I was reading this morning about the death of Catherine O'Hara from a pulmonary embolism induced by a rectal cancer (para-neoplastic). The comments in the NYT all talked about colonoscopy...in my experience colonoscopies often miss early anorectal cancers. Perhaps a discussion of colon vs anal cancer, their detection, and the benefit of HPV vaccine would be worthwhile?
Of course, let me know if I can assist...I am knowledgeable but not expert. It is a bit complicated although there are anal cancer screening guidelines from the International Anal Neoplasia Society. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38297406/
Explaining the differences between colon and anal cancer especially around etiology, screening, screening and treatment is the thing.
I keep seeing social posts that RFK Jr is intentionally suppressing testing and reporting on avian influenza. I expect some of this is more based in fear than reality, but as I know the US does not have a comprehensive testing plan, there are no facts to counter this narrative.
Any insights your team can provide going forward would be welcome.
This is a great question. The U.S. actually has a great flu testing and reporting system (because we've always been scared of a pandemic). The government isn't requiring specific testing of workers for H5N1 anymore, but there is still background testing. You can see all the subtypes being tested on a weekly basis here: https://www.cdc.gov/fluview/surveillance/2026-week-04.html
Can you tell us more about HAI and about improved infection control?
Does HAI include ILI, and if not, why would that be? It's my understanding that hospitals no longer regularly test for sars2. I think we've all heard of pts catching covid in hospital/healthcare, and that seems like a careless oversight. I'm not aware of improved air-cleaning, and healthcare settings seem to have regressed to less mask use, not more, so I'm curious about what enhancements are in place. Thanks.
The CDC tracks hospital- and healthcare-acquired infections through the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), which includes specific reporting on Covid-19. The standard respiratory virus panel, which patients usually get if they are showing symptoms, includes flu, RSV and Covid-19 now. If a test is positive, it's generally registered as hospital acquired if symptoms develop more than 48 hours after admission.
Two quick observations: Your discussion of the Hims & Hers cancer screening test would have been a great place to put one of those "four boxes" charts so people could see how specificity and sensitivity work. Your observation that only 40% of cancers were identified (missing 60%), and yet 99% of those testing negative WERE negative for cancer would be great for walking through how the frequency of something happening/not happening can really impact the effectiveness of screening. Second observation: Re the ineffectiveness of "shame" based public health. I still remember the early anti-smoking posters from the Surgeon General. I had one up in my dorm room, of an old, wrinkled, toothless woman smoking a cigarette, with the tagline of "Smoking is Glamorous." That kind of juxtaposition did seem to be effective - was it?
Food is a necessity where access, money, and time/energy play signifigant roles in what we eat. Smoking is not a necessity. Shaming people into avoiding something they do not need to survive is very different from shaming people for making decisions around something they do need to survive. Not to mention the risks of eating disorders.
If most Americans do not meet our country's own dietary guidelines, who is to blame - most Americans, or our food systems? I reccommend reading Dr. Jessica Knurick's work on here for more info and context.
thanks for the recommended reading. As to the "shaming" discussion, I'm not even sure the American Cancer Society program was "shaming" as much as a way to use irony to break through mythology.
Question about the blood test data: when it did detect cancer was it a specific cancers or just generally that there was cancer. When the detection was accurate.
Looking into this... the Hims & Hers Galleri test is a "multi-cancer early detection test," which detects dozens of tumor types. It gives a "Cancer Signal Detected" result with a prediction of the tissue type/organ associated with the cancel signal, called a "Cancer Signal Origin."
So yes, it does differentiate results, but it uses a prediction model to do so. Again, negative results across the board do not mean no cancer is present.
The article on UPFs was really helpful. I basically eat a healthy diet, with less processed foods, and lots of veggies. But it is really helpful to understand how foods are processed and that not all UPFs are to be avoided (I was especially happy to see that I'd made a good choice by drinking soy milk, which I chose because of its good nutritional profile).
