Connect with us

Health

‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal

Published

on

‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal

A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested without evidence that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures.

Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as “vaguely threatening” in an interview with The New York Times.

At least three other journals have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of the administration.

His letters accused the publications of being “partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles.

Do they accept submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints”? What do they do if the authors whose work they published “may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others”?

Advertisement

News of the letter to N.E.J.M. was reported earlier by STAT, a health news outlet.

Mr. Martin also asked about the role of the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, and the agency’s role “in the development of submitted articles.”

Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the information published in reputable medical journals like N.E.J.M. is broadly protected by the Constitution.

In most cases, journals have the same robust rights that apply to newspapers — the strongest the Constitution provides, she added.

“There is no basis to say that anything other than the most stringent First Amendment protections apply to medical journals,” she said. “It appears aimed at creating a type of fear and chill that will have effects on people’s expression — that’s a constitutional concern.”

Advertisement

It’s unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to target. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Our job is to evaluate science and evaluate it in an unbiased fashion,” Dr. Rubin said. “That’s what we do and I think we do it well. The questions seem to suggest that there’s some bias in what we do — that’s where the vaguely threatening part comes in.”

Jeremy Berg, the former editor in chief of the journal Science, said he thought the letters were designed to “intimidate journals to bend over backward” to publish papers that align with the administration’s beliefs — on climate change and vaccines, for example — even if the quality of the research is poor.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary, singled out N.E.J.M in an interview with the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year as an example of a medical journal that has participated in “lying to the public” and “retracting the real science.”

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to comment on whether Mr. Kennedy had any involvement with the letters.

Advertisement

In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he would seek to prosecute medical journals under federal anti-corruption laws.

“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of N.I.H., has vigorously criticized the leadership of scientific journals. Recently he co-founded a new journal as an alternative to traditional scientific publishing. It has published contrarian views on Covid.

Other prominent journals said they had not received the letter. On Friday, The Lancet, which is based in Britain, published a scathing editorial in solidarity, calling the letters “an obvious ruse to strike fear into journals and impinge on their right to independent editorial oversight.”

“Science and medicine in the U.S.A. are being violently dismembered while the world watches,” the editorial said.

Advertisement

One of Mr. Martin’s letters was sent to the journal Chest, a low-profile publication that publishes highly technical studies on topics like lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters.

They declined to speak publicly for fear of retribution from the Trump administration.

Dr. Rubin said he, too, was worried about political backlash. Scientific journals rely on public funds in several indirect ways — for example, universities often use federal grants to pay for subscriptions.

“Are we concerned? Of course we are,” he said. “But we want to do the right thing.”

Mr. Martin gave the journals until May 2 to respond to his questions. N.E.J.M. has already responded to Mr. Martin with a statement that pushes back against his characterization of the journal.

Advertisement

“We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish,” the statement read. “We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression.”

This is not the N.E.J.M’s first brush with a Trump administration.

In 2020, the journal published an editorial condemning the president’s response to the pandemic — the first time the journal had supported or condemned a political candidate in its 208-year history.

Dr. Rubin said he doubted Mr. Martin’s letter was related to the editorial. The journal Chest didn’t write about Trump’s first term yet received a letter, he noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Health

We Tried Three Doctor-Approved, Ozempic-Friendly Recipes | Woman's World

Published

on

We Tried Three Doctor-Approved, Ozempic-Friendly Recipes | Woman's World


Advertisement


We Tried Three Doctor-Approved, Ozempic-Friendly Recipes | Woman’s World




























Advertisement





Advertisement


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


Use escape to exit the menu.

Continue Reading

Health

Weight-loss medications may also benefit common medical problem, study finds

Published

on

Weight-loss medications may also benefit common medical problem, study finds

Weight-loss medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, which have gained popularity for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity, have been shown to have the surprising secondary benefit of reducing alcohol intake.

A team of international researchers from Ireland and Saudi Arabia followed 262 adult patients with obesity who started taking two GLP-1 medications: liraglutide or semaglutide.

Among the regular drinkers, weekly alcohol intake decreased by 68%, from approximately 23 units of alcohol to around 8 units.

