By Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The measles outbreak that started in Texas in late January continues to grow. As of March 18, 2025, confirmed cases in the outbreak, which now spans Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, reached 321, surpassing the number of confirmed cases recorded for all of the U.S. in 2024. The vast majority of cases are in people who are not vaccinated. Meanwhile, a lack of clarity from health authorities is leaving people with questions about whether they need to get revaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., Daniel Pastula, a neurologist and medical epidemiologist from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Colorado School of Public Health, explained how and when you should take action.

Should adults get another shot of the measles vaccine?

The measles vaccine, which first became available in the U.S. in 1963, contains a live but significantly weakened strain of the measles virus. This modified strain is too weak to cause measles, but it is similar enough to the wild type measles virus to train the immune system to recognize it. Most people who have received the live measles vaccine won’t need an additional shot now, but here is what you need to know:

People born before 1957 are presumed to have lifelong immunity because measles was so contagious that almost everyone contracted it before age 15. Unless there are special circumstances, they probably don’t need a vaccine now.

Most people born after 1957 would have received the shot as children, so they should be set for life. Physicians and public health experts don’t recommend most people in this group get a second measles shot, though there are exceptions.

In 1989, a limited outbreak of measles occurred among vaccinated school children. In response, the recommendations changed from one dose of the live measles vaccine to two doses for children. People fully vaccinated as children after that year do not need any additional doses.

Exceptions to these guidelines

There are two special circumstances where the previous recommendations may not hold.

First, if you were vaccinated between 1963 and 1967, one of the measles vaccines available at the time consisted of just proteins from the virus rather than a live, weakened version of it. Researchers soon realized this inactivated, or “killed,” vaccine was less effective and didn’t provide long-term immunity. Unless you know for certain you received the live vaccine, physicians and public health experts recommend that people vaccinated during those years get one dose of the live vaccine at some point.

Second, if you fall into a high-risk group – for example, if you are a health care provider, are traveling internationally or attending college, physicians and public health experts generally recommend getting a second dose if you have only had one.

For most adults without such risk factors, physicians and public health experts do not routinely recommend a second dose if you have previously received one dose of a live measles vaccine. If you have questions or concerns about your situation, make sure to ask your health care provider.

Except in very rare circumstances, there is no recommendation for a third dose of the measles vaccine.

Can you find out whether you’ve been vaccinated?

You might be able to! It’s worth checking. States actually keep vaccine records specifically for this reason, where you can look up your vaccine records or that of your kids. Your high school or college may still have your records, and so might your pediatrician’s office.

Should you get your antibody levels checked?

For most people, probably not.

A titer test checks the level of antibodies in your blood, and some people are asking their doctor to check their titers to determine whether they are still immune to measles. The problem is, the level of antibodies in your blood does not necessarily reflect your level of immunity. That’s because antibodies are just one part of your immune system’s infection-fighting force. Having a low level of antibodies does not necessarily mean your immunity has waned.

Other crucial elements of your immune response include B cells, T cells and other immune cells, but a titer test does not show their capabilities. For example, memory B cells might not currently be making antibodies against the virus but are primed to quickly do so the next time they see it. This is why antibody and titer tests should be used only in specific cases, in consultation with your doctor.

One example of when an antibody test may be warranted is if you are a health care provider born before 1957 and you want to make sure you don’t need another dose of the vaccine. You would use a test to see whether you have measles antibodies. But in this case you would be looking for a yes or no answer; the total amount of antibodies may not be very informative.

Is natural immunity better than vaccine-induced immunity?

Natural immunity – that is, the immunity you get after having measles – is effective. However, the downside is that natural infection with a wild virus is very risky. Before 1963, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations and about 500 deaths each year in the United States, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year and carried several other long-term risks, such as permanent hearing loss or the wipe out of immunity to other diseases.

The point of vaccines is to create immunity without the risks of severe infection. It is basically a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The immunity from a vaccine is effectively the same immunity you get from having measles itself – but vastly safer than encountering the wild virus unprotected. One dose is 93% effective at preventing measles and two doses are 97% effective, and any breakthrough cases are likely to be much milder than a full-blown case of measles.

Can the vaccine cause measles?

No, the measles vaccine cannot cause measles because it contains a significantly weakened strain that has limited ability to infect and damage cells.

Some have claimed without evidence that the current outbreak in Texas was caused by the measles vaccine.

As part of the outbreak investigation, however, CDC and the Texas Department of State Health Services analyzed the genome of the virus causing the current outbreak and identified it as a wild measles virus. Researchers classify measles virus strains based on their genetic characteristics, or genotypes. They identified the outbreak virus as wild type genotype D8, and not the weakened measles vaccine strain, which is genotype A.

What are the risks of the vaccine?

That is a very reasonable question. Because the measles vaccine is a live, weakened virus strain, it can cause a mild, measles-like syndrome. For example, some people might have a slight fever, a rash, or some slight joint pain. These symptoms generally go away in a day or two, and most people don’t experience them. But the vaccine cannot cause measles itself, as it does not contain the wild measles virus.

In extremely rare cases, people can experience more significant reactions to the measles vaccine. It is important to remember that every single medical or health intervention carries risks – and that includes all medications and over-the-counter supplements. According to all available evidence, however, comparing the potential benefits against potential risks reveals that the risks of a signficant reaction to the vaccine are much lower than the risks of severe outcomes from measles itself.

Being vaccinated not only protects you and your family, but it also protects vulnerable people in the community, such as infants, cancer patients and pregnant women, who cannot be vaccinated themselves.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Read more:

• Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease
• Unverified reports of vaccine side effects in VAERS aren’t the smoking guns portrayed by right-wing media outlets – they can offer insight into vaccine hesitancy
• Vaccines and values: When you’re having a tough conversation about medicine, don’t just pile on evidence − listen to someone’s ‘moral foundations’

Daniel Pastula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Should you get an additional shot of the measles vaccine? Hailshadow via Gett Images

The post Measles outbreak drives debate over revaccination for adults in US appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Al Riddick 

Grocery prices have reached alarming levels, making every trip to the store feel like a financial burden. Many families wonder if they should start growing their own food or simply do without. However, before resorting to extreme measures, it is worth exploring a practical and affordable meal plan that allows a family of four to eat for just $400 per month.

Yes, It’s Possible! Here’s How.

In the most challenging financial situations, ensuring that a family remains well-fed requires a simple yet nutritious meal plan. While it may not be luxurious or varied, it provides sustenance and stability. Additionally, it eliminates the stress of deciding what to eat each day.

The Budget Breakdown

Breakfast: Oatmeal ($40.99 for a 50 pound bag)

• A serving is ½ cup per person (2 cups total for the family).
• Cost per day: $0.82
• Total monthly cost: $24.60

Lunch & Dinner: Black Beans, Rice, and Vegetables

Black Beans ($49.99 for a 50 pound bag)

• Each person receives ½ cup per meal (4 cups per day total).
• Cost per day: $1
• Total monthly cost: $30
• Oatmeal and Black Beans prices obtained from a local grocery store in Fairfield, OH.