I had not heard about TrumpRx, but I would not choose to go anywhere near anything with trump's name on it. Especially now that I'm older, I appreciate having a real pharmacy that is very reliable and helpful.
Just to add to the TrumpRx info, the RxBINs they use to file are the same on GoodRx for several drugs. In some cases, it is simply Trump stamping his name on something that already exists.
Genuinely curious about what makes you proud of this country? As someone who was born in America, grew up here, and still live here, I struggle to find things to be proud of. Part of that stems from a struggle to separate the average people of America from the government.
That superbowl ad just infuriated me. Reminds me of RFK's comments at a national conference earlier this month where he said something along the lines of "I have some ideas on how to fight addiction, I want to hear yours, and I just want to do what works." These people have no idea What Works, and seeing taxpayer dollars go to unsuccessful shaming campaigns while public health professional degrees are getting loan limits just breaks my heart. Always an uphill battle in this field.
I open this message as soon as I see it in my inbox. In my view it's a highly reliable source of information.
Appreciate the explanation about TrumpRx & comparison examples. Will share.
I was reading this morning about the death of Catherine O'Hara from a pulmonary embolism induced by a rectal cancer (para-neoplastic). The comments in the NYT all talked about colonoscopy...in my experience colonoscopies often miss early anorectal cancers. Perhaps a discussion of colon vs anal cancer, their detection, and the benefit of HPV vaccine would be worthwhile?
Noted, thanks for the suggestion!
Of course, let me know if I can assist...I am knowledgeable but not expert. It is a bit complicated although there are anal cancer screening guidelines from the International Anal Neoplasia Society. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38297406/
Explaining the differences between colon and anal cancer especially around etiology, screening, screening and treatment is the thing.
I keep seeing social posts that RFK Jr is intentionally suppressing testing and reporting on avian influenza. I expect some of this is more based in fear than reality, but as I know the US does not have a comprehensive testing plan, there are no facts to counter this narrative.
Any insights your team can provide going forward would be welcome.
This is a great question. The U.S. actually has a great flu testing and reporting system (because we've always been scared of a pandemic). The government isn't requiring specific testing of workers for H5N1 anymore, but there is still background testing. You can see all the subtypes being tested on a weekly basis here: https://www.cdc.gov/fluview/surveillance/2026-week-04.html
I try to ignore everything coming out of HHS, given that there is no director at the CDC.
With good reason!
Can you share the links for the good news articles? I would love to pass those along to my teams at work!
CDC funding: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5699465/congress-fully-funds-health-agencies-restoring-rfk-jr-s-cuts#:~:text=Congress%20fully%20funds%20health%20agencies,Jr.'s%20cuts%20:%20NPR&text=Gaming-,Congress%20fully%20funds%20health%20agencies%2C%20restoring%20RFK%20Jr.'s,in%20the%20agencies%20remain%20suspicious.
Hospital-acquired infections decline: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/healthcare-associated-infections/cdc-data-show-decline-hospital-related-infections-2024#:~:text=A%20new%20report%20released%20last,drop%20in%20C%20difficile%20infections.
Melanoma vaccine results: https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-report-positive-results-from-cancer-vaccine-study-73fb3b5f?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfvWD2XITTYm6dcLWLxc2kpD8dcSfNIRCmuPBBNDZlYIzB3QWQ-ARZYBbEZDco%3D&gaa_ts=698bc9b5&gaa_sig=bT9kV_7t8MhWqEbqju1yneeBYQG_FHpgNiNtcjTJ6aCJK3CBsDhshXwMupc_rwcGiJrVjsdriOE8OJMNRSsOdA%3D%3D
Excellent info, as always. Thank you.
Can you tell us more about HAI and about improved infection control?
Does HAI include ILI, and if not, why would that be? It's my understanding that hospitals no longer regularly test for sars2. I think we've all heard of pts catching covid in hospital/healthcare, and that seems like a careless oversight. I'm not aware of improved air-cleaning, and healthcare settings seem to have regressed to less mask use, not more, so I'm curious about what enhancements are in place. Thanks.
