That may sound obvious, but it is an important part of the vaccination journey that is easy to overlook. Much of the conversation understandably focuses on the science: which vaccines we need, how well they work and who should receive them. Far less attention is paid to what happens next. Developing an effective vaccine and running an effective vaccination programme are two different achievements.

Between recommendation and protection lies what we might call the last mile of vaccination. Booking an appointment, getting there, taking time away from work or caring responsibilities, understanding the recommendation, having confidence in the person giving it and, where necessary, coming back to complete the schedule. These practical details may seem mundane compared with the science behind a vaccine. In reality, they can determine whether that science ever translates into protection.

Timing isn’t about a calendar. It’s about protection.

Vaccination schedules aren’t arbitrary. The timing and spacing of doses reflect when people are most vulnerable to particular diseases, how the immune system responds at different ages and when further doses are needed to build or maintain protection. For babies and young children, delaying vaccination can therefore extend the period during which they remain susceptible to preventable disease.

But the principle doesn’t end with childhood. Increasingly, immunisation is being understood through a life-course lens: the protection we need changes as we move from infancy and adolescence through pregnancy, adulthood and older age. WHO’s Immunisation Agenda 2030 sets out an ambition for “everyone, everywhere, at every age” to benefit from vaccines. Some vaccinations establish protection early in life; others become relevant because our risks change, immunity may need reinforcing through booster doses, or new opportunities for prevention emerge as we age.

That matters increasingly as populations age. For the first time, adults over 65 now outnumber children under five globally, and the WHO estimates that nearly one billion people will be in this age group by 2030. WHO increasingly positions adult vaccination as part of healthy ageing, rather than something we largely complete in childhood.

The right protection matters. So does receiving it at the right time. A recent case in Italy is a stark reminder that diseases many people assume belong to the past have not disappeared. In August 2026, a four-year-old girl in Palermo who had reportedly not been vaccinated died following a probable case of diphtheria. A cousin of the same age also tested positive and was hospitalised. The full circumstances were still being investigated at the time of reporting, but the case is a sobering reminder of what can sit behind the clinical language of ‘vaccine-preventable disease’.

The schedule looks rather different from the kitchen table

On paper, an immunisation schedule can look straightforward. Now consider it from a parent’s perspective.

You have two children. You work shifts. The clinic isn’t nearby. An appointment means negotiating time off, arranging care for your other child and finding a way to get there. Then there is another appointment a few weeks or months later.

Perhaps you have questions too. You’ve seen something worrying online and aren’t sure whether it is true. You intend to ask a healthcare professional, but the appointment is short, your child is upset, and other patients are waiting. This is the point at which a well-designed health programme meets ordinary life. And ordinary life is messy.

The latest global figures show what is at stake. In 2025, 90% of infants worldwide, nearly 116 million children, received at least one dose of a vaccine protecting against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. But only 85%, around 110 million children, completed the three-dose series.

Behind every missed vaccination lies a unique set of circumstances, and there isn’t necessarily someone who decided against vaccination. A clinic may have been too far away. A day’s lost wages may have been unaffordable. An appointment might have been missed and never rearranged. Perhaps nobody explained clearly why another dose was needed.

An unvaccinated person is not necessarily a vaccine-hesitant person. Sometimes the barrier is belief. Sometimes it is a bus timetable.

That distinction matters because the solutions are completely different.

Convenience is more important than it sounds

Healthcare sometimes talks about convenience as though it were an added benefit. In prevention, it can be much more fundamental.

Every additional appointment creates another opportunity for life to interfere. That inconvenience is not distributed equally. For someone with a car, flexible working hours and a nearby clinic, another appointment may simply be irritating. For someone paid by the hour, living in a rural community, caring for several children or dependent on public transport, it can become a genuine barrier to healthcare.

WHO’s Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination framework recognises that uptake is influenced by much more than attitudes towards vaccination. That matters because simplicity isn’t only about creating a better patient experience. It is also about access and, ultimately, equity. Making prevention overly complex risks placing the greatest burden on people who already face the greatest barriers to healthcare.

Why fewer injections and fewer journeys can matter

Combination vaccines offer a useful example. Rather than requiring a separate injection for every disease, they can provide protection against several diseases in a single injection.

Fewer injections have an obvious benefit for a child or parent, but they can also simplify the practical journey. Combination vaccines can reduce the number of injections and clinic visits and make recommended schedules easier to complete on time.
A recent independent systematic review also found some evidence of a potential benefit for vaccination timeliness, although the authors were clear that the quantity and quality of evidence remain limited.

Combination vaccines won’t solve every reason why vaccination is missed, and the evidence shouldn’t be stretched beyond what it shows. But the underlying principle matters: every unnecessary appointment or journey creates another opportunity for life to get in the way.

WHO has a useful term for part of this problem: a “missed opportunity for vaccination” when someone eligible for vaccination has contact with health services but leaves without receiving a vaccination they need.

That raises some simple questions. Could vaccination happen during another healthcare appointment? Would a reminder help? Could an appropriate community or pharmacy setting bring vaccination closer to the person who needs it? Are we asking people to make additional journeys when we don’t need to?

Availability and accessibility are not the same thing. A vaccine can technically be available while remaining remarkably difficult for some people to receive.

Information matters. But so does the conversation.

Removing practical barriers is only half the job. People also need to understand what is being recommended and why.

That has become more difficult in an environment where someone can encounter dozens of claims about vaccination on their phone before having a few minutes with a healthcare professional. Some will be accurate. Others won’t. Many will lack context, while the most alarming can often be the most memorable.

Simply providing more information isn’t necessarily the answer. A parent asking whether a vaccine is safe isn’t necessarily opposed to vaccination. They may simply be doing what parents do: trying to make the best decision for their child. An older person asking why they need a vaccine they have never previously been offered isn’t necessarily hesitant either. They may reasonably want someone to explain what has changed.

Treating every question as resistance is a good way to lose confidence. Good health communication shouldn’t mean telling people what to think. It means listening carefully enough to understand the question being asked, answering it clearly and credibly and giving people the information they need to make an informed decision.

That is why a few minutes with a doctor, nurse or pharmacist can matter so much. CDC guidance describes a strong healthcare professional recommendation as a powerful motivator for vaccination and reports that parents receiving such a recommendation are four to five times more likely to have their child receive HPV vaccination.

If we expect healthcare professionals to have those conversations, we need to equip them properly. They need current evidence and straightforward ways of explaining benefits and risks. They need to understand the questions people are encountering outside the consulting room. And, wherever possible, they need enough time to listen.

A leaflet can provide information. A good conversation can build confidence.

One message won’t work for everyone

Good communication also means recognising that vaccination decisions aren’t made under identical circumstances. The questions of a new parent are unlikely to be the same as those of an adolescent, a pregnant woman, a healthy 40-year-old or an 80-year-old managing several health conditions.

Nor should we assume that the same information, delivered in the same way, will work equally well across different communities, cultures or countries. Communication works best when it starts with the person rather than the message.

The objective shouldn’t simply be to tell people to vaccinate. It should help someone understand what protection may be appropriate for them, why it matters, when it is recommended, where they can receive it and what to expect. That makes communication part of the vaccination journey rather than something added afterwards.

