Cancer is a large group of diseases that can start in almost any organ or tissue of the body when abnormal cells grow uncontrollably, and go beyond their usual boundaries to invade adjoining parts of the body. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is the second most common cause of death globally, accounting for millions of deaths every year. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervical and thyroid cancer are the most common among women. However, these are not necessarily the deadliest forms of cancer.

What makes cancer the deadliest depends upon how many people have it and what percentage of those people actually survive. Cancer researchers determine this on the basis of five-year relative survival. This is the percentage of people who are expected to survive the effects of a given cancer, excluding their risk of other possible causes of death, for five years past a diagnosis. It is also important to note that what makes cancer really deadly is that practically no cure for it. A cure for cancer would imply that there are no cancerous cells remaining in the body.

Here are the 5 deadliest cancers in the U.S., according to SEER five-year relative survival data for cases diagnosed between 2014 and 2020.

1. Pancreatic cancer occurs when cells in your pancreas, a gland in your abdomen that aids digestion, mutate and multiply out of control, forming a tumour. Major risk factors include smoking, obesity, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, certain genetic mutations and environmental chemical exposure.

2. Esophageal cancer develops in the oesophagus, which is the tube that connects your throat to your stomach.

3. Liver cancer and intrahepatic bile duct cancer originate in the liver or bile ducts, often linked to hepatitis infections, heavy alcohol use, obesity, and aflatoxin exposure.

4. Lung and bronchus cancer primarily caused by smoking, secondhand smoke, and environmental pollutants, affects the lungs and airways, making it the leading cause of cancer death in the US.

5. Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is an aggressive blood and bone marrow cancer that progresses rapidly, often linked to genetic mutations, radiation exposure, and certain chemicals.

ALSO READ: Why Are Lifestyle Factors Making Millennials Vulnerable To Cancer?

For the first time in nearly three decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing changes to nutrient requirements for infant formula. The proposed changes cover vitamins A and D, iodine and manganese under the Trump administration's Operation Stork Speed initiative, announced in March 2025.

The FDA’s first phase of a three-phase review covers eight of the 30 nutrients required in infant formula. It proposes revising requirements for four nutrients and reaffirming existing limits for the other four. It is also seeking public input on nutrients commonly added by manufacturers but not currently required. The agency is accepting comments for 120 days.

“Parents deserve confidence in every bottle they feed their baby,” US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement.

What Are The Proposed Changes?

Also read: Major FDA Study Confirms Baby Formula In US Safe, Testing to Continue

The FDA's first phase covers eight nutrients. It proposes changes to four and retaining existing limits for the other four.

1. Iodine

• Minimum: Increased from 5 to 15 µg/100 kcal.
• Maximum: Reduced from 75 to 50 µg/100 kcal.

2. Manganese

• Minimum: Reduced from 5 to 1 µg/100 kcal.
• Maximum: A new limit of 50 µg/100 kcal.

3. Vitamin A

• Measurement unit changed from IU to micrograms of retinol activity equivalents (µg RAE).
• Minimum: Reduced from 250 IU (75 µg RAE) to 70 µg RAE/100 kcal.
• Maximum: Reduced from 750 IU (225 µg RAE) to 120 µg RAE/100 kcal.
• Only preformed vitamin A, not beta-carotene, will count towards the limits.

4. Vitamin D

• Measurement unit changed from IU to micrograms (µg).
• Minimum: Increased from 40 IU (1 µg) to 2 µg (80 IU)/100 kcal.
• Maximum: Increased from 100 IU (2.5 µg) to 3 µg (120 IU)/100 kcal.

The FDA also proposes updating formula labelling requirements to reflect the changes.

Which Nutrient Limits Will Remain Unchanged?

Read More: New International Food Pyramid Highlights Plant Foods, Counters Trump’s Meat-Heavy Diet Advice

The FDA proposes retaining existing levels for:

• Chloride: 55–150 mg/100 kcal.
• Potassium: 80–200 mg/100 kcal.
• Selenium: 2–7 µg/100 kcal.
• Sodium: 20–60 mg/100 kcal.

What Do Parents Need To Know?

The FDA says formulas currently sold in the US remain safe for babies. The proposed changes are not prompted by safety concerns but aim to align standards with current scientific evidence.

Parents do not need to change the formula they currently use.

When Will The Changes Take Effect?

The FDA is reviewing all 30 nutrients in three phases. The first covers eight, with the remaining 22 to follow.

The final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Manufacturers will have three years from that date to reformulate and relabel their products.

This means the proposed changes will not appear on formula packaging immediately.

Dr Steven Abrams, a paediatrician and professor at the University of Texas' Dell Medical School, called the update overdue. He described the first phase as “really well done” and “very well thought-out”, CNN reported.

However, he said the phased approach means manufacturers could take several years to implement the changes.

“These changes that they're recommending today are not going to be something that'll show up on the can of formula potentially for several years,” Abrams said.

He identified the proposed vitamin D increase as the most consequential change in this phase.

Meanwhile, the FDA is also seeking input on making commonly added nutrients such as DHA, ARA and L-carnitine mandatory. These are not currently required in infant formula.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), officially declared a Public Health Emergency in May 2026, has surpassed 10,000 cases and is approaching 5,000 deaths, making it the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak in history.

Driven by the Bundibugyo Ebola virus, the outbreak has spread beyond the DRC to Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria, raising concerns about cross-border transmission. There is currently no licensed vaccine against this strain, although candidates are in development.

More than 1,000 children have died, accounting for over one-quarter of recorded fatalities, according to Save the Children.

“It's extraordinarily serious. Over 1,000 children have died of Ebola,” Greg Ramm, Save the Children's Country Director in the DRC, told the media.

