Category: health care

  • Demonstrators rally in front of PhRMA's Washington office to protest high prescription drug prices on September 21, 2021.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal warned Monday that the upcoming midterm elections could be painful for Democrats if they fail to substantively deliver on their healthcare-related campaign promises, which ranged from tackling sky-high drug prices to lowering the Medicare eligibility age.

    “It has been a concern for us,” Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2021, told the Washington Post. “You can see it with the number of Democrats in vulnerable districts across the country who want to be able to go back and tell people that we’ve lowered their costs for child care, for pre-K, for elder care, for drug pricing, for healthcare.”

    The stagnation of Democrats’ $1.75 trillion Build Back Better package — thanks in large part to opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other right-wing lawmakers — has increased the likelihood that the party will enter campaign season having accomplished little on healthcare, which voters consistently view as a top priority.

    Republicans, which have obstructed their Democratic counterparts at every turn, are already favored to retake the House in the midterms, riding a wave of voter suppression and aggressive map-rigging.

    The current, dramatically scaled-back version of the Build Back Better Act includes a new hearing benefit for Medicare, provisions to reduce sky-high prescription drug costs, and policy changes aimed at addressing the Medicaid coverage gap.

    More sweeping proposals to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and add dental and vision coverage to the program were removed at the behest of corporate-backed right-wing Democrats, including Manchin.

    The Medicare for All Act — which has the support of a majority of the House Democratic caucus and the public, but not President Joe Biden — hasn’t even been put on the table for discussion. The Democratic Party’s 2020 platform, unveiled in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, mentions Medicare for All just once but does not endorse it.

    With Congress and the Biden administration failing to act, pharmaceutical companies are raising prices for prescription drugs at will and Medicare beneficiaries are facing a massive premium hike — neither of which bode well for the party in full control of the federal government.

    The healthcare provisions that have survived Build Back Better talks thus far are likely to crumble if Democrats aren’t able to salvage the bill, which has been put on hold as the party focuses on voting rights legislation that also faces long odds in the Senate.

    “We’ve campaigned for a long time on taking it to the drug companies and passing the bulk negotiation of prices. It’s something that voters understand,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the Post. “I think it’s problematic if we can’t get that done.”

    With the full Build Back Better Act stuck in the Senate, some vulnerable frontline Democrats are calling on the party’s leadership to break the bill into pieces and hold votes on popular individual elements, including prescription drug price reforms.

    “People want to know that the people they elect can get things done that are going to make a difference in the lives of ordinary citizens,” said Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who narrowly won reelection in 2020.

    But some outside progressives argue such an approach would be a mistake and would not increase the likelihood of passage given that individual bills, unlike the full reconciliation package, would be subject to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster.

    “Breaking up BBB at this point when Democrats have foolishly given away all their leverage (by releasing [the bipartisan infrastructure bill]) will only reward and embolden obstruction — while further diluting an already milquetoast bill,” tweeted progressive media strategist Murshed Zaheed.

    Ellen Sciales, a spokesperson for the youth-led Sunrise Movement, echoed that criticism in a statement to the Post.

    “The idea of breaking up BBB into smaller bills is a false choice for Democrats,” she said. “Everything in the Build Back Better Act is urgently needed.”

    “Democrats have a trifecta right now, and instead of pitting programs and communities against each other, the White House and Senate leaders should figure out a way to bring the last two senators on board,” Sciales added, referring to Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). “It’s clear the tactic of negotiating in private is failing, and we’re quickly losing our window of opportunity to act.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden is coming under growing pressure to fire White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeff Zients—a former private equity executive with no public health background—as the administration continues to face criticism over its slow-moving and inadequate efforts to combat Covid-19.

    Watchdog groups have long warned that Zients is not qualified to take on the massive task of leading the federal government’s pandemic response given both his lack of scientific and medical experience as well as his record in the private sector, where his firm invested in a company accused of exploitative surprise billing.

    The post Biden Urged to Fire Covid Response Chief Over ‘Damning’ Failures appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The public health community has an obligation to condemn the use of weaponized drones and demand an end to these targeted killings. If the goal of the public health sector — which includes health care practitioners, researchers, academics and policy makers — is, as the American Public Health Association’s (APHA) website states, “to prevent people from getting sick or injured,” then surely lending an authoritative voice in opposition to weaponized drones is more than appropriate.

    The post Public Health Professionals Must Demand An End To The Use Of Weaponized Drones appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • After two years without being able to travel home from London, England to Los Angeles, Cali. to see my family, I finally arrived in a chaotic U.S. in time for the holidays amid the Omicron wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Although I’d been preparing for a difficult return thanks to the new variant, I had been eager to see my family now that I’m finally vaccinated against Covid-19 and that my partner, who holds a British passport, was able to visit alongside me after more than a year of travel restrictions barring Europeans. What I hadn’t been expecting, however, was to find family and friends desperately trying to procure rapid antigen tests as many of them developed Covid symptoms and wanted to protect their loved ones and community over the holidays.

    The post Biden’s Failure To Provide At-Home Covid Tests Looks Extra Ridiculous appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In a scathing condemnation of the Scott Morrison government, Australian trade unions criticized its inability to make testing for COVID-19 freely available for all. The country’s largest apex trade union body, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), released a statement on Thursday, January 13, criticizing the failure to make Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) free and accessible for all.

    “The ACTU condemns in the strongest possible terms the Prime Minister’s failure at National Cabinet to ensure Rapid Antigen Tests be made free and accessible for all to protect worker and community safety and get the economy moving again,” reads the ACTU statement.

    The statement also criticized the announcement made on Thursday to relax quarantine rules for close contact workers in transport, education and emergency services.

    The post Australian Trade Unions Demand Free COVID Testing For All appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Here’s how the world should operate in simple terms: A certain country or region or city or township or Hobbit hole tries something in order to help their society or group or hovel — if it works, other places then do it. If it doesn’t work, other places don’t do it. It’s like when you were a kid and you saw your brother slide down the banister and rack himself on the newel post — You then thought, “Maybe that activity is not for me.” But if he didn’t nail himself in the jewels, you probably thought, “I think I’ll try that.”

    That’s how the United States government should work, but it doesn’t.

    The post We Know The Silver Bullet To Ending Poverty And Destitution But Choose Not To Use It appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Across the US, Omicron infections continue to explode, as “more children are being admitted to hospitals than ever before,” according to *CNN.* Vaccination rates among children remain low and community spread, accelerated by the holiday season and the return to in-person instruction, is rippling across the social terrain; hitting teachers, parents, and family members. In just the Los Angeles school district, “Approximately 65,000 students and staff members have tested positive for COVID-19, according to mandatory testing conducted by the district during the winter break.” The drastic spike in COVID cases has also been coupled with increasing shortages of medical staff, which has hindered the ability of many people to get tested and receive medical attention.

    The post Strikes And Student Walkouts Spread Across US As Omicron Surges And Schools Re-Open appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Hospitals in the US, the worst-hit country in the world, have been struggling to cope up with the new tide of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, as well as worker shortages and burnout. Nurses are furious over sheer callousness and indifference shown by the government as well as their employers, blaming them for caring about their businesses, not the public health. The protests took place across 11 US states  and Washington, D.C. “to demand the hospital industry invest in safe staffing, and to demand that President Biden follow through on his campaign promise to protect nurses and prioritize public health,” according to the union.

    The post Nurses In US Protest COVID-19 Working Conditions appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • With fundamental differences in health systems structure and organization, as well as in political philosophy and culture, it is not surprising that there are major differences in outcomes. The more coordinated, comprehensive response to COVID-19 in Cuba has resulted in significantly better outcomes compared with the United States. Through July 15, 2021, the US cumulative case rate is more than 4 times higher than Cuba’s, while the death rate and excess death rate are both approximately 12 times higher in the United States. In addition to the large differences in cumulative case and death rates between United States and Cuba, the COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked serious underlying health inequities in the United States.

    The post Comparing The COVID-19 Responses In Cuba And The United States appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Friday, Chinese health authorities began testing every single resident of Zhengzhou, the capital of China’s central Henan Province, after a handful of COVID-19 cases were detected in the massive city of 12.5 million. Just six hours later, they were finished, achieving a rate of 2.1 million people tested per hour, or 583 residents per second, according to the Global Times. For comparison, that is equal to New York City and Chicago combined. On Sunday, health officials set about trying to do it again with the even larger city of Tianjin, home to 14 million people.

    The post China Tests 12.5 Million In Zhengzhou For Covid In Six Hours appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Hundreds of Sudanese doctors and medics marched in Khartoum and other parts of Sudan on Sunday to protest against violence by security forces against the medical staff, healthcare facilities, and patients. Slogans against the military and its October coup were raised and a petition was handed to the United Nations representative in Sudan, calling on the international community to document the violations against the Sudanese people. The doctors’ march comes as neighborhood-based resistance committees, political parties, and other pro-democracy groups carry out an ongoing campaign of protests under a “no negotiation” slogan.

    The post Sudan’s Doctors March To Protest Violence Against Hospitals appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In the United States, which has seen more deaths from the disease than any other country on Earth, there were 476,863 new deaths in 2021, up from 370,777 in 2020. However, it is in fact widely accepted that only two people died of the disease in China in 2021 on the mainland, plus 64 deaths in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and 843 in Taiwan, where the central government of China does not exercise control – according to the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering COVID-19 Data Repository. This brings China up to a total of 4,636 deaths in the mainland and 5,699 deaths overall since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which occurred in the first few months of 2020.

    The post Yes, There Really Were Only Two COVID Deaths In Mainland China In 2021. appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Omicron variant’s transmission rate is exponentially higher than Delta, leaving healthcare workers across the U.S. in dire straits. Waves of doctors, nurses and other health professionals are unionizing, and some have quit the profession over exploitative conditions. The staffing shortage has added on to the strains of increasing hospitalizations due to COVID-19, limited availability of necessary equipment and lack of federal support for preventative measures such as paid medical leave. “This is the cost of two years spent pushing prematurely for a return to normal,” says Ed Yong, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and science writer at The Atlantic. Yong also discusses the debate over keeping schools open during the COVID-19 surge, and challenges to President Biden’s vaccine mandates affecting nearly 100 million workers.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    Here in the United States, nearly a quarter of hospitals are reporting critical staffing shortages as Omicron drives an unprecedented surge in infections. This comes as public schools in Chicago are closed for a fourth day as talks between the teachers’ union and Mayor Lori Lightfoot over in-person teaching remain at an impasse.