Vaccination doesn’t end when childhood does

Ask someone to picture vaccination, and there is a good chance they will imagine a small child sitting on a parent’s knee. Yet infectious disease doesn’t stop when we turn 18, and neither does the value of prevention.

Pregnancy is perhaps one of the clearest examples of why protection needs to be considered across life. In England, vaccination against influenza, pertussis and RSV is recommended at different points during pregnancy. Maternal vaccination can protect the mother, while, for some infections, antibodies passed to the baby can provide protection during those first vulnerable months. It is a reminder that vaccination can sometimes protect across generations as well as across years.

Needs continue to change in adulthood. In the United States, for example, the CDC lowered the routine age-based recommendation for pneumococcal vaccination from 65 to 50 in 2024, giving more adults the opportunity to receive protection at an age when the risk of pneumococcal disease begins to increase.

Recommendations will differ across countries, but the broader point holds true. We cannot reasonably expect people to keep track of every change in the protection that may become relevant to them over a lifetime. Health systems and healthcare professionals have to create those opportunities.

Access also remains deeply unequal. Influenza vaccination for older adults is included in national immunisation schedules in 89% of high-income countries but only 8% of low-income countries. For pregnant women, the corresponding figures are 87% and just 4%.

That gap isn’t simply about whether a vaccine exists. It is about whether health systems have built prevention into the way they care for people at different stages of life.

Living longer is only part of the story

Living longer is one of modern medicine’s great achievements. But simply adding years isn’t enough. The more meaningful measure is how many of those years people can spend in good health, independent and engaged with the people and things that matter to them.

The International Longevity Centre UK’s Healthy Ageing and Prevention Index reflects that broader idea, looking beyond lifespan to include measures such as health span, work span and wellbeing. The underlying argument is an important one: longevity shouldn’t be judged only by how long people live, but by whether societies invest in prevention and create the conditions for people to live those longer lives well.

My FINN Partners colleague Mark Chataway has written about this through the lens of the “longevity economy” in an Ebook on shaping the future of global health. Many older people want to continue working and contributing but are prevented from doing so by poor health, he argues, while a significant proportion of that ill health could be prevented, treated or delayed with interventions available today.

That takes healthy ageing out of the abstract. Prevention, whether through vaccination, screening, nutrition, physical activity, appropriate treatment or access to good healthcare, isn’t simply about avoiding an episode of illness. It can help people remain independent, productive and part of their families and communities for longer.

WHO’s wider life-course approach points in a similar direction. Health shouldn’t be considered as a series of isolated episodes of illness, but something shaped throughout life, with opportunities to intervene at important moments from pregnancy and childhood through adulthood and older age.

For a child, prevention can mean fewer days away from school. For a parent, fewer days away from work caring for a sick child. During pregnancy, it can mean protecting a mother and helping protect a baby at the very beginning of life. For an adult, it can mean remaining healthy enough to work and care for others. For an older person, avoiding serious infection can help preserve health and independence.

Prevention isn’t an abstract health-system outcome. This is what it looks like in people’s lives.

Perhaps we need to ask a different question

There will always be important debates about which vaccines should be recommended, when they should be given and to whom. Those decisions must remain grounded in good science. But once we know how to prevent a disease, there is another question worth asking: How easy are we making it for people to act on that knowledge?

Can people access vaccination, understand why it matters and get credible answers to their questions? Does their healthcare professional have the information and confidence to explain it? Can they realistically complete the recommended schedule? And are our systems designed around people who already find healthcare easy to navigate, or are we thinking hard enough about those who face the greatest barriers? These aren’t secondary considerations. They are part of whether prevention works.

Developing better vaccines remains enormously important. But scientific innovation can only achieve so much on its own. The next challenge isn’t simply innovation in what we develop. It is an innovation in how effectively we deliver it.

We need to make the right protection easier to access, understand and complete at the right point in people’s lives, while giving parents, caregivers, patients and healthcare professionals the information and support they need along the way.

A vaccine sitting in a fridge is a scientific achievement. A vaccine reaching the person who needs it, when they need it, is a public health success.

That is the journey that matters.

The post Vaccination: The Journey To Protection Shouldn’t Be The Hard Part appeared first on Medika Life.

A newly published cost-minimization analysis from Argentina offers one of the clearest economic assessments to date on how immunization budgets should be evaluated [1]. The study, conducted by the CINVE research group, compares two hypothetical hexavalent vaccination strategies, one containing whole-cell pertussis (wP) antigens, the other acellular pertussis (aP) antigens, and reaches a seemingly counterintuitive conclusion: the vaccine with the higher purchase price can result in lower total costs to the health system. These wP vaccines are known to have higher rates of side effects (adverse events), placing a significant additional burden on the healthcare system and society [2].

The findings of the study add to a growing body of evidence from previously published cost-minimization studies and go further than most, modelling wP and aP hexavalent strategies and highlighting the monetary benefits of lower reactogenicity.

A long-held assumption is now being challenged

Where the effectiveness of two strategies (or options) aiming to protect against the same pathogen is assumed to be similar, immunization budget holders will typically focus on acquisition cost alone. But a vaccination program’s costs extend well beyond the product: logistics, cold chain, additional appointments, staff time, adverse event management, and the productivity lost when parents take time off work or travel for care.

The evidence from Argentina suggests that this approach risks overlooking where the greatest costs actually occur: in adverse events and their subsequent consequences.

A global randomized controlled trial by Decker et al. assessed the risk of adverse events between wP and aP [3]. Many adverse events, such as pain, redness, and fever, are far more common among those who receive wP vaccines. Fever rates were between two and nearly five times higher among wP recipients [4]. Primary-series recipients are infants, many of these adverse events lead to primary care visits, generating direct costs to the system and households, along with distress that other studies link to reduced willingness among families to accept vaccination more broadly [2]. The impacts of these adverse events are often overlooked and not factored into budget considerations.

The long-held assumption that whole-cell vaccines are the economical choice is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. Assessed against total health care and societal costs rather than acquisition price alone, acellular hexavalent vaccination increasingly presents as the more favorable option.

The current vaccination situation in Argentina

Argentina’s public schedule currently uses three doses, and a single booster dose of a pentavalent wP-containing vaccine (combined with diphtheria, tetanus, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type B), and hepatitis B antigens), alongside three IPV (Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) doses. This option is available through the public healthcare system; however, Argentina’s immunization program already recognizes the more favorable tolerability profile of acellular (aP) hexavalent vaccines by providing them to certain premature infants through Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) supported programs [5].

Those with the means to purchase the acellular vaccine, with its more favorable tolerability profile, can opt for it through the private market [5]. For most Argentinian infants, however, the wP vaccine remains the default option, as it is offered in the National Immunization Program. Families with private insurance have access to the better-tolerated aP formulation as a matter of course. The burden of adverse events and their associated costs falls disproportionately on the public system and the households it serves.

Can the ‘more expensive’ vaccine be the cheaper option?

