Connect with us

Science

Leaving the W.H.O. Could Hurt Americans on a Range of Health Matters

Published

on

Leaving the W.H.O. Could Hurt Americans on a Range of Health Matters

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization could have harsh consequences for countries around the world that rely on the agency to achieve important health goals, including routine immunizations, outbreak control and nutrition programs.

But it could also have unfortunate, unintended repercussions for Americans.

Disengaging from the W.H.O. would rob the United States of crucial information about emerging outbreaks like mpox and resurgent dangers like malaria and measles, public health experts said. It may also give more power to nations like Russia and China in setting a global health agenda, and it could hurt the interests of American pharmaceutical and health technology companies.

The W.H.O.’s work touches American lives in myriad ways. The agency compiles the International Classification of Diseases, the system of diagnostic codes used by doctors and insurance companies. It assigns generic names to medicines that are recognizable worldwide. Its extensive flu surveillance network helps select the seasonal flu vaccine each year.

The agency also closely tracks resistance to antibiotics and other drugs, keeps American travelers apprised of health threats, and studies a wide range of issues such as teen mental health, substance use and aging, which may then inform policies in the United States.

Advertisement

“There’s a reason why there was a W.H.O.,” said Loyce Pace, who served as an assistant secretary of health and human services under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “It’s because we saw value, even as a superpower, in the wake of the world war to come together as a global community on global problems.”

“America, no matter how great we are, cannot do this work alone,” she said.

Though it will take a year for the withdrawal to take effect — and it is not entirely clear that it can happen without congressional approval — Mr. Trump’s announcement has already prompted drastic cost-cutting measures at the W.H.O.

In a memo to employees, the director general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced a hiring freeze and limited renegotiation of major contracts, adding that more measures would follow. He also said all meetings without prior approval should be fully virtual from now on and “missions to provide technical support to countries should be limited to the most essential.”

Late Sunday night, employees of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were instructed, effective immediately, to stop engaging with the W.H.O. in any way. The employees were later told not to participate in meetings or even email conversations that included W.H.O. staff.

Advertisement

The W.H.O. is often criticized as a lumbering bureaucracy, too conservative in its approach and too slow to action. Mr. Trump cited the organization’s “mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic” as one of the main reasons the United States is pulling out.

Many public health experts have for decades called for reforms of the agency, noting that it is too timid in calling out its members’ missteps, holds a rigid view of what constitutes medical evidence and has too many areas of focus. The criticisms escalated during the pandemic, when the W.H.O. was months late in acknowledging that the coronavirus was airborne and that the virus could spread in the absence of symptoms.

Yet there is no other organization that can match the W.H.O.’s reach or influence in the world, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, who has worked with the W.H.O. for decades, including as a former C.D.C. director.

“Are there lots of things they could be better at? Of course,” he said. But, he added, “are they indispensable? Yes.”

For all its scope, the W.H.O. has a relatively modest budget, totaling about $6.8 billion for 2024 and 2025. For comparison, the health department of the tiny state of Rhode Island spent just over $6 billion in 2024 alone.

Advertisement

The United States is the W.H.O.’s largest donor, accounting for nearly 15 percent of its planned budget.

In the executive order, Mr. Trump complained that the W.H.O. “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments,” adding that China contributes nearly 90 percent less.

Both of those assertions are inaccurate.

The obligatory fees are calculated according to each country’s population and income, using a formula approved by member states. For the two-year 2024-25 budget, that amount was $264 million for the United States and $181 million for China, a difference of about 31 percent.

Mr. Trump’s claim that China pays much less may have been based on voluntary contributions, which are usually motivated by specific interests such as polio eradication: The United States has so far provided $442 million in voluntary contributions for 2024-25, while China has given only $2.5 million. Even so, China’s total contribution is about 74 percent less than the United States’, not 90 percent.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s decision was “not based on sound, factual ground,” said Helen Clark, a former prime minister of New Zealand and former administrator of the United Nations Development Program.