    For more, we’re joined by Ed Yong, science writer at The Atlantic. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for his coverage of the pandemic. His most recent pieces, “Hospitals Are in Serious Trouble” and “Omicron Is Our Past Pandemic Mistakes on Fast-Forward: We’ve been making the same errors for nearly two years now.”

    Welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, Ed. Let’s start with the hospitals. Explain the serious trouble our hospitals are in.

    ED YONG: Yeah, they are at breaking point. It’s really hard to overstate how badly hospitals are faring right now. Even before the Omicron wave, they were already in trouble, because so many healthcare workers had left because of the collective traumas of the last two years of the pandemic. And now we have, firstly, a Delta wave and now Omicron on top of that. Huge volumes of patients are flooding hospitals. And while Omicron is less severe than previous variants, it’s so contagious that the sheer number of those patients is so high that there are still a lot of very sick people, and there are a lot people, full stop. So they are inundating hospitals at a time when there are fewer healthcare workers than ever before. Those healthcare workers are demoralized. They’re exhausted. And a lot of them are out sick because they have breakthrough infections from Omicron.

    And all of this means that hospitals are — like, I really struggle to use the words like “crumbling,” because I don’t want to, like, exaggerate the risk, but that is what I’m hearing from people all around the country. People are waiting for six to 12 hours to get seen for any kind of emergency procedure. People in the ER are on ventilators waiting to get into ICUs, which are full. The entire system is clogged up. And it’s not just about COVID anymore. This now means that medical care for basically anything is worse than it was two years ago, because the system is just so completely flooded and unable to cope with the volume of patients right now.

    AMY GOODMAN: The National Nurses United said, “Going to work should not mean putting your life and the lives of your loved ones in danger.” A group of nurses’ unions and the AFLCIO have demanded the federal government enact permanent rules to ensure workplace safety, saying all frontline health workers should be guaranteed “personal protective equipment, exposure notification, ventilation systems, and other lifesaving measures.” Can you talk about this kind of organizing that’s going on?

    ED YONG: Yeah. I think a lot of healthcare workers are fed up. Like, there’s sort of a culture, a social contract in medicine, that you sacrifice yourself for the sake of your patients. And while that contract means that the rest of us get decent medical care when we expect it, it also creates the conditions where healthcare workers are very easily exploited by society at large, as we’re seeing now, and by their own particular institutions.

    So it’s no surprise, after two years of this, after feeling betrayed by the public, by a lot of places they work for, that a lot of them are starting to organize, and there’s more movement towards unions. There’s more of a sense of, like, “We just cannot take this anymore.” And I commend that. I do think, like, that’s necessary for creating a more stable medical system.

    What I worry is that there are a lot of people who, rather than deciding to fight for this, have just decided, very reasonably, to stop, to leave their jobs or the profession. I’ve heard from so many healthcare workers who have already made that choice. And their decisions thin the ranks of those who are left behind to take care of the rest of us and whose jobs are now that much harder.

    But, honestly, if so much of society has pretended that the pandemic is over, and has longed to get back to normal, can you really blame healthcare workers for wanting to do the same? This is the cost of two years spent prematurely pushing towards a return to normal, except, for the healthcare system, for our ability to get medical care, there might not be a normal to return to.

    AMY GOODMAN: Last week, President Biden reiterated his support for keeping schools open during the COVID surge. This is what he said.

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We know that our kids can be safe when in school, by the way. That’s why I believe schools should remain open.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to get your response to this, Ed. We see the Chicago schools are closed because the Chicago Teachers Union says they’re not going to expose their teachers in this way. Other schools that are remaining open around the country, like in New York, are just vectors for infection.

    ED YONG: So, I sympathize with everyone on this side of the debate, right? Like, on the one hand, you have parents who are really scared about putting their children in these conditions where this extremely transmissible virus is just going everywhere. I sympathize for parents who can’t handle remote schooling or just don’t have the option to do that. I sympathize with teachers who don’t feel that they can put themselves at risk anymore. I think, though, that we’re sort of — we’ve been put in a position where we’re having to choose, we’re having to, like, take sides between people who are all in the right. Like, this shouldn’t be a debate in the way it’s framed.

    The jobs of the federal government should have been to control transmission of this virus and to control the pandemic to an extent where this shouldn’t even have been an issue. And so many of the measures that were necessary — you know, the rollout of rapid tests, mask mandates — all of these things have been, if anything, got pulled back at both the federal and the state level. There’s not been enough done to control the pandemic for two years now. And last year really wasn’t that much different. Like, because our policymakers have made bad decisions, it puts individual schools, teachers, parents in an impossible position and sets them against each other, when, in fact, I think the main problem is that the policies that should have protected all of us have not been put in place.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about what those policies should be. I mean, you’ve pointed out in your writing, for example, that when — obviously, for politicians, they want to put this behind them, so then talking about unmasking — the fact that there aren’t tests available now, though President Biden said he’s going to get half a billion out to the country, and the fact that Abbott, which makes Binax, one of the tests, destroyed millions of those tests.

    ED YONG: Right, because we keep on treating this like a short-term problem. We keep on assuming that we’re going to get back to normal at some point in the near future without actually doing the work to get to that point. Rapid tests are a clear example of this. Like, why do we not have them deployed on a mass scale? Biden talks about deploying that number of tests out to people. It’s roughly like one-and-a-half tests per person.

    And I also want to talk about the social measures that should have been put in place right from the start. Like, we know that a pandemic is a social problem. It’s not just a biomedical one. Yes, vaccines and therapeutics and diagnostic tests are great, but we need things that actually allow people to protect their livelihoods and their lives at the same time. And paid sick leave is a great example of this. It seems like a really weird measure to be talking about in the context of a pandemic, but if you can’t actually take the time off to isolate or to take care of yourself if you’re exposed, if your workplace conditions don’t allow you to do that, then how are you going to stop yourself from spreading this disease?

    Like, we know that these things actually matter and can have an immediate impact, but they don’t seem to be part of the package of measures that we’ve been talking about. People sort of gravitate between just going on completely as normal or going to a strict lockdown. There are so many things in the middle. Like, we’ve talked about masking, we’ve talked about rapid tests, we’ve talked about paid sick leave. Ventilation is important. Having places where people can isolate is important. These kind of measures are going on in parts of the country but not everywhere, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of federal push to really make them everywhere or to pressure states into actually putting them into place. And that is part of the problem. That is why we’re in the state where we’re having these horrendous discussions about schools and where we’re looking at a healthcare system that is collapsing under the sheer weight of infections.

    AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this could lead to Medicare for All? I mean, it has exposed the fracture of the entire system, a system that was broken already in terms of who gets healthcare and who doesn’t in this country. Now it’s who dies and who doesn’t.

    ED YONG: Yeah. You know, people who are unvaccinated are actually, like, the uninsured, make a disproportionate — I’m saying this terribly. A lot of people who are unvaccinated are also uninsured, right? And that says something about the medical system in this country. Like, there’s this sort of tendency to paint unvaccinated people as all like antagonistic anti-vaxxers. And I think access is still actually a large problem that isn’t really grappled with.

    I would hope that the lessons from these two years are that inequities harm us. You cannot fight a vaccine — you cannot fight a pandemic properly in a grossly unequal society such as what we currently live in. But that doesn’t seem to be the lesson that is being learned. Like, we’ve had lip service paid to the need to focus on inequities, but even from, like, leading public health voices, it seems to be a thing that is readily forgotten. And that is — you know, that is part of why we are where we are now. Unless we actually make efforts to protect the most vulnerable, to help people on low incomes, people from marginalized groups, disabled communities — unless we stop treating them like disposable commodities, we’re going to end up back in this situation that we currently find ourselves in.

    AMY GOODMAN: The Supreme Court hearing oral arguments around Biden’s vaccine mandates, your thoughts?

    ED YONG: I worry that we are — instead of learning the lessons that you’ve just talked about, that would make us better prepared for the next one, that we are setting legal precedent in place that would actually make us more vulnerable next time ’round. And, you know, there are many different examples of this. State legislatures around the country have put in orders that make it more difficult for people to put in, say, mask mandates or quarantine orders. That contributes to how hard it is to fight something like Omicron. It is going to make it more difficult to deal the next variants. It’s going to make it more difficult to deal with the next pandemics, which I guarantee you we will face.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well —

    ED YONG: I worry —

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ed, we’re going to have to go, but I wanted to wish you a happy 40th birthday. I know it was very difficult. You wrote a piece talking about canceling your 40th birthday because of Omicron.

    ED YONG: Thank you.

    AMY GOODMAN: Thank you so much for being with us. Ed Yong, science writer at The Atlantic, won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the pandemic. We’ll link to his pieces.

    That does it for our show. Remember, wearing a mask is an act of love. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Lee Camp looks at how the capitalist system sits at the heart of the worst problems facing society. In this history lesson, Camp takes you back to the feudal system, to the creation of corporations and currency, to the modern system that’s destroying the lives of the poor today. The ruling class don’t even try to hide the inhumanity that keeps the system running anymore, now that it has become almost impossible to ignore. This leaves it up to popular movements to end the capitalist system and create something new. Then, Camp reports on the police brutality victims who don’t gain as much attention as those murdered by cops, and Marilyn Manson’s #MeToo allegations.

    The post The Capitalist Death-Drive. Afghan Sanctions, Attack On Medicare. appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • It is not as if Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump, has been monumentally better at managing the pandemic. When the US Food and Drug Administration paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April 2021, it fed into growing anti-vaccine sentiment in the country; confusion between Biden’s White House and the Centre for Disease Control over the use of masks furthered the chaos in the country. The deep political animosity between Trump supporters and liberals and the general lack of concern for hand-to-mouth earners with no social safety net accelerated the cultural divides in the United States.

    The post The Highest Attainable Standard of Health Is a Fundamental Right of Every Human Being appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In recent years, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have backed privatization of services provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).  As part of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the VHA serves about nine million patients and operates the largest public healthcare  system in the country. Since 2015, billions of dollars have been diverted from VHA care to private doctors and for-profit hospitals who treat veterans in costlier and less effective fashion.  This cannibalization of the VHA budget began under President Obama, escalated during the Trump era, and continues under Joe Biden.