The answer, according to the analysis of Argentina, is an unambiguous yes. The upfront acquisition cost of an aP hexavalent vaccine is substantially higher than its wP equivalent. In Argentina’s public sector, the PAHO Revolving Fund price is $21.54 per dose for the aP formulation, versus $4.90 per dose for the wP formulation. On a per-vial basis, the case for wP looks straightforward [1].

But the Argentina study exposes the flaw in this reasoning. The vaccine acquisition cost is only one line item in the budget. Modelling Argentina’s annual birth cohort of roughly 495,000 infants across the public sector (representing 94% of the birth cohort), the wP program’s total societal cost was $70 million: $7 million in acquisition costs, $5 million in programmatic costs, and $58 million in adverse event management. The aP program’s acquisition cost was higher at $32 million, with similar programmatic costs ($5 million), but adverse event management fell to $24 million — enough to bring total societal cost down to $61 million [1].

Total public sector costs fell by $9.1 million (~13.0%) under the aP scheme, driven by a $33.6 million reduction in adverse event management costs. In practical terms, this translated to 533,110 fewer primary care visits, 308,687 fewer emergency department visits, 2,868 fewer hospitalizations, and 1,654,129 fewer missed working days for parents [1].

The cost of adverse events is higher than many assume

The study’s most important methodological contribution may be its rigorous quantification of the costs of adverse events. The paper effectively demonstrates that adverse events are not simply clinical inconveniences. They consume healthcare resources at a scale that is seriously underestimated.

Adverse events management costs accounted for 64% of total costs under the wP hexavalent scheme [1]. It reflects the real-world consequences of administering a more reactogenic vaccine to hundreds of thousands of infants. Pain, redness, fever, prolonged crying, and, in rare but serious cases, seizures and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes each generate healthcare resource use: medications, outpatient visits, emergency visits, hospitalizations, and the parental time and travel that accompany them.

Notably, the economic model used adverse event data from Decker et al. 1995 [3]. The estimates from this study report smaller differences between wP and aP vaccines compared with more recent analyses, such as Zhang et al. 2014 [2] and Patterson et al. 2018 [6], which suggest a higher risk in the adverse event profiles of wP vaccination. Consequently, the estimates of savings related to adverse events presented for aP vaccination may be rather conservative.

Argentina is unlikely to be an exception

Comparable findings are emerging across different health systems, procurement models, and income settings. A previous whitepaper from Algeria, discussed in Medika Life [7], demonstrated that acellular hexavalent vaccination has improved vaccination coverage and simplified the vaccination schedule by reducing the number of appointments from 10 to 6. Overall, the higher upfront cost of adopting the new vaccine was offset by around 73% through savings generated by managing adverse events, improved logistics and transportation, and increased parental productivity.

Peru and South Africa saw similar patterns after adopting hexavalent vaccines: higher initial costs were substantially offset by reduced adverse events, lower programmatic expenses, and logistical efficiencies. Peru reported a reduction in logistical costs of nearly 60%, with roughly 44% of the initial cost increase recovered [8]. South Africa achieved overall savings of about $10 per child [9]. Projections from Paraguay and Uruguay estimate overall system savings of $2 million and $16.1 million, respectively, when comparing wP vs aP hexavalent vaccination [10,11].

A potential, and very rare, “double-win” for the health system

Evidence indicates that vaccination should be viewed as an investment, rather than an upfront cost, yielding up to 54 times the initial investment according to the WHO [12]. Much of this return on investment is calculated over a very long period, taking into account costs incurred by the medical system after vaccination, not just acquisition costs. The figure demonstrates the power of vaccines, leading to better health outcomes throughout childhood, fewer missed school days, and, in turn, better prospects later in life.

For a policymaker, on the other hand, the initial cost of a new vaccination program must be justified against a host of other healthcare interventions competing for health system resources. Long-term benefits calculated over many years are often insufficient to justify the expenditure. Because most of the savings in this case come from reducing the direct impacts of adverse events, they are realized in the short term. In addition, the societal costs of adverse events are reduced, with fewer children hospitalized and fewer parents taking time off work to care for sick children.

Healthcare decision-makers are often asked to choose between better outcomes and lower costs. The emerging evidence surrounding acellular hexavalent vaccination increasingly suggests that this may be one of the very rare situations in which both objectives can be achieved simultaneously.

[This consensus paper is based on the findings of a white paper discussing the findings of a group of vaccination experts focusing on pediatric immunization, supported by Sanofi. Intended for professional use.]

References

1. Ignacio Olivera, Eduardo Lopez, Carlos Grau Pérez et al. A cost-minimisation analysis: comparison of acellular versus whole-cell hexavalent paediatric vaccination strategies in Argentina, 16 September 2026, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-11039921/v1]
2. Zhang L, Prietsch SOM, Axelsson I, Halperin SA. Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD001478. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub6.
3. Decker MD, Edwards KM, Steinhoff MC, Rennels MB, Pichichero ME, Englund JA, Anderson EL, Deloria MA, Reed GF. Comparison of 13 acellular pertussis vaccines: adverse reactions. Pediatrics. 1995 Sep;96(3 Pt 2):557-66. PMID: 7659476.
4. Casabona, G., Shah, N., Choudhury, J., & Shah, U. (2026). Whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccines – rethinking the evidence. Expert Review of Vaccines, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2026.2689606
5. Olivera, I., Pérez, C.G., Lazarov, L. et al. Cost minimization analysis of a hexavalent vaccine in Argentina. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 1067 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10038-0
6. Patterson, J., Kagina, B. M., Gold, M., Hussey, G. D., & Muloiwa, R. (2018). Comparison of adverse events following immunisation with acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines: A systematic review. Vaccine, 36(40), 6007-6016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.022
7. Medika Life, An Expert Perspective from Algeria on Hexavalent Vaccine Adoption. https://medika.life/an-expert-perspective-from-algeria-on-hexavalent-vaccine-adoption/
8. Seinfeld J, Rosales ML, Sobrevilla A, López Yescas JG. Economic assessment of incorporating the hexavalent vaccine as part of the National Immunization Program of Peru. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 May 16;22(1):651. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08006-1. PMID: 35570278; PMCID: PMC9109284.
9. Batson A, Glassman A, Federgruen A, et al. The world needs to prepare now to prevent polio resurgence post eradication. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(12):e011485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011485
10. ID-308 – COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS OF THE HEXAVALENT VACCINE WITH ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS COMPONENT (HEXA PAC) VERSUS HEXAVALENT VACCINE WITH THE WHOLE CELL PERTUSSIS COMPONENT (HEXA PC). PARAGUAY 2025.Olivera Ignacio (1); Martínez Celia (2); Grau Carlos (1); Lazarov Luis (1); Dibarboure Hugo(1). Center for Economic Research, CINVE-Health, Montevideo, Uruguay; (2). Hospital de Clínicas, Asunción, Paraguay.
11. ID-307 – COST-MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS OF THE HEXAVALENT ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS COMPONENT VACCINE (HEXA PAC) VERSUS HEXAVALENT WHOLE-CELL PERTUSSIS COMPONENT (HEXA PC). URUGUAY 2025.Olivera Ignacio (1); Grau Carlos (1); Lazarov Luis (1); Dibarboure Hugo (1). Center for Economic Research, CINVE-Health, Montevideo, Uruguay.
12. WHO, Fully-funded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a lifeline for child survival, says WHO. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2025-fully-funded-gavi–the-vaccine-alliance–is-a-lifeline-for-child-survival–says-who

The post Rethinking vaccine costs: how the “more expensive” vaccine can actually save health systems millions appeared first on Medika Life.

