research
Even moderate drinking carries risks, per new report
We've got another entry in the saga of the alcohol regulation fight today: Just 11 days after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for stronger warning labels on alcoholic drinks, a new federal report found that even moderate drinking — within the bounds of U.S. nutrition guidance — could carry health risks, including injuries, liver disease and cancer.
You might recall that a different report, published last month by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, actually linked moderate drinking to lower all-cause mortality, but also to an increased risk of breast cancer. Both the NASEM report and today's — which is led by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — are set to inform the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The at-times contradictory results will likely add fuel to the existing debates about alcohol research. STAT's Isabella Cueto has more.
politics
AMA political group donations don't match its stance on climate
The American Medical Association declared climate change a public health crisis in 2022. But an analysis of donations to lawmakers that AMPAC, the group's political action committee, made in 2022 and 2023 found that over a third of those lawmakers voted against climate action policies most of the time. More than 38% of the group's 244 total contributions went to what study authors call anti-climate action legislators.
The study, published yesterday in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, determined which legislation was for or against climate action by using a publicly available environmental policy scorecard. (The Inflation Reduction Act partly aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, putting it in the pro column, for example.) Then, researchers classified lawmakers who put 90% or more of their votes toward climate action laws as pro, and those with 10% or less as anti.
Of course, legislators are juggling multiple priorities on each vote. AMPAC is an openly bipartisan group, providing funding to candidates or members of the U.S. congress on either side of the aisle who are "medicine-friendly," or who are a doctor themselves.
Still, the data indicates to the authors that climate change is not a major consideration for AMPAC when the group makes donations. It could also be demonstrative of a split between the main group and the PAC. (FWIW, it looks like at least a few of the legislators AMPAC donated to for the new Congress have made statements incongruent with the group's support for gender-affirming care for trans youth.)
first opinion
This family received a bad vaccine. Here's how they reacted
About 200,000 kids received the infamous Cutter vaccine in the spring of 1955. It was an early version of the polio vaccine that was presumed to contain an inactivated version of the live virus — except it wasn't inactive. Three of Laurie Maffly-Kipp's cousins received the vaccine that spring, and all were among the 40,000 who developed polio. Several dozen people died as a result of the regulatory failure, and 200 children were paralyzed. The children's mother, Maffly-Kipp's Aunt Jean, caught polio from her children and lived the rest of her life disabled.
You might understand if this family was suspicious of vaccines, under the circumstances. But in a new First Opinion essay, Maffly-Kipp writes that her aunt saw the greater good that was at stake with the polio vaccine, and chose to remain focused on that.
"My aunt would have had no patience for these debates" about vaccines that have already been proved safe and effective, she writes. Read more about how one family maintains faith in public health, despite personal tragedy.
No comments