After mpox outbreak, Africa is under the threat of yet another virus outbreak, this is the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda. So far, six people have died from the outbreak, confirmed the health minister. Most victims were the healthcare workers in the hospital's intensive care unit. As per reports, 20 cases have been identified since the outbreak was confirmed on Friday.

What Is Marbug Virus?

With the fatality rate of 8% it is the same virus family as Ebola. The main carrier is from fruit bats which spreads to humans then through the contact of bodily fluids of infected individuals, it spreads to others.

Common Signs And Symptoms

The common signs and symptoms of the Marburg virus include fever, pain, diarrhoea, vomiting and in the case of extreme blood loss, death too can happen.

So far, there is no specific treatment or vaccine for the virus. However, treatments like drugs and immune therapy are being developed as per the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Call Of Action

Rwanda says that it has intensified its contact tracing, surveillance and testing to contain the spread. It has also tracked about 300 people who had come into contact with individuals affected by the Marburg virus.

The health minister has urged people to stay vigilant and avoid any physical contact and to wash their hands with clean water, soap or sanitiser and report any suspected case.

As of now, most of the cases have spread to the capital in Kigali. In light of this, the US Embassy in the city has advised its employees to work remotely for the next week.

This is the first time Rwanda has confirmed for Marburg cases, before this, in 2023, Tanzania confirmed the outbreak, whereas three people had died of this in Uganda in 2017.

History Of Marburg

As per WHO, this virus kills half of the people it infects. In the previous outbreaks, it has killed between 24% to 88% of the patients.

The virus was first detected in 1976 after 31 people were infected, out of which 7 died in simultaneous outbreak in Marburg and Frankfurt in Germany, and Belgrade in Serbia.

The source was traced to African green monkeys who were imported from Uganda. However, other animals too are linked to the virus spread, including bats.

In the past, the virus outbreaks have happened in countries like Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. In 2005, this virus killed 300 people in Angola.

However, for the rest of the world, only two people have died from the virus in the rest of the world, with one of them being in Europe, and the other in the US. These both have been on expeditions to caves in Uganda.

COVID-19 antiviral drug remdesivir can help kidney transplant patients in more than one ways. Apart from keeping them free from COVID-19 infection, the drug could also help lower the risk of losing the transplanted kidney and reduce future heart-related complications.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, come from one of the largest studies to examine the long-term effects of remdesivir in adult kidney transplant recipients.

The subsection of patients that remains especially vulnerable to severe COVID-19 because of lifelong immune-suppressing medications.

What Did The Study Find?

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Medicine studied data from 432 adult kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2024.

Of these, 177 patients received remdesivir within a week of diagnosis for at least three consecutive days, while 255 did not receive the antiviral.

Patients treated with other COVID-19 therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies or alternative antivirals, were excluded.

After adjusting for factors including age, underlying illnesses, transplant timing, vaccination status and disease severity, researchers found that patients who received early remdesivir had a 47% lower risk of all-cause graft loss, over the following year.

Graft loss refers to transplant failure or death. They also had a 42% lower risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attack, stroke or cardiac-related death.

“These findings suggest that timely antiviral treatment may have benefits beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 in this population,” said Dr. Nitipong Permpalung, senior author of the study and associate director of the Johns Hopkins Transplant Research Center.

“We hope these findings will help reduce hesitations that physicians may have with considering providing remdesivir, when clinically appropriate, to adult kidney transplant recipients,” he added.

Also read: Dr Anthony Fauci's Personal Journals Reignites Debate On COVID-19 Origin; Says He Overshadowed President Trump

Kidney Transplant Recipients Are At Higher Risk

Patients who have undergone kidney transplants take immunosuppressive medicines to prevent organ rejection. While these drugs protect the transplanted kidney, they also weaken the body’s ability to fight infections, making COVID-19 more severe and increasing the risk of serious complications.

In the study, nearly 95% of participants had high blood pressure, 46% had diabetes, and one in five required supplemental oxygen when diagnosed with COVID-19.

More than half also temporarily stopped one of their immunosuppressive medications during infection.

Also read: Can Long COVID Be Prevented Before It Starts? Study Suggests Early Paxlovid May Help

What Does This Mean?

Although the initial results are encouraging, researchers stressed that the study was observational rather than a randomised clinical trial.

That means it shows a strong association but cannot definitively prove that remdesivir alone caused the improved outcomes.

“I do think that the findings suggest the potential benefits of treating COVID-19 early may extend beyond the short-term benefits that the early clinical trials have shown,” Dr. Permpalung said in an interview with The American Journal of Managed Care.

He also said that that larger and more diverse studies are needed to understand why early treatment appears to protect transplanted kidneys and whether similar benefits extend to recipients of other transplanted organs such as the heart, lungs and liver.

The findings could help guide treatment for transplant specialists, particularly because kidney transplant recipients are often excluded from large clinical trials.

If confirmed in future studies, early antiviral treatment with remdesivir may become an important strategy not only for reducing severe COVID-19 but also for protecting transplanted organs and lowering long-term cardiovascular risks in such patients.

Millions of bottles of over-the-counter cooling eye drops have been recalled across the United States after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised concerns that the products may not be sterile. Sterility issues raises the risk of eye infections significantly.

The FDA has classified the recall as a Class II recall. An FDA Class II recall for a product refers to the public health action that may cause temporary health problems, where the chance of serious harm is remote.

