Oregon health officials investigate rare brain disease blamed for two deaths
Two people have died and a third person is showing symptoms consistent with the disease. The disease has been confirmed in one of the deceased through an autopsy; the other two cases are considered probable, according to a statement from the Hood River County Health Department.
All three cases were diagnosed in the last eight months. County health officials declined to provide particulars about the individuals, such as their age, gender or town of residence.
'At this time, there is no identifiable link between these three cases,' a Hood River County statement said. The county has a population of about 24,000.
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by misfolded proteins known as prions. These prions lead to rapid brain deterioration, resulting in severe neurological symptoms and death. Although the disease is known for its sporadic occurrence, clusters raise concerns among public health officials about potential environmental or dietary exposure.
Symptoms include issues with memory, walking, coordination, speech and behavior changes, according to experts. It does not spread through the air, water, touch or social contact, according to Hood River County health officials.
The disease is considered incurable and is always fatal. Roughly 350 cases are diagnosed in the United States every year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
The disease is rare in people, affecting roughly 1.4 people per million. However, because the disease takes years to develop, any person's chance of developing the disease is closer to 1 in 5,000 or 6,000, said Michael Geschwind, a professor of neurology at UC San Francisco in the Memory and Aging Center.
The disease is similar to chronic wasting disease, or CWD, which is also a prion-fueled disease, and was detected for the first time in wild deer in California and Washington last year.
CWD was first reported in 1967, in a captive Colorado deer. It has since spread to deer in 36 states. There are no known cases of the disease in Oregon wildlife.
For decades there has been concern that CWD could move into human populations through the ingestion of contaminated meat.
That's because in the 1980s, a prion disease in sheep, known as scrapies — which humans do not seem to get — moved into cows, and soon people throughout the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere were becoming infected with mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Since then, public health officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several states have been paying close attention to clusters of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease — investigating outbreaks to determine whether infected deer, elk or moose meat was involved.
They — and researchers from other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center — also have been monitoring wild deer populations and keeping tabs on hunters who may have been exposed.
Although widespread geographically throughout the United States and Canada, the disease is considered relatively rare in wild populations of deer, elk and moose, said Brian Richardson, the emerging-disease coordinator at the USGS wildlife center.
'It may well be [in Oregon], but it's hard to find rare events,' he said.
To date, there are no known incidents of people acquiring a prion disease by consuming deer, elk or moose meat, said Geschwind, the UCSF professor.
He said roughly 85% to 90% of Creutzfeldt-Jakob cases are considered sporadic, with no identified cause or source of infection. In 10% to 15% of the cases, the disease appears to be genetically inherited — with some people acquiring mutations associated with the disease.
However, there have been a few cases in which sources of infection or contamination have been identified, and almost all of them were from a medical mishap.
Prions are notoriously difficult to inactivate or destroy — withstanding standard sterilization techniques — and can remain intact for months and years on a surface, Geschwind said.
In a small number of cases, he said, people acquired the disease as a result of contaminated and improperly cleaned surgical equipment. In a few other cases, it was acquired by people who used products — such as growth hormone, or who received corneal transplants — derived, inadvertently, from infected cadavers.
It's these proteins' durability and longevity that have many researchers worried. Studies have shown that deer that harbor the disease can pass the infectious prions to other deer through saliva, blood, urine and feces.
'So, if the animal is licking a plant or licking a salt lick, for example, and another animal comes along and licks that plant or salt lick, then that might be a way of spreading the disease,' Geschwind said.
In addition, the decomposing body of a deer that died of the disease can infect the surrounding environment where the animal expired — potentially contaminating plants, seeds, fungi and soil, Richardson said.
He said not only is there the issue of surface contamination, but also research has shown that the proteins can 'be taken up via rootlets and deposited in aerial plant tissues. Whether these plants contribute to chronic wasting disease transmission and what type of risk these plants pose to humans remain open questions.'
Geschwind noted that the work done by federal researchers to better understand the disease, provide diagnostic autopsies on presumptive cases, monitor wildlife and investigate clusters has provided a level of protection for the American public, which could be destabilized by proposed cuts to federal agencies.
'The idea of cutting government funding of rare disease is very short-sighted, because even though CJD is a rare disease, what we have learned from prion diseases has implications for all neurodegenerative diseases,' he said, noting Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy.
