It seems unfathomable that an Army psychiatrist trained to heal soldiers with psychiatric injuries could then fire on fellow soldiers.

This undated photo shows Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspected shooter. (The Uniformed University of the Health Sciences/AP)

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is blamed for a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 people and wounded 30.

Nader Hasan, cousin of the alleged shooter, suggests that one factor may have been that the Army psychiatrist had treated scores of soldiers and Marines who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD.

"He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw there," Nader Hasan, told the New York Times. But he said he had no idea why his cousin may have shot other soldiers. The 39-year-old psychiatrist expected to be deployed soon to Iraq or Afghanistan but objected to the deployment, his cousin said. According to the Associated Press, Hasan was going to be part of a combat stress team that treats soldiers showing signs of psychiatric problems.

One former colleague said that although he wasn't familiar with Hasan's specific assignments, psychiatric residents do the same work. That means Hasan would have treated patients with PTSD. And he also would have seen patients who, as a result of their physical injuries, brain injuries or PTSD, were getting ready to leave the Army. They first go through a medical review board and a psychiatrist like Hasan would evaluate them to make a recommendation about their level of disability, which guides decisions about whether they are then entitled to disability payments.

As investigators talk to Hasan's former colleagues at Walter Reed, one of the big questions is whether there were any warning signs to suggest Hasan should not have been treating patients. One source told NPR that Hasan had run into problems when he was in a post-graduate program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Hasan was placed on an "extended curriculum," a kind of probation. The problem was that he had been proselytizing for his Muslim faith to patients and colleagues.

Another source told NPR that there were continued problems when he went to Walter Reed; he would get into fights about his religion. Noel Hasan, his aunt, says however that Hasan was the victim of these arguments. She told the Washington Post that her nephew had endured continuous harassment for his Muslim faith in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. "Some people can take it, and some cannot," she told the Washington Post, explaining that her nephew had wanted to get out of the military and had offered to repay all of his medical training.

There were also signs that Hasan had done his job well. He rose to the rank of major. And a recent supervisor at Fort Hood, Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of clinical services at Darnall Army Medical Center, told the Associated Press, "up to this point I would consider him an asset."

Easing A Stigma

When I first did stories about troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, it was NPR policy to spell out post-traumatic stress disorder. Now we routinely just say, "PTSD." The reason is that most everyone now knows about PTSD. And the condition generally stirs sympathy, some of its stigma is now gone.

Military psychiatrists are the unsung heroes of that significant change. They've been strong advocates for troops with PTSD. They've insisted that psychiatric illness be seen as an injury of war, just like an injury caused by bullets and bombs. They've educated families, who often are the ones who persuade soldiers to seek treatment. Most of all, they've forced big changes within the military itself, where commanders had routinely expected troops to shake off a problem like PTSD.

Military psychiatrists like those who work at Fort Hood and Walter Reed, are under increasing stress themselves, as growing numbers of soldiers deal with PTSD.

A 2008 report from the Government Accountability Office noted shortages of staff at military and veterans hospitals trained to care for PTSD and traumatic brain injuries.

It's a problem because another study, by the independent Rand Corporation, found about one third of soldiers come back from Iraq with PTSD, a head injury, or both.

As the House heads for a showdown vote this weekend on its huge health overhaul bill, it remains unclear whether Democrats have the 218 votes they need to pass their measure. And abortion is a big reason why.

Abortion protesters gave Congress an eyeful and an earful this week. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

There have long been so-called "pro-life" Democrats; otherwise liberal members who are also strongly anti-abortion. Many of them are also strongly pro-health overhaul, but they want very much to write strict limits on federal funding of abortion into the bill. Such limits are strongly opposed by a majority in their party, but at the moment, there just may be enough of those anti-abortion Democratic votes to threaten the bill's passage.

The closeness of the vote has abortion foes from outside Washington feeling emboldened. But the vehemence of the anti-abortion demonstrators last week as House Democrats' unveiled their health overhaul bill even took some hardened reporters aback.

But as it turned out, that was only part one of the anti-abortion barrage against the Democrats' bill.

Part Two took place yesterday. About 200 protesters gathered outside the speaker's suite in the Cannon House Office Building. Many took a prone position, blocking the door and refusing to move until they were hauled off by the Capitol Police. A dozen people were ultimately arrested, charged with offenses ranging from unlawful entry to disorderly conduct.