I told her it was more complicated.

A few days later, I read a study about hormone therapy and dementia. Researchers followed more than 180,000 postmenopausal women for an average of 13 years. Women who had used hormone therapy for at least a year had a lower risk of developing dementia. The association was strongest among women who started between ages 46 and 56.

In 2003, researchers from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study reported that women taking estrogen plus progestin had about twice the risk of probable dementia. It was a randomized trial. But the women in that trial were 65 or older. That detail got smaller somewhere between the medical journals and the doctors’ offices, smaller still by the time it reached how women understood their own bodies. The warning traveled farther than the population it actually studied.

Hormone therapy became something to fear. I watched it happen. Women became wary. Physicians became reluctant to prescribe it. A decision that should have turned on age, symptom severity, type of hormone, and individual risk became a simple rule: dangerous.

My patient’s question wasn’t really about dementia studies. Her cancer had forced her backward through her own medical history, and now that history was being reexamined through the lens of a terrible outcome. Medical warnings move out of journals into people’s lives. They attach to regret. They become the story people tell about their own choices.

The new study doesn’t erase the old one. Put them together and something becomes visible: one studied women 65 and older, the other found its strongest association with lower dementia risk among women starting between 46 and 56. The warning was built on a population that looks very different from the population now receiving it.

A third study adds to this. Researchers examining autopsied brains found less Alzheimer pathology among women who had used estrogen-only hormone therapy. We don’t know if this means anything — autopsy studies can’t prove what prevented anything. But neither can we keep treating a single finding from a 2003 trial of older women as though it applies equally to a 50-year-old having hot flashes every two hours, whose brain fog has made her work nearly impossible.

The question was never whether hormones are good or bad. It was which ones, for whom, at what age, for what.

If a woman sat across from me now considering hormone therapy, I would want to know what was happening in her life before we talked about treatment. Is she waking in hot flashes? Has her concentration fractured? Is anxiety moving through her day? What is her medical history and what does she carry into this decision? What does she want treatment to actually do?

These questions don’t become headlines. They’re closer to medicine.

My patient last week was frightened about cancer, not dementia. But underneath her question was what I hear whenever someone is trying to make sense of something terrible: Did I make the wrong choice? The woman in the 2003 trial was 65 years old. My patient made her decision at 50. But that warning didn’t stay in the journal. It moved out into the world and landed on every woman, at every age, in every stage of this transition, saying the same thing: don’t do this, it will damage you.

If you’re navigating menopause and trying to make sense of what’s changing and what actually deserves treatment, I wrote The Menopause Guide to help with exactly that — understanding the changes, sorting through your options, and preparing for a conversation with your clinician that’s grounded in what you actually need, not what you’re afraid of.

Get The Menopause Guide

The post Did We Get Hormone Therapy Wrong? appeared first on Medika Life.

A bill passed by the state legislature in March then signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis allows Colorado to further uncouple itself from federal guidance.

The law allows health officials to follow the recommendations of national medical groups when making decisions such as purchasing bulk vaccines for the Medicaid program.

“We are insulating our state from the dysfunction coming out of Washington,” said Democratic state Sen. Kyle Mullica, a co-sponsor of the bill and a registered nurse. “We’re going to rely on science.”

“From fighting during the pandemic for Coloradans to get vaccines as quickly as possible to combating the Trump Administration’s barriers to getting vaccinated, we have expanded access to vaccines for Coloradans who want them,” Polis said in a statement when he signed the law.

Colorado is one of at least 29 states that, along with Washington, D.C., have taken steps to bypass the new federal recommendations amid worries that the changes could chip away at public trust in vaccines and erode broad vaccine coverage.

Previously, Colorado, like most states, had followed federal guidance set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In January, CDC advisory panelists, selected by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed six pediatric immunizations from the agency’s universal recommendation list.

Last year, doctors, scientists, local leaders, and other supporters came together to form an outreach and advocacy coalition called Colorado Chooses Vaccines.

The group aims to offer a clear, unified voice on the proven benefits of vaccines and reassure residents confused by the many federal changes.

Carol Boigon, a former Denver City Council member, joined the group because she wants more people to hear her own chilling story about vaccine-preventable illness.

“Every summer everybody got sick,” Boigon said, recounting her childhood in 1950s Detroit.

The illness was polio, a highly contagious viral disease that attacks the nervous system, sometimes causing partial or full paralysis.

During the summer of 1953, “the whole block was sick and some of us got crippled, and that was just the way it was,” she said.

New Group Steps Up

Boigon’s personal history will be part of the coalition’s work to educate new generations about the dangers of infectious diseases that were once common in the U.S. but are now relatively rare.

The group, which formed last September, will also compile vaccine information from medical groups and the state health department and advocate for policy proposals with the state government.

“It was in direct response to the federal threats,” said another coalition member, former state lawmaker Susan Lontine. She leads the nonprofit Immunize Colorado.

Another member, public relations specialist Elizabet Garcia, wants more outreach to Hispanics, whose vaccination rates lag behind other groups’.

“A lot of time it’s this fear that they’re going to have to pay out-of-pocket, that their insurance doesn’t cover it, that they might not even have insurance in general,” Garcia said.

Boigon was 5 when she got sick and was hospitalized for six weeks with a fever. The virus attacked her spine.

“None of my limbs worked immediately afterwards,” Boigon said.

Although she regained function in her other limbs, her right arm never fully recovered. She had to adapt, relearning everyday tasks such as reaching out to shake hands with people with her left hand.

In 1955, not long after she got sick, the new polio vaccine became more widely available to the public. As vaccinations took off, U.S. cases of polio, once one of the nation’s most feared diseases, dropped by an estimated 85%-90%.

Increasing Public Trust

State leaders have taken other steps to promote public health. After the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization, several states, including Colorado, decided to join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network on their own.

Colorado also joined a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.

And the new state law has provisions besides allowing the state to diverge from federal recommendations. It codifies pharmacists’ ability to prescribe and give vaccines themselves. It also increases legal protections for healthcare workers who give vaccines.

“This law will provide more clarity to guide all Coloradans, including providers who administer vaccines,” Lontine said.

But the legislation has opponents who say it would interfere with parental choice and claim vaccines might be unsafe or ineffective.

“I just want to make sure we’re not just getting into a big political dispute between the federal recommendations — the CDC and so forth — and different political views in Colorado here,” said Republican state Sen. John Carson, who voted against the vaccine bill.

NPR contacted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about Colorado’s new law. Spokesperson Emily Hilliard answered in an email: “The updated CDC childhood schedule continues to protect children against serious diseases.”

Preventable Illnesses Surge

The flurry of statewide activity comes as Colorado and the nation have seen surges in illnesses such as flu and measles.

