Heart disease is often linked to high cholesterol, obesity, or lack of exercise. However, there is mounting evidence that suggests that mental health plays a crucial role in cardiovascular well-being. Stress, anxiety, and depression can silently strain the heart, increasing the risk of serious complications.

A recent study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, showed that loneliness has a significant impact on proteins present in a person's blood. For the study, researchers used data from more than 42,000 participants to explore whether the 9.3% who reported social isolation and 6.4% who reported loneliness had different levels of proteins in their blood compared with those who did not. The researchers then studied data that tracked the health of participants over an average 14-year period.

"We found around 90% of these proteins are linked to the risk of mortality," Dr Chun Shen, Fudan University in China, who is also the lead researcher said. "In addition, about 50% of the proteins were linked to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and stroke," he added.

Dr Shrey Kumar Srivastav, senior consultant at Sharda Hospital, said that subtle symptoms of heart disease, such as fatigue, shortness of breath, swelling in the lower legs, dizziness, and jaw pain, are often overlooked or attributed to stress and ageing. "Women, in particular, may experience atypical signs like extreme fatigue, indigestion, or upper abdominal pain instead of classic chest pain, leading to delayed diagnosis," he added.

Can Mental Health Issues Trigger Heart Diseases?

Chronic stress can trigger harmful cardiovascular effects, including elevated blood pressure, increased heart rate, and inflammation—key contributors to heart disease. Anxiety and depression further impact heart health by disrupting sleep patterns, raising stress hormone levels, and encouraging unhealthy habits like poor diet and inactivity.

Mental health issues like depression and anxiety have a profound impact on the heart. They don’t just affect emotions but can increase inflammation and put extra strain on the cardiovascular system, warns Dr Srivastav.

Certain risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes, disproportionately affect women, making them more vulnerable to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, due to gender-specific symptom variations, heart disease in women often goes undiagnosed for longer.

Obesity is more prevalent in women than men and is a major risk factor for heart failure. Diabetes, too, has a greater impact on women’s heart health, yet diagnosis and treatment delays are common. Addressing this gap requires increasing awareness, training healthcare providers, and promoting early diagnostic tools,” explains Dr Srivastav.

How Can You Protect Your Heart?

A simple yet effective way to support heart health is by committing to a brisk 30-minute walk daily. Walking not only helps regulate blood pressure and manage weight but also improves circulation and reduces stress.

"Regular physical activity, paired with a heart-healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins, significantly lowers cardiovascular risks," advises Dr Srivastav.

Heart disease can often go undetected until a major event occurs, making routine screenings essential.

- For women: Begin screenings around age 30 and continue with regular checkups.

- For men: Start screenings at age 35.

Health screenings, including blood pressure checks, cholesterol tests, and electrocardiograms (ECGs), are critical for early detection of silent heart conditions.

British health journal BMJ Public Health has retracted a 2024 paper that suggested COVID-19 vaccination could have contributed to excess deaths during the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Published on May 6, 2024, by researchers at the Netherlands-based Princess Máxima Centre, the paper was retracted on August 11, 2026, following concerns over its discussion of the possible causes of excess mortality.

The retraction notice cited “misinformation in the discussion regarding the possible causes of excess mortality” and said the paper did not sufficiently describe the limitations of the authors’ work.

What Did the Paper Claim?

The paper analyzed data from the “Our World in Data” database and the World Mortality Dataset to examine excess deaths during the pandemic.

It questioned whether COVID-19 containment measures and vaccination could have contributed to continued excess mortality in some regions. However, the authors did not establish a link between COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths. Instead, they called for more data to investigate the possible causes, AFP reported.

About a month after publication, BMJ Public Health issued an expression of concern, stating that the study “does not establish any such link.”

Despite that clarification, the paper was subsequently cited by vaccine-sceptic publications as evidence of a connection between COVID-19 vaccination and excess mortality.

Paper Cited in US Senate Hearing

Even as the BMJ Group investigated the paper, Mostert, one of its original authors, had resigned from the Princess Máxima Centre.

In June 2026, she appeared before a US Senate subcommittee, where she claimed that her research had been sabotaged.

The Princess Máxima Centre had previously “emphatically” distanced itself from the publication and stated that it “strongly supports vaccination.”

The BMJ Group said the retraction was supported by two of the four authors and by the Princess Máxima Centre.

Critics Raised Concerns

Critics raised concerns about the paper’s treatment of evidence relating to vaccines, including alleged misquotes and omissions, and described parts of the discussion as inappropriate.

Ariel Karlinsky, an economist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and co-creator of the World Mortality Dataset, repeatedly contacted the journal from June 2024 seeking a retraction.

Karlinsky said the analysis misused his data and “copied whole blocks of text and mathematical notation,” according to Retraction Watch.

Investigation Found Carelessness

The Princess Máxima Centre investigated authors Minke Huibers and Gertjan Kaspers in 2024. Mostert’s work was not examined because she was “not able to cooperate with the investigation.”

An anonymised summary of the January 2025 report was published alongside the retraction. It found no research misconduct but concluded that Kaspers and Huibers had demonstrated “carelessness, ignorance and negligence.”

The report also found that the paper gave disproportionate attention to COVID-19 measures and vaccination as possible causes of excess mortality while largely overlooking alternative explanations. It said the paper “misleadingly and unilaterally cites literature that supports its own arguments.”

Kaspers and Huibers, along with their institution, requested the paper’s retraction, citing concerns that it was being misinterpreted and could pose a public health risk. However, they disagreed with the journal’s conclusion that the paper contained misinformation.