    The post Veterans’ Health Care For Mental And Environmental Illnesses Under Attack appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The reliance on a vaccine only strategy has led to this situation. When it became clear that “breakthrough” infections could occur after vaccination, the CDC announced that it would limit tracking of breakthroughs to those cases which required hospitalization. The decision was an admission that a course correction was needed. Instead the Biden team doubled down on failure and began forcing federal agencies and contractors, which means most private companies, to vaccinate employees whether they wanted it or not.

    The post Covid Fueled by Neoliberal Austerity appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The United States has averaged a thousand people a day dying from COVID since August and the total number of lives lost is approaching a million. The number of children hospitalized with COVID has hit an all-time high nationally. During all of that, the rich have only gotten richer. On the same day we set a new national record for COVID cases, Wall Street hit a record high. Labor journalist and NewsGuild organizer Chris Brooks sat down with a group of New York City nurses and teachers to talk about how the institutions they work for are collapsing and what labor activists can do about it.

    The post A Roundtable Discussion With NYC Nurses And Teachers appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ProPublica has taken this moment to examine the present state of cash assistance in the U.S., focusing on the Southwest, where massive population growth and a surging cost of living for low-income parents have collided with the region’s libertarian attitude toward government help for the poor.

    What ProPublica discovered is an abundance of overlooked stories of bizarre — and mean-spirited — practices on the part of state governments, which were handed near-complete responsibility for welfare under the 1996 law.

    The post The Cruel Failure Of Welfare Reform In The Southwest appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A small team of Texas researchers is being hailed for developing an unpatented Covid-19 vaccine to share with the world without personal profit, with some advocates asking, if they can do it, why can’t Big Pharma? Dubbed “the World’s Covid vaccine,” the inoculation—formally called Cobervax—is an open-source alternative to Big Pharma’s patent-protected vaccines. Instead of being produced for profit, this shot could ultimately be manufactured around the world and made cheaply available to all without governmental or private legal retribution.

    The post Texas Team Applauded For Giving What Big Pharma Refuses: A Patent-Free Vaccine To The World appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Global Migration Indicators report by the International Organization for Migration is here, with an update on how COVID-19 affected migration around the world. The report says more than 2,300 migrants died while trying to get into Europe or within Europe in 2020. While the pandemic restricted mobility and reduced international migration, still, there were two hundred and eighty-one million international migrants in the middle of 2020. That is close to four per cent of the world’s population.

    The post Global Migration Indicators Report Summarizes 2020 For Migrants Across The World appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Calls are mounting for President Joe Biden to terminate an under-the-radar Trump-era pilot program that—if allowed to run its course—could result in the complete privatization of traditional Medicare by the end of the decade.

    A petition recently launched by Physicians for a National Program (PNHP) has garnered more than 10,000 signatures as doctors and other advocates work to raise public awareness of the Medicare Direct Contracting program, which the Trump administration rolled out during its final months in power.

    The post Pressure Grows On Biden To Shut Down Trump-Era Medicare Privatization Scheme appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • After all this time, the complete lack of a public health-based approach to this pandemic is criminal. The Biden administration has instead chosen to lay all responsibility on the individual decision to vaccinate or not, implicitly blaming the unvaccinated for the ongoing ills resulting from the pandemic. After facing heavy criticism for his administration’s incompetent management of the Omicron surge, Biden recently addressed the status of the pandemic, doubling down hard on this narrative. He said, “If you’re vaccinated, you’ve done the right thing, celebrate holidays as you’ve planned them.”

    The post Ending The Pandemic Is Not An “Individual Responsibility” appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ]

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    By the time Cheryl Cosey learned she had COVID-19, she had gone three days without dialysis — a day and a half more than she usually waited between appointments. She worried how much longer she could wait before going without her life-saving treatments would kill her.

    The 58-year-old Cosey was a dialysis technician for years before she herself was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease. After that, she usually took a medical transport van to a dialysis facility three days a week. There, she sat with other patients for hours in the same kind of cushioned chairs where she’d prepped her own patients, connected to machines that drew out their blood, filtered it for toxins, then pumped it back into their fatigued bodies.

    Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

    Her COVID-19 diagnosis in the pandemic’s first weeks, after she’d been turned away from a dialysis facility because of a fever, meant Cosey was battling two potentially fatal diseases. But even she didn’t know how dangerous the novel coronavirus was to her weakened immune system.

    Had she realized the risks, she would have had her daughter Shardae Lovelady move in. Just the two of them in Cosey’s red brick home on Chicago’s West Side, looking out at the world through the sliding glass door in the living room, leaving only for her dialysis.

    Cheryl Cosey (Courtesy of Shardae Lovelady)

    After Cosey’s positive test in April 2020, Lovelady had to take her mother to a facility that treated patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The facility fit her in for one of its last appointments the next day.

    At that point, Cosey had gone more than four days without dialysis.

    Four hours later, after Cosey completed her treatment, Lovelady returned to the nearly deserted building to bring her mother home, the sun having long disappeared from the sky. Cosey, dressed in a sweater and a green spring jacket, was disoriented, her breathing sporadic.

    Alone with her mother on the sidewalk, Lovelady ran inside to ask workers for help getting Cosey out of her wheelchair and into her car.

    “They offered no assistance,” Lovelady said. “They treated her as though she was an infection.”

    (A spokesperson for the facility said employees aren’t allowed to help patients once they leave, for safety reasons.)

    As Lovelady waited for paramedics to arrive, she grabbed a blanket from her car to wrap around her mother.

    “My mother has COVID. I know she has COVID, but I didn’t care,” Lovelady said. “I hugged her and just held on until the ambulance came.”

    Then she followed the flashing lights to the hospital.

    In the three decades before the pandemic, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease had more than quadrupled, from about 180,000 in 1990 to about 810,000 in 2019, according to the United States Renal Data System, a national data registry. About 70% of these patients relied on dialysis in 2019; the other 30% received kidney transplants.

    The Midwest stood out as the region with the highest rate of patients with the disease, and Illinois had the nation’s third highest prevalence after Washington, D.C., and South Dakota, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    A rare bright spot was the downturn in the death rate. Although diagnoses have been going up, death rates for patients who are on dialysis have declined since the early 2000s.

    Then COVID-19 struck. Nearly 18,000 more dialysis patients died in 2020 than would have been expected based on previous years. That staggering toll represents an increase of nearly 20% from 2019, when more than 96,000 patients on dialysis died, according to federal data released this month.

    The loss led to an unprecedented outcome: The nation’s dialysis population shrank, the first decline since the U.S. began keeping detailed numbers nearly a half century ago.

    They were COVID-19’s perfect victims.

    “It can’t help but feel like a massive failure when we have such a catastrophic loss of patients,” said Dr. Michael Heung, a clinical professor of nephrology at the University of Michigan. “It speaks to just how bad this pandemic has been and how bad this disease is.”

    Before most patients reach advanced kidney failure, they are diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension or a host of other underlying conditions. Their immune systems are severely compromised, meaning they are essentially powerless to survive the most dangerous infections.

    Many are old and poor. They also are disproportionately Black, as was Cosey. A 2017 study called end-stage renal disease “one of the starkest examples of racial/ethnic disparities in health.” Those inequities carried through to the pandemic. Dialysis patients who were Black or Latino, according to federal data, suffered higher rates of COVID-19 by every metric: infection, hospitalization, death.

    Their deaths went largely unnoticed.

    To get their treatments, the majority of dialysis patients in the U.S. must leave the relative safety of their homes and travel to a facility, often with strangers on public or medical transportation. Once at the dialysis center, they typically gather together in a large room for three to four hours.

    The fear of contracting the virus was enough to keep many from venturing out for medical care, including those already on dialysis and those set to get the treatment for the first time. Exactly how long patients can go without dialysis depends on a number of factors, but doctors generally begin to worry if they miss two of their thrice-weekly sessions.

    Dr. Kirsten Johansen, director of the United States Renal Data System, said the rates of people starting dialysis had been relatively stable until the pandemic. “Then the floor fell out,” she said in an interview.

    COVID-19’s collateral damage played out in other ways as well. It meant that people delayed going to the hospital for everything from heart disease to cancer. For dialysis patients, whose life expectancy in some cases is three decades shorter than the general population, the results were calamitous. Hospitalizations of dialysis patients for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 dropped 33% between late March and April of 2020, federal data shows.

    Dr. Delphine Tuot, a nephrologist and associate professor at University of California San Francisco and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center who focuses on vulnerable populations, found herself pleading with some of her patients to come in for their regular dialysis appointments.

    One of them was a 60-year-old man whose shortness of breath landed him in the hospital in February. Doctors scheduled dialysis three times a week, and though he was initially resistant, Tuot said, he came around once he realized he would die without it.

    Still, he missed appointments. When Tuot followed up, he told her he was afraid to leave the house because he was caring for his wife who had cancer, and he didn’t want to contract COVID and bring it home to her. Soon a cycle began. He skipped treatments, fluid built up in his body and an ambulance rushed him to the hospital because he couldn’t breathe. He got dialysis, was sent home and got back on track.

    When cases surged and the delta variant took hold this summer, the cycle restarted — until he skipped dialysis for three weeks in a row, so long that his heart couldn’t recover, according to Tuot. He died last month.

    Despite early efforts to mask and isolate patients at dialysis facilities, one study found the rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations of dialysis patients from March to April 2020 was 40 times higher than the general population.

    Even with skyrocketing hospitalizations, it took three months after vaccines were approved before federal officials provided vaccinations to dialysis clinics, despite advocacy groups urging that this high-risk population be prioritized.

    Although dialysis centers were swift to implement safety protocols in the pandemic’s early days, some facilities didn’t follow their own infection control policies, including washing hands properly, keeping workers home when sick or disinfecting equipment, federal inspection records show.

    And home dialysis, which has been shown to be safer for patients during the pandemic, is out of reach for many, especially Black and Latino patients. Nephrologists had pushed for greater access to home dialysis before the pandemic; that need is more apparent now than ever, Tuot said.

