(WASHINGTON) — Cases of norovirus are rising across the United States, doubling over the last few months, according to updated data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Nearly 14% of tests came back positive for norovirus during the most recent week ending Nov. 15, compared to roughly 7% about three months ago.
Test positivity is a metric used to identify how many people are confirmed to have norovirus after an illness is suspected.
Health experts have said that, like other measurements, test positivity is imperfect as it depends on the number of tests that are ordered, which can vary.
Last December saw a record-breaking rate of norovirus cases in the U.S. with nearly 25% of tests coming back positive. Cases had been trending down since then but have begun to rise in recent weeks, CDC data shows.
Electronic health records data from Epic Research show that Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming are some of the states currently experiencing the highest number of norovirus cases. Emergency department visits have been on the rise since July, Epic Research data shows.
Norovirus is a highly contagious virus that is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis, which is an inflammation of the inside lining of the gastrointestinal tract.
Although it’s often referred to as the “stomach bug” or “stomach flu,” norovirus illness is not related to influenza.
Norovirus is the leading cause of foodborne illness in the U.S., causing 58% of foodborne illnesses each year, and responsible for about 2,5000 outbreaks annually, according to the CDC.
The most common symptoms are nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhea. Patients, however, can also experience fever, headaches and body aches.
Typically, an infected person will develop symptoms between 12 to 48 hours after being infected. However, norovirus typically resolves quickly and, in most healthy adults, lasts one to three days, according to the CDC.
Health experts say the best way to prevent getting norovirus is to wash hands with warm soap and water for 20 seconds. Hand sanitizer alone does not work well against norovirus.
The CDC says people should wash their hands after using the toilet or changing diapers as well as when eating, preparing or handling food.
(NEW YORK) — As measles continues to spread across the United States, questions have emerged about whether the country will retain its measles elimination status.
The U.S. is currently experiencing the highest number of measles cases reported in more than three decades, in large part due to an outbreak in western Texas that infected more than 700 people and spread to New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Meanwhile, an outbreak in Arizona and Utah currently shows no signs of slowing down and a separate outbreak in South Carolina has sent dozens of students into quarantine.
If spread of the virus continues into late January, it will mean the U.S. has seen a year of continuous transmission, which could lead to a loss of the country’s elimination status. Measles would once again be considered endemic or constantly circulating.
The threat of the U.S. losing its elimination status is looming after Canada lost its measles elimination status following a struggle to contain a year-long measles outbreak, public health experts told ABC News.
“I do think that the likelihood that we’re going to lose status, especially if things continue the way that they’re going, is I think pretty high,” Dr. Tony Moody, a professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at Duke University Medical Center, told ABC News.
State of measles in the U.S.
As of Wednesday, there have been 1,753 confirmed cases across 42 states this year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
There have been 45 outbreaks, so far this year compared to 16 outbreaks all last year, CDC data shows.
Additionally, 92% of cases have been among those who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, according to the CDC.
There have been three measles deaths this year — the first fatalities due to the disease in a decade — including among two unvaccinated school-aged children in Texas and one unvaccinated adult in New Mexico.
The CDC currently recommends that people receive two doses of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second between 4 and 6 years old. One dose is 93% effective, and two doses are 97% effective against measles, the CDC says.
However, CDC data shows vaccination rates have been lagging in recent years. During the 2024-25 school year, 92.5% of kindergartners received the MMR vaccine. This is lower than the 92.7% seen the previous school year and the 95.2% seen in the 2019-20 school year, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even in states with high MMR vaccine uptake, pockets of unvaccinated or under-vaccinated communities can lead to rapid spread.
For example, in Texas, 94.3% of kindergartners were up to date on their MMR vaccine for the 2023-24 school year, CDC data shows. However, in Gaines County — the epicenter of this year’s outbreak — 17.6% of kindergartners were exempt from at least one vaccine during the 2023-24 school year, one of the highest exemption rates in the state, according to state health data.
“It’s kind of like you have a very dry forest, so any spark that comes in can burn down the entire forest,” Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told ABC News. “That’s what’s happening, which is fewer people being vaccinated, as evidenced by the drop in in people entering kindergarten.”
He said one case of measles is like a spark that quickly turns into a blaze as it spread through an unvaccinated community “and that’s why it’s hard to put out the fire.”
How loss of status is determined
The loss of status is determined by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO, an agency of the U.N. that oversees international health in the Americas.
