Connect with us

Health

FDA’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Claims Lack Solid Evidence—Why Overreaction Could Harm Public Health

COVID-19 vaccine safety: The FDA’s claims about COVID-19 vaccine deaths in children lack strong evidence and could restrict vaccine access. Learn why experts say VAERS reports aren’t proof, and how overreacting may harm public health and trust in vaccines.

Published

on

FDA’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Claims Lack Solid Evidence—Why Overreaction Could Harm Public Health
The FDA has provided no evidence that children died because of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
Anchiy/E+ via Getty Images

FDA claims on COVID-19 vaccine safety are unsupported by reliable data – and could severely hinder vaccine access

Frank Han, University of Illinois Chicago

The Food and Drug Administration is seeking to drastically change procedures for testing vaccine safety and approving vaccines, based on unproven claims that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines caused the death of at least 10 children.

The agency detailed its plans in a memo released to staff on Nov. 28, 2025, which was obtained by several news outlets and published by The Washington Post.

Citing an internal, unpublished review, the memo, written by the agency’s top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, attributes the children’s deaths to myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle. And it says the deaths were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, but provides no evidence that the vaccines caused the deaths.

 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

The death of children due to an unsafe vaccine is a serious allegation. I am a pediatric cardiologist who has studied the link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart-related side effects such as myocarditis in children. To my knowledge, studies to date have shown such side effects are rare, and severe outcomes even more so. However, I am open to new evidence that could change my mind.

But without sufficient justification and solid evidence, restricting access to an approved vaccine and changing well-established procedures for testing vaccines would carry serious consequences. These moves would limit access for patients, create roadblocks for companies and worsen distrust in vaccines and public health.

In my view, it’s important for people reading about these FDA actions to understand how the evidence on a vaccine’s safety is generally assessed.

Determining cause of death

The FDA memo claims that the deaths of these children were directly related to receiving a COVID-19 immunization.

From my perspective as a clinician, it is awful that any child should die from a routine vaccination.

However, health professionals like me owe it to the public to uphold the highest possible standards in investigating why these deaths occurred. If the FDA has evidence demonstrating something that national health agencies worldwide have missed – widespread child deaths due to myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine – I don’t doubt that even the most pro-vaccine physician will listen. So far, however, no such evidence has been presented.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

While a death logged in VAERS is a starting point, on its own it is insufficient to conclude whether a vaccine caused the death or other medical causes were to blame.

To demonstrate a causal link, FDA staff and physicians must align the VAERS report with physicians’ assessments of the patient, as well as data from other sources for monitoring vaccine safety. These include PRISM, which logs insurance claims data, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which tracks safety signals in electronic medical records.

It’s known that most deaths logged only in VAERS of children who recently received vaccines have been incorrectly attributed to the vaccines – either by accident or in some cases on purpose by anti-vaccine activists.

Heart-related side effects of COVID-19 vaccines

In his Substack and Twitter accounts, Prasad has said that he believes the rate of severe cardiac side effects after COVID-19 vaccination is severely underestimated and that the vaccines should be restricted far more than they currently are.

In a July 2025 presentation, Prasad quoted a risk of 27 cases per million of myocarditis in young men who received the COVID-19 vaccine. A 2024 review suggested that number was a bit lower – about 20 cases out of 1 million people. But that same study found that unvaccinated people had greater risk of heart problems after a COVID-19 infection than vaccinated people. In a different study, people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccination developed fewer complications than people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection.

Existing vaccine safety infrastructure in the U.S. successfully identifies dangers posed by vaccines – and did so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, most COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. rely on mRNA technology. But as vaccines were first emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic, two pharmaceutical companies, Janssen and AstraZeneca, rolled out a vaccine that used a different technology, called a viral vector. This type of vaccine had a very rare but genuine safety problem that was detected.

A report in VAERS is at most a first step to determining whether a vaccine caused harm.

VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, clinical investigators in the U.S. and their European counterparts detected that these vaccines did turn out to cause blood clotting. In April 2021, the FDA formally recommended pausing their use, and they were later pulled from the market.

Death due to myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination is exceedingly rare. Demonstrating that it occurred requires proof that the person had myocarditis, evidence that no other reasonable cause of death was present, and the absence of any additional cause of myocarditis. These factors cannot be determined from VAERS data, however – and to date, the FDA has presented no other relevant data.

A problematic vision for future vaccine approvals

Currently, vaccines are tested both by seeing how well they prevent disease and by how well they generate antibodies, which are the molecules that help your body fight viruses and bacteria.

Some vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, need to be updated based on new strains. The FDA generally approves these updates based on how well the new versions generate antibodies. Since the previous generation of vaccines was already shown to prevent infection, if the new version can generate antibodies like the previous one, researchers assume its ability to prevent infection is comparable too. Later studies can then test how well the vaccines prevent severe disease and hospitalization.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The FDA memo says this approach is insufficient and instead argues for replacing such studies with many more placebo-controlled trials – not just for COVID-19 vaccines but also for widely used influenza and pneumonia vaccines.

That may seem reasonable theoretically. In practice, however, it is not realistic.

Today’s influenza vaccines must be changed every season to reflect mutations to the virus. If the FDA were to require new placebo-controlled trials every year, the vaccine being tested would become obsolete by the time it is approved. This would be a massive waste of time and resources.

A pharmacy with a sign advertising flu shots
Influenza vaccines must be updated for every flu season.
Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Also, detecting vaccine-related myocarditis at the low rate at which it occurs would have required clinical trials many times larger than the ones that were done to approve COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. This would have cost at least millions of dollars more, and the delay in rolling out vaccines would have also cost lives.

Placebo-controlled trials would require comparing people who receive the updated vaccine with people who remain unvaccinated. When an older version of the vaccine is already available, this means purposefully asking people to forgo that vaccine and risk infection for the sake of the trial, a practice that is widely considered unethical. Current scientific practice is that only a brand-new vaccine may be compared against placebo.

While suspected vaccine deaths should absolutely be investigated, stopping a vaccine for insufficient reasons can lead to a significant drop in public confidence. That’s why it’s essential to thoroughly and transparently investigate any claims that a vaccine causes harm.

Vaccine vs illness

To accurately gauge a vaccine’s risks, it is also crucial to compare its side effects with the effects of the illness it prevents.

For COVID-19, data consistently shows that the disease is clearly more dangerous. From Aug. 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022, more than 800 children in the U.S. died due to COVID-19, but very few deaths from COVID-19 vaccines in children have been been verified worldwide. What’s more, the disease causes many more heart-related side effects than the vaccine does.

Meanwhile, extensive evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalization by more than 70% and the risk of severe illness in adolescent children by 79%. Studies also show it dramatically reduces their risk of developing long COVID, a condition in which symptoms such as extreme fatigue or weakness persist more than three months after a COVID-19 infection.

Reporting only the vaccines’ risks, and not their benefits, shows just a small part of the picture.

Frank Han, Assistant Professor of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Illinois Chicago

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

High Demand Marks “Veggies for Veterans” Event Amid SNAP Delays

Link: https://stmdailynews.com/high-demand-marks-veggies-for-veterans-event-amid-snap-delays/

Author

Continue Reading
Advertisement SodaStream USA, inc

Lifestyle

8 Ways to Help Protect Your Vision Right Now

As you get older, your risk for some eye diseases may increase. However, there are steps you can take to keep your eyes healthy – and it starts with taking care of your overall health. Set yourself up for a lifetime of seeing your best with these eight tips in honor of Healthy Vision Month. Protect Your Vision!

Published

on

Protect Your Vision

8 Ways to Help Protect Your Vision Right Now

(Feature Impact) As you get older, your risk for some eye diseases may increase. However, there are steps you can take to keep your eyes healthy – and it starts with taking care of your overall health.

