,” and should the vaccine be authorized, the company will be ready to supply the shots to “as many people around the world as possible,” Burton said.
“These are very important data. It’s an important announcement. And I think it has the potential to be a real turning point in this latter part second half of the pandemic,” Burton said.
The announcement comes as the U.S. continues to battle a secondary surge from omicron subvariants amid waning immunity, relaxed attitudes by many towards mitigation measures and fatigue and skepticism about vaccination and booster shots.
After more than a year of persistent efforts and messaging from federal and local authorities, just under 71% of the eligible population aged 5 and over is fully vaccinated and less than half who have completed their primary series have had their first booster dose.
Burton said the company hopes this new vaccine could, for the first time, provide a roadmap for annual COVID-19 vaccinations, rather than shots every few months.
“I believe that we will be able to get to this once yearly dosing now because we have high levels now. That will probably even increase and mature over time, potentially giving people protection over a full year. We could finally get to that once yearly protection, so I think it’s really important,” Burton said.
The variant adapted vaccine, which contains omicron mRNA, was found to be highly effective against omicron, Burton said. The company reported that this new bivalent vaccine combines the original shot and the omicron mRNA together in a single shot.
“The original vaccine gives great protection against delta and other variants that we’ve seen still recently, and that really caused significant disease. Omicron does cause significant disease. It’s definitely not mild, but it’s super infectious. You need to combine the two together,” Burton explained.
Although it is still unknown how well the new vaccine will be able to prevent infections and severe illness, Burton said he is confident that the vaccine will “definitely prevent hospitalization and death.”
“It’s highly effective,” Burton said, adding that the safety profile is also “very robust,” and “reassuring.”
Should another variant of concern emerge, one drastically different than omicron and the already existing variants, scientists at Moderna will be prepared to reevaluate and readapt the shot to address the new threat.
“If something again really drastic occurs, Well, we’ll have to look at that. But I would say again, what I think we’ve been able to show here, is that we can adapt very quickly. We were able to make this new booster in weeks and get it into testing. I think we can even speed that up now. So, I think we were well prepared for that,” Burton said.
Burton said he remains worried about the growing population of “unprotected” and “under-vaccinated” Americans, who will be vulnerable to more severe disease.
“But by the fall, here, and around the world, we’re gonna have many people who are unvaccinated and under- vaccinated and they’re going to be very vulnerable,” Burton said. “By Autumn, we know that waning occurs. Even people who got boosted in the new year, come the autumn of this year, they’re going to have low levels of antibody. They’re going to be unprotected, under-vaccinated and they’re going to be very vulnerable.”
The sentiment of booster fatigue among some Americans is another concern for Burton, he said.
“The fatigue and just the eagerness of all of us… to kind of put COVID behind us has led to apathy and a real reduction in boosting,” Burton said.
As Moderna also prepares for the FDA to consider authorizing its pediatric vaccine for children under 6 years old, Burton said he hopes the youngest Americans will also have access to this updated shot as well, in the fall, once they receive their primary series.
“I think the issue for the littlest kids is that they have no protection right now, they have had no primary vaccination they’re under protected,” Burton said. “I would propose that parents, caregivers get their little kids vaccinated now, They’ll be ready to go back to school with Moderna. We know that two doses will give them protection… I think it’s likely that they will need an additional boost at some point. And I would propose, and I think we all would imagine, that this is then the booster for them to get in the autumn of this coming year.”
The company is conducting studies to look into safety and efficacy of the shots in young children, and scientists are expected to have data later in the year, Burton said.
(NEW YORK) — Despite a rather unpleasant bout with COVID-19 this past January, Jennifer McDonnell was relieved to think that she, and her family, could finally return to normal life, with a potentially strong immune protection stemming from both vaccination and a past infection.
“We had been cautious, but once we [got COVID-19] we thought, ‘We’re good,’” McDonnell, who lives in Illinois, told ABC News. “We were vaccinated, boosted. We had natural immunity. We thought that we didn’t need to wear a mask.”
