More than three million children around the world are thought to have died in 2022 as a result of infections that are resistant to antibiotics, new research has found. While these infections impact kids across the world, those in Africa and Southeast Asia are most at risk. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) develops when the microbes that cause infections evolve so that antibiotic drugs no longer work. As per the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is "one of the top global public health and development threats."

A new study now reveals the toll that AMR is taking on children. Using data from multiple sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank, researchers calculated that there were more than three million child deaths in 2022 linked to drug-resistant infections. Experts say this new study highlights a more than tenfold increase in AMR-related infections in children in just three years. Experts opine that these numbers could have been made worse by the impact of the COVID pandemic.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens the effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi.

AMR occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites change over time and no longer respond to medicines, making infections harder to treat and increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness and death. As a result, the medicines become ineffective and infections persist in the body, increasing the risk of spread to others.

Antimicrobials - including antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals and antiparasitics - are medicines used to prevent and treat infections in humans, animals and plants. Microorganisms that develop antimicrobial resistance are sometimes referred to as “superbugs”.

As antibiotic resistance increases, even common infections could become difficult to treat. For example, some doctors have already reported patients needing hospitalization for simple urinary tract infections. This rise in resistance could lead to more complications in hospitals, longer stays, and higher medical costs.

For their study, the researchers examined over 858,000 bacterial isolates collected between 2004 and 2021 from 83 countries, with more than 100,000 samples from children. The study was published in the journal SSRN. The study highlights significant geographic and temporal variations in pediatric AMR, underscoring the need for targeting several countries as compared to others.

What Is AMR?

Antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis, reducing the effectiveness of treatments for common infections. The 2022 GLASS report revealed alarming resistance rates: 42% for cephalosporin-resistant *E. coli* and 35% for methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus*. In 2020, 1 in 5 urinary tract infections caused by *E. coli* were resistant to standard antibiotics. Resistance in *Klebsiella pneumoniae* and rising use of last-resort drugs like carbapenems are further worsening the situation, with projections indicating a twofold increase in resistance by 2035.

Drug resistance isn’t limited to bacteria. WHO is closely monitoring resistant fungal infections, notably *Candida auris*, which is difficult to treat and linked to high mortality. HIV drug resistance, often due to poor treatment adherence or drug interactions, compromises antiretroviral therapy. Similarly, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remains a severe public health threat, with limited access to effective treatments. Only 40% of those needing treatment for drug-resistant TB received it in 2022.

Malaria control is challenged by resistance to artemisinin-based therapies in Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, drug resistance in neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) like leprosy and leishmaniasis threatens global eradication efforts. Strengthened surveillance, stewardship, and development of second-line treatments are essential to curb this growing menace.

Five years since COVID-19 brought the world into a health and economic crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) has done what many considered unlikely—a global agreement on a draft pandemic treaty. On Wednesday, after years of intricate talks and political upheaval, WHO member states reached a consensus on a historic document that will determine how the world responds to future pandemics. If endorsed at the next World Health Assembly in Geneva, the treaty would have the potential to be a turning point for global public health partnership and readiness.

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus greeted the treaty as a badge of unity. "In our polarized world, countries can once again agree and unite for a common response," he said. The pact should bring revolutionary change to how nations prepare and react to health emergencies globally—without repeating the inequities, delays, and fragmented responses that characterized the response to COVID-19.

The global response to COVID-19 revealed systemic weaknesses in international health governance—ranging from vaccine hoarding and disinformation to less-than-generous support for poor countries. These shortcomings prompted WHO member states to create the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) in December 2021. Their task: to negotiate a strong international instrument centered on prevention, preparedness, and fair response to future pandemics.

Following these were 13 formal sessions, longer-than-usual sessions, and numerous informal discussions. Geopolitical splits and continuous withdrawals from the WHO by such leaders as past U.S. President Donald Trump and Argentina President Javier Milei could not stop the INB finalizing a draft agreement ahead of the official adoption in May 2025.

Key Provisions of the Pandemic Treaty

The suggested agreement has the purpose of establishing a global pandemic response playbook, based on solidarity, equity, and science. Among its most important elements:

Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing: The treaty requires that nations providing virus samples will enjoy assured access to derived diagnostics, medicines, and vaccines. For its enforcement, WHO will hold up to 20% of such products to guarantee equitable distribution, particularly to low-income countries.

One Health Approach: Acknowledging the interconnectivity of human, animal, and environmental well-being, the treaty promotes cooperation to avoid zoonotic outbreaks and emerging dangers.

Technology Transfer and Capacity Building: The pact ensures transfer of scientific information, manufacturing technology, and capability across countries to develop a geographically dispersed R&D base. This should eliminate geographical concentration of global health innovation and end reliance upon a handful of dominant nations.

