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.

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.