However, four months later, McDonnell was met with an unwelcome surprise, when she awoke in the middle of the night to a high-grade fever and a sore throat.
“I felt so terrible. I was so sick,” McDonnell said.
Because of her previous coronavirus infection just a few months earlier — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing for those who develop symptoms within 90 days of recovering — McDonnell thought she must have caught the flu, or perhaps come down with strep throat. But when her tests came back negative, her doctor decided to test her for coronavirus.
“When he told me that I was positive for COVID-19 again, I thought, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” McDonnell said. “I thought you know six months, I’m good. I don’t need to wear a mask. We were at like a whole bunch of sporting events… at parties without masks, no social distancing — nothing — we thought we had time.”
Now, three weeks after testing positive, McDonnell said that she still does not feel like herself, with this second round of COVID-19 feeling “way worse” than the first.
Although she was shocked to find herself positive again, data reveals that McDonnell is not alone. The phenomenon of reinfection — which the CDC defines as a person who was infected, recovered, and then later became infected again — has become increasingly reported over the last year, at first during the delta variant surge, and then during subsequent omicron surges.
Reinfection, spurred in part by more transmissible variants, waning immunity and relaxed attitudes towards effective mitigation measures like masks, mean that getting the pandemic under control is that much harder, even if cases are generally not severe, experts said. It also indicates that notions of “protection,” both from natural infection and vaccination, held up earlier in the pandemic have changed. Similar to a common cold, it is possible to become infected multiple times.
ABC News contacted officials from health departments in all 50 states, and found that although data is still largely unavailable, a growing number of people do appear to experience reinfection with COVID-19.
1.6 million recorded reinfections
More than 1.6 million cases of reinfection have been reported across 24 states since data collection began, according to an ABC analysis and compilation of state provided data.
New York, Maine and California, have all reported over 200,000 reinfections respectively, while Michigan and North Carolina have confirmed over 100,000 reinfection cases each.
States reported that an increasing proportion of people had been reinfected two times, with some people facing reinfection three, four and on very rare occasions, even five times. Definitions of reinfection vary by state.
Although health officials stressed that reinfections are likely significantly undercounted due to lack of reporting and home testing, overall, reinfections still represent a small share of the total number of cases reported across states.
The percent of cases confirmed as reinfections varies widely by jurisdiction, but a handful of states that provided the data reported a range of between approximately 4% and 15% of cases, the highest reported being in Utah.
“I believe that virtually everyone will be infected at some point in their lives, and most people multiple times. We see plenty of patients with reinfection, though it is a really hard number to quantify,” Dr. Shira Doron, an infectious disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, told ABC News.
‘Reinfection does happen’
In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged that despite some protection against infection provided through prior infection and vaccination, cases of reinfection are possible and even can occur within 90 days of an initial infection.
“Studies suggest that reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 with the same virus variant as the initial infection or reinfection with a different variant are both possible,” the CDC wrote.
Symptoms during reinfection have been found to be less severe than during the initial infection, the CDC wrote, but some individuals may still experience more severe forms of disease.
It is also unclear how many people, who became infected during the omicron surge, have become reinfected by the same variant or subvariant of omicron.
“Although rates of reinfection might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for preventing future [COVID-19] infections, hospitalizations, [long-COVID-19] and death,” officials said.
Isolation and treatment are still recommended for people who experience reinfection.
Doron explained that it can be difficult for physicians to tell the difference between a true reinfection and a “re-positive,” which she described as people staying positive on PCR tests for months at a time, or the occurrence of new symptoms while residual viral RNA is leftover in the nose, which can cause people to think they have tested positive again.
“The frequency of false positive test results is under-appreciated, so I often repeat the test in patients who are presenting with what appears to be a reinfection within a relatively short period of time — like 6 months — and frequently that repeat test is negative, but when it’s positive, we don’t have a way to know if the earlier one could have been a false positive,” Doron explained. “Reinfection does happen.”
Reinfection is more likely to happen to an individual when a different and more immune evasive variant is circulating, health experts said. The most recent examples were first the delta variant, and in the months that followed, the omicron variant.
