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.

The US Food and Drug Administration's independent advisory panel has recommended approval of Moderna's mRNA-based influenza vaccine for older adults.

The panel backed the vaccine, known as mFLUSIVA, for adults aged 50 years and older, concluding that its benefits outweigh its risks.

If ultimately approved by the FDA, mFLUSIVA would become the world's first messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine for seasonal influenza. The development could provide a new tool against a disease that causes an estimated 15 million to 60 million illnesses, 180,000 to 700,000 hospitalizations, and 17,000 to 75,000 deaths annually in the United States, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What Did The FDA Advisory Panel Decide?

The recommendation came from the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which reviews vaccine applications and advises the FDA.

The meeting marked the committee's first review of a new vaccine application since 2023 and could lead to the first vaccine approval under the second Trump administration.

In a unanimous vote, all nine panel members supported the use of Moderna's mFLUSIVA vaccine for adults aged 50 to 64 years, as well as for those aged 65 years and older—the age group that had previously raised regulatory concerns.

Also read: No Women Aged 20-24 Died of Cervical Cancer in England Over Five Years, Thanks to HPV Vaccine

However, before the vaccine can be made available for the upcoming flu season, it must receive formal FDA approval and be recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The CDC advisory panel has not recently convened due to ongoing legal and administrative challenges. An FDA decision on the vaccine is expected by August 5.

How Effective Is Moderna's mRNA Flu Vaccine?

According to Moderna, the vaccine outperformed standard-dose flu vaccines in adults aged 50 to 64 years.

In a large clinical trial involving approximately 40,000 adults aged 50 years and older, Moderna's mRNA vaccine reduced influenza cases by about 27% compared with another routinely used flu vaccine.

The company also conducted a smaller study among adults aged 65 years and older. The results showed that mFLUSIVA generated a strong immune response compared with a high-dose influenza vaccine already recommended for seniors.

FDA adviser Dr. Anna Durbin of Johns Hopkins University described the immune-response data as "very compelling," adding that "the vaccine looks very promising," AP News reported.

How Does The Vaccine Work?

Read More: Sickle Cell Disease: Why India Must Add Curative Treatment to Meet Its 2047 Elimination Goal

Like Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines, mFLUSIVA uses messenger RNA technology. Rather than introducing a weakened or inactivated virus, mRNA vaccines deliver genetic instructions that help the body's cells produce proteins that trigger an immune response. This approach allows vaccines to be updated more quickly and may improve protection against evolving viruses.

Is The Vaccine Safe?

Moderna's data showed no major safety concerns.

The most commonly reported side effects included:

• Injection-site pain
• Fever
• Headache
• Fatigue
• Muscle aches

These reactions were generally temporary and are commonly seen with many vaccines. However, they occurred somewhat more frequently than with currently available flu vaccines. FDA reviewers noted that this is typical of mRNA-based vaccines.

What's Next?

If approved, Moderna plans to conduct a large post-approval study involving approximately 400,000 adults aged 65 years and older.

Half of the participants will receive the mRNA vaccine, while the other half will receive one of the currently recommended flu vaccines for seniors. The study is expected to continue across two influenza seasons.

A Moderna executive said the company hopes to make the vaccine available to patients in time for the upcoming flu season, Reuters reported.

Indian President Droupadi Murmu, on the occasion of World Sickle Cell Day 2026, today expressed confidence that the country can eradicate sickle cell disease well before the 2047 target.

Addressing the International Sickle Cell Day commemoration at Omkareshwar, Madhya Pradesh, President Murmu noted that the National Sickle Cell Anaemia Elimination Mission, launched in 2023, has so far "screened seven crore people, ranging from newborns to those up to 40 years of age."

Calling it "one of the largest initiatives for genetic disease screening in the world," she added that the mission has detected sickle cell disease "in approximately 2.5 lakh people so far, and over 20 lakh carriers of the disease have also been identified."

"Through the collective strength and active engagement of all states, we will succeed in achieving our national goal of eradicating sickle cell-related diseases from the country well before the year 2047," the President said.

The President highlighted three key dimensions of the mission:

• Spreading large-scale awareness and providing pre-marital genetic counselling;
• Identifying the disease in a timely manner through comprehensive screening; and
• Ensuring continuity of care while guaranteeing a holistic approach to management.

She also stressed the need for collective efforts to raise awareness and eliminate the genetic blood disorder, particularly among tribal communities.

Also read: Sickle Cell Disease: Why India Must Add Curative Treatment to Meet Its 2047 Elimination Goal

What Is Sickle Cell Disease?

Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that affects the shape and function of red blood cells. Instead of being round and flexible, the red blood cells become sickle- or crescent-shaped, making it difficult for them to move smoothly through blood vessels.