On Monday, the Trump administration halted the distribution of H.I.V. drugs purchased with U.S. aid. Abruptly ending treatment will jeopardize the health of people living with H.I.V. and lead to more infections and may drive resistance to available medications, health experts warned.

The W.H.O.’s programs monitor drug resistance worldwide to antibiotics and medications for H.I.V., malaria and other diseases.

“These are not invincible drugs, and having that ability to know when resistance occurs and why we need to change strategies can be very important,” said Dr. Meg Doherty, who directs W.H.O. programs on H.I.V. and sexually transmitted infections.

“They are things that people in the United States should be aware of and should be concerned could come to them in the future,” she said.

Advertisement

If the United States loses access to the W.H.O.’s information and data sharing, online reports and informal communications may fill some of the void, but they may be muffled, filtered or marred by misinformation. And the W.H.O. and other countries are not obligated to share information, such as genetic sequences, with the United States, let alone heed its advice, if the country is not a member.

“If we’re not there, we don’t get to have a voice at all,” Dr. Frieden said.

The W.H.O. began in 1948 as a branch of the United Nations focused on global health. Over the decades, it led the eradication of smallpox, nearly vanquished polio and has helped control use of tobacco and trans fats.

Countries that do not have the equivalent of a C.D.C. or a Food and Drug Administration rely on the W.H.O. for public health guidelines, childhood vaccinations and drug approvals, among many other health efforts.

“Ministries of health typically won’t move unless there’s a W.H.O. guideline,” said Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Duke Global Health Institute and an adviser to the W.H.O.

Advertisement

That dynamic has implications for American businesses, allowing pharmaceutical and health technology companies to operate in countries that adhere closely to W.H.O. recommendations, said Anil Soni, chief executive of the W.H.O. Foundation, an independent entity that facilitates partnerships and funding for the organization.

“The U.S. won’t be at the table to set the evidence and quality standards that enable competitive positioning of U.S. companies and directly lead to U.S. business,” Mr. Soni said.

Mr. Trump and others have criticized the W.H.O. for not holding China accountable early in the pandemic, and for taking too long to declare the Covid-19 pandemic a public health emergency.

But the W.H.O. cannot reprimand its member countries, noted Ms. Clark, who was a co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, which led an inquiry into the W.H.O.’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

“W.H.O. has no power to compel countries to do anything,” Ms. Clark said. “It has only the power of persuasion. China was not transparent, and that hindered W.H.O.’s response.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has also said that China has too much influence over the W.H.O. But “actually, the real problem is that tiny Pacific islands with 100,000 people have too much power,” Dr. Frieden said.

“W.H.O. works by consensus, and so any country can throw a monkey wrench in and stop proceedings,” he said.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump can unilaterally sever ties with the W.H.O. Unlike most international agreements, which may stem from executive action or require Senate ratification, membership in the W.H.O. was enshrined by a congressional joint resolution and may have to be dissolved in the same way.

“There’s a very good argument to be made that the president cannot do this himself — that is, without congressional participation,” said David Wirth, a former State Department official and an expert in foreign relations law at Boston College.

If Congress approves, the United States must still give one-year notice of withdrawal and fulfill its financial obligations for the year.

Advertisement

Some experts worry that Mr. Trump’s action will prompt nations like Hungary and Argentina, whose leaders are ideologically similar, to follow suit. Already, Italy’s deputy prime minister has proposed a law to leave the W.H.O.

U.S. withdrawal may also empower authoritarian member states in the organization, like Russia and China. Public health decisions in Russia and China are “much more politically controlled, and that’s a danger to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said. “None of us wants to live in a world where Russia has a larger voice in global health governance.”

In his executive order, Mr. Trump said the United States would cease negotiations on amendments to the International Health Regulations, legally binding rules for countries to report emerging outbreaks to the W.H.O. But the latest amendments were adopted by the World Health Assembly last year and are expected to come into force in September.