Set yourself up for a lifetime of seeing your best with these eight tips from the experts at the National Eye Institute in honor of Healthy Vision Month:

1. Find an eye doctor you trust.
Many eye diseases don’t have any early symptoms, so you could have a problem and not know it. An eye doctor can help you stay on top of your eye health. Find an eye doctor you trust by asking friends and family if they like their doctors. You can also check with your health insurance plan to find eye doctors near you.

2. Ask how often you need a dilated eye exam.
Getting a dilated eye exam is the single best thing you can do for your eye health. It’s the only way to find eye diseases early, when they’re easier to treat – and before they cause vision loss. Your eye doctor will decide how often you need an exam based on your risk for eye diseases.

3. Add more movement to your day.
Physical activity can lower your risk for health conditions that can affect your vision, like diabetes and high blood pressure. If you have trouble finding time for physical activity, try building it into other activities. Walk around while you’re on the phone, do push-ups or stretch while you watch TV or dance while you’re doing chores. Anything that gets your heart pumping counts.

4. Get your family talking about eye health history.
Some eye diseases – like glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration – can run in families. While it may not be the most exciting topic of conversation, talking about your family health history can help everyone stay healthy. The next time you’re chatting with relatives, ask if anyone knows about eye problems in your family. Be sure to share what you learn with your eye doctor to see if you need to take steps to lower your risk.

5. Step up your healthy eating game.
Eating healthy foods helps prevent health conditions – like diabetes or high blood pressure – that can put you at risk for eye problems. Eat right for your sight by adding more eye-healthy foods to your plate, such as dark, leafy greens like spinach, kale and collard greens, and fish high in omega-3 fatty acids like halibut, salmon or tuna.

6. Make a habit of wearing your sunglasses – even on cloudy days.
The sun’s UV rays can not only harm your skin, but the same goes for your eyes. However, wearing sunglasses that block 99-100% of both UVA and UVB radiation can protect your eyes and lower your risk for cataracts.

7. Stay on top of long-term health conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
Diabetes and high blood pressure can increase your risk for some eye diseases, like glaucoma. If you have diabetes or high blood pressure, ask your doctor about steps you can take to manage your condition and lower your risk of vision loss.

8. If you smoke, make a plan to quit.
Quitting smoking is good for your entire body, including your eyes. Kicking the habit can help lower your risk for eye diseases like macular degeneration and cataracts. Quitting smoking is hard, but it’s possible – and a plan can help.

Test your eye health knowledge with a quick quiz and find more vision resources at nei.nih.gov/hvm.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

collect?v=1&tid=UA 482330 7&cid=1955551e 1975 5e52 0cdb 8516071094cd&sc=start&t=pageview&dl=http%3A%2F%2Ftrack.familyfeatures
track

SOURCE:

National Eye Institute

Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Tobacco is still one of the world’s top killers – here are the key obstacles to enacting generational smoking bans

Published

on

Smoking is really bad for you. Most people know that. Even smokers think smoking is bad for one’s health. But most people don’t know just how bad it is.
Cigarette display at a 7-Eleven convenience store in Miami, Fla., in July 2025. Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Marie Helweg-Larsen, Dickinson College

Smoking is really bad for you. Most people know that. Even smokers think smoking is bad for one’s health. But most people don’t know just how bad it is.

More people in the United States die every year from smoking than from alcohol, illegal drug use, car accidents, suicides and murders combined. Cigarette smoking costs an estimated US$240 billion annually in health care costs, which harm not only smokers but also nonsmokers, communities and the economy. Smoking is the top preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. and worldwide.

The number of smokers in the U.S. has declined from 41% in 1944 to 11% in 2024. However, over 25 million Americans still smoke.