'All these diseases act in a prion-like manner in which normal proteins misfold, and those misfolded proteins cause the cells to not work partly and lead to disease,' he said. 'But the basic mechanism that we've learned from this very rare disease applies to diseases that are thousands of times more common. To get rid of the research? It'd be a very grave mistake.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
The under-the-radar injections people are taking to build muscle this summer — including the 'Wolverine' shot
Peptide injections are soaring in popularity for fitness and longevity. They're marketed as a "natural" supplement for muscle-building, fat loss, recovery, and more. The FDA has been cracking down on peptide sellers, and experts say some caution is warranted. People who want to feel younger, look fitter, or perhaps slough off a little layer of belly fat have been turning to an increasingly popular kind of treatment — one you can get without a prescription. They've got obscure names like BPC-157, tesamorelin, and cerebrolysin. All it takes is a tiny needle and a little clear vial filled with injectable molecules. Welcome to the world of peptides. "Absolutely everybody's asking for it, the field is popping," Dr. Florence Comite, a longevity doctor who serves concierge medicine clients in New York City, told Business Insider. The peptide landscape is so large that it almost defies definition. The prescription drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro, often used for weight loss, are peptides. So is insulin. There are peptides in skin creams, hair products, and high-end serums marketed to women to reduce fine lines and stimulate collagen. The wildly popular fitness supplement creatine? Also a peptide. Then, there are the gym bro shots, said to boost muscle, burn fat, stimulate testosterone, and aid recovery. Demand for peptide injections — something that biohackers and longevity-seekers have already been quietly using in the shadows for decades — is booming. Patients in pockets of the country saturated with peptides, like Beverly Hills, San Diego, Silicon Valley, and Manhattan are increasingly asking their doctors: "should I try peptides?" Many physicians aren't sure what to say because there isn't a ton of great evidence around about how much peptides can really do. Plus, the FDA has been cracking down on peptide compounders in recent years. They worry that the hype is outpacing good evidence. How peptides boost your body Unlike most pills that doctors prescribe, peptides live in a more slippery area, between drug and bodily substance. A peptide is a chain of organic compounds — specifically, amino acids — that stimulate natural processes. Depending on which amino acids a peptide is made of, and how it is used, the molecule can have all kinds of impacts on how our hormones operate. Peptides can improve fertility in both men and women, tamp down inflammation, remove dangerous visceral belly fat, or help build muscle. Others are thought to help improve sleep quality, even possibly improve brain health. "What's great about peptides is that they mimic the body," said Comite, who has been working with peptides since she was a research fellow at the National Institutes of Health over 30 years ago. Since most peptides are too fragile to be formulated as pills, they are often packaged as a clear liquid in a little vial. Users learn to inject their peptides using a very fine, short needle, right at home. The popularity of peptides has soared on their reputation as ostensibly "natural" products. The idea being that, unlike other drugs or steroids, peptides are a safer choice because they're just stimulating your body to do its own thing. Taking growth hormones, for example, comes with a suite of undesirable potential side effects, like an increased risk of cancer and type 2 diabetes. What if you could just take a peptide that would stimulate your own growth hormone to make you stronger, leaner, and more energetic? "The theory is that even if you use a growth hormone stimulating peptide, your body's only going to be able to make so much growth hormone," Dr. Sajad Zalzala, a longevity physician and one of the cofounders of AgelessRx, said. "Kind of like a check valve already in place. Again, that's the theory." The peptides gym bros take to get chiseled muscles One darling peptide of gym bros and longevity fiends alike is a substance called BPC-157. It's known as the "Wolverine" shot for its perceived ability to heal you up and regenerate your body real fast like the Marvel character, Logan, after a big fight. B-P-C stands for "body protection compound." BPC-157 was first derived from stomach juices. It's being investigated to treat inflammatory bowel diseases, including Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. But the reason that athletes like it is because it's thought to reduce inflammation and improve blood flow — and perhaps do even more. There are a few other super popular peptides: Tesamorelin, an injectable peptide, is prescribed to HIV patients to reduce excess belly fat. Sermorelin is supposed to help with sleep and recovery. CJC-1295 binds to growth hormone receptors in the body, and people often take it alongside impamorelin, which stimulates the hypothalamus. The two in tandem are said to deliver better muscle gains. On Reddit and YouTube people share how they "stack" different peptides like this, taking multiple different kinds with the goal of boosting the effects of each. Peptide fans get their shots at clinics and med spas — or, for less money, online. Increasingly, people are ordering peptides that are labeled "for research only," meaning they are supposed to be used by lab workers for experimentation, and were never meant to be put into human bodies. That's partly because the FDA crackdown on peptides has intensified in recent years, just as pharmaceutical compounding (a sort of acceptable way to get knock off medications) has surged in popularity, with people seeking cheaper versions of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro. At the beginning of 2022, the FDA had a list of four peptides that they said "may present significant safety risks" and should not be compounded. By the end of 2023, there were 26. Comite thinks the FDA