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.

US President Donald Trump recent move of overhauling childhood vaccine recommendations has sparked debates across the globe. Several US states have opposed to it too, refusing to follow Washington’s lead.

Trump signed the executive order on August 10, calling for federal childhood vaccine recommendations to be narrowed to vaccines routinely recommended for children against 11 diseases, down from 18 at the end of 2024.

It also calls for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be given as three separate shots and says childhood vaccines should, where feasible, be administered during separate medical visits.

The order also asks states to review their school vaccination requirements. But there is an important question here: states, not the federal government, generally set vaccine requirements for children attending schools.

Which States Are Refusing To Follow Trump’s Directives?

At least 29 states and Washington, DC, had already rejected at least some federal vaccine guidance, choosing instead to rely on recommendations from medical organisations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Among the states that have opposed Trump's order and maintained independent, medicine-based vaccine policies are Colorado, Maine and Washington.

Colorado has gone further by passing legislation allowing the state to rely on organisations including the AAP, American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when setting its childhood vaccine policy, rather than depending on federal CDC directive.

Maine has also said it will continue following guidance from established medical and public-health organisations instead of Trump's order.

Washington state officials said its school vaccine requirements have not changed for the upcoming academic year and remain based on recommendations from trusted medical and public-health experts.

This means Trump's order does not automatically change every child's vaccination schedule across the United States. The legal and political battle is likely to continue state by state.

Also read: What Trump’s Childhood Vaccine Order Means: When Will It Take Effect?

Trump's MRI Proposal Sparked Controversy

The MMR vaccine has been used as a combined vaccine for several decades. Trump’s order calls for separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, once they become available in the US.

Public-health experts have warned that separating vaccines could mean more appointments, higher costs and more chances for children to contract these infections as they may remain unvaccinated between doses.

The World Health Organization has also defended established immunisation schedules, saying they are based on decades of scientific evidence and proven clinical trials

The timing is particularly controversial as the US has already recorded 2,465 confirmed measles cases in 2026 as of August 6, according to the CDC.

Also read: Kennedy Announces Food Policy Reforms Under Trump’s MAHA Agenda: What Has Been Proposed?

Countries React To Trump's Vaccine Recommendation

The UK has taken a stand against Trump's newly proposed vaccine recommendation. On August 12, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and said there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.

“The benefits of vaccination are endorsed by the NHS and all major UK public health and paediatric bodies,” said Dr Alison Cave, chief safety officer at the MHRA. She urged parents to follow NHS vaccination has an guidance.

The UK's routine schedule continues to use combination vaccines, including the six-in-one vaccine, and since January 2026 has included a universal two-dose chickenpox programme through the combined MMRV vaccine.

The Supreme Court has asked 19 states and Union Territories that have not yet done so to consider declaring cancer a “notifiable disease”, stressing the need for a uniform system to report cancer cases across India.

The direction was issued on August 11 by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking mandatory cancer notification across the country.

The court was informed that 17 of India's 36 states and UTs have already notified cancer, following recommendations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare.

“Why don't you issue some mandatory guidelines for all States/UTs? There should be uniform policy,” CJI Surya Kant asked the Centre during the hearing.

The court subsequently asked the remaining states and UTs to consider the recommendations and take appropriate decisions, while also asking them to file compliance affidavits.

What Does ‘Notifiable Disease’ Mean?

A notifiable disease is a condition that healthcare providers or designated authorities are legally required to report to the government when it is diagnosed.

Unlike infectious diseases, cancer is not being considered for notification because it spreads from person to person. The purpose behind SC's recommendation is surveillance.

Mandatory reporting to the government could give health authorities a clearer picture of how many new cancer cases are being diagnosed, where they are occurring, which cancer types are increasing and which populations may be disproportionately affected.

This information can help governments take initiatives towards planning screening programmes, cancer centres, diagnostic facilities, medicines, and other healthcare resources.

Despite the encouraging move, simply making cancer notifiable will not automatically lead to earlier diagnosis and better planning for resources to treat and manage the disease.

However, more complete data can help identify gaps in screening and follow-up care and allow health programmes to be targeted more effectively.

Also read: Why Non-Smokers Too Are At High Risk Of Lung Cancer

How Could SC's Move Help In Early Cancer Detection?

The issue has been linked to alarming gaps in India's cancer surveillance system. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had recommended that cancer be made a notifiable disease to improve the accuracy of cancer incidence and mortality data.

The Committee also noted that cancer deaths can sometimes be recorded under broader causes, making it difficult to establish the true burden of cancer in the country. It recommended stronger cancer registration and a digital system for real-time data collection to anaylse the actual number of cases and their severity.

The PIL was filed by Dr Anurag Srivastava, former Head of the Department of Surgical Disciplines at AIIMS, New Delhi.

His petition states that the absence of mandatory reporting has resulted in inaccurate data and inadequate surveillance. It also proposes a centralised, real-time digital registry for cancer, similar to the CoWIN platform used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also read: The Office Actress Lucy Davis Reveals Incurable Stage 4 Breast Cancer: 'It’s Too Late For Chemo'

The Centre has pointed out that health is a State subject. Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik told the court, “Moreover, 17 states have notified the disease.”

The court's latest direction therefore puts the focus on closing the gap between states that already have mandatory notification systems and those that do not.

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.