This drop is partly the result of many smoking laws enacted in the past 50 years. They include national bans on cigarette advertising on television and radio (1971), smoking on commercial flights (2000), sale of fruit- or candy-flavored cigarettes (2009), and sale of cigarettes to people ages 18 to 20 (2019). New policies might seem as strange or unfamiliar as these measures did at the time.

One potentially transformative idea – creating a tobacco-free generation – would build on these past laws. It would phase out smoking by banning it permanently for anyone born after a specific date. For example, a law could make it illegal for anyone under 21 to ever buy cigarettes, whereas people age 21 or older at the time would not be affected. The focus would be on tobacco sales, which already require age verification in the U.S., not on criminalizing tobacco use.

As a psychological scientist, I have studied for decades how people think about smoking. In my view, the key obstacle to creating future generations of nonsmokers is that people do not fully understand how dangerous smoking is and do not realize the formidable influence of the tobacco industry.

Creating a tobacco-free generation

The idea of creating a tobacco-free generation was first proposed by health researchers in 2010. In 2021 the town of Brookline, Massachusetts, became the first U.S. community to adopt it. Brookline’s ordinance prohibits tobacco and vape sales to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000. It has survived a legal challenge and has been emulated in 22 more Massachusetts towns.

As of early 2026, Hawaii and Massachusetts are considering statewide tobacco-free generation bills. Abroad, the Maldives enacted the first countrywide ban in 2025.

Similar proposals have faced pushback elsewhere. In New Zealand, a ban was adopted in 2022 but repealed in 2024. The United Kingdom is considering a similar bill after an earlier version was scrapped due to a snap election.

Why people underestimate harm from cigarettes

It is hard to visualize what exactly it means that 480,000 people in the U.S. die from smoking every year or that each cigarette that you smoke shortens your life by 20 minutes. It is also easy to feel optimistically biased about one’s personal risk as a smoker and believe that others are more likely to become addicted or die prematurely.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Studies show that nonsmokers, former smokers and current smokers underestimate smoking risks. One likely reason is messaging by the tobacco industry, which claimed for decades that cigarettes were safe, even though tobacco industry scientists knew as early as 1953 that smoking caused lung cancer.

Another factor is glamorization of cigarettes in movies. Fully half of the top films released in 2024 showed tobacco imagery, typically of cigarettes. Research shows that adolescents and young adults who watch smoking in movies are more interested in taking up smoking.

Finally, smoking deaths may seem to be unremarkable because some of the illnesses that cigarette smoking causes, such as heart disease or cancer, are commonplace. And unlike deaths from drug overdoses, we do not always see the consequences of a lifetime of smoking. https://www.youtube.com/embed/2mKyosQbFNY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Smoking imagery is widespread in popular culture and may be one driver of tobacco use, especially among young Americans.

What about freedom of choice?

A common argument against laws that regulate personal choices, such as whether to smoke or wear seat belts, is that people prize their autonomy and don’t like governments telling them how to live. This isn’t a new challenge for public health policies, which often restrict private citizens’ freedom to do as they wish.

People can be persuaded that community action should trump individual choice if a behavior, such as smoking cigarettes or driving while drunk, harms others who don’t engage in it. Many public health laws are designed to protect people who are innocent or vulnerable. For example, current smoking laws have been enacted in part to protect nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke, especially children. And smoking increases health care costs for everyone, not just smokers.

By preventing people in the U.S. who cannot legally buy cigarettes now from ever doing so, generational smoking bans balance the rights of current adult smokers against the major public health benefits of a phased smoking ban that will eventually end the smoking epidemic.

Arguments against generational smoking laws

The tobacco industry’s attempts to undermine tobacco health policies are well documented and follow a predictable pattern. For example, when the U.K. government considered a generational smoking policy in 2023, tobacco companies and their supporters argued that smoking was a minor problem, that individuals should be responsible for their own choices, and that a nationwide ban would lead to illegal behavior or hurt business profits.

