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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is moving toward a major policy shift. It is recommending the use of weight-loss drugs to treat obesity in adults. According to its newly released draft guidance, the agency emphasized that obesity should no longer be seen as a mere lifestyle issue but as a “chronic, progressive, and relapsing disease.” This recognition is key, as more than 1 billion people worldwide are affected by obesity, with the condition contributing to millions of preventable deaths each year.

The WHO noted that outdated attitudes have often shaped the response to obesity, leading to stigma and under-treatment. By framing obesity as a chronic disease, the draft guidelines aim to ensure that patients receive proper medical attention rather than being told to simply “eat less and exercise more.”

GLP-1 Drugs Enter the Spotlight

Central to the draft recommendations are the now widely discussed GLP-1 drugs. Originally developed for type 2 diabetes, medications from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have shown strong results in supporting long-term weight loss. The WHO’s expert committee concluded that these drugs can be part of the solution, especially for patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above.

The guidance stresses that the drugs are not meant to replace lifestyle interventions but rather to be used alongside counselling on diet, exercise, and behavior modification. This combination, the agency says, offers the best chance for sustainable weight management.

A First Step Toward Global Standards

For the first time, WHO is recommending these medications specifically for obesity treatment, describing it as a critical step toward building a global standard of care. The draft is open for consultation until September 27, allowing experts and the public to weigh in before final approval.

It also makes clear that further work is underway. Separate guidelines for children and adolescents are being developed, reflecting growing concern over rising obesity rates among younger populations.

Varying Thresholds Across Countries

While WHO’s draft guidance sets the BMI threshold at 30 for treatment, policies in other countries sometimes differ. In the United States, for instance, GLP-1 drugs may be prescribed to patients with a BMI between 27 and 30 if they also suffer from at least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or sleep apnea. This variation highlights the ongoing debate over who should qualify for these expensive treatments and at what stage of the disease.

Essential Medicines List: A Missed Inclusion

Earlier this year, WHO stopped short of adding these drugs to its essential medicines list for obesity treatment, which would have signalled their importance as universally accessible therapies. Instead, the organization included them only for type 2 diabetes patients with additional health conditions.

The decision reflects a careful balance: while the drugs are promising, their high cost remains a major barrier. In low- and middle-income countries, access is limited, raising concerns about global equity. WHO acknowledged that pricing remains a significant hurdle and stressed the need for broader affordability if the treatments are to make a real difference worldwide.

If finalized, the guidelines could reshape how obesity is addressed in healthcare systems globally. By formally recommending drug therapy alongside lifestyle interventions, WHO is pushing governments to rethink policies, insurance coverage, and patient access.

The move also signals a broader cultural change, recognizing obesity not as a personal failing but as a complex disease that requires medical solutions. For millions struggling with obesity, this shift could mean new hope, better treatment options, and a future where their condition is taken seriously at every level of care.

Despite affecting 6 million people globally, this disease is considered to be a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization. This disease is the Chagas disease, more popularly known as the ‘kissing bug’ disease.

However, health experts have noted that people who contracted the Chagas disease are not getting the help they need. The September report published by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that although Chagas is considered an endemic in 21 countries of the Americas except United States. However, what does this mean?

The CDC September report explains that US not naming Chagas an endemic, means it's a constant, local issue. This official label is misleading because there's a lot of evidence that the disease is right here in the U.S., too.

The reason why this is a big cause of worry for people is because of how dangerous the disease actually is. A report published in the 2019 Current Tropical Medicine Reports, showed that Chagas disease (CD) is a serious, often overlooked health condition caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. They explained how it is more disabling than other parasitic infections like malaria and Zika.

The report also detailed how it was considered a leading cause of heart disease in the Americas and affects over 6 million people globally, with more than 90% of cases in Latin America. The disease leads to over 7,500 premature deaths and an annual global economic cost of $8 billion.

How Many States Are Affected With Chagas Disease?

