New Jersey man believed to be 1st known death from red meat allergy linked to tick bites
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.
(NEW YORK) — Two U.S. hospitals are the latest to announce they will be ending some, or all, of their pediatric gender-affirming care services at the end of the month.
Kaiser Permanente, a health care company that manages 40 hospitals across several states — including California, Oregon and Virginia — said it is pausing gender-related surgeries for patients under age 18 on Aug. 29. It noted that other gender-related care will continue.
Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. said it will also stop prescribing gender-affirming medications on Aug. 30. It follows a move the hospital made in late January to pause all puberty-blockers and hormone prescriptions for minors.
Since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January, at least 17 major hospital systems in at least nine states and the District of Columbia have paused, discontinued, canceled or ended pediatric gender services, according to an ABC News tally, amid mounting legal and regulatory concerns.
In January, Trump signed an executive order stating the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender transition of those under age 19 and would “rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”
Transgender adults and youth may experience extreme psychological distress due to a mismatch in their gender presentation and identity. They experience significantly higher rates of suicide than the general population, but some studies suggest gender-affirming care eases those feelings of distress.
While some individuals and groups have called for a slower approach to gender-affirming care for minors, other pediatric gender care experts and advocates have said ending such care can have a harmful effect on patients’ mental health and well-being.
They say the government is interfering in conversations meant to be held only between patients, their families and doctors, and that doctors are not being allowed to follow the established medical guidelines that medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have endorsed.
“This is health care provided by licensed clinicians according to standards of care that have been around for many years,” Kellan Baker, a senior adviser for health policy with the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on LGBTQ+ issues, told ABC News.
“To have the government interfering … overreaching into the private conversations between patients and families and their doctors and telling doctors that they cannot provide the care that they know that their patients need — that is a very serious government overreach,” he added.
Evidence for gender-affirming care Gender-affirming care may include medical, surgical, mental health and non-medical services. It can range from allowing a child to pick their pronouns to more invasive treatments typically prescribed for older teens.
Early gender affirming care can be “crucial” to overall health and well-being, allowing a child to focus on social transitions and can help build up confidence while dealing with the health care system, the federal Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health wrote during the Biden administration.
Gender-affirming care is supported by multiple major medical organizations. Studies have shown many of the treatment options are generally safe and that care can have a positive impact on mental health, which psychotherapy alone cannot provide, some experts said.
Some experts have questioned the significance of the interventions on long-term mental health as well as the possibility of regret and point out potential risks on future fertility.
“It’s deeply disappointing that hospital systems have relented to the political pressure, not scientific pressure, to end these sorts of programs,” Dr. Marci Bowers, a gynecologic and reconstructive surgeon at Mills-Peninsula Medical Cener in Burlingame, California, told ABC News. “We have decades of evidence-based information that suggests that gender-related health care is beneficial to patients and their families with very, very, very scant incidences of regret or disappointment in that care.”
A spokesperson for Children’s National Hospital told ABC News it was discontinuing the prescription of gender-affirming medications in light of “escalating legal and regulatory risks” to the hospital, its providers and families.
“We know this change will have a significant impact on affected patients, families and staff, and our care teams are working directly with families of current patients to support them,” the statement read, in part. “Mental health and other support services for patients remain available. LGBT patients are always welcome at Children’s National for other medical needs and treatment.”
Similarly, a spokesperson for Kaiser Permanente pointed ABC News to actions from the administration, including the Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to doctors and clinics providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth.
“As the legal and regulatory environment for gender-affirming care continues to evolve, we must carefully consider the significant risks being created for health systems, clinicians, and patients under the age of 19 seeking this care,” the statement read, in part. “After significant deliberation and consultation with internal and external experts, including our physicians, we’ve made the difficult decision to pause surgical treatment for patients under the age of 19 in our hospitals and surgical centers.”
The hospital said it would work to identify clinicians performing surgery if a patient’s planned operation was canceled and, if a clinician is available, the hospital said it will work with patients and their families to coordinate care and provide coverage for surgical treatment.
Bowers — the Mills-Peninsula gynecologic and reconstructive surgeon — said if somebody is in treatment and that treatment is suddenly withdrawn, it can be extremely difficult, and patients can experience psychosocial and personal setbacks. She said treatment gave patients a psychological boost.
‘When you look and you talk to these individuals, they are happier about themselves,” she said. “They’re happier about their bodies. They’re happier about their choice of friends, how they see themselves in the world. They’re more optimistic. So those are softer measures, but they’re important, and those things matter.”