“The world needs to start paying attention. We will break 15,000 deaths by the new year. And just because Ebola isn’t going to become a pandemic doesn’t mean it is not a global health security threat as well as a humanitarian disaster,” Dr Angela Rasmussen, a virologist, warned in a post on X.

Africa CDC Warns of Wider Global Risk

Africa CDC Director-General Dr Jean Kaseya has warned that the outbreak's unprecedented geographical spread could put countries beyond Africa, including the UK, at risk.

“The geographic extension of this outbreak is unprecedented,” he said, noting that three African regions had been affected. Drawing parallels with COVID-19, he warned: “We don’t want to see the UK and other countries become the hotspot,” The Guardian reported.

In response, the UK Health Security Agency's (UKHSA) Dr Sam Collins stressed that the risk to the UK remains low and that the country “is well prepared to respond safely and effectively to the risk of imported cases arising here”.

Genetic Analysis Links Kenya, Nigeria Cases to Congo

Scientists have linked Ebola viruses detected in Kenya and Nigeria to those circulating in Beni, eastern DRC, raising questions about a possible shared transmission chain or an unidentified source, Bloomberg reported.

“Genomic sequencing shows that the Ebola virus from Nigeria’s recently reported only imported case is highly similar to that from Kenya’s first imported case, differing by only one mutation,” Muhammad Ali Pate, Nigeria's Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, said in a post on X.

How Was The Genetic Analysis Conducted?

Scientists from four countries, led by Congolese virologist Jean-Jacques Muyembe, analysed 1,126 viral genomes after an Ebola case was detected in Abuja, Nigeria.

The Beni samples share a distinctive genetic signature, including a mutation absent from other sequenced viruses from Congo.

The viruses also lack genetic markers associated with Uganda's documented Ebola transmission chains from May and June, suggesting they did not descend from those previously identified outbreaks.

Researchers have yet to establish where the patients contracted the virus or whether they were infected through the same transmission chain. Genetic sequencing alone cannot prove direct transmission.

Travel Histories Point To Possible Congo Uganda Connection

Investigators are examining the patients' movements through Uganda during their potential exposure periods.

The Nigerian patient was in Uganda from September 15 to October 3 and developed symptoms three days after returning to Abuja. The Kenyan patient travelled from Congo through Uganda between October 1 and 3 before flying to Nairobi from Entebbe.

Both patients reportedly travelled on flights on October 3. Authorities are checking their travel records for possible overlap and tracing potentially exposed passengers.

Nigeria, Kenya Step Up Ebola Response

Nigeria has traced 62 contacts of the infected woman, NCDC Director-General Jide Idris said. Of these, 50 are in isolation, five are being monitored at home and seven remain unlocated.

Uganda recorded 20 confirmed cases and two deaths before declaring the outbreak over in June.

Kenya has reported nine cases and two deaths. Seven patients, including three family members and four healthcare workers, are receiving treatment and responding well. Authorities have traced all 135 contacts linked to the first case, according to official data.

As many as 500 newborns at Albany Medical Center in New York received hepatitis B vaccine doses that had been stored at an improper temperature in a refrigerator.

While the improperly stored doses pose no health threat to the infants who received them, the hospital said the storage lapse may have compromised the vaccines' effectiveness. The newborns may now need repeat doses to ensure they are protected against hepatitis B.

State Department of Health workers reviewing refrigeration logs ahead of a hospital site visit found that the vaccines had been stored below the manufacturer's recommended temperature range, The Times Union reported.

Why Repeat Hepatitis B Vaccine Doses May Be Needed

Also read: Hepatitis B Infections Could Rise 83% If US Changes Newborn Vaccine Policy: Study

The improper storage may have affected the vaccines' effectiveness, meaning the infants who received them may not have developed adequate protection against hepatitis B and could need repeat doses.

Albany Medical Center said it has sent letters to affected parents and their children's doctors explaining that repeat doses may be necessary. A hospital spokesperson added that the Center has also apologised for the error and has implemented additional safeguards.

Hepatitis B vaccines require strict temperature control to maintain their effectiveness. Immunize.org recommends storing all hepatitis B-containing vaccines between 2°C and 8°C (36°F and 46°F) and cautions against freezing them.

According to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, vaccine storage errors must be assessed individually in consultation with health authorities. Doses found to be expired or nonviable generally cannot be counted as valid, and non-live vaccine doses may need to be repeated as soon as possible.

Why Hepatitis B Birth Dose Is Important For Newborns

Read More: RFK Jr-Backed Hep B Researchers Face Police Raid in Guinea-Bissau: Why the Newborn Vaccine Trial Is Controversial

The universal hepatitis B birth-dose recommendation was introduced in the US in 1991. The first dose provides early protection, including in cases where maternal infection is missed or a child's exposure risk is not recognised.

Newborns typically receive their first hepatitis B vaccine dose shortly after birth, often before they leave the hospital. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that newborns receive the first dose within 24 hours of birth, followed by a second dose within two months. School-aged children must receive three doses in total.

The vaccine protects against a virus that can cause serious liver disease. In New York, about 90% of children complete the full three-dose vaccine series before age three, according to Kaiser Family Foundation figures cited in The Times Union report.

What is Hepatitis B?

Hepatitis B is a viral infection that affects the liver and spreads through infected blood and certain bodily fluids, including during childbirth.

An infection acquired during infancy is particularly concerning because it is more likely to become chronic. Over time, chronic hepatitis B can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure or liver cancer.

In December 2025, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended replacing universal vaccination at birth with shared decision-making for infants whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adopted this approach in January 2026. Babies born to mothers who test positive or whose infection status is unknown continue to be recommended to receive the birth dose promptly, along with hepatitis B immune globulin when indicated.