Emergency Health Workforce and Supply Chains: States are urged to establish competent health emergency workforce teams and be part of a global supply chain and logistics network for swift response to future health emergencies.

Respect for Sovereignty: Notably, the draft treaty confirms that the WHO will not impose national health legislation or mandates like lockdowns, vaccination orders, or travel restrictions. National sovereignty is preserved, although cooperation is strongly urged.

What are the Controversies and Challenges Surrounding the Treaty?

Though the treaty is a milestone, it is not without controversy. The United States, having been sidelined in Trump's administration pullout from the WHO, is still far from the finalization of the treaty. Though U.S.-based R&D was key to creating effective COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, American officials are not likely to sign the agreement under present provisions.

Likewise, Argentina's recent withdrawal from the WHO is a sign of ongoing distrust among some leaders regarding the role and authority of international health organizations. Opponents claim that international treaties threaten national interests or overreach their limits in governing public health.

The pandemic treaty in draft form is an increasing recognition that no state, no matter how rich or resourceful, can tackle a global pandemic in isolation. It emphasizes the call for transparency, equity, and multilateralism during times of crisis. Adopted at the World Health Assembly in May, the treaty might transform the way the world prepares for and prepares against pandemics—making sure that scientific advancements and essential resources are available to everyone.

As the globe looks back at the tragic losses and bitter lessons of COVID-19, this treaty presents an opportunity to redefine global health in partnership, not rivalry. To future generations, it may signal the start of a more cohesive and resilient global response to common dangers.

Parkinson's disease (PD) has been a widely known debilitative neurodegenerative condition affecting millions of people worldwide. While it's often mistakenly assumed to be a fatal illness, Parkinson's disease isn't fatal per se, it rather significantly impairs an individual's quality of life and exposes one to increased risk of developing complications that potentially lead to death.

Parkinson's disease develops when a part of the brain that is in charge of creating dopamine starts to break down. Dopamine is necessary for controlling movement and coordination. When these neurons are lost, characteristic symptoms like tremors, stiffness, slowness of movement, balance problems, and eventually mental and emotional changes develop. These symptoms can worsen over time and disrupt daily life.

Importantly, Parkinson's itself is not a death sentence. Rather, patients tend to experience an increased risk of complications—such as infections, pneumonia, or serious injuries from falls—that are lethal. Falls are among the top causes of Parkinson's-related fatalities, especially in advanced stages of the disease, the American Parkinson Disease Association reports.

Access to current medication, early diagnosis, successful therapy, and a network of supportive care can enable people with Parkinson's to live long and satisfied lives.

How Stem Cell Therapy Can Help Slow down Disease progression?

A recent phase 1 clinical trial published in Nature represents a breakthrough in the treatment of Parkinson's. The research, which took place at several sites in the US and Canada, employed stem cell–derived dopamine-producing neurons to attack the cause of Parkinson's—dopamine depletion.

Conceived in Dr. Lorenz Studer's and Dr. Viviane Tabar's laboratory at Memorial Sloan Kettering, the therapy works by reprogramming embryonic stem cells to become specialized nerve cells. Those cultured cells, or bemdaneprocel, are inserted into the Parkinson's patients' brains. Implanted, they start producing dopamine, which revitalizes some of the lost ability of the brain.

Twelve patients underwent this novel therapy, and at the end of 18 months, the outcomes were encouraging- the cells implanted had taken well within the brain.

No one reported severe side effects.

A few patients even evidenced stabilization or improvement of their symptoms.

This is an outstanding result given the failures of past attempts to replace damaged brain cells—such as fetal tissue implants in the 1980s—often resulted in inconsistent benefits and problematic side effects like dyskinesia (spontaneous movement).

With the promising phase 1 results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a phase 3 trial, which will start in 2025. The trial will involve around 100 patients and a control group that will receive a placebo, so that researchers can more accurately measure the actual effectiveness of the treatment.

One of the trial's lead investigators, Dr. Tabar, was quick to point out the wider implications of the study:

"This is a significant milestone on the journey toward regenerative brain repair. It may sound strange for a cancer center to be working on regenerative medicine for a neurodegenerative disease, but if we can learn how to replace cells that are lost due to disease in the brain and restore circuitry, we can apply it to other therapies—and eventually cancer patients will be the beneficiaries."

Five Stages of Parkinson's

Parkinson's disease is normally outlined in five stages, which describe a series of worsening symptoms:

Stage 1: Minimal symptoms with minimal to no interference with day-to-day activities. Early signs and symptoms are tremors, minimal posture changes, or slight movement abnormalities.

Stage 2: Moderate symptoms become more apparent and can start to impact everyday activities, such as speech and muscle coordination.

Stage 3: Balance and movement issues escalate. Falls are more common, although people still maintain independence.

Stage 4: Symptoms are severely restrictive, and patients frequently need help with simple tasks. The risk of injury from falls significantly increases.

