Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Sixteen state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Friday over its cancellation of research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues the cancellation of the grants is “unlawful” and the attorneys general “seek relief for the unreasonable and intentional delays currently plaguing the grant-application process.”
The defendants named in the suit include the NIH, almost all of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Department of Health and Human Services and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The NIH told ABC News it does not comment on pending litigation. The HHS did not immediately reply to ABC News’ request for comment.
“Once again, the Trump administration is putting politics before public health and risking lives and livelihoods in the process,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement. “Millions of Americans depend on our nation’s research institutions for treatments and cures to the diseases that devastate families every day.”
“The decision to cut these funds is an attack on science, public health, and medical innovation — and I won’t stand for it. We are suing to restore these critical funds because the people of New York, and the entire nation, deserve better,” the statement continued.
Over the past several weeks, active research grants related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have been canceled at the NIH because they allegedly do not serve the “priorities” of President Donald Trump’s administration.
As of late March, more than 900 grants worth millions of dollars have been terminated, an NIH official with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be named, told ABC News.
In previous termination letters, viewed by ABC News, they state that, “Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans. Many such studies ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities. It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize these research programs.”
“The premise…is incompatible with agency priorities, and no modification of the project could align the project with agency priorities,” the letters continue.
The plaintiffs argue that the terminations, “if left unchecked,” could cause “direct, immediate, significant, and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and their public research institutions. “
The attorneys general are seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction asking the defendants to review delayed applications and barring them from carrying out terminations of grants.
Earlier this week, researchers who had millions of dollars’ worth of grants terminated by the NIH sued the agency, the HHS, Bhattacharya and Kennedy in the hopes of stopping any further research cancellations.
Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
(AUSTIN, Texas) — The measles outbreak in western Texas has hit 481 cases, with 59 newly identified infections confirmed over the last three days, according to new data published Friday.
Almost all of the cases are in unvaccinated individuals or in individuals whose vaccination status is unknown, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS).
Three of the cases are among people vaccinated with one dose of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and seven cases are among those vaccinated with two doses.
At least 56 measles patients have been hospitalized so far, the DSHS said.
Children and teenagers between ages 5 and 17 make up the majority of cases, at 180, followed by children ages 4 and under, who account for 157 cases, according to the data.
Gaines County, which borders New Mexico, remains the epicenter of the outbreak, with 315 cases confirmed so far, DSHS data shows.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORIK) — About 10,000 people across the United States Department of Health and Human Services were laid off this week as part of a massive restructuring plan.
In a post on X on Tuesday afternoon, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the layoffs represented “a difficult moment for all of us” but that “we must shift course” because Americans are “getting sicker every year.”
An official at the National Institutes of Health with knowledge on the matter, who asked not to be named, told ABC News that the layoffs were an “HHS-wide bloodbath,” with entire offices being fired.
Sources told ABC News that affected offices included a majority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, key offices in the Center for Tobacco Products, most of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the entire assisted reproductive technology team at the CDC.
Then, Kennedy told ABC News on Thursday that some programs would soon be reinstated because they were mistakenly cut.
In a video statement posted on X prior to the layoffs, Kennedy said that he plans to bring to the agency a “clear sense of mission to radically improve the health of Americans and to improve agency morale.”
In the six-minute clip, Kennedy claimed that the U.S. is the “sickest nation in the world,” with rates of chronic disease and cancer increasing dramatically and the lifespan of Americans dropping — though Kennedy did not present any data in his video to support those claims.
Smoking and the use of tobacco products contribute to both chronic disease and cancer — and the offices tackling those issues are among those that were gutted in Kennedy’s recent moves.
While Kennedy is correct in his statement that some chronic disease and cancer rates have risen, public health experts said — and data shows — that the country has made great progress tackling illnesses, including driving down cancer mortality rates, and that life expectancy is on the rise.
“Gutting the public health system while claiming to fight disease is a dangerous contradiction,” said Dr. John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, as well as a contributor for ABC News.