This recall covers nearly 12 million bottles of eight Rohto cooling eye drop products. The agency said the recall was initiated on July 14, due to a “lack of assurance of sterility” in the affected products.

The eye drops were manufactured in Vietnam and distributed nationwide by The Mentholatum Company.

Which Products Are Affected In The Recall?

The recent FDA recall includes several popular Rohto products, including:

1. Rohto All-in-One
2. Rohto Max Strength
3. Rohto Cool Relief
4. Rohto Dry Aid
5. Rohto Digi Eye
6. Rohto Optic Glow
7. Twin-pack versions of some of these products

The food and drugs regulatory body has warned consumers to stop using the recalled eye drops immediately and check the FDA’s recall notice for affected lot numbers and expiration dates.

Also read: FDA Recalls Popular Thyroid Medication: What Levothyroxine Users Need to Know

Is Sterility A Serious Concern?

Unlike tablets or capsules, eye drops are applied directly onto the eye. The process has limited natural protection against harmful microorganisms.

When sterility cannot always be guaranteed, bacteria or fungi may contaminate the solution easily.

Using contaminated eye drops significantly increases the risk of eye irritation, painful infections, damage to the corneas and, in extreme cases, vision loss.

Although the FDA has not disclosed any confirmed adverse effects linked to this recall, it said the products were withdrawn from the market as a precaution because ophthalmic products must strictly remain sterile throughout their shelf life.

The agency classified the recall as Class II, meaning exposure could cause temporary or reversible health effects, while serious harm is mostly unlikely.

Also read: US FDA Approves New Blood Test To Screen For Colorectal Cancer

Commenting on previous FDA recalls, Dr Gary Novack, clinical professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science at UC Davis, said, “For eye drops, that means strict sterility, ensuring products are free from microorganisms like bacteria.”

He also said that manufacturing facilities must maintain contamination-free conditions because medicines used in the eye bypass many of the body’s natural defence mechanisms.

Dr Jeffrey H. Ma, ophthalmologist at the UC Davis Eye Center, also advised patients not to use recalled products: “Drops that are not on the recall list should be safe to use. If you have any of the drops on the list, you should immediately throw them away.”

What Should You Do If You Have The Recalled Products?

Health authorities recommend that people:

• Stop using any recalled Rohto eye drops immediately.
• Check product lot numbers and expiry dates against the FDA recall list.
• Contact a healthcare provider if they experience eye pain, redness, blurred vision, discharge or persistent irritation after using the recalled products.
• Return or safely dispose of affected products according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The latest recall comes after multiple eye drop recalls in recent years linked to manufacturing and sterility issues, highlighting growing scrutiny of ophthalmic products.

US President is reportedly asking Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr to make more efforts to cut childhood vaccines in America, according to a media report.

The 80-year-old US president hopes to make “alleviating autism” a component of his legacy, and told Kennedy that he wasn’t making enough cuts to the US vaccination schedule, the Wall Street Journal reported. The report, citing sources, said that Trump believes cutting down the number of recommended childhood vaccines may lead to a drop in autism rates in the country.

He, thus, expressed frustration with the slow pace of progress on the issue at a mid-June Oval Office meeting with Kennedy.

“Donald Trump has been anti-vaccine at least since 2015,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an infectious diseases physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At the Republican primary debate that year, Trump said that autism had gotten “totally out of control” and vaccines should be in “smaller doses over a longer period of time”.

Further, Trump reportedly also wants to break the combination vaccine for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination (MMR) into different shots, to reduce the risk of autism.

However, there has been no scientific evidence to prove that paring down the childhood vaccine schedule can reduce autism rates. Similarly, studies over the years have shown no connection between the MMR and autism.

Kennedy, last year, cancelled roughly $500 million in mRNA vaccine research grants and removed every single member of an immunization advisory panel.

But after White House aides told Kennedy that vaccine skepticism was less popular with voters, and they asked him to focus on more palatable topics, such as food reform, the Health Secretary has largely been mum on vaccines publicly. Trump’s recent urgency on the issue ignores his political advisers’ warnings.

CDC Makes Changes To Its Autism And Vaccine Webpage

Meanwhile, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) revised webpage on autism and vaccines is reigniting the debate over how health agencies should communicate scientific evidence.

The controversy was sparked by changes made to the CDC's autism webpage, which now states that the claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is "not an evidence-based claim" as studies have not ruled out every possible link between infant vaccines and autism.

The page also says the HHS is continuing to investigate the causes of autism.

The revised language represents a shift from the CDC's longstanding public messaging, which for years stated that extensive scientific research had found no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy slammed the agency's messaging while continuing to defend the overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

The changes have also drawn criticism from scientists, physicians, and lawmakers who fear they could weaken public confidence in routine childhood immunization.

Scientific Consensus Remains Intact

Despite the debate surrounding the CDC webpage, the broader scientific consensus has not changed. Large studies conducted over several decades in multiple countries have consistently found no evidence that routine childhood vaccines cause autism.

Major medical organizations continue to support vaccination as one of the safest and most effective public health interventions.

Health experts have also warned that ambiguous or conflicting public health messaging could further affect vaccine confidence at a time when the United States is experiencing its highest number of measles cases in more than three decades, largely driven by declining childhood vaccination rates.

The controversy highlights the growing tension between political oversight and scientific communication within U.S. public health agencies.

For public health experts, the concern extends beyond a single webpage. They argue that how government agencies present scientific evidence can directly influence vaccine confidence, healthcare decisions, and efforts to prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.