“Although the increased ability to evade existing COVID-19 immunity began with the delta variant, it was omicron that took things to a whole new level,” Dr. Maureen Miller, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told ABC News. “The problem is compounded by the waning protection afforded by vaccination, previous infection or a combination of the two. Sadly antibodies wane in a period of three to six months.”
In New Jersey, unvaccinated people were 1.7 times more likely to become reinfected than vaccinated people, and 7.3 times more likely to become reinfected than vaccinated and boosted people.
With BA.2 subvariant, BA.2.12.1, on the rise, and other omicron sub variants, BA.4 and BA.5, looming behind, Miller said that there are growing concerns that emerging variants will be able to continue to evade immunity to an even greater degree.
“Each new variant and subvariant and sub-subvariant is going to have different ability to break through prior immunity, and prior immunity from vaccination and infection is so variable between individuals,” Doron explained.
Although reinfection likely will occur more frequently, Miller added that thus far, the current surge has not been accompanied by the high levels of hospitalizations and deaths though “both will be unacceptably high as we move through this latest wave.”
Although the latest COVID-19 variants have been shown to be more transmissible and better at evading vaccines, thus far, they have not been found to be more severe.
A shifting definition of protection against infection from COVID-19
McDonnell said that she feels that many people, like her, have a false sense of protection after the first infection.
Further, she said, “nobody [where she lives] wears a mask. If you have a mask on, people look at you like, why are you wearing a mask? Because they dropped all the mandates,” adding, “everyone just assumes it’s over. It’s not.”
How long people are truly protected against reinfection, following a COVID-19 diagnosis, is still a major question on the mind of many scientists, Doron said.
“If I just had COVID, for how long can I drop the precautions before I need to start to be careful again because I am at risk of reinfection? The answer is not very clear,” Doron explained.
In addition, the definition of “protection” against COVID-19, through natural immunity or vaccination, has changed frequently throughout the pandemic. In the initial months after the vaccine rollout, federal officials widely touted that vaccination largely protected against all forms of infection — mild, severe and death — as well as re-infection.
“The science demonstrates that if you are fully vaccinated, you are protected,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said during a press briefing in May 2021, following the agency’s decision to drop its mask recommendation for fully vaccinated people.
Breakthrough infections — vaccinated people getting COVID-19 — were exceedingly rare, let alone reinfections.
Soon after, the delta variant emerged and new data was released, regarding the risk of breakthrough infections and the possibility of transmission between fully vaccinated people. Although protection against severe disease and death appeared to remain relatively steady, it became evident that people could not be unequivocally protected against infection following vaccination or infection.
In the early days of the pandemic, reaching herd immunity was frequently discussed by public health experts as a critical long-term goal in achieving national protection against COVID-19 and returning to normalcy.
However, this past March, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had also often pointed to the importance of herd immunity, published a perspective paper in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in which he said that achieving “classical herd immunity” may not be achievable.
“There are significant obstacles to achieving complete herd immunity with COVID-19,” Fauci and his co-authors wrote. “Neither infection nor vaccination appears to induce prolonged protection against SARS-CoV-2 in many or most people.”
‘We will never eradicate or eliminate COVID-19’
The seemingly never-ending cycle of infection and reinfection can be perceived as daunting as the nation pushes to move on to a phase of the pandemic in which people are truly able to return to their normal lives.
“Remember, ‘flatten the curve’? We have not reached a threshold where enough people have a level of immunity that we can consider COVID-19 to be under control. As long as there is not enough immunity, it gives the virus a chance to mutate even more,” Miller said.
Although the U.S. is in a “much better” position than it was at the onset of the pandemic, in terms of immunity, Miller stressed that Americans must still be responsive to the rising and falling COVID-19 waves that will “continue to infect and reinfect us until we can achieve a level of control, where our health care systems are not periodically overwhelmed and deaths from COVID-19 become a much less common occurrence.”