Stage 5: The most advanced stage, characterized by an inability to walk or stand without support. Full-time care is needed, and patients are increasingly at risk of hallucinations, delusions, and infections that can be life-threatening.

Even with the progression of the disease, numerous individuals with Parkinson's live to near-normal life expectancy, provided there is good control of symptoms and medical care.

Though Parkinson's is still an incurable disease, stem cell therapy represents a hopeful therapeutic path that extends beyond the treatment of symptoms—it seeks cellular repair and regenerative healing. By directly targeting dopamine loss, this development has the potential to slow or even reverse some of the functional deficits resulting from the disease.

In his first press briefing as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ignited a firestorm in the scientific and autism advocacy communities by calling autism an “epidemic” and labeling it “preventable.” Citing a new CDC report indicating that 1 in 31 American 8-year-olds has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Kennedy pledged to launch an aggressive inquiry into environmental toxins—ranging from mold to pesticides—as the primary culprits.

Kennedy's remarks were sweeping and firm: “Genes do not cause epidemics,” he said. “They provide vulnerability. You need an environmental toxin.” While acknowledging that genetic predisposition may play a role, he dismissed decades of scientific research focusing on hereditary influences as a “dead end.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report Kennedy referenced was part of the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network. The data, gathered from 16 U.S. regions, is not nationally representative but confirms a consistent upward trend. Autism diagnoses have nearly quintupled since 2000, with experts pointing to improved awareness, diagnostic tools, and access to evaluations—particularly in historically underserved populations—as key factors.

Contrary to Kennedy’s claims, CDC scientists attribute the rising prevalence to enhanced detection methods, more inclusive diagnostic criteria, and changing social perceptions around neurodivergence. They emphasize that autism is a complex, lifelong developmental condition—not a disease.

Autism Rates Are Rising—But What’s Really Behind It?

Kennedy’s framing of autism as a public health emergency akin to measles or diabetes has drawn fierce criticism from the autism community. The Autism Society of America issued a statement condemning his rhetoric as “harmful, misleading, and unrealistic.” The organization stressed that autism is not a chronic illness to be cured or eradicated, but a diverse condition shaped by a combination of biological and environmental factors.

“Claiming autism is preventable places unnecessary blame on parents and fosters dangerous misinformation,” the Society noted. “Such language perpetuates outdated stereotypes and erases the lived experiences of autistic individuals.”

Environmental Toxins or Better Diagnostics?

Kennedy was joined at the press conference by Dr. Walter Zahorodny, an associate professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and co-author of the CDC report. Zahorodny described the rising autism rates as “a real thing that we don’t understand” and called for urgent investigations into potential environmental triggers.

Still, most of the medical and research community remains cautious, if not outright skeptical. Many warn against attributing autism prevalence to a single cause, especially when Kennedy’s list of suspects includes mold, food additives, parental obesity, and even prenatal ultrasounds—none of which have been conclusively linked to autism in peer-reviewed studies.

“Autism is a multifactorial condition,” said Dr. Susan Hyman, a pediatrician and autism researcher at the University of Rochester. “While environment may play a role, the idea of an epidemic triggered by an unknown toxin is speculative at best and dangerous at worst.”

Under Kennedy’s directive, the Department of Health and Human Services will establish a new chronic disease division within the Administration for Healthy America to examine the “real-time” causes of autism. He also called for quicker and more responsive data collection, likening the current two-year surveillance lag to outdated epidemic management.

“Would we accept this kind of delay with COVID, measles, or any other infectious disease?” Kennedy asked.

His urgency, however, is not matched by consensus. Experts warn that the rush to identify a “smoking gun” risks diverting attention and funding from evidence-based practices—such as early intervention, inclusive education, and support for autistic adults.

While Kennedy’s remarks reflect a deep concern about rising autism rates, advocates caution against sensationalism. Scientific progress, they argue, requires careful analysis, transparency, and collaboration—not finger-pointing or political grandstanding.

“Autism is not a tragedy or a mystery to be solved—it’s a part of human diversity,” said Julia Bascom, executive director of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “What we need isn’t panic. It’s understanding, support, and a commitment to listening to autistic voices.”

Observing this evolving narrative, one thing is clear—Kennedy’s approach may catalyze new research, but it also demands rigorous scientific scrutiny and ethical accountability. His framing risks reinforcing outdated narratives about autism as something to be feared or eliminated. For a global audience, particularly in countries with limited autism services, the danger of misinformation looms large.

Autism is not a singular crisis with a singular cause—it is a nuanced condition that exists on a spectrum, influenced by layers of genetics, biology, and environment. Addressing it requires nuance, not noise. While the U.S. gears up for what Kennedy calls a “series of new studies” on environmental triggers, global health agencies—especially in developing nations—should approach these efforts with caution. The risk is that Kennedy’s messaging, amplified by his political stature, could shape international policy without scientific consensus.