The Union Health Ministry implemented a ban on 156 "irrational" FDC medicines, effective immediately. These medicines, including widely used antibiotics, painkillers, and multivitamins, were commonly used to treat fever, cough, and infections. The ban was imposed due to the associated health risks and lack of therapeutic justification for the ingredients in these FDCs.

What are FDC medicines?

FDCs or fixed-dosed combinations, also known as "cocktail drugs," are medications that combine multiple drugs in a single pill. They are designed to treat multiple symptoms or conditions simultaneously. While they offer convenience, they can pose significant risks. These risks include the possibility of overdose, adverse interactions between the drugs, and the development of antibiotic resistance. Additionally, many FDC medicines lack sufficient scientific evidence to support their safety and efficacy.

Expert opinions on FDC medicines

Experts have raised concerns about the use of FDC medicines. They believe that many of these combinations lack sufficient scientific evidence to support their safety and effectiveness. Additionally, the combination of multiple drugs in a single pill can increase the risk of adverse side effects and interactions with other medications.

Experts have also found that FDC medicines may not be as effective as individual drugs in treating certain conditions. It is important to note that safer and more effective alternatives are available for most of the medical conditions that FDC medicines were used to treat. One particular concern is the inclusion of antibiotics in some FDCs. Overuse of antibiotics can contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance, a major public health threat.

The risks of FDC medicines

The use of FDC medicines can lead to adverse effects, including serious ones. Additionally, safer alternatives, tested in clinical trials, are available to treat the same medical conditions. Experts recommend prescribing drugs individually based on a patient's clinical symptoms rather than combining them in FDCs.

The ban on irrational FDC medicines by the Union Health Ministry can be seen as a positive step towards promoting rational drug use and protecting public health. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary and potentially harmful drug combinations. This is a step forward in reducing the risks associated with medication and ensure safer and more effective treatment options for patients.

A common amino acid found in protein-rich foods, which is also available as an dietary supplement, may have surprising potential for strengthening the body's immune response against cancer and viral infections, according to a new study.

Published in the journal Cell, researchers from Rockefeller University found that arginine plays a key role in helping immune cells detect and attack abnormal cells.

Their findings suggest that restoring arginine levels could improve the effectiveness of the body's natural defences and may one day strengthen cancer or antiviral treatments.

"Our work reveals how a lack of arginine interferes with the immune system, and suggests that upping arginine intake could prove beneficial," said Qiushuang Wu, the study's first author and a postdoctoral researcher at Rockefeller University. "Perhaps that means it could be used in combination with other therapies to treat both cancer and viral infections."

What Are The Findings?

The team investigated how low arginine levels affect gene expression in models of colon cancer, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that arginine deficiency disrupted the production of major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) proteins, molecules that help cells, allowing the immune system to detect and fight virus-infected or cancerous cells in the body.

The researchers discovered that when arginine was low, ribosomes, the cellular machinery responsible for making proteins, stalled while producing MHC-I proteins. As a result, infected or abnormal cells became harder for the immune system to identify.

However, after giving a moderate amount of arginine, roughly equivalent to a couple of over-the-counter tablets, restored the production of these stalled proteins.

Also read: Bone Marrow Transplant: The Quiet Revolution Transforming India's Fight Against Blood Cancers

Many cancers and viral infections are known to alter amino acid levels in the body. The new findings suggest that these changes may weaken immunity in an unexpected way by limiting the production of proteins essential for a stronger immune response.

Senior author Sohail Tavazoie, head of Rockefeller University's Laboratory of Systems Cancer Biology, believes the discovery could become an asset for future clinical research, especially in cancer treatment studies.

"Arginine supplementation could be readily tested in patients receiving immunotherapies or given to high-risk populations exposed to viral pathogens," Tavazoie said. "Considering that arginine is inexpensive and readily available, we hope that therapeutic and preventative studies could be undertaken soon."

What Is Arginine?

Arginine is an essential amino acid, meaning the body usually produces. Additional amounts of of arginine may be needed during illness, injury or periods of physiological distress to the body.

It is naturally found in foods such as meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, nuts, seeds and legumes. It is also sold as a dietary supplement. It also serves as a building block for nitric oxide, a molecule involved in blood flow and immune function.

While the findings are promising, the researchers emphasise that the study does not prove that taking arginine supplements can prevent or treat cancer or viral infections in people.

Reliable human clinical trials are still needed to determine whether the supplementation is safe, effective and beneficial.

On August 5, 2026, New York's Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) Act comes into effect which will allow eligible patients with a terminal illness to choose to peacefully end their lives. The end-of-life healthcare will enable patients to have access to end-of-life medications that they could self-administer.

The law marks a significant step in end-of-life healthcare, placing New York among the growing number of U.S. states offering medically assisted dying under strict legal safeguards.

About The Law

The law is intended for adults who are

• New York residents
• 18 years and older
• Diagnosed with a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less
• Mentally capable of making healthcare decisions
• Physically able to self-administer the medication
• Receive approval from two physicians
• Undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation by a psychiatrist

The end-of-life right is not available for people with chronic illnesses alone, advanced dementia, or individuals who cannot make informed medical decisions.