WEIGHT LOSS, DIABETES DRUGS CAN CAUSE MOOD CHANGES: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT BEHAVIORAL SIDE EFFECTS

The findings were recently published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism and were also presented last week at the European Congress on Obesity in Spain.

Advertisement

GLP-1 agonists mimic a hormone called GLP-1, which is released from the gastrointestinal system after eating, according to study co-author Carel Le Roux, a professor at University College Dublin.

Weight-loss medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists have been shown to have the surprising secondary benefit of reducing alcohol intake. (iStock)

These medications activate GLP-1 receptors in the brain, decreasing the sense of “reward” people feel after eating or drinking, eventually leading to reduced cravings for both food and alcohol, he told Fox News Digital.

“It is this commonality of function that suggests the GLP-1 receptors in the brain may be a therapeutic target for not just the disease of obesity, but also for alcohol use disorder,” the professor said.

Study findings

Before the participants started the weight-loss drugs, they self-reported their weekly alcohol intake, then were categorized as non-drinkers, rare drinkers or regular drinkers.

Advertisement

Approximately 72% had at least two follow-up visits and 68% reported regular alcohol consumption.

WEIGHT-LOSS DRUGS’ IMPACT ON CANCER RISK REVEALED IN NEW STUDY

After starting the weight-loss medications, the participants’ weekly average alcohol intake decreased by almost two-thirds overall — from approximately 11 units of alcohol to four units after four months of treatment with the GLP-1 agonists.

The reduction in alcohol use was comparable to the decrease that can be achieved by nalmefene, a drug that decreases the “buzz” feeling in people with alcohol use disorder in Europe, according to the researchers.

Man drinking alcohol

Among the regular drinkers, weekly alcohol intake decreased by 68%, from approximately 23 units of alcohol to around 8 units. (iStock)

For the 188 patients who were followed over an average of four months, none had increased their alcohol intake after starting the weight-loss medications.

Advertisement

Patients reported that after an evening meal, they were too full to have their usual drink — and when they did drink, they reported becoming full extremely quickly and drinking at a slower pace, Le Roux noted.

“The findings in this study suggest that we may have just found a therapeutic target for alcohol use disorder.”

This suggests that the experience was less enjoyable, partly due to the reduced rate of alcohol absorption.

Some patients also reported that they didn’t enjoy the flavor of the alcoholic beverages as much, and also that hangovers were much worse.

All of these experiences showed that the weight-loss medications create “guard rails” that prevent most patients from drinking excessively, giving them a degree of control over their alcohol intake, according to Le Roux.

Advertisement
Woman drinking wine

After starting the weight-loss medications, the participants’ weekly average alcohol intake decreased by almost two-thirds overall. (iStock)

“The findings in this study suggest that we may have just found a therapeutic target for alcohol use disorder — the GLP-1 receptor,” the professor told Fox News Digital.

“This finding potentially opens the possibility of an entirely new pharmacological treatment paradigm, which could be used in conjunction with conventional methods, such as behavior therapy and group support.”

Potential limitations

The study was limited by its relatively small number of patients, the researchers acknowledged.

Also, the researchers were not able to verify the participants’ self-reported alcohol intake, and roughly one-third of them were not available for follow-up.

SEMAGLUTIDE FOUND TO HAVE SHOCKING BENEFIT FOR LIVER DISEASE PATIENTS IN NEW STUDY

Advertisement

There was also no control group, which means the researchers couldn’t prove that taking weight-loss medication reduces alcohol intake.

A woman prepares to administer an insulin injection

The main advantage of GLP-1 agonists is that they only need to be taken once a week and continue to work for the entire week. (iStock)

“Randomized, controlled trials with diverse patient populations — including patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder — are needed to provide the quality and quantity of data that could be used to support an application for licensing the medication for the treatment of alcohol use disorder,” Le Roux said.

(One such trial is currently underway in Denmark.)

Study implications

With the current medications available to treat alcohol use disorder, the “major problem” is compliance, Le Roux said — “because the cravings for alcohol tend to come in waves.”

