Thousands of cases of a potentially deadly, drug-resistant fungus have been reported across 27 states so far this year, according to provisional CDC data.

As of the week ending July 25, a total of 3,437 clinical cases of Candida auris (C. auris) had been documented in the U.S. so far in 2026.

California accounts for 873 cases — roughly one-quarter of the country’s total. Other states with high numbers include Texas (433), Tennessee (283), Ohio (279), Georgia (193), Louisiana (179), Illinois (171), Arizona (171), Michigan (146), Virginia (132) and Pennsylvania (121), per the CDC.

EXPERTS REVEAL HOW TO AVOID DEADLY LEGIONNAIRES’ DISEASE AS NYC OUTBREAK KILLS 5

The remaining states have fewer than 100 cases each.

Candida auris is a type of yeast that can cause serious infections, primarily in hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare settings.

The fungus, which can survive on surfaces for prolonged periods, is “highly transmissible between patients through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects,” the CDC states. It can spread through contaminated items such as bedrails, doorknobs and shared medical equipment.

C. auris can also be spread by people who carry the fungus but do not show symptoms, known as “colonization.”

California accounts for 873 cases — roughly one-quarter of the country’s total.

Clinical cases do not necessarily represent infections. The CDC defines a clinical case as detection of C. auris in a specimen collected during the normal course of medical care. 

Some clinical specimens can come from sites where the presence of C. auris may represent colonization rather than a true infection.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The health effects of the fungus can range from colonization without symptoms to potentially deadly invasive infections, including bloodstream infections.

Those most at risk of infection include patients with severe underlying medical conditions. In particular, those who use breathing tubes, feeding tubes, IVs or catheters are more vulnerable, as are those who are hospitalized frequently or for long periods of time.

People without those risk factors are unlikely to become colonized with C. auris or develop an infection.

Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst and clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone, said he considers C. auris an “emerging problem of great concern.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

“It is resistant to multiple antifungal drugs, and it tends to spread in hospital settings, including on equipment being used on immunocompromised and semi-immunocompromised patients, such as ventilators and catheters,” he previously told Fox News Digital.

“Unfortunately, symptoms such as fever, chills and aches may be ubiquitous, and it can be mistaken for other infections.”

Invasive C. auris infections have been associated with mortality rates of 30% to 72%, although most affected patients are already seriously ill. This can make it difficult to determine how often the fungus is a direct cause of death.

Candida auris can be difficult to treat because it is often resistant to antifungal medications, leading the CDC to classify the fungus as an “urgent antimicrobial-resistance threat.”

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

More than 90% of U.S. samples are resistant to fluconazole, a common antifungal treatment. Echinocandins, another family of antifungals, are currently the main treatment option for C. auris, although some strains are resistant to all three main classes of antifungals.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

“Major research” is ongoing to develop new treatments, according to Siegel.

“This is part of a much larger problem of emerging antibiotic resistance in the U.S. and around the world,” the physician previously cautioned. “At the same time, sterilization and disinfection measures in hospitals can be very helpful.”

Fox News Digital’s Angelica Stabile contributed reporting.

Newly released text messages from Dr. Anthony Fauci have sparked fresh questions about his handling of evolving COVID-19 evidence, according to Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst. 

The texts are part of an initial batch of communications from Fauci’s government-issued cellphone released Monday by Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. The messages shed light on private discussions between Fauci and other top health officials as they navigated evolving questions around the coronavirus pandemic.

In a Monday evening interview, Siegel suggested the former White House chief medical adviser was at times too “dogmatic” and slow to adapt as the science evolved.

EXPOSED FAUCI DIARY SHOWS HE ESTIMATED COVID-19 DEATH RATE TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT HE TOLD CONGRESS

Siegel said Fauci was a “top immunologist” and “top vaccinologist.”

“And I respect that a lot,” he said, adding that he felt Fauci then ventured beyond those areas of expertise.

“The other issue is flexibility. I have a feeling about Dr. Fauci that he’s too dogmatic,” Siegel told Fox News Digital, adding that Fauci would “stick to some idea he has and [follow] it through regardless of contradictory or changing evidence.”

Siegel said he believed Fauci veered into territory beyond his medical training and knowledge, on issues including lockdowns, school closures and masking.

LEGACY MEDIA COVERS ANTHONY FAUCI DIARY BY CRITICIZING DONALD TRUMP INSTEAD OF FAUCI’S DISHONESTY

“So it’s not surprising that he would, for lack of a better word, flip-flop on those areas,” he said.

Regarding the newly released texts, Siegel said “it looks like he was trying to guide other public officials and leaders from the television camera, and that’s not what you should be doing.”

Questions around pregnancy guidance

Among the issues addressed in the newly released messages is COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

Siegel emphasized that he remains a strong supporter of vaccines, including mRNA technology.

“I’m a big fan of the COVID vaccines and of the mRNA COVID vaccines,” the doctor said. “I think they’re getting a bad rap right now.”

Pregnancy presented a complicated risk calculation because COVID-19 itself posed dangers to expectant mothers, Siegel noted. 

Early in the pandemic, he said, recommending vaccination during pregnancy was reasonable based on what was known at the time.

But as the virus changed and vaccines became less protective, Siegel said he believes the public discussion should have changed with it.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

“As the vaccine changed and the virus mutated, and as the vaccine became less protective, that needed to be entered into the public debate about the vaccine — and Dr. Fauci wasn’t fast enough to do that,” Siegel said.

Siegel also pointed to a study that raised questions at the time about a potential link between a second vaccine dose and early miscarriage.

“I don’t think that Dr. Fauci and others may have been quick enough to consider that,” he said.

While subsequent research has continued to support vaccination during pregnancy — Siegel said “the accumulation of data right now favors the vaccine throughout pregnancy” — he questioned whether contradictory evidence received sufficient consideration as it emerged.

“It’s a little eyebrow-raising to me that it appears he was trying to dismiss a study” suggesting miscarriage could be a concern, Siegel said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

More broadly, such decisions should rest with patients and their doctors, while emphasizing that the underlying medical data was “not suppressed,” according to the doctor.

“I don’t like when the government superimposes their views, especially if they’re incorrect or if they are ill-informed, but I still think it should be between the patient and the doctor,” said Siegel. 

‘The mandates continued’

Siegel argued that another problem came when policies failed to adjust quickly enough to changing evidence about the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“I think the problem was that the mandates continued,” he said. “We were too slow to pivot on this vaccine, and that led to a lot of public distrust.”

Asked whether he saw a meaningful difference between what Fauci was discussing privately and what Americans were hearing publicly, Siegel said there was “more than I would like.”

“There’s a difference between public and private discourse here,” he said. “There should be none.”

“Where was the evolution of guidance and thought and staying within your lane as more and more information came out?” 

As additional messages are released, Siegel said he will be watching how Fauci’s guidance evolved alongside the evidence.

“I’m looking at one thing: Where was the evolution of guidance and thought and staying within your lane as more and more information came out?” he said. “Or did this develop more and more into dogma and megalomania? I don’t know. That’s what I’m disturbed about.”

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

At the same time, Siegel cautioned against judging pandemic-era communications without considering what scientists knew at the time.

“To be fair to Dr. Fauci, things need to remain in context,” he said. “When did this happen? What was going on at the time? What did we know and what did we not know?”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Added Siegel, “We were learning on the job. We were learning as we went. We knew nothing about this thing, and it just blew over us.”

That uncertainty, he said, made a willingness to change course all the more important.

“Humility is the best way to go — not dogma.”

Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.

Use escape to exit the menu.