Doron noted that the best ways for people to protect themselves against reinfection remain the same: stay up to date on vaccination, wear a high-quality mask in crowded indoor spaces, particularly if you are at increased risk.
“We will never eradicate or eliminate COVID-19. We’ll have to settle for controlling it. We’re not there yet,” Miller added.
(NEW YORK) — Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States continue to be disproportionately burdened by cancer, a new report suggests.
Published by the American Association for Cancer Research on Wednesday, the report found that Black, Hispanic, Asian and Indigenous patients are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and die from the disease compared to white patients despite overall rates of cancer incidence and mortality declining.
“If we’re going to eliminate disparities, we have to do our jobs much better than we have been doing them,” Dr. Lisa Newman, chair of the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2022 Steering Committee and chief of the section of breast surgery at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, told ABC News.
The findings also showed Hispanic patients have a mortality rate from liver cancer nearly double that of white patients.
In addition, American Indian/Alaskan Native patients have an 80% higher incidence rate of kidney cancer than their white counterparts.
There has, however, been improvement. Differences in overall cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. have narrowed over the last two decades.
Specifically, cancer mortality rates between Black and white patients have declined from 26% in 2000 to 13% in 2019.
“There is room to be optimistic that we will conquer this problem, but the disparities still exist, and they exist to varying degrees in different cancers,” Newman said.
The report also examined disparities on the basis of gender identity, neighborhood income and urban vs. rural settings.
Results showed transgender men are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer compared to cisgender men.
Newman said LGBTQ patients may not seek care for their cancers due to fears of discrimination and, by the time they do seek care, their cancers are in advanced stages.
“We have to make sure that the health care system is set up, so the LGBTQ community is comfortable coming in and getting their cancers diagnosed and treated,” she said. “Concerns related to implicit biases are very real. Discrimination is very real, and we have to respect those concerns are out there for appropriate reasons.”
Previous studies have shown that lack of trust in the health care system is one of the reasons why people from different backgrounds may not seek care for cancer or other illnesses.
The report also found that mortality rates were 12.3% higher for all cancer types in low-income counties compared to counties with higher incomes. For stomach cancer in particular, mortality rates were 43% higher.
When it came to rural areas, individuals had 17% higher death rates from all cancers compared to Americans living in urban areas, with 34% higher rates for lung cancer and 23% higher rates for colorectal cancer.
Experts say these disparities have only been compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.
A recent JAMA study noted that breast cancer screenings dropped by 6% and cervical cancer screenings by 11% during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Screening rates were lower amongst people of color and lower socioeconomic class, highlighting existing barriers to care which were heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to the new barriers to screening.
“COVID-19 has caused millions of people to put off their cancer screenings [and] delay seeking care for symptoms … resulting in a huge increase in numbers of people being diagnosed with cancer this year and next year as well as more people being diagnosed at later stages,” Dr. Carol Brown, a gynecologic cancer surgeon and senior vice president and chief health equity officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who was not involved with the report, told ABC News.
She continued, “This effect is even more pronounced in groups at higher risk for disparities with cancer outcome.”
This was also supported by a recent study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society, which noted that there was a 3.2% increase in the number of cancer-related deaths during the first year of the pandemic.
To close the gaps, the authors of the report recommend making sure clinical trials include a diverse group of patients and that researchers separate data regarding cancer incidence and death rates into not just broad categories but also subpopulations.
“We need culturally tailored cancer screening awareness strategies for different populations in the U.S., especially for individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups or unique communities such as the LGBTQ[IA]+,” Dr. Dan Theodorescu, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who was involved with the report, told ABC News.
He added, “Another important example are the different breast cancer incidence rates in Asian sub-populations compared to other Asian ethnicities and white women. We don’t often have conferences focusing on the cancer burden of a specific population, but perhaps the time is now to start.”
Many cancer centers such as MSK and Cedars-Sinai have dedicated teams to help increase access of minorities in clinical trials such as the Endometrial Cancer Equity Program and increase awareness about screening in the communities they serve through community engagement and outreach programs.