In a 2025 study assessing how Belgian politicians viewed generational smoking bans, researchers heard similar arguments. Respondents across the political spectrum valued personal freedom and informed individual choice more highly than protecting children. The politicians also believed that young people could understand how smoking affected their health, and that raising awareness was more important than bans. These arguments aligned with tobacco industry positions.

However, research shows that young people hold many optimistic beliefs about smoking, especially with respect to the addictiveness of nicotine and the likelihood that they will avoid becoming lifelong smokers. Studies have also found that adolescents don’t know enough to make an informed choice to smoke. These findings matter because the tobacco industry routinely targets young people in an effort to create lifelong smokers.

The tobacco industry’s harm reduction approach frames e-cigarettes, also known as vapes, as a way to create a smoke-free future by transitioning smokers to other nicotine products. But research shows that the tobacco industry actively markets nicotine products such as vapes to young people to create a new generation of nicotine users.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Not a silver bullet

Curbing the use of an addictive product is challenging, and there are ways for young people to obtain cigarettes illegally, as they do now in places where cigarette buyers must be at least 21. Tactics include shopping at stores that don’t check IDs, having older friends buy cigarettes and purchasing cigarettes illegally online.

Tobacco-free generation policies aren’t a silver bullet. They work most effectively in conjunction with other measures, such as plain packaging; high prices; bans on displays, advertising and flavored products; smoking cessation support; and public health messages making clear that cigarettes are unsafe at any age.

Still, health experts and groups including the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology argue that creating a tobacco-free generation could dramatically reduce preventable deaths and secure a healthier future for today’s children and future generations. In my view, understanding the obstacles to change is a critical step toward achieving this goal.

Marie Helweg-Larsen, Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world. 

https://stmdailynews.com/

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Women are at a higher risk of dying from heart disease − in part because doctors don’t take major sex and gender differences into account

Heart disease impacts women differently than men due to genetic and gender biases in healthcare. Awareness and improved treatment approaches are essential for better outcomes.

Published

on

Last Updated on April 20, 2026 by Daily News Staff

heart shape object on person s hands
Photo by Puwadon Sang-ngern on Pexels.com

Amy Huebschmann, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Judith Regensteiner, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

A simple difference in the genetic code – two X chromosomes versus one X chromosome and one Y chromosome – can lead to major differences in heart disease. It turns out that these genetic differences influence more than just sex organs and sex assigned at birth – they fundamentally alter the way cardiovascular disease develops and presents.

While sex influences the mechanisms behind how cardiovascular disease develops, gender plays a role in how healthcare providers recognize and manage it. Sex refers to biological characteristics such as genetics, hormones, anatomy and physiology, while gender refers to social, psychological, and cultural constructs. Women are more likely to die after a first heart attack or stroke than men. Women are also more likely to have additional or different heart attack symptoms that go beyond chest pain, such as nausea, jaw pain, dizziness and fatigue. It is often difficult to fully disentangle the influences of sex on cardiovascular disease outcomes versus the influences of gender.

While women who haven’t entered menopause have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than men, their cardiovascular risk accelerates dramatically after menopause. In addition, if a woman has Type 2 diabetes, her risk of heart attack accelerates to be equivalent to that of men, even if the woman with diabetes has not yet gone through menopause. Further data is needed to better understand differences in cardiovascular disease risk among nonbinary and transgender patients.

Despite these differences, one key thing is the same: Heart attack, stroke and other forms of cardiovascular disease are the leading cause of death for all people, regardless of sex or gender.

We are researchers who study women’s health and the way cardiovascular disease develops and presents differently in women and men. Our work has identified a crucial need to update medical guidelines with more sex-specific approaches to diagnosis and treatment in order to improve health outcomes for all.

Gender differences in heart disease

The reasons behind sex and gender differences in cardiovascular disease are not completely known. Nor are the distinct biological effects of sex, such as hormonal and genetic factors, versus gender, such as social, cultural and psychological factors, clearly differentiated.

