A new study has found that a combination of two drugs could enhance the immune system to treat one of the most common types of cancer in the world, bowel cancer. Also known as colorectal cancer, despite its widespread presence, the treatment options for this condition are limited. What the study specifically found was that this procedure could shrink the tumours caused by this condition by around 60%.

What Are The Drugs Involved

The trial involved the use of two immunotherapy drugs, botancilimab and balstilumab. It is a monoclonal antibody that works to stimulate the body's immune system to attack cancer. The study is a rather significant find, as it’s the first time that a consistent and durable response to immunotherapy has been reported in patients with solid MSS mCRC tumours.

The study was divided into several phases for more than 6 months. In the US trial, around around 101 patients with microsatile stable metastatic colorectal (MSS-mCRC) tumours showed a decrease . Around 61% of the patients experienced tumour shrinkage or stabilization after combined treatment with votancilumab and balstilumab. When it comes to downsides, diarrhea and fatigue were found to be the most common side effects or side effects of this drug.

These results are interesting and open to exploration. To date, immunotherapy has not been effective in patients with CNS-mCRC tumors. This study demonstrates the potential of the combination of botenlimab and balstilimab in the treatment of CNS mCRC, providing new hope for people diagnosed with colon cancer.

What Could This Mean For Bowel Cancer Treatment In The Future

The study is currently in the final stages of clinical trials, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hopes to quickly gain approval for its use because of the importance of this area that affects many people. The efficiency shown demonstrates the potential of botansilimab to contribute to broad antitumor immunity.

All in all, the combination of botensilimab and balstilimab represents a promising new direction in the treatment of colorectal cancer. This breakthrough could improve conditions for many patients worldwide and lights a new hope in the fight against this common disease. The results of this study show the effectiveness of immunotherapy in this field and how its potential to transform cancer treatment can only grow in the years to come.

US President Donald Trump wants his administration to gain greater control over how billions of dollars in biomedical research funding are distributed. He recently proposed new board that could have the power to veto individual grants of National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The proposal, drafted by Budget Director Russell Vought, emerged after a White House meeting was held on September 18, according to the latest reports. The proposed board would include Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, whose unanimous agreement will reportedly be required for grants.

The plan is just a proposal and has not yet been formally issued, and details of its structure and authority could change.

Current Process Of Distributing NIH Grants

The NIH financially back research into cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases, neurological disorders and many other serious conditions. Its current grant process relies heavily on scientific peer review, in which experts evaluate applications for scientific merit before funding decisions are made.

NIH says its peer-review system is intended to provide “fair, independent, expert, and timely scientific reviews” and to prevent funding decisions being coloured from inappropriate influence.

At the second stage, advisory councils made up of scientists and public representatives review applications and provide recommendations.

The institute or centre director currently makes the final funding decision, taking those recommendations and other factors into account. The proposed system could introduce another layer of political oversight above that process that could significantly influence how funds are allocated to research.

Also read: Donald Trump Wants Childhood Vaccines Split Into 5 Shots To Prevent Autism: But Is There Evidence?

Trump Administration Opposes Funding For 'Woke' Research

The administration has argued that federal research funding should better reflect its policy priorities and that some previous grants supported research it considers misaligned with those priorities.

At the White House meeting, Vought reportedly criticised the NIH for funding what he described as “woke” initiatives that conflicted with Trump's goals.

The administration has also argued that changes to research funding are needed to improve oversight and ensure taxpayer money supports what it considers scientifically sound and nationally relevant research.

Also read: Trump Nominates Dr Nicole Saphier As Third Surgeon General Pick

What Could The Proposed Board Change?

According to the reports, the board could review NIH grant awards and block funding that does not align with the administration's priorities. That would represent a significant change from a system in which scientific review is central to determining which research proposals are eligible for funding.

The NIH has already undergone changes to its grant process under the Trump administration. Separately, the White House has proposed more rules that would give political authorities greater power over federal grants across government agencies and sideline scientific peer review advisory.

NIH's Stance

The NIH has not confirmed the details of the proposed board. In a statement reported by The New York Times, NIH spokesperson Joshua Pradko said, “N.I.H. remains committed to its mission of funding biomedical research to benefit the health of the American people.”

Responding to reports that Vought wanted to rescind NIH funding, Pradko also said, “There will be no rescissions to N.I.H. grant monies. All N.I.H. grant monies will be spent.”

The NIH is currently dealing with a record number of applications. More than 40,000 grant applications have been received for the January 2027 council round, according to an NIH update issued September 18.

Commonly known as the ‘morning-after pill’, emergency contraceptive pills will soon be sold with prominent warnings on packs.

The Union Health Ministry has proposed bringing levonorgestrel 0.75 mg and 1.5 mg emergency contraceptive tablets under Schedule K of the Drugs Rules, 1945, with mandatory warnings on their packaging and package inserts. The draft notification was issued on September 3 and is currently open to public objections and suggestions.

The proposed warnings are intended to make it clear that the pills are meant only for emergency contraception and that they are not a regular contraceptive method.

They will also indicate that they are not abortion pills and do not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. They would also warn that frequent use can lead to side effects and advise women seeking regular contraception to consult a healthcare professional.

What Do Emergency Pills Actually Do?