As of mid-May, Colorado had recorded 22 measles cases this year. In 2025, it registered 36 cases, according to the state health department, far surpassing totals from previous years.

Across Colorado, kindergarten vaccination rates for measles were 88% last school year — with only a few counties achieving rates of 95%, the level needed for herd immunity, according to data published by The Washington Post in December.

This has also been Colorado’s worst flu season in recent years.

Vaccination rates for both flu and covid-19 have dropped slightly in Colorado, according to the state health department.

Eight children in Colorado have died this season from flu; one from covid; and one from RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus. Vaccines for all three are available for children and recommended by the state’s health department.

Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has defended his decisions to overhaul the recommended schedule for childhood vaccinations.

In March, a federal judge put on hold many of the changes.

“We’re not taking vaccines away from anybody. If you want to get the vaccine, you could get it. It’s going to be fully covered by insurance just like it was before,” Kennedy told CBS News in January.

When a reporter suggested the new changes could result in fewer people getting a flu vaccine, Kennedy said: “Well, that may be, and maybe that’s a better thing.”

Boigon is sometimes incredulous at everything that has happened.

“It’s like we’re going backwards,” she said. “It’s like we have decided we don’t want a modern life; we want to be back in the 1950s, where children are sick and dying.”

This article is from a partnership with Colorado Public Radio and NPR.

The post Colorado Charts Its Own Course on Vaccines Amid Federal Pullback appeared first on Medika Life.

From court decisions, recent analysis challenging vaccine skepticism polling results, and congressional testimony, the past month reflects a vindication of the value of immunization, scientific advancement and plain old common sense over ideology-based medical beliefs untethered from clinical evidence.

It would be nice to think that cooler heads have prevailed and we are seeing a return to science-backed decisions guiding American vaccine policy. But the reality is that a resurgent defense of immunization practices may be driven by two bigger forces: measles and midterms.

As I wrote five years ago, disease can be a powerful change agent. Thanks to the ultra-high effectiveness of the measles vaccine to prevent measles outbreaks, an entire generation of kids, parents and healthcare providers had never seen the disease or knew what kind of devastation it could bring. With measles out of sight and out of mind, it was easy for a small band of vocal critics to cast doubt on the value of the measles vaccine. Instead of building on a culture of collective action against disease, we allowed that small band of critics to grow into a chorus of public health freeloaders.

Measles had other ideas. With our weakening herd immunity – a result of declining vaccination rates – it didn’t take much for the virus to quickly reintroduce itself. Since the start of the year, there have been more than 1,700 cases of infection across 19 outbreaks throughout the country. We haven’t seen case numbers this high in 35 years. And if the deaths of American children from measles aren’t tragic enough, we are now on the verge of losing our status of officially eliminating measles. As a preeminent leader in immunology science, it is a startling embarrassment for the U.S. to accept this public health defeat.

Americans of all political stripes now seem to be paying attention. Following a decade of significant decline in vaccination, particularly among Republicans, there now is a push to back away from hardline anti-vaccine rhetoric ahead of the midterm elections. It’s easy to see why: at a time when measles outbreaks are a highly visible example of failed policy by the incumbent ruling party, politicians are not willing to risk being associated with practices that are out of step with the direction in which most U.S. voters want to go.

It’s telling that 66% of MAGA voters support vaccination as a requirement for kids to attend school. The measles outbreak has done a lot to educate people on the value of vaccines, which may be one reason why last week’s congressional testimony by RFK Jr., in which he was forced to admit that the measles vaccine is both safe and effective, and the timely appointment of Dr. Erica Schwartz, a physician and vaccine supporter, to lead the CDC may reflect the political liability posed by alternative vaccine doctrine in the months leading up to the midterm elections.

With growing distrust in federal vaccine messaging, there is a vacuum of credible sources for Americans to turn to for vaccine guidance. That void may actually be an opportunity in disguise for vaccine communicators.

Health care providers, including pharmacists, are still the most trusted source for reliable vaccine information: 4 out of 5 Americans look to these professionals to provide the right mix of personalized, empathetic communication with credible safety and efficacy information. Their stories can carry the power of connection, compassion and candor that we need right now.

Vaccination may seem like a black and white decision for a lot of us, but health care providers know that many parents need help navigating the gray areas. How we tell those stories – and who tells them – is essential to strengthening the national conversation around immunization.

Working more closely together, vaccine makers, innovators in antibody science, medical institutions and non-profit advocacy groups can create more compelling, unified communications that reach people when they are closest to making immunization decisions. This can be done by leveraging the voices of medical professionals to convey the emotional value of protecting our children against preventable disease instead of defaulting to statistics-heavy, complex messaging; pulling those stories through in coordinated media and policymaker engagement; and linking back to credible research sources that feature more prominently in online searches.

If the current measles epidemic in the U.S. is a crisis of our own making, it’s our responsibility to leverage the harsh health and economic lessons from this experience. We must act, not for the political convenience of the midterm elections, but to create better, more durable immunization policies and communications that again can unite Americans against our common disease enemies.

The post Of Measles and Midterms appeared first on Medika Life.

Medika Life has covered the halls of JPMorgan in San Francisco, ViVE in Nashville, and the Digital Health Summit in Boston. But the outreach received before BIO—from stakeholders in Austin, Belfast, Milan, Riyadh, and Tulsa—suggested something seismic was shifting. At BIO 2025, that story came into focus: a world where health innovation is no longer limited by geography but defined by vision, investment and intention.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization isn’t just where technologies are launched and global biotech identities are shaped. What we witnessed in Boston this year wasn’t just presence, but purpose. From Riyadh to Milan, leaders arrived not merely to exhibit, but to engage. They came to say, ‘We are here. We are investing. We are innovating.’ BIO 2025 stood out for its sheer scale and energy—a mosaic of emerging voices ready to help steer the next wave of life science breakthroughs.

Global Trends: Infrastructure, Incentives and Inclusion Drive Expansion

A common thread across these rising biotech regions is the power of public-sector catalysts. Investment in R&D tax credits, translational research centers, and workforce training has de-risked innovation for early-stage companies. Regions like Oklahoma and Northern Ireland exemplify how government partnerships with academia and industry can create a vibrant life sciences pipeline.

In parallel, digital innovation is enabling smaller regions to leapfrog traditional limitations. AI-led discovery, digital twins, and virtual trial platforms are reducing costs and increasing speed-to-data. This convergence of science and software is helping new hubs like Austin and Riyadh accelerate globally competitive capabilities in diagnostics, personalized medicine, and regulatory science.

“We’re not competing with Boston—we’re complementing it,” said a delegate from Invest Northern Ireland. “In a connected world, biotech ecosystems aren’t isolated—they’re collaborative nodes on a global grid.”

Meanwhile, leaders from Italy’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Saudi Arabia’s SFDA emphasized the importance of regulatory agility. Their message was clear: modern biotech requires modern policy. Whether through centralized ethics boards, digital review platforms, or alignment with international standards, regulatory transformation is essential to scale innovation.

These developments signal a broader inflection point—biotech is no longer about place. It’s about purpose, policy, and partnerships.