Ironically, it was the first Trump administration that proposed the amendments because of frustration with the lack of transparency from certain countries during Covid-19, said Ms. Pace, who oversaw negotiations during the Biden administration.

Ms. Pace also led negotiations for a pandemic treaty that would allow countries to work together during an international crisis. The treaty had been stalled and may now collapse.

Advertisement

Science

RFK Jr.’s Push to Curb Antidepressants Has Shaken Psychiatry

Published

on

RFK Jr.’s Push to Curb Antidepressants Has Shaken Psychiatry

Most years, when thousands of psychiatrists gather for the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, they walk past a scattering of protesters. There are Scientologists with megaphones; Falun Gong groups doing their exercises; and, often, former patients, saying they have been harmed by medications or electroconvulsive therapy.

This year, though, the profession is facing criticism from the highest levels of the federal government. The American Psychiatric Association gathered just 10 days after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a set of policies to encourage doctors to deprescribe, or assist patients in stopping, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants.

A current of anxiety ran through the meeting, held here this week. Many physicians in the crowd said they worried that Mr. Kennedy’s statements would prompt people to refuse medications, or to quit them and relapse. The plenary session erupted in applause when Dr. Marketa Wills, the organization’s chief executive, declared, “We will never support governmental interference in the practice of medicine.”

“We are standing tall for evidence-based care,” she continued. “We are standing tall against stigma, oversimplification, and anything that would move patients further away from the care that they need.”

But there were also signs that the field’s leaders are engaging, albeit cautiously, with Mr. Kennedy’s effort to curb overprescribing. Numerous sessions offered training in helping patients taper off medications. In July, the association’s president will take part in a panel convened by the Department of Health and Human Services to develop clinical guidance on tapering antidepressants.

Advertisement

In an interview, Dr. Wills said she had been “encouraged” by the invitation to participate in the panel, and she credited the administration with “putting mental health front and center.”

“It feels like the beginning of a conversation, one that we welcome,” Dr. Wills said. She added, “It would be odd to have that conversation without psychiatrists at the table.”

Outside in the corridors, some rank-and-file attendees were less diplomatic.

Many providers took issue with Mr. Kennedy’s negative characterization of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I. s, the most widely prescribed class of psychiatric medications. Clinical trials have found that most patients’ depressive symptoms improved with S.S.R.I.s, and they are considered safe enough to be prescribed by general practitioners.

A 2026 study found that 16.6 percent of U.S. adults, or roughly one in six, reported currently taking an antidepressant.

Advertisement

“He just doesn’t like S.S.R.I.s,” said Dr. Sung Hyon, a psychiatrist from Pasadena, referring to Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Hyon said S.S.R.I.s had been “foundational” in his practice — “boring drugs that are well established, have good safety evidence and have zero chance to cause addiction.” He called them “God’s gift to psychiatry.”

And patients know it, he added. “So many millions” of Americans already take S.S.R.I.s, he said, and the vast majority are fully aware of their downside, like sexual side effects and withdrawal symptoms.

“And they say, ‘You know what? It’s worth it,’” Dr. Hyon said. “Because there are so many of them, it would be a pretty big political firestorm if he really tried to restrict access. And there is very, very little medical evidence to do so.”

Dr. Marketa Wills, the American Psychiatric Association’s chief executive, said she was encouraged that she was invited to take part in a panel developing guidance on how to taper antidepressants.Credit…Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ESSENCE

Mr. Kennedy has long signaled that curbing the use of psychiatric drugs was a goal of his. Earlier this month he began taking steps in that direction, announcing guidelines and regulatory changes meant to provide an incentive for clinicians to help patients taper off psychiatric medications. The steps would not affect patients’ access to antidepressants.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency had had no discussions about banning S.S.R.I.s., “and any claims suggesting otherwise are false.” The aim of the new initiative, he said, is to “promote appropriate psychiatric prescribing and drive deprescribing when clinically indicated.”

