Smokers who make the decision to quit will experience immediate health benefits, including a rapid reduction in their risk of atrial fibrillation (A-Fib), according to new research published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. The study, conducted by Dr. Gregory Marcus, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offers compelling evidence for smokers to quit, showing that it’s never too late to avoid the damaging effects of smoking on heart health.

Dr. Marcus, the senior author of the study, emphasized that A-Fib can be prevented even in individuals who have smoked for years. "The findings provide a compelling new reason to show current smokers that it’s not too late to quit, and that having smoked in the past doesn’t mean you’re ‘destined’ to develop A-Fib," Marcus explained. "Even for the current and longtime smoker, A-Fib can still be avoided."

What is Atrial Fibrillation (A-Fib)?

"There’s strong evidence that smoking increases the risk of A-Fib," Marcus said. "But the benefits of quitting smoking have been less certain." With this in mind, his team sought to determine whether quitting could significantly lower a person’s risk of developing A-Fib, or if the risk would remain the same.

The research team analyzed data from over 146,700 current and former smokers, tracking their smoking habits and health over a 12-year period using data from the UK Biobank database. The results were promising: former smokers had a 13% lower risk of developing A-Fib compared to current smokers, while those who quit during the study saw an 18% reduction in their risk.

"This is likely a testament to the potency of reducing atrial fibrillation risk pretty shortly after quitting," Marcus said in a statement from the American College of Cardiology.

The findings highlight the importance of quitting smoking, not only for general health but specifically for reducing the risk of serious heart conditions like A-Fib.

Tips for Quitting Smoking

Quitting smoking is one of the most effective ways to lower the risk of A-Fib and improve overall heart health. While it can be challenging, the benefits of quitting are clear and immediate. Here are some tips to help you quit smoking successfully:

1. Choose a specific date to quit smoking and stick to it. Prepare yourself mentally and physically for this change.

2. Reach out to family, friends, or a support group to help keep you accountable. Sharing your goals with others can provide encouragement.

3. Options like nicotine patches, gum, or lozenges can help ease withdrawal symptoms and reduce cravings.

4. Identify situations that make you want to smoke, such as stress or social gatherings, and find healthy ways to cope with them.

5. Regular exercise can help distract you from cravings and improve your mood during the quitting process.

6. Drinking water can help flush nicotine out of your system faster, reducing cravings.

7. Activities like yoga, meditation, or deep breathing exercises can help manage stress, a common trigger for smoking.

Quitting smoking offers immediate and significant benefits, particularly in reducing the risk of atrial fibrillation. The latest research provides smokers with more motivation to quit, showing that it's never too late to take control of their heart health.

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.

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.