Megan Thielking @meggophone That’s an exciting prospect for doctors and parents who’ve worried about the impact of a C-section on a child’s health.Researchers swabbed four babies born by scheduled C-section all over with gauze that had been exposed to a mother’s vaginal fluids for about an hour. The swabbing took place within two minutes of the babies’ births. The study compared those infants with 11 babies who were born by scheduled C-section but not swabbed and with seven babies born vaginally.advertisement Neu said he’s aware of new parents who have asked obstetricians to swab babies with vaginal microbes because they’ve heard about research in the field. But Neu said the lack of robust evidence on the true benefits and risks of the procedure should give doctors and parents pause.“I’m concerned that this will take off and parents are going to be asking their obstetricians or midwives to do this,” Neu said, “and we’re going to start seeing some babies with disastrous results because of this.”Neu said he’s nervous that doctors will take vaginal microbes from mothers who have conditions they’re not aware of, like herpes, and then swab a newborn’s mouth with that virus, potentially spreading it. Babies born vaginally to moms with the virus face the same risk, but C-sections are normally performed in a way that minimizes the chances of that happening.“There are a lot of issues that need to be dissected before we can say that this is a technique that should be used routinely,” Neu said. Tags C-sectionmicrobiomeobesity Watch: Episode 2: Peek inside a lab trying to create living medicine — from bugs in your gut But the research suggests that swabbing babies born by Cesarean section with microbes collected from their mothers could help them develop healthy microbiomes — the colonies of trillions of microorganisms that thrive in the human gut and mouth, and also on our skin.advertisement By Megan Thielking Feb. 1, 2016 Reprints Increased breastfeeding could save lives — if governments step up their game Related: Babies born by C-section miss out on healthy bacteria in the birth canal — but a simple swab could help restore missing microbes and possibly improve health. Waltraud Grubitzsch/Getty [email protected] Related: About the Author Reprints News Editor HealthCould a simple swab at birth reduce health risks for C-section babies? Babies born by C-section miss out on all the healthy bacteria in the birth canal — but a simple swab could one day help restore those missing microbes, possibly reducing the infants’ risks of developing asthma, allergies, and other conditions.The new study, published Monday in Nature Medicine, used a very small sample, so experts caution that the results are preliminary. They also caution new parents not to try the procedure on their own, as it could be dangerous for the newborn if their mothers carry certain viruses. Thirty days after they were born, the babies that were swabbed with their mothers’ microbes had skin and oral microbiomes similar to those born vaginally. By contrast, vaginal bacteria were much less present in the babies born by C-section who didn’t get swabbed.The finding is a step forward in understanding how the early microbiome can affect a child’s health. Previous studies have suggested a correlation between delivery by C-section and an increased risk of asthma, allergies, obesity, and other immune conditions and metabolic disorders, though the reason for that association is not clear. The C-section rate has risen rapidly in the United States; one in three babies is now delivered surgically.The new study is “very nice, beautiful, preliminary research,” said Dr. Josef Neu, a neonatologist and gastric health expert at the University of Florida who was not affiliated with the study.But the results are just that — a proof of concept, not a prescription to start swabbing babies.“These are preliminary results of a few infants to show the principle,” said study author and microbiome researcher Maria Dominguez-Bello of New York University. The next study is expected to take place in about 70 infants and will follow up with those infants after one year.
But the Italian company said the classification is based on an outdated survey of 157 “primarily female” shoppers who said they largely used the product on ice cream. The survey was conducted in 1991.Ferrero’s lawyers cite data in the citizen petition sent to the FDA to rethink Nutella’s serving size. Hogan LovellsNow, Ferrero said 60 percent of Nutella consumers are slathering the product on toast. The company wants that serving size changed to 1 tablespoon, as is the case with jams and jellies (though similar products like peanut butter have 2-tablespoon servings).advertisement By Megan Thielking Nov. 1, 2016 Reprints HealthHow much Nutella do you eat? The FDA wants to know The Food and Drug Administration is asking the public to reflect on an important health question: How much Nutella do you actually eat?The agency is gathering information on the amount of Nutella that constitutes a reasonable serving size at the behest of Ferrero, the maker of the spread. Ferrero has been petitioning the FDA for the past two years to put Nutella in the same regulatory class as jam or to establish an entirely new category for “nut cocoa-based spreads.”Currently, Nutella is classified as a dessert topping, like chocolate syrup. That means its labels get slapped with a serving size of 2 tablespoons. Each serving totals 200 calories — half of which are from fat — and packs 21 grams of sugar.advertisement Megan Thielking About the Author Reprints That change would come with the added benefit of making Nutella look as though it has fewer calories, as well as less sugar and fat, when customers take a quick glance at the nutrition label.“Consumers may falsely believe they should be applying two tablespoons of Nutella on their bread rather than the one tablespoon that is more customarily consumed,” Ferrero warned in its petition.The FDA said it recognizes the need for a sweet new category and is taking the first step by inviting public comment.Respondents have 60 days to count their spoonfuls. @meggophone News Editor Tags FDAnutrition tof2006 via Flickr [email protected]
Trump praises health care bill, but conservatives skeptical About the Author Reprints Tags Congressinsurancewomen’s health Related: By Associated Press March 10, 2017 Reprints GOP bill would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood Related: WASHINGTON — Women seeking abortions and some basic health services, including prenatal care, contraception, and cancer screenings, would face restrictions and struggle to pay for some of that medical care under the House Republicans’ proposed bill.The legislation, which would replace much of former President Barack Obama’s health law, was approved by two House committees on Thursday. Republicans are hoping to move quickly to pass it, despite unified opposition from Democrats, criticism from some conservatives who don’t think it goes far enough, and several health groups who fear millions of Americans would lose coverage and benefits.The bill would prohibit for a year any funding to Planned Parenthood, a major provider of women’s health services, restrict abortion access in covered plans on the health exchange, and scale back Medicaid services used by many low-income women, among other changes.advertisement Associated Press Related: Most GOP lawmakers have long opposed Planned Parenthood because many of its clinics provide abortions. Their antagonism intensified after anti-abortion activists released secretly recorded videos in 2015 showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing how they sometimes provide fetal tissue to researchers, which is legal if no profit is made.Federal dollars comprise nearly half of the group’s annual billion-dollar budget. Government dollars don’t pay for abortions, but the organization is reimbursed by Medicaid for other services, including birth control, cancer screenings and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. The group has said the vast majority of women seek out those non-abortion services.Ryan boasted this week that the bill is a “conservative wish list,” as it “ends funding to Planned Parenthood and sends money to community centers.” Democrats argue that many of the other clinics are already overloaded and would not be able to meet the increased demand for screenings and other services.Abortion coverageUnder Obama’s health law, health plans on the exchange can cover elective abortions, but they must collect a separate premium to pay for them so it’s clear that no federal funds are used. The GOP bill would go further, prohibiting the use of new federal tax credits to purchase any plan that covers abortions.That could make it more difficult for women covered under the federal exchange to find a plan that covers abortions at all, because many companies may just drop the abortion coverage if it disqualifies the entire plan from the tax credits.Massachusetts Representative Joe Kennedy, a Democrat, said during the Energy and Commerce Committee’s debate on the bill Thursday that he is concerned those prohibitions will extend to hospitals that do abortions, as well. Three paragraphs in the GOP’s Medicaid plan that could raise costs for the poor House Republican leaders said the bill, which is backed by President Donald Trump, will prevent higher premiums some have seen under the current law and give patients more control over their care.“Lower costs, more choices not less, patients in control, universal access to care,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday.The abortion restrictions and cuts to women’s health care could draw opposition from some Republican women.Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have both said that a prohibition on Planned Parenthood funding shouldn’t be part of the bill. Last month, before the legislation was released, Murkowski told the Alaska state legislature that she doesn’t believe that taxpayer money should go toward abortions but added, “I will not vote to deny Alaskans access to the health services that Planned Parenthood provides.”Support from Collins and Murkowski will be crucial once the bill moves to the Senate, since there are 52 Republicans and the GOP will need 50 votes to pass it.A look at how the bill would affect women’s health care:Planned ParenthoodRepublicans have tried for years to block federal payments to the group, but weren’t able to do so with Democrat Barack Obama in the White House. Now that Republican Donald Trump is president, they are adding the one-year freeze in funding to their bill. Medicaid and ‘essential health benefits’The bill would phase out the current law’s expanded Medicaid coverage for more low-income people that 31 states accepted, which is almost completely financed by federal funds. That could affect women’s health care services, including mammograms and prenatal care, for those who would lose that coverage. The legislation also repeals the requirement that state Medicaid plans must provide “essential health benefits” that are currently required, including pregnancy, maternity and newborn care for women.The legislation will still require that private health plans fund the essential health benefits, but those insurers will have more leeway as to how much is covered.Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill.) complained during the committee debate about the current law’s requirements that certain services be covered.“What about men having to purchase prenatal care?” Shimkus said in response to a question from a Democrat who asked him what mandates he was concerned about. “Is that not correct? And should they?”— Mary Clare Jalonick Washington Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, said the legislation is a “slap in the face” to women. She said it would shift more decisions to insurance companies.“You buy it thinking you will be covered, but there is no guarantee,” Murray said.advertisement HealthWomen’s health services face cuts in Republican bill Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) says the health care bill put forth by the House GOP is a “slap in the face” to women. Elaine Thompson/AP
Co-founder & Executive Editor Rick Berke Beyond those steps, here’s what we want you to know about our opinion section:We believe it’s important to air a wide range of perspectives. That means sometimes hearing from writers who may have ties to industry or consumer advocacy groups or to individual companies. It’s absolutely crucial to us that such ties be disclosed fully and transparently to readers. But such ties do not necessarily disqualify writers from contributing to First Opinion.We do not accept opinion pieces written by advocacy groups, public relations firms, or companies when they hide their role behind the byline of a figurehead author. We have amended our author agreement to be more aggressive about ferreting out such deception. When PR firms, advocacy groups, or companies ask individuals to submit an opinion piece to STAT, we expect that relationship to be disclosed and we will evaluate the merits of the piece with that in mind. That can be a tough call; these issues are not black and white.We understand that many of the physicians, patients, scientists, executives, and politicians who contribute to First Opinion are not professional writers and may rely on friends, colleagues, or communications experts to help them shape their thoughts. Seeking such assistance does not disqualify writers from contributing to STAT. But we ask writers to disclose any help they received as we evaluate the merits of their submission. And we absolutely insist that any first-person piece reflect the authentic experiences and views of the author, and the author alone.We are rigorous in our selection of opinion pieces. We commission many of them ourselves and accept about a quarter of the unsolicited submissions we receive. Always, our overriding goal is to share insights and views from across the spectrum – and to be transparent about any conflicts the authors may have.STAT is nearly two years old now. We have published hard-hitting investigations of companies and institutions including (among many others) Google’s Verily, IBM Watson, Roche, NantHealth, and the Food and Drug Administration. We have gone to court to try to force Purdue Pharma to disclose documents about its marketing of OxyContin. We have published hundreds of First Opinions that have by turns enlightened, infuriated, awakened, and deeply moved our readers.We have never allowed, and will never allow, business considerations to influence our journalism.Every day, in stories large and small, we have sought to uphold our mission statement:STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.We welcome scrutiny that can help us improve. Please continue to reach out to us when you have questions or concerns about any article or opinion piece. My email is [email protected] thank you for reading STAT.Rick Berke is the executive editor of STAT. [email protected] About the Author Reprints By Rick Berke Sept. 13, 2017 Reprints At STAT, we are supremely proud of our journalism and our staff. We also value the trust of our readers.So we have been distressed to learn in recent days that some outside contributors to our opinion section failed to disclose conflicts of interest or misled us about the true authorship and origins of their op-eds.We have retracted one piece, as explained in this editor’s note. This experience prompted us to tighten our standards for opinion pieces and our practices for vetting writers. We are also reviewing past op-eds and will add previously undisclosed conflicts of interest where appropriate.advertisement First OpinionWe’ve updated STAT’s guidelines for op-ed submissions We have always asked contributors to disclose any conflicts of interest, and believe the vast majority of the opinion pieces we have published — reflecting a wide range of viewpoints across a wide range of subjects — included relevant disclosures.But in hindsight, we realize that we should have been more explicit in defining exactly what constitutes a conflict — so we will now require writers to answer a series of direct questions about those issues. We are also requiring contributors to disclose any assistance they received in writing their piece. You can view our revised author agreement here.advertisement @rickberke