Levonorgestrel is a synthetic version of the hormone progesterone. When taken as emergency contraception, it primarily works by delaying or preventing ovulation, meaning it can prevent an egg from being released when sperm are present.

It is intended to be taken after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, such as a broken condom. The World Health Organization recommends levonorgestrel emergency contraception as a single 1.5 mg dose, or 0.75 mg in two doses 12 hours apart. It works best when taken as soon as possible and can be used within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

Crucially, it does not terminate an established pregnancy. That is why it should not be confused with medication used for medical abortion.

Also read: Exclusive With Leading HIV Expert: What's Driving Rising HIV Cases Among India's Youth And How To Prevent It

Emergency Pills Cannot Protect Against STIs

One of the proposed warnings is meant to addresses a common misconception about emergency contraceptive pills prevents pregnancy, not sexually transmitted infections.

It is important to under stand that levonorgestrel does not protect against HIV, syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia or other STIs. Sexually transmitted infections can be prevented by barrier methods like condoms, when used correctly.

The proposed Indian warning specifically states that emergency contraceptive pills “do not offer any protection against HIV or any sexually transmitted infections.”

Also read: 5 Reasons To Get Regular STI Testing If You’re 'Sexually Active'

Reason Behind The Move

The move follows recommendations from the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) after an expert review of contraceptive use in India.

Minutes of the 67th Drugs Consultative Committee meeting recorded recommendations for the package warnings stating that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives should not be used more than twice a month, that they do not protect against HIV or STIs, and that alternative contraception should be considered with a registered medical practitioner.

The latest draft notification also states that frequent use “may lead to side effects” and encourages women to seek medical advice. However, this does not mean emergency contraception is considered inherently unsafe.

The WHO says side effects like nausea, vomiting, fatigue and temporary menstrual changes are generally mild and can be resolved without treatment. It also states that emergency contraceptive pills do not cause any harm to fertility.

The concern is instead about using an emergency method as a substitute for regular contraception. Repeated use can lead to menstrual irregularities and side effects.

The proposal would place levonorgestrel 0.75 mg and 1.5 mg tablets under Schedule K, while retaining their availability without a prescription. The draft is therefore not supposed to make morning-after pills prescription-only.

India’s campaign to eliminate iodine deficiency has made a substantial progress. A recent Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia study has found that cases of goitre among school-going children have reduced significantly.

But the research has also highlighted that another thyroid concerns have surfaced among Indian children simultaneously. They include thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid dysfunction.

The nationwide study, conducted across eight centres, examined 8,903 school children between the ages of 10 to 18 years.

Researchers examined goitre, thyroid function, thyroid antibodies and iodine status as part of the ICMR-SALT-T 1 study.

Goitre Cases Have Gone Down After Decades Of Iodised Salt

India introduced universal salt iodisation in 1986 to tackle iodine deficiency, a major cause of goitre and other disorders that affect growth and brain development.

The new study found that 10.3% of children had goitre, a substantial decline from 23.5% in 2003 and 17.6% in 2012. Nearly 99% of the detected goitre cases were classified as grade 1.

The findings reflect the fact that India’s iodisation programme has helped extensively in eliminating iodine deficiency.

More than 90% of surveyed households reported using iodised salt, while 89% of 1,615 tested salt samples contained more than 15 parts per million of iodine.

The median urinary iodine concentration was 133.2 micrograms per litre, indicating adequate iodine nutrition at the population level.

India’s National Iodine Deficiency Disorders Control Programme continues to target household use of adequately iodised salt and regular monitoring of iodine levels.

Also read: Ashwagandha Gummies Linked To Liver Failure, Brain Damage In UK Woman: What Is The Risk With The Herb?

But Thyroid Autoimmunity Is Rising

Despite adequate iodine nutrition, 10.4% of the 5,726 children tested for thyroid antibodies were positive for anti-thyroid peroxidase, or anti-TPO, antibodies.

These antibodies are produced when the immune system mistakenly targets the thyroid. Their presence can be a marker of thyroid autoimmunity and may be associated with conditions like Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. But antibody positivity alone does not mean a child has thyroid disease.

Girls were about twice as likely as boys to test positive for anti-TPO antibodies. Children with goitre were also more likely to have the antibodies.

The study also found hypothyroidism in 13% of the 5,512 children for whom thyroid-function data were available.

In this condition, thyroid-stimulating hormone is elevated but thyroid hormone levels can remain within the normal range. Anti-TPO positivity was independently linked with a higher likelihood of hypothyroidism.

Also read: The Growing Burden of Autoimmune Disorders: Can Ayurveda Offer a Holistic Solution?

Does Iodised Salt Cause Autoimmunity?

Researchers note that previous studies conducted after the introduction of universal salt iodisation had raised questions about iodine excess and thyroid autoimmunity.

Excess iodine can affect thyroid function and has been proposed as one possible contributor to autoimmune thyroid disease.

But it is important to note that thyroid autoimmunity has multiple possible influences, including genetic, environmental, nutritional and lifestyle factors.

The new Indian study is cross-sectional, which means it captures thyroid and iodine status at one point in time. It therefore cannot determine whether iodine exposure caused the antibody findings.

The findings do not undermine the public-health value of salt iodisation. Instead, they suggest that India’s priorities may now need to include continued monitoring of iodine intake alongside thyroid function and autoimmunity.