“We can address these disparities related to lack of trust by developing a diverse workforce of cancer clinicians and researchers who reflect the people who we are trying to help,” Brown added.
(NEW YORK) — Good extra virgin olive oil has long been hailed for its associated health benefits — and now, some social media feeds are overflowing with users encouraging others to hop on the trend of taking a sip first thing in the morning. But nutrition specialists ABC News spoke to say the true benefit is likely achieved by adding EVOO as a complement to your meals.
“Olive oil has plant compounds in it that are very beneficial for human health. I would recommend people add it to their food rather than just taking a shot of it,” Liz Weinandy, lead dietitian at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, told ABC’s Good Morning America.
“Many foods like tomatoes, carrots and dark leafy greens have fat soluble nutrients in them, meaning they are absorbed better with some fat,” Weinandy added. “Olive oil can be that carrier to getting these nutrients into our body.”
Nutrition expert and registered dietitian Maya Feller told GMA that she was initially “floored” by “the benefits of actually taking olive oil” when she attended a Mediterranean Diet roundtable at Yale with a focus on olive oil shortly before the onset of the pandemic.
As for what’s happening on TikTok and Instagram, with people swigging a spoonful of high-quality olive oil, Feller said she personally supports the concept with some significant caveats, like looking at your overall diet and speaking to a professional.
“It’s interesting because it probably is like one of one of the few social media things where I’m like, ‘yeah, totally, it’s great,'” the Brooklyn-based nutritionist said. “I always give the caveat that it has to be individualized. If you’re going to incorporate anything into your pattern of eating or what you’re doing on a regular basis, you need to talk to a dietician or a qualified health professional.”
Additionally, Feller said she would not consider using a “cheap oil” without traceability for this trend.
“I wouldn’t take it [unless] it’s really high quality extra virgin olive oil and well sourced,” she said.
“There is research to show the microorganisms in our gut can break down the beneficial compounds in olive oil and improve our gut health,” Weinandy said. “This is important because we know there are a lot of functions the gut microbiome plays on our overall health.”
Some of the health associations with olive oil as part of a complete diet that Feller has reviewed, including from an Italian study on the Metabolic and Vascular Effect of the Mediterranean Diet, show that the healthy plant nutrients called phytochemicals could potentially play a part in helping to fight cancer and heart disease.
“What I really love about olive oil are its mono and polyunsaturated fatty acids,” she said. “Those are the type of fatty acids that are associated with a decrease in inflammation.”
“There are several studies showing those who consume more olive oil have a lower risk of some cancers like colon cancer, better cognition and a healthier heart. Olive oil alone won’t give us a clean bill of health but along with an overall healthy diet that includes many nutrients from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes and lean proteins, it is a winning ticket,” Weinandy explained. “This is one reason the Mediterranean diet has so many health benefits, because it includes olive oil as the main source of fat.”
A person’s lifestyle and amount of consumption of alcohol or tobacco also influence cancer risks.
Weinandy added that, “with that in mind, I would remind people olive oil is still fat and the calories can add up fast. Too many calories can still cause weight gain so balancing that out is key.”
“When people talk about gut health and the gut microbiome, it seems like there are some components in olive oil that actually are beneficial when we’re thinking about [gastrointestinal] health, and that they help to actually enhance and stimulate the diversity of the bacteria that’s in the gut and especially the good bugs that are in the gut,” Feller said.
Another caveat Feller said to take into account with this or any trend, is that “our patterns of eating are built over time and not a standalone moment.”
“Consuming a majority of added sugars, salts, and synthetic fats, a capsule of olive oil in the morning and evening, may not be used to mean elicit the response that people want,” she clarified. “It has to be thought about in the whole person, whole body context.”
Gut health expert Dr. Will Bulsiewicz, a gastroenterologist and author of Fiber Fueled, told GMA that while there are some health benefits associated with olive oil “consumed in moderation as a part of an overall healthy dietary pattern” he thinks this particular trend misses the mark on the true hero of gut health — fiber.