Advertisement

Some psychiatrists said they worried that Mr. Kennedy’s deprescribing initiative was the beginning of a wider effort that might, in later stages, discredit psychiatry more broadly and restrict access to care.

“I think it is actually putting more questions in people’s minds about whether psychiatric treatment is safe or effective,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, who chairs the A.P.A.’s caucus on the social determinants of health. “The data has not changed on S.S.R.I.s. It’s the narrative that has changed.”

He said the A.P.A. should be pushing back forcefully against Mr. Kennedy’s claims about psychiatric treatments, and should steer clear of seeming to endorse any part of the initiative.

“It’s a fine line between having a seat at the table and being used as a tool to legitimize their agenda,” he said.

At the same time, deprescribing seemed, at the meeting, to be on everyone’s lips. A new book, “Stahl’s Deprescriber’s Guide,” was selling like hot cakes in the exhibition hall. There were panels titled, “Deprescribing Antipsychotics,” “The Much Too Medicated Patient” and “Stimulants for A.D.H.D.: Did We Get It Wrong?”

Advertisement

Dr. Chris Aiken, who delivered an address about multidrug cocktails, said a generational change is moving through the psychiatric association, as a younger cohort of physicians, in their 30s and 40s, take a more prominent role.

Millennials were part of the first generation to be prescribed stimulants and antidepressants as children and teens, he said, and physicians in that group are more conscious of poor outcomes years later. “Meds are not the answer, and they have seen this in their own lives,” he said.

Some senior physicians had a similar message.

“If I have any regrets about my recommendations as a physician, it’s about the medications that I did not withdraw sooner,” said Dr. Ronald Winchel, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University’s medical school, at one panel.

Books on display at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in San Francisco this month.Credit…Ellen Barry/The New York Times

He said a number of concerns had prevented him from doing so: Sometimes, patients were taking multiple medications and it was difficult to say which was effective. Sometimes, patients were doing well, and he was afraid of setting them back. And there was a dearth of research on how patients do after they quit medications.

Advertisement

“The fear of withdrawing medications has really complicated our work,” he said.

Dr. Winchel compared this year’s churning discussion to a watershed moment in the A.P.A.’s history: In 1973, sustained pressure from protesters caused the organization to reverse its century-old position and declare that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

“Instead of getting into a defensive crouch, they looked at themselves and they made progress,” Dr. Winchel said. The same kind of advancement, he added, could result from a rigorous discussion about prescribing practices. “If some of this agitation is coming from outside,” he said, “what is wrong with that?”

In his presentation, Dr. Aiken urged colleagues not to dismiss the stories Mr. Kennedy has highlighted of patients who have encountered serious difficulties quitting antidepressants.

“I don’t really know how common it is, but I do know that when it does happen, it can be quite severe,” he said. “It may be rare, but let’s take it seriously, because it can really burn people when it happens.”

Advertisement

Others said working with Mr. Kennedy around mental health policies was a matter of simple pragmatism.

“There’s definitely a need for us to be talking to the people who are making decisions,” said Dr. Hammad Khan of Sacramento. “We can’t let Joe Rogan decide what the F.D.A. approves or doesn’t approve.”

Dr. Awais Aftab, the author of “Psychiatry at the Margins,” a popular mental health Substack, said he expects the H.H.S. effort to focus on raising awareness about tapering off medications. There are few pathways for the government to reduce the prescription of drugs like S.S.R.I.s, which have gone through F.D.A.-approval pathways and are widely used by the public, he said.

He described “a sense of alarm” among psychiatrists at the virulent critique of the field coming from Mr. Kennedy’s circle. Psychiatry, he said, has been late to acknowledge the complaints of patients like Laura Delano, an author and activist, who say they were overmedicated as children or teenagers and got little support from doctors when they wanted to reduce or stop the drugs.

