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.

Three British Airways cabin members were taken to the hospital after they ate marijuana-laced sweets handed to them by a passenger during a flight from London Heathrow to Los Angeles.

The staffers were unaware that the sweets contained up to 300mg of THC, the main psychoactive compound in weed a produces the psychoactive effect.

The affected members are said to have had 'out-of-body experiences' after unknowingly consuming the weed-laced gummies. The airline has now launched an investigation to find the passenger who gave the crew member the marijuana edibles.

"It is a godsend in this case the sweets in question were not shared out among the crew until they had arrived in the US," one source told The Sun.

"They were consumed in the crew bus after touchdown, and tired staff gratefully gobbled them up. Almost immediately BA staff realized something was wrong.

"By the time the group had reached the crew hotel, three staff members who had numerous sweets began suffering 'out-of-body' experiences. They felt totally out of control and became panicked and scared."

As a result, the entire crew had to be grounded in LA and a new team was out in place to operate the return service. The affected members were flown back on a separate service days later as passengers.

What Is THC?

THC is essentially the compound that causes the euphoric “high” associated with cannabis. It’s commonly consumed through smoking cannabis, edibles, tinctures, and capsules. THC also offers medical benefits but is more likely to cause psychoactive side effects.

Known for helping with nausea, appetite stimulation, chronic pain, and insomnia, this FDA-approved edible is used in synthetic forms (like dronabinol) for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and appetite loss in conditions like AIDS.

THC can cause temporary effects like dry mouth, red eyes and increased heart rate. Long-term use, especially in adolescents, may be linked to psychiatric issues such as anxiety or low motivation.

While CBD is not intoxicating but has mild psychoactive properties, such as promoting relaxation, THC, however, directly binds to brain receptors, causing euphoria or a “high.

Why Is THC Dangerous?

Furthermore, THC disrupts normal brain function, affecting memory, learning, and attention, especially in developing adolescent brains. It can cause acute panic, anxiety, and, in some cases, induce psychosis.

Along with this, it impairs coordination, slows reaction time, and alters judgment, directly contributing to motor-vehicle accidents.

Frequent use of marijuana has been previously linked to a higher risk of developing schizophrenia or other psychoses in people who are predisposed to these conditions.

According to the American Health Association, smoking cannabis also causes respiratory issues such as lung irritation and coughing as well as increases heart rate and blood pressure, which can raise the risk of heart attacks or strokes.

Erythritol sweetener, commonly found in most of the food we consume, whether it is a protein bar or energy drink could be linked to stroke risk. While it is considered as a safer alternative to sugar as a natural sweetener, a study from the University of Colorado suggests it could damage cells in the blood-brain barrier.

The blood-brain barrier is brain's security system that keeps the harmful substance off the limits, while letting in nutrients. Research also suggests that it would lead to serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

Erythritol Sweetener Risk: What Did The Study Find?

In the latest study, researchers exposed cells that form the blood–brain barrier to erythritol levels typically seen after consuming a soft drink sweetened with the compound. What followed was a cascade of cellular damage that could leave the brain more vulnerable to blood clots, one of the leading causes of stroke.

The researchers found that erythritol triggered intense oxidative stress, overwhelming cells with unstable molecules known as free radicals. At the same time, it weakened the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double hit impaired normal cell function and, in some cases, led to cell death.

Damage to blood–brain barrier cells is particularly concerning because this barrier plays a crucial role in protecting the brain from harmful substances circulating in the bloodstream. When its integrity is compromised, the risk of neurological injury rises sharply.

Erythritol Sweetener Risk: How It Disrupts Blood Flow Control

Even more troubling was erythritol’s effect on how blood vessels regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels constantly adjust their width—expanding when organs need more oxygen and nutrients, and narrowing when demand is lower.

This process depends on a delicate balance between two molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which causes them to constrict. The study found that erythritol disrupted this balance by reducing nitric oxide production while increasing endothelin-1 levels.

The result is blood vessels that stay constricted longer than they should, potentially restricting blood flow to the brain. This kind of dysfunction is a known warning sign for ischaemic stroke, the most common form of stroke caused by blocked blood vessels.

Erythritol Sweetener Risk: How It Interferes With Body's Clot Defense

The most alarming finding in the study was how body's natural protect against blood clot is disturbed. Under normal circumstances, cells release a substance called tissue plasminogen activator, which is described as a natural 'clot buster', which helps dissolve clots before they become dangerous. However, erythritol could interfere with this protective mechanism and allow clots to persist and cause damage.

Several have shown that people with higher blood levels of erythritol face significantly increased risks of cardiovascular events. In one major study, individuals with the highest erythritol levels were nearly twice as likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke.

However, researchers caution that the experiments were conducted on isolated cells rather than full blood vessels. More advanced models that better replicate human physiology will be needed to confirm the findings.

Erythritol occupies a unique space in the sweetener world. Classified as a sugar alcohol rather than an artificial sweetener, it escaped recent World Health Organization guidance discouraging artificial sweeteners for weight control. Its sugar-like taste has also made it a favorite in “keto-friendly” and sugar-free foods.

FDA refuses to review Moderna's flu vaccine: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to begin reviewing Moderna’s application for its experimental flu vaccine. The company made the announcement on Tuesday. The decision marks another signal of stricter vaccine oversight under the Trump administration and has already rattled investor confidence, with Moderna’s stock falling nearly 7% in after-hours trading.

Read: CDC Vaccine Schedule: Coverage Falls From 17 to 11 Diseases For Children

Moderna said the FDA’s refusal came as a surprise and contradicted feedback the company had received earlier, before it submitted the application and launched phase three trials for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1010. The company has now requested a meeting with the agency to better understand what it described as an unclear “path forward.”

FDA Refuses: Objections Raised Over Trial Design

According to Moderna, the FDA did not flag any safety or efficacy concerns with the vaccine itself. Instead, the agency objected to the design of the clinical trial—despite having previously signed off on it. Moderna added that the setback would not affect its financial guidance for 2026.

The experimental flu shot had shown encouraging results in phase three trials last year, successfully meeting all primary trial endpoints. At the time, Moderna positioned the stand-alone flu vaccine as a critical step toward developing a combined influenza and COVID-19 vaccine, a key long-term goal for the company.

FDA Refuses: Shifting U.S. Vaccine Policy Landscape

The decision comes amid sweeping changes to U.S. immunisation policy over the past year under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long expressed skepticism toward vaccines. Moderna on Tuesday pointed to the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, who returned to the agency in August after being removed earlier.

Prasad currently heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and has publicly argued for tighter regulatory standards for vaccines. He has also drawn controversy for comments linking child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines.

FDA Refuses: FDA Letter Cites Comparator Concerns

In a letter dated February 3 and signed by Prasad, the FDA stated that its refusal to review Moderna’s application was solely due to concerns about the trial’s design. Specifically, the agency objected to Moderna’s choice of comparator, arguing that comparing the experimental shot to a standard, approved flu vaccine did not represent the “best available standard of care.”

As a result, the FDA concluded that the study did not qualify as an “adequate and well-controlled” trial under its regulatory definition.

Moderna has strongly disputed this interpretation, arguing that FDA rules do not require companies to use the most advanced or highest-dose vaccine as a comparator in clinical trials.

FDA Refuses: Moderna Pushes Back, Eyes 2026–27 Timeline

In a statement, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said the decision undermines innovation and fails to advance shared public health goals. He emphasized that the trial design had been discussed and agreed upon with CBER before the study began.

Moderna now expects the earliest possible approval for its flu shot to come in late 2026 or 2027, pending regulatory reviews across the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia.

The FDA declined to comment, stating it does not discuss regulatory communications with individual companies, reported CNBC.