“We should be focusing on strengthening – not stripping – the public health system if we’re serious about tackling chronic disease,” Brownstein continued. “Dismantling key infrastructure will only set us back in the fight to keep Americans healthy.”
American life expectancy increasing
In a post on X, Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator from 2022 to 2023, said Kennedy was incorrect in his statement about Americans getting sicker.
“So much of what is in here is incorrect,” he wrote. “Americans are NOT getting sicker every year. After a devastating pandemic, life expectancy is beginning to rise again.”
Between 2022 and 2023, age-adjusted death rates decreased for nine of the leading causes of death in the U.S., according to a December 2024 report from the CDC.
This includes decreasing death rates from heart disease, unintentional injuries, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and COVID-19.
Additionally, age-specific death rates dropped from 2022 to 2023 for all age groups ages 5 and older, the CDC report found.
The report also found life expectancy in the U.S. is beginning to rise again after it dropped in every U.S. state during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Life expectancy in 2023 hit its highest level since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the CDC report. Data showed life expectancy for the U.S. population was 78.4 years in 2023, an increase of 0.9 years from 2022.
The drop in age-adjusted death rates was largely attributed to decreases in mortality from COVID-19, heart disease, unintentional injuries and diabetes.
“Claims that Americans are getting sicker every year simply don’t hold up,” Brownstein told ABC News. “Life expectancy is rising again post-pandemic, and we’ve seen declines in cancer, cardiovascular and overdose mortality.”
Obesity rising in children, decreasing in adults
Kennedy has said he wants to tackle the obesity epidemic, including childhood obesity.
Research does show that obesity is rising in children in the U.S. and is occurring at younger ages, with approximately one in five children and teens in the U.S. having obesity, according to the CDC.
A 2022 study from Emory University that studied data from 1998 through 2016 found that childhood obesity among kindergarten through fifth-grade students has become more severe, putting more children at risk of health consequences.
However, Jha pointed out in his post on X that “even obesity rates have plateaued and are beginning to turn down” in adults.
For the first time in over a decade, adult obesity rates in the U.S. may be trending downward, with numbers dropping slightly from 46% in 2022 to 45.6% in 2023, according to a study published in JAMA Health Forum in December 2024.
The study reviewed the body mass index, a generally accepted method of estimating obesity, of 16.7 million U.S. adults over a 10-year period. The average BMI rose annually during that period to 30.24, which is considered obese, until it plateaued in 2022, then dropped marginally to 30.21 in 2023.
“Recent research I co-authored in JAMA shows that obesity rates in adults have plateaued and are even starting to trend downward,” said Brownstein, a co-author of the study. “That progress reflects the very kind of long-term public health investment this reorg puts at risk.”
Chronic disease on the rise
Kennedy has made tackling chronic diseases a cornerstone of his “Make America Healthy Again” platform.
Over the past two decades, the prevalence of chronic conditions has been steadily increasing, according to a 2024 study conducted by researchers in Iowa, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
“An increasing proportion of people in America are dealing with multiple chronic conditions; 42% have [two] or more, and 12% have at least [five],” the authors wrote.
However, the study also found that the prevalence of chronic disease varies by geographic location and socioeconomic status. Residents who live in areas with the highest prevalence of chronic disease also face a number of contributing social, economic and environmental barriers, the study found.
A 2022 study from the CDC found chronic diseases linked to cigarette smoking include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancers and diabetes.
Rates of cancer have ‘increased dramatically’
Kennedy is correct in stating that cancer rates in the U.S. have increased, with incidence rates rising for 17 cancer types in younger generations, according to a 2024 joint study from the American Cancer Society, Cancer Care Alberta and the University of Calgary.
There has been a notable increase in incidence rates for many cancer types among women and younger adults, research shows.
Incidence rates among women between ages 50 and 64 have surpassed those among men, according to a 2025 report published in the journal of the American Cancer Society.
Additionally, cancer rates among women under age 50 are 82% higher than among men under age 50, which is up from 51% in 2002, the report found.
However, while cancer incidence has increased, cancer mortality has decreased.