Rice ($24.99 for a 20 pound bag)

• A serving is ½ cup per person (4 cups per day for the family)
• A 20 lb. bag lasts 10 days, requiring three bags per month.
• Total monthly cost: $74.97

Frozen Organic Mixed Vegetables (Costco) ($9.82 for a 5.5 pound bag)

• To provide enough servings, 21 bags are necessary.
• Total monthly cost: $206.22
• Costco Membership: $65 (a worthwhile investment for other essential items as well.)

Grand Total: $400.79

Why This Works

This meal plan meets several key requirements:

• Affordability: Keeps costs around $400.
• Nutritional Balance: Oatmeal provides fiber and energy; beans offer protein and fiber; rice supplies carbohydrates; and vegetables contribute essential vitamins.
• Minimal Waste: Bulk purchases reduce trips to the store and limit impulse buying.
• Sustainability: While it may not be exciting, the plan ensures sufficient nourishment and financial stability.

Ways to Add Variety Without Breaking the Bank

• Spices & Seasonings: Simple additions like salt, garlic, or hot sauce enhance flavor at little cost.
• Seasonal Fruits: Low-cost, in-season fruits offer a natural source of sweetness.
• Home Baking: With flour, sugar, and yeast, homemade bread provides an inexpensive alternative to store-bought options.

The Takeaway

While eating the same meal every day is far from ideal, having a structured and affordable meal plan ensures that no one in the household goes hungry. When grocery prices seem overwhelming, families always have options. Once financial circumstances improve, meal variety will become an even greater source of appreciation.

By planning wisely, staying nourished, and making the most of available resources, families can navigate difficult times while keeping their finances intact.

Al Riddick is President of Game Time Budgeting, an award-winning financial fitness firm that helps employees develop simple and easy to duplicate systems for making their money behave. 

Feature Image: Photo by Hillshire Farm on Unsplash

The post Meal plan for family of four: Nourishing and budget-friendly appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Craig Primack, MD, FACP, FAAP, MFOMA for Hers

Tne quick online search or scroll through social media and you’ll find an endless amount of weight loss advice.

But it’s hard to know what’s backed by science and what’s a waste of your time—or worse, what’s downright dangerous.

Below, Hers separates the fad from fact and busts some common weight loss myths.

Myth 1: Losing Weight Is All About Willpower

Willpower is a hopefully small part of weight loss, but it’s not the only thing at play.

If your weight loss efforts don’t work or you regain some of the weight you’ve lost, it doesn’t mean you lack the willpower to stick to a plan.

There are so many factors that go into weight loss and many of them are out of your control. They include:

• Your environment
• Your genetics
• Your stress levels
• Health conditions
• Medications
• Sleep length and quality

These factors can influence your hunger hormones, how your body stores fat, and the foods you crave.

Don’t let this get you down, though. You can still make changes in your life and reach your goals. You might just need to cut yourself a little slack along the way and reach out for support when needed.

Myth 2: Weight Loss Is Linear

When you’re making healthy lifestyle changes, it’s easy to think you’ll start losing weight and continue to lose weight week after week until you reach your goal.

One unfortunate truth about weight loss is that the journey is rarely a straight line, and there may be some bumps along the road.

While your aim may be to lose one to two pounds a week, you might hit a weight loss plateau—when you stop losing—or you gain a bit of weight. This is normal.

Try not to obsess over the number on the scale and instead focus on sticking to your healthy habits and enjoying the health benefits that come with weight loss—like more energy and a better mood.

Myth 3: You Need to Cut out Carbs and Fats to Lose Weight

Are carbs bad for weight loss? What about fats? Nope, not at all. This might be one of the most pervasive fat loss myths out there.

You’ve no doubt seen the fad diets promoting low-carb or low-fat eating plans. But you don’t need to cut out carbs, fats, or any of your favorite foods, for that matter (you do have to cut back on portions or calories however).

These food groups have been demonized when it comes to weight loss, but you shouldn’t cut them out of your diet completely. In fact, you need some carbs and fats to function and they provide essential nutrients.

Go for complex carbohydrates like:

• Sweet potato
• Brown rice
• Oats
• Whole-wheat bread

Go for healthy fats like:

• Avocados
• Olive oil
• Nuts
• Seeds

Myth 4: Skipping Meals Is Necessary to Lose Weight

You know that reducing your calorie intake can help you lose weight, so skipping meals is one way to do this, right? Well, yes and no.

Can you lose weight by not eating for certain parts of the day? Technically, yes. But for many people, it’s not a sustainable approach.

Skipping meals can spike your hunger levels, which might lead to overeating at your next meal. Plus, when you skip meals, your energy levels and mood might take a hit, too. We’ve all had that hangry—hungry and angry—feeling when we’ve gone too long without food.

So, should you skip breakfast to lose weight? Not necessarily. Doing so may dampen your weight loss efforts, and there’s even research that suggests that skipping breakfast is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality.

Your best bet is to fuel your body with regular nutritious meals.

Myth 5: You Need to Join a Gym to Lose Weight

Exercise is great for weight loss, but you don’t need to join a gym to do it.

You can:

• Go running or cycling outside
• Go for hike
• Go for a walk on your lunch break
• Play fetch with your pet or catch with your kid
• Join a dance or yoga class
• Play tennis, badminton, or golf with friends
• Do strength training exercises at home

Beyond joining a gym, there are weight loss myths about which exercise is best. The truth is you don’t have to stick to one type of physical activity in order to drop weight.

Is cardio the best way to lose weight? It’s one way, but it’s not the only way. In fact, incorporating resistance training can help build and maintain muscle mass, which burns more calories at rest, so there are weight loss benefits to all kinds of exercise. Incorporating more movement into your day—whatever that looks like for you—can help you move toward a healthy weight.

Myth 6: Diet and Exercise Are the Only Things That Matter for Weight Loss

Diet and exercise come up a lot in weight loss discussions, and for good reason—both are core pillars of sustainable weight management. But they’re not the only factors at play.

When you’re trying to lose weight, think about sleep and hydration too.

Getting enough sleep can give you the energy and motivation to stick to your healthy lifestyle habits and it’ll also help keep your hunger hormones in check.

Drinking more water can help you feel fuller, and staying hydrated may promote lipolysis, the breakdown of fat for energy in your body.

Plus, prioritizing shut-eye and hydration are important for your overall health and wellness.

Myth 7: You Can’t Lose Weight If You Eat Late at Night

Is it bad to eat late at night? It’s not ideal, but there’s no need to panic if you do. One late-night meal or midnight snack isn’t going to derail your weight loss or cause weight gain.