    “The fact that individuals had to go to a center with other individuals who are equally immunocompromised and had to get to that center, whether that was by public transportation or by van transportation, it’s clearly additional risks,” Tuot said. “Bottom line, they are very vulnerable. They’re very sick.”

    The ambulance took Cosey to Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center. Lovelady filled in the staff on her mother’s medical history of end-stage renal disease, high blood pressure and asthma. The next day, Cosey called her daughter from her hospital bed. Lovelady noticed marked improvement from the night before.

    “She sounded like herself,” Lovelady said. “We joked around a little bit. I asked her what kind of medicine she was on. She said they started her on dialysis.”

    One by one, Lovelady added her sister, cousin and brother to the call. They told Cosey she had scared them, but now that she was doing better, they teased that they needed her to come home to bake her famous cheesecake. Her grandchildren hadn’t stopped asking about her either. They missed movie nights at Cosey’s house, when she made them popcorn and covered the floor with blankets.

    Cosey’s boisterous laugh reassured them.

    When Lovelady sensed her mother tiring, she told her she’d call her back the next day.

    “Go ahead and get some rest,” she said.

    Dialysis Patient Deaths Spiked in Early 2020 (Source: The United States Renal Data System)

    While the arrival of the pandemic rocked the health care system as a whole, the effect on dialysis facilities has received little attention.

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services typically monitor the facilities through routine inspections and surprise visits to investigate specific complaints. But federal officials are two years overdue on more than 5,000 inspections at dialysis facilities across the country, Medicare data shows, and three years behind on more than 3,000 of them. Since the start of 2020, the number of inspections to dialysis facilities by government officials fell by more than 30% from the previous two years, ProPublica found. Complaints made up a larger portion of investigations. In 2019, 35% of total visits were in response to complaints. Last year, it jumped to 51%.

    A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a statement that the pandemic forced the agency to temporarily suspend or delay inspections for non-urgent complaints and routine inspections to focus on infection control and critical concerns that placed patients in immediate jeopardy. The agency is working with states, which act on behalf of federal officials, to address the resulting backlog, the spokesperson said, but “nearly all state agencies report insufficient resources to complete the required, ongoing federal workload.”

    The spokesperson said “the COVID-19 pandemic has presented a unique challenge unlike any other in history and has impacted our routine oversight work,” adding that “complaint investigations remain our first priority to ensure we address the immediate needs of patients receiving care in dialysis facilities.”

    Insufficient funding has compounded those challenges. The budget for inspections has “been flatlined” since fiscal year 2015, while the number of dialysis facilities has increased by 21% to nearly 8,000 today, according to the agency. After several years of requesting more money, the centers were approved to receive an increase for fiscal year 2022.

    When investigators did inspect dialysis facilities, they found some violations specific to COVID-19 and others that involved general safety lapses, according to federal records from March 2020 to July 2021.

    A dialysis patient who started treatment just before the pandemic died after a nurse at a Kentucky facility failed to properly dilute an antibiotic, according to inspection reports. Minutes after the medicine began dripping through an IV, the patient said: “My body is on fire! It’s going through my whole body,” records show.

    At a New York facility, another patient died after losing more than 1 1/2 pints of blood when their catheter became disconnected, according to federal records. That same facility underreported its number of deaths in the first 11 months of the pandemic by 16 people.

    Federal officials issued their most serious citation to an Indiana facility for refusing to provide dialysis to a patient suspected of having COVID-19. The patient’s previous dialysis had also been cut short because their assisted living facility did not provide them transportation after 9:15 p.m. So they did not receive a complete treatment.

    An estimated 5% to 10% of end-stage renal patients live in congregate settings, such as nursing homes or assisted living facilities. The same factors that led to nursing home populations being decimated — age, health, difficulty isolating — applied to those dialysis patients. In the first months of the pandemic, they contracted the virus at a rate more than 17 times higher than those who lived independently, according to one study.

    Workers at those facilities weren’t immune either. Oluwayemisi Ogunnubi, 59, worked as a nurse administering dialysis to patients inside a nursing home on Chicago’s South Side. A Nigerian immigrant, she had sent money home to pay for her children’s schooling until she was able to bring them to the U.S. Her smile and supportive nature made her popular among her coworkers, according to an official at Concerto Renal Services, the dialysis company where she worked.

    On April 21, 2020, Ogunnubi’s body began to ache, and she was sent home early from work. She was later taken to a hospital, where she tested positive for COVID-19. She died three days later, federal and county records show.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials cited Concerto, and levied a penalty of $12,145. The company provided employees who performed dialysis on patients with N95 respirators, but investigators found that Concerto’s written procedures weren’t complete and that the company had failed to provide medical evaluations that ensured employees knew how to use the respirators.

    Two other Concerto employees, including one who fell ill the same day as Ogunnubi, contracted COVID-19 at the time but survived. Within two weeks of Ogunnubi’s death, 10 residents at the nursing home died of complications related to COVID-19, according to Cook County Medical Examiner records. Half had kidney failure.

    Kyle Stone, Concerto’s executive vice president and general counsel, said the first and only COVID-related death of an employee shook the company. Stone said Concerto “made a difficult choice” to use respirator masks without providing medical evaluations to employees, but it “was clearly the correct choice under the circumstances.”

    If Concerto had been required to fulfill every aspect of OSHA requirements for a written policy that early in the pandemic, he said, the company would not have been able to provide the respirator masks, “almost certainly resulting in greater risk of harm and death.”

    OSHA’s failure to “see and appreciate” the trying circumstances at the time, Stone said, “was “baffling and disappointing.” Concerto eventually settled with OSHA, which downgraded the violation and reduced the penalty to $9,000.

    “We are quite proud of our work in 2020 during the eye of the COVID storm,” Stone said.

    As devastating as the pandemic has been, many experts say it could have been worse. Dr. Alan Kliger, a clinical professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, co-chaired the American Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Response Team that held weekly calls with chief medical officers from 30 or so dialysis companies, including the largest two, DaVita and Fresenius. The facilities, Kliger said, implemented universal masking and patient screenings before the CDC recommended them. They also treated COVID-19 patients in separate shifts or at specifically designated isolation clinics.

    “There’s been a tremendous amount of collaboration and sharing of information and uptake of best practices in this group of competitive companies,” Kliger said. “They really rallied together to protect patients.”

    Epidemiologist Eric Weinhandl said that there’s another battle on the horizon with the omicron variant spreading rapidly, which he finds especially worrisome given how federal officials failed by not distributing vaccines to dialysis facilities in December 2020.

    “It’s heartbreaking because you look at this, and much like nursing home residents, these patients are completely vulnerable. But they still have to go to a dialysis facility three times a week,” Weinhandl said. “Why wouldn’t you prioritize this population?”

    The CDC said in a statement that “demand exceeded supply” when vaccines were first authorized and “as supply increased and states adopted CDC’s recommendations, older adults and those with underlying health conditions began being prioritized.”

    It wasn’t until March 25 that the Biden administration announced it was partnering with dialysis facilities to send vaccines to patients at the centers.

    Now, Weinhandl wonders if dialysis patients will be a priority if the federal government approves a second round of boosters for high-risk patients.

    “Is there a plan? Because I think that there should be,” he said. “I think this is getting pretty predictable. Every time COVID surges, you see the dialysis population’s excess mortality surge with it.”

    Sometimes the frailty of dialysis patients is no match for COVID-19’s brutality.

    Oscar and Donna Perez were the kind of siblings who loved each other without judgment or condition. After Oscar began dialysis in 2018, Donna picked him up from his appointments three nights a week. She cut his toenails when his feet were too swollen for him to reach and massaged them when the pain woke him up at night.

    He was her son’s godfather, her best friend who shared his love of music with her — especially the 1960s R&B singer Billy Stewart — and annoyed her in the way only brothers can, swatting her feet off chairs just as she got comfortable and pestering her with questions when she was deep into Instagram.

    Oscar Perez and his daughter Jasmin (Courtesy of Donna Perez)

    But Oscar Perez was sick. In addition to his failing kidneys, the 38-year-old Latino father struggled with hypertension, diabetes and congestive heart failure. In early January, doctors performed coronary bypass surgery. He was not yet eligible for the vaccine, but the hospital tested him for COVID-19 when he was admitted. He was negative.

    He went home on Jan. 18, the same day as the wake for his uncle, who, his family said, died after he missed too many dialysis appointments. But the next day, Oscar collapsed at home, confused and mumbling in pain, with signs that the coronavirus was flourishing in his lungs. He was rushed back to the hospital. A doctor called to tell Donna Perez that her brother had tested positive and needed to be intubated.

    On Jan. 31, doctors called Donna again and told her that her brother’s condition was declining fast. She picked up her parents, another brother and his girlfriend, and headed to the hospital to visit Oscar from outside the glass door of his room. They told doctors to try to resuscitate him if his heart stopped.

    That night, after they returned home, Donna Perez’s phone rang one more time. Oscar’s doctor said he probably wasn’t going to make it through the night. This time, they could visit him in his hospital room in PPE.

    Seeing her brother up close, swollen and helpless, she leaned in, hugged him, and said, “I can tell you’re tired. You can go.” Donna promised to take care of his daughter.

    Her family pushed back and said she had to tell him to be strong.

    Donna told them they needed to let Oscar go. He died a few hours later.

    “This disaster is one that befalls dialysis patients, with diabetes especially, regularly,” Dr. David Goldfarb, clinical director of the nephrology division at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who reviewed Oscar Perez’s medical records for ProPublica.

    “Of course, it’s possible to do better,” he continued. “Given his age, it’s really tragic.”

    The advent of technology to filter a patient’s blood revolutionized kidney care in the 1950s, and people lined up to get access to the limited number of machines. In 1960, one hospital created its own admissions panel, later nicknamed the “God committee,” to review cases to decide who would receive the groundbreaking treatment.

    Twelve years later, Congress approved legislation that created the Medicare End Stage Renal Disease program, which guaranteed coverage of medical care, including dialysis and kidney transplants. It remains the only disease-specific Medicare entitlement program, credited by some as possibly saving more lives than any other federal government program. Generally, Medicare only covers those over age 65 and the disabled, but this program is available to people of all ages with end-stage renal disease.

    Total Medicare-related spending in 2019 on end-stage renal disease patients topped $50 billion. Even with that budget, the agency hasn’t been able to fix persistent health disparities. That year, Black patients were more than four times more likely than their white counterparts to have the disease.

    Black patients also progressed from chronic kidney disease to end-stage renal disease three times as often as white patients. Yet they are less likely to start off their dialysis treatments on a waiting list for a transplant — or eventually receive one from a living donor — than white patients.

    In a statement, Medicare said it is working to address the disparities and said it is “committed to ensuring the health and safety” of all its dialysis patients.

    Another area of concern is home dialysis, which research has shown is cheaper than in-center dialysis and offers similar or better survival rates, enhanced quality of life and greater flexibility. Barriers to home dialysis affect all patients, but the percentages of Black and Hispanic patients receiving home dialysis in 2019 were 10% and 11% respectively, compared with white and Asian patients at 17% each.

    The push for closing that gap has gained traction, bolstered by federal data that found COVID-19 hospitalizations rates of patients who underwent home dialysis from late March to June 2020 were between one-quarter and one-third those of patients traveling to dialysis facilities.

    “We do have to figure out a way to do better because we’re really, in essence, causing harm, when we’re not able to divert proper resources to patients who most require them,” said Dr. Kirk Campbell, a nephrology professor and vice chair of medicine for diversity, equity and inclusion at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

    Some patients don’t have the space to store the supplies needed for home dialysis. Others are overwhelmed by the prospect of having to keep the area around the catheter clean to prevent infection. But, Campbell said, that’s where patient education comes in. The most common type of home dialysis, called peritoneal dialysis, often is done at night while the patient is sleeping and does not involve blood flowing outside the body.

    While home dialysis isn’t possible for all patients, some doctors are hesitant to recommend it at all, in part because the clinicians lack the training, experience or a certain comfort level with it. That’s especially true, Campbell said, for patients of color and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There’s often an unconscious bias that those patients won’t be able to handle it, he said.

    Campbell and others said it’s critical that clinicians receive additional training in home dialysis. He leads one of the few nephrology fellowship programs in the country where doctors can spend an extra year specializing in home dialysis. The results have been so promising, he said, that they hope to expand.

    In July 2019, the Trump administration issued an executive order aimed at revamping kidney care in the United States through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Advancing American Kidney Health initiative. The goals of the initiative were lofty — some say unrealistic — and included having 80% of new end-stage renal disease patients in the U.S. receive in-home dialysis or transplants by 2025. In 1972, the year the Medicare program passed, 40% of patients were on home dialysis. Currently, about 13% of patients are receiving dialysis at home.

    Starting January, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will offer facilities greater reimbursement for improving their home dialysis rates for low-income patients.

    Some observers say the change doesn’t go far enough. In September, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Rep. Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, proposed legislation that would require Medicare to pay for workers to assist patients who need additional help with home dialysis. The measure, which was introduced without much fanfare, also calls for greater patient education around the treatment and a federal study analyzing racial disparities.

    Hong Kong, where about three in four patients are on peritoneal dialysis, is a global leader in home treatment. Patients there receive peritoneal dialysis first unless there is a medical reason that would preclude it.

    Dr. Isaac Teitelbaum, a nephrologist who has been the medical director of the home dialysis unit at the University of Colorado School of Medicine since 1986, said expanded training for clinicians and incentives for patients, including a reduced co-pay or a tax credit, could encourage more patients to dialyze at home.

    “You don’t live just so you can do dialysis. You do dialysis so that you can enjoy life,” he said. “You do dialysis so that you can watch your children and grandchildren grow up and so that you can participate in family events and go on vacations.”

    Cheryl Cosey was not offered home dialysis, her family said. Shardae Lovelady said it might have made all the difference for her mother.

    Cosey’s health deteriorated quickly after the call from her hospital bed. Doctors transferred Cosey to the intensive care unit, put her on a ventilator and gave her medication to push the oxygen from her lungs into her bloodstream, according to hospital records.

    The family braced themselves. Lovelady drove to Minnesota to pick up her sister. She gathered everyone for a big dinner the way her mother used to do.

    Lovelady and her sister stayed up late talking, finally dozing off when the house quieted.

    When the phone rang at three in the morning, Lovelady recognized the hospital’s 312 area code.

    Everything she had done to prepare for that moment suddenly vanished, and she allowed herself to hope.

    The call was short. She never even flipped on the bedroom light. She turned to her sister, who was asleep next to her, and nudged her awake.

    “Mama gone.”

    We Want to Talk to People Working, Living and Grieving on the Front Lines of the Coronavirus. Help Us Report.

    This post was originally published on Articles and Investigations – ProPublica.

  • As the first wave of Covid-19 hit the United States, Jen, a 53-year-old nurse struggling to pay her bills, received an intriguing message. “THE TIME HAS COME TO DEPLOY AT INCREDIBLY HIGH RATES,” read the mass text from Krucial Staffing, sent to nurses nationwide in March 2020 and forwarded to Jen by a colleague. Jen (a pseudonym used to protect her from retaliation from employers) could barely believe the wages promised by the Kansas-based healthcare staffing firm. As part of its massive recruitment drive during the first wave of Covid-19, Krucial was paying $10,000 a week to nurses willing to travel — or “deploy,” in the company’s lingo — to the frontlines in New York City.

    The post The Big Business Behind Travel Nursing appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Retail pharmacy workers conducted a nationwide walkout on Monday in the US, organized on social media, to protest worsening work conditions at large retail chains such as CVS, Walgreens and Walmart. As the hyper-infectious Omicron variant continues to spread throughout the country, this much overlooked section of the health care industry is making its own demands for better working conditions, including patient safety, and an overdue increase in wages.

    The post Pharmacy Workers Describe Conditions That Sparked US Walkouts appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A small child looks at a tablet screen while in a hospital

    In April 2008, Jonathan Agin’s 27-month-old daughter, Alexis, was diagnosed with DIPG, a rare brain tumor. Agin, then a civil defense lawyer in Washington, D.C., was dislodged from his comfortable life and dragged into the surreal world of a young cancer victim’s parent: the sleepless nights in the din of a hospital, the grueling clinical trials.

    “I always had hope,” Agin said in a recent interview, though he knew most DIPG patients survive no more than two years after diagnosis.

    Alexis lived for 33 months after her tumor was found. Toward the end of her life, she was unable to walk or speak. She died at 3:03 p.m. on Jan. 14, 2011.

    “My knowledge back then of children with cancer was watching St. Jude and Ronald McDonald House commercials,” Agin said. The image of a “smiling, bald-headed kid living happily ever after” was cruelly misleading, he learned, when it came to intractable cancers like DIPG, short for Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma.

    While children with a diagnosis like Alexis’ face almost insurmountable odds, death rates for many childhood cancers have gone down, thanks to advances in treatment. But incidence rates — the number of cancer cases per 100,000 children — increased 43 percent from 1975 to 2018. While there’s no clear explanation, some experts suspect environmental contamination has played a major role.

    “These increases are too rapid to be due to genetic change,” pediatrician Philip Landrigan wrote in a report last year for the Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative, a collaborative that includes the Children’s Environmental Health Network, the American Sustainable Business Council and other organizations.

    “They cannot be explained by increased access to medical care or by improvements in diagnosis,” wrote Landrigan, director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College. His theory is that exposure in the womb or early childhood to chemicals is driving the trend. “Recognition is growing that hazardous exposures in the environment are powerful causes of cancer in children,” he wrote.

    When it comes to drug development, children with cancer — defined as people under the age of 20 — have long been at the back of the line. There simply aren’t enough of them to inspire massive investment. In 2018, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 15,178 children in the United States were diagnosed with cancer and 1,841 died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, 1.7 million adults were stricken and 599,265 died.

    Now comes the realization that some or many of the 86,000 chemicals used at one time or another in the U.S. may be having an outsize effect on the very young. Few of those chemicals have been tested for safety.

    “The American public loves treatments, loves magic fixes,” Landrigan said in an interview. “The rising incidence is not a good-news story. There are no heroes.”

    In April 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel, an advisory group created by Richard Nixon in 1971, issued a groundbreaking report highlighting what it called the “growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer.”

    The panel concluded that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread …. The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.”

    A co-author of the report was Dr. Margaret Kripke, who founded and chaired the Department of Immunology at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The panel had already looked at lifestyle factors, such as nutrition and smoking, and turned its attention to the environment because of public interest in the topic, Kripke, now retired, said in an interview.

    “I was not that enthusiastic about this in the beginning,” she said. “It was controversial, unclear what we’d advise the public to do.”

    Kripke’s opinion changed as she worked on the report in 2008 and 2009. “It was truly the most eye-opening experience for me,” she said. “I learned how little attention had been paid to this issue for a very long time.”

    That inattention comes in part because “childhood cancers still make up only 1 percent of the cancer diagnoses in the U.S.,” said Dr. Philip Lupo, an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and a genetic epidemiologist at Texas Children’s Cancer and Hematology Center. “That creates a challenge for epidemiologists, who often need large sample sizes.”

    Lupo and a colleague at Baylor, Dr. Michael Scheurer, have begun collecting biological specimens, such as saliva samples and primary teeth, from newly diagnosed patients and administering questionnaires to their parents in hopes of identifying novel risk factors for cancer development.

    “As we see this explosion in environmental chemicals in human populations, it’s entirely likely they’re playing an important role in the increased incidence of childhood cancer,” Lupo said. Some, such as benzene, a solvent and an ingredient in gasoline, have been shown by occupational and/or animal studies to cause DNA damage, a precursor to the disease.

    It’s unlikely genetics are behind the rising numbers, Lupo said, “because genetics don’t work that quickly.”

    Congress created a body to investigate possible connections between chemical exposures and illness as part of the Superfund legislation in 1980. But the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the CDC, has never achieved widespread credibility.

    In 1992, the Environmental Health Network and the National Toxics Campaign Fund released a report accusing the agency of conducting poorly designed studies “used by polluters and government officials to mislead local citizens into believing that further measures to prevent toxic exposures are unnecessary.”

    That criticism is still valid, said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, a research and advocacy organization in suburban Washington, D.C. The disease registry, known as the ATSDR, relies on existing data — generated, for example, by a state environmental agency — that is often incomplete and of little value for assessing health risks.