A 2025 report from the American Cancer Society found that age-adjusted cancer death rates have dropped from a peak in 1991 by 34% as of 2022, largely due to reductions in smoking, advances in treatment and early detection for some cancers.
However, there is more work to be done and disparities still persist. For example, Native Americans have the highest cancer death rates of any racial or ethnic group in the U.S.
Additionally, Black Americans have a two-fold higher mortality rate than white Americans for prostate, stomach and uterine corpus cancers, the latter of which is a cancer of the lining of the uterus.
Dr. Jay-Sheree Allen Akambase is a family medicine and preventive medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
ABC News’ Dr. Niki Iranpour, Cheyenne Haslett and Will McDuffie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Researchers who had millions of dollars’ worth of grants terminated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are suing the federal government in the hopes of stopping any further research cancellations.
The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday evening against the NIH and its director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Among the plaintiffs are Dr. Brittany Charlton, an associate professor in the department of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who said all of her grants were terminated because they allegedly “no longer [effectuate] agency priorities,” according to termination letters.
“Why am I standing up? I am a scientist, and therefore not a lawyer, but I appreciate that contract law is complex, and yet NIH’s contract cancellations set off my alarm bell,” she told ABC News in a statement.
Co-plaintiffs include the American Public Health Association; Ibis Reproductive Health; and United Auto Workers as well as three other researchers.
Both the NIH and the HHS told ABC News that they don’t comment on ongoing litigation.
Over the past several weeks, active research grants related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have been canceled at the NIH because they allegedly do not serve the “priorities” of President Donald Trump’s administration.
As of late March, more than 900 grants have been terminated, an NIH official with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be named, told ABC News.
The terminations come after Trump passed a flurry of executive orders including vowing to “defend women from gender ideology extremism,” which has led to new guidance, like that from HHS, which now only recognizes two sexes.
The administration has also issued several executive orders aiming to dismantle DEI initiatives.
In previous termination letters, viewed by ABC News, they state that, “Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans. Many such studies ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities. It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize these research programs.”
The lawsuit alleges that the grant terminations are a “reckless and illegal purge to stamp out NIH-funded research that addresses topics and populations that they disfavor.”
Charlton said she was alarmed by Project 2025 — a nearly 1,000-page document of policy proposals unveiled by the Heritage Foundation during the 2024 campaign intended to guide the next conservative administration — which allegedly attacked fields like hers, centering on LGBTQ+ health research, as “junk gender science,” she said.
On the campaign trail, Trump tried to distance himself from Project 2025, saying he didn’t know anything about the proposals.
Five of Charlton’s grants were terminated, including a five-year grant, of which Charlton said she and her colleagues were in their fourth year, focused on documenting obstetrical outcomes for lesbian, gay and bisexual women, she said.
Another grant was focused on how to improve the experience of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals who are trying to form their families, she said.
A third was research looking to understand how laws identified by the team as discriminatory affect mental health among LGBTQ+ teens and potentially lead to depression and suicide, according to Charlton.
Charlton said the cancellations are not only affecting her ability to conduct research but the ability to keep open the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence — based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health — of which she is the founding director.
“My current NIH research contracts are worth $15.9 million, of which $5.9 million still needs to be spent to finish our research,” Charlton said. “I have essentially no salary now, and I may need to shutter our newly launched LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence, which was a career goal of mine that I finally met when we launched less than a year ago.”
She went on, “These grant terminations may end my academic career, and I’ve already been forced to make really tough decisions like terminating staff, including our newly appointed center’s executive director.”
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work, has had at least six grants terminated worth about $11.9 million, including one studying sexual violence among men who fall under sexual minorities. She can no longer pay several of the roughly 50 staff members who are funded through the research grants, the lawsuit states.
Dr. Peter Lurie, president and CEO of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, was a paid consultant and adviser on a grant evaluating the impacts of over-the-counter access to pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce HIV transmission, according to the lawsuit. The grantee institution, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, received a termination letter from the NIH in late March, the lawsuit states.
