Login
Richmond Woman Discovers She Isn’t Immune to Measles 60 Years After Shot
A Richmond woman recently learned that she is not immune to the measles virus, despite receiving the vaccine nearly 60 years ago. KPRC 2 reporter Corley Peel spoke with a doctor who indicated that she may not be alone in this situation.
Kathy Kennedy, 66, received her measles vaccine on May 24, 1965. She believed she was protected for life until she discovered that this might not be the case. “I had heard that some people might not be immune because of the type of dosage that was given at that time,” Kennedy said. “So, I asked my doctor, and they said they could do a blood test.”
Kennedy’s blood test results confirmed her fears: she was not immune to measles, despite having received the vaccine almost six decades ago. “I kind of thought, you know, there’s a lot of people like me walking around that think they’re immune and they’re not,” she said.
Dr. David Persse, the City of Houston’s Chief Medical Officer, explained that this issue could affect individuals who received the measles vaccine during its initial rollout between 1963 and 1967.
FDA Delays Final Approval of Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine
Infectious Disease Advisor reported:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has delayed the full approval of Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine. The decision had been expected by April 1, but the agency now says it needs more information before moving forward.
The Novavax shot is already available under emergency use. But full FDA approval would allow the vaccine to be used more widely and could offer more reassurance to people looking for options besides the existing mRNA vaccines, CNN reported.
The delay dovetails with moves by Republican lawmakers in at least seven states to ban or limit mRNA vaccines. Some, according to KFF Health News, are also pressing regulators to revoke federal approval for mRNA-based COVID-19 shots, which President Donald Trump has touted as a key first-term achievement. Novavax uses protein-based technology, a more traditional method than the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.
Semaglutide Linked to Higher Risk of Vision Problems, FDA Data Analysis Shows
A team of researchers at the University of Bern, Switzerland, recently reported that the use of the antidiabetic medicine semaglutide is associated with an increased risk of vision impairment. The study findings were published in the journal BMC Medicine.
The team analyzed 302,706 reports, including 17,853 mentioning obesity as an indication, 283,238 mentioning type 2 diabetes, and 1,615 mentioning both conditions.
The comparative analysis revealed that semaglutide use is associated with a significantly higher risk of vision impairment compared to other GLP-1 RAs. Among 11,558 semaglutide-related reports, researchers identified 417 cases specifically related to visual impairment, retinopathy, or ischemic optic neuropathy.
The researchers observed a more pronounced risk of vision impairment when comparing semaglutide with other antidiabetic medicines, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and metformin.
New Meta-Analysis Flags Possible Link Between Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine and Coronary Artery Disease
A March 2025 study led by Dr. Raheleh Karimi at Iran University of Medical Sciences and published in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine has raised concerns over a potential link between Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and coronary artery disease (CAD).
Using Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis on 15 controlled observational studies involving over 115 million vaccinated individuals, the authors reported a significantly elevated risk of CAD — particularly after the second Pfizer dose (OR 3.44, 95% CrI: 1.99–5.98). No similar signal was found for Moderna’s vaccine, and overall risks for stroke, heart attack, or arrhythmia remained neutral or protective.
While the study reassures that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe from a cardiovascular standpoint, its findings suggest a CAD signal limited to Asian cohorts and Pfizer recipients, highlighting a potential geographic or data-source bias.
Additionally, stroke and arrhythmia risks appeared elevated after the first dose of some vaccines but decreased following the third dose. The protective effect of booster doses was particularly pronounced for myocardial infarction and stroke.
For Opioid Victims, Payouts Fall Short While Governments Reap Millions
Christopher Julian’s opioid journey is familiar to many Americans. He was prescribed painkillers as a teenager for a series of sports injuries. He said the doctor never warned him they could be addictive.
Julian didn’t learn that fact until years later, when he was cut off and began suffering withdrawal symptoms. At that point, he started siphoning pills from family members and buying them from others in his southern Maine community.
After his brother died of brain cancer in 2011, Julian used opioids to cope with more than physical pain. He stole to support his addiction, cycled in and out of jail and treatment, and overdosed 10 times, he said. His mother once gave him CPR on their bathroom floor.
Tackling the ‘Silent Pandemic’: Study Puts First Long COVID Treatment on Horizon
Researchers have shown a new drug compound can prevent long COVID symptoms in mice — a landmark finding that could lead to a future treatment for the debilitating condition.
Published in Nature Communications, the world-first study found mice treated with the antiviral compound, developed by a multidisciplinary research team at WEHI, were protected from long-term brain and lung dysfunction — key symptoms of long COVID.
Researchers hope the unprecedented results could lead to clinical trials and an oral treatment for the disease in the future.
Long COVID, also known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, is a chronic condition characterized by symptoms that last for weeks or months after contracting COVID-19. It is a significant health burden that remains poorly understood — with symptoms ranging from breathing difficulties, brain fog, and chronic fatigue.
Judge Levies $1.64B Penalty on Johnson & Johnson in HIV Drug Marketing Case
Nearly a year after a jury decided that Johnson & Johnson should be fined just over $150 million in a lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in misleading marketing tactics for two of its HIV meds, a judge has upped the penalty more than tenfold.
In an opinion filed Friday, U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi of New Jersey followed up on the June jury decision that found J&J’s Janssen, now known as J&J Innovative Medicine, guilty of violating both state and federal versions of the False Claims Act.
As detailed in the initial 2017 complaint, J&J was accused in part of promoting Prezista as “lipid-neutral” between 2006 and 2014, despite the “significant negative effect” on lipids detailed in the drug’s FDA-approved label.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the Big Pharma had claimed its Intelence was safe and effective for once-daily dosing and in treatment-naive patients, even though the drug was formally approved only as a twice-daily therapy for treatment-experienced patients.