    “The conclusions are always limited by the data,” Lester said. “Even if the agency could determine that a health cluster exists — and I’ve seen them do that maybe two times out of hundreds of cases — they cannot determine what’s causing the cluster.”

    In an emailed statement to Public Health Watch and the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the CDC said, “While we know that chemical exposures can contribute to a variety of health issues and we continue to learn more about these pathways, determining a causal relationship from community-based chemical exposures to specific cases of cancer is rare.”

    The ATSDR is being stretched thin, having seen its “purchasing power eroded by relatively flat funding levels despite increasing demand for support in responding to environmental exposures,” the statement said.

    The agency received $4.5 million from Congress in recent years to update its guidelines for investigating cancer clusters. The money came from the Strengthening Protections for Children and Communities from Disease Clusters Act — better known as Trevor’s Law, after Trevor Schaefer, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a form of brain cancer, when he was 13 and living in McCall, Idaho, a small town north of Boise.

    Schaefer and his mother, Charlie Smith, believe his illness was triggered by waste from an abandoned mine that wound up in the lake that supplied McCall’s drinking water. Five children in the town of 1,700 developed brain cancer within nine months of Schaefer’s diagnosis in 2002, but state health authorities said they found no evidence of a cluster.

    Smith won the ear of then-Senator Barbara Boxer, D-California, who introduced Trevor’s Law in 2011. The bill languished and was finally signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2016. Schaefer said he’s grown increasingly impatient with the ATSDR’s failure to finish updating the guidelines in the five years since.

    “While the federal government drags its feet and fritters away essential funding, our children are dying,” he wrote in an email to Public Health Watch.

    The CDC said it has been using the funds to review the scientific literature, convene an expert scientific panel to discuss best practices and meet with community members and organizations to hear their concerns.

    “Concurrent with efforts to update the guidelines are projects aimed at making county-level cancer rate data more readily available and a pilot effort to determine the utility of electronic health records to provide more timely cancer surveillance data,” the agency said.

    In an interview, Schaefer, who runs the Trevor’s Trek Foundation, said, “We’re frustrated. When we talk to parents around the country, they’re getting frustrated. It doesn’t seem like it should take this long.”

    Chemicals Uncontrolled

    In 1942, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America presciently advised, “Every new chemical or product should be investigated as to its toxicity before it is prepared in large amounts and released to the public.” Twenty years later, in her book Silent Spring, biologist Rachel Carson warned about the overuse of DDT and other pesticides. “If we are going to live so intimately with these chemicals, eating and drinking them, taking them into the very marrow of our bones — we had better know something about their nature and their power,” she wrote.

    President John F. Kennedy read excerpts of the book in The New Yorker and was so shaken he established a special panel to investigate Carson’s dire predictions. The panel’s report in May 1963 validated Carson’s findings and bolstered her credibility, which had come under fierce attack by the chemical industry.

    “Silent Spring” generated momentum for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the phaseout of DDT. But the chemicals kept coming. By 1976, the year Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in an attempt to require safety testing, more than 60,000 of them were on the market. They were grandfathered in — assumed to be safe unless the EPA could demonstrate otherwise.

    This proved to be too great a burden. The EPA has restricted only a handful of chemicals that were in commerce before 1976, including certain forms of asbestos, hexavalent chromium, dioxin-contaminated wastes and the paint-stripper methylene chloride.

    Congress amended the control act in 2016 in part to shift the burden of proof from the EPA to chemical manufacturers to demonstrate new chemicals are unlikely to present “unreasonable” risks to human health or the environment before being allowed onto the market. During the Trump administration, however, new-chemical reviews by the agency were undermined by unrealistic assumptions that made substances appear safer than they probably were.

    “Reviews of existing chemicals were also undermined by tenuous assumptions and illegal exclusions of certain sources of exposure, including environmental releases — of particular relevance to fenceline communities,” said Dr. Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

    The Biden EPA has worked to repair the damage but is still way behind. As of August, the agency’s TSCA inventory had climbed to 86,607 chemicals, 41,953 of which were considered “active” — manufactured or processed in recent years.

    “EPA has to assess the risk of each and every one of those (active) chemicals, but it’s doing so at about 20-something a year,” McPartland said. Each risk evaluation is supposed to take 3 to 3½ years.

    The math — nearly 42,000 chemicals and only 20 reviews a year — doesn’t bode well for public health.

    “It’s the reality of a lack of regulation for decades,” McPartland said.

    On top of all this, the EPA must assess new chemicals before they go on the market. The agency says it has finished 3,394 of these assessments since TSCA was amended, though not every assessment results in a requirement to test. McPartland said this program is also flawed. It’s needlessly opaque, she said, and its managers accede too often to companies’ demands for quick decisions.

    In a June press release, the EPA said it had taken steps to bolster risk evaluations under way on 10 high-priority existing chemicals, including methylene chloride and 1,4-dioxane, a solvent found in paints, cosmetics, detergents and other products that has contaminated drinking water in some parts of the country. The agency said it would take into consideration “exposure pathways,” such as air and water, that had been disregarded by the Trump administration. The aim is to “restore public trust, provide regulatory certainty, and, most importantly, ensure that all populations that may be exposed to these chemicals are protected,” the EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michal Freedhoff, was quoted as saying.

    In a written statement responding to questions from Public Health Watch and the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the EPA said it found “risks across many uses of these chemicals and will be proposing rules to protect against these risks beginning in 2022.” The agency said it has begun working on the next 20 evaluations.

    The health impacts of cancer-causing chemicals land heaviest on low-income communities and communities of color, said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, executive director of the Children’s Environmental Health Network. In such places “people who are doing all the right things — you know, taking care of their children the best they can and sending them to school and working hard” — face carcinogenic exposures from industrial facilities, heavily traveled highways and other polluting sources.

    Witherspoon was born in 1975, the year childhood cancer incidence began rising. “That shows you right there it’s not genetics only,” she said. “There’s something else happening that is making young, young children predisposed. Childhood leukemia and certain brain cancers and tumors and whatnot are very much, sadly, related to certain levels of exposure. When you look at young children, they’re not smoking, they’re not drinking.”

    Some in the private sector aren’t waiting for government intervention. In 2013, two students at the Helen R. Walton Children’s Enrichment Center in Bentonville, Arkansas, were diagnosed with cancer. The illnesses were determined to be non-hereditary, and suspicion fell on chemicals the children might have ingested, inhaled or absorbed in their daily lives.

    “It made us think twice about what we could be doing better,” said the center’s executive director, Michelle Barnes. “I was just horrified to hear about what is in our furnishings and carpets and things like sealants and non-stick cookware.”

    The campus, which opened in 1982, was already marked for replacement. After the students’ cancer diagnoses, Barnes, other members of the center’s leadership team and its board of directors were determined to do things differently. New York-based LTL Architects was deemed to have the right sensibility and was hired in 2016. The new, $18 million campus opened in May 2019 with a 50,000-square-foot building that houses 244 students ages 5 and younger.

    “We eliminated or significantly reduced exposures to six major classes of chemicals,” Barnes said, including a group of “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. Food is no longer stored in plastic bowls covered with plastic wrap, which can leach hormone-disrupting phthalates and bisphenol-A. Instead, it’s kept in stainless-steel bowls with lids made of medical-grade silicone. Teethers are natural rubber, not plastic.

    Twelve million children 5 or younger are in some form of child care in the United States. Barnes said she’s heard from parents, school administrators and developers interested in replicating what the Children’s Enrichment Center created.

    “We want to use this as a model for the early-childhood industry as a whole,” she said.

    Children “Fall Through the Cracks”

    For the foreseeable future, thousands of children will continue to be diagnosed with cancer each year and require treatment. But unless the drug-development process undergoes a significant transformation, they will remain a lower priority than adults.

    Promising therapeutics for children have a difficult time moving from concept to commercial viability, said Vickie Buenger, president emeritus of the Coalition Against Childhood Cancer and mother of Erin Buenger, who died of neuroblastoma at age 11 in 2009.

    “The children fall through the cracks because it’s tough to develop drugs for very small markets,” said Buenger, a business professor at Texas A&M University. The Food and Drug Administration has approved hundreds of cancer drugs, she said, but only six were developed with children in mind.

    This disparity forces children to endure a “blast furnace of toxicity” during treatment with drugs designed for adults, she said. “They have to live with the side effects of such harsh treatment for decades.”

    Uplifting survival stories create a sense of complacency, said Agin, who left his law practice after Alexis died to lead the nonprofit Max Cure Foundation and later start his own organization, Prep4 Gold. “When the messaging is, ‘Look how great we’re doing,’ that drives the lack of haste in developing new therapies,” he said.

    And survival doesn’t guarantee a normal life. Many childhood cancer victims develop new strains of the disease or suffer other health problems, some related to the treatments themselves. Trevor Schaefer said he suffers from tinnitus in his right ear, double vision, hearing loss, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression almost two decades after his brain-cancer diagnosis.

    A National Cancer Institute spokesman did not respond to written questions intended for one of its pediatric cancer experts. Instead, he referenced a September blog post by institute director Dr. Norman Sharpless, who touted the progress that has been made. Treatments have become more precise, leading to better outcomes, Sharpless wrote. Today, for example, roughly 90% of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia are cured; a half-century ago the disease was almost always fatal.

    Responding to lobbying by the Coalition Against Childhood Cancer and other groups and individuals, Congress has tried to improve the odds for children with hard-to-treat tumors, passing the Pediatric Research Equity Act in 2003, the Creating Hope Act in 2011 and the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity for Children Act in 2017. The bills incentivized, to varying degrees, drug development for pediatric cancers, though one big loophole had to be closed.

    The legislation has shown “the beginnings of value,” Buenger said. All six of the child-focused oncology drugs approved by the FDA came into use after the bills were passed.

    Gregory Reaman, a pediatric oncologist and associate director for oncology sciences at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, cautioned that there are still “major challenges to cancer drug development in children because many of the cancers that are most difficult to treat and that remain as major problems from the standpoint of not having effective therapies are driven by molecular abnormalities that are very, very different from the molecular abnormalities that cause adult cancers.

    “I think kids are at the back of the line because the laws have not allowed them to be at the front of the line, where they belong,” Reaman said. “So, that is now changing, and we’ll have to see if the change in the laws actually does live up to the promises.”