Meanwhile Dr. Nicole Maphis — a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine — who was studying the link between alcohol use disorder and Alzheimer’s disease, applied for a MOSAIC grant, “intended to help diversify the profession,” according to the lawsuit. Her proposal was pulled and her current funding ends September 2025.
“Without additional funding, which the MOSAIC award would have provided, she will lose her job,” the lawsuit states.
Charlton said she is hopeful the lawsuit results in a preliminary injunction and therefore halts further NIH terminations.
“I believe these contracts are binding agreements and are constitutionally grounded,” she said. “It’s been less than 100 days since inauguration, and I’m concerned. Concerned about signs of growing authoritarianism, and yet there is absolutely hope executive orders can’t rewrite laws, and I pray courts ensure justice, pursuing truth, including via science, unites us, and it’s the only way to ensure a healthier future for all.”
(NEW YORK) — More cities and counties across the U.S. are moving to ban fluoride in public drinking water after Utah became the first state in the country to do so.
The Miami-Dade County commissioners voted 8-2 on Tuesday to stop adding fluoride to the public water supply.
Commissioner Roberto Gonzalez, who sponsored the legislation, referred to fluoride as a “neurotoxin” and that studies show it “should not be in the water.”
Florida surgeon general Dr. Joseph Ladapo has previously recommended removing fluoride from public water supplies, citing potential harms, according to local ABC News affiliate WPLG.
In a statement last year, Ladapo claimed that “more research is necessary to address safety and efficacy concerns regarding community water fluoridation.”
Opponents, including Mayor Daniella Levine-Cava, argue fluoride is safe and essential for dental health.
“Miami-Dade County has been adding fluoride to the water for 60 years. It has been constantly verified, scientifically and medically, that it is safe. We know that it provides protection for dental care and prevents cavities. We use a very, very low level, well within the guidelines,” she said before the meeting, according to WPLG.
The measure also calls for the mayor “to create and implement a countywide public service campaign focused on dental hygiene and alternate sources of fluoride available in dental health products.”
The county has 30 days to halt fluoride use. It’s unclear whether or not the mayor will veto the legislation.
Local reports indicate that a town in Virginia has also voted unanimously to bar adding fluoride to its town water supply.
Meanwhile, an Ohio state representative has also proposed a bill prohibiting adding fluoride to public water systems.
Fluoride is a mineral that naturally occurs in water sources such as lakes and rivers, and is even naturally present in some foods and beverages, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).
It is added to some dental products, such as toothpaste, to help prevent cavities.
High-quality studies show fluoride prevents cavities and repairs damage to teeth caused by bacteria in the mouth. Fluoride makes tooth enamel stronger and rebuilds weakened tooth enamel, the ADA says.
Fluoride also replaces minerals lost from teeth due to acid breakdown, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, influential skeptics, such as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have long raised doubts about the benefits of fluoride.
In an interview with NPR in November 2024, Kennedy doubled down on his promise of persuading local governments to remove fluoride from their water supplies.
He has claimed that fluoride in drinking water affects children’s neurological development and that other countries that have removed fluoride from their water supplies have not seen an increase in cavities.
A large review paper published in January 2025 suggested a link between fluoride and lower IQ in children, but much of the underlying data was pulled from other countries, where fluoride exposure is far higher than levels used in drinking water in the U.S.
Some health professionals have also expressed concerns about excessive fluoride intake and potential toxicity.
Many doctors and dental associations, however, argue that fluoride in water is still a crucial, low-risk/high-reward public health tool, especially for children and adults who may not be able to practice regular dental hygiene.
The association calls community water fluoridation “the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”
“Studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing dental decay by at least 25% in children and adults, even in the era of widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste,” the ADA states on its website. “So, by simply drinking fluoridated water, you are doing something good for your oral health.”
ABC News’ Sony Salzman and Jason Volack contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The battle over taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood takes center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in a dispute over South Carolina’s exclusion of the group from the state Medicaid program because it provides abortions.
