Heart attacks and strokes are among the leading causes of death globally, with millions suffering from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) every year. There are more than seven million people in the UK alone, with about 100,000 patients experiencing heart attacks annually. However, a group of researchers at University College London (UCL) estimate that one 'polypill' taken daily day could eliminate a majority of these cases dramatically lowering death tolls.

The proposed polypill, a combination of a statin and three blood pressure-lowering drugs, has been under study for over two decades. Experts argue that introducing this pill universally for individuals aged 50 and above could be more effective than the current NHS Health Check, which assesses risk factors every five years for those aged between 40 and 74.

Studies have repeatedly proven the effectiveness of the polypill in preventing CVD. A groundbreaking 2019 study in The Lancet found that five years' use of the polypill cut the risk of heart attack and stroke by a third. In addition, previous modelling analyses have estimated that if given universally to people over 55, the polypill might be able to prevent 80% of heart attacks and strokes.

Today, the NHS Health Check follows a risk-based model in which patients are tested for CVD risk factors and treated with drugs accordingly. Yet, as per UCL's study, this system has serious flaws:

Low Uptake: Just 40% of those eligible for the NHS Health Check choose to have it, leaving a considerable number of at-risk patients undiagnosed and untreated.

Ineffective Prediction of Risk: The majority of heart attacks and strokes happen to people at average risk levels, thus making it challenging to identify the need for intervention effectively.

Limited Effectiveness: Even at maximum take-up, the NHS Health Check programme is predicted to have fewer health impacts compared to a polypill initiative applied to the whole population.

Simplicity and Affordability of the Polypill Strategy

One of the big benefits of the polypill is that it is so easy. In contrast to the existing screening-based model, the polypill scheme would not involve complicated medical tests or lengthy risk assessments. Instead, people reaching 50 would just have to fill out a few questions to determine possible side effects before they were prescribed.

Professor Aroon Hingorani of the UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science, one of the strongest proponents of this scheme, says:

"Finally, the time is now to do much better on prevention. A population approach would prevent a lot more heart attacks and strokes than is done today with a strategy of trying to target a smaller group only."

Aside from the possible health implications, the polypill is also an economic solution. The drugs used are off-patent, thus cheap to produce and distribute. With the vast economic cost of managing CVD-related illnesses, a preventive model could result in substantial cost-saving for the NHS in the future.

The polypill has been proven to be effective by numerous international trials. In 2019, a randomised trial in rural Iran discovered that participants who took the polypill for five years had a 34% reduced risk of having a heart attack or stroke compared to non-participants.

Likewise, modelling research has indicated that even if only 8% of people aged over 50 took up the polypill regimen, it would still be more beneficial to their health than the NHS Health Check programme.

Is This a Case of Over-Medicalisation?

One of the main objections to the polypill strategy is the suggestion that it might result in the unnecessary medicalisation of a significant proportion of the population. But, it is argued, it should be considered as a preventative measure, not as mass medication.

Professor Sir Nicholas Wald of UCL's Institute of Health Informatics explains:

"Instead of being a 'medicalisation' of a significant proportion of the population, a polypill programme is a prevention measure to prevent an individual from becoming a patient."

He compares it with public health measures like water fluoridation or compulsory seatbelts—interventions that have been shown to have a significant impact in reducing public health danger at low individual cost.

With the evidence in favour of the polypill's effectiveness and viability overwhelming, experts are calling on the NHS to act now. It is their belief that substituting the NHS Health Check with a polypill-based prevention program could be the UK government's flagship policy under its pledge to put disease prevention ahead of cure.

As Professor Hingorani points out, "The status quo is not a justifiable option." With CVD still a major cause of death globally, taking a population-wide polypill approach could be a turning point for preventative medicine, potentially saving thousands of lives annually. The question now is whether the NHS will take up this call and establish a policy with the potential to transform the prevention of cardiovascular disease on a national level.

An experimental oral vaccine has proven to be safe and effective in generating immunity against the Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), responsible for 75 million diarrhea episodes and over 40,000 deaths annually in children worldwide, according to a new study published in the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

The vaccine ETVAX -- an oral whole-cell vaccine for ETEC -- consists of inactivated E coli bacteria and is designed to prevent bacterial colonization.

In the phase 2 trial, including nearly 5,000 Gambian children aged 6-18 months, ETVAX was well tolerated. There was no increase in the frequency or severity of adverse events, said an international team of researchers, including those from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, in the paper.

"Using active and passive surveillance, we confirmed that ETVAX is safe and induces immune responses to colonisation factors and heat-labile toxins," they added.

Produced by ETEC, heat-labile toxins are sensitive to heat and cause watery diarrhea.

What did the study find?

ETVAX showed to be safe, immunogenic, and also offered protection against moderate-to-severe ETEC diarrhea in the presence of co-pathogens.

Importantly, the study provided the first evidence that ETVAX can significantly reduce the incidence of ETEC-positive and all-cause diarrhea, particularly when vaccination is initiated before age 9 months, and in children without concurrent enteroparasitic infections, the team said.

