Media & Publications

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻'𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵? 🔬 Last week, 480 people joined us in person and online for the LSE Health and LSE Department of Health Policy 2026 Annual Lecture, coinciding with International Women's Day. We were honoured to welcome Professor Michelle Williams (Stanford University), chaired by Professor Andrew Street, for a lecture that was both rigorously scientific and deeply urgent. 💡 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝘀' 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: the women's health gap is not just a medical challenge, it is a global economic crisis hiding in plain sight. Drawing on 30+ years of research across four continents and studies including the Apple Women's Health Study, she made the case for a fundamentally different approach to women's health research, policy and investment. 📊 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀: - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗸: Less than 2% of healthcare R&D targets female-specific conditions beyond cancer. Endometriosis affects 190 million women globally yet receives $16M in NIH funding, while erectile dysfunction receives five times more. 🔍 - 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵: Preeclampsia and gestational diabetes are sentinel events predicting future cardiovascular disease and intergenerational metabolic risk. Prof Williams' research helped reverse decades of harmful guidance discouraging exercise in pregnancy. ⚕️ - 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆: Black women in the UK face a 3× higher maternal mortality rate than white women. Intimate partner violence, structural racism and poverty don't sit outside the biology: they shape it. ⚖️ - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: Closing the gender gap could add $1 trillion to the global economy by 2040. In the UK, every £1 invested in obstetrics and gynaecology returns £11, yet maternity negligence cost the NHS £1.3 billion in 2024-25 alone. 💷 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗿: AI, wearables and academic-private partnerships, including the Apple Women's Health Study with 120,000+ participants, are amplifying epidemiology in ways unimaginable a generation ago. 📱 “𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲.” — Professor Michelle A. Williams

People die earlier on average in the U.S. than they would in other wealthy countries. Last month, headlines announced that U.S. life expectancy has finally recovered from the pandemic. A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics showed national life expectancy at a record high, and this news has been greeted with cautious optimism. But that news reflects only one side of the story.

The Trump administration’s decision to slash $600 million in public health funding from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota isn’t just cruel or vindictive. It is breathtakingly stupid. According to documents reviewed by The New York Times, the administration plans to rescind hundreds of millions in grants administered through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — funds that state and local health departments use for everything from hiring staff and modernizing data systems to managing disease outbreaks and preventing the spread of HIV.

We are in a public health and health-care crisis that began long before Covid-19. Much of this deterioration is the unfortunate consequence of the uncoupling of our increasingly expensive for-profit medical care system from public health, in a process that began nearly a century ago. The pandemic was a reckoning that made our institutional failings impossible to ignore, and our shocking excess death rate is only one metric of the cost of that neglect. Costa Rica, however, a Central American nation of five million with a per capita income that is one-sixth of that of the United States, is a living laboratory of what can be accomplished when public health comes first, instead of dead last.

A very powerful story of how our history, and medical racism link up to public health. The most prominent of Du Bois’s intellectual influences was James McCune Smith. Brilliant and uncompromising, Smith was a public intellectual with the distinction of being the United States’ first university-trained Black doctor. In 1846, in a stinging and exhaustively researched rebuttal, he showed how John Calhoun’s racist analysis was spurious. Using the relatively new field of biostatistics, along with demographics, he exposed the Southern senator’s questionable claims.

In this webinar, Dr. Williams talks about key lessons from The Cure for Everything, that could inspire lines of investigation for journalists. Linda Marsa, a health journalist who co-authored the book with Dr. Williams , briefly addresses how that collaboration worked and how journalists can mine the book for story ideas in their communities.