Health officials in Hood River County of Oregon are now investigating the three suspected cases of a rare and a fatal brain disorder. It is called the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). What is even more concerning is that two residents of the small county have already been reported dead and a third case is currently under review. While CJD is extremely rare, with a cluster of cases in the community of just 24,000 which prompt its serious concern, a deeper look at this mysterious disease could help people understand more about it.

What Is Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)?

Before we delve into how it happens or what causes, let us first understand what is it. CJD is degenerative brain disorder that is caused by abnormal or infectious proteins, also known as prions. Unlike bacteria or viruses, prions are misfolded protein which can induce normal protein in the bodies to misfold itself too. It can also lead to severe and irreversible brain damage. These proteins accumulate and cause the brain to develop sponge-like holes, which disrupt normal function and lead to a rapid mental and physical decline.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), most patients diet within a year of symptom onset and there is currently no cure of that same.

Is The Disease Common?

We have already established the fact that it is a rare disease. In fact, as per the National Institutes of Health (NIH) only 350 cases of CJD is diagnosed in the US each year. This translates into 1 to 2 cases per million people, annually. Most cases—about 85%—are considered sporadic, meaning they arise without any known cause or risk factors.

Other types include:

Familial CJD (about 10–15% of cases), caused by inherited mutations in the prion protein gene.

Acquired CJD, which is extremely rare, can result from exposure to infected brain or nervous system tissue, often during certain medical procedures or, in even rarer cases, through the consumption of infected cattle (known as variant CJD).

Health officials in Hood River have stated that the current cases do not appear to be linked to cattle consumption, and it’s unclear whether the individuals were related or had any shared genetic factors.

What Are The Common Symptoms Of CJD?

CJD progresses rapidly. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC, early symptoms can include:

• Rapid memory loss and confusion
• Changes in behavior and personality
• Visual disturbances
• Poor coordination and balance
• Muscle stiffness or jerking
• Difficulty speaking or swallowing

As the disease advances, patients often lose the ability to move or speak and may enter a coma. The rapid progression makes early diagnosis difficult and complicates treatment, especially in communities with limited access to specialized neurological care.

How Can It Be Diagnosed?

In the Hood River cases, one of the diagnoses was done through an autopsy. This is also one of the most definitive way to identify CJD by analyzing the brain tissue under a microscope. Testing it for prion proteins then reveals the result. Two other cases are considered likely, however, the results are pending.

Because CJD is so difficult to confirm during life, doctors often rely on clinical symptoms, advanced imaging like MRI, and spinal fluid tests to support a diagnosis. But confirmation usually requires a postmortem examination.

The National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center at Case Western Reserve University plays a key role in diagnosing and studying cases in the U.S. Dr. Brian Appleby, the center’s director, notes that genetic testing can also help determine whether a case is inherited.

They’ve survived the unthinkable—only to be left behind. Tens of thousands of people across the UK were infected with HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C after receiving contaminated blood products through the National Health Service (NHS) between the 1970s and early 1990s. Over 3,000 have died. Those who remain—living with irreversible health damage—say they are “waiting to die in limbo,” abandoned by a system that once harmed them and is now delaying their compensation.

The scandal is now one of the gravest failures in the history of public health and medical ethics in Britain. Yet even after a damning public inquiry and the announcement of a compensation package exceeding £11.8 billion, the process of justice remains painfully slow and exclusionary.

The infected blood scandal didn’t happen in a vacuum. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the UK faced a growing demand for clotting agents like Factor VIII, used to treat patients with conditions such as haemophilia. But with domestic supply falling short, the NHS began importing blood plasma—mainly from the United States.

Much of that plasma came from high-risk groups, including prisoners and intravenous drug users, who were often paid to donate. These donations were frequently contaminated with hepatitis viruses and HIV.

Shockingly, UK authorities continued using these high-risk blood products for years, even after risks were known. Blood donations were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991—18 months after the virus had already been identified.

What is The Human Cost Of Infected Blood Health Complications?

Over 30,000 NHS patients were exposed. Many were children. Some were subjected to medical trials without consent. The result? A generation of individuals living with chronic illnesses and systemic health complications that never should have happened.

HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C are life-altering conditions. Beyond the immediate risk of organ damage, liver failure, or immunosuppression, the emotional toll is immense. Survivors often live with persistent fatigue, neurological symptoms, chronic pain, and mental health challenges, including PTSD and anxiety. Stigma around HIV and hepatitis has also caused widespread social isolation.

Women infected through childbirth or transfusions during pregnancy face added burdens. Children of infected parents have lost caregivers. Many victims stayed silent for decades, fearing shame or professional consequences.

In 2017, the UK government finally launched a statutory inquiry into the scandal. The final report, released in May 2024, called out a pervasive cover-up by the NHS and government. The evidence was clear: thousands were knowingly exposed to risk. The response was too little, too late.

Following the report, a multi-billion-pound compensation fund was announced but fast forward to mid-2025, and only 460 victims have received full compensation out of more than 2,000 invited to submit claims. Tens of thousands more are still waiting—even to be allowed to apply.

Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the public inquiry and British judge, was blunt in a supplemental 200-page report released in July 2025. “People are being harmed further,” he said. “Obvious injustices” include:

• Exclusion of victims infected with HIV before 1982
• Unrealistic evidence requirements for psychological harm
• Lack of consultation with victims during the design of the scheme

Rather than being centered around the people it aims to serve, the scheme was built behind closed doors—mirroring the secrecy that caused the original disaster.

Health Toll of Waiting

Here's what many don’t grasp: delayed compensation isn’t just a bureaucratic failure—it’s a health crisis.

Many victims are now elderly or seriously ill. Without financial support, they face barriers to adequate care, end-of-life support, and medical treatments not covered by the NHS. Mental health, too, has deteriorated among survivors, many of whom feel abandoned yet again.

The current criteria for proving psychological harm require evidence from a consultant psychiatrist with long-term treatment records. But in the 1980s and 90s, such services were rarely available, especially outside major cities. For many victims, disclosing their status even to medical professionals meant risking stigma, job loss, or personal rejection.

Requiring documentation they could never have safely obtained isn’t just unfair, it’s cruel.

What Happens to the Body When In Contact With Contaminated Blood?

To understand the scale of this injustice, it’s crucial to look at what infections like HIV and hepatitis do to the body:

HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) attacks the immune system, making the body vulnerable to other infections and certain cancers. Without treatment, it progresses to AIDS. Even with antiretroviral therapy, it can cause long-term fatigue, cognitive issues, cardiovascular problems, and reduced life expectancy.

Hepatitis B and C target the liver. Chronic infection can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Many infected individuals require lifelong antiviral medication and liver monitoring.

These viruses are spread through contact with infected blood, sexual fluids, or contaminated medical tools. Even a single exposure can lead to lifelong health consequences.

Despite allocating £11.8 billion, the UK government has been slow to implement recommendations. Sir Brian’s report calls for:

• Immediate eligibility for all victims, not just those invited
• Prioritization of elderly and severely ill survivors
• Acknowledgment of the stigma that prevented early care
• Transparency and involvement of affected families in ongoing decision-making

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has so far processed a fraction of the claims. Survivors continue to ask: if the government has known this was coming for years, why are we still waiting?

While this scandal is rooted in the UK, the message applies globally- trust in healthcare systems is fragile. Once broken, it’s hard to rebuild.

Scandals like this shake confidence in public health not just in transfusions, but in vaccines, medications, and institutional care. When victims are sidelined, when compensation is delayed, and when transparency is lacking, the public loses faith.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted full approval to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, for children aged 6 months to 11 years — but with a critical condition: it’s only approved for those with underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. This decision marks a shift in the federal approach to pediatric vaccinations, with implications that stretch beyond individual health to the national conversation around public trust in vaccines.

Until now, Moderna’s pediatric vaccine had been administered under emergency use authorization (EUA), a fast-track mechanism used throughout the pandemic. Thursday’s announcement confirms the FDA has approved a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Spikevax in children under 12, marking the first COVID vaccine for kids in the U.S. to receive full licensure.