Regularly eating late at night is linked to obesity, though. You might go for unhealthier food choices or not sleep as well when you eat late.

On the flip side, fasting overnight can help with weight loss and weight maintenance. But it’s a common misconception that any food after 8 p.m. or so is a bad idea.

If you’re eating late at night, go for a light and healthy snack, like a piece of fruit or some Greek yogurt. And if you’re always hungry at night, take stock of what you’ve been eating throughout the day to make sure you’re fueling yourself with enough protein, which can help promote satiety.

Myth 8: Supplements Can Help You Lose Weight

Does turmeric help you lose weight? What about green tea or magnesium? There are so many weight loss supplements out there that it’s common to have questions and wonder whether you should be taking them.

Unfortunately, supplements aren’t the magic pill they’re often sold as. They’re not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and there’s no guarantee they’re safe or effective.

The one standout exception here is protein supplements—the vast majority of people on a weight loss journey aren’t getting enough of this vital macronutrient. Protein supplementation with a bar or meal replacement shake is one way to help ensure you’re getting at least 100g of protein per day, which can help prevent muscle loss while you’re losing weight.

If you’re considering supplements, there are a few others with some evidence-based benefits. Check out this guide to weight loss supplements for women.

Myth 9: Laxatives Can Speed up Weight Loss

Do laxatives make you lose weight? If TikTok is anything to go by, then you might be thinking yes. No shame. But laxatives are not a safe or effective weight loss method. Plus, they’re not exactly a fun one either.

Laxatives can relieve constipation, so you feel lighter. But if you’re not constipated, laxatives can cause diarrhea, causing you to lose a lot of water.

This may cause weight loss in the short term, by the scale’s measure. But losing water weight isn’t the same as losing fat, and diarrhea can cause dehydration and electrolyte imbalances.

Myth 10: Coffee Can Make You Gain Weight

You don’t need to give up your morning cup of joe if you’re trying to lose weight. In fact, it may play a positive role in your weight loss.

A 2012 study found that about two to four cups of coffee helped people with overweight or obesity eat less at their next meal and throughout the day.

There’s even research showing that drinking up to three cups of coffee a day is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (death from any cause).

Just be aware of what you’re putting in your coffee. Cream, sugar, or flavored syrups may contribute to weight gain.

And make sure you’re not drinking coffee too close to bedtime, as sleep disruption could also mess with your weight loss efforts.

Weight Loss Myths: The Bottom Line

There are so many myths about weight loss, it’d be easy to keep going—and going. But these are the common ones you might have heard from well-meaning family members or seen on social media.

Remember, weight loss isn’t all about willpower. Genetics, health conditions, medications, and more can make weight loss more difficult. Don’t be hard on yourself if it takes time or you need an extra helping hand along the way.

Weight loss medication, such as GLP-1s and oral medications, can be useful for some to suppress your appetite and curb cravings. But there are a lot of myths around those, too.

This story was produced by Hers and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

The post Separating fact from fiction: Debunking common weight loss myths appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Rebecca Lester, Washington University in St. Louis

“No one expects a grown woman in her 40s to have an eating disorder. That’s for teenagers, right? Well, guess what – it happened to me.”

Alexa, a 44-year-old real estate agent, was telling me about her struggle with non-purging bulimia, which has come to control her life. We spoke in 2024 at a coffee shop as part of my ongoing research on eating disorders.

The names of my research subjects have been changed for this article to protect their identities.

“I didn’t understand what was happening for a long time,” Alexa said. “It didn’t even occur to me that it could be an eating disorder.”

She is not alone. A 2023 study estimated that over 9 million American women over 40 develop eating disorders. Some had eating disorders earlier in life and experience a resurgence at midlife. Others develop them for the first time in their 40s or older.

I am an anthropologist and licensed therapist who has researched and treated eating disorders for the past 30 years. I have also recovered from an eating disorder myself. I wrote a 2021 book about how contemporary clinical approaches to eating disorders can harm people and keep them sick. One of the things I uncovered in my research is that older women with eating disorders often fly completely under the radar, leading to increased health risks and even death.

My research leads me to conclude that this is due to health care providers’ misunderstanding of the cultural and existential factors affecting women in midlife, which can make this a time of increased risk of developing an eating disorder.

By the numbers

The numbers around eating disorders at midlife are sobering: Rates of eating disorders among middle-aged women have increased in recent years. As many as 13% of American women over 50 have eating disorder symptoms, slightly more than the percentage diagnosed with breast cancer.

One study found that 71% of women ages 30 to 74 wanted to be thinner, although 73% of them were at clinically normal weight for their height and age. Research shows that although anorexia, an eating disorder characterized by the severe restriction of calories, becomes less common after age 26, bulimia, where patients binge and then purge food from their bodies, doesn’t reach its peak until age 47. Binge eating disorder, or habitually eating excessive amounts in one sitting, can continue to plague women into their 70s.

Lack of treatment

Despite the prevalence of eating disorders in older women, they are often the least likely to get help.

In fact, flagrant symptoms of an eating disorder can be missed in these middle-aged people. At 52, Janelle, a schoolteacher, has struggled with anorexia for the past four years. Because she is petite, her slight frame hasn’t raised any alarms for medical professionals.

“My doctor told me I couldn’t possibly have an eating disorder because I’m too old,” Janelle told me. “I know I’m anorexic. I was anorexic as a teenager, so I know exactly what this is. My doctor just said I should consider myself lucky because a lot of women my age actually gain weight.”

This doctor’s response is emblematic of problems in eating disorder treatment more generally in the U.S. Though tools to assess patients for eating disorders are available, most physicians and even psychiatrists receive little, if any, training in their use. Learning to identify and respond to eating disorders requires that they go through additional – and costly – specialized training.

As a result, many hold erroneous popular stereotypes about these conditions, and so women with eating disorders aren’t getting the help they need.

Beyond stereotypes

In the popular imagination, eating disorders center on things young women supposedly care about; namely, being thin and attractive – specifically, attractive to men. This stereotype is a holdover from 19th- and 20th-century understandings of hysteria, which was thought to particularly afflict young women who craved but also feared male sexual attention.

According to this paradigm, middle-aged women are thought to be out of the sexual game, so to speak, so they ought to be immune to illnesses that focus on appearance.

This perception of eating disorders is not only wrong, but also dangerous because clinicians often don’t recognize these issues in women who don’t fit this stereotype.

In reality, eating disorders are deadly conditions that emerge from a convergence of genetic susceptibility, psychological factors, family environments, life events and cultural values. And they affect people of all genders, sexual orientations and races across the socioeconomic spectrum and the lifespan.

Although the drive for thinness often is the most obvious feature of these conditions, what I have found in my 30 years of research on this topic, including talking to over 200 patients with eating disorders, is that these illnesses are at heart about desperately trying to feel worthy of existing.

