Drugmaker Eli Lilly announced on Thursday that its experimental oral GLP-1 drug helped people with type 2 diabetes lose an average of nearly 8% of their body weight after 40 weeks, while also lowering their A1C levels.

Lilly, known for injectable drugs like Zepbound for obesity and Mounjaro and Trulicity for diabetes, is among several pharmaceutical companies racing to develop a pill form of GLP-1 medications. So far, the only available GLP-1 pill comes with strict dietary requirements.

This news follows Pfizer’s announcement earlier in the week that it is ending development of its own daily obesity pill due to a possible case of liver injury in a trial participant—an issue that resolved after the drug was discontinued.

While Novo Nordisk’s Rybelsus was approved by the US FDA in 2020 to treat type 2 diabetes, it must be taken on an empty stomach. Some doctors also note that it may not be as effective as injectable versions and still causes side effects.

Unlike Rybelsus, Lilly says its oral medication, orforglipron, requires no dietary restrictions. It’s also the first drug of its kind to complete a Phase 3 trial.

In a study involving over 550 people with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control through diet and exercise alone, orforglipron—at its highest dose—reduced body weight by an average of 16 pounds (7.9%). The participants continued to lose weight through the end of the 40-week trial.

The study also met its primary goal: lowering A1C levels more effectively than a placebo. Participants saw average reductions of 1.3% to 1.6% from a baseline of 8%.

GLP-1 drugs work by stimulating the pancreas to release insulin and suppressing the release of another hormone, thereby helping regulate blood sugar. They also reduce hunger and help people feel full longer.

Lilly reported that over 65% of participants taking orforglipron reached or maintained an A1C level at or below 6.5%—the threshold for a diabetes diagnosis.

Dr. Dan Skovronsky, Lilly’s chief scientific officer, said that even before seeing the data, the mood in the room gave away the positive results. “When I walked into the room to see the results, I saw everybody smiling, so I knew they were about to share good news with me,” he said.

According to Skovronsky, liver injuries like the one reported in Pfizer’s trial can be a concern with small-molecule drugs, though they are hard to predict without large-scale testing. “We did not see a liver safety signal with ours, which was a relief,” he said.

The side effects of the pill were similar to those of injectable GLP-1s, with upset stomach being the most commonly reported. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. Notably, more than 90% of participants remained on the medication through the duration of the trial—a strong contrast to injectable GLP-1 users, many of whom stop due to side effects.

While injectable GLP-1 drugs are highly effective, they can be expensive and complicated to produce. They also require refrigeration and generate more packaging waste. A daily pill could simplify treatment, reduce costs, and offer a more convenient option for patients—especially those who are needle-phobic.

“Drugs in tablet form are valuable for a lot of patients for a lot of reasons,” said Dr. Amy Rothberg of the University of Michigan, “particularly those who are needle-phobic. And it probably just simplifies things to just add on another pill, as opposed to taking a shot, which is a little more complex.”

Accessibility is key, especially for medications used over long periods. “As clinicians, our priority is to align treatment with our patients’ preferences to support long-term adherence,” said Dr. Priya Jaisinghani, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health. “For patients who may find injectable therapies challenging or undesirable, an oral alternative may improve both initiation and continuation of therapy.”

Rothberg, who was not involved in the trial, added that she hopes Lilly passes on the cost benefits to patients if the drug is approved. “We could reach many more people then,” she said.

The need is urgent: more than 40% of U.S. adults are living with obesity, and 11.6%—or about 38.4 million Americans—have been diagnosed with diabetes, most of whom have type 2 diabetes, according to the CDC.

Skovronsky said that Lilly is already manufacturing orforglipron in anticipation of high demand, assuming future trials also yield positive outcomes.

Lilly plans to publish the trial results in a peer-reviewed journal and will share more findings later this year, including data from another study focused on weight management. The company is also testing the drug’s potential benefits for high blood pressure and sleep apnea—two conditions that GLP-1 injectables have shown promise in treating.

Lilly aims to seek approval for orforglipron as a weight management treatment by the end of the year and plans to submit results related to type 2 diabetes in 2026.

