On Thursday, Uganda confirmed an outbreak of the Ebola virus in its capital city Kampala, with the first confirmed patient dying from it a day before. As per the new developments, the officials are now preparing to deploy a trial vaccine to put an end to this outbreak.

Groups of scientists are working on the vaccine and deployment of more than 2,000 doses of a candidate vaccine against the Sudan strain of Ebola has been planned and confirmed by the Uganda Virus Research Institute. As per the World Health Organization (WHO), Uganda has access to 2,169 doses of trial vaccine. For now, however, there are no approved vaccines for the strain and officials are still investigating the source of the outbreak.

The WHO had also allocated $1 million from its contingency fund for emergencies to support quick action and contain the outbreak in the country.

Confirmed Case

On Wednesday, the Sudan strain of Ebola killed a nurse employed at Kampala's main referral hospital. It is after his death that Ebola was declared an outbreak in the country. Post-mortem samples too have confirmed the Sudan Ebola Virus Disease and at least 44 contacts of the deceased man have been listed for tracing. 30 of these are health workers.

Ebola is a highly infectious hemorrhagic fever, which is transmitted through contact with bodily fluids and tissue. Symptoms include headache, vomiting of blood, muscle pains and bleeding.

it was in the late 2022, when Uganda had last suffered an Ebola outbreak. It killed 55 of the 143 people who were infected and was declared over on January 11, 2023.

What Is Ebola Virus Disease?

As per the WHO, Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a rare but severe illness in humans and is often fatal. People can get infected with the virus if they touch an infected animal when preparing food, or touch body fluids of an infected person such as saliva, urine, faeces or semen, or things that have body fluids of an infected person like clothes or sheets.

How Does Transmission Work?

Ebola enters the body through cuts in the skin or when one is touching their eyes, nose or mouth. Early symptoms include fever, fatigue and headache.

It was first discovered in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreak, when in Nzara, South Sudan and other in Yambuku, Democratic Republic of Congo. The latter occurred near a village near the Ebola River, which is where it gets its name from.

It is highly infectious and transmissible disease, in fact, there have been cases of health-care workers who have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed Ebola. This occurs through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not practiced strictly.

Cases of people conducted burial ceremonies, involving direct contact with the body of the deceased too can lead to the transmission of Ebola. Even after the long suffering and recovery, there is a possibility of sexual transmission. Pregnant women who get acute Ebola and recover may still carry the virus in their breastmilk, or in pregnancy related fluids and tissues.

Symptoms:

• feeling tired
• headache
• muscle and joint pain
• eye pain and vision problems
• weight gain
• belly pain and loss of appetite
• hair loss and skin problems
• trouble sleeping
• memory loss
• hearing loss
• depression and anxiety

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.