An independent body of experts established by the PAHO — known as the Measles, Rubella, and Congenital Rubella Syndrome Elimination Regional Monitoring and Re-Verification Commission (RVC) — meets at least once a year to monitor and re-verify measles and rubella elimination among countries in the Americas.
A person familiar with how PAHO determines loss of elimination status told ABC News that there would have to be compelling evidence that there has been continuous spread of measles in the U.S. since January, when the first cases were reported in Texas and that other outbreaks may trace back to the Texas outbreak.
The person said the committee will get together in mid-2026 to look at the data, write its next report and formally submit it to the PAHO for review. The annual meeting will likely take place in late 2026, unless a previously unplanned meeting is convened beforehand.
“The RVC holds annual meetings with all member states, conducts visits to priority countries, reviews national sustainability reports, and issues recommendations to the Director of PAHO,” a spokesperson for PAHO told ABC News. “It may also convene extraordinary meetings with member states to provide recommendations on specific topics or to follow up on outbreak situations. At this time, no extraordinary meeting has been scheduled for next year specifically to assess the U.S. or Mexico situation, but such a meeting could be convened if the epidemiological situation warrants.”
Between April 2025 and October 2025, Mexico has seen 4,550 cases, according to the WHO, which could also lead to the loss of its elimination status.
Moody explained that the U.S. having measles elimination status, which it received in 2000, is less of a formal declaration and more of a statement that a county has a relatively low number of cases and no sustained transmission.
Loss of status would similarly be a statement that a country has sustained transmission and that the virus is constantly present, he said.
“What does it mean from a public health perspective, or a parent’s perspective, it means that we have a higher risk for seeing transmission, and that if someone goes to a place where there is sustained transmission, there’s kind of an increased risk and, truthfully, you can pick it up just about anywhere,” Moody said.
Canada’s loss of elimination status
Earlier this month, the Public Health Agency of Canada said it was informed of the elimination status loss by PAHO after more than 12 months of continuous measles transmission. Canada’s outbreak began in late October 2024, and the county has seen more than 5,200 confirmed and probable cases since then, data from the health agency shows.
As a result, the Americas region lost elimination status as well.
Canada can re-establish its measles elimination status if measles transmission related to the current outbreak is “interrupted” for at least 12 months, according to the county’s health officials.
“Given that we share one of the longest borders in the world with Canada. It’s not as if there’s some magic barrier between U.S. and Canada,” Moody said. “If there’s transmission in Canada, we’re going to get it in the United States. … I’m not saying that Canada has put us at risk. We’ve kind of put ourselves at risk but … I do see it as being a highly likely thing that we’re going to see continued transmission.”
Canada will present and implement an action plan under PAHO’s regional framework to increase immunization coverage, reinforce surveillance systems and ensure rapid outbreak response to stop spread. This shows what the U.S. would likely experience if it lost its status.
“If we lose our status, it’ll be hard to regain it,” Chin-Hong said, noting how many workers have been laid off at HHS that might have helped control large outbreaks. “Not only loss of expertise, but just loss of the workforce in general, the people who go out and do the surveillance and contain the epidemic by vaccination efforts and all that. … It just denotes how fragile public health gains are. In general, it’s easy to lose it and hard to get it back.”
How to prevent further spread
Public health experts told ABC News there are several steps that can be taken to help control the spread of measles in the U.S. including increasing funding to public health for monitoring and surveillance as well as spreading awareness about how dangerous measles can be.
However, they add that the best way to stop the spread is through vaccination, both to protect yourself and the most vulnerable individuals.
“We can’t control the people who are unable to get vaccines because they’re being treated for cancer, because they are born with an immunodeficiency,” Dr. Aaron Milstone, pediatric director of infection prevention at Johns Hopkins Health System, told ABC News. “What we can control is everyone else in the community who is eligible for a vaccine, who does not take it, and that’s the reason that measles is spreading, in part, because the herd protection from our community has gone down.”
As an extra step, public health agencies have previously recommended early MMR vaccination for infants living in outbreak areas or traveling internationally.
This would result in three doses overall: an early dose between age 6 months and 11 months and then the two regularly scheduled doses at age 1 and between ages 4 and 6.
Milstone said the recommendation to give a child their first MMR dose at age one was under the assumption that they likely would not be exposed to measles before then and that antibodies passed in utero would help protect them during their first year of life.