The CDC tracks hospital- and healthcare-acquired infections through the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), which includes specific reporting on Covid-19. The standard respiratory virus panel, which patients usually get if they are showing symptoms, includes flu, RSV and Covid-19 now. If a test is positive, it's generally registered as hospital acquired if symptoms develop more than 48 hours after admission.
Check out NHSN here: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/index.html
And this article has more details on the decline in hospital-related infections: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/healthcare-associated-infections/cdc-data-show-decline-hospital-related-infections-2024#:~:text=A%20new%20report%20released%20last,drop%20in%20C%20difficile%20infections.
The Dove commercial was empowering as they historically are.
Two quick observations: Your discussion of the Hims & Hers cancer screening test would have been a great place to put one of those "four boxes" charts so people could see how specificity and sensitivity work. Your observation that only 40% of cancers were identified (missing 60%), and yet 99% of those testing negative WERE negative for cancer would be great for walking through how the frequency of something happening/not happening can really impact the effectiveness of screening. Second observation: Re the ineffectiveness of "shame" based public health. I still remember the early anti-smoking posters from the Surgeon General. I had one up in my dorm room, of an old, wrinkled, toothless woman smoking a cigarette, with the tagline of "Smoking is Glamorous." That kind of juxtaposition did seem to be effective - was it?
Great suggestion on the sensitivity/specificity table, thank you!
Food is a necessity where access, money, and time/energy play signifigant roles in what we eat. Smoking is not a necessity. Shaming people into avoiding something they do not need to survive is very different from shaming people for making decisions around something they do need to survive. Not to mention the risks of eating disorders.
If most Americans do not meet our country's own dietary guidelines, who is to blame - most Americans, or our food systems? I reccommend reading Dr. Jessica Knurick's work on here for more info and context.
thanks for the recommended reading. As to the "shaming" discussion, I'm not even sure the American Cancer Society program was "shaming" as much as a way to use irony to break through mythology.
Question about the blood test data: when it did detect cancer was it a specific cancers or just generally that there was cancer. When the detection was accurate.
Looking into this... the Hims & Hers Galleri test is a "multi-cancer early detection test," which detects dozens of tumor types. It gives a "Cancer Signal Detected" result with a prediction of the tissue type/organ associated with the cancel signal, called a "Cancer Signal Origin."
So yes, it does differentiate results, but it uses a prediction model to do so. Again, negative results across the board do not mean no cancer is present.
More here: https://www.statnews.com/2026/02/06/telehealth-firms-multi-cancer-tests-doctors-wary/
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9e3GiODhY&t=1&themeRefresh=1
Thanks! These tests will eventually get better and be useful.
The article on UPFs was really helpful. I basically eat a healthy diet, with less processed foods, and lots of veggies. But it is really helpful to understand how foods are processed and that not all UPFs are to be avoided (I was especially happy to see that I'd made a good choice by drinking soy milk, which I chose because of its good nutritional profile).
I had not heard about TrumpRx, but I would not choose to go anywhere near anything with trump's name on it. Especially now that I'm older, I appreciate having a real pharmacy that is very reliable and helpful.
Just to add to the TrumpRx info, the RxBINs they use to file are the same on GoodRx for several drugs. In some cases, it is simply Trump stamping his name on something that already exists.
Genuinely curious about what makes you proud of this country? As someone who was born in America, grew up here, and still live here, I struggle to find things to be proud of. Part of that stems from a struggle to separate the average people of America from the government.
That superbowl ad just infuriated me. Reminds me of RFK's comments at a national conference earlier this month where he said something along the lines of "I have some ideas on how to fight addiction, I want to hear yours, and I just want to do what works." These people have no idea What Works, and seeing taxpayer dollars go to unsuccessful shaming campaigns while public health professional degrees are getting loan limits just breaks my heart. Always an uphill battle in this field.
Thank you for the super informative post!
I'm buzzing over the Olympics also. So life affirming!