Japan could become one of the first countries in the world to end the HIV epidemic, says the president of Gilead Sciences Japan, Kennet Brysting. The idea for now could seem a little too ambitious, but it is not entirely unrealistic, given that the availability of medicines that can prevent transmission of HIV. Drugs are not the cure, but control over the spread of virus to the point where the disease is no longer a major public health threat.

What Is The Role Of Preventative HIV Medicines?

Gilead's have two key drugs, Truvada and lenacapavir. These two are playing a crucial role in prevention. Truvada is taken as a daily pill, while lenacapavir requires two injections per year. It can make the virus undetectable in infected individuals and prevent transmission to those who are not infected yet. In trials, lenacapavir showed 100% efficacy in preventing HIV infections. This is why it is describe as "almost a vaccine".

In 2024, Japan also approved Truvada for HIV prevention, but the country has yet to approve lenacapavir for the same. Until now, people in Japan had been importing generic versions of Truvada or purchasing it from clinics that source it from overseas.

HIV In Japan

Up until now, Japan reported around 25,000 HIV infections, whereas 669 new cases were reported in 2023. For seven consecutive years, the number of new infections remained under 1,000. The downward trend thus shows that the virus has been controlled, however, getting to zero new infections remains the ultimate goal.

Brysting too acknowledged that simply having effective drug is not enough. What is important is to have a proper implementation, access and healthcare support to make sure that these treatments are widely available and effective.

What Are The Challenges In Implementation?

The biggest challenges is testing rates. There is a need to increase testing rates. At this very moment, around 86% people infective with Japan have been tested, but the goal is to increase it up to 95%, with an ideal goal of 100%. Without widespread testing, many infected people may not even know that they are infected and it could transmit the virus.

Another measure issue is the cost of preventative medication. While Japan's health insurance covers treatments for diseases, it does not cover preventative drugs. Those who purchase Truvada for prevention, pay around $470 per month. Some clinics in Tokyo offer generic alternatives too, which is cheaper, but they are not ideal.

Better Healthcare Support

Brysting expressed concern that individuals importing medications might not be consulting doctors regularly, which is essential for monitoring HIV status and overall health. Truvada users need to be tested for HIV initially and every three months, along with screenings for other infections and kidney function checks. Without proper medical supervision, there is a risk of misuse and inadequate protection.

Gilead is in discussions with Japanese authorities to improve access and insurance coverage for Truvada, and progress is being made. Japan has shown efficiency in approving critical medicines, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when Gilead’s remdesivir was approved in just three days.

What Is The Way Ahead?

Gilead at this moment is not only focused on HIV and hepatitis C, but also expanding into oncology with innovative treatments like CAR-T cell therapy, which strengthens a patient's immune system to fight cancer.

However, Japan’s strict approval processes can slow down drug availability. Phase 3 clinical trials often need to be conducted within the country, and Japan tends to approve medicines much later than other regions. For instance, Truvada was approved for prevention in Japan 12 years after the U.S. and nearly 20 years after its approval for treatment. inancial factors also play a role. The Japanese government adjusts drug prices annually, often reducing them, which can make long-term investment challenging for pharmaceutical companies.

Medical education often gets associated with intense academic pressure, long study hours, and fierce competition. But a new Indian study suggests that a less visible challenge could be affecting future doctors: low self-esteem.

The findings come when thousands of aspiring doctors across India are protesting irregularities in the conduct of NEET-UG 2026 examination controversy,

with protests highlighting mounting academic stress, uncertainty, and mental health challenges among medical aspirants.

While the new research did not examine NEET candidates specifically, experts say it adds to growing evidence that psychological well-being deserves greater attention throughout the medical education journey.

Nearly 4 In 10 Medical Students Had Social Anxiety

According to the researchers, students with lower self-esteem may be more likely to fear criticism, negative evaluation, or embarrassment during social interactions, all of which are traits of social anxiety.

The study, published in Cureus, surveyed 507 undergraduate medical students at a medical college in Kerala using validated psychological questionnaires to assess social anxiety and self-esteem. Researchers found that 39.64% of students screened positive for social anxiety. Nearly one-third (31.16%) had low self-esteem.

Students with low self-esteem were significantly more likely to experience social anxiety than those with normal or high self-esteem.

Female students reported social anxiety slightly more often than males, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Students from nuclear families and those in the early years of medical school also showed relatively higher rates of social anxiety, though these factors were not statistically significant.

Also read: As Sonam Wangchuk's Indefinite Fast Continues, Doctors Explain When Hunger Strike Becomes Medically Dangerous

NEET-UG 2026 Paper Leak Row

The findings arrive at a time when the anxiety surrounding NEET-UG 2026 is at an all-time high. Students across the country are protesting paper leaks and demanding fairness and transparency. The rampant suicides among medical students after news of question paper leak surfaced also reminds of the intense mental pressure they go through.

Mental health experts have warned that uncertainty surrounding high-stakes entrance examinations can increase stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and emotional exhaustion among aspirants.

Although this study is based on students who are already in medical school rather than NEET aspirants, it underscores an important point: the psychological challenges of pursuing medicine often extend beyond getting admission in college. It confirms that the journey of becoming a doctor is marked with several psychological obstacles.

Also read: Student Suicides Surpasses Population Growth: Are Parents to Blame? Experts Weigh In

Why This Needs to Be Addressed?

The transition from competitive entrance examinations to the demanding environment of medical college may continue to place students under intense pressure which could worsen existing mental health issues.

Social anxiety can interfere with classroom participation, practical training, teamwork, and communication with patients, potentially affecting both academic performance and professional development.

The new study highlights that social anxiety affects a substantial proportion of medical students and is closely linked with low self-esteem.

While it does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings call for stronger mental health support within medical education.

As conversations around student well-being gain momentum amid ongoing NEET paper row, the research serves as a reminder that supporting future doctors requires more than academic excellence.

Researchers from India, China, Netherlands, and Canada recently published an editorial, criticising the World Health Organization's (WHO) Global Traditional Medicine Strategy, saying it promotes treatments that haven't been proven to work or lacks adequate scientific evidence.

In the editorial, the authors argue that traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (CAM) should be held to the same scientific standards as any other medical intervention.

They warn that lowering the evidentiary bar could undermine and reduce people's confidence in evidence-based healthcare. They also say that it could expose patients to ineffective or potentially harmful treatments and divert resources from therapies with proven clinical benefits.

Researchers Criticise WHO's Push For Traditional Medicine

The criticism focuses on WHO's Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025 to 2034, which aims to help countries strengthen regulation, grow research, improve safety, and integrate evidence-based traditional medicine into global health systems.

According to the authors, while these goals appear reasonable, the strategy risks lending credibility to therapies before sufficient evidence of their safety and effectiveness has been established.

The authors say, "In a WHO survey, 95% of responding member states cited lack of research data as the key barrier to integrating CAM. Robust evidence supporting complementary and alternative medicineis lacking despite increased research funding and thousands of studies. After millennia of using traditional Chinese medicine, for example, major evidence gaps on efficacy and safety remain, and patients experience unpredictable effects."

They argue that the same rigorous standards used to evaluate pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other healthcare interventions should also apply to traditional medicine.

The researchers say, "The ethical response is not uncritical endorsement of CAM but to expand access only to interventions that withstand standard scientific scrutiny as effective and safe."

The editorial also raises concerns about the potential for patients to delay or replace proven medical treatments with unverified alternatives, as well as risks linked to herb-drug interactions, contamination, and inadequate regulation.

They added, " WHO contradicts its promise of universal scientific rigour by lowering evidentiary standards: the strategy endorses observational and “real world data” designs “appropriate to the unique characteristics” of CAM instead of the standard randomised controlled trials."

Also read: World Homeopathy Day 2025: Can Homeopathy Relieve Seasonal Allergies? Here’s What Experts Say

Rebuttal By Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences

The editorial has already received counter responses from researchers who say the criticism overlooks the strategy's emphasis on scientific evaluation.

In rapid responses published by The BMJ, experts acknowledged that unproven therapies should not be incorporated into routine care without solid evidence but argued that traditional medicine deserves rigorous investigation rather than straightforward dismissal.

Rabinarayan Acharya, Director General, Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences said, "We appreciate Philips and colleagues for raising concerns about patient safety, scientific rigour and evidence integrity, all of which matter for responsible integration of any healthcare intervention. However, the editorial predominantly examines one end of a complex scientific and public health continuum."

"A balanced view also recognize substantial advances in research methodology, regulation, pharmacovigilance, and evidence generation now shape the evaluation of TCIM, within the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034."

He said that the editorial incorrectly grouped all forms of alternative medicines.

He added, "The editorial groups Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, homoeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine and anthroposophic medicine as though they belong to one category. They do not. Each has its own philosophical basis, regulatory standing, biological plausibility, and depth of evidence and deserves judgment on its own record."

They note that many modern medicines originated from natural products and traditional knowledge before being validated through laboratory research and clinical trials.

Also read: Govt To Include Ayurveda Treatments in Ayushman Bharat Scheme: Read Everything About It

Delhi Declaration Outlines Global Roadmap For Traditional Medicine

The debate comes after the adoption of the Delhi Declaration on Traditional Medicine, issued at the conclusion of the Second WHO Global Summit held in New Delhi last year.

The declaration stresses the fact that policy decisions should be guided by scientific evidence while respecting countries' diverse medical traditions. The declaration calls on countries to:

1. Increase investment and support to strengthen the evidence base for traditional medicine, enriching WHO Global Traditional Medicine Digital Library.
2. Develop regulatory practices for safe and effective drugs.
3. Take necessary steps to responsibly integrate traditional medicine into standard health systems.
4. The declaration emphasizes that key policy decisions should be guided by scientific evidence while respecting countries' diverse medical traditions.

Also read: Why More Patients Are Turning To Alternative Medicine For Chronic Illness Management?

India's Dominance In Traditional Medicine

India has positioned established itself as a global leader in traditional medicine through the establishment of the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre (GTMC) in Jamnagar, Gujarat, a collaboration between WHO and the government of India.

During the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said traditional medicine has the potential to contribute to universal health coverage and called for greater international collaboration, research, and innovation to discover its benefits while ensuring quality and safety.

India's Ministry of AYUSH also reaffirmed its commitment to building scientific evidence, promoting research, strengthening regulation, and expanding international partnerships in traditional medicine through initiatives led by the Jamnagar-based WHO centre.

Last year, India also launched My Ayush Integrated Services Portal, a national digital platform that connects medicine services, institutions and stakeholders in the sector.

AYUSH Mark was also launched. Ensuring public trust, AYUSH Mark is a global standard for the quality and safety of AYUSH products and services.

A new study in the US has found that millions of military veterans continue to experience suicidal thoughts, yet many of them are not receiving the mental health treatment they need.

Researchers say the findings highlight the urgent need to improve access to mental health services and strengthen suicide prevention efforts, particularly for younger and female veterans.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, analyzed data from 2,636 US military veterans who participated in the 2025-2026 National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study (NHRVS), a survey conducted between December 2025 and January 2026.

Increase In Suicidal Thoughts

Also read: US Government Backs Psychedelic Therapies Research For Veterans With PTSD and Depression

Researchers found that 13.4% of veterans reported having suicidal thoughts within the previous two weeks, while 14% experienced suicidal thoughts during the past year.

Compared with data collected in 2019-2020, the prevalence of recent suicidal thoughts increased from 9% to 13.4%, representing a 49% rise over five years. However, the prevalence of lifetime suicide planning (8%) and suicide attempts (4.9%) remained largely unchanged.

Based on national population estimates, the researchers said:

• 2.3 to 2.4 million veterans experiencing recent suicidal thoughts
• 1.4 million veterans reporting lifetime suicide planning
• Around 830,000 veterans reporting a lifetime suicide attempt.

Many Veterans Are Not Receiving Treatment

Also read: The Silent Impact of Stress On Your Brain: How Chronic Stress Affects Memory, Focus, And Mental Health

One of the study's most concerning findings was that a substantial number of veterans reporting suicidal thoughts were not receiving mental health care.

Among veterans who experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous two weeks:

• Only 37.9% were receiving any current mental health treatment.
• Treatment rates differed sharply depending on where veterans received their healthcare.
• Among veterans who primarily used the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, 53.6% were receiving treatment.
• Among those relying mainly on non-VA healthcare, only 25.6% were receiving treatment.

Researchers also observed similar gaps in the use of psychotherapy and psychiatric medications.

The researchers also found that younger veterans and women veterans carried a disproportionately higher risk of suicidal thoughts, suicide planning and suicide attempts.

The authors concluded, "These findings suggest that suicidal ideation has increased among US veterans over the past 5 years, whereas suicidal planning and attempts have not, underscoring the need to strengthen early intervention, treatment engagement, and targeted prevention efforts."

They further added, "A substantial proportion of veterans reporting recent suicidal ideation are not currently engaged in mental health treatment."

Access To VA Care

The study showed that veterans who used the VA healthcare system as their primary source of care were more than twice as likely to receive mental health treatment compared with veterans receiving care outside the VA.

According to the researchers, this may reflect better access to mental health services within the VA system. However, the findings also indicate that significant treatment gaps remain even among VA users due to barriers like stigma, delayed help, limited availability of services, or other factors.

The study comes as suicide continues to be a major public health issue among US veterans. According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 6,000 veterans die by suicide each year, and veterans continue to have higher suicide rates than the general US population.