And they were quite the, how shall we put it, colorful bunch. "I'm dressed as Nancy Pelosi Burning in hell," Diana Rocco-Grady told NPR's Andrea Seabrook. "So I have a suit on that's singed and covered in blood and I have chains on, and I had dead babies draped from me."

You can hear the rest of Andrea's story on All Things Considered tonight.

Harvard pollster Bob Blendon says his latest numbers on swine flu sentiment should shake up the priorities for the federal government's campaign to get most Americans vaccinated against the new H1N1 before it's too late.

Vaccine believers want the shot. So where is it? (Rogelio V. Solis/AP)

Instead of convincing skeptics to get the vaccine, Blendon says, "the real focus has become how do you get the vaccine to people who had already decided they want it but haven't been able to get it."

The new poll, conducted last weekend, is the first to show what people actually do about flu vaccination, rather than what they think they'll do. It shows strong enthusiasm among parents to get their kids vaccinated.

But 66 percent of those parents were disappointed.

Adults in high-priority groups to get flu vaccine--those with chronic health conditions and pregnant women--were only half as eager. Only one in five sought the new H1N1 vaccine. Of those who did, 70 percent couldn't get it.

Nearly a third of those who couldn't get the vaccine say they're "very frustrated." Another 26 percent say they're frustrated, but not deterred. Nearly everybody who failed to get vaccine the first time--91 percent of them--say they'll try again.

And therein lies a challenge to federal, state and local health officials. If people who are already convinced to get vaccine can't find it a second time, "an enormous amount of frustration will build up," Blendon warns.

He says the number one priority should be making sure the vaccine believers get satisfied. Then officials can shift their attention to convincing the skeptics.

As vaccine supplies increase, Blendon says one problem that cries for attention is better ways to let people know how to find it. Half of those who have tried say they couldn't find out.

Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says "it's understandable that people were finding it difficult to find vaccine," since the supply has been so limited compared to demand.

She's encouraged at the numbers that show "people aren't giving up...Things should be getting better."

A little-noticed provision tucked into the House's nearly 2,000 page bill would require chain restaurants and operators of vending machines to post calorie counts for the food they sell. Don't feel bad if you missed it, it's stuck down in Section 2572, starting on page 1,510.

Will calorie counts like these keep consumers from buying the burger? (Chris Hondros/Getty)

New York already requires chain restaurants to post calories. And California isn't far behind. But the House bill would take the concept national, make calorie counts prominent, and also require the display of suggested daily calorie intake. Maybe then Americans could make a more considered decision about the Big Mac (540 calories) or Premium Southwest Salad, without chicken please (140 calories), they're about to scarf?

The move is being lauded by supporters, such as Rep. John Larson a Democrat from Connecticut, who said in a statement that the menu changes would empower Americans "to make their own health care choices." Empowering, perhaps, but the changes sound like a fair amount of work for those in the restaurant biz. Nevertheless, the National Restaurant Association "strongly supports" the provision, a spokesman for the trade group told us.

There are some exceptions. No calorie counts are required for condiments, daily specials or food that's part of a market test, as long as the test is shorter than 90 days.

Should the House bill pass, confused consumers wouldn't be the only winners -- we're forecasting a bright future for the stock of calorie testers and sign makers.

With supplies of swine flu vaccine tight and demand surging, some health officials are catching flack for another Wall Street bailout.

Goldman Sachs headquarters got a few hundred doses of swine flu vaccine. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr.Thomas Frieden sent a not-so-friendly letter yesterday to state and local health officials reminding them to make sure that scarce swine flu vaccine goes to priority groups, such as kids and health-care workers.

How come? The Wall Street Journal reports trouble in the Big Apple, where Frieden was health commissioner until decamping for Atlanta in June. Some New York employers, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, got doses of the swine flu vaccines to give to their workers.

Frieden told public health officials they better make clear to the public that vaccine is being doled out according to "science-based vaccination recommendations." And that, he wrote, may mean, explaining publicly "how the vaccine available to you is being targeted, and the basis for targeting."

If health departments give vaccine (all of which is being paid for by the feds) to other people to administer, then officials need to make sure those folks live up to their end of the bargain.