“The mainstream psychiatric community has been fairly insulated, and suddenly they are hearing now about this issue,” said Dr. Aftab, a psychiatrist at Case Western Reserve University.

Advertisement

He added that he believes that the use of antidepressants in the United States may have reached a natural limit. “The demand is going to, at some point, go into an equilibrium with the reality of the lack of effectiveness and the reality of the tolerability issue,” he said.

But the experience of some other countries suggests that the demand for antidepressants may continue to rise, even amid warnings about overprescribing.

In 2017, Britain commissioned a major report on overprescribing and then followed up with a series of reforms, including updating clinical guidelines to require regular prescribing reviews and instituting a national audit program to monitor drug use.

But a study of prescribing in Britain found that the use of antidepressants continued its steady rise through 2023, the last year for which data was available. In contrast, recent years have seen a decline in the use of anxiety medications and hypnotics, which were also the subject of updated clinical guidelines.

The study’s authors said the rise was most likely driven by patient demand, reductions in stigma and the lower cost of antidepressant medications available in generic form.

Advertisement

Many psychiatrists at the conference in San Francisco said that they routinely urge patients to try therapy as an alternative or a complement to medications, but that many patients have no access to that care, because their insurance will not pay for it.

Dr. Michael Bostwick, a suicide researcher and professor of psychiatry at Mayo Medical School, in Rochester. Minn., said it remained unclear what alternative treatments Mr. Kennedy is recommending to patients who quit antidepressants.

“Toward what end?” he said. “Is he going to put more resources toward therapists? Is he going to tell us to eat more red meat, or work out more, or take psychedelics, like the president has advocated? There is no alternative plan.”

Continue Reading

Science

Some experts say they’ve never seen bees swarm so early — and that’s concerning

Published

on

Some experts say they’ve never seen bees swarm so early — and that’s concerning

Spring is when honeybees are bringing in food, the hive is healthy and growing, and they simply … run out of space. That’s when they decide to split their overcrowded hives and send half swarming off in search of greener pastures.

But Southern California beekeepers saw that happen unusually early this year, which left many of them scrambling.

“Never before have I seen so many bees swarm in late February and March,” said Daniel Barkanov, a beekeeper with Bee Specialist who works primarily in the San Gabriel Valley. “Usually that happens between May and June,” he said.

“The shift this year was quite, quite dramatic in many areas, especially in Central and Southern California,” said Mateo Kaiser, a beekeeper and managing director at Swarmed, a network of 10,000 beekeepers focused on monitoring and safe hive relocation.

Advertisement

Beekeepers typically try to guide swarming so their their colonies can grow. They divide their own hives at the start of swarming season to prevent bees from flying off, and pick up unwanted ones that land in people’s attics and walls.

But this year, many were caught unprepared.

“They were scrambling to even just have the materials ready to catch the bees and get them into beehives,” Kaiser said.

Climate change is one likely culprit for the early takeoff.

“There’s substantive evidence that climate change alters bee reproductive cycles and colony dynamics,” said Boris Baer, co-director of the Center for Integrative Bee Research at UC Riverside.

Advertisement

Some beekeepers and scientists think the warm winter in the West and early flowering season this year led bees to go into their high-activity mode early, leading to earlier swarms.

That can pose a problem if they then run into food shortages with an unexpected cold snap or dry spring, like the one now in the West.

“If you give bees a kind of early signal here, like that spring has started, it’s warm, they jump into action,” Baer said. “Then you have drought, or you don’t have the normal amount of resources they can rely on, and the bees can run out of food during a very critical time of the year.”

Some bees are on the move at other times of year, but true swarm season kicks off when numbers cross a threshold after a period of warm, spring “growing degree days,” a term used by farmers to predict the growth of plants and insects.

Kaiser dated the start of Los Angeles County’s swarm season to March 12 this year, the earliest in the last five and probably the last 10 years. It’s also more than a month earlier than last year.