crackdown is a shame. She is finding it harder and harder to source compounded liquid BPC-157. She often uses a patch form of BPC-157 on herself, placing it over sore areas or injuries. Recently, she tore a calf muscle, so she's been using it there, but she also just likes how taking a little bit of it keeps her active and moving. "I use it almost every day," she said. "It's amazing for joints and everything — at a very tiny dose." Zalzala, who doesn't usually prescribe peptides, ordered some topical BPC-157 recently when his wife had a knee injury. "My wife says it works," he said, though he cautioned that it's hard to really know if that's true without more proper research. Bracken Darrell, the CEO of VF Corporation and one of Comite's patients, is also a BPC-157 convert. A self-proclaimed "basketball nut," he's on the court about three days a week. On the days when he doesn't pick up a ball, he's out cross-training on a bike or lifting weights. So when he tore his meniscus about four months ago, he was worried. Under Comite's supervision, he started taking liquid BPC-157 about three to four times a week. He told BI it was "weird" at first, learning to inject the needle into an area of skin near his knee. But, pretty soon, it was just part of his routine. "I believe it helped a lot, but it's hard to know for sure," he said. "There are people with a severely torn meniscus who don't ever play basketball again, and I'm back — I certainly wouldn't conclude that's because I'm taking BPC-157, but at a minimum it didn't hurt. And it sure seems like it helps." Proceed with caution, doctors say Even longevity doctors who prescribe and use peptides regularly agree that some folks are overdoing it, and that could be dangerous. "Proceed with caution, because you have to know the source and you have to know it's active," Comite said. "It's not like Lowe's or Home Depot where you can get stuff and you can fix the plumbing." In reality, the evidence for peptides is still murky. There are no big, randomized clinical trials like what we have for prescription drugs or vaccines. The current hype is based on anecdotal evidence, a few small human studies from decades ago, and rodent studies. "People wanna take the peptides because they're not from big pharma, they're not mainstream medicine, they gotta be better than those cockamamie doctors," Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and longevity expert, said recently on the Dax Shepard podcast. "Where's the data?" For people who are using peptides, experts shared two pieces of advice: Comite urges patients to start slow. A common mistake people who are dosing themselves make is thinking that "if a little bit is good, then a lot must be better," she said. That's not the case. "Taking mega doses of tesmorelin along with testosterone causes your organs to overgrow," Comite said. Sometimes she'll see a toned gymgoer with a potbelly, and wonder whether that's due to an enlarged liver or spleen. Darrell recommends testing your peptides with an independent lab so you know what you're getting is both real and uncontaminated. Zalzala says his company started thinking about offering peptides a few years back, due to consumer demand, but they haven't yet. There are just so many peptides out there, and it's hard to tell which might be the very best. Some of the most research-backed ways to have an impact on your longevity and fitness are still the simplest anyway: eat decent amounts of fiber and protein regularly, work out — at least a couple sessions with weights each week, and cut back (or ideally, eliminate) liquid sugar in your diet like juice and soda.
Los Angeles Times
14 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
The Hill
17 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding
Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and 13 other Senate Republicans are urging the Trump administration to release National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that has been held up for months. The GOP senators warned in a letter to White House budget chief Russell Vought that the 'slow disbursement of funds' that Congress appropriated in March 'risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports.' 'Suspension of these appropriated funds — whether formally withheld or functionally delayed — could threaten Americans' ability to access better treatments and limit our nation's leadership in biomedical science,' the senators warned. 'It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results,' they wrote. The Trump administration suspended or cut many NIH research grants earlier this year in order to undertake a thorough review to ensure they complied with Trump's orders to end federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. A database set up by a Harvard University researcher estimated that by the end of May more than 2,100 NIH grants worth more than $9 billion had been cancelled. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told senators in March at his confirmation hearing that his agency would restart grant reviews but an analysis by STAT, a health care news site, last month found that NIH had made little progress in narrowing the funding gap created by the freeze on grant approvals. Now Republican senators are trying to ramp up pressure on the Office of Management and Budget. They told Vought that they share his commitment to ensuring NIH funds are 'used responsibly and not diverted to ideological or unaccountable programs.' But they also argued that starving the NIH of funding could inadvertently undermine trust in the agency. 'Withholding or suspending these funds would jeopardize that trust and hinder progress on critical health challenges facing our nation. Ultimately, this is about finding cures and seeing them through to fruition,' the senators wrote. 'We respectfully request that you ensure the timely release of all FY25 NIH appropriations in accordance with congressional intent,' they added. The other GOP signatories were Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito ( Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), David McCormick (Pa.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Todd Young (Ind.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Tim Scott (S.C.).
