On the day before World AIDS Day, the White House put out a statement saying “we reaffirm our ongoing commitment to end AIDS as a public health threat.” Advocates are waiting — and hoping for — that same sentiment to materialize into policy.
Scott Hensley wants to make one thing clear: You should still get a flu shot after reading this article.
In its release of new guidelines that recommend big reductions in antibiotic use in food animals, WHO cited the presence of extensive literature on this topic. So why did USDA put out a statement with a misleading description of the guidelines' scientific basis?
In more encouraging public health news, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that vaccination rates among kindergarteners have remained stable, with the median vaccine exemption rate at 2 percent. Some states even reported an increase in immunization rates.
It's not surprising to see a syphilis outbreak after years of cuts to public health funding. How much worse will it get now that funding cuts are coupled with increased antagonism toward the health of women and LGBTQ people?
Umair Shah’s story isn’t an uncommon one in public health. Starting out in medicine, with a career as an emergency department doctor, he said it quickly became clear that most of what impacts our health happens outside the hospital and in the community.
U.S. investments in global health research have saved millions of lives and prevented immeasurable suffering. And by working to detect, treat and eventually eliminate infectious diseases worldwide, we’re protecting our own country too. That cliché about diseases knowing no borders is unfortunately very true. All that alone should be enough to remain committed to the cause.
Another day, another study that underscores the societal benefits of vaccines and the consequences we’d face without them.
Last year’s emergency Zika funding is about to run out and there’s no new money in the pipeline. It’s emblematic of the kind of short-term, reactive policymaking that public health officials have been warning us about for years. Now, as we head into summer, public health again faces a dangerous, highly complex threat along with an enormous funding gap.
When you ask public health advocates about President Trump’s recent budget proposal, you typically get a bewildered pause. Public health people don’t like to exaggerate — they follow the science, they stay calm, they face off against dangerous threats on a regular basis. Exaggerating doesn’t help contain diseases, it only makes it harder. So it’s concerning when you hear words like this about Trump’s budget: “devastating,” “not serious,” “ludicrous,” “unfathomable.”