Great Swine Flu North: Up in Canada there's a furor over professional hockey players getting swine flu vaccine before people in priority groups. A health official in Alberta was fired over a decision to give vaccine to players on the Calgary Flames.

Though we're not convinced cataloging the contents of our genes is the greatest way to spend our money, it's sort of nice to know the price is dropping for a complete genome sequence.

For just a few thousand bucks you can get the lowdown on your own DNA. (DNA image/Wikimedia Commons)

A California company called Complete Genomics now says it can do a decent job of decoding a person's DNA for around $4,400, based on the cost of chemical supplies. Rougher versions cost less and better quality, as you might expect, ran a few thousand dollars more.

The results were published online by the journal Science.

Right now, the inexpensive sequences from Complete Genomics are pretty good but not perfect, as the Nature blog the Great Beyond describes in detail for those of you who are interested. There could be as many as 30,000 errors per genome.

Still, the company's technology, explained here, is nifty and cheap enough to start finding some practical applications. Earlier this week, Complete Genomics announced a deal to sequence the genomes of 100 people in six months for a study of Huntington's disease with the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.

We've got another swine flu question. This one comes in an email to the blog from Wendy Pierce of Bozeman, Montana:

I am one of the unfortunate people that had Guillain-Barre, not associated with the swine flu. I have heard that I should not get vaccinated, is that true?

This is a tricky subject. Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare and mysterious neurological condition that can cause partial paralysis and, on rare occasions, death.

There were several hundred cases of Guillain-Barre following the vaccination of millions of people for swine flu back in 1976, but doctors are still arguing about whether those cases were caused by the vaccine.

So what about someone like you, who's already had Guillain-Barre? The Food and Drug Administration says don't get vaccinated, if your symptoms came within six weeks of a previous influenza vaccine. If not, then their advice is that your decision should be based on "careful consideration of the risks and benefits."

When we checked in with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they noted that Guillain-Barre is a precaution for flu vaccine. "However, for people who are at higher risk of complications from flu, there may still be some benefit in vaccination," the CDC told us.

Sounds to us like the best bet is to talk over the specifics with your doctor.

If you've got a swine flu question, email us at shots@npr.org. Please let us know where you're from when you write.

Seven months into the flu pandemic of 2009, North America leads the world in cases, the WHO says.

North America: hotbed for swine flu. (iStockphoto.com)

Unlike elsewhere, the new H1N1 never exited stage left after its debut appearance in late April. In fact, it's making more noise than ever. Mexico has experienced more cases of pandemic flu since September than it did over the first four months of the pandemic this spring.

It's too soon to know if the flu pandemic has peaked, or is near its peak, in the United States or any other region, the World Health Organization's H1N1 honcho Dr. Kenji Fukuda said today in a briefing with the media. And we might not know until after the fact.

So far, WHO hasn't seen any signs that the new H1N1 virus has mutated, either. That's good, because the vaccine hurriedly made against it is still likely to work well.

But Fukuda warns that flu viruses evolve as more people get infected -- it's a Darwinian response as the virus "seeks" ways to get around increasing immunity in a population.

The jury is still out on just how risky the ubiquitous plastic additive bisphenol A is for people.

What besides green beans is in this can? (iStockphoto.com)

But for those of you who like to worry, Consumer Reports just published results from tests of a bunch of canned foods that revealed some pretty high readings in such pantry favorites as green beans and vegetable soup.

How, you might ask, does BPA wind up in metal cans? Which foods tested worst? And what should be done?

First, she said, metal cans have plastic liners to protect food, and some of them, such as common epoxy-based materials contain BPA. The liner can be white, yellow or transparent. "You can't look in a metal can and say whether BPA is there or not," she told us. "You just have to assume it's there unless it's noted otherwise."

The magazine had labs test a range of foods but the number of samples was fairly limited and should be looked at as a snapshot of the market. The easiest way to see a rundown of what they found is to review this table on the blog Buy Safe Eat Well or this Excel spreadsheet.

Standouts, in a bad way, were Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans with an average BPA of 123.5 parts per billion in the samples tested, and Progresso Vegetable Soup with BPA of 92.3 parts per billion.