Advertisement

Barkanov thinks that one reason, besides the warm winter and spring, could be that the bees didn’t swarm enough last season. Air pollution and habitat loss are known to affect them, and last year was particularly difficult for hives here, with beekeepers reporting slow bee activity and losses from the January fires.

He said he was prepared for early swarms this year, but what he observed then was unexpected — a pause. “It doesn’t make sense why they started swarming, then stopped this year,” he said. “Bees are really, really confused on what’s going on.”

Many are reporting fewer bees on the move overall, which could mean fewer colonies are growing and splitting off this year in search of more space and food.

That could be a sign of poor health, said Barbara Baer-Imhoof, Baer’s co-director. “At this time of year, bees should be bringing in a lot of food, but we’ve been having to feed our bees constantly, throughout winter up until now,” she said.

U.S. honeybee declines have been making headlines since the early 2000s. Last year saw the largest die-off in recorded history, with beekeepers losing over 60% of their hives. Pesticides and environmental factors such as climate change and urban sprawl are known stressors. Research also links last year’s massive colony collapses to parasitic varroa mites that feed on bee larvae and transfer viruses to hives.

Advertisement

A shorter winter and earlier swarm can make bees more vulnerable to these pests.

Typically, bees stop laying eggs during the winter, or at least slow down activity, which represses mite activity. But warmer winters and “the spring season starting earlier means the mites have more prime time to reproduce and grow up in the colony,” Kaiser said.

San Fernando Valley-based beekeeper Nicole Palladino, who runs the relocation service Bee Catchers Inc, said she isn’t particularly concerned by a March start to swarming season.

“I think the bee population looks a lot better than it did last year,” she said. “Seeing the early swarm showed that a lot of the bees that we saw after the fires maybe became more stable and got stronger later in the season.

“If we were fully in peak swarm in January, that would terrify me,” she added.

Advertisement

Elina L. Niño, an apiculture professor at UC Davis, said many factors can contribute to earlier-than-usual swarm reports, as well as reports of fewer swarms, and an annual beekeeper survey out later in the year will provide a clearer picture of how the last year’s conditions have affected bees.

Kaiser agreed, but he said the survey will come out too late in the season for beekeepers to address shifts in swarming behavior and monitor for mites. “We chose to alert beekeepers to this now, and to have them keep an eye on this behavior,” he said.

Continue Reading

Science

Caltech could lose control of JPL for the first time

Published

on

Caltech could lose control of JPL for the first time

The contract for management and operation of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory will be opened up to a competitive bidding process for the first time in its history, the space agency announced on Friday.

The action forces Caltech to compete for control of the La Cañada Flintridge institution it has managed since NASA’s inception in 1958.

“The rapid growth of the U.S. space economy indicates there may now be a viable competitive market for programmatic and institutional elements,” NASA said in a statement. “This decision is part of a broader governmentwide and agency effort to find efficiencies, strengthen performance, and drive mission outcomes faster and more affordably.”

In a joint statement, Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and JPL Director Dave Gallagher said that the announcement came as “no surprise” and that it already had a team in place “to ensure we are positioned for success” in the bidding process.

“Over the course of our nearly seven-decade-long partnership with NASA, Caltech and JPL have led humanity’s exploration and understanding of the universe — and our place within it,” the Pasadena university said. “The ambitions ahead — no less bold than those we have already realized— are ones we are fully prepared to meet.”

Advertisement

The competition for the contract is part of a slate of changes NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced on Friday, including a massive reorganization of the space agency intended “to concentrate resources towards the highest priority objectives in the National Space Policy and liberate the best and brightest from needless bureaucracy and obstacles that impede progress,” Isaacman wrote in a letter to the agency’s roughly 18,000 employees.

JPL was founded by Caltech researchers in 1936, and became part of NASA when the space agency was formed in 1958. Its current 10-year contract with NASA, which is valued at up to $30 billion, runs through Sept. 30, 2028.

Times staff writer Noah Haggerty contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending