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.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is showing no signs of slowing down. Without an approved vaccine or course of treatment, the number of deaths due to the disease has reached 3,007, with 6,186 confirmed cases as of August 31. The mortality rate remains close to 50%.

Declared in mid-May, the outbreak has now spread across 60 health zones in six provinces. Ituri, the epicenter of the outbreak, accounts for 81.9% of confirmed cases.

The gravity of the Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has sparked a fresh alert from the World Health Organization (WHO) after its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the response has to move faster than the outbreak to contain or slow the transmission.

WHO Warns Ebola Transmission Chains Are Still Being Missed

Speaking in Geneva, Tedros said the biggest challenge still remains in identifying every chain of transmission.

He said, “Until every chain is found and broken, the epidemic will continue and will continue to pose a threat to DRC, its neighbours and the region as a whole,” he said.

Many people who have died were not known contacts of previously identified Ebola patients. This suggests that some chains of transmission are still going undetected, increasing the risk of further transmission.

The CDC has also warned that the response efforts needed to contain the outbreak remain below established targets. It said that 80% of new cases are occurring outside known contact networks.

Also read: Ebola Bundibugyo Virus: American Health Worker Had 10x Higher Viral Load In Throat Than Blood

Why The Response Is Slow?

The response is currently being affected by internal conflict, poor infrastructure, attacks on health facilities and healthcare workers, and difficulties in carrying out safe burials. More than 40 health workers have reportedly died from Ebola during the response.

The WHO and DRC government are also facing a major shortfall in funding. The Congolese response plan is seeking $1.3 billion in international funding.

WHO said it has shipped 320 tonnes of supplies and increased testing capacity to about 3,000 tests a day, but additional funding is needed. It said that the capacity of treatment centres also needs to be expanded.

UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher similarly warned that the response is being outpaced by the epidemic. “Unless we scale up urgently, more lives will be lost and the threat will grow,” Fletcher said.

Also read: Ebola Outbreak In DR Congo Records Its Highest Weekly Death Tolls Yet, With More Than 300 Deaths

Ebola Response Is Also Affecting Schools

The outbreak is also affecting the country's education system and children's safety. More than 1,000 schools in Ituri are classified as being in Ebola “red zones”, meaning areas with active transmission or high risk.

Authorities had initially planned to replace classroom teaching with worksheets and radio and television lessons in these areas. But schools have reopened this week after authorities argued that prolonged remote learning could affect the students' aptitude.

Officials said distance learning would be introduced if a case was detected in a school. Additionally, precautionary measures are being taken to keep the children safe.

Steps Taken To Contain Ebola Outbreak In DR Congo

The Ervebo vaccine, licensed against Zaire ebolavirus, not Bundibugyo, is being deployed among frontline workers. WHO says it is not yet known whether the vaccine provides clinically meaningful protection against Bundibugyo.

An initial 70,000 doses of Ervebo have been approved for release to the DRC. Of these, 20,000 are intended for a Phase 3 clinical trial examining its efficacy on Bundibugyo, while 50,000 are intended for frontline and healthcare workers.

Apart from that, more than 300 Ebola patients have been enrolled in trials of two treatments, while the antiviral drug obeldesivir is being studied among high-risk contacts to determine whether it can prevent illness after exposure.

Two new vaccines specifically targeting Bundibugyo virus are also being tested in safety trials in the UK and Canada. WHO hopes efficacy trials in the DRC could begin in October or November.

Leading US medical organizations and experts have issued recommendations on COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines ahead of the 2026–27 winter season.

Developed with the University of Minnesota’s Vaccine Integrity Project and the American Medical Association (AMA), the recommendations were published in JAMA.

The guidance aims to help doctors and patients make vaccination decisions and reduce the risk of severe respiratory illness.

What Do The 2026 Recommendations Say?

Flu Vaccine

• Children: Annual vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Adults 19–64: Annual vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual vaccination, with high-dose vaccine preferred.
• Pregnancy: Annual vaccination; avoid the nasal-spray vaccine.
• Immunocompromised: Annual vaccination from 6 months; avoid nasal-spray vaccine.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual vaccination.

RSV Vaccine

• Infants: All infants under 8 months who did not receive protection through vaccination during pregnancy.
• Children 8–19 months: Vaccination for those in certain risk groups.
• Adults 50–74: One-time vaccination for those at increased risk of severe RSV.
• Adults 75+: One-time vaccination.
• Pregnancy: One-time vaccination during the first eligible pregnancy, at 32–36 weeks, between September 1 and March 1.
• Immunocompromised adults 18+: Single dose; those under 18 should use shared decision-making.

COVID-19 Vaccine

• Children 6–23 months: Annual updated vaccination.
• Children 2–18: Annual vaccination for certain risk groups or if desired.
• Adults 19–64: Annual updated vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual updated vaccination, followed by a second dose six months later.
• Pregnancy: Annual updated vaccination.
• Immunocompromised: Annual updated vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual updated vaccination.

CDC Has Not Issued New COVID, RSV Guidance

The recommendations come as the CDC has not issued new guidance for RSV or COVID-19 vaccination for the 2026–27 season.

The CDC updated its COVID-19 guidance last year, moving away from a broad recommendation and advising patients to consult a healthcare provider about vaccination.

For flu, the CDC updated its clinical guidance on Tuesday but said recommendations from the July 2025 immunisation schedule remain in effect for the 2026–27 season.

The updated flu guidance does not mention the first mRNA flu vaccine, which was approved by the FDA last month for older adults.

Respiratory Viruses Continue To Pose Risks

• Flu: During 2025–26, interim CDC estimates indicated at least 390,000 hospitalisations and 24,000 deaths.
• COVID-19: The virus is less severe than during the pandemic but continues to affect older adults, infants, pregnant women and immunocompromised people. It was associated with an estimated 4.6 million–12.9 million illnesses, 140,000–240,000 hospitalisations and 15,000–42,000 deaths.
• RSV: Infants and older adults remain at greatest risk of severe disease. RSV caused an estimated 2.8 million–5.8 million outpatient visits, 170,000–340,000 hospitalisations and up to 25,000 deaths.

What Did The Vaccine Evidence Show?

• Flu: A review of 5,800+ studies found vaccination reduced hospitalisation and mortality among high-risk groups. High-dose vaccines provided greater protection against hospitalisation in older adults. No new safety concerns were identified.
• COVID-19: Of 11,000+ studies screened, 155 met the review criteria. Updated vaccines continued to protect against hospitalisation, intensive care admission and death, particularly among older and high-risk groups. No new safety concerns were found in comparative studies.
• RSV: Of 2,000+ studies assessed, 75 were included. Vaccination reduced severe illness and hospitalisation among older adults and pregnant women, while nirsevimab reduced severe RSV illness in infants. No new safety concerns were identified.

Experts Call For Clear Vaccine Guidance

Bruce Gellin of the Vaccine Integrity Project said Americans should have access to the latest scientific evidence and recommendations from medical experts to make informed vaccination decisions.

“Whatever happens to the federal vaccine policy process, we cannot lower that scientific standard,” he said.

The potential benefits of Ivermectin and Mebendazole, two anti-parasitic drugs, for cancer treatment have sparked a debate.

A recent real-world study stated that an astonishing 84.4% clinical benefit rate was reported among cancer patients who took these two drugs together. But the number does not mean that 84% of the patients improved with the help of thesedrugs. The findings come with significant limitations.

Ivermectin-Mebendazole's Effects On Cancer Patients

Published in Anticancer Research in June 2026, the study followed 197 cancer patients who had been prescribed ivermectin and mebendazole off-label through a US telemedicine platform.

The patients received compounded capsules containing 25 mg of ivermectin and 250 mg of mebendazole. But only 122 patients, or 61.9%, completed the six-month follow-up.

Among those who completed follow-up, 48.4% of the patients had no tumour regression or no sign of the disease. Another 36.1% showed no change, while in 15.6% of the patients, the disease had progressed. This generated the study's 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio.

So, the number should not be interpreted as 84% of patients had their cancer tumours shrink or the disease disappeared.

The researchers also reported that 25.4% of participants faced side effects, most of which were mild and mainly gastrointestinal.

It is also important to note that patients were also receiving other treatments, including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, while nearly half reported using supplements. Many also made changes to their diets.

Also read: Daraxonrasib: New Drug Approved For Pancreatic Cancer Shows Promise In Lung Cancer Treatment

The Study Has Limitations

This was a prospective observational study, not a randomised controlled clinical trial. There was no comparison group receiving standard treatment or a placebo.

The cancer results were also self-reported through digital surveys rather than independently verified as part of the study.

That makes it impossible to determine whether ivermectin and mebendazole caused the reported improvements.

Patients were also receiving other cancer treatments and making changes to their diets or taking supplements. These factors could have influenced the outcomes.

PubMed currently carries an 'Expression of Concern' for the paper, dated June 9, 2026. The study's own authors describe their findings as “hypothesis-generating” and say randomized controlled trials are needed.

Also read: Blocked Ears After Flight Turned Out To Be Rare Head And Neck Cancer In 22-Year-Old

Ivermectin And Brain Cancer

Researchers are also exploring whether ivermectin can be delivered to brain tumours through the nose.

In a study in rats with glioma, ivermectin packed inside tiny nanocapsules and given through the nose reduced tumour size after 10 days.

The nano-formulation performed better than regular ivermectin, while another silica-based formulation did not have the same effect on the rats.

The idea is to use the nose as a possible route to help drugs reach the brain, where the blood-brain barrier can make drug delivery difficult.

However, this was an animal study. The results therefore show a potential research direction, not definite evidence that nasal ivermectin can treat brain cancer in humans.

Also read: Nearly 8 In 10 US Young Adults Show Signs Of Heart, Kidney Risk: Why Early Checks Matter

What Does The Evidence Say About Fenbendazole?

A 2025 case series described three people with advanced breast, prostate and melanoma cancers who self-administered fenbendazole alongside other treatments. The report described complete or near-complete remissions.

However, that paper was subsequently retracted in January 2026. PubMed now lists the retraction, making the original case series unsuitable as reliable evidence that fenbendazole treats cancer.

The study provides possible cancer treatment options that can be investigated treatment as they are not proven yet.

A 2025 review highlighted several possible anticancer mechanisms for ivermectin, including effects on YAP1, Wnt/TCF and AKT/mTOR signalling, oxidative stress and apoptosis.

But the review also noted that the human cases it examined were not designed to test ivermectin as a cancer treatment. So as of now, there is no robust clinical evidence that says ivermectin, mebendazole or fenbendazole as effective cancer treatments.

For cancer patients, these drugs should not be substituted for established treatment on the basis of these studies alone.