Judge orders CDC, FDA to restore websites taken down after Trump gender order
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates granted a temporary restraining order requested by the nonprofit advocacy group Doctors for America, directing the administration to bring back public information maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) while a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to remove it is pending.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's pharmaceutical tariffs will dig America deeper into medical debt
President Trump recently announced his intent to impose a 200 percent tariff on pharmaceuticals to lure drug manufacturing back to the U.S. This action, if implemented, will come at great cost to millions of Americans already struggling to cover their medical bills and force them deeper into health care debt. A vast number of Americans today rely on prescription medications. Over 60 percent of adults have at least one prescription filled every year. These statistics rise dramatically as we grow older. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found an estimated nine out of 10 people over the age of 65 rely on these drugs to maintain their long-term health. Many adults admit to not taking their medications due to fears over cost. Almost half of adults age 50 and older 'have either skipped filling a prescription due to costs or know someone who has,' according to research by the American Association of Retired Persons. U.S. prescription drug prices are almost three times higher than those of other countries. The U.S. 'pays higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country in the world,' notes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In part, that's because some of the most widely used drugs in America are imported from other countries. Pharmaceutical imports have more than doubled in recent decades, rising from $65 billion in 2006 to $151 billion in 2019. They include many popular drugs that treat diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer, blood clots, schizophrenia and obesity, among others. The long-term goal of boosting U.S. drug manufacturing to make America less reliant on pharmaceutical production from other countries, lower drug costs and increase medication access is an important endeavor. But the policies we enact to try and achieve this desired outcome must be weighed carefully to avoid creating short-term price spikes and drug shortages that could hurt millions of people. Trump initially said his tariff proposal wouldn't go into effect for another year. He has since changed this view by indicating the U.S. may 'start off' with a lower tariff as early as Aug. 1, and raise it to a 'very high tariff' in a 'year or so.' But experts have issued warnings about the possible impact these tariffs will have on public health, saying even a year isn't enough time for the U.S. drug industry to build the required infrastructure necessary to meet U.S. supply demands. 'That would be potentially disastrous for every person because we need those pharmaceuticals, and it takes those companies a long time to produce them here in the U.S.,' said Afsaneh Beschloss of RockCreek Group in response to Trump's proposed tariff plan. UBS analysts noted Trump's initial proposal to delay enforcement of a 200 percent tariff by 12 months still provides ' insufficient time ' for drug companies to relocate manufacturing operations to the U.S.. A four-to-five-year horizon is more realistic, they say. What's more, research commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry lobby group PhRMA found that a mere 25 percent tariff would increase U.S. drug prices by almost $51 billion. Trump's tariff proposals will hurt those dependent on generic medications especially hard. That's because nearly 80 percent of generic capsules and tablets Americans consume come from outside the U.S. Analysis by Brookings found that, given the low margins on generic prescriptions, tariff pressure could result in the discontinuation of certain drugs that, for many, are their only affordable option. As of last year, Americans owed at least $220 billion in collective medical debt. Fourteen million owed over $1,000. Three million owed over $10,000. Americans cannot absorb billions in added drug price hikes as a result of ill-designed and poorly timed tariff increases. It will place undue economic burden on those who can least afford it by creating drug shortages and impacting access to critical therapies people need to lead long, healthy lives. Trump's policies will be shouldered most by the elderly, the disabled and the marginalized — communities that require access to reasonably-priced prescription drugs. It took decades for U.S. pharmaceutical production to move overseas; moving it back to America can't happen overnight. We need measured policy approaches, not knee-jerk ones, to prevent America's most vulnerable from digging themselves further in debt to pay for medications many already can't afford.
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Here's how Coke using sugar instead of corn syrup could affect you
Coca-Cola announced Tuesday that it's launching a line of drinks sweetened with U.S. cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup after President Trump spoke with company leaders. Why it matters: The switch to cane sugar reflects the Make America Healthy Again movement's growing influence over the food industry's use of ultra-processed ingredients. Driving the news: The MAHA movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is focused on removing processed ingredients such as seed oils, artificial dyes, and high-fructose corn syrup from foods. Americans' consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke in adults. "MAHA is winning," Kennedy wrote on X in response to fast food chain Steak and Shake announcing it would sell Coca-Cola with "real cane sugar" starting Aug. 1. Earlier this month, Kennedy cheered the U.S. dairy industry's announcement that more than 40 ice-cream makers would voluntarily stop using synthetic dyes in their scoops. Yes, but: While cane sugar is less processed than corn syrup, they have basically the same weight gain and health effects, according to a 2022 analysis. The American Medical Association in 2023 said there was "insufficient evidence" to restrict the use of high fructose corn syrup in foods. Read on for an explanation on the differences between corn syrup and cane sugar: What is high-fructose corn syrup? High-fructose corn syrup comes from processing corn starch. When the starch is broken down, the end product is corn syrup, which is essentially 100% glucose, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Enzymes are then added to the corn syrup to convert some of the glucose to another simple sugar called fructose. The "high" in the end result is because there's more fructose than the pure glucose in corn syrup. How is cane sugar made? Sugarcane is a tall perennial grass that is cut after it matures, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The cane stalks are crushed and the resulting liquid is extracted into syrup or crystallized into products like white or brown sugar. Which one is healthier for you? A systematic review of people consuming the two ingredients found that there were no major differences in terms of body weight, blood sugar, or insulin levels. The study did suggest that those who consumed high-fructose corn syrup were more likely to have higher inflammation levels than those who consumed cane sugar. How are they used? High fructose corn syrup is predominantly used in processed and packaged goods that need to have a long shelf life because its more stable than regular sugar.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Empathy and Justice in Global Health
To the Editor: Re 'Why We Risk Ourselves to Care for Others,' by Craig Spencer (Opinion guest essay, July 11): Perhaps I'm not the only one who cried at the end of Dr. Spencer's eloquent portrayal in support of the moral argument for global health. As a nurse, I recognize the congruence of his tenderness in treating a person with Ebola — as well as his own experience of a similar humane touch when he, too, suffered — with nursing's own Code of Ethics. His example epitomized the first provision of that code: 'The nurse practices with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth and unique attributes of every person.' I stand with him and so many others who plead for recognizing and restoring the fundamental value: our mutual obligation to the humanity of us all. Lynn HamiltonAnn Arbor, Mich. To the Editor: Dr. Craig Spencer makes the point that global health activities depend on moral arguments, and he emphasizes the role of empathy. This moral argument may be appropriate for Dr. Spencer's personal decision to provide medical care for Ebola patients in Guinea in 2014. But it is not adequate for reconstructing U.S. global health policy, which has been destroyed by the Trump administration's approach of 'America First.' The Trump approach to global health ethics could be summed up as 'not our problem' and 'not our interest.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