Pharmalot Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED Hired someone new and exciting? Promoting a rising star? Finally solved that hard-to-fill spot? Share the news with us, and we’ll share it with others. That’s right. Send us your changes, and we’ll find a home for them. Don’t be shy. Everyone wants to know who is coming and going.And here is our regular feature in which we highlight a different person each week. This time around, we note that Ideaya Biosciences hired Dr. Julie Hambleton as senior vice president and chief medical officer, head of development. Previously, she was vice president, head of U.S. medical at Bristol-Myers Squibb and, before that, she was executive vice president and chief medical officer at Five Prime Therapeutics. About the Author Reprints Up and down the ladder: The latest comings and goings By Ed Silverman March 16, 2018 Reprints Log In | Learn More What is it? GET STARTED Ed Silverman Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. What’s included? Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Alex Hogan/STAT [email protected] @Pharmalot Tags jobspharmaceuticalsSTAT+
Tags pharmalittleSTAT+ Pharmalittle: States try to prevent hoarding of drug used for Covid-19; is BARDA ready for the coronavirus? What is it? Log In | Learn More Good morning, everyone, and welcome to another working week. We hope the weekend respite was … well, a weekend respite, and that you had a chance to indulge in a few distractions from the sobering events occurring outside your window. In any event, the time has come to resume something that resembles the usual routine — deadlines, phone calls, and meetings, on your laptop, that is. Meanwhile, here are a few items of interest to get you going. We hope your day is, nonetheless, productive and manageable. Meanwhile, be safe and be in touch.States across the U.S. are taking steps to prevent hoarding of decades-old antimalarial drugs being used to combat Covid-19, an effort to preserve supplies for other patients who rely on the tablets to treat lupus and arthritis, The Wall Street Journal says. At least 20 states are implementing emergency restrictions or guidelines to ease pressure on supplies of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for the autoimmune disease patients. Some states are limiting prescription sizes or asking pharmacists to make sure a patient tested positive for the coronavirus. Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. What’s included? Pharmalot [email protected] Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. GET STARTED About the Author Reprints Alex Hogan/STAT By Ed Silverman April 6, 2020 Reprints @Pharmalot Ed Silverman
@mariojoze Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. By Erin Brodwin and Mario Aguilar Jan. 15, 2021 Reprints What’s included? Google’s newly-finalized purchase of Fitbit is poised to provide the tech giant with a potentially lucrative toehold into two competitive markets: clinical trials and employer benefits.The $2.1 billion buy-out could give Google an edge in the race to court employers and health plans as companies seek to boost staff benefits amid the pandemic, industry observers told STAT. The acquisition also sets Google up to more closely compete with Apple in the clinical trial space using Fitbit’s devices, enabling the combined company to expand its existing research on cardiovascular, sleep, and respiratory health into new areas. Two ways Fitbit could boost Google’s health ambitions [email protected] What is it? Log In | Learn More Mario Aguilar GET STARTED About the Authors Reprints STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Erin Brodwin @erbrod Google said it has finalized its $2.1 billion deal with Fitbit. Richard Drew/AP Health Tech Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED Health Tech Correspondent Mario covers health technology, with a focus on mental health care, investment, and big tech players. linkedin.com/in/erinbrodwin/ linkedin.com/in/mario-aguilar-13361235/ Health Tech Correspondent, San Francisco Erin is a California-based health tech reporter and the co-author of the STAT Health Tech newsletter. [email protected] Tags clinical trialsmedical technology
AdvertisementAfter an “exhaustive” search for the items, which, according to the university, are likely worth “millions of pounds,” the books are considered missing and likely to have been stolen.The missing items have been reported to Cambridgeshire police, and have been recorded on the national Art Loss Register for missing artifacts, as well as Interpol’s Psyche database for stolen artworks.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2020 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved. AdvertisementRecommended ArticlesBrie Larson Reportedly Replacing Robert Downey Jr. As The Face Of The MCURead more81 commentsGal Gadot Reportedly Being Recast As Wonder Woman For The FlashRead more29 commentsDC Young Fly knocks out heckler (video) – Rolling OutRead more6 comments’Mortal Kombat’ Exceeded Expectations Says WarnerMedia ExecutiveRead more2 commentsDo You Remember Bob’s Big Boy?Read more1 commentsKISS Front Man Paul Stanley Reveals This Is The End Of KISS As A Touring Band, For RealRead more1 comments RELATEDTOPICS Erosion topples “Darwin’s Arch” in Galapagos May 20, 2021 AdvertisementTags: Cambridge UniversityCharles Darwin CAMBRIDGE, England / CNN — Two notebooks that once belonged to Charles Darwin have “likely been stolen” after being missing for two decades, Cambridge University Library said Tuesday.The notebooks — believed to be worth millions — had been removed from the university’s special collections strong rooms, where rare and valuable items are kept, to be photographed in September 2000, library officials said in a statement. One of the notebooks contains Darwin’s 1837 “Tree of Life” sketch.Darwin sketched his ideas around an evolutionary tree in the summer of 1837 after returning from his round-the-world trip aboard the HMS Beagle — decades before he published more developed ideas around the tree of life in “On the Origin of Species.”