But the approval is narrow: it applies only to children with medical vulnerabilities — such as asthma, congenital heart disease, or immunocompromising conditions — who face higher risks of hospitalization or severe complications from COVID-19.

Also Read: UN Warns Millions Could Die By 2029 If US Cuts HIV Funding

This development aligns with evolving U.S. health policy, particularly since Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made sweeping changes to COVID-19 vaccine guidance earlier this year.

In May, RFK Jr. declared that routine COVID-19 vaccinations would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. The decision was not made in consultation with the broader scientific community or advisory boards, and it drew swift backlash from public health experts.

Compounding the controversy, Kennedy dismantled the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — the independent body of scientists that has advised U.S. vaccine policy for decades — and replaced all 17 members with just seven new appointees, many of whom have documented anti-vaccine stances.

Major medical organizations have since filed lawsuits, arguing that Kennedy’s directives ignore established science and pose a significant public health risk, particularly in light of data showing that infants and toddlers remain vulnerable to serious illness from COVID-19.

Here’s the thing — while healthy children may generally experience milder COVID-19 symptoms, they’re not immune from severe outcomes. In fact, babies under 6 months have the second-highest hospitalization rate for COVID-19, right behind adults aged 75 and older. And kids between 6 and 23 months are hospitalized at similar rates to adults in their early 60s, according to data recently presented to the ACIP before it was disbanded.

Also Read: Medical Memoir: Comeback Of Victorian Era Diseases – Why Are We Seeing A Rise In Long-Forgotten Diseases

Children under 6 months can’t be vaccinated. But those between 6 months and 11 years, especially those with health conditions, still benefit greatly from immunization. Moderna’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, emphasized the urgency, “COVID-19 continues to pose a significant potential threat to children, especially those with underlying medical conditions. Vaccination can be an important tool for protecting our youngest against severe disease and hospitalization.”

What the New Approval Means for Parents?

Parents of children aged 6 months to 11 years who fall into at-risk categories now have the option of a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine — not just one available under emergency use. For these families, the approval brings an added layer of reassurance about safety, efficacy, and regulatory oversight. According to Moderna:

• Children ages 6 to 23 months who haven’t previously received a COVID-19 vaccine will need two doses, spaced one month apart.
• Children over 2 years who have already been vaccinated, or are starting fresh, will need just one booster shot.

Moderna says its updated vaccine will be made available in time for the 2025-26 respiratory virus season.

Why Some Experts Still Recommend Vaccinating All Eligible Children?

While federal policy now limits vaccination recommendations, the CDC has kept the door open, stating that COVID-19 shots “remain an option” for healthy children if parents and their pediatricians agree it’s warranted. Vaccination doesn’t just prevent infection — it lowers the chance of serious outcomes like:

• MIS-C (Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children), a rare but severe complication
• Long COVID symptoms, which can include fatigue, cognitive issues, and respiratory problems

Transmission to vulnerable adults, such as grandparents or teachers with underlying conditions

Additionally, children who are vaccinated are less likely to miss school, more likely to safely participate in sports and social activities, and can contribute to broader community protection.

The selective nature of this FDA approval speaks to a deepening divide in how U.S. health policy is being shaped — one that pits evolving scientific data against a rising tide of political skepticism.

As the CDC continues to endorse COVID-19 vaccination for everyone aged 6 months and older, Kennedy’s reversal of longstanding recommendations has raised alarms among epidemiologists, pediatricians, and public health officials who warn that scaling back vaccine guidance may undermine public trust and increase risk for vulnerable populations.

Meanwhile, Moderna’s stock saw a modest 2% rise in premarket trading, signaling investor confidence in the vaccine’s continued relevance — especially for immunocompromised populations.

This isn’t just another vaccine approval — it’s a mirror of where the U.S. stands on public health, science, and trust in institutions. With the FDA’s endorsement of Moderna’s Spikevax for select children, parents of vulnerable kids now have a fully approved safeguard.

The mixed messaging between the FDA, the CDC, and the federal health secretary may leave many families confused about what’s best for their children. In this climate, pediatricians will play a crucial role in helping families make informed decisions based on science, not politics.