The UK government has announced plans to accelerate the country’s move away from animal testing in science, with £22 million earmarked for projects that use human-based alternatives to test treatments.

The government said the investment could help patients gain faster access to more effective medicines while reducing the need for animal testing.

The strategy, drawn up in 2025 under then Prime Minister Keir Starmer, aims to accelerate the development and use of alternative research methods known as “new approach methodologies” (NAMs). These include organoids, organ-on-a-chip systems and artificial intelligence to model biological processes and analyse data.

2.54 Million Animal Testing Procedures in 2025

The latest data showed that 2.54 million animal testing procedures were carried out in Great Britain in 2025, down 3.8% from 2024.

Science Minister Chris McDonald said the new investment would support researchers in developing alternatives to animal testing.

“This is all about backing our world-leading researchers and innovators to improve lives, giving them the tools they need to deliver more effective treatments for horrendous diseases like cancer, while also preventing the need for animal testing wherever possible,” McDonald said.

“It’s also a boost for our life sciences sector – with British firms using samples donated by real people and harnessing AI to predict how a medicine behaves – fueling opportunities for new investment and new jobs, and ensuring Britain is better off,” he added.

What Is Being Proposed?

A major part of the investment is a £20 million Pre-clinical Translational Models Hub in Cambridge. The centre will develop and share models of human tissue grown from cells donated by NHS patients, allowing researchers to test new treatments.

The new hub will focus on organoids — tiny, simplified versions of human organs or tissues, such as the gut, tumours and brain, grown from patient cells.

In addition, nine new high-tech projects worth £2 million will develop alternative ways to test medicines using human biology rather than animals.

These include beating heart cells in a dish, lab-grown human ear models and AI systems that predict how drugs move through the body.

The government said these approaches could help treatments for conditions such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease be developed faster and more precisely, while reducing reliance on traditional animal studies.

How Will Miniature Human Organs Help Drug Testing?

Because organoids retain important features of a patient’s own biology, researchers can use them to study how a real person may respond to a drug.

They can provide additional insights that complement information currently obtained through animal studies.

Scientists at universities and drug companies will be able to use these models in their own laboratories to identify which medicines are worth pursuing. The government said this could help reduce the time needed to bring potentially life-changing treatments to patients.

“Because these miniature human tissues retain many of the unique biological characteristics of the individual patient, they allow us to understand disease more accurately and test potential treatments before they ever reach the clinic,” said Professor Matthias Zilbauer of the University of Cambridge.

“This has the potential to bring more effective, personalised treatments to patients while reducing the time and cost of developing new medicines and our reliance on animal models,” he added.

Will This End Animal Testing?

Researchers have stressed that the new methods will not completely replace animal testing in the near future.

“We’re not saying there won’t be any animal use in the near or foreseeable future, because there are still certain issues that cannot be tested in these new models, but the reduction is very real,” Zilbauer, a clinical professor of paediatric gastroenterology at the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, told The Guardian.

Amid a crackdown on manufacturers selling unsafe food products, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has now turned its attention to food claims such as “immunity booster” and “nutrient-rich” endorsed by celebrities and social media influencers.

FSSAI Asks Influencers To Verify Food Claims

With millions of followers, celebrities and digital creators have become an increasingly popular channel for brands marketing health drinks, protein supplements, snacks and packaged foods.

“When you say ‘boosts immunity’, ‘rich in nutrients’, consumers trust you. Make sure every claim deserves that trust,” FSSAI said.

The food regulator asked influencers to verify that every claim made by a brand is:

• Truthful
• Scientifically substantiated
• Compliant with food safety regulations

FSSAI warned that misleading food advertisements and endorsements can have legal consequences.

Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, misleading food advertisements and endorsements are prohibited and may attract legal action and penalties.

Also read: Why Indian Doctors Are Seeking A Ban On Junk Food Ads And Mandatory Warning Labels On Packaging?

FSSAI Steps Up Food Safety

In recent weeks, FSSAI has acted against or scrutinized products and companies over misleading claims, hygiene and food-safety violations, non-compliant ingredients, labelling issues and failure to meet prescribed standards.

The action has covered packaged foods, liquor, edible oils, sweeteners and high-caffeine beverages. The latest move involves tightening packaging rules for pan masala.

New Pan Masala Packaging Rules

Under the new Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Amendment Regulations, 2026, notified on August 10, pan masala packaging can no longer use plastic-based materials, plastic laminates, aluminium foil or metallised layers.

Pan masala can now be packaged in materials made of paper, paperboard, cellulose and other naturally derived materials, provided they are completely free from plastic and synthetic polymers. Tin and glass containers are also allowed.

The decision follows an earlier draft notification issued by FSSAI in April, which proposed adding specific packaging materials for pan masala to the food packaging regulations.

Why Is FSSAI Targeting Pan Masala Packaging?

Read More: World Organ Donation Day 2026: Too Old Or Too Sick To Donate Organs? Doctors Bust Key Myths

Pan masala sachets have traditionally relied heavily on plastic and foil materials as they are lightweight, inexpensive and shield the contents from moisture.

However, such multilayer plastic packaging is difficult to recycle and contributes to persistent plastic waste. The new rules push manufacturers towards packaging made of paper and other naturally derived materials that will not harm the environment.

This does not mean that pan masala itself is safer to consume. Pan masala, particularly products containing tobacco or areca nut, continues to be harmful. The regulation is primarily about packaging standards and waste.