    Peter Adamson, who leads cancer drug development at Sanofi, a global pharmaceutical company, said researchers’ understanding of childhood cancer has advanced, especially over the past decade, “and that understanding is now helping to drive research.”

    Still, he said, cancer remains “the leading cause of death from disease” in children.

    “I think the community continues to look for the right balance of requirements and incentives to help catalyze drug development,” Adamson said.

    Buenger acknowledged the work of “good actors” in the private sector. In November, for example, a firm called Oncoheroes Biosciences Inc. announced it had agreed to license a drug called volasertib, which shows promise in treating acute myeloid leukemia and rhabdomyosarcoma, a type of soft-tissue cancer, to Notable Labs Inc. The former will have the right to commercialize the drug for use on children, the latter for use on adults.

    But Buenger isn’t ready to declare victory.

    “It’s a process, and we don’t want it to be just performative,” she said. “We’re not going to be satisfied by people saying, ‘We’re trying.’”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ]

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    When COVID-19 started sweeping across America in the spring of 2020, Irene Bosch knew she was in a unique position to help.

    The Harvard-trained scientist had just developed quick, inexpensive tests for several tropical diseases, and her method could be adapted for the novel coronavirus. So Bosch and the company she had co-founded two years earlier seemed well-suited to address an enormous testing shortage.

    Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

    E25Bio — named after the massive red brick building at MIT that houses the lab where Bosch worked — already had support from the National Institutes of Health, along with a consortium of investors led by MIT.

    Within a few weeks, Bosch and her colleagues had a test that would detect coronavirus in 15 minutes and produce a red line on a little chemical strip. The factory where they were planning to make tests for dengue fever could quickly retool to produce at least 100,000 COVID-19 tests per week, she said, priced at less than $10 apiece, or cheaper at a higher scale.

    Bosch’s prototype attracted a top Silicon Valley venture capital firm, which pitched in $2 million.

    “We are excited about what E25Bio is capable of shipping in a short amount of time: a test that is significantly cheaper, more affordable, and available at-home,” said firm founder Vinod Khosla. (Disclosure: Khosla’s daughter Anu Khosla is on ProPublica’s board.)

    On March 21 — when the U.S. had recorded only a few hundred COVID-19 deaths Bosch submitted the test for emergency authorization, a process the Food and Drug Administration uses to expedite tests and treatments.

    A green light from the FDA could have made a big difference for the many Americans who were then frantically trying to find doctors to swab their noses, with results, if they were lucky, coming back only days later.

    But the go-ahead never came.

    In the months that followed, Bosch responded to repeated requests from FDA reviewers for data and studies. When the agency finally put out guidance that summer about the performance over-the-counter home tests needed to meet, officials required that such tests be nearly as sensitive as the lab tests used to definitively determine whether a patient has COVID-19.

    That standard proved difficult to meet. Rapid tests are usually sensitive enough to detect viral antigens when someone has enough of them to be able to spread the disease. Such tests are not as good at picking up cases in either earlier or later stages of infection, when viral loads are lower.

    Bosch’s tests missed the FDA’s high bar. It wasn’t until the spring of 2021 that much larger companies were able to design similar tests — relatively inexpensive, over-the-counter rapid tests — that the agency found acceptable.

    “You could have antigen tests saving lives since the beginning of the pandemic,” said Bosch, sitting in her lab at MIT. “That’s the sad story.”

    As ProPublica recently detailed, many companies with at-home tests have been stymied by an FDA review process that has flummoxed experts and even caused one agency reviewer to quit in frustration.

    While E25Bio’s test didn’t catch quite as many cases as those now on the market, it could have been used to catch superspreaders, with warnings that a negative result wouldn’t rule out infection. Experts told us that the test could have been a vital public health tool had it been produced in the millions in 2020 just as COVID-19 was racing across the country undetected.

    “Since we didn’t have other options, it would have been a very good test,” said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist who followed E25Bio’s early progress. “If we were going to war, and somebody was invading us, and we had a bunch of revolver pistols, and we didn’t yet have the shipment of machine guns, hell yeah, you’re going to pick up the revolver pistol. You do what you can when you need to in an emergency.”

    Three other experts reviewed Bosch’s submissions at ProPublica’s request and agreed that her test approached what is now considered acceptable for over-the-counter tests.

    Mina and others have been calling for an embrace of rapid testing since the pandemic’s early days, saying that tests should be ubiquitous and cheap enough that people could stock them in their medicine cabinet, like aspirin or Band-Aids. Although not a panacea, rapid tests can slow the spread of COVID-19 when used repeatedly and when the infected follow instructions to isolate, many studies suggest.

    After not showing urgency on the issue for much of the past year, the Biden administration has moved recently to boost production and lower prices. Facing a huge new wave of cases and an increasing outcry about shortages of tests, Biden announced Tuesday that 500 million more at-home tests would be distributed by mail, starting in January.

    David Paltiel, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said a significant part of the problem is that the FDA created a detailed roadmap for tests that give patients a close-to-definitive answer on whether they have COVID-19, but never created a separate framework for rapid tests that serve a different purpose: helping people get frequent, fast evidence of whether they may be contagious.

    “The former are tests of infection; the latter are tests of infectiousness,” Paltiel said. “They both share the same regulatory pathway — a pathway that was designed with diagnostic testing in mind and is littered with requirements that make no sense for the purpose they serve.”

    He added, “It’s an outrage that rapid tests aren’t dirt cheap and plentiful on grocery store shelves.”

    The FDA declined to comment on individual test submissions, but said in a statement that it has worked to authorize “accurate and reliable” home tests since the beginning of the pandemic.

    “Unfortunately, many submissions the FDA has received for home tests include incomplete or poor data, and it is the FDA’s responsibility to protect the public health by declining to authorize poorly performing tests or those without complete data,” the agency said. “We have also worked interactively with many developers to resolve concerns when data was incomplete or unclear, or to find solutions to issues that arose during review. If the FDA received a home test that the data and science supported in early-to-mid 2020, we would have quickly authorized it.”

    Bosch has since moved on to start a new venture focused on helping other test developers conduct trials that meet the FDA’s standards. This winter, she’s working with the housing authority in the high-poverty Boston suburb of Chelsea to conduct a trial using several tests that have been authorized in other countries, but not America. The goal: to demonstrate that such tests can be effective when deployed for free, in conjunction with education and outreach.

    “The next thing is frequent testing for communities that need it,” Bosch said. “How do we flood the market with a $2 test that is as good as a $20? We’re doing it in Chelsea. We should be an example for the whole country.”

    American medical device regulators have never been enthusiastic about letting people test themselves.

    In the 1980s, the FDA banned home tests for HIV on the grounds that people who tested positive might do harm to themselves if they did not receive simultaneous counseling. In the 2010s, the agency cracked down on home genetic testing kits, concerned that people might make rash medical decisions as a result.

    But the FDA wasn’t an obstacle to Bosch’s work on tropical diseases, since the tests were mostly needed in places like the Brazilian Amazon, where infected mosquitoes are hard to escape. The National Institutes of Health thought Bosch’s tests had enough potential to give E25Bio $1.8 million for the project.

    So when the pandemic struck, the small company decided to use its expertise for the new threat. Within a few weeks, Bosch and her colleagues developed antibodies that could detect the presence of proteins attached to the new coronavirus.

    In her previous work, Bosch had found that tests of this type could be validated in the lab, so she ordered up some samples of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ran two different types of antigen tests on them. She found that both worked fairly well, and packaged up all her evidence and sent it to the FDA, with little guidance on what would pass muster.

    Shortly after, an FDA reviewer told her she’d need to conduct a clinical trial, which would take months. “My first huge surprise was when they said, ‘Nope, none of your validations are going to pass for an EUA,’” Bosch said.

    The next challenge was that the accuracy of antigen tests would be measured by how they compared to a different type of diagnostic: the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, test, which is considered the “gold standard” for finding coronaviruses. Many see that as an unproductive comparison, given the fact that PCR detects remnants of the virus, which may persist for many days after the infection ceases to be a threat.

    “When you’re PCR testing, you’re testing for the presence of the virus itself,” said Hannah Mamuszka, the CEO of Alva10, a company that helps diagnostics manufacturers prove their value for insurers. “When you’re antigen testing you’re testing for presence of a protein on the surface of the virus, indicative of an immune response. Those are obviously not the same thing. So it’s really confounding that the FDA has had such a hard time communicating what they need, and defining what a test would need to look like to be used at home.”

    Nevertheless, by April 2020, E25Bio had lined up a trial with three hospitals in Florida. They found the test identified 80% of the swabs that a PCR test had shown to be positive (known as sensitivity) and 94% of the negatives (known as specificity).

    The FDA wanted to see fewer false positives, even though people who test positive on an antigen test are usually advised to confirm it with a PCR. And while the overall sensitivity of E25Bio’s test was lower than other tests would later demonstrate, it measured 100% for people with higher viral loads — those most likely to be infectious.

    Bosch was in frequent contact with her assigned reviewer at the FDA, and even talked to Tim Stenzel, the head of the agency’s office that vets diagnostic tests. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave E25Bio another $500,000 to continue research and development.

    But at the end of July 2020, the FDA came out with a template that laid out the expectation that tests available for home use without a prescription would reach 90% overall sensitivity — that is, antigen tests would pick up nine out of ten positive tests that a PCR identified. Bosch knew her tests couldn’t meet that standard. And without an EUA for home use, they wouldn’t be able to serve their intended function.

    Already, plenty of models had illustrated the importance of frequent testing, including one co-authored last year by Yale’s Paltiel with Rochelle Walensky, now head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In September 2020, as chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Walensky argued that antigen tests were actually most useful for pinpointing people at their most infectious.

    In fact, the utility of that approach was being tested at Bosch’s own former workplace. Beginning in the late summer of 2020, a coworking lab space in Cambridge where E25Bio had launched started a trial with 257 of its users who agreed to take both the antigen rapid test at home and a PCR test twice a week. (This was also closer to a home use scenario than the Florida hospitals study, in which COVID-19 was more prevalent and tests were administered by medical professionals.)

    An E25Bio trial (Lindsey Crockett/LabCentral)

    A peer-reviewed paper based on the results showed overall sensitivity of 79%, and that the rapid test picked up nearly all of the positives later detected by a PCR in the first few days after symptoms appeared, allowing infected people to stay out of the office as soon as they knew.