Now, with the continuous spread being seen, “are we going to have to rethink our recommendations for when to vaccinate kids in the U.S.?” Milstone said.
Tylenol is displayed for sale at a CVS Pharmacy on November 03, 2025 in Austin, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court is deciding whether to revive more than 500 lawsuits filed by parents who claimed their children’s autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was caused by prenatal exposure to Tylenol.
The lawsuits were dismissed in December 2023 by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote after finding that the plaintiffs’ scientific experts did not provide credible evidence linking use of Tylenol, or its active ingredient acetaminophen, to autism or ADHD.
Cote wrote in her ruling that “the unstructured approach adopted by the plaintiffs’ experts permitted cherry-picking, allowed a results-driven analysis, and obscured the complexities, inconsistencies, and weaknesses in the underlying data.”
However, in a hearing this week, two judges of a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan suggested some of the experts’ testimony may have been admissible and that the lawsuits were prematurely dismissed.
“I’m having trouble understanding why the district court was correct to say that this just is nonsense. This is something that no one should hear,” Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said during the hearing earlier this week. “It just goes out the window, when it seems to me that you have a reputable scientist explaining why each of these judgment calls was made.”
Meanwhile, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi implied that the cases could have gone to a jury.
“It seems to me you’re constantly coming back to where you began, which is [the experts] didn’t show that there was a causal link, but a causal link cannot be shown,” Calabresi said. “All that matters is if people bring in evidence, so that then juries or courts may say, ‘This goes one way or the other.'”
The topic has been in the headlines since the Trump administration announced in September that the use of Tylenol during pregnancy may be linked to an increased risk of autism and that pregnant women should limit their use, contradicting medical evidence.
Studies on this question have not shown a direct cause and effect. Some studies point to a possible link, but major medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have evaluated the evidence and continue to recommend acetaminophen as the safest pain reliever during pregnancy in consultation with your OB-GYN.
At the time of Trump’s announcement, federal officials cited an August 2025 meta-analysis from researchers at Mt. Sinai, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Heath, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and UMass Lowell that found prenatal exposure to acetaminophen may be associated with an increase in rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and ADHD, in children.
However, an April 2024 study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in JAMA, found that using acetaminophen during pregnancy was not linked to an increased risk of autism, ADHD or intellectual disability in children.
Additionally, a review published earlier this month in the BMJ similarly found no clear evidence of a link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism or ADHD in children.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the makers of Tylenol –Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue — claiming that they deceptively marketed the over-the-counter medication to pregnant women despite alleged links to autism and other disorders.
Johnson & Johnson sold the drug for decades and its consumer health division spinoff, Kenvue Inc., has been selling the drug since 2023. Multinational consumer goods and personal care corporation Kimberly Clark recently announced plans to acquire Kenvue.
Kenvue has defended against claims that its products, or its active ingredient, is linked to autism.
In a statement to ABC News in September, the company said it believes research shows that acetaminophen does not cause autism.
“We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers,” the statement read. “Acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their entire pregnancy. Without it, women face dangerous choices: suffer through conditions like fever that are potentially harmful to both mom and baby or use riskier alternatives.”
(NEW YORK) — The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a final version of its report on pediatric gender-affirming care on Wednesday, claiming it found “medical dangers posed to children,” which is receiving pushback from medical groups.
The report alleged that gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender-affirming surgeries — caused significant, long-term damage.
It comes after HHS published in May an early version of what it referred to as a “comprehensive review” of transgender care for children and teens, in which it called for a broader use of psychotherapy for young people with gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming medical interventions.
The HHS referred to the final version of the report as “peer-reviewed,” but some of those who reviewed the contents are researchers who have spoken against gender affirming care.
Some major medical groups have pushed back, stating that psychotherapy first is the standard approach in gender-affirming care and that additional care, such as hormonal therapies, only occurs after in-depth evaluations between patients and doctors.
The American Psychological Association (APA), which reviewed the report, argued it lacks transparency and that scientific research does not support the authors’ theories.
Experts in the gender-affirming care space questioned the validity of the findings, saying that studies have found that gender-affirming care is generally safe and that youth with gender dysphoria are typically evaluated, diagnosed and treated based on an individual assessment by qualified providers.
“This report does not add to the science. It adds to the noise around care for transgender young people, care that is provided by licensed clinicians according to a standard of care,” Kellan Baker, senior advisor for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank that provides research, insight and analysis on LGBTQ+ issues, told ABC News.