A concern with body shape, then, often reflects a much deeper existential crisis that can arise during times when a person’s identity is shifting as their body is changing. One of those times is adolescence. Another is middle age.

Seeking identity in middle age

Outwardly, eating disorders in middle age look a lot like eating disorders at any other age. But the body concerns and identity dilemmas associated with middle age are different from those that plague adolescence and young adulthood.

As women age, their metabolism slows down, their bodies don’t work the way they used to, and they visibly begin to wear their life experience. Questions of mortality and the meaning of life can come to the fore. It’s often a time of shifting dynamics within families. For those who have children, middle age is typically the time when those children are becoming more independent or leaving home. This is also a time when aging parents may require care.

At the same time, for women in particular, the pressures to remain fresh, fit and firm despite aging are monumental. The popularity of treatments like Botox, dermal fillers, Ozempic and the massive anti-aging industry have exploded as this over-40 market has been cultivated.

“We’re supposed to look 30 forever,” said Shelly, a 51-year-old marketing professional struggling with anorexia. “You’ve heard of the ‘middle-age spread’? There’s no way I’m going to let that happen to me.”

A woman’s worth

Progress in gender equality notwithstanding, women’s social worth in modern Western culture is still disproportionately determined by appearance and sexual and reproductive capacities.

It is not surprising, then, that looks and youth become the focus of existential distress for many women over 40. As older women struggle to secure a sense of value in a youth-obsessed world, food and eating can become a focus of attention that ultimately becomes destructive.

This doesn’t mean these women are vain or superficial. Rather, they have picked up on what their culture values, and they have internalized the message that thinness is a way to attain that.

“Our culture doesn’t value older women the way other cultures do,” observed Kaytlin, a 47-year-old office manager struggling with disordered eating. “The idea that older women should be revered for their wisdom and influence is foreign to us. Instead, we become invisible.”

My hope is that dispelling some of the erroneous assumptions that have driven both public perception and clinical practice about these illnesses will help women get the care they need.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Rebecca Lester, Washington University in St. Louis

Read more:

• Mounting research documents the harmful effects of social media use on mental health, including body image and development of eating disorders
• Friday essay: ‘I was unseen, even to myself’ – as many as half of people with anorexia are autistic. Fiona Wright is one of them
• Eating disorders are about emotional pain – not food

Rebecca Lester does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Changes in identity in midlife can increase the risk of developing an eating disorder. muratseyit/E+ via Getty Images

The post Middle age is a time when women are vulnerable to eating disorders appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

WASHINGTON, D.C. —On Dec. 8, 2024, the air was crisp as Kimberly Douglas, of Bowie, Maryland, made her way to her son Bryce’s gravestone in National Harmony Memorial Park in Landover. It had been nearly 18 months since she lost the 17-year-old to a fentanyl overdose.

This day of remembrance is a stark reminder of the urgent need to prevent similar tragedies.

Tracie Gardner, executive director of the National Black Harm Reduction Network, and Daliah Heller, vice president of Overdose Prevention Initiatives at Vital Strategies, wrote about Douglas’ ordeal in an opinion piece for the Washington Informer. 

“The pain of the day Kimberly lost her son is seared into her soul,” they wrote in the piece. “She worked at her home office in Bowie in the early afternoon. Bryce was home early from school and napped in his bedroom, just one room away. 

“When Kimberly found him unresponsive, she frantically searched her home for naloxone, a medicine that reverses an overdose and prevents death. In her panic, she couldn’t find it. It wasn’t until later, through tears of grief and disbelief, that she discovered the naloxone — in Bryce’s pocket. He had it all along.”

The authors note that over the past five years, a staggering half million people died from overdose in the United States, but recent reports suggest a steady upward trend over two decades is reversing. The latest data from the CDC shows a 17% decline in deaths from Sept. 2023 through Aug. 2024. 

Over the past decade, however, deaths have skyrocketed in Black and Indigenous populations, and now overdose rates have begun to diverge by race.

A recent analysis of CDC data from the O’Neill Institute shows that through 2023, in many states, while deaths were leveling off and even declining among White populations, they were still rising in Black and Indigenous populations. 

Kimberly Douglas has started a Facebook group, Black Moms Against Overdose, to share information. “I think it’s super important because there’s such a stigma in Black families with sharing anything that has to do with substance use disorder or mental health, especially around overdose and death,” she said. “After Bryce passed, I tried to immerse myself in this world and inform others about what our children face and how we can save them.” 

Black Moms Against Overdose can be reached at https://www.facebook.com/groups/569231315512728/ or if you are a Facebook member https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Black moms against overdose

Gardner and Heller assert that now is the time for action. “Local governments should establish and support partnerships with Black community leaders to share overdose prevention information and naloxone resources with local communities,” they write. “Engagement is especially critical now to ensure equitable access to naloxone and reduce disparities and overdose deaths for everyone.”

Naloxone is easy to use and available for free from most local health departments and a growing number of community partners in cities and towns across the country. It is also available for purchase over the counter at any pharmacy. 

The key to saving a life with naloxone is administering it as soon as you recognize any sign of an overdose. Anyone who is in the community with someone who uses drugs —  family, friends, local businesses, neighbors and associates — can be activated and prepared to help.

The post Fighting the stigma: Black moms unite to prevent overdose deaths appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Kim Sheffield-Chang

As winter’s last shadows recede and the first hints of spring emerge, a time-honored tradition begins to take shape across American homes: spring cleaning. While it may involve scrubbing corners, organizing closets, and clearing the accumulation of winter’s dust and clutter from your home, Blueprint, a therapist-enablement technology platform, explains how research has revealed that your physical environment is deeply connected to your mental state, and that this annual ritual is doing more than just making your home sparkle. What if spring cleaning is actually a powerful tool for emotional renewal, psychological reset, and creating space for personal growth? 

The psychology of decluttering

A clean space isn’t just about aesthetics—it’s about creating mental clarity. Modern psychological research reveals a connection between our physical environment and mental well-being. A comprehensive study by the National Stress Institute found that 87% of Americans experience reduced stress levels in organized living spaces.

This isn’t mere coincidence—it’s a deeply ingrained psychological response. To better understand the underlying science, Vivian Chung Easton, a mental health clinician at Blueprint, explains that cleaning triggers a cascade of positive neurochemical reactions. The phenomenon behind this is fascinating. Dopamine—the brain’s feel-good neurotransmitter—increases by 47% during and after cleaning activities. It’s like a natural mood boost, triggered by the simple act of putting things in order. Additionally, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, are reduced during and after cleaning, and organized spaces are found to correlate with a 55% reduction in anxiety symptoms. The science is clear: Tidying up can physically make you feel better. 