She also said withdrawing medical care can be a major disruption to patients’ lives because families may have to move to receive care that is now no longer being provided locally.
Baker — the Movement Advancement Project’s health policy adviser — said he sees the actions from the administration as a “campaign of terror” against health care institutions, doctors and families, and that decisions about continuing or discontinuing gender-affirming care should remain between patients and their health care providers.
“This is about health care providers working together with patients and parents to get kids what they need,” Baker said. “It’s nothing more. It’s nothing less. All that trans people are trying to do is live their lives, and all the parents of trans kids are trying to do is love their kids.”
Concern after HHS report Not all experts are opposed to the closures. Dr. Kristopher Kaliebe, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and professor at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, believes the retrenchment reflects long-standing scientific concerns.
“Clinicians have quietly recognized for years that the evidence base for these interventions in minors is weak,” he told ABC News. “There’s no strong proof that they improve mental health, and we simply don’t know the long-term outcomes.”
In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released what it called a “comprehensive review” of transgender care for children and teens, calling for broader use of psychotherapy for young people with gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming care.
The authors of the review were not named, so their credentials have not been reviewed and the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed by independent scientists yet — a step this is typically necessary before changing any guidelines that health care providers follow.
The more than 400-page document details possible harm from medical interventions for youth, including the use of puberty blockers and potentially associated risks, such as infertility.
It follows systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland and the U.K. that 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.
Kaliebe called the HHS review a needed step, saying, “For the first time, the federal government acknowledged openly that these interventions are experimental and that we need high-quality data, especially long-term tracking of outcomes.”
However, Bowers dismissed the HHS review as derivative, saying the team that put the report together didn’t appear to conduct its own review and rather “pirated” reviews conducted overseas.
“There were a lot of other mischaracterizations throughout that report,” Bowers said. “Most experts, frankly, scoff at what they saw. … It’s disappointing. It sounds more like politics than it does practical and factual matter.”
Baker concurred, referring to the report as a “really shocking government document,” suggesting it was commissioned right after Trump’s January executive order with a pre-determined outcome.
“I’m a health services researcher by training … and I’m very familiar with evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews, and one of the ways that you need to make sure that you’re approaching work like that is to not have your thumb on the scale,” he said. “You don’t go in with a research question that has already been decided, where the outcome has already been decided. That’s not good science. It’s not science at all.”
He said producing the report so quickly after the executive order was issued — a little over three months — was too short of a timeline for a thorough review and he criticized not having the names of the authors on the report to ensure there were no conflicts of interest and that the authors were experts in their field.
Experts have said they are in favor of more research being conducted — Kaliebe emphasized the need for rigorous tracking of harms and a clearer study of psychotherapeutic approaches.
Bowers argued that while stronger research is welcome, cutting off services altogether harms real people.
“We know from decades of clinical experience that when care is affirming, young people are happier and healthier,” she said. “That’s what parents see, even if politics obscures it.”
If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, free, confidential help is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Call or text the national lifeline at 988.
(NEW YORK) — The United States death rate decreased by 3.8% in 2024 as COVID fell out of the top 10 leading causes of death for the first time in four years, new provisional federal data shows.
The overall rate declined from 750.5 per 100,000 people in 2023 to 722 per 100,000, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
This marks the lowest death rate recorded since 2020, during the first full year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and follows declines that began in 2022.
The report also found that overall deaths fell from 3.09 million in 2023 to 3.07 million in 2024.
Additionally, the report showed the three leading causes of death stayed the same from 2023 to 2024, with heart disease as the leading cause, followed by cancer and unintentional injury, respectively.
Suicide replaced COVID-19 as the 10th leading underlying cause of death, knocking the disease off the top 10 list for the first time since 2020.
“‘It’s pretty noteworthy that COVID-19 fell off the top 10 and suicide, which had been had fallen off in recent years, is … ranked again,” Farida Ahmad, corresponding author of the report and health scientist at NCHS, told ABC News. “I think that’s a pretty interesting finding given where we spent the last five years.”
Ahmad said fewer deaths from COVID in 2024 compared to 2023 may be a reason behind the 3.8% decline.
“Ever since it came onto the scene in 2020, COVID was one of the top 10 leading causes of death,” Ahmad said. “It started off as a third-leading cause and, in 2024, we see that it’s not ranked at all, actually. So, it’s still among the 15 leading causes, but not in the top 10.”