For two decades, American-led investment through programs like PEPFAR (The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) has helped slash global AIDS-related deaths to their lowest levels in over 30 years. But this progress is now at serious risk. A sudden and sweeping withdrawal of U.S. foreign aid has triggered what the United Nations is calling a “systemic shock” to HIV response systems around the world.

According to a new UNAIDS report, if the funding gap remains unresolved, the world could see more than 4 million additional AIDS-related deaths and 6 million new HIV infections by 2029. The consequences are already visible — health facilities shuttered, supply chains broken, testing and treatment disrupted, and clinics in sub-Saharan Africa forced to halt vital HIV services.

In January, President Trump abruptly suspended all foreign aid and took steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). That move wiped out $4 billion in pledged HIV funding for 2025, including the backbone funding for programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, PEPFAR has been called the largest commitment by any country to fight a single disease. Since its inception, it has supported HIV testing for more than 84 million people and treatment for over 20 million. Countries like Nigeria, where 99.9% of the national HIV prevention budget was supported by PEPFAR, are now facing catastrophic disruption.

Andrew Hill, an HIV researcher at the University of Liverpool, criticized the U.S. government's abrupt move: “Any responsible government would have given advance warning so countries could plan,” he said. “Instead, patients were stranded, and clinics closed overnight.”

The Domino Effect

The fallout from the funding cut is widespread. UNAIDS has reported large-scale impacts: medical facilities without staff, vital medications running out, and HIV testing and surveillance collapsing in several regions.

The U.S. was the main funder of HIV data systems across Africa — from patient records to electronic surveillance systems. With that infrastructure now unsupported, global experts worry that tracking and controlling the spread of HIV is about to get significantly harder.

“Without reliable data about how HIV is spreading, it will be incredibly hard to stop it,” said Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Global Health Institute at Duke University.

What makes this funding crisis even more tragic is the timing. Just as the world reaches the brink of a possible HIV breakthrough, it may be losing the means to distribute it.

Gilead’s new injectable drug, Yeztugo, was approved by the U.S. FDA last month. Clinical trials suggest it is 100% effective at preventing HIV when administered twice a year. At a launch event, South Africa’s Health Minister, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi, emphasized its potential: “We will move mountains and rivers to make sure every adolescent girl who needs it will get it.”

Yet many countries may never see the drug. Gilead has promised low-cost generic versions for 120 poorer countries, but has notably excluded most of Latin America — where HIV rates are increasing, even if they are lower overall.

Peter Maybarduk, director at Public Citizen, called it a “threshold moment” in the fight against AIDS. But he fears it will be squandered: “We could be ending AIDS. Instead, the U.S. is abandoning the fight.”

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for roughly half of all new HIV infections globally. Even before the U.S. pullback, access to care and medication in the region was fragile and uneven.

Dr. Tom Ellman, with Doctors Without Borders in South Africa, put it bluntly: “There’s nothing we can do that will protect these countries from the sudden, vicious withdrawal of support from the U.S.”

While some nations have begun building domestic HIV response programs, the gap left by the U.S. is simply too wide. Prevention campaigns are faltering, awareness efforts have stalled, and many community-based initiatives have been forced to shut down or drastically scale back.

In 2004, AIDS claimed nearly 2 million lives globally. By 2024, that number had dropped to around 630,000, largely thanks to international funding and collaborative programs. But UNAIDS warns that without renewed support, these hard-won gains could unravel rapidly.

Geopolitical shifts, ongoing wars, and climate-related disruptions are already putting pressure on global health cooperation. The loss of the U.S. as a stabilizing force in the HIV response leaves many questioning what’s next.

The most vulnerable — young women, children, LGBTQ+ communities, and those in poverty — stand to lose the most.

UNAIDS and other global health leaders are urging the international community to step up. Whether through restoring U.S. funding or rallying alternative donors, a coordinated response is essential. Experts are also calling for pharmaceutical companies like Gilead to expand access and reduce costs, ensuring that breakthroughs don’t become tools of inequality.

The global AIDS fight is far from over. In fact, this moment may determine whether it's won or lost.

If nothing changes, the consequences are clear: millions of lives in the balance, and a public health crisis reborn from neglect.