“This study provides the first demonstration of induction of protective efficacy by ETVAX in young children who are at risk,” the researchers said.

“These findings support progression to a large, multi-country, phase 3 trial to confirm ETVAX efficacy against ETEC disease in children and to support ETVAX introduction in high-burden settings,” they added.

These findings support advancing ETVAX to a pivotal phase 3 trial.

How was the study conducted?

The researchers enrolled children ages six to 18 months to receive ETVAX or a placebo at three timepoints (days 1, 15, and 90).

Serious adverse events occurred in 1.0 percent of the ETVAX group and 1.3 percent of the placebo group, with none related to the vaccine.

Among the 122 children in whom immunity was assessed, the ETVAX, developed by Scandinavian Biopharma, increased antibodies to ETEC colonization factors and heat-labile toxins.

What is ETEC?

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is a pathogenic, toxin-producing strain of E. coli that specifically causes watery, non-bloody diarrhea, commonly known as traveler’s diarrhea.

While most E. coli are harmless gut flora, ETEC uses adhesins to colonize the small intestine and release toxins, whereas "generic" E. coli is usually beneficial or benign.

Annually, ETEC causes 220 million diarrhea episodes globally, with 75 million episodes and up to 42,000 deaths in children younger than 5 years, mainly occurring in low-income countries.

Even as climate models predict increased ETEC incidence under warming conditions, the researcher noted that "an ETEC vaccine could reduce illness and deaths, improve child growth, decrease health-care costs, and curb antimicrobial resistance".

Newly released Department of Justice files have revealed that the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associates kept a roster of doctors to make sure their victims were tested for STDs, prescribed birth-control pills and inoculated against HPV.

The American serial rapist regularly made payments to at least three New York City gynecologists, a dermatologist and his own personal physician. Apart from New York based doctors, physicians in West Palm Beach, New Mexico, and Ohio, all cities where Epstein had set up residences, have also been named in the Files.

The Epstein Files are over six million pages of documents, images and videos detailing the criminal activities of the financier and his social circle of public figures that included politicians and celebrities.

His co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who is also a convicted child sex trafficker and sometimes referred to as the "Lady of the House" is serving a 20-year prison sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Texas.

Who Are The Doctors Named In The Epstein Files?

A December 12, 2012 email shows that an associate whose name is redacted but email address matches to Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother, asks the latter, “Do you remember the name of the Gynocologist [sic] that you used to send your victims to?

“Many years ago you used to send them to a gyno in NY who once commented something to the effect that you were keeping him in business singlehandedly,” the sender continued.

Another 2015 email, when an unidentified person asks which gynecologists Epstein regularly uses for “the girls,” Epstein’s former staff member Bella Klein is seen to write back , “S. Yale and Romoff.” “S. Yale”.

According to The Cut, this may reference to the combined practice of Suzanne Yale, an OB/GYN who shared an office with fellow OB/GYN Adam Romoff in Manhattan for about 45 years. Documents show that Epstein made more than half a dozen direct payments to Romoff and Yale, with the last being on March 14, 2019, four months before he was arrested, for $375 check to Women’s Health of Manhattan, Romoff’s current practice.

Romoff, who still practices his profession, is cited in the emails as the physician for a number of the women associated with Epstein, including Karyna Shuliak, his longtime girlfriend and reported beneficiary of his $100 million fortune. His name shows up in the Epstein files 38 times, though he is never shown to be in direct communication with the abuser himself.

READ MORE: Epstein Files Reveal Secret Muffin Recipe: All You Need To Know

Alexander Shifrin, an OB/GYN and women’s integrative health specialist in Manhattan and Brooklyn is also repeatedly mentioned in the emails and text messages.

Dr Steven Victor, a New York City–based dermatologist has also been mentioned multiple times in the Files. According to a 2012 email revealed in the documents, an unnamed woman who was one of Epstein's "girls" discussed seeing Victor to treat her molloscum contagiosium, a viral skin infection that can be spread through sexual contact.

However, he denies knowing of Epstein's wrongdoings and told The Cut: "Most of the patients referred were adults. There were also some younger patients, including minors. In every such instance, they were accompanied by a legal adult guardian. No patient ever disclosed any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Epstein to me or to my staff. Had anyone done so, I would have immediately reported it to the authorities.

" I am appalled and heartbroken by what Mr. Epstein did to young women and children. My involvement with Mr. Epstein was limited to providing dermatologic care to him and patients referred to my practice. I did not participate in, enable, or have knowledge of any criminal conduct."

Epstein’s own physician, Bruce Moskowitz has also been accused of covering up his sexual activities in 2016. Texts between both men from the year show that Epstein had contracted gonorrhea, an STI transmitted through unprotected vaginal, anal, or oral sex., that year and placed on a rigorous antibiotic course.