Dr. Sharonne Hayes, a professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, agreed that fewer cases of COVID-19 are likely driving the reduction in mortality.
“I think there’s a little less COVID, right? I mean, that’s part of it,” she told ABC News. “I think that the pandemic was such a time of both COVID-related deaths, but also just rising risk factors, particularly around cardiovascular disease, people’s lifestyles were less healthy. And maybe we are coming back to more of where we are before.”
Ahmad said another driver for the drop in deaths could be the decline in drug overdose deaths.
A CDC report published in May found that U.S. drug overdose deaths fell by nearly 27% in 2024 to the lowest levels seen in five years.
Dr. Katie Schmitz, a visiting professor of medicine in the department of medicine and cancer epidemiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, told ABC News that leading causes of death continue to be cardiac disease and cancer-related deaths due to an aging population, as well as underlying factors such as obesity.
Schmitz noted that we have an increase in proportion of the population with these co-morbidities and it’s important to highlight that access to health care can be limited, particularly for rural populations.
Other leading causes of death in the report included stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease and chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.
The report also found that death rates decreased from 2023 to 2024 among all racial/ethnic groups. Rates in 2024 were lowest for multiracial people at 332.3 per 100,000 and highest for the Black population at 884 per 100,000.
Death rates decreased from 2023 to 2024 for all age groups except infants younger than one year old, according to the report. Death rates in 2024 were lowest for children between ages 5 and 14 at 14.4 per 100,000 and highest for people age 85 and older at 13,835.5 per 100,000.
Schmitz said investments should be made that focus on prevention — such as addressing rising obesity rates — and early screenings, which can vary with socioeconomic status and geography.
Hayes said making lifestyle changes is hard, but it is one of the best ways to lower the risk of some of the leading causes of death, including heart disease and cancer.
“Whether it’s eating more vegetables, [decreasing] saturated fat, maintaining a healthy weight is going to help stroke, cancer, and heart disease risk as well as liver disease, kidney disease, and diabetes,” she said. “Aside from unintentional injury and suicide, virtually every other thing of that list would be impacted by lifestyle.”
(NEW YORK) — During a speech earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the implementation of new fitness standards for the military.
In addition to the newly proposed annual fitness exam, Hegseth’s speech emphasized “gender-neutral” testing with men and women required to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks.
Speaking to hundreds of high-ranking military officials in Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth said it was important that certain combat positions return “to the highest male standard,” acknowledging that it may lead to fewer women serving in combat roles.
The current training is not different for male and female servicemembers.
“If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is,” he said on Tuesday. “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”
“I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in [a] combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,” Hegseth added.
Before becoming secretary, Hegseth had spoken out against women in combat roles, but softened his stance during his confirmation hearings, saying he supports women serving in combat roles so long as they meet the same standards as men — an approach the military says has been in place for nearly a decade.
Some experts in exercise science and in the history of women’s service in the military told ABC News that while there is room for improvement in military fitness, they are concerned there’s a false narrative that female servicemembers are the only ones not meeting certain fitness standards.
“To me, Hegseth wants a military that looks a certain way … which [is] definitely male and muscular,” Jill Hasday, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School with expertise in sex discrimination in the military, told ABC News. “It seems like his expectation is that once they enforce more ‘rigorous standards,’ more women will be pushed out.”
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense said they did not “have anything to provide beyond Secretary Hegseth’s remarks.”
President Donald Trump also addressed officials at the Tuesday meeting, saying that “together, we’re reawakening the warrior spirit.”
Combat roles for women
In 2016, when the military opened certain high-intensity combat jobs to women, including the special operations forces, then-Secretary Ash Carter stated the importance of making sure female servicemembers “qualify and meet the standards.”
However, during his speech, Hegseth said the Department was issuing a directive that each military branch would ensure each requirement for “every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only.”
In a follow-up memo from Hegseth, he stated the annual service test will require a passing grade of 70% and will be “sex-neutral” and “male standard.”
Additionally, beginning in 2026, the U.S. Army’s new fitness standards will require both male and female soldiers to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks for the demands of the battlefield.
Shawn Arent, a professor and chair in the department of exercise science at the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health, said there’s nothing wrong with enforcing standards, but that there is a contradiction in Hegseth saying the tests will be “sex-normed” and also “male standard for combat roles.”
“I think we need to get away from referencing ‘male standards,'” Arent told ABC News. “They’re either standards or they’re a sex-specific standard. … I think there’s one really important caveat to this: those standards then need to make sense. In other words, what are they based on? And, if they’re arbitrary standards, then that feels certainly discriminatory.”
Arent said the standards need to be evidence-based and that it is possible the current standards need to be lowered or raised.
“It makes it sound like there’s this dramatic change, and that everything’s based on what a male can accomplish,” he said. “It should be what a combat soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, whatever, what they can accomplish in that particular role, male or female.”
Stewart Smith, a former Navy SEAL and current fitness trainer, including for those looking to enter the military, agreed, saying gender-neutral doesn’t equate to male standards.
“I don’t want to singularly say women can’t do these because there will be women that can, but I don’t think it’s a necessary focus,” Smith told ABC News. “Should [all servicemembers] be in shape and healthy and look good in a uniform? 100%. But … statistically speaking, these [maximum] standards are at a level that most men aren’t getting.”
He went on, “Saying something is gender-neutral doesn’t mean it’s the maximum male standard, right? Because, once again, if that’s the case, most males aren’t reaching that maximum male standard.”
What it would take to improve standards, according to experts
Smith and Arent said they are in favor of improving fitness standards across the military, but that Hegseth’s speech did not take into account all of the additional steps it would take to improve physical performance.
For example, Smith said improving fitness standards needs to come with improving food quality and sleep quality in the military.
“There’s a lot more problems than just high fitness standards,” he said. “Nutrition and sleep are required for that level of physical performance. … Those are the two biggest components to optimal performance that we’re stressing is you need to sleep well, you need to eat well, and you need time to train. All three are not a current priority in the military.”
Arent said this change in standards presents an opportunity for the military to examine how it can train people up to the new standards it will set.
He added that there’s a plethora of information on human performance and human optimization compared to even a decade ago
“As somebody who works with a lot of female athletes, there are ways to absolutely train them to be beasts,” Arent said. “Women are incredibly resilient, cognitively capable, and I think if you start thinking about combat roles, tactical decision-making, the ability to handle stress under these pressure situations — yes, physical fitness is a component to that, but what else are we assessing that goes with these roles?”
“We have a real opportunity here, if they lean into it to rather than setting these standards, like, ‘If you can’t meet it, too bad you suck. You’re out,'” he continued. “What are we going to do to modify how we’re approaching this to actually get more people to hit those standards?”
Too much focus on physical fitness and not other skills
The experts told ABC News that Hegseth’s speech did not focus on the other components that make people qualified to take on military combat roles.
“There’s more to leadership and service than the highest of [physical training] scores,” Smith said. “There’s learning tactics and leadership, and there’s more to leadership than great fitness tests.”
“Obviously, physical fitness can be important for many military roles, but it’s not the only thing that’s important. You don’t win a war through push-ups,” Hasday added. “Even when women were officially barred from combat, there were a lot of female troops that were essentially co-located with the troops, and they would go around with the combat troops.”
Hasday explained that in some countries where troops have been stationed, female civilians are not allowed to speak to men who are not members of their family. Having female service members with the male combat troops allowed the military to speak to female civilians to get information or to provide help.
“So, the idea, again, that you’re going to win a war by going outside someone’s house and doing push-ups, it just doesn’t seem realistic,” she said.
Female veterans hit back at Hegseth
Hegseth’s comments drew criticism from female veterans, particularly those who held combat roles.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New Jersey and a former Navy helicopter pilot, released a statement saying there is “no evidence that women cannot ably serve in combat positions.”
“Eliminating the current highly rigorous standards for women in combat positions has nothing to do with increasing lethality and everything to do with forcing women out of the Armed Forces,” she said.
Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot and Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, posted a video on Facebook stating there is no male standard or female standard for roles, including flying a fighter jet or being an artillery officer.
“Since combat roles have been open for qualified women, there have always been one standard for those jobs,” she said. “It’s a slap in the face and offensive to suggest otherwise.”
Arent said he can understand why this would be upsetting to former female servicemembers who held combat roles, particularly in reference to Hegseth’s comments about not wanting his son to be in a combat unit with women who weren’t meeting the same physical standards as men.
“Because of the way it [was] said, it makes it sound like it’s the females that are deficient,” he said. “But I would argue, by the same token, if they are physically capable, what if they’re more cognitively capable, more tactically capable, you would want them alongside your son, if that’s the case.”
Arent went on, “It’s not just women that aren’t meeting these standards. We have a whole lot of men that can’t meet some of these standards.”
