This digital era is all about catching up with trends, TikToks and reels, but at the cost of what? Many believe all of this happens at the cost of one's health and mental well-being. As a result, the grades of students, especially in high school, when they are exposed to social media the most, start to drop. However, a study based on the University of Birmingham's findings, peer-revied and published by the Lancet's journal for European health policy compared 1,277 students and the rules their 30 different secondary schools had for smartphone use at break and lunchtimes.` The study found something else, contrary to the popular belief.

What Did The Study Find?

The study found that banning phones in school is not linked to pupils getting higher grades or having a better mental wellbeing. The study found that a student's sleep, classroom behavior, exercise or how long they spend on their phones did not seem much different for schools with phone bans versus schools without it.

However, the study did find that spending longer time in social media or on smartphones in general may be linked to such measures. This was the first study in the world that looked at school phone rules along with the children's health and education.

In an interview to the BBC, Dr Victoria Goodyear, study's lead author said, that the findings are not against smartphone bans in school, but, a suggestion that bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impacts.

The focus must be on reducing how much time the student spends on their phone, which cannot just be supervised in school.

How Was The Study Conducted?

The schools were chosen from a sample of 1,341 mainstream state schools in England. Among these the behavior of student form schools that banned the smartphones versus those who did not ban it were studied to find out that schools restricting smartphone use did not seem to see the intended improvements on health, wellbeing and focus of the student, as one would have wished to.

The study also used the internationally recognized Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale, a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects. It is a 14-item scale with 5 response categories. This method was used to determine the wellbeing of the children who participated in the research. It further looked at students' anxiety and depression levels.

It also asked from teachers about whether their students were on target, below target or above target in English and maths.

What Do The Students Feel?

When asked students, they said that the smartphone ban forces you to hang out and chat with your friends and some of them think in lower school, it has helped them spend less time scrolling social media and making lots of friends.

Experts point out that the important part is to help students learn to use their phone in a safe and controlled space. This way, phone-related issues, especially distraction, its impact on your mental health, will be much less. The answer is not ban, but the use of the smartphone in a controlled environment, so students learn to value the "freedom" they have been given to use them at break and lunch.

As flu season approaches, many people wonder whether getting vaccinated twice in the same year might offer extra protection. With immunity known to fade and flu viruses changing fast, the question sounds reasonable. But according to public health experts, doubling up on flu shots rarely delivers added benefit for adults.

Flu Shot: Why a Second Flu Shot Usually Does Not Help

There is no known harm in receiving two flu shots in one year, but research shows it is largely unnecessary. Katrine Wallace, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explains that most adult immune systems have already been exposed to both the influenza virus and the vaccine over the years.

Because of this prior exposure, studies have not found improved protection from a second flu shot, even among older adults whose immune responses may be weaker. For the majority of people, one influenza vaccination per year is sufficient to reduce the risk of severe illness and complications.

The guidance is different for children. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children under the age of nine who have never received a flu vaccine should get two doses during their first vaccination season to build adequate immunity.

Flu Shot: Why You Still Need a Flu Shot Every Year?

While a second shot in the same season does not add much value, annual vaccination remains important. Flu viruses mutate quickly, far faster than viruses like Covid. This means last year’s vaccine is less effective against the strains circulating this season.

In addition, immunity from the flu shot gradually declines over time. These two factors make yearly vaccination necessary, even for people who rarely fall sick.

Flu Shot: Which Flu Vaccine Should Children Get?

As per CDC, there are two kinds of influenza vaccines in use. One is the injectable vaccine commonly known as the flu shot. The other is given as a nasal spray.

This year, all flu vaccines approved for children are designed to protect against three strains of the virus, including two influenza A strains and one influenza B strain. During any flu season, several types of flu viruses can circulate at the same time, and in some cases, these viruses may shift or evolve as the season progresses.

Flu Shot: Timing Matters More Than Taking Two Shots

Experts also stress that when you get the flu shot matters almost as much as getting it at all. Wallace notes that vaccination in August or early September is generally not advised for most adults, since protection may weaken before flu activity peaks.

There are exceptions. Pregnant people in their third trimester may be advised to get vaccinated earlier to pass antibodies to their baby, who cannot receive a flu shot immediately after birth, as per the CDC.

For most adults, the best approach is simple: get one flu shot per year and get it at the right time. There is no need to worry about doubling doses unless advised by a doctor. One well-timed vaccination remains the most effective and evidence-backed strategy

For people living with primary sclerosing cholangitis or PSC, medical options have always been painfully limited. Until now, there has been no approved drug that can slow the disease itself. Treatment has mostly meant managing symptoms and waiting, often for years, until a liver transplant becomes the only option. That is why new results around a monoclonal antibody called nebokitug are being seen as a turning point.

Researchers from the University of California Davis have reported promising findings from a Phase 2 clinical trial showing that nebokitug appears safe and may actually reduce liver inflammation and scarring. The study was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and has brought cautious optimism to both doctors and patients.

What Exactly Is PSC?

PSC is a rare, long-term liver disease that mainly affects the bile ducts. These ducts act like tiny pipelines that carry bile from the liver to the small intestine, where it helps digest fats. In PSC, these ducts become inflamed, damaged, and scarred over time. As they narrow, bile starts backing up in the liver, slowly causing liver injury.

Many people with PSC also have inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. This strong link has led researchers to believe that ongoing gut inflammation may trigger immune reactions that damage the liver as well. Symptoms can range from extreme tiredness and itching to yellowing of the skin and eyes. Some patients have no symptoms at all in the early stages, which makes the disease harder to catch.

Why Treatment Has Been So Difficult

One of the biggest challenges with PSC is that doctors have not had a way to stop the scarring process itself. Once fibrosis sets in, it slowly progresses and increases the risk of liver failure and bile duct cancer. While medications can help with itching or infections, they do not change the course of the disease. This gap in treatment is what makes the nebokitug study so important.

How Nebokitug Works

Nebokitug is a lab-made antibody designed to block a protein called CCL24. This protein plays a key role in driving inflammation and fibrosis in the liver. In people with PSC, CCL24 levels are higher than normal and are found around the bile ducts where damage is most severe.

By blocking CCL24, nebokitug aims to calm the immune response and slow down the scarring process. Earlier lab and animal studies suggested this approach could work. The new trial is one of the first to test this idea in people with PSC.

What the Trial Found

The Phase 2 study included 76 patients from five countries. Participants received either one of two doses of nebokitug or a placebo through an IV every three weeks for 15 weeks. The main goal was to check safety, since this was still an early-stage trial.

The results were encouraging. Nebokitug was found to be safe and well tolerated. More importantly, patients who already had more advanced liver scarring showed improvements in liver stiffness and markers linked to fibrosis when compared to those on placebo. These changes suggest that the drug may be doing more than just easing symptoms.

Experts involved in the study say these findings could change the future of PSC care. Reducing inflammation and fibrosis could slow disease progression and delay or even prevent the need for a transplant in some patients. While larger trials are still needed, nebokitug represents one of the strongest signals yet that PSC may finally have a disease-modifying treatment on the horizon.

Now, drinking beer too could increase the risk of mouth cancer. On Tuesday, researchers at the Tata Memorial Centre (TMC) reported this adding new evidence. They found a 59 per cent higher risk of mouth cancer in people who drank, on average, just two grams of alcohol from beer daily, compared with those who did not drink. The research suggests that there may not be any safe limit to drink.

What Did The Study Reveal About Beer And Cancer?

Their study in India's large scale analysis that probs link between alcohol and cancer of the buccal mucosa. This is the pink lining of cheeks and lips. In India, this kind of cancer is the second most common malignancy in India after breast cancer. It also leads to 1,40,000 new cases and nearly 80,000 deaths each year.

Who Are More Prone To Buccal Mucosa Cancer?

People who consume more than one glass of alcohol a day and chew tobacco on a day to day basis are five times more at risk of developing this cancer as compared to those who do not drink or chew tobacco.

The findings of the study was published in the journal BMJ Global Health and it suggests that joint use of both, alcohol and tobacco leads to 62 per cent of all buccal mucosa cancer in the country.

As Telegraph reported, Tata Memorial Centre for Cancer Epidemiology unit's head of molecular epidemiology and population genomics unit Sharayu Mhatre said, "We see an unmistakable pattern: the more alcohol people drink, the greater their risk of buccal mucosal cancer."

Buccal mucosal cancer continues to pose a serious public health challenge in India. Among 100 patients diagnosed with locally advanced stages of the disease, 57 die within five years, a mortality rate that experts say highlights the urgent need for prevention, early detection, and stronger regulation of risk factors.

Alcohol Emerges as a Major Risk Factor

While the link between alcohol and cancer is well known, new findings reinforce just how dangerous alcohol consumption can be for oral health. Researchers found that people who consumed alcohol had a 68% higher risk of developing buccal mucosal cancer compared to non-drinkers.

What stood out most was the type of alcohol consumed. Unregulated, locally brewed liquor carried the highest risk, increasing cancer likelihood by 87%, compared to 72% among consumers of regulated, commercially sold drinks. Experts point out that these local brews often contain significantly higher ethanol concentrations and lack quality control.

Not Just Heavy Drinking—Even Small Amounts Matter

The study analyzed drinking patterns among over 3,700 participants, comparing cancer patients with healthy individuals. Alcohol types ranged from beer and spirits like whisky and vodka to traditional local drinks such as bangla and tharra. Ethanol levels varied widely—from 5% in beer to as high as 90% in some locally distilled spirits.

Alarmingly, increased cancer risk was seen even at low levels of alcohol intake. As little as two grams of alcohol a day from beer, or roughly one glass of stronger liquor, was enough to raise concern.

Alcohol and Tobacco: A Dangerous Combination

The risk escalates dramatically when alcohol use is combined with tobacco chewing. Tobacco alone raised cancer risk by 200%, alcohol alone by 76%, but together, the risk shot up to 346%. Researchers explain that alcohol may damage the mouth’s protective lining, making it easier for tobacco-related carcinogens to penetrate and cause harm.

Health experts stress that these findings underline the need for greater public awareness, stricter monitoring of locally brewed alcohol, and stronger prevention strategies. The World Health Organization has already warned that no level of alcohol is safe, noting that even light or moderate drinking contributes to a significant number of alcohol-related cancers globally.

For India, where oral cancers remain widespread, these insights serve as a critical reminder: everyday habits can have life-altering consequences.