The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) is very concerned about the decline in federal funding for public health functions such as detection, surveillance and response in the administration’s budget for fiscal year 2019. “It is extremely disheartening and disappointing to see such severe cuts to public health programs at CDC, HRSA, USAID and the Department of State at a time when the services they support are most in need,” said Scott Becker, executive director of APHL. “What is more, these cuts to public health funding come after a historic bipartisan agreement between Congress and the White House to increase federal spending overall for the next two years.”
CDC cuts include:
HRSA cuts include:
Global Health Programs:
- $1.26 billion cut to Department of State Global Health Programs which includes funding provided to CDC for PEPFAR; and
- $1.11 billion cut to USAID Global Health Programs.
While the majority of the president’s budget proposal is grim for public health, there were a few areas that are not as dark. APHL was pleased to see that the budget request designates $175 million to CDC to address the growing opioid crisis. Additionally, funding for the Global Disease Detection Program would increase by $51 million and funding for the Public Health Emergency Preparedness program would increase by $4.5 million.
As Scott Becker explained, “The director of the president’s Office of Management and Budget said, ‘the budget is a messaging document.’ In that case, the message to the American people seems to be, ‘Good luck if there is an outbreak or other public health emergency because federal early warning and response programs won’t be there to help you through.’”
APHL will continue work with Congress to assure that funding levels continue at the much-higher amounts provided in previous years. Adequate levels of federal support for state and local laboratory contributions are critical to the nation’s public health security.
The post APHL: President Trump’s FY 2019 budget request is “disheartening and disappointing” appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.
Posted by All Posts, CDC, department of state, Environmental Health, federal budget, General, Global Health, hrsa, Infectious Diseases, media statement, Media Statements, newborn screening, Preparedness, president trump, Public Policy, usaid
I started MassGenomics ten years ago, when so-called next-generation sequencing was still in its infancy. I’d joined the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University, fulfilling a dream I had since high school. At the time, two NGS technologies had begun to emerge: 454 pyrosequencing and Solexa sequencing-by-synthesis. Over the next several years, Solexa was acquired […]
When you have input to send Congress, you have a number of communication options available to you: phone, email, social media, etc. Many of the bigger issues have dedicated sites that help automate some of the process, which of course leads to a large volume of input that lands in a congressperson’s voicemail, inbox, and notifications tab. Where does it all go?
The OpenGov Foundation looked into it and produced the From Voicemails to Votes report. The flowchart above is part of the report. Full version here.
Tags: feedback, flowchart, government
You probably know that climate change is real and humans are a major cause of global warming. You probably know that life has evolved and the Biblical story of creation is false. Scientists have been actively promoting these ideas for decades and they've been relatively successful in most countries. What you may not know is that these are just two of the many controversial claims that scientists are fighting. You may even have been tricked into believing some of the other pseudoscientific claims that are out there.Do you think genetically-modified organisms are dangerous? Do you think vaccines are a threat to your child's well-being? Do you consult a naturopath or a homeopath? How about a chiropracter? Do you take daily vitamin supplements? Do you avoid gluten or lactose? Do you think hamburgers and fries are unhealthy? Poutine? Have you ever had acupuncture? Have you ever been detoxified? Are you afraid of free radicals? Is Round-Up a deadly poison? Do you spend extra money buying "organic" food? Are you afraid of fluoride? Are preservatives always bad? Is Diet Coke gonna kill you? Do skinny people live longer? Are whole wheat bagels better for you than the regular kind? Do you take probiotics? Do you even know what they are? Can you avoid cancer by eating healthy and working out every day?1
If you answered "yes" to any of those questions then chances are you've fallen for some fake science. It's more common than you might think. I have many friends who take vitamin supplements, for example, in spite of the fact there's no scientific evidence that they do any good. They've been sucked in by the fake "health" food industry who are more than willing to take your money. Last year the so-called "health and wellness" industry raked in a trillion dollars [Health and Wellness the Trillion Dollar Industry in 2017].
Fortunately, there are a few scientists out there who are fighting back and, even more importantly, the legitimate press is beginning to pay attention. This is important because those scientists are fighting a trillion dollar industry and they're mostly doing it for free. Today I was pleased to read the following article in Toronto Star: Scientists, researchers fight against online plague of nutrition pseudoscience.
This group is collectively working to debunk the most egregious health myths with evidence-based, factual information.It always a good thing when proponents of evidence-based facts get as much attention as the proponents of pseudoscience. One of the scientists highlighted in the article is Timothy Caulfield, a professor at the University of Alberta Health Law Institute. He's the author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? (Spoiler Alert! - the answer is "yes.")
Finding health information online is easy. Cutting through the clutter and getting facts is very difficult. There’s a cacophony of voices, each saying something different. The confusion worsens when charlatans provide false hope and bad advice.It's fun to debunk the claims of pseudoscience but let's not forget that the important goal is to teach critical thinking in our schools so that our children grow up armed with the tools to avoid falling for false claims in the first place.
But there is a glimmer of hope. Scientists and researchers are working to debunk the most egregious health myths and educate readers with evidence-based, factual information. Let’s call them skeptics, myth-busters or debunkers. In any case, this group is collectively using science to fight back against the pseudoscience (such as fad diets and quack cancer cures).
1. If I haven't found at least one question that makes you want to post an angry rebuttal then please let me know and I will add some others.
Charles Darwin, the greatest scientist who ever lived, was born on this day in 1809 [Darwin still spurs tributes, debates] [Happy Darwin Day!] [Darwin Day 2017]. Darwin is mostly famous for two things: (1) he described and documented the evidence for evolution and common descent and (2) he provided a plausible scientific explanation of evolution—the theory of natural selection. He put all this in a book, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection published in 1859—a book that spurred a revolution in our understanding of the natural world.Modern evolutionary theory has advanced well beyond Darwin's theory but he still deserves to be honored for being the first to explain evolution and promote it in a way that convinced others. Here's one passage from the introduction to Origin of Species.
Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate and dispassionate study of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.