Parts per billion of anything doesn't sound like much, but Rangan says the amounts found could lead a person with a modest appetite to blow right through the levels the Food and Drug Administration figures Americans are ingesting. That possibility plus Consumers Union's view that the BPA is pretty dangerous stuff leads them to argue BPA exposure limits should be tightened.

FDA, for its part, is reviewing its stand on BPA and food after controversy over an earlier assessment that said there was nothing much to worry about.

Rangan says, "There's enough evidence to warrant precaution and to prohibit the use of BPA in anything that would come into contact in food." In the meantime, she suggests looking for alternatives to cans, such as juice boxes and freezer bags. Also, when you microwave food, you're better off using glass or ceramic containers than plastic ones, she says.

Cereal giant Kellogg said it's dropping the eyebrow-raising claim that a box of Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies, "Now helps support your child's IMMUNITY." (The caps are Kellogg's.)

Immunity-boosting cereal? Not anymore. (Paul Sancya/AP)

Blame the swine flu. Kellogg's said Wednesday it is discontinuing the IMMUNITY claim, "given the public attention on H1N1."

The decision also follows a pullback by a controversial industry-sponsored program that put "Smart Choices" labels on the front of packages of processed foods, including some of Kelloggs'. Only days before that change, the Food and Drug Administration raised concerns those labels could mislead consumers.

Though conceding, Kellogg didn't admit complete defeat. The company stands by its claim that the amount of vitamins A, B, C and E found in the cereal are proven by "science" to help support the immune system.

But health guru Marion Nestle of New York University says that's hooey. "Yes, these nutrients are involved in immunity, but I can't think of a nutrient that isn't involved in the immune system," she told USA Today.

On her blog, Nestle called Kellogg's rowback "wise," but noted that it's cases like this that prove "in the absence of FDA action, food marketing is allowed to run rampant."

Lots of people get sniffles, sore throats, fever and other respiratory miseries this time of year. In a normal year, only about one person in four actually has laboratory-confirmed flu when samplings of nasal swabs from sick Americans are tested.

Ah-choo! Is it the flu? (iStockphoto.com)

This year is different. The World Health Organization says more than 40 percent of Americans with "influenza-like illness" are testing positive for flu (and it's nearly always the new H1N1 flu). In some countries as many as 70 percent of nasal swabs turn up flu-positive.

That's pretty interesting, considering that at this point in the season last year, only 2.2 percent of the swabs tested postive.

So if you have respiratory symptoms this year, there's a better-than-usual chance it's the flu.

Actually, your chance of having flu if you have the symptoms is probably even higher than 40 percent, says the WHO's Dr. Keiji Fukuda, who provided the new data during a Thursday teleconference with reporters.

That's because many nasal swabs that really contain flu viruses test negative because they were improperly handled. Others come from people who really did have the flu, but they had fought it off by the time the nasal swabs were taken. So the virus disappeared without a trace.

Here comes the AARP to endorse Democrats' health legislation, just in time for big votes on the House floor that could come as soon as Saturday.

President Obama speaks about health care during a meeting at the AARP's headquarters in Washington. At left is AARP President Jennie Chin Hansen. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

The Associated Press reports the influential group representing retirees and older people will publicly back the unified health legislation in the House. The AARP Web site promises "a major health reform announcement" at 11:30 EST today.

AARP's support would give House Democrats a big boost. Half of Americans over 50 belong to the organization, AARP's lobbying director David Certner told NPR's Peter Overby.

AARP defends its dual roles, advocate for health overhaul and seller of insurance products. "We are driven by our policy," Cerner said. "Our policy drives our advocacy. Our policy drives what we do in terms of our product. And that's been the way it has been from the beginning."

Update: As expected, AARP today threw its weight behind House Democrats on health overhaul, saying, the proposal "delivers on key priorities we've been fighting for." Some of the things AARP likes are closing the out-of-pocket "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit and measures to prevent insurance denials on the basis of age and health status.

Watch video of the endorsement below:

This is health overhaul?

The Congressional Budget Office did its number-crunching magic on the House Republicans' health proposal and found that the bill wouldn't cost much--or put much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured.

House Minority Leader John Boehner offers a "Republican Solution" to health overhaul. (Harry Hamburg/AP)

Assuming the Republicans prevail and their bill became law before the end of this year, the CBO figures about 3 million more people would have health coverage a decade from now. That would leave about 52 million nonelderly people in this country uninsured in 2019.