It begins innocently enough, a glass of wine after work, a beer during dinner, a cocktail to celebrate the weekend. In an increasingly stressed-out world where self-care is a buzzword, alcohol quietly slips itself as a coping mechanism. It's soothing, comforting, and socially approved but under the tranquil veneer of your "one drink after work" routine, there is a growing alarm in science.

Increasing evidence is showing that even moderate alcohol use levels previously considered "safe" or "moderate" could be silently driving long-term health threats. The Behavioural Insights Team's new study, commissioned by Alcohol Change UK, has sparked a worldwide debate about what we think we know about alcohol and the health risks we tend to overlook.

The British study examined data from more than 4,000 adults and compared the health of moderate drinkers—those who drink according to National Health Service (NHS) guidelines with abstainers. The results were startling and alarming.

Even among the so-called "low-risk" consumption category, researchers observed an increase in cancer and cardiovascular disease. Incidence of cardiovascular disease rose from 1% among abstainers to 5% among low-intake drinkers, and cancer rates rose from 1% to 4%. These drinkers also had lower sleep quality, reduced daily functioning, and poorer dental health.

For a population like the UK, where over 30 million people drink within these levels, the implications are sobering. “We’ve fallen prey to the false idea that drinking problems only affect a small number of dependent individuals,” said Dr. Richard Piper, CEO of Alcohol Change UK. “But as this research makes clear, alcohol is taking a toll on health and wellbeing even at ‘low-risk’ levels.”

Is Any Amount of Alcohol Really Safe?

We’ve long been fed mixed messages about alcohol. For years, the idea that red wine could improve heart health circulated widely. But recent science is challenging those notions. The World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement in The Lancet Public Health last year making it clear: no level of alcohol consumption is completely safe.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy also made a public advisory, which emphasized the well-documented association between alcohol consumption and cancer risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer identifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen—the same category as asbestos, tobacco, and radiation.

But surveys indicate that fewer than half of Americans are aware that alcohol raises cancer risk. Misconceptions are deeply entrenched, including the perception that a daily drink is harmless—or even healthy. But the facts indicate otherwise.

Why the Way We Drink Matters?

The NHS guidelines are to have no more than 14 units of alcohol a week, approximately six pints of beer or ten small glasses of wine. But the way that people understand that limit is everything.

"Some individuals view 14 units as a goal to reach over the weekend," says Professor David Nutt, a former government drugs adviser. "They will have seven drinks on Friday and seven on Saturday and think that is fine. But bingeing on those units in one or two sessions increases the risks." This behavior substantially increases the likelihood of stroke, liver disease, and alcohol injuries—despite overall weekly consumption being within "safe" limits.

Mental Health, Sleep, and the Stress Paradox

Alcohol is commonly resorted to as a means of relaxing or stressing less. But in fact, it's a temporary fix that usually makes things worse. Although it will depress anxiety temporarily, its consequences usually comprise rebound anxiety, insomnia, and emotional insensitivity.

Alcohol also disrupts sleep architecture—resulting in poorer-quality sleep. It blunts emotional highs as well as lows, slowly stealing people's motivation, connection, and happiness. What starts as an occasional ceremony can degenerate into dependency, tolerance, and mental health deterioration.

In spite of the science, it is not easy to shift attitudes towards alcohol. When drinkers in London were asked by Sky News about bottling health warnings, the results showed a consensus view, "We already know it's not good for us—more warnings won't change that.

Most individuals view alcohol consumption as a rational gamble, valuing social pleasure over enduring health. The media, marketing, and social behavior support this normalization, which makes it more difficult to change habits—when health is at stake.

Healthier Alternatives That Can Help With Drinking

Nobody is advocating that individuals need to stop drinking alcohol cold turkey. But being more attentive about when, how, and why you drink is important. Specialists suggest experimenting with other stress-management techniques:

• Deep breathing, guided meditation, or yoga
• Regular exercise
• Therapy or support groups
• Creative expression such as journaling or art
• Substance-free social connection

These alternatives develop emotional strength instead of dependence, allowing you to cope with stress in healthy ways without exacerbating health dangers.