Austin: Where Tech Meets Translational Medicine

Austin is no longer just the city of live music and digital startups. With more than 300 life science companies and a 74% employment boom in biotech over the past five years, it’s transforming into a powerhouse of translational medicine.

Heavyweights like Thermo Fisher, Natera, and Luminex now call Austin home, joined by trailblazers such as Paradromics, Elligo Health Research, and Prophase Biostudios. These companies blend biotech, medtech, and AI in ways that are shaping the next frontier in diagnostics, therapeutics, and digital health.

“As one of the country’s fastest-growing emerging life sciences hubs, the Austin region is responsible for a significant portion of the biotechnology sector’s growth in Texas,” said Ed Latson, CEO of Opportunity Austin. “Our tech talent, VC ecosystem, and institutions like UT Austin are driving an uptick in innovations, with over 350 life science patents issued to Austin companies in the past five years.”

Austin’s 4.4 million square feet of science innovation space—plus another 1.1 million square feet under construction—signals that this rise is more than momentum. It’s movement.

Italy: From Scientific Legacy to Global Scale

Italy’s BIO 2025 pavilion was both a showcase and a statement: this country is stepping into biotech leadership. Long known for its academic excellence, Italy is now connecting its research infrastructure to industrial manufacturing and global markets.

With 770 production sites and the largest Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization output in Europe (€3.6B), Italy is scaling up innovation across oncology, AI diagnostics, and organ-on-chip development. Companies like BiomimX, Math Biology, Genenta Science, and InSilicoTrials are bridging cutting-edge science with clinical utility.

“Italy’s presence at BIO Boston reflects years of work by the Italian Trade Agency to promote an integrated system of scientific expertise, high-tech supply chains, and a talent-rich ecosystem,” shared Erica Di Giovancarlo, Director of the ITA New York Office.

Initiatives like the Montalcini Global Biotech Tour and policy instruments from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs support this ambition.

“Pharma is one of Italy’s top global exports,” noted Mauro Battocchi, Director General. “That would be unthinkable without a strong base in R&D, regulation, and manufacturing.”

Northern Ireland: Precision Science with Global Reach

With 250+ companies and $2.5 billion in revenue, Northern Ireland’s life sciences sector has grown 75% in just three years. The delegation to BIO was led by Invest Northern Ireland and featured companies from drug discovery (AMPLY), CRO services (Almac, Celerion), and diagnostics (Randox).

Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University deeply anchored the region’s ecosystem. Global companies are noting that Celerion recently relocated its UK Phase I operations to Belfast’s new iREACH facility, betting on local talent and translational research capacity.

From scientific rigor to export capability—145+ countries and counting—Northern Ireland proves that locale doesn’t limit global vision.

Oklahoma: Equity-Focused Innovation with Local Roots

Oklahoma’s biotech renaissance is rooted in intentionality—it is focused on equity, local workforce development, and community-based innovation. Biosciences now contributes more than $16 billion to the state’s economic impact, with more than 750 companies and 42,000 jobs.

The Oklahoma delegation at BIO emphasized sustainability, manufacturing, and health equity, with standout organizations including Wheeler Bio, BioTC, ParaNano, and Utopia Plastix.

“We’re not here to be a branch office,” one delegate told me. “We’re here to bring Oklahoma’s soul to the bioscience table.”

With significant support from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science & Technology (OCAST), OKBioStart, and the University of Oklahoma, this state is redefining what it means to be an innovation hub.

Saudi Arabia: A New Powerhouse for Biotech Partnerships

Saudi Arabia came to BIO with a clear strategy and global ambitions. Led by His Excellency Prof. Dr. Hisham Saad Aljadhey, CEO of the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the Kingdom made its voice heard across two key sessions.

At “Global Biotechnology at a Crossroads,” Dr. Aljadhey discussed Saudi Arabia’s modernization of clinical trials and regulatory frameworks, aligning with international standards. At “Partnering for Progress,” he showcased the Kingdom’s integrated biotech ecosystem, spanning R&D, data, manufacturing, and patient care.

Beyond BIO, the SFDA delegation engaged with Harvard University and global pharmaceutical leaders and joined a private sector roundtable hosted by BIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These engagements reflect Saudi Arabia’s commitment to cross-border collaboration, secure supply chains, and sustainable innovation infrastructure.

With leaders from the Saudi Ministry of Health, King Faisal Specialist Hospital, and the National Institute of Health also in attendance, the message was clear: Saudi Arabia is ready to be a regional biotech hub with global reach.

The New Map of Global Innovation

This isn’t just a reshuffling of zip codes. It’s a redrawing of the innovation map—pushed forward by ecosystems committed to inclusion, science, sustainability, and scale.

These five rising regions aren’t simply showing up. They’re standing up—challenging legacy thinking, collapsing silos, and reminding the world that leadership in life sciences doesn’t require a familiar address. It requires ambition, alignment, and action.

At BIO 2025, the message was unmistakable: where you innovate matters less than why you innovate—and for whom.

From Austin’s AI-powered translational medicine to Saudi Arabia’s regulatory reinvention, the next wave of breakthroughs will be shaped not by old borders but bold commitments.

Expectations are high. Patients in Milan and Muskogee, Belfast and Boston, Riyadh and Rochester are not waiting for innovation to trickle down. They are looking globally—for the fastest path to solutions that sustain and save lives.

The future of biotech is already in motion. It’s inclusive. It’s intentional. And it’s unstoppable.

The post BIO – Biotech Without Borders  appeared first on Medika Life.

I always get my vaccinations in my left arm. Not because I anticipated the intriguing new study results.

Rather, I sleep on my right side and don’t want the discomfort associated with vaccination on my compressed arm.

Before we examine sidedness and vaccinations, I must share that winter has begun in Seattle. I define the season as dark and rainy.

Chilled-looking people walking along the riverside, the snow beginning, faintly, to pile up on the roofs of cars, the bare trees shaking their heads left and right, dry leaves tossing in the wind. The silver of the metal window sash sparkled coldly. Soon after, I heard sensei call, “Mikage! Are you awake? It’s snowing, look! It’s snowing!” “I’m coming!” I called out, standing up. I got dressed to begin another day. Over and over, we begin again. — Banana Yoshimoto

Arm-Sidedness and COVID Vaccination

I read the title of a recent article and thought, “Really?” But as you will see, there is a logic to the finding. Here’s the title:

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

In other words, individuals may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm.

The Study

German researchers examined health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and a subsequent booster shot. None had a history of COVID-19 infection.

They measured the antibody levels of the subjects two weeks after the second shot.

Here are the surprising results:

The number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm.

Scientists found killer T cells in 67 percent of cases when both shots entered the same arm. This number compares to 43 percent of cases with different arms.

My Take

Same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells providing the immune response are in nearby (underarm) lymph nodes.

There may be a more vigorous immune response if the immune cells in the nearby nodes are restimulated in the same location.

Since this study does not represent high-level evidence, we need more studies to validate the results. Moreover, we don’t know if the findings apply to other vaccines, including the flu.

Still, I will continue to get my vaccinations in my left arm. I sleep on my right side, so it is for the best.

The post Is Getting COVID Shots in the Same Arm Better? appeared first on Medika Life.