“That standard of care is based on the same comparable quality of evidence as care across any other area of medicine,” Baker continued. “There is nothing new or unusual about care for transgender young people except for the extraordinary degree of political antagonism that is being focused on this very, very small group of young people.”
In a press release on Wednesday, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, called the report “a turning point for American medicine,” adding that “we are committed to ensuring that science, not ideology, guides America’s medical research.”
David Aizuss, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees and Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released a joint statement on Wednesday.
“We reject characterizations of our approach to gender-affirming care as negligent or ideologically driven, and take particular issue with the false assertion that our members have committed ‘malpractice’ or betrayed their oath in any way,” the statement read.
“These claims, rooted in politics and partisanship, misrepresent the consensus of medical science, undermine the professionalism of physicians, and risk harming vulnerable young people and their families,” Aizuss and Kressly added.
The final version of the HHS report listed nine authors, all of whom have expressed skeptical views of, or have opposed, pediatric gender-affirming care.
The initial May report did not list the names of its authors to “help maintain the integrity of this process.” Critics at the time pointed out that this prevented readers from gauging whether the names were credible or had any conflicts of interest.
The disclosures in the final report show that at least six of the nine authors have financial interests or have spoken out extensively opposing gender affirming care.
This includes authors who have been paid to offer expert testimony on legislative efforts to ban pediatric gender medicine and have published papers critical of pediatric gender medicine, including claims that such care does not improve depression or suicidality among trans youth.
The report included 10 reviewers, including individual physicians and medical groups, some of whom praised the report as “scientifically sound” and said the main findings and conclusions are “correct.”
Other reviewers were critical, including the APA, which accused the authors of the report of cherry-picking which studies it used in its findings and not justifying why other studies were excluded. Additionally, it says key findings in studies that were relied on were unexplained or absent.
“While the HHS Report purports to be a thorough, evidence-based assessment of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, its underlying methodology lacks sufficient transparency and clarity for its findings to be taken at face value,” the APA wrote in its review, found in the report’s supplement.
In conclusion, the group wrote, “the report’s claims fall short of the standard of methodological rigor that should be considered a prerequisite for policy guidance in clinical care.”
In a response to the report, the Endocrine Society said in a statement to ABC News that mental health care is already part of treating transgender and gender-diverse youth with health care protocols requiring initial mental health support and evaluations.
However, they add that access to medication such as hormone therapy can be used in conversations between patients, their families and their doctors. They add that such care is also relatively rare.
“The use of puberty-delaying medication or hormone therapy remains rare and reflects a cautious approach as recommended in our guideline,” the statement read. “Fewer than one in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received either treatment during the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, according to a January 2025 study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. And our 2017 guidelines recommend against prescribing any medication for gender dysphoria before puberty starts.”
Gender-affirming care is supported by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the APA, and the Endocrine Society.
Studies have shown that many of the treatment options are generally safe and that care can have a positive impact on mental health, which psychotherapy alone cannot provide, experts said.
Some experts have questioned the significance of interventions on long-term mental health as well as the possibility of regret and point out potential risks to future fertility.
Additionally, systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland and the U.K. have resulted in the three countries restricting gender-affirming care. England’s National Health Service ended prescribing puberty blockers for minors experiencing gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials. Sweden and Finland have followed psychotherapy-first models.
(NEW YORK) — The global rise of ultra-processed foods in diets worldwide poses a major public health threat, according to experts who published a series of papers in medical journal The Lancet.
The authors cite studies that show ultra-processed diets are linked to chronic health conditions like increased risk of becoming overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, chronic kidney disease and overall higher death rates.
Common examples of ultra-processed foods include sugar-sweetened beverages, packaged snacks, instant soups, breakfast cereals, energy bars, mass-produced packaged breads, ready-to-eat meals, ice cream and pizza.
ABC News’ medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton investigated the state of America’s food supply including the consumption of ultra-processed foods and the potential risks to Americans’ health in a new “ABC News Live Prime” special “Gut Check: The Foods We Eat.”
Watch the segment on ABC News Live Prime on Wednesday, Nov. 19, at 8:30 p.m. ET. Available to stream on Disney+ and Hulu.
Sutton participated in an experiment at a high-tech laboratory at Virginia Tech where researchers monitored his blood work before and after eating ultra-processed foods. He also visited an American grocery store, comparing the ingredient lists of common food products with similar ones overseas in a French grocery store.