What researchers do know is that the accumulated evidence of what good heart care should look like for women compared with men has as many holes in it as Swiss cheese. Medical evidence for treating cardiovascular disease often comes from trials that excluded women, since women for the most part weren’t included in scientific research until the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. For example, current guidelines to treat cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure are based primarily on data from men. This is despite evidence that differences in the way that cardiovascular disease develops leads women to experience cardiovascular disease differently.

a man checking the elderly woman s blood pressure using sphygmomanometer
Photo by Gustavo Fring on Pexels.com

In addition to sex differences, implicit gender biases among providers and gendered social norms among patients lead clinicians to underestimate the risk of cardiac events in women compared with men. These biases play a role in why women are more likely than men to die from cardiac events. For example, for patients with symptoms that are borderline for cardiovascular disease, clinicians tend to be more aggressive in ordering artery imaging for men than for women. One study linked this tendency to order less aggressive tests for women partly to a gender bias that men are more open than women to taking risks.

In a study of about 3,000 patients with a recent heart attack, women were less likely than men to think that their heart attack symptoms were due to a heart condition. Additionally, most women do not know that cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 cause of death among women. Overall, women’s misperceptions of their own risk may hold them back from getting a doctor to check out possible symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.

These issues are further exacerbated for women of color. Lack of access to health care and additional challenges drive health disparities among underrepresented racial and ethnic minority populations.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Sex difference in heart disease

Cardiovascular disease physically looks different for women and men, specifically in the plaque buildup on artery walls that contributes to illness.

Women have fewer cholesterol crystals and fewer calcium deposits in their artery plaque than men do. Physiological differences in the smallest blood vessels feeding the heart also play a role in cardiovascular outcomes.

Women are more likely than men to have cardiovascular disease that presents as multiple narrowed arteries that are not fully “clogged,” resulting in chest pain because blood flow can’t ratchet up enough to meet higher oxygen demands with exercise, much like a low-flow showerhead. When chest pain presents in this way, doctors call this condition ischemia and no obstructive coronary arteries. In comparison, men are more likely to have a “clogged” artery in a concentrated area that can be opened up with a stent or with cardiac bypass surgery. Options for multiple narrowed arteries have lagged behind treatment options for typical “clogged” arteries, which puts women at a disadvantage.

In addition, in the early stages of a heart attack, the levels of blood markers that indicate damage to the heart are lower in women than in men. This can lead to more missed diagnoses of coronary artery disease in women compared with men.

The reasons for these differences are not fully clear. Some potential factors include differences in artery plaque composition that make men’s plaque more likely to rupture or burst and women’s plaque more likely to erode. Women also have lower heart mass and smaller arteries than men even after taking body size into consideration.

Reducing sex disparities

Too often, women with symptoms of cardiovascular disease are sent away from doctor’s offices because of gender biases that “women don’t get heart disease.”

Considering how symptoms of cardiovascular disease vary by sex and gender could help doctors better care for all patients.

One way that the rubber is meeting the road is with regard to better approaches to diagnosing heart attacks for women and men. Specifically, when diagnosing heart attacks, using sex-specific cutoffs for blood tests that measure heart damage – called high-sensitivity troponin tests – can improve their accuracy, decreasing missed diagnoses, or false negatives, in women while also decreasing overdiagnoses, or false positives, in men.

Our research laboratory’s leaders, collaborators and other internationally recognized research colleagues – some of whom partner with our Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research on the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus – will continue this important work to close this gap between the sexes in health care. Research in this field is critical to shine a light on ways clinicians can better address sex-specific symptoms and to bring forward more tailored treatments.

The Biden administration’s recent executive order to advance women’s health research is paving the way for research to go beyond just understanding what causes sex differences in cardiovascular disease. Developing and testing right-sized approaches to care for each patient can help achieve better health for all.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Amy Huebschmann, Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Judith Regensteiner, Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.

Continue Reading

Trending