Letting go: more than just cleaning

Research demonstrates that decluttering is more than a physical act—it’s a form of emotional processing. By methodically evaluating and releasing physical items, individuals engage in a form of psychological catharsis. For instance, you tend to keep things that have sentimental value. So while that item may not have a role in your life anymore, it evokes an emotion that you want to remember, so you treasure those items. Let’s talk about what that means. Think about that shoebox full of old mementos or a sweatshirt from a relationship long ended. Keeping it might mean holding onto past pain. Letting it go could symbolize your readiness to move forward. Every item you own carries a story, an emotional weight. That stack of unread books, the kitchen gadget purchased during an optimistic New Year’s resolution, baby clothes—each represents more than its physical form. They are repositories of memories, expectations, and sometimes, unresolved emotions. 

But this doesn’t mean you should just toss things out. It’s not about erasing memories, but about choosing which ones continue to shape your present. When you systematically declutter, you’re doing more than organizing: You’re processing memories, releasing attachments, and creating psychological and emotional space for growth. The results of groundbreaking longitudinal research by Christina Leclerc and Elizabeth Kensinger offers a strategic approach. Their studies show a 76% success rate in emotional processing through systematic item evaluation, with participants reporting increased psychological flexibility.

The key is intentionality—asking yourself not just “do I need this?” but “what emotional weight does this carry?”

The effects of considering each item goes beyond emotional processing: 62% of individuals reported significant emotional relief after deliberately discarding items with complex emotional associations. In short, this isn’t about ruthless elimination but about mindful selection. Choosing which memories and attachments continue to serve your present self can better make space for future growth.

Practical strategies for emotional (and actual) decluttering

Transforming spring cleaning from a mundane chore into a meaningful psychological intervention requires intentionality. Below, Easton shares some evidence-based strategies.  

• Systematic evaluation: When looking for a place to start decluttering, it can feel overwhelming to look at a pile of your things and instantly know what stays and what goes. It’s helpful to break down the task of decluttering into smaller, more manageable components – the first of which is establishing categories to place your items. Create these categories—keep, maybe, donate, discard—with emotional awareness so you can begin sorting through your things. Beyond categories, you don’t have to evaluate all your items at once, you can take things step-by-step and perhaps take on a closet one day, and a junk drawer the next. 
• Asking yourself the right questions: Approach each item as a conscious choice. Ask yourself “does this support my current and future self?” rather than “do I need this?” If you can easily think of the ways that an item supports you, then it’s a keep. However, if you’re struggling with that, it can go in the “maybe” category, which you can revisit with the same questions later. When evaluating things for donation, ask yourself whether the item may bring greater value to someone else’s life than your own. When donating, you’re giving the item another chance at helping those around us. 
• Mindful processing: Allow yourself to feel the emotions that surface. Acknowledge memories without becoming trapped by them. Recognize that letting go isn’t erasure but evolution. If you truly want to declutter, one thing you can do is keep the items that you consider sentimental, and revisit them in a few months to see if they still hold that value. Chances are that the things that had sentimental value at the time will have faded. However, the items that have true, deep meaning will continue to have value, and you should continue to keep them. 
• Create a ritual for closure: As you sort and evaluate your items, there may be some things that you want to let go of, but are unsure how. It can be helpful to take a moment to appreciate and mourn the loss of an item. For example, you can spend some time recalling the fond memories you associate with the item, and maybe take a picture of it with your new memories. Closure can be an important part of letting things go, so take your time. 

Beyond clean: long-term mental health benefits 

As we inch toward spring, it can be helpful to see your cleaning as more than a seasonal chore. It can be an opportunity for emotional maintenance, a chance to create external order that reflects—and can help create—internal peace.The most encouraging finding? The emotional benefits of a regular ritual of cleaning and organizing aren’t fleeting. Longitudinal studies tracking participants six months post-decluttering revealed sustained psychological improvements for 53% of individuals. What’s more, orderly environments correlated with a 39% increase in overall life satisfaction.

Spring cleaning isn’t just about tidiness: It’s real, lasting change sparked by something as simple as reorganizing your space. It’s an opportunity for emotional maintenance, a ritualistic process of letting go and making space to support your internal growth, resilience, and emotional well-being. 

So as you’re sorting through any clutter this spring, take time to consider each item you touch. Honor the memories, but also recognize your capacity for change. Your physical space is a reflection of your inner world—and by consciously curating that space, you’re actively participating in your own psychological renewal. The boxes are waiting. The memories are ready to be processed. Your emotional reset button is within reach.

This story was produced by Blueprint and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

The post How spring cleaning also declutters emotional and mental health appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

On Feb. 26, 2025, Texas health officials announced the death of a child in a measles outbreak – the first measles death in the United States since 2015. The outbreak was first identified in early February in Gaines County, Texas, where just 82% of kindergartners are vaccinated against measles, compared with 93% on average across the country. As of Feb. 27, there were at least 124 confirmed cases in Texas and nearby towns in New Mexico.

In an interview with The Conversation U.S. associate health editor Alla Katsnelson, neurologist and medical epidemiologist Daniel Pastula explains why measles is so dangerous and how people and communities can protect themselves from the virus.

What is measles, and where does it come from?

Measles is an ancient disease caused by a virus that probably evolved in cattle and jumped into humans around 500 B.C. One of the first written accounts of it comes from a Persian physician named Rhazes in the ninth century C.E., and measles epidemics were described in medieval Europe and western Asia regularly beginning around 1100-1200. The virus got brought over to the Americas in the 1500s, and it wiped out large populations of native people as Europeans colonized the continent.

By the 1950s in the United States, there were 500,000 reported cases of measles each year – though the true number was probably closer to 4 million . It was so contagious, every kid was thought to have gotten measles by age 15. At that time, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations annually and about 500 deaths, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year.

The first measles vaccine became available in 1963, and scientists improved it over the following decades, causing the number of cases to plummet. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the U.S.

Since then, there have been occasional minor flare-ups, usually brought in by international travelers, but by and large, measles outbreaks have been rare. No one had died of it in the United States in nearly a decade.

Today, measles infections in the U.S. are almost completely preventable with vaccination.

What are the typical symptoms of measles?

About 10 to 14 days after infection, people suffering from measles experience a very high fever, cold-like symptoms including a runny nose and sneezing, and eye inflammation called conjunctivitis.

Next, they may develop white spots called Koplik spots inside their mouth and a diffuse, spotty, red rash that starts at the head and neck, then descends across the entire body. This rash is where the disease gets its name – the word “measles” is thought to come from a medieval Dutch word for “little blemishes.”

Symptoms of measles infection take about three weeks to resolve. People are contagious from about four days before symptoms emerge to four days after the rash starts.

What are the possible severe outcomes of measles?

Epidemiologists estimate that 1 in 5 people who are infected with measles get sick enough to be hospitalized. About 1 in 10 develop ear infections, some of which may result in permanent deafness.

About 1 in 20 people develop severe measles pneumonia, which causes trouble breathing. Reports from west Texas this month suggest that many infected children there have measles pneumonia.