The special also takes viewers to the world’s largest food and science exposition in Chicago, where ingredient makers pitch food companies on their latest innovations. It’s a notable time for the industry, as the Trump administration continues to push food companies to remove additives, like synthetic dyes, from their products.
The warning around the dangers of ultra-processed foods comes as the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement, popularized by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., grows nationwide.
About four in 10 parents consider themselves supporters of the MAHA movement, with support higher among Republicans and white parents, a Washington Post-KFF poll finds.
An overwhelming number of parents, regardless of their support of the MAHA movement, supported increased government regulations on dyes and chemical additives, highly processed foods and added sugars, the poll found.
The authors of The Lancet paper, which was published on Tuesday, note that improving diets requires more than just a change in behavior.
Instead, they are calling for world policy reform with actions targeting the production, marketing and consumption of ultra-processed foods, as well as improving access to health food is needed, they note.
Americans consume over half of their daily calories from ultra-processed foods, on average, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Healthier eating should emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy and protein, the CDC says. Most Americans need to increase their intake of dietary fiber, calcium, vitamin D, and potassium, the agency notes.
Stock image of cigarette. krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Just 100 cigarettes over the course of someone’s life may be enough to raise their risk of heart disease and death, a new study suggests.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, who looked at the smoking habits of more than 300,000 adults for almost 20 years, found that men and women who smoked as few as two cigarettes daily had a 60% increased risk of death from any cause compared to those who never smoked.
Additionally, the smoking group had a 50% higher risk of heart disease, according to the study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine.
“Tobacco use is a very well-established risk factor for heart disease,” said Dr. Jennifer Miao, a cardiologist at Yale University and an ABC News Medical Unit fellow. “It really damages the blood vessel lining and it accelerates the development of plaques and coronary artery disease.”
Smoking is also linked to heart rhythm issues, such as atrial fibrillation and stroke, Maio added.
Cutting back on cigarette use may not be enough to reverse the harm, the study found. Although current smokers had a higher risk of death than former smokers, former smokers still had an elevated risk of heart disease more than 20 years after they had kicked the habit, according to the study.
Data from the American Lung Association shows that adult smoking in the U.S. has dropped from about 42% in 1965 to roughly 12% in 2022 — a decline of more than 70%.
However, the number of people smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day increased 85% during the same period.
Americans should be counseled to quit smoking altogether rather than just cutting back, Dr. Erfan Tasdighi, co-author of the study and internal medicine physician at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, told ABC News.
“We actually have the evidenc. … to say that even less than one cigarette a day can increase different multiple cardiovascular outcomes, and it’s not something that’s clinically insignificant,” Tasdighi said.
Miao acknowledged how difficult it can be for patients to go completely smoke-free.
“It’s very, very important for us as clinicians to acknowledge that it’s a lot easier said than done,” she said.
Miao suggested that physicians identify who is having a difficult time stopping tobacco use and get them connected with the appropriate resources and medical therapies available for smoking cessation efforts.
The benefit of quitting smoking is most substantial in the first ten years after quitting, the study suggested. However, researchers say it takes time for the body to recover and reach the level of someone who never smoked.
Tasdighi emphasized that this doesn’t mean cessation doesn’t have immediate effects.
“It’s important that people know that when they stop smoking, their risk goes down immediately and significantly,” he said.
Miao agreed, adding that the study’s most important takeaway is that “it’s important to quit smoking early on, and no amount of smoking is without risk and health consequences.”
It’s not just patients who should heed the results of this study, the authors stressed. Physicians should also consider changing the way they inquire about smoking because the number of packs someone smokes per year is not necessarily predictive of long-term health risks, they said.
“Clinicians need a more nuanced approach that incorporates other ways to identify and quantify cigarette use, like smoking status and smoking intensity,” Miao said, noting that whether it’s smoking one cigarette a day or one a week, no amount of smoking is safe, and quitting remains the best thing someone can do for their health.
To learn more about quitting smoking, call 1-800-QUIT-NOW or make an appointment with your health care provider.
Radhika Malhotra, MD, is an internal medicine-preventive medicine resident at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
Stock image of cigarette. krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Just 100 cigarettes over the course of someone’s life may be enough to raise their risk of heart disease and death, a new study suggests.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, who looked at the smoking habits of more than 300,000 adults for almost 20 years, found that men and women who smoked as few as two cigarettes daily had a 60% increased risk of death from any cause compared to those who never smoked.