“Fiber is the fuel that empowers our gut microbes for better health,” he said. “I don’t understand why we would build our morning around food that is devoid of fiber when we could be opting for avocado toast.”
“We should bear in mind that olive oil, like any other oil, is the most calorie dense food on the planet. For example, one pound of kale has about 100 calories. One pound of olive oil has around 4,000. Gram for gram, the kale is packing far more nutritional value. And this is most noticeably true in the fiber content,” he added. “The fiber content of oil is highly predictable — it’s zero. You won’t find any fiber in oil.”
“As dietitians,” Weinandy said, “we encourage people to eat olive oil, we mean to include this as a healthy fat in our diet. Use it to sautee foods, as salad dressing, in place of butter on vegetables or with bread. The idea is to eat it in moderation and to use it in place of less healthy fats like butter or coconut oil.”
So while the TikTok trend may be on the mark as far as some benefits of olive oil, she reminded those curious about it that “ingesting a large amount at one time, like a shot glass full every morning, is really not necessary.”
“Large amounts of fat — any type of fat — can cause some gastrointestinal discomfort in some people,” Weinandy said. “Besides, who wants to drink a glass of olive oil every morning from an enjoyment perspective? Even if you like the taste of plain olive oil, it isn’t as enjoyable as eating it on foods.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Food and Drug Administration’s independent panel of advisers has voted in favor of the FDA authorizing Novavax, a protein-based vaccine, which could soon be the fourth vaccine for COVID-19 authorized in the U.S.
Although the U.S. already has three other COVID vaccines, some experts are excited about the Novavax vaccine because it is the first COVID-19 vaccine of its kind to be considered for authorization.
Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine is a more traditional protein-based vaccine, given as two shots. Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine platforms use more modern advances in genetic technology.
The FDA can now issue its authorization for Novavax and then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will review the vaccine before giving its recommendation. Novavax is not expected to roll out as quickly as the other vaccines have and instead will take weeks after authorization to get out to the public.
The company asked for authorization for adults over 18 and has yet to ask for authorization for boosters.
During the review on Tuesday, the FDA’s advisers pushed Novavax representatives on multiple points.
Members asked whether there was data to back up the hope that this vaccine will win over people who have been vaccine-hesitant until now.
Novavax didn’t have specific data on acceptance among unvaccinated people, but said it was focused on getting through to them.
FDA leadership signaled that it was open to any vaccine that made a dent in the nation’s vaccine rates.
“I will use this as a moment on the bully pulpit to say that we do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States,” Dr. Peter Marks, leader of the FDA’s vaccine division, told the panel.
“And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do,” he said.
Multiple advisory committee members also harped on the fact Novavax only had data on how its vaccine held up to earlier strains of the virus, but not the omicron variant.
“It is disappointing, and we’ve discussed this already, that we don’t have more updated information because we’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” Dr. Eric Rubin, a member of the committee and professor at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said during the meeting.
“Nevertheless … if there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not only existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” he said.
Filip Dubovsky, chief medical officer of Novavax, said the company was confident the vaccine was still protective against omicron.
“Overall, it’s factual that we don’t have efficacy data against omicron. But, what we do have is a technology that we think generates a broad immune response, demonstrated against a broad array of variants,” he said Tuesday.
And there were also concerns over myocarditis cases seen after the Novavax series.
Out of 40,000 vaccine participants to date, there were five cases of myocarditis occurring within 20 days of getting the shots — a very small number but still a concern.
Myocarditis, which is the inflammation of the heart muscle, has also happened to people who got the other authorized vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines Moderna and Pfizer. Like those cases, these cases were largely among young men.
Many members pointed out that there’s no reason to think myocarditis is more common from Novavax than any other vaccine already out there, but the committee still ultimately concluded that more research was needed on a broader group of Americans to better understand how big the risk is.
“I think we need more data from post-authorization use in larger numbers of individuals to really get at what the rate of myocarditis associated with this vaccine is and what exactly the risk is,” an FDA representative told the panel.
(NEW YORK) — Ramon Benavides, 2022’s Texas Teacher of the Year, choked up, clutching his infant son as his mind raced with thoughts of the recent mass shootings in his home state.
From the attack at an El Paso Walmart in 2019 to the Uvalde school massacre, the tragedies conjure up unimaginable fears felt not only by parents — but by teachers.
“I can’t even find the words to really explain how I’m feeling,” Benavides said. “I held him [his son] super tight because many parents, teachers involved, you know, they’re, they’re not coming back to their families and their families aren’t aren’t going to be able to embrace their loved ones as I did with my little boy last night. And it’s painful, it’s hurtful, and like I said, it’s just so many emotions just going on.”
The El Paso educator said he is devastated by the killing of 19 children and two of their teachers at Robb Elementary School. The shocking news struck his “soul,” he said, and he is having trouble making sense of it.
“I’ve lived across Texas, so this is something that just hits us all,” he told ABC News. “It kind of leaves you breathless, it’s like a punch to the gut.”
Teachers’ mental health
Having to deal with school shootings is just one of the factors taking a toll on teachers’ mental health.
Educators cite a range of emotions, including anxiety and sadness during a pandemic — now in its third year — as reasons more than half of them plan to leave their chosen profession, according to a survey from the National Education Association. While burnout is a primary cause teachers want out of the classroom, now some are haunted by fears that they, their families and their students now won’t be safe — even at school.
In the almost 10 years since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been more than 900 school shootings, according to the gun violence prevention organization Sandy Hook Promise and the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. The attack in Uvalde is the latest in a long series of acts of gun violence terrorizing students and teachers alike. Last year, there were 42 acts of campus gun violence at K-12 schools in the U.S.
“Mental health in this country is already bad with the pandemic,” Lee Perez, Nebraska’s 2022 Teacher of the Year, told ABC News. The Uvalde shooting, he said, “is only going to make it worse.”
He knows how the pressures can push teachers to their limits. Perez dealt with anxiety and depression due to stress from the pandemic and how the spread of COVID-19 disproportionately affected marginalized minority communities.
Teachers’ job-related stress levels and symptoms of depression were higher than most employed adults, according to Rand Corporation’s 2021 State of the U.S. Teacher Survey. A recent poll of over 3,000 National Education Association (NEA) members emphasized over 90% of educators believe stress is a serious issue.
Dr. Christine Crawford, associate medical director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said that exposure to horrific events like the Uvalde shooting “can elicit symptoms that are consistent with a trauma response, almost.”
She explained that after hearing or reading about events like a mass shooting, people may notice they are more on edge or irritable and may experience other symptoms such as difficulty sleeping or concentrating. These symptoms, Crawford said, may present after repeated exposure to similar events, even if someone didn’t experience the trauma firsthand.
“We do know that there is this phenomenon known as vicarious trauma,” Crawford explained. “So, just hearing about a traumatic event, you can almost imagine yourself in that sort of scenario and that can further kind of exacerbate some of the symptoms that I just described.”
It highlights, she said, that even in a small community, “you don’t fully know each and every person and what it is that they’re capable of. And so this kind of sense of safety within the community can certainly be threatened.”
Benavides says he’s taking it “day-by-day.” But Perez, his state’s first Latinx and English as a Second Language (ESL) recipient of the top teacher honor, said the shooting in Uvalde also hit close to home.
“These beautiful brown babies [were] just murdered in cold blood,” he said, adding, “it puts people of color … puts us on pins and needles.”
Perez had his first child at the beginning of this month. He tearfully discussed “strategizing” to protect his baby girl, Natalia, if Congress doesn’t pass universal background checks or mental health red flag laws.
“It really adds to that anxiety that has been brought on by all the stuff that’s happened two years ago,” Perez said. “As educators, we always tell families, communities and our students, ‘you are safe at school,’ but then this happens, and then the question becomes, well, ‘are students safe at school? Is anybody safe at school?'”
‘It scares you,’ one teacher said
Teachers have faced mental health struggles throughout the pandemic that initially shuttered schools and has upended education over the last two years. Their fears of contracting a deadly virus, combating a nationwide staffing and substitute shortage and increasing demands on their time have made a tough profession — even harder.
“Teachers are doing amazing work, and they are providing work during a very challenging time. They already had to provide support – to teach kids during a pandemic, and then to have these events happen, can be further traumatizing for some of our teachers,” Crawford said. “And so we certainly do need to have compassion for these teachers, empathy for these teachers, because they really have been faced with a tremendous amount of stress and trauma over the last few years.”
Experts have been monitoring the effects of the pandemic on the mental health of Americans over the last two years. Since April 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been documenting self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression, using Household Pulse Surveys. These metrics, compared with similar data collected in 2019, show a dramatic increase in symptoms.
Colorado’s Autumn Rivera was a 2022 finalist for the national teacher of the year award who says she considered seeking mental health counseling at her school after the Uvalde shooting. With the school year ending, Rivera is taking time to process her feelings because she can’t accept the fact that many of those slain were Latinx.
“Those are my students,” Rivera said, comparing the population she teaches to the students at Robb Elementary. “That is me and those two teachers, you know, very similar backgrounds, very similar situations, and it just broke my heart.”
For now, Perez struggles with the notion of when this might happen again, advocating for Congress to enact sweeping gun reform that could prevent future attacks on schools. Ultimately, he hopes his daughter has a safer future than today’s students who do lockdown and active shooting drills.
“It scares you,” he said. “Where is it safe? The fact that you have to ask that question scares, not just teachers, but everybody.”
The National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine offers resources and support to people experiencing mental health struggles. The HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. – 10 p.m., ET at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or helpline@nami.org. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is available toll-free, 24/7, to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress at 1-800-273-8255.
(NEW YORK) — Over the past decade, the number of children overdosing on melatonin, a sleep aid, has increased by 530%, according to a new study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The largest increase, a 38% jump, came in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, which the study’s authors say was likely because more children were spending more time at home.
In 2021 alone, more than 50,000 calls were placed to poison control centers in the United States about melatonin ingestion by kids, the study found.
“Most were unintentional exposure, meaning the parent did not give the child melatonin,” said ABC News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton, also a board-certified OBGYN. “So the implication is the child got into it themselves.”
Here are four things for parents to know to help keep kids safe:
1. Melatonin is a widely-accessible supplement.
Melatonin is a hormone that plays a role in sleep, according to the National Institutes of Health.
In the U.S., melatonin supplements are considered dietary supplements, which means they are accessible to the public without the regulations of a prescription drug.
Melatonin supplements come in the form of tablets, capsules, liquid and even gummies, which may make them more attractive to kids.
According to the study’s authors, “Increased sales, availability, and widespread use have likely resulted in increased access and exposure risk among children in the home.”
2. Melatonin has not been widely studied in kids.
There have not yet been enough studies on melatonin and kids to know the full impact of the supplement, according to the NIH.
Even in adults, according to the NIH, the long-term impacts of melatonin are not well-known, even if the supplement does appear to be mostly safe with short-term use.
With kids, because melatonin is a hormone, there is a possibility that taking it by supplement could impact hormonal development like puberty and menstruation, according to the NIH.
3. Melatonin ingestion by a child is a medical emergency.
According to Ashton, when a child ingests melatonin without adult supervision, it is a medical emergency that requires immediate action.
“You either want to bring them to an emergency room or contact a poison control center,” she said.
The phone number to reach a poison control center is 800-222-1222.
Symptoms of melatonin ingestion in kids includes abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, excessive tiredness and labored breathing.
4. Parents should store melatonin out of kids’ reach.
Ashton said parents should keep all medications and supplements, including melatonin, out of the reach of kids, even young teenagers.
Bottle tops should also be kept securely closed, according to Ashton, who encouraged parents to talk to their kids about medication safety.
“You always want to use any medication exposure as an opportunity to really teach that child about medication, that it should only be given by an adult, is not candy and can have consequences both good and bad,” she said.
The CDC also has additional tips HERE for keeping medication safely away from kids.