The CDC report explains that the disease is spread by blood-sucking "kissing bugs" which are found in 32 states across the southern U.S. While we don't know for sure if the number of bugs is increasing, we do know that people are encountering them more often.

• 9 out of 11 types of kissing bugs in the U.S. are naturally infected with the parasite that causes Chagas disease.
• Four of these species are commonly found in and around homes, which increases the chance of them spreading the disease to humans.
• Studies show that 30% to over 50% of kissing bugs in the U.S. carry the parasite.

Can Animals Have Chagas Disease?

The parasite isn't just in bugs; it's also common in animals across the southern U.S. Wild animals like raccoons, opossums, and armadillos carry the parasite and can pass it on to kissing bugs. This creates a cycle where the parasite can continue to spread. Dogs are also a major concern.

They've been found with the infection in 23 states, and in Texas, where animal cases were once tracked, hundreds of cases were reported in just a few years. Even zoo animals and research primates have been found to be infected. This shows that the parasite is widespread and well-established in the environment here.

How Many States Have Been Affected By Chagas Disease?

It’s clear that people are getting Chagas disease from local sources in the U.S. The disease has been found in humans in at least 8 states, with the most cases documented in Texas. Since 2013, Texas has reported 50 cases that were likely acquired within the state, not from travel.

The actual number of human cases is probably much higher because Chagas disease is not officially tracked nationwide. Only a handful of states require doctors to report cases, so many go unnoticed and uncounted. The CDC report explains why calling the US "non-endemic" for Chagas disease creates major problems.

• Doctors don't think to test for it. They are often unaware that people can get the disease locally, which leads to missed diagnoses.
• Public awareness is low. People don't know to look out for kissing bugs or the symptoms of the disease.
• It limits funding and research. By not recognizing the problem, the U.S. can't fully work on a national strategy to fight it.

How Does Naming Chagas ‘Endemic’ Help US?

The report says that officially classifying Chagas disease as endemic in the U.S. will help, but it should be specifically labeled as a "hypoendemic" problem, which means it's present at low but consistent levels. This new label would:

• Help doctors better understand the risk and diagnose the disease.
• Increase funding for research and public health programs.
• Allow us to create a plan to track cases and prevent new infections.

The future of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. is suddenly in question. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s newly restructured vaccine advisory committee is set to vote this week in Atlanta on whether to alter long-standing recommendations for several critical vaccines, including shots against chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19.

The committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), plays a powerful role: its recommendations guide pediatricians nationwide and determine which shots are covered by the government-funded Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a safety net for low-income families.

While some experts say the agenda looks like a routine review, others worry it could open the door to unnecessary confusion, weaken trust, and reduce access to vaccines that have long protected children from serious disease.

Also Read: Unique Symptoms Of Covid In 2025 And How Long Infection Now Last

Chickenpox and the MMRV Vaccine Debate

Before the chickenpox vaccine was licensed in 1995, nearly every American child contracted the disease. While often dismissed as a rite of passage with itchy rashes and mild fevers, chickenpox could also lead to severe complications like pneumonia, skin infections, brain swelling, and in rare cases, death. The virus, varicella, also lingers in the body and can resurface decades later as shingles, a painful nerve condition.

The introduction of the vaccine dramatically reduced cases and hospitalizations. In 2005, regulators approved a combination shot called MMRV, which bundled measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines into a single injection. Initially, health officials recommended the combo as the preferred option for the first dose in toddlers.

However, studies soon revealed a catch: children who received the MMRV shot were more likely to develop fevers, rashes, and in rare instances, febrile seizures compared with those who got separate MMR and varicella injections.

In response, the ACIP in 2009 updated its guidance, recommending separate shots for the first dose (typically given between ages 12–15 months) but allowing the combo shot for the second dose in preschool years.