That evening cocktail can seem like a harmless ritual or even a self-care activity but new research is forcing us to reconsider that picture. Even light drinking can have severe long-term implications for your heart, your sleep, your mental health, and your risk of cancer. Knowing the true impact is the initial step towards change. Perhaps that glass of wine isn't so worth it after all, not if it comes with a secret health price that goes on and on long after the bottle is dry.

In the aftermath of a global pandemic, with the memory of oxygen shortages still fresh and the threat of new infectious diseases looming large, the world's healthcare systems are stretched thinner than ever. We're battling overlapping health crises- resurging malaria and dengue cases, the global spread of West Nile virus, new strains of flu, antibiotic-resistant infections, and a growing mental health epidemic. Public health is in constant firefighting mode but there is one quiet casualty of this mad world that seldom hits the headlines—our blood supply.

Blood—so simple, so essential—lies at the very center of modern medicine. Whether it's stabilizing a trauma victim, sustaining a cancer patient through chemotherapy, or enabling women to survive complicated delivery, the presence of safe, screened, and timely blood transfusions is not negotiable. And yet, today, that lifeline is being quietly and methodically disrupted.

As global warming picks up, it is progressively eating away at all levels of the blood supply chain—donor health to storage conditions to transportation logistics. Intense heatwaves deter donors, electricity failures weaken storage refrigeration, and flooding or forest fires slow blood unit delivery. Insects that transmit blood-borne illnesses such as dengue and West Nile virus are spreading to new areas as a result of altered weather patterns, complicating and accelerating blood screening. In short, what was once a relatively predictable system is now under attack from unpredictable climatic events.

This isn't a remote threat—it's occurring today. A recent study in The Lancet Planetary Health cautions that climate change may compromise the safety, adequacy, and availability of blood supplies around the world. Investigators have demanded proactive measures: additional mobile and versatile blood collection units, enhanced disease monitoring, and global cooperation to maintain resilience against environmental shocks.

Behind all the science and statistics stands a human narrative: a father in need of blood following a car accident, a child with sickle cell disease, a pregnant woman. Their lives are not only dependent upon donors, but upon a system powerful enough to withstand the floods—literally.

As the planet's climate crisis gains speed, its effect is no longer limited to melting glaciers or sea level rise—it now runs in our veins, literally. The integrity of the global blood supply is becoming a vital, under-covered casualty of global warming. With millions depending on secure blood transfusions for surgeries, trauma, cancer treatment, and the control of chronic disease, interruptions to the blood supply chain can be disastrous for public health systems globally.

From shifting donor supply to jeopardizing storage and transportation logistics, climate change is quietly mounting pressure on every step along the blood supply chain and with the planet warming up, so does the imperative for health systems to do the same.

Blood is the foundation of emergency care and chronic patient management. Over 25 million units of blood are transfused every year in Europe alone, treating victims of accidents, premature babies, and patients with diseases such as sickle cell disease and cancer but providing a steady, clean supply of blood involves a precarious balance of infrastructure, logistics, and volunteer donors.

This equilibrium is increasingly disrupted by climate-related disturbances—severe heat, floods, storms, and disease outbreaks—that affect everything from donor engagement to safe blood transportation and storage.

How Climate Events Disrupt the Blood Supply?

Severe weather events like hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, directly impairing the capacity to obtain, test, store, and distribute blood products. Such events can physically destroy facilities, restrict staff and donor mobility, or lead to spontaneous spikes in demand because of injury.

Natural disasters not only disrupt transportation and storage but also reduce the pool of available donors, said Red Cross Lifeblood and University of the Sunshine Coast (UniSC) Australian Australia's Dr. Elvina Viennet. "These events upset the storage, safety, and transport of blood, which has a limited lifespan," she said.

The effect is not hypothetical; when hurricane Harvey struck in the US, for example, hundreds of blood drives were canceled, creating regional shortages. In these emergencies, there is frequently a simultaneous and urgent rise in demand for blood and fall in supply—a health system's worst nightmare.

Increased rainfall and global warming have pushed the geographical limits of vector-borne illnesses such as dengue, malaria, and West Nile virus—some of which are transmissible through blood. Ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes are promoted by warmer climates, which makes transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs) a matter of concern.

