Singer Jesy Nelson recently shared an emotional update regarding the complications she is experiencing in her pregnancy with twin babies. Former Little Mix singer Jesy, who is having twins with partner Zion Foster, announced that she has been diagnosed with pre-twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (pre-TTTS). The condition, which is present in pregnancies involving twins with a shared placenta, has serious risks involved and needs intense medical supervision. As Nelson embarks on this difficult journey, her story enlightens us about a rare but dangerous condition many expectant parents may not know much about.

Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome is a rare but dangerous condition that arises in monochorionic twin pregnancies, in which identical twins share a single placenta. The placenta supplies the developing babies with oxygen, nutrients, and blood flow, but in TTTS, there is an imbalance of blood vessels that interconnect the twins, and thus the vital resources are not evenly distributed. One twin, or the donor twin, shares excess blood with the other, referred to as the recipient twin. This leads to one baby becoming malnourished and possibly anemic, and the other in danger of heart problems due to too much blood.

Nelson described her diagnosis in a heartfelt Instagram video, explaining that she is currently in the pre-stage of TTTS and undergoing frequent monitoring. "I am being scanned twice a week, and each time, things have gotten a little worse," she shared, expressing her fears and hopes for the health of her babies.

Potential Risks of TTTS

If left untreated, TTTS can have devastating consequences. Medical research indicates that:

• 90% of the cases of untreated TTTS lead to loss of one or both twins.
• Despite treatment, only a 70% survival rate for both twins is assured.
• Severe forms can result in preterm labor, cardiac failure in the recipient twin, and organ failure in the donor twin.
• Complications in long-term survivors include neurological damage and developmental delay in surviving infants.

TTTS usually advances in stages, beginning with minimal changes in fluid levels and worsening as one twin continues to get an unequal share of blood. In extreme cases, fetal laser surgery, referred to as the Solomon technique, can be employed to divide the blood vessels and balance the twins.

Why Identical Twin Pregnancies Are More Complicated

Identical twins may develop differently, and their own unique form of placental sharing can have a dramatic effect on pregnancy risk. Jesy Nelson's twins are considered monochorionic diamniotic (mono/di), which means they share a placenta but have two amniotic sacs. This is the type of pregnancy in about 70% of identical twin pregnancies and carries an increased risk of complications like TTTS, umbilical cord entanglement, and growth restriction.

Conversely, dichorionic diamniotic (di/di) twins both have a separate placenta and amniotic sac, which greatly diminishes the threat of TTTS. Twin pregnancy type is normally identified by early ultrasound, with physicians being able to track future complications from inception.

Other Twin Pregnancy Health Risks

Twin pregnancies, even without the presence of TTTS, entail a variety of health risks to the mother as well as infants:

1. Premature Birth

Over 60% of twin pregnancies end in premature delivery, with birth usually taking place before 37 weeks. Premature infants can have immature organs and need neonatal intensive care (NICU) assistance to assist with breathing, feeding, and infection fighting.

2. Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia

Pregnant women with multiples are at increased risk of having high blood pressure during pregnancy. This, if left untreated, can result in preeclampsia, a serious complication of pregnancy that can result in damage to organs, preterm labor, and in some cases, maternal or fetal death.

3. Anemia

Pregnant women carrying multiples are twice as likely to experience anemia, a condition where the body does not produce enough healthy red blood cells. This can lead to fatigue, dizziness, and complications during delivery.

4. Birth Defects

According to John Hopkins Medicine, multiple birth babies are twice as likely to have congenital abnormalities compared to single births. These can include heart defects, neural tube defects, and gastrointestinal issues.

5. Amniotic Fluid Imbalances

When twins have to share a placenta, they are more likely to have polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid) or oligohydramnios (not enough amniotic fluid). Both result in distress to the babies during fetal development and can result in premature labor.

6. Postpartum Hemorrhage

Twins are at increased risk of excessive postpartum hemorrhage because their uterus is larger and there are greater blood supply needs.

Jesy Nelson's openness about her challenging experience is raising awareness for TTTS, a condition that few individuals—let alone expectant mothers and fathers—might be aware of. Through her tearful video, Nelson stressed the significance of knowing about twin pregnancies aside from the thrill of having multiples. "We had no idea that this type of thing occurs when you're having twins. We just desperately want to make people aware of this because there are so many people who aren't aware."

Her case reminds us of the intricacies involved in twin pregnancy and the significance of early identification and medical management. For mothers carrying twins, frequent ultrasounds and vigilance can become a life-and-death issue for early detection and better outcomes of both babies.

Through constant medical attention and care, she and her partner Zion Foster remain positive and get ready for their babies to be born. In other parents whose situations are no different, the story of Nelson highlights awareness, medical progress, and emotional encouragement in handling complicated pregnancies.

The expecting parents of twin siblings are advised to discuss TTTS screening and possible interventions with their physicians to give their babies the best chance.

US President Donald Trump recent move of overhauling childhood vaccine recommendations has sparked debates across the globe. Several US states have opposed to it too, refusing to follow Washington’s lead.

Trump signed the executive order on August 10, calling for federal childhood vaccine recommendations to be narrowed to vaccines routinely recommended for children against 11 diseases, down from 18 at the end of 2024.

It also calls for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be given as three separate shots and says childhood vaccines should, where feasible, be administered during separate medical visits.

The order also asks states to review their school vaccination requirements. But there is an important question here: states, not the federal government, generally set vaccine requirements for children attending schools.

Which States Are Refusing To Follow Trump’s Directives?

At least 29 states and Washington, DC, had already rejected at least some federal vaccine guidance, choosing instead to rely on recommendations from medical organisations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Among the states that have opposed Trump's order and maintained independent, medicine-based vaccine policies are Colorado, Maine and Washington.

Colorado has gone further by passing legislation allowing the state to rely on organisations including the AAP, American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when setting its childhood vaccine policy, rather than depending on federal CDC directive.

Maine has also said it will continue following guidance from established medical and public-health organisations instead of Trump's order.

Washington state officials said its school vaccine requirements have not changed for the upcoming academic year and remain based on recommendations from trusted medical and public-health experts.

This means Trump's order does not automatically change every child's vaccination schedule across the United States. The legal and political battle is likely to continue state by state.

Also read: What Trump’s Childhood Vaccine Order Means: When Will It Take Effect?

Trump's MRI Proposal Sparked Controversy

The MMR vaccine has been used as a combined vaccine for several decades. Trump’s order calls for separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, once they become available in the US.

Public-health experts have warned that separating vaccines could mean more appointments, higher costs and more chances for children to contract these infections as they may remain unvaccinated between doses.

The World Health Organization has also defended established immunisation schedules, saying they are based on decades of scientific evidence and proven clinical trials

The timing is particularly controversial as the US has already recorded 2,465 confirmed measles cases in 2026 as of August 6, according to the CDC.

Also read: Kennedy Announces Food Policy Reforms Under Trump’s MAHA Agenda: What Has Been Proposed?

Countries React To Trump's Vaccine Recommendation

The UK has taken a stand against Trump's newly proposed vaccine recommendation. On August 12, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and said there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.

“The benefits of vaccination are endorsed by the NHS and all major UK public health and paediatric bodies,” said Dr Alison Cave, chief safety officer at the MHRA. She urged parents to follow NHS vaccination has an guidance.

The UK's routine schedule continues to use combination vaccines, including the six-in-one vaccine, and since January 2026 has included a universal two-dose chickenpox programme through the combined MMRV vaccine.

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.