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.

In a serious caution to the public, Dr Uma Kumar, Head of Rheumatology at AIIMS New Delhi, has warned against using AI chatbots such as ChatGPT for medical self-diagnosis. As reported by Hindustan Times, she issued the warning while speaking to the media after a recent case at the institute exposed the risks of acting on automated health advice.

The concern followed an incident in which a patient developed severe internal bleeding after treating back pain based on suggestions generated by an AI chatbot. The patient consumed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs without consulting a doctor or undergoing basic medical tests.

When AI Advice Turns Dangerous

According to doctors at AIIMS, the patient relied on an AI tool to manage persistent back pain instead of seeking clinical care. The chatbot recommended commonly used painkillers, which the patient purchased and took independently.

As Hindustan Times noted, the AI system had no access to the patient’s medical history or their risk of stomach and intestinal complications. What appeared to be a routine solution resulted in a life-threatening episode of internal bleeding.

Doctors say this reflects a growing pattern, where quick online answers are replacing medical evaluation, even for drugs that are widely available over the counter.

Why Medical Diagnosis Is Not Data Matching

Dr Kumar explained that medical diagnosis follows a structured process known as diagnosis by exclusion. Doctors rule out possible causes through examinations, laboratory tests, imaging, and patient history before deciding on treatment.

An AI model, however, works by identifying patterns in data. It cannot examine a patient, detect physical warning signs, or judge whether a symptom points to a deeper problem. In this case, proper investigations would likely have revealed a high risk of bleeding, a step that was entirely bypassed.

The Risk of Confident but Incorrect Guidance

Medical experts are increasingly concerned about what are often called AI hallucinations, where chatbots present information with confidence despite gaps or inaccuracies.

While platforms such as ChatGPT include disclaimers, their tone can appear authoritative, particularly to someone in pain. As highlighted by Hindustan Times, the recommendation to use NSAIDs was not unusual in general practice, but for this patient, it proved dangerous.

Without a doctor to check for contraindications or underlying conditions, even a common suggestion can lead to serious harm.

Doctors Call for Caution and Clearer Oversight

The incident has renewed debate over how AI platforms should handle health-related queries. AIIMS doctors are urging the public to treat online tools as sources of general information rather than personal treatment guides.

Experts believe AI can assist healthcare in limited roles, such as research support or administrative tasks, but should never replace professional diagnosis or supervision.

There are also calls for stronger public awareness and clearer regulation to prevent similar incidents. Doctors continue to stress that medical judgment, built on examination and evidence, cannot be replaced by algorithms.

The Delhi High Court has turned down a Japanese company’s attempt to secure a patent for a cancer detection technique that relies on nematodes, or roundworms, ruling that it falls under diagnostic processes that cannot be patented under Indian law, regardless of how novel or non-invasive it may be.

Hirotsu Bio Science approached the High Court after India’s Controller of Designs and Patents rejected its patent application in August 2023, stating that the invention did not meet the criteria laid out in the Patents Act, 1970. In a detailed 25-page judgment delivered on Saturday, Justice Tejas Karia reaffirmed Section 3(i) of the Act, which clearly bars the patenting of diagnostic methods.

What Is the Nematode-Based Cancer Detection Method?

The nematode-based cancer detection method is a research-stage technique that uses microscopic roundworms, known as nematodes, to detect the presence of cancer. These organisms possess a highly developed sense of smell, allowing them to pick up on specific chemical cues released by cancer cells in bodily samples such as urine, breath, or tissue, as per Science Direct.

Laboratory experiments have shown that certain nematodes tend to move towards samples taken from individuals with cancer while avoiding those from healthy people. The underlying idea is that cancer changes the body’s chemical profile, creating odour patterns that these worms can detect, sometimes even at an early stage.

Scientists have looked at this approach as a potentially affordable and non-invasive screening option. However, it remains a concept under study and has not yet been accepted as a reliable medical test or used in routine clinical care.

Delhi HC Upholds Patent Rejection of Nematode-Based Cancer Detection Method

At the centre of the case was a patent application titled “Cancer detection method using the sense of smell of nematode.” Nematodes, often referred to as roundworms, are among the most widespread life forms on the planet and can be found in environments ranging from soil to living organisms.

The Japanese company aimed to patent a technology based on the biological response of Caenorhabditis elegans, a species of nematode recognised for its advanced olfactory abilities.

The firm explained that its invention relies on the chemotaxis of these worms, meaning their tendency to move towards or away from certain scents, which would serve as a biological signal for the presence of cancer.

According to the company, the nematodes showed avoidance behaviour when exposed to urine from healthy individuals, while being drawn towards urine samples from cancer patients. It claimed the method demonstrated complete accuracy during testing and could detect several cancers, including gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers, even at very early stages.

Is This Process Patentable in India?

The main legal question was whether the method qualified as a non-patentable “diagnostic process” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision excludes from patent protection any process related to medicinal, surgical, curative, preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic treatment of humans.

Hirotsu Bio Science Inc challenged the rejection by the Controller of Designs and Patents in the High Court, arguing that their invention should be seen as a “detection” method rather than a “diagnostic” one. The company maintained that the process was carried out entirely in a laboratory setting, using samples such as urine or tissue, and did not involve any direct medical procedure or clinical decision-making on the human body.

Health officials have issued a recall for the Live It Up Super Greens supplement powder after 45 people across 21 states were found suffering from salmonella across the US.

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an official recall on January 14 for the Live it Up Original and Wild Berry Super Greens dietary supplement powder flavors.

The affected products with expiration dates from August 2026 and January 2028 have been affected by this recall and include:

• Live it Up Super Greens, NET WT 8.5 oz (240g) with UPC 860013190804.
• Live it Up Super Greens, 30 – 0.28oz (8g) sticks, NET WT. 8.47 oz (240g) with UPC 850077468063
• Live it Up Super Greens, Wild Berry, NET WT 8.5OZ (240g), with UPC 860013190811
• Live it Up Super Greens, Wild Berry, 30 – 0.32oz (9g) Sticks, NET WT. 9.52oz (270g), with UPC 850077468070

Authorities has advised consumers to not eat, sell or serve the affected Live it Up-brand products and to contact the company for returns.

Additionally, officials are asking people to wash items and surfaces that may have touched the recalled super greens supplement powders using hot soapy water or a dishwasher.

Of the 45 illnesses, 12 resulted in hospitalizations, according to the FDA. No deaths linked to the recall have been reported.

What Is Salmonella?

Apart from this, other symptoms include:

• Fever
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Chills
• Headache
• Blood in the stool

Most people develop symptoms within 8 to 72 hours after exposure while most healthy people recover within a few days to a week without specific treatment. However, in some cases, diarrhea can cause severe dehydration and requires prompt medical attention.

While anyone can contract salmonella, children younger than five, elderly and people with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop severe infections.

Is Salmonella Life-Threatening?

Life-threatening complications may develop if the infection spreads beyond the intestines to other organs. The risk of getting salmonella infection is higher with travel to countries without clean drinking water and proper sewage disposal.

While most people do not require medical attention for salmonella infection, those at high risk may need a health care provider if the infection lasts more than a few days, is associated with high fever or bloody stools and appears to be causing dehydration, with signs such as such as urinating less than usual, dark-colored urine as well as having a dry mouth and tongue.