"Climate change could affect some blood-borne infectious diseases that can exclude individuals from donating," Viennet said. This complicates and costs more to screen blood, overloading already stressed health systems.

Europe has already seen an increase in dengue cases previously unusual in the region illustrating the speed at which new threats are arising because of changes in the environment.

Donor Health and Availability in a Changing Climate

Aside from infectious diseases, climate change can also have a direct impact on donor health. Heat, air pollution, dehydration, and cardiovascular stress can decrease the number of eligible donors. Even minor physiological changes—such as changes in haemoglobin levels due to heat—can disqualify donors.

There is also a mental health angle to consider where climate anxiety, post-disaster trauma, and stress from displacement can reduce donor participation. The study pointed to increased anxiety and depression among both donors and healthcare workers in the aftermath of extreme weather events.

As climate change worsens chronic conditions—specifically cardiovascular and respiratory disease—it also raises demand for blood transfusions. Complications of pregnancy, sickle cell crises, and surgeries can become more common, adding demand-side pressure to blood banks.

This combined risk of dwindling supply and escalating demand is not abstract; it's already materializing. Left unchecked, health systems could soon experience catastrophic care gaps.

Ways to Protect Blood Supplies in a Warming World

To combat this impending crisis, scientists and policymakers recommend a multi-faceted strategy:

• Mobile and flexible blood donation facilities that can function during and after severe weather conditions.
• Global cooperation to exchange blood supplies across borders during scarcity.
• Research investment to learn how climate factors affect donor health and blood stability.
• Implementation of cell salvage methods (autotransfusion) in operating rooms to minimize dependence on external blood supply.

Increased diversity donor recruitment, particularly from migrant communities, to more closely match rare blood groups and meet altered demographics.

As UniSC's Dr. Helen Faddy pointed out, "With sea levels rising and migration rates growing, it's critical to have a greater number of blood donors from diverse ethnicities."

The blood supply is not only a technical problem—it's a human one. While climate change continues to test the world's health systems, protecting our blood supply has to be an absolute priority. The danger is multiple- biological, logistical, psychological, and infrastructural like the climate crisis itself, it requires global action, scientific innovation, and urgent, sustained effort.

Hepatitis, a disease that causes inflammation of the liver, is more prevalent than HIV in India and has a mortality rate exceeding nine times that of TB. The inflammation of the liver can be caused by a number of things, including viruses, chemicals, drugs, alcohol, genetic disorders, or an overactive immune system. It usually presents with symptoms like fever, jaundice and abdominal pain, vomiting and nausea, loss of appetite and acute liver failure.

Rising Hepatitis Cases In Children

As per Liver Specialists, the recent rise in hepatitis cases among children could be attributed to several factors, including inadequate sanitation and hygiene practices, contamination of food and water supplies, low level vaccination coverage and increased exposure to hepatitis virus. Moreover, the cases rise of Hepatitis A and E, significantly rise in monsoon, sewages overflow and contaminate water sources.

According to Dr BS Ahuja, M.B.B.S, M.D (medicine) at Kharay Hospital, Ludhiana, said "Street food is the largest cause of liver infection through contaminated food and water in India", he said. Adding further, Dr Ahuja opined, "While most liver infections are self-limiting, meaning they resolve on their own, about 2% can become life-threatening, especially if left undetected".

Is Diet Important In Preventing Hepatitis?

Diet plays a crucial role in both the prevention and management of liver infections, particularly Hepatitis. Even in extreme cases of infection, proper hydration is the key, besides eating nutrient-rich food. Avoiding certain foods, especially those prepared under unhygienic conditions, plays a crucial role when it comes to prevention.

Street foods like panipuri and chaat are particularly risky. Food items involving unboiled water, raw salads and juices also put you at risk. Dr Thiagarajan Srinivasan, Liver Transplant Specialist at MGM Healthcare, emphasises that even food cooked at home should be handled with care. "Avoid eating food that was cooked more than 12 hours ago. Additionally, food should only be reheated once, and fried foods should not be reheated at all."

He also talked about the concerning trend which involves the use of used cooking oil by smaller eateries as a cost-cutting measure. These oils, often sourced from high-end restaurants, pose serious health risks and should be avoided at all costs.