Additionally, the smoking group had a 50% higher risk of heart disease, according to the study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine.
“Tobacco use is a very well-established risk factor for heart disease,” said Dr. Jennifer Miao, a cardiologist at Yale University and an ABC News Medical Unit fellow. “It really damages the blood vessel lining and it accelerates the development of plaques and coronary artery disease.”
Smoking is also linked to heart rhythm issues, such as atrial fibrillation and stroke, Maio added.
Cutting back on cigarette use may not be enough to reverse the harm, the study found. Although current smokers had a higher risk of death than former smokers, former smokers still had an elevated risk of heart disease more than 20 years after they had kicked the habit, according to the study.
Data from the American Lung Association shows that adult smoking in the U.S. has dropped from about 42% in 1965 to roughly 12% in 2022 — a decline of more than 70%.
However, the number of people smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day increased 85% during the same period.
Americans should be counseled to quit smoking altogether rather than just cutting back, Dr. Erfan Tasdighi, co-author of the study and internal medicine physician at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, told ABC News.
“We actually have the evidenc. … to say that even less than one cigarette a day can increase different multiple cardiovascular outcomes, and it’s not something that’s clinically insignificant,” Tasdighi said.
Miao acknowledged how difficult it can be for patients to go completely smoke-free.
“It’s very, very important for us as clinicians to acknowledge that it’s a lot easier said than done,” she said.
Miao suggested that physicians identify who is having a difficult time stopping tobacco use and get them connected with the appropriate resources and medical therapies available for smoking cessation efforts.
The benefit of quitting smoking is most substantial in the first ten years after quitting, the study suggested. However, researchers say it takes time for the body to recover and reach the level of someone who never smoked.
Tasdighi emphasized that this doesn’t mean cessation doesn’t have immediate effects.
“It’s important that people know that when they stop smoking, their risk goes down immediately and significantly,” he said.
Miao agreed, adding that the study’s most important takeaway is that “it’s important to quit smoking early on, and no amount of smoking is without risk and health consequences.”
It’s not just patients who should heed the results of this study, the authors stressed. Physicians should also consider changing the way they inquire about smoking because the number of packs someone smokes per year is not necessarily predictive of long-term health risks, they said.
“Clinicians need a more nuanced approach that incorporates other ways to identify and quantify cigarette use, like smoking status and smoking intensity,” Miao said, noting that whether it’s smoking one cigarette a day or one a week, no amount of smoking is safe, and quitting remains the best thing someone can do for their health.
To learn more about quitting smoking, call 1-800-QUIT-NOW or make an appointment with your health care provider.
Radhika Malhotra, MD, is an internal medicine-preventive medicine resident at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
An exterior view of the South Carolina State House. Epics/Getty Images
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — A few South Carolina lawmakers are holding a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a near-total abortion ban that removes exceptions and could send anyone involved with termination of a pregnancy to prison for decades.
Currently, the state has a six-week abortion ban, signed into law in May 2023, with limited exceptions for rape and incest up to 12 weeks, for fetal anomalies and to save the life of the pregnant person.
However, S.323, also called the “Unborn Child Protection Action,” which is currently being debated in a state subcommittee, would repeal the rape, incest and fetal anomalies exceptions as well as make abortion a felony comparable to “the homicide of a person born alive,” which, if it clears a series of legislative hurdles, could send people who have an abortion to prison for up to 30 years.
If the bill clears the committee, there will be a few other legislative steps before it’s debated during the state legislature’s regular session.
Those who aid, abet or perform an abortion could also face up to three decades in prison.
Additionally, the bill would make it unlawful to possess abortion pills or provide information about an abortion, make it a felony to transport a minor out of state to obtain an abortion, change the definition of legal contraceptive, and redefine embryos as full legal persons, which opponents of the bill say could threaten IVF access.
Opponents argue the bill would be one of the strictest pieces of legislation limiting access to reproductive health care seen in the U.S. and could have far-reaching effects.
“If people think that there are exceptions here, I want to reiterate that there are none,” Amalia Luxardo, CEO of the nonprofit advocacy organization Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network (WREN), told ABC News. “There are none here. … Historically there have been exceptions when legislation like this comes down. And so, it really is, quite literally, the most extreme piece of legislation that we’ve seen in the [reproductive health care] space ever in this country. “
Luxardo said that WREN will be among the groups demonstrating at the state capitol on Tuesday as the bill is discussed during a second hearing of the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee.