About 1 in 1,000 people develop severe brain swelling. Both measles pneumonia and brain swelling can be fatal. About 3 in 1,000 people die after contracting measles.

In about 1 in 10,000 who get sick with measles and recover from it, the virus lies dormant in the brain for about a decade. It then can reactivate, causing a severe, progressive dementia called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is fatal within one to three years. There is no treatment or cure for the disease. I have seen a couple of suspected cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, and none of these patients survived, despite our best efforts.

Given how contagious measles is and how severe the outcomes can be, physicians and public health experts are gravely concerned right now.

How does measles spread?

Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on the planet. The virus is so infectious that if you are in a room with an infected person and you are not vaccinated and have never had measles before, you have a 90% chance of becoming infected.

The measles virus is transmitted by droplets released into the air by infected people when they cough, sneeze or simply breathe. Virus particles can survive suspended in the air or on indoor surfaces for up to two hours, so people can get infected by touching a surface carrying virus particles and then touching their face.

Who should get the measles vaccine, and how effective is it?

The vaccine for measles has historically been called the MMR vaccine because it has been bundled with vaccines for two other diseases – mumps and rubella. Most children in the U.S. receive it as a two-dose regimen, which is 97% effective against measles.

Children generally get the first dose of the vaccine at 12-15 months old and the second dose when they are 4-6 years old. Infants who haven’t reached their first birthday generally do not receive it since their immune system is not yet fully developed and they do not develop quite as robust of an immune response. In an emergency, though, babies as young as 6 to 9 months old can be vaccinated. If an infant’s mother previously received the MMR vaccine or had been infected herself as a child, her transferred antibodies probably offer some protection, but this wanes in the months after birth.

People born before 1957 are considered immune without getting the vaccine because measles was so widespread at that time that everyone was presumed to have been infected. However, certain people in this age group, such as some health care workers, may wish to discuss vaccination with their providers. And some people who had the original version of the vaccine in the 1960s may need to get revaccinated, as the original vaccine was not as effective as the later versions.

Based on available evidence, the vaccine is effective for life, so people who received two doses are most likely protected.

A single dose of the vaccine is 93% effective. Most people vaccinated before 1989 got just one dose. That year, an outbreak in vaccinated children with one dose spurred public health officials to begin recommending two doses.

People with certain risk factors who received only one dose, and everyone who has never received a dose, should talk to their health care providers about getting vaccinated. Because the vaccine is a live but weakened version of the virus, those who are severely immunocompromised or are currently pregnant cannot get it.

People who are immunocompromised, which includes those who have chronic conditions such as autoimmune disorders, are undergoing certain cancer treatments or have received an organ transplant, are more susceptible to measles even if they have been vaccinated.

In the current measles epidemic in Texas, the vast majority of people falling ill are unvaccinated. Public health officials there are urging unvaccinated people in affected areas to get vaccinated.

What measures can protect communities from measles outbreaks?

Vaccination is the best way to protect individuals and communities from measles. It’s also the most effective way to curb an ongoing outbreak.

High rates of vaccination are important because of a phenomenon called herd immunity. When people who are vaccinated do not get infected, it essentially stops the spread of the virus, thereby protecting those who are most susceptible to getting sick. When herd immunity wanes, the risk of infection rises for everyone – and especially for the most vulnerable, such as young children and people who are immunocompromised.

Because measles is so contagious, estimates suggest that 95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Once vaccine coverage falls below that percentage, outbreaks are possible.

Having robust public health systems also provides protection from outbreaks and limits their spread. Public health workers can detect cases before an outbreak occurs and take preventive steps. During a measles outbreak, they provide updates and information, administer vaccines, track cases and oversee quarantine for people who have been exposed and isolation for people who are contagious.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Read more:

• Measles is one of the deadliest and most contagious infectious diseases – and one of the most easily preventable
• CDC layoffs strike deeply at its ability to respond to the current flu, norovirus and measles outbreaks and other public health emergencies
• If my measles shot was years ago, am I still protected? 5 questions answered

Daniel Pastula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Young children are especially vulnerable to measles. Bilanol via Getty Images

The post Texas reports first measles death in nearly a decade, sparking concern appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Renier Coetzee

When last did a headache have you reaching into your medicine cabinet – and finding a bottle of aspirin that expired three years ago? Did you take it anyway? And, if you decided instead to get rid of those out-of-date painkillers, how did you do it? If you chose to throw it in the garbage or flush it down the toilet, you’re far from alone: a 2020 research review found that “disposal of pharmaceuticals by garbage and sewer is still the most common method in many countries with the absence of the proper disposal of expired medications from the patient side”.

The problem is that both using expired medication and disposing of it unsafely comes with significant health, economic and environmental risks.

The Conversation Africa asked pharmacy professor Renier Coetzee, who is also the vice-president of the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa, about the risks posed by using expired medication, and how to safely dispose of expired and surplus medicines.

Why is it dangerous to take expired medication?

Expiration dates for medicines are determined through stability testing. This involves assessing how long a medicine remains safe and effective under various storage conditions. Manufacturers typically provide conservative estimates of expiration dates to ensure a medicine’s quality and safety.

Medications degrade over time. That means they may not work as intended once they reach and pass their expiry date. This is of particular concern with medicines like antibiotics: subtherapeutic doses (those which are too low to work properly and so do not fully treat the illness or infection) can contribute to antimicrobial resistance.

Read more:
Antibiotic resistance threatens to “undo a century of medical progress”: 5 essential reads

Antimicrobial resistance occurs when bacteria, viruses or fungi stop responding to medicines (like antibiotics). This makes infections harder to treat. And that, in turn, increases the risk of disease spread, severe illness and death.

Reduced potency in chronic disease medications like insulin or heart medication is also a worry, since this can have serious health consequences.

Some expired medications can break down into harmful compounds. One example is ciprofloxacin. This antibiotic is used mostly to treat infections in the urinary and upper and lower respiratory tracts. Studies have shown that it can degrade into toxic byproducts that may harm the kidneys (and be hazardous to the environment if not properly disposed of).

Exposure to heat, humidity and light can accelerate the breakdown of active ingredients. This applies to both scheduled medicines, prescribed by a doctor, and over-the-counter medicines.

Consider paracetamol, which anyone can buy for pain and fever. A year-old paracetamol tablet may not seem dangerous – but if it’s degraded, it could be less effective in treating pain or fever, leading to unintended consequences like delayed treatment or overuse in an attempt to achieve relief. If potency is reduced, users might take a higher dose than needed, increasing the risk of overdose or side effects.

It’s not just tablets and capsules that expire. Liquid medications, such as cough syrups and eye drops, are particularly vulnerable to contamination once expired, as the preservatives they contain lose their potency. This increases the risk of bacterial growth, which could lead to infections.

Expired medications left in the home, particularly in unmarked containers, also increase the risk of accidental ingestion, especially by children.