In an effort to get ahead of a potential tripledemic this winter of COVID-19, flu, and RSV that could overwhelm hospitals, health officials have re-booted an important program: making COVID test kits free again. Those kits will be available by mail to households starting September 25.

Next comes the hard part: convincing enough people to get the kits and then persuading them to follow quarantine guidelines if they or their family members get sick.

This is not the time to roll out stale messaging delivered by a carousel of health officials trying to convince the public to get the test kits. Americans are weary of being told to keep their guard up against a disease that many view as more of an inconvenience than a threat. If the sales pitch to get the kits is off, health officials may find that the test kits no longer serve as an effective public health tool. Instead, they could become another partisan symbol of perceived government overreach, further impeding people’s freedom to live as they want.

In short, we have a messaging challenge ahead of us, and if we haven’t taken to heart the lessons learned during the worst early days of the pandemic, we’re doomed to repeat mistakes that cost lives.

How can we be more thoughtful about containing COVID and other dangerous diseases? To generate greater public compliance for fighting an endemic disease, communicators must provide a credible and compelling case of the risk of inaction and convince people that ignorance – of not knowing your infection status – is greater than the cost of knowing. These can be very high bars to clear since people have different thresholds for risk and for being informed.

It’s likely we won’t clear those hurdles with the roll-out of the free test kits. Because the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and severity is low, many people have adopted a “no test, no stress” attitude, especially in light of the potential personal disruption that COVID infection causes. It’s a dangerous direction and one of the reasons why we will continue to see cases spike.

For communicators to overcome the twin challenges of infection risk perception and status aversion, they must use convert communicators – people who are credible to specific audiences and have changed their views to support disease intervention. There is mounting data showing that people who identified as Republicans were far likelier to get infected by COVID and die from the disease than those from left-leaning political parties. Messaging that taps into this research could point to breaking through to these audiences.

Successful public health interventions rely on a strong majority of the population participating in disease mitigation efforts, which means spotlighting conservative voters who see the value of COVID testing and can serve as credible messengers to similarly ideologically inclined individuals. This is where digital storytelling, data visualization and engagement of champions outside of the health sector can be potent measures to build the case for supporting new public health tools.   

It is also important to truly understand the pain points that different audience segments cite as reasons for not wanting to know their infection status and to provide targeted counterpoints. Most people can’t afford to miss work, even with a mild case, and families can be heavily impacted when a parent must choose between going to work or keeping their kids home. In these and other scenarios, the test result becomes the thing people may begin to dread more than the disease itself.

To ensure that people do not feel like they must choose between a host of the least bad options when COVID comes to their home, the government must consider new incentives for reporting positive test results and adhering to public health guidelines. These can range from reinstituting protected sick leave that was available as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) during the pandemic to encouraging more employers to use the tax credits available through the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) to reimburse for employee sick leave. Without putting these and other options on the table, people will feel penalized even when they do the right thing.

The post It’s Time to Up Our Messaging Game Ahead of Another Winter with COVID appeared first on Medika Life.

We live in a very exciting time! Alzheimer’s medications that are more promising than past drugs are starting to hit the shelves, with others on the way. Eli Lilly’s new daratumumab medication has been suggested to slow the progression of early Alzheimer’s by up to 35%. So if it took someone five years to progress to more serious Alzheimer’s without medication, this could slow it, so it could instead take seven years, meaning more years being more present with one’s family. Lecanemab (Leqembi), from Eisei and Biogen, was also found to reduce cognitive decline, keeping our parents or ourselves fully present as we traverse life’s journey together!

In this article, I will talk about why these drugs offer society hope yet will also cause a big problem, at least in the short term (i.e., until generics become available when the drugs’ patents expire). As for my background, I earned my M.D. in the United States to soon earn my Ph.D. in Canada, focusing on Genetics. Today, I work as a postdoctoral scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, studying the genetics of Alzheimer’s disease. In my medical training, I have seen the tragedy that can happen to people’s parents or themselves as they face newly diagnosed dementia and late-stage disease.

To be clear, these medications are a good thing. They could help many of those around us, whether a parent, sibling, or ourselves. Dementia is a horrible disease; until now, not much could be done about it. A family member is diagnosed with the disease in the office and told that they are showing signs of this illness and that very little can be done to help them. Over time, their personality changes, and they slowly become less like themselves daily, aware of what is happening.

This can cause significant distress for those with this illness and their family and friends. We spend years with these people. We are forced to watch, unable to make a difference, as they lose their ability to function and lose who they are. These medications could slow these changes, finally offering some semblance of hope for those with these diseases.

As with any medication, these drugs do not come without risks. One in four people who received Leqembi had a “transfusion reaction,” which in most people means that they may have had redness and swelling in the arm they received the medication. While such reactions can be severe, causing one’s airway to close up in an anaphylactic reaction, these responses are generally uncommon. Some individuals who received Leqembi or Donanemab experienced swelling in their brain, known as cerebral edema. While not necessarily a problem, in that it does not necessarily produce symptoms, one in four people who took Donanemab developed this swelling, one of four of which had symptoms. So if we considered a group of 1000 people who took this drug, using the study’s results, about 60 in 1000 could experience headaches or confusion. Some of these 60 individuals may develop bleeding in their brains. Around two could die from the swelling or bleeding. While concerning, 940 of these hypothetical 1000 people had no side effects. Even if you took this med and experienced side effects, you could be sure that your doctor would do everything they could to keep you safe, including discontinuing the medication that often resolves adverse effects.

So it sounds like my opinion is that these drugs sound promising. Why the doom and gloom article title? This is because these are or will be very expensive drugs. The price for a single person to receive enough Leqembi for a single year is forecasted to be $26,500. While Donanemab does not yet have an official cost, it is predicted to be over $26,000 annually. Think about that amount of money for a moment. The federal poverty line for a family of four, which could include a couple, a child, and a grandparent, is $30,000. More than one in 10 people in the United States are impoverished and struggling to make ends meet. This number is likely even higher, considering you do not have to be impoverished to have financial difficulty. What would happen if a couple’s loving grandmother or grandfather started showing signs of dementia?

While the elderly are entitled to Medicare, would Medicare cover such an expensive drug when it has to care for the entire country’s elderly population? Even if it pays for it, how much of it? After consulting physician colleagues of mine, we think it is unlikely that Medicare as is would pay this much. It would be great if they did, but there are likely not enough Medicare dollars to permit this.

Families could face impossible decisions or immense stress once these medications are more broadly available, and they have hope in front of them, yet this hope is financially inaccessible. While some private insurance may help pay for these cutting-edge treatments, perhaps with Medicare offering a small contribution, insurance is expensive, and we sadly do not all have health plans that enable us to not think about how we are going to make managing our health work, alongside taking care of supporting children, family, and parents.

There is also the concern that these medications may offer more benefit to those of certain ancestral groups, as reported by Reuters. This was not because the study’s designers or the company sought to exclude non-whites. For medical research to be approved, generally, one must communicate how the research will benefit a more diverse group. Describing how people are recruited into appropriately designed clinical trials and why medications may help people of European descent more than those of African descent is its own article, so I will not touch on this here. This is important because non-whites have higher rates of Alzheimer’s and have historically had less access to healthcare resources.