The first hearing in October lasted several hours with dozens of people testifying during public comment. The hearing on Tuesday will not be open to the public, but people are able to watch a stream.
Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative council with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABC News that because the hearing is without public comment, it’s difficult for opponents to weigh in on why the bill is “problematic.”
However, she said advocates are continuing to put pressure on lawmakers by having constituents call up their representatives, sharing personal stories of people who have struggled to get abortion care in harrowing situations and legal reasonings behind why some consider the bill unconstitutional.
Chowdhry added that she is concerned that, if the bill passes, lawmakers in other states could replicate the legislation with similar language and penalties.
“We have seen time and time again, when very restrictive legislation sees the light of day, and if it potentially has a chance of moving through the legislature and getting signed and getting enacted, other hostile states very often follow suit,” she said. “Once we see a bill get enacted, we see that kind of momentum get pushed forward. It really opens the door for other states to do something similar.”
Luxardo agreed, adding that if the legislation passes, she believes it could deter providers from practicing in South Carolina.
The bill has also caused friction among anti-abortion rights groups, with some saying S.323 goes too far.
South Carolina Citizens for Life said that while it supports the current six-week ban, it opposes the criminalization of those who receive an abortion.
“Criminalizing women who have an abortion is inconsistent with our decades of work to legally protect both the unborn and the mother,” the statement reads. “Pro-lifers understand better than anyone else the desire to punish the purveyors of abortion who act callously and without regard to the dignity of human life. But turning women who have abortions into criminals, as S.323 does, is not the way.”
Other groups, such as Equal Protection South Carolina (EPSC), have supported the bill. EPSC stated it hopes legal equal protection in the bill can be expanded “for all pre-born babies beginning at fertilization.”
“We are encouraged by the sentiment of the bill and the bill author’s passion to end abortion,” the group wrote. “The imposition of a criminal penalty in all parties involved in an abortion is a laudable departure from the approach traditionally taken by the Pro-Life establishment, which advocates for legislation providing total legal immunity to mothers who willfully murder their pre-born children.”
Co-sponsors of the bill, including state Sens. Richard Cash, Billy Garrett and Rex Rice, did not immediately return ABC News’ requests for comment.
(WASHINGTON) — Just as SNAP benefits were reinstated for millions of Americans following the reopening of the federal government, many are now set to permanently lose them.
Nearly 42 million Americans, including low-income families and vulnerable households, rely on SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help pay for groceries or other household essentials.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been directing states to implement new guidance as part of President Donald Trump’s megabill signed into law in July, which will include new work requirements, decreased eligibility for refugees and states shouldering some of the cost of the program.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published in August suggest that, as a result of the changes, more than 3 million Americans could lose assistance within the next few years.
“I think millions of people are going to lose food. … There’s no question this is going to create more harm and suffering and hunger,” Joel Berg, CEO of the nonprofit hunger relief organization Hunger Free America, told ABC News.
New work requirements
Under the megabill, the upper age limit for those who need to meet work requirements was raised from age 54 to 64 for the first time for able-bodied adults without dependents
Additionally, exemptions were changed for parents or other family members with responsibility for a dependent under 18 years old to under 14 years old.
According to CBO estimates, about 1.1 million people will lose SNAP benefits between 2025 and 2034, including 800,000 able-bodied adults through age 64 who don’t live with dependents and 300,000 parents or caregivers up to age 64 with children aged 14 and older.
Exemptions were also removed for homeless individuals, veterans and young adults who were in foster care when they turned age 18. Meanwhile, exemptions were added for American Indians.
CBO estimates the removal of these exemptions will lead to a loss of benefits for 300,000 people among those groups.
Berg said these requirements will be harmful because people may have to leave work to visit a government office providing proof of work and potentially losing wages.
“It’s really work reporting requirements, and we know none of these requirements actually increase work,” Berg said. “It’s adding them for veterans, as if they haven’t given enough to the country. It’s adding work requirements for parents of teenagers. It’s adding work reporting requirements for homeless people. How homeless people are going to be able to get and keep jobs is really beyond me.”
Berg added that it’s important to dispel the myth that all Americans who are on SNAP don’t have jobs or participate in work programs.
Data from the 2023 American Community Survey shows the majority of American families receiving SNAP benefits had at least one family member working in the past 12 months.