While some expired medications may still retain potency, there is no guarantee of safety. Safe disposal is essential to prevent misuse and potential harm to both individuals and the environment.

Can I throw expired or surplus medicine in the bin or flush it down the toilet?

I strongly discourage it. So do professional bodies like the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and the South African Pharmacy Council.

For starters, it’s bad for the environment. Medications discarded in household trash can leach active pharmaceutical ingredients into soil and groundwater, potentially contaminating sources of drinking water.

Flushing medicines down the sink or toilet introduces these substances directly into sewage systems. They often bypass conventional wastewater treatment processes; in Cape Town, South Africa, for example, many wastewater facilities don’t perform tertiary treatments. That allows poorly treated effluents, chemical compounds and pharmaceutical pollution to enter aquatic ecosystems. That’s bad news for wildlife and can disrupt ecosystems.

Read more:
Marine life in a South African bay is full of chemical pollutants

Trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in water supplies pose risks to human health, too. Such low concentrations are generally considered to pose minimal direct health risks to humans. But there are concerns about their potential impact on antimicrobial resistance and endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption refers to the interference caused by certain chemicals which can mimic, block, or alter the human body’s natural hormones. The process can lead to various adverse health effects.

What are the safest, most responsible disposal methods?

The preferred method for disposing of unused or expired medications is through drug take-back programmes or authorised collection sites. These programmes are designed to provide a safe, convenient and responsible means for individuals to dispose of unused or expired medications.

In South Africa, the South African Pharmacy Council mandates that only authorised personnel, such as pharmacists or designated officials, may dispose of medicines, and they must produce a certificate of destruction to be stored for at least five years.

However, a study among healthcare professionals in the country revealed that only 23.5% participated in proper medicine destruction within their facilities. This, as well as similar research I conducted with some colleagues in Australia, indicates a need for improved education and practices regarding pharmaceutical waste disposal.

In other African countries, formalised medication take-back programmes are less common. Safe disposal methods must be established and promoted across the continent.

Read more:
We found traces of drugs in a dam that supplies Nigeria’s capital city

If more formal options are unavailable, you could mix medications with unappealing substances (like used coffee grounds or cat litter) and seal the mixture in a plastic bag before throwing it away. This can help to prevent accidental ingestion by children or animals. It also keeps medications away from toilets or drains, thereby lessening water pollution and harm to aquatic life.

However, this approach is less than ideal and should only be a last resort.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Renier Coetzee, University of the Western Cape

Read more:

• Land reform in South Africa doesn’t need a new law: the state should release property it owns – economists
• Nigeria’s killer fuel tankers: accidents and explosions are common – how to stop them
• Baboons and human fear: a deep history behind the cruel attacks in South Africa

Renier Coetzee is affiliated with TB Proof and Touching Nations. 

Feature Image: There are many risks associated with taking expired medicine and with not properly disposing of medication. JGI/Tom Grill

The post What do I do with expired medicine? Don’t use it, for a start… appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

An estimated 20% to 25% of Americans have a disability of some kind, including physical, sensory, psychological and intellectual disabilities.

Disability experts, myself included, fear that the Trump administration is creating new barriers for disabled people to being hired at a job, getting a quality education and providing for basic needs, including health insurance.

Here are four key areas of disability policy to watch over the coming years.

1. Rights at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became law in 1990, requires that employers with more than 15 employees not discriminate against otherwise qualified candidates on the basis of their disability. It also requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. This means, for instance, that a new or renovated workplace should have accessible entrances so that a worker who uses a wheelchair can enter.

Despite these protections, I have spoken to many disabled workers in my research who are reluctant to ask for accommodations for fear that a supervisor might think that they were too demanding or not worth continuing to employ.

Trump’s actions in his first days in office have likely reinforced such fears.

In one of the many executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, he called for the relevant government agencies to terminate what he called “all discriminatory programs,” including all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies, programs and activities that Trump deems “immoral.”

The next day, Trump put workers in federal DEIA and accessibility positions on administrative leave.

The following week, a tragic plane crash outside Washington, D.C., killed 67 people. Trump, without any evidence, blamed the crash on unidentified disabled workers in the Federal Aviation Administration, enumerating a wide and seemingly unrelated list of disabilities that, in his mind, meant that workers lacked the “special talent” to work at the FAA.

Advocates quickly pushed back, pointing out that disabled workers meet all qualifications for federal and private sector jobs they are hired to perform.

2. The federal workforce

Many government disability programs have complex rules designed to limit the number of people who qualify for support.

For instance, I study supplemental security income, a federal program that provides very modest cash support – on average, totaling US$697 a month in 2024 – to 7.4 million people who are disabled, blind or over 65 if they also have very low income and assets.

It can take months or even years for someone to go through the process to initially document their disability and finances and show they qualify for SSI. Once approved, many beneficiaries want to make sure they don’t accidentally put their benefits at risk in situations where they are working very limited hours, for example.

To get answers, they can go to a Social Security office or call an agency phone line. But there are already not enough agency workers to process applications or answer questions quickly. I spoke in 2022 with more than 10 SSI beneficiaries who waited on hold for hours while they tried to get more information about their cases, only to receive unclear or conflicting information.

Such situations may grow even more severe, as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk try to eliminate large numbers of federal employee positions. So far, tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off from their jobs in 2025. More layoffs may be coming – on Feb. 12, 2025, Trump instructed federal agency heads to prepare for further “large-scale reductions in force.”

At the same time, multiple Social Security Administration offices have also been marked for closure since January 2025. An overall effect of these changes will be fewer workers to answer questions from disabled citizens.

3. Educational opportunities

Students with disabilities, like all students, are legally entitled to a free public education. This right is guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975. IDEA is enforced by the federal Education Department.

But Trump is reportedly in the process of dismantling the Education Department, with the goal of eventually closing it. It is not clear what this will mean for Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act enforcement, but one possibility is laid out in the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, a policy blueprint with broad support in Trump’s administration.

Project 2025 proposes that Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act funds “should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant.” Block grants are a funding structure by which federal funds are reduced and each state is given a lump sum rather than designating the programs the funds will support. In practice, this can mean that states divert the money to other programs or policy areas, which can create opportunities for funds to be misused.

With block grants, local school districts would be subject to less federal oversight meant to ensure that they provide every student with an adequate education. Families who already must fight to ensure that their children receive the schooling they deserve will be put on weaker footing if the federal government signals that states can redirect the money as they wish.

4. Health care

Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, many disabled people lived with the knowledge that an insurer could regard a disability as a preexisting condition and thereby deny them coverage or charge more for their insurance.

The ACA prohibited insurance companies from charging more or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

Republicans have long opposed the ACA, with House Speaker Mike Johnson promising before the 2024 election to pursue an agenda of “No Obamacare.”

About 15 million disabled people have health insurance through Medicaid, a federal health insurance program that covers more than 74 million low-income people. But large Medicaid cuts are also on the Republican agenda.

These deep cuts might include turning Medicaid into another block grant. They could also partly take the form of imposing work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, which could serve as grounds on which to disqualify people from receiving benefits.

While proponents of work requirements often claim that disabled people will be exempt, research shows that many will still lose health coverage, and that Medicaid coverage itself often supports people who are working.

Medicaid is also a crucial source of funding for home- and community-based services, including personal attendants who help many people perform daily activities and live on their own. This helps disabled people live independently in their communities, rather than in institutional settings. Notably, Project 2025 points to so-called “nonmedical” services covered under Medicaid as part of the program’s “burden” on states.

When home- and community-based services are unavailable, some disabled people have no options but to move into nursing homes. One recent analysis found that nursing homes housed roughly 210,000 long-term residents under age 65 with disabilities. Many nursing facilities are understaffed, which contributed to the brutal toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes.

In response to both the pandemic and years of advocacy, the Biden administration mandated higher staffing ratios at nursing homes receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. But Republicans are eyeing repealing that rule, according to Politico’s reporting.

Daunting task

Tracking potential changes to disability policy is a complicated endeavor. There is no federal department of disability policy, for example.

Instead, relevant laws and programs are spread throughout what we often think of as separate policy areas. So while disability policy includes obvious areas such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is also vitally relevant in areas such as immigration and emergency response.

These issues of health care, education and more could impact millions of lives, but they are far from the only ones where Trump administration changes threaten to harm disabled people.

Different programs have their own definitions of disability, which people seeking assistance must work to keep track of.

This was a daunting task in 2024. Now it may become even more difficult.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Read more:

• Why including people with disabilities in the workforce and higher education benefits everyone
• Trump’s claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents’ power grabs
• Parents with disabilities have faced discrimination for years in the US, but new rules will help ensure that child welfare systems treat them more fairly

Matthew Borus received funding in the past from ARDRAW, a small grant program for graduate students working on disability research. The program was run by Policy Research, Inc. and funded by the Social Security Administration. The opinions and conclusions expressed here are solely the author’s.

Feature Image: Disabled people’s employment rights and access to free health care are among the policy issues that the Trump administration is aiming to change. Catherine McQueen/Moment/Getty Images

The post Trump’s changes to federal disability policy: A threat to millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By JohnEric Smith

Whether waiting for a bus, playing outside or walking the dog – during the colder winter season, everyone is looking for ways to stay warm. Luckily, the process your body uses to break down foods serves as an internal heater.

But when the weather is cold, some defensive strategies are also necessary to prevent your body from losing its heat to the surrounding environment. As the temperature difference between your warm body and its frigid surroundings increases, heat is lost more quickly. It becomes more of a challenge to maintain a normal body temperature.

And two people with the same exact body temperature in the same exact environment may have very different perceptions. One may feel frozen while the other is completely comfortable.

But beyond the subjective experience of coldness, researchers do know that natural physiological responses to cold as well as behavioral adaptations – like bundling up! – can help keep your body around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit and make sure you feel warm.

What your body does

Your blood courses through your body carrying nutrients, oxygen and other biological important substances. And this delivery system also brings heat produced in the muscles to the skin, where it’s released.

When you enter a cold environment, your body redistributes blood to the torso, protecting and maintaining the warmth of the vital organs there. At the same time, your body constricts blood flow to the skin. Narrowing the roads to the skin means less heat can make the journey, and so less is lost to the environment. And minimizing how much blood goes to the skin – which is in closest proximity to the cold – means you can hold onto more of your internal heat longer.

Another defensive strategy the body uses to stay warm is cranking up muscle activity. This in turn increases your metabolism and creates more heat. Think of a brisk winter walk when the mercury has really plunged – your teeth may chatter and your arms and legs may shake uncontrollably in shivers. This seemingly nonproductive use of the muscles is actually an effort to increase body temperature by breaking down more nutrients to stoke your internal furnace.

Differences in body size, body fatness and metabolic activity influence how different individuals experience cold. Smaller people with lower levels of body fat lose more heat to the environment than larger people with more body fat. A bigger individual may have increased muscle mass, which is a producer of heat, or elevated body fatness, which functions as an insulator to reduce heat loss. These differences are not easy to change.

Things you can do

In order to maintain a feeling of warmth, you can manipulate your clothing, your activity and your food.

The most common thing people do to stay warm is wear a coat, hat and gloves. Obviously increasing clothing thickness or piling on the layers helps. Winter clothes serve not to warm you up, but more as a means to keep the heat you are producing from dispersing to the surrounding environment.

Contrary to popular belief, the head is not a greater source of heat loss than any other adequately covered body part. If you were to wear a warm hat and no coat, your torso would contribute the most to heat loss, thanks to how your body redistributes its blood in cold conditions. If you can keep your torso warm, you’ll maintain blood flow to your limbs and can often keep the arms, legs, hands and feet warm.

Secondly, being physically active causes your muscles to contract, breaking down more nutrients, which generates additional heat. This additional heat production can help maintain body temperature and the feeling of warmth. Maybe you’ve noticed this in your own life if you’ve run in place for a bit or done a quick set of jumping jacks when you’re out in the cold.

Unfortunately, physical activity or layers of clothing can tip the balance past what you need to offset heat losses. In that case, you’ll experience an increase in body temperature – and your body will start sweating in an effort to cool down. This is a bad outcome, because the evaporation of sweat will lead to greater rates of heat loss.

Finally, eating increases the body’s production of heat. The process of breaking down food is going to slightly increase body temperature. Sometimes campers will have a snack before bed in an effort to stay warmer through the night. While the metabolic impact of a small snack may not be huge, the tipping point between heat balance and heat loss is pretty small.

You may also notice the urge to urinate – what physicians call cold diuresis. It’s a side effect of constricting blood vessels and the resulting increase in blood pressure as the same amount of blood has a smaller space available to travel through your body.

And if you’re the type who tends to feel cold and leave your coat on even inside, you might want to rethink the habit. Your skin will be flush with blood as your body tries to dissipate excess heat inside. Worst of all, you may start to sweat. Once you head back out the door, you might feel even colder initially than you would have as the cold air saps the heat from your skin and your sweat evaporates. To stay comfortable, your best bet is dressing appropriately, whether inside or outdoors this winter.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: JohnEric W. Smith, Mississippi State University

Read more:

• Is winter miserable for wildlife?
• Offices are too hot or too cold – is there a better way to control room temperature?
• Where do those snowfall totals on the news come from?

JohnEric Smith has received research funding from multiple sports nutrition companies. He is a member of Dymatize Nutrition’s Advisory Board. 

Feature Image: It’s all about holding on to the heat you have. Jason Rosewel/Unsplash, CC BY

The post Your body’s internal heating system: How to stay warm in the cold appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .