Jewell Health Solutions,LLC

01/25/2026

WHO statement on notification of withdrawal of the United States

As a founding member of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States of America has contributed significantly to many of WHO’s greatest achievements, including the eradication of smallpox, and progress against many other public health threats including polio, HIV, Ebola, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety and more.

WHO therefore regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe. The notification of withdrawal raises issues that will be considered by the WHO Executive Board at its regular meeting starting on 2 February and by the World Health Assembly at its annual meeting in May 2026.

WHO takes note of statements from the government of the United States that say WHO has “trashed and tarnished” and insulted it, and compromised its independence. The reverse is true. As we do with every Member State, WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith, with full respect for its sovereignty.
In its statements, the United States cited as one of the reasons for its decision, “WHO failures during the COVID-19 pandemic”, including “obstructing the timely and accurate sharing of critical information” and that WHO “concealed those failures”. While no organization or government got everything right, WHO stands by its response to this unprecedented global health crisis. Throughout the pandemic, WHO acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence. WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns. We supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.

Immediately after receiving the first reports of a cluster of cases of “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019, WHO asked China for more information and activated its emergency incident management system. By the time the first death was reported from China on 11 January 2020, WHO had already alerted the world through formal channels, public statements and social media, convened global experts, and published comprehensive guidance for countries on how to protect their populations and health systems. When the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern under the International Health Regulations on 30 January 2020 – the highest level of alarm under international health law – outside of China there were fewer than 100 reported cases, and no reported deaths.

In the first weeks and months of the pandemic, the Director-General urged all countries repeatedly to take immediate action to protect their populations, warning that “the window of opportunity is closing”, “this is not a drill” and describing COVID-19 as “public enemy number one”.
In response to the multiple reviews of the COVID-19 pandemic, including of WHO’s performance, WHO has taken steps to strengthen its own work, and to support countries to bolster their own pandemic preparedness and response capacities. The systems we developed and managed before, during and after the emergency phase of the pandemic, and which run 24/7, have contributed to keeping all countries safe, including the United States.

The United States also said in its statements that WHO has “pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests”. This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favour.

WHO appreciates the support and continued engagement of all its Member States, which continue to work within the framework of WHO to pursue solutions to the world’s biggest health threats, both communicable and noncommunicable. Most notably, WHO Member States last year adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which once ratified will become a landmark instrument of international law to keep the world safer from future pandemics. Member States are now negotiating an annex to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system, which if adopted will promote rapid detection and sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, and equitable and timely access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO. Meanwhile, WHO remains steadfastly committed to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.

01/22/2026

Michigan follows childhood vaccine schedules from AAP and AAFP

Health Bulletin for Health Care Providers - January 2026 (excerpts)

Dear colleagues,

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) remains steadfast in its commitment to vaccine safety, access and evidence-based public health practices. As such, MDHHS has advised families and practitioners to follow the child and adolescent immunization schedules produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

Recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood vaccine schedule have raised questions, concerns and uncertainty among parents, providers and advocates. The federal vaccine schedule changes were not based on new clinical or scientific evidence. As a result, the U.S. is now an outlier among other developed nations in its approach to childhood vaccination.

All vaccines, including those now recommended in the updated CDC schedule under shared clinical decision-making, remain covered with no out-of-pocket costs, by Affordable Care Act-regulated private insurance plans and federal coverage programs such as Medicaid and the Vaccines for Children program.

If patients experience coverage denials or unexpected copays, encourage them to contact their health insurer directly. The Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) is also prepared to assist consumers with questions or concerns about their health insurance. DIFS’ call center is available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at 877-999-6442.

We are hearing from community members around the state that inaccurate information about vaccines is spreading. As a result, we are seeing lower rates of vaccination and a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases.

In Michigan we support evidence-based medicine, and we will continue to follow immunization schedules that protect children from preventable diseases. We thank you for your continued partnership in this work.

Sincerely,

Natasha Bagdasarian, MD, MPH, FIDSA, FACP
Chief Medical Executive, State of Michigan

Sarah Lyon Callo, MS, PhD
Senior Deputy Director and State Epidemiologist, MDHHS Public Health Administration

01/01/2026

12/15/2025

12/02/2025

At 23, she cured leprosy. At 24, she was gone.
And for 90 years, a white man took credit for her work.

This is the story of Alice Augusta Ball — the genius they tried to erase.

She grew up in Seattle in the early 1900s, in a family that believed Black brilliance was worth investing in.
Her grandfather was one of the first Black photographers in America.
Her mother scrubbed floors so she could buy Alice a microscope.

That gift changed the world.

Alice devoured chemistry like it was oxygen.
She earned two bachelor’s degrees.
Published research while still a student.
Then moved to Hawai‘i — and became:

✨ The first woman to earn a master’s in chemistry at UH
✨ The first Black woman to graduate with that degree
✨ The first woman chemistry professor in the school’s history

She was 23 years old.

But while she was teaching, she saw something far more urgent than academia:

Hansen’s disease — leprosy.

A diagnosis meant exile.
You were ripped from your home and shipped to an island to die alone.

There was a treatment —
a bitter, sticky oil that barely worked and caused excruciating pain.
Many refused it. Many still died.

Alice refused to give up.

In her laboratory, she found the answer no one else could:

She transformed that thick oil into a form the body could actually absorb.
A breakthrough injection that finally saved lives.

Patients began recovering.
Families were reunited.
People who had been condemned were suddenly healing.

Her discovery became known as the Ball Method.

She changed medical history before most people finish college.

And then — she was gone.

At just 24, a mysterious lab accident took her life.
She never saw the miracle she created.

Then came the theft.

The university president — a white chemist named Arthur Dean — took her research, stripped off her name, and renamed it:

“The Dean Method.”

For decades…

📌 His name went in textbooks
📌 His name was praised by doctors
📌 His name received the credit

Her name nearly vanished from history entirely.

A theft so quiet, most people never even knew a crime was committed.

It took 90 years for the truth to finally surface.

Researchers uncovered Alice’s original papers.
Her work.
Her brilliance.
Her signature breakthroughs.

The spotlight shifted. The lie crumbled.

And today the world knows:

It was The Ball Method — ALWAYS.

Alice Ball cured a disease that had destroyed lives for centuries.
She freed families.
She saved thousands of people from isolation and death.
And she did it all in one year.

Imagine what she could’ve done with a lifetime.

Alice Ball deserved a Nobel Prize.
She deserved statues.
She deserved to be the name every science student memorizes.

Instead, she was buried under silence…

Until now.

We speak her name because history refused to.
We honor her because others didn’t.
We remember her because she earned it.

Alice Augusta Ball (1892–1916)
The chemist who changed the world before she had time to live in it.

11/08/2025

Blood Cancer & Your Finances

Margherio Family Conference Center
320 East Canfield Street
Detroit, MI 48201

Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 9:00am ET - 12:00pm ET

Topic: Managing blood cancer is about more than just treatment — it also brings financial challenges that can affect patients and their families. This free educational program is designed to provide guidance, support, and resources to help ease the financial stress that often comes with a cancer diagnosis. Our keynote speaker, Theresa Hastert, PhD, will discuss the impacts of financial toxicity that come with a blood cancer diagnosis. Followed by a panel discussion and concluding with an interactive financial wellness workshop, hosted by Michael Randall of Operation: HOPE. Together, we’ll cover practical tips for handling bills, navigating insurance, and finding resources to support you and your loved ones. This program is here to help you feel more confident and supported — so you can focus on your health and healing. We encourage you to invite your caregiver and family members.

10/30/2025

10/26/2025

Obesity Drug Battleground: Wins for Clinicians and Patients?

The race for the weight-loss drug market is intensifying as Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk compete to capture market share — and the winners may well be clinicians and patients.

“The rivalry is good for patients, and it’s good for the field because it’s stimulating the development of new treatments and therefore, more choices and potentially more efficacy and fewer side effects,” Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.

Lilly produces tirzepatide (Zepbound for obesity and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes [T2D]), and Novo Nordisk produces semaglutide (Wegovy for obesity and Ozempic for T2D). For obesity, both drugs are given by weekly injection, and both companies are seeking approval for oral weight-loss formulations to be administered daily.

Recent studies between the two competitors include a head-to-head comparison of their injectables for obesity (tirzepatide came out ahead) and randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oral formulations of orforglipron (Lilly) and semaglutide in people who have overweight or obesity. Approvals of these formulations could potentially broaden the market to include those who prefer pills to injections. Although oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already available as a daily pill, it is approved only for managing T2D, and the dose is lower than that of the oral weight-loss formulation.

Aronne, who led the comparative injectable study, recently spoke with a patient who “did incredibly well on one of the injectables, but they’re starving now.” Another patient took one and now “can’t eat a thing.” Therefore, although both drugs work well overall, he said, “We still have people who don’t respond to them, and so we need a lot of different treatments, and the competition between companies will give us that.”

Insurance, Complications, Cost

Does the rivalry between companies affect how clinicians are prescribing for patients? For the currently available injectables, probably not, at least for now, according to interviewees. “I hate to say it, but the key factor in our describing decisions is insurance,” Aronne said. “If one drug is covered and the other isn’t, we will go with the one that’s covered.”

That approach probably works for the majority of patients, he said. “Although we know from the comparison study that [tirzepatide] is more effective for weight loss than semaglutide, the reality is, not everyone needs that level of efficacy. People can do just fine on a drug that might be less efficacious. So we try one and see how the patient does, and if they do well, great, they just stay on that one. If not, we’ll switch them over to the other one. It’s pretty much trial and error.”

Obesity complications are also a factor, he said. If the patient has sleep apnea, then most likely tirzepatide will be prescribed because it is FDA-approved for treating sleep apnea as well as weight. Similarly, if the patient is at risk for stroke or other serious cardiovascular events, then semaglutide, which is indicated to reduce those risks, would be prescribed.

“If a patient has osteoarthritis, we might prescribe [semaglutide],” which has been shown to improve pain and function, Aronne said. And “both drugs have been shown to be effective in reducing fatty liver, so we know either will help. Therefore, management of the underlying complications plays an important role in our prescribing decisions.”

This means companies are likely scurrying for new indications for their drugs, “and that’s good for patients because the drugs will show additional benefits, and we should wind up with more and more insurance coverage,” he said.

Ajaykumar Rao, MD, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, agreed. Clinicians should review each drug’s prescribing insert to determine which was approved for specific clinical indications, he told Medscape Medical News.

Will Costs Go Down?

Whether the rivalries could lead to lower costs and/or greater access is an open question at this point. “When there is direct competition between manufacturers of similar medications, patients can benefit, as this may also drive more competitive pricing and incentives/discount programs,” said American Gastroenterological Association spokesperson Carolyn Newberry, MD, also of Weill Cornell Medicine.

“However, this usually only drives prices down after the drugs go generic, with more mixed results on pricing under brand-name distribution,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“Since the Lilly molecule doesn’t require an injector pen or refrigeration, and it can be manufactured more easily, there is an expectation that it may be sold at a lower price,” said Sriram Machineni, MD, director of the Fleischer Institute Medical Weight Center at Montefiore Einstein in the Bronx, New York. “However, this may not come to pass, as it will be the first drug of its kind.”

“The biggest hurdle for the adoption of either of these medications is likely to be the stance that many insurance companies take,” he told Medscape Medical News. “They view obesity as a disease that isn’t serious on its own and so are often reluctant to cover treatments for it. Conversely, these same insurance companies would not hesitate to cover the same medication if it were prescribed for T2D.”

How Might Oral Formulations Change Prescribing?

Newberry believes the availability of oral obesity medications will likely affect prescribing habits because patients will have more options. “Considerations will include a patient’s preference between oral and injectable administration, balancing other factors such as dosing frequency (daily vs weekly), insurance coverage, tolerance, and required weight loss to achieve personal health benefits.”

Of note, she added, “These new daily higher-potency oral alternatives to weekly subcutaneous injectables still produce less weight loss overall than currently available drugs and are dosed more frequently. Their ramp-up periods are also different. Side effect profiles are still being teased out, and larger head-to-head trials will be needed to assess differences.”

“My decision will be based on the characteristics of the medications,” Machineni said. For example, patients taking semaglutide 25 mg will need to do so on an empty stomach with 4 ounces of water and can’t exercise for at least 30 minutes after taking it. “On the other hand, orforglipron does not have these restrictions and can be taken at any time with food, which offers more flexibility in administration and is better suited for patients who are less reliable with their medication schedule,” he said.

Effects on obesity complications would also be a factor, as they are for the injectables. “Injectable semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, and there is hope that the oral version will offer similar benefits,” said Machineni. “However, the cardiovascular protection of orforglipron remains unknown. Therefore, if a patient has a history of heart attack or stroke and is looking for an oral agent, I may recommend semaglutide.”

Oral semaglutide has an advantage in that it’s the same molecule that’s in the injectable formulation and therefore has over 7 years of use, Aronne noted. “That means we have a lot of evidence supporting its safety and the side effect profile.”

“In addition, we know that semaglutide acts specifically on the GLP-1 receptor, and we know its effects in the millions of people who have taken it,” he said. By contrast, orforglipron is a new chemical entity, and although it’s been studied in thousands of people, it might still have off-target effects.

“We like to think it’s going to just hit the receptor, but we’re not sure, and that’s something that also needs to be taken into consideration when deciding which pill to prescribe,” he explained.

In a similar vein, Rao noted, “I think it is great to have more options that are noninjectable, and I would say [the two products] appear to be comparable, but we will have to see how that plays out practically.”

When will that be? At press time, a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told Medscape Medical News that the FDA is expected to respond to the request for approval in Q2025, and the company “cannot comment on price at this point.”

The latest announcement on the Lilly website says that submissions for approval for orforglipron are planned to begin in late 2025 and 2026 and that “pricing will reflect the medicine’s value and aims to ensure it is accessible to those who need it.”

Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and advisor for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others. He reported having ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others, and is also reported serving on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth.

Newberry declared receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company in the past. Machineni reported being involved in semaglutide and tirzepatide clinical trials and reported being a consultant to Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Rao declared having no relevant disclosures.

Marilynn Larkin, MA, is an award-winning medical writer and editor whose work has appeared in numerous publications, including Medscape Medical News and its sister publication MDedge, The Lancet (where she was a contributing editor), and Reuters Health.

10/26/2025

Semaglutide Targets Fat While Protecting Muscle Mass
TOPLINE:

Once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg led to significant decreases in body weight and fat mass over 12 months while preserving lean mass and improved muscle function in adults with obesity. Weight and fat loss were more pronounced in women and in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

Once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg often produces > 15% weight loss, though evidence on its effects on body composition and muscle function is limited.
Researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal trial to investigate changes in lean mass and muscle function in adults with obesity treated with semaglutide over 1 year.
Patients with grade 3 obesity, at least one obesity-related comorbidity, and prior unsuccessful lifestyle interventions initiated weekly semaglutide, starting at 0.25 mg and gradually increasing every 4 weeks to a final target dose of 2.4 mg by week 16.
Body weight, body composition using DEXA, muscle function using handgrip strength, and resting energy expenditure were assessed at baseline and after 7 and 12 months of semaglutide.
TAKEAWAY:

A total of 106 participants were included (68.9% women; mean age, 52 years).
The mean body weight significantly declined by 9.8% at 7 months and 12.7% at 12 months, and 59% of patients achieved ≥ 10% weight loss.
Total fat mass decreased by 14.3% at 7 months and 18.9% at 12 months. Lean mass declined initially (-3 kg at 7 months) but stabilized by month 12.
Handgrip strength improved significantly by 4.1 kg at 12 months; the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity decreased from 49% at baseline to 33% at 12 months; and resting energy expenditure, normalized to lean mass, increased significantly from 7 to 12 months.
Women and patients with prior bariatric surgery experienced greater reductions in body weight and fat mass, whereas those with type 2 diabetes or prior GLP-1 use had attenuated responses.
IN PRACTICE:

“These findings emphasize the importance of a comprehensive approach to obesity treatment that goes beyond weight loss alone,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mathieu Alissou, MD, and Thomas Demangeat, MD, Department of Nutrition and CIC-CRB 1404, CSO Rouen Normandie, CHU Rouen, in Rouen, France. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample sizes in subgroups, exclusion of patients who discontinued treatment, 12-month follow-up, and the absence of a control group may have limited the generalizability and long-term interpretation.

DISCLOSURES:

No sources of funding were declared. One author reported being employed by Novo Nordisk.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

10/25/2025

10/25/2025

10/03/2025

So does this new policy rollout prioritize cost savings for American patients, or will it largely operate as a means for select pharmaceutical companies to avoid those newly announced tariffs?

There’s still no clear answers for Americans looking for relief from out of pocket drug costs.

For many Americans, a trip to the pharmacy means the stresses of figuring out which drugs are covered or how to afford those drugs at all.