The chronic single-gene disorder causes a debilitating systemic syndrome characterized by chronic anemia, acute painful episodes, organ infarction, chronic organ damage, and a significant reduction in life expectancy.

"Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of India’s most pressing inherited blood disorders, with an estimated 1 in 86 births among tribal and disadvantaged groups affected," Dr Manisha Madkaikar is Director - ICMR-National Institute for Research on Blood and Immune Disorders – Mumbai, told HealthandMe.

Children living with the condition often experience repeated hospital visits, missed school days and limitations in daily activities. Parents frequently face emotional distress, financial strain and the challenge of managing a lifelong medical condition.

What Is the National Sickle Cell Anaemia Elimination Program?

Read More:No Women Aged 20-24 Died of Cervical Cancer in England Over Five Years, Thanks to HPV Vaccine

The National Sickle Cell Anaemia Elimination Program, introduced in the Union Budget 2023, focuses on addressing the significant health challenges posed by sickle cell disease, particularly among tribal populations in the country.

Implemented across 17 high-focus states, the programme aims to improve care and outcomes for sickle cell disease patients while reducing the prevalence of the disorder. The states are Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, and Uttarakhand.

Implemented in mission mode under the National Health Mission (NHM), the program aims to eliminate sickle cell genetic transmission by 2047.

Over a three-year period from 2023-24 to 2025-26, the program targets screening approximately seven crore people, promoting early diagnosis and intervention on a large scale.

Did COVID-19 emerge naturally or from a laboratory leak? Nearly seven years after the pandemic began in late 2019, and despite more than 7.1 million confirmed deaths worldwide and numerous investigations, there is still no definitive answer about the virus's origins.

Now, Tulsi Gabbard, on her last day as the Director of National Intelligence, US, has reignited the debate by alleging that Anthony Fauci, who led the scientific and medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic in America, funded research at China's infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology that contributed to the pandemic.

"The COVID-19 pandemic caused tremendous hardship and pain for millions of Americans and countless people around the world," Gabbard said in a statement.

"After years of lies, censorship, and cover-ups, the American people deserve transparency, truth, and accountability."

What Are the Documents?

According to Gabbard's office, the materials were released following a year-long declassification review conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) as part of President Trump's transparency initiative.

During the review, officials reportedly gathered testimony from intelligence community whistleblowers who alleged they faced retaliation for challenging official assessments of the virus's origins.

Gabbard said the testimony revealed a pattern of suppressing dissenting views, discouraging debate, and sidelining evidence that conflicted with prevailing intelligence assessments.

Also read: COVID-19 Vaccination Reduced Risk of Heart Attacks and Strokes in Elderly by 40%: Study

What Does The Documents Show?

According to Gabbard, the newly declassified communications and documents reveal that

• Fauci worked with intelligence officials to suppress information related to the COVID-19 lab-leak theory and allegedly had a role in directing US funding for coronavirus research.
• Fauci influenced Intelligence Community assessments regarding the origins of COVID-19.
• Fauci misled Congress during his 2024 testimony when he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research.
• Fauci held significant influence during the pandemic and occupied multiple roles that shielded him from scrutiny.
• Fauci funded coronavirus research linked to efforts to develop so-called "universal vaccines."
• Fauci selected scientific advisers who encouraged intelligence agencies to support a natural-origin theory while downplaying the lab-leak hypothesis.
• Fauci publicly promoted narratives that discouraged debate over alternative explanations for the origins of COVID-19.
• Fauci maintained close relationships with intelligence officials, enabling him to influence both intelligence assessments and public narratives surrounding the pandemic.
• Fauci's statement — "not to my knowledge about COVID" — was inconsistent with documented communications regarding interactions with intelligence agencies.

Read More: 1 in 6 Americans May Be Suffering From Long COVID, Study Finds

Whistleblower Allegations

Importantly, the declassified materials also include testimony from whistleblowers who claim analysts supporting the lab-leak theory faced professional consequences. These include:

• A contractor was reportedly dismissed shortly after submitting a whistleblower complaint to ODNI.
• Analysts advocating for the lab-leak hypothesis were allegedly warned that career advancement decisions rested with leadership.
• Some whistleblowers claimed senior officials created barriers to anonymous reporting, fostering an atmosphere of intimidation.

Read: COVID Pandemic Left 55,000 Cancer Cases Undiagnosed In 7 Nations, Including Australia and the UK

What Happens Next?

Gabbard said these allegations have been referred to the intelligence community's inspector general for further review.

Whether the allegations lead to congressional hearings, legal action, or additional independent review remains uncertain.

Any conclusions will depend on careful examination of the documents, corroborating evidence, and responses from those named in the allegations. Fauci is yet to comment on the allegations.