On the line is the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose a healthcare provider, including physicians at Planned Parenthood who provide services other than abortion, like contraception treatments and cancer screenings.
South Carolina’s two Planned Parenthood clinics have served mostly low-income, minority women for more than 40 years. Hundreds of their patients are Medicaid recipients.
The case also implicates the millions of federal dollars Planned Parenthood receives in the form of reimbursements for treating Medicaid patients each year.
According to Planned Parenthood, 34% of its overall revenue, or $699 million, comes from government grants, contracts, and Medicaid funds.
In 2018, South Carolina’s Republican governor Henry McMaster issued executive orders disqualifying Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services.
Julie Edwards, a Medicaid beneficiary and type-1 diabetic who sought medical care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, SC, sued the state alleging a violation of the Medicaid Act, which guarantees a “free choice of provider” that is willing and qualified.
“Medicaid beneficiaries often face significant barriers to obtaining care, particularly in South Carolina. Twenty-five percent of state residents live in medically underserved areas,” the plaintiffs wrote in their brief to the high court.
“[Congress] enacted the free-choice-of-provider provision to ensure that Medicaid patients, like everyone else, can choose their own doctor,” they wrote. “Congress specifically enacted this provision in response to some States’ efforts to restrict Medicaid patients’ choice of provider.”
The state argues that Congress never intended to give individuals the right to sue over access to a particular provider and that there are plenty of other clinics available to serve Medicaid recipients.
“Congress wanted states to have substantial discretion to innovate with their Medicaid programs,” the state wrote in its brief to the high court. Allowing individuals to sue over access to specific providers would “subject the state to unanticipated (and expensive) lawsuits.”
While federal law already prohibits any government funding of abortions, South Carolina contends it has the right to target non-abortion funding to abortion providers. “Because money is fungible, giving Medicaid dollars to abortion facilities frees up their other funds to provide more abortions,” the state told the court.
“[Planned Parenthood] can restore Medicaid funding if it stops performing abortions— but it has chosen not to do so,” South Carolina wrote.
If the justices allow the suit to go forward, Edwards and Planned Parenthood can continue to challenge the clinics’ exclusion from the state’s Medicaid program in a lower court.
If the justices side with the state, they would bolster efforts to cut off Planned Parenthood from sources of government funding and effectively limit the number of providers available to Medicaid recipients.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.
(NEW YORK) — One year ago, the first bird flu infection in a human in the United States was reported in a Texas dairy worker, just weeks after the virus had been found in cattle for the first time ever.
While the virus has spread in birds for decades, in recent years it has started to infect more and more mammals including cows, bears and racoons — and even house cats are getting sick.
In the 12 months since the first human case, at least 70 people have been infected. There was one death linked to a human infected with bird flu in Louisiana.
ABC News’ medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton was granted rare access inside the race to stop bird flu at Michigan State University’s Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. He aimed to better understand how researchers are trying to curb the spread in animals — and why that may help protect us from an outbreak among humans.
“We’re a network of more than 60 academic, state and federal laboratories that are the first line of defense in the case of a high consequence animal disease outbreak,” Dr. Kimberly Dodd, dean of the college of veterinary medicine at Michigan State University, told Sutton.
So far, the outbreak has had a devastating impact on animals with 168 million birds affected in every state. Since March of last year, nearly 1,000 cattle herds have been infected as well.
With rapid detection of cases, culling of infected birds and isolation of sick cows, there has not been a major outbreak in the last month.
But Dodd points out as springtime approaches, we may see increasing spread as wild birds begin to migrate.
“Birds don’t recognize the state borders. This is a national problem. We have to be able to work together,” Dodd said.
While most of the human cases in the U.S. have been mild, scientists like Dodd’s team continue to track the virus for any mutations that may change that risk.
“We are continually tracking not just the virus in animals, but then also monitoring [people] who may have been exposed to those infected animals and birds,” she said. “This allows us to have a better understanding if the risk to humans is changing or increasing.”
The risk to the general public has so far remained low, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet, health officials and experts have long warned that as the virus continues to spread in the environment, it leads to greater chances of mutating and potentially adapting to spread between people, which has not occurred yet.
The widespread nature of the virus has also devastated many farming communities and lead to skyrocketing egg prices in the last year.
Doug Corwin’s family run duck farm in Long Island, New York, was forced to euthanize 100,000 birds in late January after the virus was found on their property.
“It was devastating — disease, sickness, death, like I’ve never seen in my life,” Corwin told Sutton during a visit this week. “It was just an ugly, awful, sad time.”
Typically, Corwin’s farm sells around a million ducks a year that are served in high-end restaurants. Now, he’s left with no income for at least 18 months as he tries to salvage his remaining flock. He was also forced to lay off 45 of his employees.
“To try to explain to them why we weren’t going to be able to work tomorrow … was a tearful, hard thing,” Corwin said.
“I’ve never had a more tearful day. It was just a shocking, shocking experience,” he added.
ABC News’ medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Cutting back on calories three days a week may lead to more weight loss than daily dieting and may be more effective than other types of so-called “intermittent fasting,” a new study suggests.
In a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers asked participants to reduce their calorie intake by 80% of what their body needed to maintain weight on three non-consecutive days each week. On the remaining days, they had no calorie restrictions, but were still encouraged to make healthy choices.
Over the course of a year, people in the intermittent fasting group lost nearly 17 pounds—about 60% more than those who were asked to trim back their daily calories by one-third, according to the study.
This style of intermittent fasting “appears to be easier to adhere to over time,” Dr. Victoria Catenacci, lead author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, told ABC News.
“It’s really hard to restrict calories every day,” she says. “It’s just another strategy for people to consider.”
Neither group hit their calorie targets, she noted, but those who fasted a few days a week ended up eating fewer calories overall and were more likely to stick with the plan.
Danielle Ostendorf, another of the study’s authors and an assistant professor at the University of Knoxville, said she suspects that intermittent fasting hasn’t shown this level of success in past studies because the number of fasting days was often too few or too many—making the plans either ineffective or hard to follow.
Fasting for three days, Ostendorf says, is “something like a sweet spot.”
Participants also took part in a comprehensive lifestyle program focused on behavior change. They set exercise goals, attended frequent group meetings led by dieticians, and received personalized support.
The authors emphasize that the additional support made a big difference. “This program really provided accountability for the participants, and like social support. They were able to learn from each other,” Ostendorf shared.
No participant reported any downsides to the diet itself. However, the study included only healthy adults and excluded people with serious conditions like diabetes.
The authors recommended that anyone considering this type of fasting talk to their doctor and a registered dietician. Joining a support group may also help with encouragement and accountability, they advised.
Dr. Amy Rothberg, an endocrinologist and director of the University of Michigan Weight Management Program, supports patients trying new diets as long as they still balance healthy foods. “If that’s something that they think they can do, I’m all for it,” she said.
“If you don’t want to count calories, track and log your food intake,” intermittent fasting “may be beneficial for some people,” she said. Still, she stressed that people should choose diets they can stick with long-term.
The study did not track participants beyond one year to see if weight loss was maintained.
“There’s no superior dietary approach,” Rothberg said. “So you need to find an approach that is tailored to that individual.”
Catenacci takes a similar view with her own patients, recommending a variety of strategies based on what someone is interested in.
“At the end of the day, the best diet for any given person is the one that they feel they can adhere to over time,” Catenacci said.
Dr. Alice Gao, MD, MPH, is a family medicine resident at Temple Northwest Community Family Medicine and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
(LUBBOCK, Texas) — When the first measles cases were confirmed in western Texas, health officials said the infections primarily affected the Mennonite community.
Mennonites, who are part of the Anabaptist Christian church, have a small presence in the United States — and Texas in general — but they have a large presence in the South Plains region the state, and in Gaines County, which is the epicenter of the outbreak.
Many Mennonite communities are close-knit and under-vaccinated, which may have contributed to the spread of measles among members of the community.
But health officials are starting to see cases spread beyond the Mennonite population.
It is spreading beyond this community, “unfortunately,” Katherine Wells, director of public health for the city of Lubbock — which is located in western Texas — told ABC News. “West Texas is where the spread of these cases are right now, and we need to make sure that everybody in West Texas is getting vaccinated and is aware of measles and understands the precautions that we need to take.”
The outbreak in western Texas is continuing to grow with a total of 327 cases in at least 15 counties, according to new data published Tuesday.
Nearly all of the cases are in unvaccinated individuals or in individuals whose vaccination status is unknown, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services. At least 40 people have been hospitalized so far.
Just two cases have occurred in people fully vaccinated with the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, according to the data.
Wells acknowledged that it may be easy for people to assume measles is only affecting a small and insular group like Mennonites and that nobody else is at risk.
“West Texas, you might say we’re small and insular compared to Dallas and some other areas,” she said. “But no, this has, unfortunately, moved into many, many different populations.”
“So unfortunately, it is growing and continues to grow,” she continued.
Marlen Ramirez, a community health worker and program coordinator at Vaccinate Your Family, which is an advocacy group based in Eagle Pass, Texas, shared a statement with ABC News, saying, “As a Community Health Worker living and working in a rural border town, I see firsthand how quickly diseases like measles can spread when vaccination rates are low and access to care is limited.”
“While the initial measles outbreak in western Texas affected members of the Mennonite community, the virus easily spreads wherever communities are under-vaccinated—and right now, we’re seeing cases reach into rural parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas,” Ramirez added.
“In many of these areas, vaccination rates are below 90%, well below the 92-94% needed for community or “herd” immunity. That’s what has allowed this outbreak to grow to over 300 cases so quickly. We fear the number of actual cases may be much higher than reported due to confusion and delays in the outbreak response,” she said.
A spokesperson for DSHS confirmed to ABC News that the first cases in the outbreak were among Mennonite community members, but this is no longer the case.
“Since 90% of unvaccinated people exposed to the measles virus will become ill, there are many cases in people who are not part of the Mennonite community,” the spokesperson said. “We do not ask a person’s religious affiliation as part of our case investigation process, so we have no way of counting how many cases are part of the Mennonite community and how many are not.”
Why the Mennonite population was hit hard by measles cases Steven Nolt, professor of history and Anabaptist studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, told ABC News that culturally conservative and Old Order Mennonites have traditionally been under-immunized or partially immunized.
He said there are no religious teachings or bodies of religious writings that prevent Mennonites from being vaccinated. The DSHS spokesperson also added that that Mennonite religion is not “widely against vaccination.”
“Reasons are not religious but reflect everything from less frequent engagement with health care systems (for those who are more rural) to a traditional outlook that replicates practices of parents and grandparents more than the most current practices,” Nolt said via email.
For example, culturally traditional Mennonites may have participated in mid-20th century vaccination campaigns against diseases like smallpox, leading to their children and grandchildren trusting those vaccines compared to more recent additions to the immunization schedule, Nott said.
He added that Mennonites may also be influenced by the opinions of their neighbors, which may play a role in lack of vaccination.
Nolt also explained that the Mennonites who live in Seminole, Texas, a city at the center of Gaines County — a community known as Low German Mennonites, due to the language they speak — “lived in relative isolation in Mexico from the 1920s to the 1980s.”
“They missed out on the mid-century public health immunization campaigns in the U.S., be they polio or smallpox or whatever (the Mexican government had a reputation for not engaging with the Low German Mennonites at all),” he wrote. “Thus, they are starting from a different place than other culturally conservative Mennonites whose ancestors have been here since the 1700s.”
Nott went on, “My point is, the so-called Low German Mennonites from Mexico, now in west Texas, don’t have that minimum baseline of mid-20th century vaccine acceptance that we see among Old Order Mennonites and Amish in the U.S. because the folks in Seminole missed the whole mid-century immunization push, as they weren’t in the U.S. at that time.”