    But the FDA does not consider test performance data broken out by how much virus the subjects have in their systems, saying the typical method for measuring it is inconsistent. Nor did the agency initially authorize tests on the condition that they be sold in packs of more than one, with instructions to use them sequentially to catch any fast-moving infections.

    Bosch wasn’t the only one to be tripped up by the new standard. In mid-September 2020, Stenzel said on his weekly town hall call with test developers that his office had received zero applications for home use tests, a month and a half after putting out the template, despite his insistence that the agency was willing to be “flexible.”

    Meanwhile, a $666 million NIH program to accelerate the approval and production of new COVID-19 tests funded mostly PCR tests in 2020.

    The antigen tests that did make it into the NIH program in the first three funding rounds — including one made by Quidel, a public company that multiplied its profits by tenfold in 2020 over the previous year — generally had to be processed in labs or required expensive analyzers.

    One of few simple antigen tests to win government support, made by Maxim Biomedical, still hasn’t submitted an EUA application, according to chief operating officer Jonathan Maa. Another grantee, Ellume, was authorized for nonprescription home use in December 2020. But it took months to go into widespread production, and still costs $39, if you can find it.

    Toward the end of October 2020, Bosch received a 48-hour ultimatum from the FDA for a response to a request for additional data. She had answers to the agency’s questions, but didn’t quite make that deadline.

    By the time she replied, the FDA had already closed her application. “You call and they say, ‘Oh sorry, the clock started and we can’t stop it,’” she said.

    Soon after, the company’s leadership asked her to resign. The company continues to operate, but hasn’t obtained FDA authorization for any tests. “As we commercialize our COVID-19 rapid tests internationally, we are also focused on developing the next generation of rapid tests for consumer diagnostics,” an E25Bio spokesperson said, while declining to comment on Bosch’s departure or its current product pipeline.

    “All our life, day in and day out, went to make antigen tests,” Bosch said. “It was tragic, because it was all because the FDA decided to be so harsh in their responses that investors said, ‘Oh, there’s no way she will pull it out.’”

    E25Bio’s travails with the FDA didn’t stop Bosch from putting her expertise to use.

    In early 2021, she started talking to the city of Chelsea about running a trial that could show how rapid antigen testing — even with the types of tests that the FDA had rejected — could be rolled out in a high-risk community. In the spring, when infection rates in Chelsea were among the highest in the nation, many residents had had a difficult time accessing PCR tests, because the places administering them often dissuaded immigrants by requiring identification.

    Chelsea officials agreed, and Bosch secured donations of tests from five manufacturers that had been authorized in Britain, Germany, India or Korea, but none yet in the U.S. (They can still be used here for research purposes.) She said she has validated them in her lab and found them to be about as accurate as BinaxNOW, the FDA-authorized home test made by medical device giant Abbott Laboratories.

    “If they have a budget for next year to do frequent testing, this will be an accomplishment,” Bosch said. “I wanted to show to the world that an experimental device is just as good as any other already-approved FDA test.”

    Left: A study participant looks on as Bosch, right, and another evaluator go over the project consent form. Right: A Chelsea resident self-administers a rapid COVID-19 test while members of the project guide her through the process. (Kayana Szymczak for ProPublica)

    So for the past few months, Bosch has canvassed three buildings owned by the local housing authority. Bosch, who is from Venezuela, puts on salsa music and explains in Spanish how the program will work.

    The trial began in earnest last week, with study administrators walking newly enrolled subjects through using the tests. In a building reserved for elderly and disabled people, residents entered with walkers and in flip-flops to learn how to swab their noses, put the swabs in a vial of solution, squeeze a few drops onto a pad and wait anxiously for the single line to appear that would indicate a negative result.

    A Chelsea resident is guided through entering his test information. (Kayana Szymczak for ProPublica)

    Most were able to take a picture of the results with their phones and upload them using a special app, which they’ll continue to do in their homes each week.

    The FDA frowns upon this kind of instruction in trials for at-home tests — users are supposed to be able to execute the test without training. But in reality, many need support.

    For the nonprofit that helped launch the effort, the Center of Complex Interventions, the important part is demonstrating that rapid tests can work when used as part of a coordinated testing regime to address specific situations: right before people gather indoors or after an exposure to an infected person, for anyone in a high-risk job, for people in crowded living situations, or for those who have health risk factors. People in all of those situations are concentrated in Chelsea’s housing authority buildings.

    “It’s a lot different than saying, ‘Let’s roll it out to everybody,’” said Karthik Dinakar, who is leading the project. “It all has to be connected in a way that makes people feel like they’re participating. The goal for us is to make the community safer, and also shift the mindset to a new equilibrium.”

    Amelia Valesquez and other Buckley Apartment housing project residents self-administer COVID-19 tests. Valesquez checks on her results. (Kayana Szymczak for ProPublica)

    Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health who used to be principal deputy commissioner of the FDA, said that rapid tests could have been authorized earlier with these kinds of protocols in mind.

    “There was no testing strategy,” Sharfstein said, outlining the opportunity that America missed to use a variety of tests for the purposes to which they were best suited. “What they could have done is to say, ‘Here are the six uses of tests. You’re sick, you’re exposed, you’re trying to maintain people on a campus. What’s the performance of test that you would need?’“Just think how amazingly helpful that would be,” he finished, wistfully.

    Meanwhile, the CDC and NIH have been studying similar programs in a handful of communities using Quidel’s at-home test. Governors have been catching on to the utility of rapid tests too. Last week, the state of Massachusetts bought millions of rapid test kits made by iHealth laboratories. The company’s chief operating officer, Jack Feng, told National Public Radio that the price was higher in the U.S. because of the expense of clinical trials that aren’t required elsewhere.

    And since rejecting Bosch’s submissions, the FDA has been coming around to her way of thinking. In March, the agency published a template for tests that would be used serially and sold in packages of two or more, allowing the kind of frequent testing she had advocated for. And last month, it published a new template that lowered the sensitivity standard for over-the-counter tests to 80%.

    Bosch had tests a year and a half ago that missed that bar by 1%.

    Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

    If you have tips about America’s pandemic response, or anything else, reach Lydia DePIllis via email at lydia.depillis@propublica.org or Signal at 202-913-3717.

    This post was originally published on Articles and Investigations – ProPublica.

  • World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends a press conference on December 20, 2021, at the WHO headquarters in Geneva.

    The head of the World Health Organization delivered a stark warning Monday about the state of the coronavirus pandemic as the highly transmissible Omicron strain continued to rip through large swaths of the global population, posing the greatest threat to poor countries that have been denied access to vaccines.

    “There is now consistent evidence that Omicron is spreading significantly faster than the Delta variant,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a media briefing, referring to the previously dominant Covid-19 strain. “And it is more likely that people who have been vaccinated or have recovered from Covid-19 could be infected or reinfected.”

    Tedros voiced particular concern about the collision of Omicron and crowded holiday celebrations, which he said “will lead to increased cases, overwhelmed health systems, and more deaths.”

    “More than 3.3 million people have lost their lives to Covid-19 this year — more deaths than from HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis combined in 2020,” Tedros noted. “And still, Covid-19 continues to claim around 50 000 lives every week. That’s not to mention the unreported deaths and the millions of excess deaths caused by disruptions to essential health services.”

    “All of us are sick of this pandemic. All of us want to spend time with friends and family. All of us want to get back to normal,” he continued. “The fastest way to do that is for all of us — leaders and individuals — to make the difficult decisions that must be made to protect ourselves and others. In some cases, that will mean canceling or delaying events… But an event canceled is better than a life canceled.”

    The Omicron strain now accounts for nearly three-quarters of all new coronavirus cases in the United States, and recorded infections stemming from the variant are doubling every two to three days in the dozens of countries where its presence has been detected.

    “Africa is now facing a steep wave of infections, driven largely by the Omicron variant,” Tedros observed Monday. “Just a month ago, Africa was reporting its lowest number of cases in 18 months. Last week, it reported the fourth-highest number of cases in a single week so far.”

    Reiterating his condemnation of vaccine apartheid — which has left billions without access to lifesaving shots as rich nations swallow up much of the world’s supply — Tedros said that “if we are to end the pandemic in the coming year, we must end inequity by ensuring 70% of the population of every country is vaccinated by the middle of next year.”

    The WHO warned last week that, over a year and a half into the pandemic, more than 40 countries have been unable to vaccinate at least 10% of their populations and nearly 100 countries have not reached the 40% threshold.

    Overall, according to Our World in Data, just 7.6% of people in low-income nations have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose.

    Omicron’s rapid spread in the month since it was first detected by South African scientists has led some European countries to impose new public health restrictions to stem surging cases.

    In the U.S., the Biden administration is planning to distribute 500 million free at-home coronavirus testing kits to households and send federal medical personnel to overwhelmed hospitals as part of its efforts to combat Omicron. President Joe Biden officially announced those new components of his Omicron plan in a speech Tuesday.

    “This is not a speech about locking the country down,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who previously dismissed the idea of mass-mailing free Covid-19 tests to U.S. households, told reporters Monday. “This is a speech outlining and being direct and clear with the American people about the benefits of being vaccinated, the steps we’re going to take to increase access and to increase testing, and the risks posed to unvaccinated individuals.”

    While early data out of South Africa has sparked some cautious optimism that Omicron causes less severe disease than other coronavirus variants, public health experts have warned that a massive spike in infections could swamp hospitals that are already at capacity, particularly in developing nations.

    “It is probably unwise to sit back and think this is a mild variant, it’s not going to cause severe disease, because I think with the numbers going up all health systems are going to be under strain,” Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, told journalists Monday.

    Additionally, though preliminary research indicates that existing coronavirus vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness or death from Omicron, lack of vaccine access in poor countries could allow the strain to run rampant across much of the world, causing more deaths and potentially spawning new variants.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Today, a fledgling independent union of pharmacists is launching the first-ever nationwide walkout of these critical health care workers.

    After being forced to work on the pandemic front lines distributing medicines to millions of sick COVID patients, including hundreds of millions of vaccines, pharmacists have had enough, and are fighting back in unprecedented ways.

    The post Pharmacists Stage Walkout In Early Unionization Effort appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.