The bottom line, from CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's blog, "The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019--83 percent--would be roughly in line with the current share."

The CBO give the Republican bill points in a couple of other areas.

Lots of people with insurance would pay less for it. In the small group market, for instance, the CBO estimates premiums would fall 7 percent to 10 percent by 2016. Individual policies would also cost less--about 5 to 8 percent. And, those insured in the large group market would see premium hold steady or drop by about 3 percent.

And the Republican's proposals to curb medical malpractice would cut health spending by $41 billion and increase revenue by $13 billion, the CBO estimates.

Here we go with some more swine flu questions and answers. In an email to the blog, Renee Boulis, of Wyomissing, Pa., asks about the nasal spray form of vaccine against the new H1N1 virus.

Three-year-old Abby Hilterbran receives a nasal vaccination in Piqua, Ohio, on Monday. (Mike Ullery/AP)

How effective is the protection for children under 8, ask Boulis, who often babysits two young grandchildren? Is it possible for them to transmit the virus to others while they are waiting for the second spritz?

Let's take your first question first.

The short answer on effectiveness in children is that a single dose is not as effective as people would like. Two doses get the job done.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases just released the results of a study on children under the age of 10. This study used the injectable vaccine, but scientists say the results hold for the nasal spray as well.

After the first shot, researchers looked for signs in the kids' blood that they'd be able to fight off infection. Only 25 percent of children between the ages of 6 and 35 months had a strong enough response three weeks after the first dose, and only 55 percent of those 3 to 9 years old were protected.

After the second dose, though, all the 6 to 35 month olds and 94 percent of the 3 to 9 year olds were protected. That's why the U.S. government is sticking to its recommendation that kids get two doses. The World Health Organization is opting for just one.

It sounds like your grandchildren got the nasal spray vaccine, which contains a weakened but still living flu virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

In clinical studies, transmission of vaccine viruses to close contacts has occurred only rarely. The current estimated risk of getting infected with vaccine virus after close contact with a person vaccinated with the nasal-spray flu vaccine is low (0.6%-2.4%). Because the viruses are weakened, infection is unlikely to result in influenza illness symptoms.

So there's a slight chance your grandchildren could infect you, and a close-to-zero chance that you'd develop symptoms.

In any event, you can get at least some protection if you and your grandchildren follow good hygiene practices: wash hands often, and cough or sneeze into a tissue or your elbow.

If you've got a swine flu question, email us at shots@npr.org. Please let us know where you're from when you write.

The bad news about the U.S. health system just keeps coming.

A premature baby, born at 28 weeks, lies in the neonatal intensive care unit of a New York hospital. The CDC says the large number of premature births is one factor behind the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Infant mortality in the U.S. is worse than in 29 other countries, including practically all of Europe, Canada and Australia, says a report just out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

If there's any good news, it's that the situation in the U.S. hasn't gotten even worse. Based on 2005 data, the U.S. ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, compared with 29th in 2004 and 23rd in 1990. Back in the good old days of 1960, the nation ranked 12th.

So why does a prosperous nation like ours come up so short? The high number of American preterm births-- those before 37 weeks--is the biggest reason.

The U.S. actually compares favorably with Europe in survival of preemies, according to the CDC research. The problem is, there are so many more infants being born too early in the U.S. One in every eight babies born in America is born too early.

Why preterm births are more common here isn't so clear, but experts point to a few likely factors. Preterm births are more likely in women with other health issues, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.

Older mothers and young teen mothers also face higher risks.The U.S. has higher rates of women in these groups getting pregnant, co-author of the report, Marian MacDorman from the National Center for Health Statistics, tells NPR's Brenda Wilson. And in the U.S., minority women also face much higher rates of preterm births than white women.

Another possible culprit is the type of medical care women are receiving. Many American doctors induce an early labor or schedule a cesarean section before that 37 week mark. In 2006, labor was induced in nearly 16 percent of preterm births and 36 percent were C-section deliveries.

The study suggests that cutting down on the number of preterm births would reduce the overall infant mortality rate substantially.

To hear more, listen to Brenda Wilson's piece on Wednesday's All Things Considered.