Today, most pediatricians follow that approach. Still, the evidence hasn’t changed in over a decade. That raises eyebrows about why the Kennedy-led committee is reopening the debate now.

Public health experts caution that limiting the combined shot could make vaccination less convenient for families and potentially reduce uptake. Pediatric advisors warn that even small barriers, like two shots instead of one, can mean some kids fall behind.

Why Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Still Matter

While much of the attention is on chickenpox, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine remains equally critical. Each of these viruses was once a common threat in childhood:

• Measles can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, and death.
• Mumps can cause meningitis and, in boys, permanent infertility.
• Rubella is especially dangerous for pregnant women, sometimes causing miscarriage or severe birth defects.

Before widespread vaccination began in the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. contracted these diseases every year. Outbreaks have returned in recent years when vaccination rates dip, underscoring the importance of reliable and consistent recommendations.

Revisiting guidance without new evidence, experts say, risks fueling skepticism among parents already facing a flood of misinformation online.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Question

The COVID-19 shots are also on the table. Typically, ACIP renews recommendations annually for vaccines against respiratory viruses such as flu. But this June, Kennedy’s panel endorsed flu vaccines while staying silent on COVID-19.

Also Read: US Health Officials To Examine Covid Vaccine Effects In Pregnant Women And Kids

That silence matters. Earlier, Kennedy had already removed COVID-19 shots from CDC recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women, sparking lawsuits from pediatric groups who said the move endangered kids’ health.

The FDA recently narrowed the authorization of updated COVID-19 vaccines, limiting use for certain younger groups. If ACIP mirrors that without clarification, millions of children could lose federally funded access through the Vaccines for Children program. Experts warn this could leave families confused, especially since COVID-19 formulations update yearly, much like flu shots.

Revisiting Hepatitis B Vaccinations

Hepatitis B presents a different set of challenges. The virus can cause chronic liver infection, cirrhosis, and cancer. While adults often acquire it through sexual contact or sharing needles, newborns face the highest lifelong risk if exposed at birth.

Read More: Hepatitis B Vaccination Timeline For Children Under Review Without Scientific Data, Says Former CDC Director Susan Monarez

Since 2005, U.S. guidance has recommended that infants receive their first hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth. This approach significantly reduced cases of mother-to-child transmission, which often slipped through maternal screening programs. Studies show the newborn shot is safe and highly effective, preventing 85–95% of chronic infections.

Yet Kennedy’s committee has floated the idea of revisiting this recommendation, though experts note there is no new evidence suggesting safety concerns. Critics argue that questioning the birth dose now could reverse decades of progress.

Why the Stakes Are So High

Beyond the science, the politics surrounding these deliberations are unusual. Kennedy, once one of the nation’s most vocal vaccine skeptics, dismissed the 17-member ACIP earlier this year and replaced it with a panel that includes several anti-vaccine voices.

Historically, ACIP’s recommendations are based on careful review by subcommittees made up of pediatricians, infectious disease experts, pharmacists, and public health officials. Those subgroups sift through peer-reviewed studies, track outbreaks, and balance risks against benefits. But this time, critics say the process appears less about science and more about ideology.

Even if the committee doesn’t overturn long-standing guidance, simply reopening settled debates may erode confidence. Parents who hear that vaccines are “under review” might delay or decline shots, leaving children vulnerable.

Perhaps most worrisome: a restrictive vote could block coverage of these vaccines under the Vaccines for Children program, which supplies nearly half of all childhood shots in the U.S. Without it, low-income families could lose access, widening gaps in protection.

What Lies Ahead?

The stakes of this week’s ACIP votes go far beyond the meeting room in Atlanta. At issue is not just whether a child gets one shot or two, but whether the nation maintains decades of progress against diseases once considered inevitable.

Chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and COVID-19 vaccines have all proven their worth in protecting children from dangerous, sometimes deadly illnesses. Experts say undermining trust or restricting access now could reopen the door to outbreaks that public health worked so hard to shut.