In 2018, Epstein reached out to Bruce about two of his "friends" having the same STI. "Think to be safe my two friends should get shot by you tomorrow or send them somewhere close,” he wrote. Moskowitz agreed, proposing a location for him to treat them. “That way I do not have to report the cases to health department including contacts,” he wrote.

Are Any Doctors In The Epstein Files Being Investigated?

While it currently remains unclear whether the physicians were aware of Epstein’s criminal activity, Ohio State University head of gynecology is being investigated after being named in the files for allegedly receiving thousands of dollars in payments for consulting work.

The Files show that Mark Landon, a physician and professor at OSU and the chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department, received about $25,000 quarterly from Epstein in the early 2000s.

Additionally, he also received at least 10 separate payments from Epstein or his associates between June 28, 2001, and April 12, 2005. In an email between Epstein and an attorney he worked with, Darren Indyke, Epstein wrote that they were paying Landon $75,000 a year. The email didn't mention what they were paying Landon for.

In 2006, Indyke wrote to Epstein: "Are we still paying Mark Landon?... Eric was dealing with this, so I am not sure what was decided when the previous payment was made. Landon's agreement requires quarterly payments of $30k to be made to Landon on the 15th of January, April, July and October.

"The previous payment made to Landon was for $25,000 and not $30,000. The contract is terminable at will on 15 days' prior notice. Is NYSG to make payment to Landon by January 15th and if so for $25K or $30K? Please advise."

Records show that Epstein also spent over $200 mailing items to Landon’s Columbus home. It remains unclear what was being mailed to the expert.

READ MORE: Epstein Files Raise Questions About Trump’s Memory Decline

According to a Serena Smith, a spokesperson for OSU's Wexner Medical Center, Landon is cooperating with the investigation and had denied knowing Epstein's years of abuse.

"I did not provide any clinical care for Jeffrey Epstein or any of his victims. I was a paid consultant for the New York Strategy Group regarding potential biotech investments from 2001 to 2005. I had no knowledge of any criminal activities; I find them reprehensible and I feel terrible for Epstein’s victims," he said.

The New York Strategy Group was Epstein's money management firm, records show.

Smith added: "[Landon] has stated he had no knowledge of any criminal activities and his consulting work did not involve any patient care. We continue to review the situation and have received no information to date that contradicts Dr. Landon’s statement."

Except for Landon and Victor, no other doctor has commented on being named or being associated to the convicted assaulter.

American actress Christy Carlson Romano’s shocking announcement of a positive cancer screening test has reignited the debate on the rising early onset of cancers among women, as well as the importance of early screening.

Cancer is everywhere, said Romano, 41, in a tearful video on social media platform Instagram.

The former Disney star noted that she underwent cancer screenings, along with her husband, Brendan Rooney, as her family has a history of cancer.

“My husband’s came back completely negative,” she said, adding, “Mine did not come back negative. So basically, what that means is that I may have stageable cancer.”

The ‘Even Stevens’ star shared that she next aims to get a PET scan, which will help her gauge the stage of the cancer.

Early-onset Cancers Rising Among Women Under 50

While the news of Romano's positive cancer test has left fans shocked, it also highlights the fact that cancer is increasingly shifting its attack to women under 50.

A 2025 study by Duke Cancer Institute in the US revealed that for women younger than 50, the risk of developing cancer is 82 percent higher than that of men, up from 51 percent in 2022.

The 2025 annual report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) also showed that cancer rates in young and middle-aged women are rising past those of men in the same age group, but especially among women under age 50.

While breast cancer has emerged as the most common among women under 50, it is followed by thyroid cancer, melanoma, and skin cancers. Cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and colorectal cancer are other names. Uterine cancer, also known as endometrial cancer, is also killing more women than ever.

Notable names include Princess of Wales Kate Middleton, who was 42 when she announced her cancer diagnosis two years back. American actress Olivia Munn reported a breast cancer diagnosis at the age of 43.

Similarly, Indian actress Sonali Bendre was 46 years old when diagnosed with high-grade metastatic cancer in July 2018. Others with young cancer onset include Hina Khan, Chhavi Mittal, Dipika Kakkar, and Tahira Kashyap. Young TV actresses Dolly Sohi and Priya Marathe reportedly succumbed to cancer.

According to studies, besides genetic factors, increased intake of highly processed foods, sugary beverages, lack of exercise, the surge in stress levels, exposure to air pollution, microplastics, and mindless intake of antibiotics, and even increased screen time are major contributors to the deadly disease.

Other possible risk factors include alcohol consumption, sleep deprivation, smoking, and obesity.

Why Is Early Screening Important?

Late diagnosis is a major driver of cancer deaths. On the contrary, early screening can help detect changes in the body's cells before cancer develops and spreads.

It can also help in cancers, which present no symptoms until the late stage.

It not only improves survival rates but also helps with less invasive and more effective treatments.

Regular screening measures include mammograms, Pap smears, colonoscopies, Low-dose CT Scans, and PSA tests, which reduce mortality by identifying cancer at early and manageable stages, preventing its progression and the risk of death.