Such a financial predicament is not unique to these upcoming new medications (or healthcare in general in the United States). Research and development of new medications often cost over $2 billion when a new treatment is available for the general public. Companies need to give treatments a price that enables them to make up for what they spent and enable their other projects, which can also provide hope for better health management. While this approach is understandable (companies need to avoid going bankrupt. Even non-profits need to do that), it can still limit our access to treatments that could save or improve our lives.

The only fix that could address these issues is legislation, which the American Medical Association is consistently striving to improve people’s health in the United States, including driving healthcare reform and expanding (versus cutting) Medicare coverage. Your doctors are not just treating you in the office. They are going to Washington, D.C., and suffering the stresses of politics to improve your lives!

In conclusion, we have reasons to be optimistic about these new drugs. We are also facing the same problems that we have in the past, with promising treatments often being beyond the reach of those with less financial resources and those who have historically had limited access to treatments that could mitigate suffering.

The post New Alzheimer’s Drugs Will Worsen Inequality appeared first on Medika Life.

Satanic rituals, urban legends and abducted kids are all familiar topics to most of us and with the release of the Sound of Freedom, a Mel Gibson backed movie exposing child trafficking, the topics are on everyone’s lips. Adrenochrome, not so much, that is until Sound of Freedom, ably abetted by actor Jim Caviezel, breathed life into it again.

Depending on who you choose to believe, adrenochrome is either an important, yet not fully understood element of the disease, schizophrenia – that’s the medical version – or it’s the life prolonging, fountain of youth obtained from the terrified body of a young child sacrificed for this very purpose– the urban myth.

Here first, is what some of the villagers choose to believe about Adrenochrome and then we’ll check in on the real world.

Harvesting the “Elixir of Youth”

Adrenochrome is produced by our bodies when we are in a state of heightened fear or terror. According to the urban legend, this byproduct of adrenalin, when consumed, melts away wrinkles, takes years off your face and if the stories are to be believed, is nothing short of the fountain of youth. Hollywood, they claim, are the main consumers of adrenochrome.

Enter the children, abducted and taken to remote areas where they are, according to Caviezel, tortured and literally scared to death. At this point the adrenochrome the children have produced is harvested from their lifeless bodies and sold on the black market for huge profit. For people without scruples or the brain capacity to critically analyze the urban legend, you can see why the business model would be appealing.

For every idiot vendor there is, of course, an even stupider client. People with more money than sense, who will literally try anything to arrest or reverse the ageing process. Combine the two and voilà, you have a supply chin and customers, all thanks to crazy online, self-fulfilling horseshit, none of which happens to be true.

We have developed a love affair with conspiracy theories over the last few decades. Most are harmless. For instance the secret (obviously not so much anymore) Nazi base in the center of the earth, accessible through a hidden entrance in the Arctic, isn’t going to overrun the world tomorrow with an army of highly trained penguins. No harm there. Insanity in buckets, but no harm.

Some theories are however incredibly dangerous. They pose a real threat to the well-being of our communities, the safety of our person and our children. The adrenochrome urban legend is right up there in terms of risk. Extremely so, and Gibson, with his latest foray into supporting “cinematic story telling” may be unwittingly contributing to the market value of street urchins.

His support, however well intended, has allowed Caviezel a platform to conflate the movie with adrenochrome, imbuing it with powers it does not posses. In short, Sound of Freedom’s Jim Caviezel is trying to breathe life into an urban legend.

Let’s examine exactly what Adrenochrome is, what it does and where it comes from. This is essential in understanding how the urban legend evolved and as with all urban legends, there is a sliver of reality mixed in with the fairy tale.

The Discovery of Adrenochrome

In short, this compound was first isolated in a laboratory in the fifties and researchers initially believed its absence in Schizophrenia patients was important.

It is created naturally as a byproduct in our bodies by the oxidation of adrenaline. We release adrenaline when we experience fear or our body feels threatened in some way. That explains the need described above for terrifying innocent street waifs. Showing them Disney movies isn’t going to get the adrenaline pumping.

Scientists are currently studying a derivative of adrenochrome that offers promise in the field of surgery by increasing the bloods ability to clot, thus reducing bleeding.

The only clinical tests of adrenochrome were in the fifties, and they were both brief and inconclusive. We did however establish that the long term affects of ingesting the compound led to psychotic episodes and serious mental issues. Adrenochrome doesn’t appear to agree with our brains.

There is ZERO evidence in the scientific literature of anything to support the anti-aging and psychedelic affects ascribed to the compound, in fact, quite the opposite. Adrenochrome just doesn’t live up to all the hype, so where then does all the craziness come from?

Say Hello to Fear and Loathing

Hunter S. Thompson and Aldous Huxley most likely share the blame. Both referred to the compound in their writing. Both made fictitious claims about the compound, Huxley out of ignorance and Thompson, well he was just being Thompson. Gonzo, full steam ahead. He was creating his style of fiction.

In the movie Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, based on Thompson’s book by the same title, Johnny Depp’s character is shown using an ampule of ‘adrenochrome’ in one of the drug fueled binges that permeate the movie. If you haven’t watched , you should. It’s a cult classic.

Gonzo journalism, the writing style Thompson invented, is based around the fictionalization and exaggeration of real-life events. In the DVD commentary of the 1998 movie adaptation, director Terry Gilliam said Thompson told him he made the whole adrenochrome thing up.

It could have been any compound, Thompson simply chose adrenochrome, possibly motivated by the fact little was known of it.

In Aldous Huxley’s 1954 essay “The Doors of Perception”, written about his experiences with mescaline, Huxley discusses the possibility that adrenochrome is a compound with similar effects to the psychedelic cactus.

He had not used it and had no idea how to obtain it, other than saying it was spontaneously produced by the human body. He described it as “a product of the decomposition of adrenaline”, which is, surprisingly, correct.

A little truth mixed in with a lot of fiction.

That seems to be the fate of adrenochrome. It is destined, along with 5G, Elvis, Nazi penguins and hollow moons to become the stuff of urban legend.

Which, as I suggested earlier, is all good and well, except that in this instance it poses a very real danger to children. Whilst you and I are able to comprehend the difference between fairy tales and fact, many cannot.

As long as we live in a world where people drink bleach, ban abortions, wear tinfoil hats and vote for Trump (again), we need to suppress dangerous lies.

Society needs to filter out the untruths we feed each other to avoid the loss of even one child’s life. Social media companies need to address these threads, remove them and warn their users. Spreading lies, even if you believe them to be true, can cost lives. By tweeting your fictitious fairy tales, you are simply providing the seeds for the harvesting of more children for profit. Stop it.

Lastly, a parting thought for supporters of the urban legend. The oxidation reaction that converts adrenaline into adrenochrome occurs both in vivo and in vitro. In other words, you can produce adrenochrome in a body or a test tube. I suspect the test tube may be cheaper, quicker and a lot less illegal than abducting children.

The post Adrenochrome, Satanic Masses, Abducted Children and Urban Legends appeared first on Medika Life.