Health experts emphasize that medical aid in dying is not the same as euthanasia. Under New York's law, the patient, not the physician, must voluntarily take the prescribed medication.

Doctors evaluate eligibility, discuss alternative care options such as hospice and palliative care, and ensure that the request is informed and free from coercion before a prescription can be issued. Multiple medical assessments are required, making the process regulated and full-proof.

Also read: Assisted Dying Bill Passed In UK: What It Means And How It Changes For End-of-Life Care Forever?

Reactions

Supporters say the legislation gives terminally ill patients greater autonomy during the final stages of life. Many advocacy groups argue that simply having the option can provide psychological comfort, even for patients who ultimately never take the medication.

Experiences from states where similar laws have existed for years suggest that a significant number of eligible patients obtain the prescription but do not use it.

They instead find reassurance in knowing that they have a choice if suffering becomes unbearable.

At the same time, the law continues to spark ethical and legal debate. Disability rights advocates and some religious organizations have voiced concerns about potential risks to vulnerable populations and the broader implications for end-of-life care.

A group of Catholic healthcare providers has already challenged the law in federal court, arguing that certain provisions requiring patient transfers conflict with their religious beliefs.

For healthcare professionals, the implementation of the MAID Act also means preparing new medical protocols, reporting requirements, and giving appropriate training to staff.

The New York State Department of Health has introduced regulations outlining eligibility criteria, documentation, and safeguards to ensure the law is implemented responsibly while protecting both patients and healthcare providers.

Also read: What Are The Dutch Guidelines Of Active Euthanasia And The Countries That Allow It

Canada Banned Assisted Dying For Mental Illness Alone

Recently, a parliamentary committee in Canada recommended that the country's assisted dying laws must continue to exclude people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness.

When MAID was introduced in 2016 in Canada, it was available only to adults who were terminally ill. The eligibility criteria were strict.

Individuals had to be suffering from a "serious and incurable illness", be in an "advanced state of irreversible decline", experience "intolerable suffering", and have a natural death that was "reasonably foreseeable".

This legal pathway became primarily served people with terminal cancer or other severe illnesses who wanted greater control over the dying process.

However, many Canadians living with severe non-terminal conditions argued that they were excluded from the law. These included people with degenerative diseases, chronic pain, or spinal injuries who experienced significant suffering but were not nearing death. Many requested MAID but were routinely denied.

Former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha has said he now believes the COVID-19 pandemic was "more likely" caused by an accidental lab leak than by natural transmission.

His comments come after last week's congressional hearing involving former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, during which the infectious disease expert invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination more than 100 times as Republicans questioned his handling of the pandemic. Fauci led the scientific and medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

"My view on COVID origins isn't new — I've held it since my time at the White House," Jha, who also served as an adviser to former President Joe Biden, wrote on social media platform X.

"Here's the truth: no one in America knows for sure. Anyone telling you they do is selling you something. Based on strong circumstantial evidence I've seen, I think a lab leak is much more likely," he wrote while sharing a clip of his CNN interview.

Jha stressed that he was not claiming certainty, adding that he believes the pandemic was "not engineered. Not deliberate. Accidental."

"No one in the United States knows for sure. The only people who know for sure are officials in China, and we still need transparency and accountability on that. My best assessment is that it probably was a lab leak."

Debate Over COVID-19 Origins Continues

The origin of COVID-19 has remained one of the most debated questions since the pandemic began in 2020. Scientists and public health experts have debated whether the virus emerged through natural transmission—possibly linked to a wildlife market in Wuhan—or from an accidental laboratory leak.

Recently released personal journals of Dr. Fauci have renewed discussion over the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the US pandemic response.

The 1,141-page collection, released by Senator Rand Paul ahead of Fauci's scheduled Senate testimony, covers the period from December 2019 to December 2022.

The journals show Fauci continued receiving updates about the virus's origin while publicly emphasizing the available scientific evidence supporting natural emergence.

Following a conference call with leading virologists, Fauci noted that several experts discussed whether parts of the virus's genome could have evolved naturally. He listed the participants and summarized the debate over the possibility of a laboratory origin.

However, experts say the journals are Fauci's personal contemporaneous notes and do not conclusively establish the origin of COVID-19.

Also read: COVID-19 In India: Omicron RF.5 Primarily Affects Throat, Unlikely To Trigger Pneumonia In Healthy People, Say Experts

Key Points From Fauci's Journals

• Fauci recorded discussions in late January 2020 in which several scientists questioned whether SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from a laboratory because of certain genetic features.
• The journals show these possibilities were discussed internally before many scientists later concluded that natural spillover was the more likely explanation.
• The entries do not provide proof that the virus leaked from a laboratory.

"The first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market... Now we know the market was not the source; it was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans," Fauci wrote.

Read More: US Measles Cases Reach 2,371; RFK Jr Takes U-Turn, Urges Families to Vaccinate Kids

Tulsi Gabbard's Declassified Documents

In June, Tulsi Gabbard, on her final day as US Director of National Intelligence, released previously undisclosed communications and documents alleging that Fauci funded research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology that contributed to the pandemic.