However, work requirements can reduce program participation. A 2021 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research found SNAP work requirements could lead to up to 53% of eligible adults exiting the program within 18 months.
Asylum seeker restrictions
Under the megabill, refugees, asylum seekers and those granted legal protection for humanitarian reasons are no longer eligible for SNAP benefits, removing decades of federal precedent.
This includes trafficking victims who were previously certified by the Department of Health and Human Services and Iraqi or Afghan special immigrant visa holders who worked with U.S. forces or agencies.
Under CBO estimates, about 90,000 people in these categories will become ineligible for SNAP benefits.
The only non-citizens who can still receive benefits include lawful permanent residents, although they must wait five years after receiving their green card, with certain exceptions.
Additionally, Cuban or Haitian entrants under humanitarian parole, as well as people in the U.S. under the Compact of Free Association — a series of international agreements between the U.S. and three Pacific Island nations — are also eligible.
“This policy is both mean-spirited and counterproductive,” Naomi Steinberg, HIAS Vice President of U.S. Policy and Advocacy, said in a statement. “Resettled refugees and asylees have been granted legal protection to permanently live and work in the United States. Denying families who are just getting their feet on the ground in their new American communities is unspeakably misguided, especially when denying basic nutritional assistance undermines their ability to achieve self-sufficiency and stability as quickly as possible.”
States sharing costs
States will have to share in the cost of SNAP benefits under the megabill, a change from the federal government shouldering the cost of the program.
Under the megabill, states with SNAP payment error rates above 6% have to pay a share of 5% — starting in 2028 — up to a maximum of 15 % of SNAP benefit costs.
CBO estimates some states will keep their current benefits and eligibility, while others will modify and some will leave the program altogether. This will reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for about 300,000 people between 2028 and 2034.
A Commonwealth Fund analysis found that about $128 billion in federal costs will shift to the states, and many will not have the funds to meet the required matches. This could force states to opt out of SNAP for their residents.
“They’re increasing administrative costs on states, which many states are going to use to reduce access,” Berg said. “That’s going to cause states to either raise taxes, cut something else, or cut food.”
Stock photo of a Lone Star Tick, Amblyomma Americanum. (Joesboy/STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A New Jersey man is believed to be the first documented death from alpha-gal syndrome, a meat allergy triggered by tick bites.
The man, a 47-year-old airline pilot, was otherwise healthy, according to a case study from researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and Hackensack Meridian Health in New Jersey.
In summer 2024, he went camping with his wife and children. A few hours after eating beef steak for dinner, the man awoke with abdominal discomfort, which later led to diarrhea and vomiting.
His condition eventually improved and, although he spoke with his wife about consulting a doctor, they ultimately decided against it.
Two weeks later, in September, the man and his wife attended a barbecue in New Jersey during which he ate a hamburger.
Four hours later, the man was found unconscious on the floor of his bathroom. Paramedics attempted to resuscitate the man and transferred him to a hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.
The cause of death was initially ruled as “sudden unexplained death” after inconclusive results. The man’s wife provided the autopsy report to a doctor, who forwarded it to an allergy specialist.
The specialist used blood samples to identify that the man had an extreme reaction to alpha-gal, in line with fatal anaphylaxis, or allergic reaction, according to the case study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice.
When asked if he had been bitten by ticks, his wife said he had in the past and that, earlier in the summer, he has at least 12 or 13 “chigger” bites around his ankles. Researchers said that in the eastern U.S., what are sometimes referred to as “chiggers” are often larvae of lone star ticks.
Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that arises after people eat red meat or consume products with alpha-gal, a type of sugar found in most mammals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The syndrome is typically caused tick bites, most often from lone star ticks, which transfer alpha-gal into a patient’s body and, in turn, triggers an immune system response.
Although tracking is limited, it is estimated that more than 110,000 cases of AGS were identified between 2010 and 2022, the CDC said.
The actual number of cases is not known, but up to 450,000 people may be affected, according to the agency. In 2023, two studies from the CDC referred to AGS as an “emerging public health concern.”
AGS symptoms can include hives or itchy rash, nausea or vomiting, heartburn or indigestion, diarrhea, shortness of breath and severe stomach pain. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and typically occur two to six hours after consuming products with alpha-gal.
The CDC says the best way to protect against AGS is to prevent tick bites. This includes knowing where to expect ticks, such as in wooded areas; treating clothes and gear with products containing the insecticide permethrin; and walking outside in the center of a trail as opposed to a brushy area.