Advertisement

“This means a patient might be fully committed to treatment at one point in the week, but then stop taking the medication later in the week when a craving comes,” the professor added.

two wine glasses

“This research suggests a promising ancillary benefit of GLP-1 analogs, potentially influencing cravings for alcohol and offering a new avenue for managing alcohol use disorder,” a physician said. (iStock)

There are currently three FDA-approved medications to treat alcohol use disorder: naltrexone (which helps decrease cravings by reducing the “buzz” feeling that comes with drinking alcohol); disulfiram (which helps some people avoid alcohol by making them feel sick when they drink), and acamprosate (which restores the balance of hormones in the brain to reduce cravings), according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

But less than 10% of people with alcohol use disorder get the proper treatment, with many resuming use within the first year of treatment, past research shows.

The main advantage of the GLP-1 agonists is that they only need to be taken once a week and continue to work for the entire week.

Advertisement
Close-up of Ozempic pens and person injecting needle in background

For the 188 patients who were followed over an average of four months, none had increased their alcohol intake after starting the weight-loss medications. (iStock)

Outside experts say the study’s findings highlight the potential of weight-loss medications to help treat alcohol use disorder.

“This research suggests a promising ancillary benefit of GLP-1 analogs, potentially influencing cravings for alcohol and offering a new avenue for managing alcohol use disorder,” Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who was not part of the study, told Fox News Digital.

For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health

“While the exact mechanisms are still being explored, the findings contribute to our understanding of the broader benefits of GLP-1 analogs beyond obesity treatment,” Stanford added.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Health

Surgeons Perform First Human Bladder Transplant

Published

on

Surgeons Perform First Human Bladder Transplant

Surgeons in Southern California have performed the first human bladder transplant, introducing a new, potentially life-changing procedure for people with debilitating bladder conditions.

The operation was performed earlier this month by a pair of surgeons from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California on a 41-year-old man who had lost much of his bladder capacity from treatments for a rare form of bladder cancer.

“I was a ticking time bomb,” the patient, Oscar Larrainzar, said on Thursday during a follow-up appointment with his doctors. “But now I have hope.”

The doctors plan to perform bladder transplants in four more patients as part of a clinical trial to get a sense of outcomes like bladder capacity and graft complications before pursuing a larger trial to expand its use.

Dr. Inderbir Gill, who performed the surgery along with Dr. Nima Nassiri, called it “the realization of a dream” for treating thousands of patients with crippling pelvic pain, inflammation and recurrent infections.

Advertisement

“There is no question: A potential door has been opened for these people that did not exist earlier,” said Dr. Gill, the chairman of the urology department at U.S.C.

Until now, most patients who undergo a bladder removal have a portion of their intestine repurposed to help them pass urine. Some receive an ileal conduit, which empties urine into a bag outside the abdomen, while others are given a so-called neobladder, or a pouch tucked inside the body that attaches to the urethra and allows patients to urinate more traditionally.

But bowel tissue, riddled with bacteria, is “inherently contaminated,” Dr. Gill said, and introducing it to the “inherently sterile” urinary tract leads to complications in up to 80 percent of patients, ranging from electrolyte imbalances to a slow reduction in kidney function. The loss of the intestinal segment can also cause new digestive issues.

Dr. Despoina Daskalaki, a transplant surgeon at Tufts Medical Center who was not involved in the new procedure, said advances in transplant medicine (from critical life-sustaining organs, like hearts and livers, to other body parts, like faces, hands, uteri and penises) had led doctors to start “pushing the envelope.”

“They’re asking: ‘Why do we have to put up with all the complications? Why don’t we try and give this person a new bladder?’” Dr. Daskalaki said.

Advertisement

In late 2020, Dr. Nassiri was in his fourth year of residency at the University of Southern California when he and Dr. Gill sat down in the hospital cafeteria to begin brainstorming approaches. After Dr. Nassiri began a fellowship on kidney transplantation at U.C.L.A., the two surgeons continued working together across institutions to test both robotic and manual techniques, practicing first on pigs, then human cadavers, and finally, human research donors who no longer had brain activity but maintained a heartbeat.

One of the challenges of transplanting a bladder was the complex vascular infrastructure. The surgeons needed to operate deep inside the pelvis of the donor to capture and preserve a rich supply of blood vessels so the organ could thrive inside the recipient.

“When we’re removing a bladder because of cancer, we basically just cut them. We do it in less than an hour on a near-daily basis,” Dr. Gill said. “For a bladder donation, that is a significantly higher order of technical intensity.”

The surgeons also chose to conjoin the right and left arteries — as well as the right and left veins — while the organ was on ice, so that only two connections were needed in the recipient, rather than four.

When their strategy was perfected in 2023, the two drew up plans for a clinical trial, which eventually would bring the world’s first recipient: Oscar.

Advertisement

When Mr. Larrainzar walked into Dr. Nassiri’s clinic in April 2024, Dr. Nassiri recognized him. Almost four years earlier, Mr. Larrainzar, a husband and father of four, had been navigating end-stage kidney disease and renal cancer, and Dr. Nassiri helped remove both of his kidneys.

But Mr. Larrainzar had also survived urachal adenocarcinoma, a rare type of bladder cancer, and a surgery to resect the bladder tumor had left him “without much of a bladder at all,” Dr. Nassiri said. A normal bladder can hold more than 300 cubic centimeters of fluid; Mr. Larrainzar’s could hold 30.

Now, years of dialysis had begun to fail; fluid was building up inside his body. And with so much scarring in the abdominal region, it would have been difficult to find enough usable length of bowel to pursue another option.

“He showed up serendipitously,” Dr. Nassiri said, “but he was kind of an ideal first candidate for this.”

On a Saturday night earlier this month, Dr. Nassiri received a call about a potential bladder match for Mr. Larrainzar. He and Dr. Gill drove straight to the headquarters of OneLegacy, an organ procurement organization, in Azusa, Calif., and joined a team of seven surgeons working overnight to recover an array of organs from a donor.

Advertisement

The two brought the kidney and bladder to U.C.L.A., then stopped home for a shower, breakfast and a short nap. They completed the eight-hour surgery to give Mr. Larrainzar a new bladder and kidney later that day.

Dr. Nassiri said that kidney transplants can sometimes take up to a week to process urine, but when the kidney and bladder were connected inside Mr. Larrainzar, there was a great connection — “immediate output” — and his creatinine level, which measures kidney function, started to improve immediately. Mr. Larrainzar has already lost 20 pounds of fluid weight since the surgery.

The biggest risks of organ transplantation are the body’s potential rejection of the organ and the side effects caused by the mandatory immune-suppressing drugs given to prevent organ rejection. That is why, for Dr. Rachel Forbes, a transplant surgeon at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who was not involved in the procedure, the excitement is more tempered.

“It’s obviously a technical advance,” she said, but “we already have existing options for people without bladders, and without the downside of requiring immunosuppression.” Unless a patient is — like Mr. Larrainzar — going to be on those medications anyway, “I would be a little bit nervous that you would be exchanging some complications for others,” she said.

A new bladder transplant also does not have nerve connections in the recipient, so while it works well as a storage organ, doctors did not know whether Mr. Larrainzar would ever be able to sense a full bladder, let alone hold and empty it naturally. They spoke about catheters, abdomen maneuvers and eventually developing an on-demand bladder stimulator to help with the release.

Advertisement

But at a follow-up appointment on Thursday morning — just two days after Mr. Larrainzar was discharged from the hospital — Dr. Nassiri removed the catheter and gave him fluids, and Mr. Larrainzar immediately felt that he could urinate.

Dr. Nassiri called it a miracle, then phoned Dr. Gill, who was in a U.S.C. operating room, and exclaimed two words: “He peed!”

“No way! What the hell?” Dr. Gill said. “My jaw is on the floor.”

After finishing the surgery, Dr. Gill drove straight to U.C.L.A. and watched Mr. Larrainzar do it again.

“Of course, this is very, very early. Let’s see how everything goes,” Dr. Gill cautioned. “But it’s the first time he has been able to pee in seven years. For all of us, this is huge.”

Advertisement

Mr. Larrainzar, exhausted, smiled, and Dr. Nassiri brought him a bottle of mineral water to celebrate.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending