SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " antibiotic " 73 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Scientists discover skincare compound that kills drug-resistant bacteria
A popular Korean skincare ingredient may be far more powerful than anyone realized. Scientists have discovered that madecassic acid—derived from the herb Centella asiatica—can stop antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their tracks, including dangerous strains of E. coli. By targeting a bacterial protein that humans don’t have, the compound disrupts the microbes’ ability to survive, making it a promising new type of antibiotic.
Scientists have discovered an 'Achilles' heel' in deadly superbugs
In a mouse study, scientists found that a bacterial sugar can be exploited to disable dangerous antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
Babies are bleeding to death as parents reject a vitamin shot given at birth
Vitamin K shots, which help the blood to clot, are one of three key interventions for newborns, along with an antibiotic eye ointment and the hepatitis B vaccine.
Grants fund high-risk research on fungal disease and antibiotic resistance
Schwartz Research Fund Visionary Grants for faculty members in the life sciences aims to provide significant assistance for innovative, visionary research that opens an important new line of inquiry.
Ancient Killer Is Rapidly Gaining Resistance to Antibiotics, Study Warns
This is a global problem.
Algeria eliminates trachoma as a public health problem
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports validating Algeria as having eliminated trachoma as a public health problem. This makes Algeria the 29th country globally to achieve this significant milestone. "Algeria’s elimination of trachoma is a historic triumph that connects the past, present, and future of public health, and is rooted in a century-long commitment," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. "This milestone proves that with sustained political will and on-the-ground leadership from committed health professionals, we can eliminate neglected tropical diseases and build a healthier, more resilient future for all." For decades, Algeria implemented the WHO-recommended SAFE strategy to eliminate trachoma. These activities included provision of surgery to treat the late blinding stage of the disease (“trachomatous trichiasis”, TT), conducting mass administration of antibiotic treatment, carrying out public awareness campaigns to promote facial cleanliness and personal hygiene as well as improvement in access to water supply and sanitation. Trachoma is the first neglected tropical disease to be eliminated in Algeria. Trachoma is a disease of the eye caused by infection with the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis. It is a public health problem in 30 countries and is responsible for the blindness or visual impairment of about 1.9 million people. Blindness from trachoma is difficult to reverse. Based on November 2025 data, 97 million people live in trachoma endemic areas and are at risk of trachoma blindness. Infection spreads through personal contact (via hands, clothes, bedding or hard surfaces) and by flies that have been in contact with discharge from the eyes or nose of an infected person. With repeated episodes of infection over many years, the eyelashes may be drawn in so that they rub on the surface of the eye. This causes pain and may permanently damage the cornea. In 2024, 87,349 people received surgical treatment for advanced stage of the disease, and 44.4 million people were treated with antibiotics. Global antibiotic coverage in 2024 was 39%. Outbreak News Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Start-Up Claims to Treat a Patient With A.I.-Created Viruses
Certain viruses attack bacteria and can sometimes clear antibiotic-resistant infections. Researchers said they had tailored a virus to attack one patient’s illness.
Scientists warn microplastics make antibiotics fail
As if we needed another reason to worry about plastic pollution, science just handed us a pretty terrifying one. We already know microplastics are clogging up our oceans, drifting through our air, and...
3 Common Drugs Older Adults Might Be Overusing
Not all older people need benzodiazepines, antibiotics, or daily aspirin — and taking them can carry increased risks.
Research uncovers how bacteria fight viruses, opening the door to better virus-based antibiotics
Bacteriophages are viruses that can attack harmful bacteria, whose "last resort" immune response kills the infected bacterium before the virus can spread to others.
Great Women of Science: Ada Yonath, the Nobelist exemplifying perseverance
She was told she was chasing the impossible. She persisted through poverty, skepticism, and 25,000 failed attempts. In the end, Ada Yonath unlocked one of biology’s most elusive structures: the ribosome, transforming our understanding of how antibiotics work and paving the way for drugs that can overcome antibiotic resistance. Her story is not only one of scientific brilliance, but of extraordinary perseverance.
Basecamp Research brings EDEN's antibiotic and vaccine design models to Claude Science
/PRNewswire/ -- Basecamp Research today announced that its antibiotic design and vaccine target prediction EDEN models are now available through Claude,...
The plague never went away. Cases are reported in parts of Africa and the U.S. nearly every year
The plague, the rare bacterial infection infamously known for killing tens of millions in 14th-century Europe, never went away. It is now easily treated with antibiotics.
Scientists discover bacteria can “explode” to spread antibiotic resistance
Scientists have uncovered a surprising twist in how bacteria share genes—including those that spread antibiotic resistance. Tiny virus-like particles called gene transfer agents (GTAs), once ancient viral invaders, have been repurposed by bacteria into delivery systems that shuttle DNA between neighboring cells. The study reveals a key control hub of three genes, dubbed LypABC, that triggers bacterial cells to burst open and release these DNA-packed couriers.
Claude Science is Here, Antibiotics Designed by Text Prompt Among Applications
Basecamp Research’s antibiotic design and vaccine prediction AI models are now available through Anthropic’s Claude Science.
Ancient bacteria found frozen in ice may help scientists in fight against superbugs
In a cave in Romania, scientists found a bacterial strain entombed in ice that is resistant to 10 modern antibiotics. But it may also help fight superbugs.
Blood test could gauge if a baby has a dangerous infection in 15 minutes
Feverish babies in hospital are often assumed to have a serious bacterial infection and are treated with antibiotics. But a test that gauges whether the infection is bacterial or viral, which tend to be milder, could prevent unnecessary drug use
Is 50 the new 60?
Subscribe TL;DR: Younger generations are showing signs of worse health compared to earlier-born cohorts at the same age This backward “drift” is showing up both in mortality risk and chronic disease Worsening trends in obesity and diabetes are the most consistent signals Taking the long view, we’ve made astonishing gains in health and life expectancy in the last century. Global average life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 years in 1900 to 73 years in 2024. (But don’t forget, there were still old people when life expectancy was 32). As people lived longer, they also generally lived healthier along the way. It turns out that avoiding things that can kill you early, like malnutrition and lots of childhood infections, also keeps you healthier later in life. In a classic 2004 paper, Finch and Crimmins proposed that cohorts of children who benefited from fewer early life infections had less lifetime exposure to inflammation and cardiovascular disease later in life, accelerating mortality improvements at older ages. Poor nutrition in the womb has also been linked to a higher risk of later chronic disease. The upshot is that improvements in childhood health can pay dividends many decades later. The combination of better living conditions (nutrition, sanitation) and medical advances (antibiotics, vaccines, blood pressure meds, etc) meant that people’s healthy lifespan generally expanded, even as they lived longer. Aging researchers call this best-case scenario “compression of morbidity”—meaning we delay the onset of disease and disability even faster than the years of life we are adding. During my 20+ year research career, we could generally bank on the idea that younger generations would not only live longer but also keep getting healthier along the way. “60 is the new 50” as they say… Enter “Generational Health Drift” Sadly, this expectation of steady progress may be changing. You’ve probably heard that US life expectancy gains have slowed to a crawl in the past couple of decades. Mortality improvements are also slowing (though less dramatically) in many other high-income countries (you can read more about that in a review paper I wrote here). Mortality is a very blunt health measure, but it is often a good barometer for the broader population health trends happening underneath. And we are now seeing that younger generations may be in worse health at similar ages compared to earlier born cohorts. My collaborator Prof. George Ploubidis at University College London coined this worsening health in more recently born cohorts “generational health drift.” “Generational health drift” is bad news on multiple fronts. Most obviously, we don’t want our health progress to go backward. But the timing is also bad, since our populations are aging. In demographic terms, “population aging” means that the proportion of the population at older ages (i.e >65 years) is increasing. Fun demography fact: Current population aging is not due to the recent declines in the birth rates making the news, but declines in fertility decades ago, after the “baby boom.” As baby boomers reach older ages, the smaller cohorts behind them mean the percentage of older adults will increase. For example, the share of the population age 65 and older in the US increased from 12.4% in 2004 to 18.0% in 2024. This story of population aging was written long ago. Many worry that population aging will put pressure on health care and pension systems. But if people reach older ages in better health than in years past, those fiscal pressures would be less dire than projected. Healthy older people can also continue to contribute to society in many valuable ways, including paid work, caregiving, community service….even high political office 🤷. On the flip side, if younger generations reach retirement age in worse health and with more disabling conditions, this could magnify the societal challenge of population aging. Evidence for worsening generational health A recent paper that I LOVED in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Leah Abrams and colleagues examined which birth cohorts (aka generations) were behind worsening US mortality. Behold the Lexis diagram (cue swooning demographers). Calendar time is on the x-axis, age on the y-axis. Birth cohorts can be followed over time as they age on the diagonal lines moving up and to the right. This figure plots the year-on-year % change in all-cause mortality at a given age. Green shading indicates mortality improvements over time, white is stagnation, and gray shading indicates worsening mortality. Following the diagonal line for those born in 1950, you can see a noticeable shift from green to gray that follows this cohort for most of their lives. This gray shading shows generally worsening mortality for the 1950 to 1959 birth cohorts compared to their predecessors across all ages. Concerningly for my GenX and elder millennial peeps, there was also a deterioration in mortality for birth cohorts born in the 1970s and 1980s, visible as dark gray areas at ages 30 to 45 during the 2010s. While some of these mortality changes reflect specific shocks such as the opioid epidemic, most deaths still occur from major causes of death such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. For cancer, the gray in the top left corner of the figure below reflects the legacies of smoking for older cohorts, followed by a period of green with improvements in cancer mortality as smoking rates declined. But the white/gray shading in the bottom right corner highlights a stagnation and reversal of the cancer trends, with cohorts born around 1970 to 1985 experiencing worsening cancer mortality. This deterioration was most noticeable for colon cancer mortality, possibly linked to obesity or dietary factors. Not just dying more, but less healthy along the way. A recent paper by Dr. Laura Gimeno of University College London (of which I am a co-author), found evidence that more recently born cohorts in Great Britain have stagnating or worsening health. A stylized picture of what“generational health drift” might look like: The review paper found: Rates of childhood overweight and obesity were highest among Gen Z. Rates of diabetes in the 40s almost doubled from 3.1% among the Baby Boomers to 5.9% in Generation X. Gen Z reported higher rates of poor mental health in adolescence compared to earlier-born groups. These UK results are consistent with studies showing worsening health across generations in the US as well. A 2021 US study found that more recently born cohorts had worse biological markers (like blood pressure and blood sugar) than earlier generations at the same age. A separate 2022 study of Americans aged 50 and over found that more recently born generations had a higher number of chronic diseases, with younger age of disease onset. A 2024 Lancet paper found that in the US, women born in 1945 had 33% obesity prevalence at age 50, rising to 48.2% for women born in 1970 turning 50. So what’s going on, and can we turn it around? We don’t have a definitive answer for what’s causing the deteriorating health of younger cohorts, but circumstantial evidence points to worsening trends in obesity and diabetes in both the US and UK. Remember that cohort trends reflect lagged effects of early environments, and younger generations have faced both earlier onset and more severe obesity across their lifetimes. Despite these very concerning trends, the future is not set in stone. We’ve reversed poor generational health trends before: drops in smoking are a major reason cancer and heart disease deaths fell so dramatically in recent decades. GLP-1 drugs may finally turn the tide against rising rates of obesity and diabetes, though it is still early days. But things could also get worse…for example from a return to higher levels of childhood infectious diseases that can have a lasting impact on health. See for example: [ ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) [ Don’t You Forget About Me(asles): The Virus That Erases Immune Memory ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) Jenn Dowd, PhD · March 24, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/dont-you-forget-about-measles-the) Even as an optimist, emerging data on the “generational health drift” has my full attention. For most of my research career, we took it for granted that each generation would be healthier than the last. But if present trends continue, **50 could be the new 60….**and Gen Z celebrities will soon look older than Paul Rudd :). Stay well, Jenn Share the Health! If you found this post useful, please share it with a friend. Share
Immigration activity taking toll on children’s health, doctors say
In Minnesota, an elementary school child has gone without surgery to treat a rare, life-threatening neck infection that isn't responding to antibiotics.
Graphene kills harmful bacteria “superbugs” but spares human cells
Scientists have uncovered how graphene oxide pulls off a remarkable trick: it hunts down and destroys harmful bacteria while leaving human cells completely unharmed. By targeting a molecule found only in bacterial membranes, this ultra-thin carbon-based material acts with laser-like precision—offering a powerful new alternative to traditional antibiotics. Even more exciting, it works against drug-resistant “superbugs,” promotes faster wound healing, and keeps its antibacterial strength even after repeated washing.
UK urged to ban imports of Brazilian meat over health concerns
Brazil failed to prove compliance with EU rules on use of antibiotics in cattle and poultry farming
UT San Antonio scientist highlights growing threat of antifungal resistance
For decades, scientists have studied antibiotic resistance, which is how bacteria evolve mechanisms to evade lifesaving drugs. Now, researchers are warning that a similar challenge is emerging among fungi, where resistance to frontline antifungal medications is making serious infections increasingly difficult to treat. Nathan Wiederhold, PharmD, director of the Fungus Testing Laboratory and professor […]
Bill Gates denies allegations in Epstein email about 'trysts' and STD
A recently released email suggests that Bill Gates had asked for antibiotics to "surreptitiously" give to his now ex-wife, Melinda.
Blowhole nebulizer helps cure beluga whale's pneumonia
The vets needed to get creative when antibiotics weren’t moving the needle for her chronic condition.
Life Sciences Companies Present Live at the September 17 Virtual Investor Forum
Live Presentations and Q&A Across Oncology, Fibrosis, Drug Delivery, Antibiotics, Cannabinoid Therapeutics, and Respiratory Imaging A Global Lineup Presents Live Online: 30-Minute Sessions, Audience Q&A, Replays On Demand NEW YORK, NY - Sept...
Australia becomes the 30th country to eliminate trachoma as a public health problem
The World Health Organization (WHO) has validated Australia for eliminating trachoma as a public health problem, marking a significant milestone in the health of indigenous peoples and in global efforts to combat neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Trachoma, the world’s leading infectious cause of blindness, no longer represents a public health problem in the country.Australia is among a growing number of countries that have successfully eliminated trachoma, contributing to global progress towards the targets set out in the WHO road map for NTDs 2021–2030.Trachoma is caused by the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis and spreads through close contact with infected individuals, contaminated surfaces, and flies that carry eye and nose discharge. Repeated infections can lead to scarring of the eyelids, turning eyelashes inward, and ultimately causing blindness if untreated.“WHO congratulates Australia on this important achievement,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “This success reflects sustained commitment, strong partnerships, and a focus on reaching populations most affected by health inequities. It brings us closer to a world free from the suffering caused by trachoma.”Australia’s journey to eliminationAustralia’s achievement reflects decades of targeted public health action, particularly in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, where trachoma persisted despite its earlier disappearance from the rest of the country.National efforts intensified with the establishment of the National Trachoma Management Programme in 2006, which implemented the WHO-recommended SAFE strategy: surgery for trichiasis, antibiotics to treat infection, promotion of facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement. Regular screening of all communities classified as at-risk of trachoma by teams of qualified health workers formed an important part of the Programme. Interventions were delivered through coordinated partnerships between federal and state governments, Aboriginal community-controlled health services, and local communities.Over time, sustained screening, treatment, and prevention activities, including improvements in housing, water, sanitation and hygiene, led to a steady decline in trachoma prevalence. Australia’s approach included adaptations to reflect its context, such as targeted treatment based on community-level data rather than mass drug administration, and strong integration with environmental health programmes.“Elimination of trachoma is a win for the eye health of communities across Australia, particularly those whose lives have been impacted by a disease that is entirely preventable,” said Mark Butler, Minister for Health and Ageing, Australia. “This major milestone is thanks to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, community commitment and sustained investment over many decades.“The lessons from this work will inform how we approach other preventable health conditions in remote and regional Australia. Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations and local health workers have been central to this success, delivering culturally safe care and community-led solutions.”“This recognition from the World Health Organization reflects decades of work led by Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, alongside local health workers in remote First Nations communities,” said Malarndirri McCarthy, Minister for Indigenous Australians. “Their work has been critical to eliminating trachoma as a public health problem in Australia.”Advancing global efforts against neglected tropical diseases (NTDs)Trachoma is one of 21 diseases and disease groups that are regarded by WHO as NTDs. Together, NTDs affect more than 1 billion people worldwide, primarily in underserved populations with limited access to essential services such as clean water, sanitation, and health care.Australia’s elimination of trachoma as a public health problem highlights the importance of sustained political commitment and cross-sectoral collaboration in addressing the underlying determinants of health. It also underscores the feasibility of eliminating trachoma even in geographically challenging settings.In addition to trachoma, Australia has several endemic NTDs, including Buruli ulcer, leprosy and scabies. Validation of elimination of trachoma as a public health problem marks the first time that WHO has confirmed the elimination of an NTD in Australia, which becomes the 63rd country globally and 16th in the Western Pacific Region to have eliminated at least one NTD.“Tackling neglected tropical diseases in the Western Pacific Region has long been a challenge for countries across the socioeconomic spectrum, given the complexities in reaching the most vulnerable communities, including in remote areas,” said Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. “As a doctor from Tonga, I’ve experienced these challenges for myself. But I also know that with strategic commitment underpinned by optimal resources and partnerships in health, success is possible as other countries in our region have also demonstrated. I commend Australia on eliminating trachoma as a public health problem and urge all involved to remain vigilant to ensure this status is maintained.”WHO continues to support countries working to eliminate trachoma and other NTDs, ensuring that progress reaches those most in need and that gains are sustained through strong surveillance, appropriately integrated into national health systems, and mainstreamed within the wider health sector and beyond.Editor’s notesNeglected tropical diseases and trachoma elimination effortsNeglected tropical diseases are associated with devastating health, social and economic consequences. Their burden is mainly felt among impoverished communities in tropical areas.Public health targets for the control, elimination and eradication of these conditions were set in the road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021–2030 (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010352).In 1996, WHO launched the WHO Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by 2020 (GET2020), creating a network of governments, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions dedicated to the fight against trachoma. WHO continues to support endemic countries to accelerate progress towards the global target of eliminating trachoma as a public health problem worldwide; 2030 is the new target date.Elimination of trachoma as a public health problem is defined as: (i) a prevalence of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) “unknown to the health system” of < 0.2% in ≥15-year-olds; and (ii) a prevalence of trachomatous inflammation—follicular (TF) in children aged 1–9 years of < 5%, in each formerly endemic district, plus (iii) the existence of a system to identify and manage incident cases of TT.Other countries validated by WHO as having eliminated trachoma as a public health problem are: Algeria, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, India, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Togo, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.
No one is safe from the world’s next superbugs. Is this new science the solution?
Old antibiotics are losing effectiveness — and new ones aren’t being discovered fast enough. Our best hope to save lives may be AI.
AI designs a novel E. coli killer
Using an AI model of their own creation that writes whole genomes, a team of Stanford scientists has engineered a novel bacteria-fighting phage. A new age of antibiotics could be on the horizon.
Cuba: US Embassy issues health alert due to GI pathogens like norovirus, Shigella
The US Embassy in Havana issued a health alert last week after seeing a significant increase in diarrheal illness across Cuba, associated with the continuing degradation of the water and energy infrastructure. This degradation affects water supply, and food storage and temperature control. Recent cases have included E. coli, norovirus, Shigella, and other gastrointestinal pathogens. This comes after a health alert dated August 28 which noted that Cuba’s water delivery infrastructure is increasingly unstable. The Embassy is aware of reports of residential neighborhoods that have gone for long periods without receiving water from municipal or public sources. Dengue cases surge in the Tampa Bay area Prolonged and worsening water issues and power outages caused by the regime’s mismanagement of public infrastructure impact the entire island. Water often only flows to residences when city power is on for a sufficient amount of time. Media reports indicate wells are running dry across the country due to drought, aggravating the ability to supplement water delivery. The lack of water, coupled with power shortages that have disrupted cold chain networks, can present significant health and safety challenges. We remind U.S. citizens to be aware of the risks when traveling to Cuba and take precautions. Embassy officials offer the following precautions to prevent illnesses: Avoiding Foodborne Illness: Be cautious of meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy, and other perishable foods that may have been inadequately stored. Avoid foods that appear to have been sitting at room temperature for extended periods. Avoid raw or improperly washed vegetables. Be cautious of food cooked and then cooled, stored, or reheated, as improper temperature control can allow pathogens or toxins to develop. Wash hands thoroughly with soap and water before eating and after using the restroom. Hand sanitizer may be less effective against certain gastrointestinal pathogens, including norovirus. Outbreak News Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Water Safety: Use only water known to be safe for drinking, brushing teeth, making ice, and cooking. Use bottled or appropriately treated water; check that bottle seals are intact before opening. Avoid ice unless the water source is known to be safe. Do not use untreated tap water to prepare beverages or food. Be aware that contamination can occur when food, utensils, and surfaces are washed with contaminated water. If You Become Ill: Stay hydrated, especially with frequent diarrhea or vomiting. Most illnesses are self-limited and improve within several days. Seek medical attention for persistent or severe diarrhea, bloody stools, high fever, significant abdominal pain, repeated vomiting, signs of dehydration, or symptoms not improving. Common medications (e.g., acetaminophen, ibuprofen, antibiotics) are frequently unavailable in Cuba; consider bringing your own supply. If you like the reporting on Outbreak News Today, please consider a paid subscription for $5/month or $30 a year. Help support the cause of this niche journalism. It is appreciated.
America's lifespan has doubled since 1776
U.S. life expectancy has doubled since 1776 thanks to vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation and clean water that reduced infectious disease deaths.
Hands-on science can be cool
After spending many long days conducting experiments to find a new way to combat bacterial infections in crops, Misha Hegde and Mia Soleil Maurer have been rewarded with international recognition and access to top research facilities. But these are not typical scientists. They are 16-year-old German high school students.“Our supervisor told us that in order to start a project, you need to begin with either a question or a problem,” says Misha, adding that she and Mia had read about antibiotic resistance in certain plants being treated for bacterial infections. “We found out that antibiotics overuse is very common in agriculture,” explains Mia. “Our aim was to create an alternative to antibiotics and to try to raise awareness of the problem of overusing antibiotics.”Their subsequent research has focused on harnessing bacteriophages, the natural predators of bacteria, to eliminate pathogens threatening food crops treated with antibiotics. At the Schuldorf Bergstraße Jugend forscht MakerLab in Seeheim-Jugenheim, located in the German state of Hesse, they discovered a novel phage that infects the Rhizobium rhizogenes bacterium, which causes the hairy root disease that can reduce yields of tomatoes, carrots, soya beans and other food staples.The students believe their method could curb antibiotic use, while protecting plants from infections without disturbing the natural soil microbiome. “The application of phages is host-specific, so they would only kill the targeted pathogen or disease-causing bacteria,” explains Mia. It may also offer environmental benefits, since applying antibiotics can contaminate groundwater.Getting to this point has not been easy. The childhood friends admit to feeling frustrated when their trials did not yield the expected results. “We spent six months on our first experiment, just doing the same thing over and over and over again, to the point where we thought, is it even worth it? Why are we doing this?” Misha says. “You just need to be brave enough to take that first step and keep going.”The benefits of inquiry-based learningTheir determination has paid off. In 2025, the pair won first prize in biology at Jugend forscht, Germany’s national competition for young people interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. They were also among the winners of the German Research Foundation Europa-Preis, which is awarded to selected national winners at Jugend forscht, and took third place in the 2025 European Union Contest for Young Scientists.The Jugend forscht Foundation opens doors for young people to connect with scientists as well as industry professionals. Jessica Bönsch, executive director of the Foundation, sees Misha and Mia as prime examples of how young people can develop a deeper understanding of science through their own research projects. “The experience of working on your own research question is very important,” she explains, adding that “inquiry-based learning engages with real-life problems in a way that can be more motivating than traditional classroom teaching.”The Jugend forscht Foundation offers financial support through sponsor pools in Germany’s federal states. Some projects are developed in cooperation with student research centres, university labs or informal collaborative learning areas called makerspaces. Other activities start as hands-on “garage projects” and can grow within the Jugend forscht network and infrastructure.The Jugend forscht Foundation is also a partner of Science Comes to Town, an EU initiative to strengthen public awareness about science and create bridges between researchers and communities. The EU-financed project involves universities, research institutions and other stakeholders in three host cities — Brest (France), Kiel (Germany) and Split (Croatia).“It's so important for people not to live in a bubble, because I think science can be very scary if you misunderstand it,” Mia says of SCTT. The initiative’s aim of raising awareness about science is “absolutely amazing,” Misha adds. “I think it's the best way to kind of make science digestible for the public. In a world where misinformation in science is getting more radical, more dangerous, becoming more of a threat to the trust in scientific infrastructure and foundations, we need such programmes.”Misha and Mia also believe that SCTT can help break down gender stereotypes in science by encouraging young women to study and pursue careers in scientific fields. Both students have benefited from female mentors and encouragement they had when they were much younger. Mia’s love of science began with a class trip to a lab, while Misha — with a smile on her face — says she wanted to study history until “a teacher kind of coerced me into joining a school science club.”Recognition beyond EuropeIn May, Misha and Mia were among the finalists at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair held in Phoenix, Arizona, and involving nearly 1,700 pre-university students from over 60 countries. “It was very crazy because there were so many people and so many teenagers interested in science,” Mia recalls. The event was also challenging. “It was eight hours of continuously presenting your project,” adds Misha.Attending the fair was a chance for the young women to see first-hand the value of international collaboration as well as how research cultures differ. “America is a bit more willing to take risks, and I think that's something we can learn about here in Europe,” Misha explains. However, she continues, “I think Europe has the talent, has the innovation and has the resources” to be competitive.Misha and Mia plan to continue their phage experiments in the new school year, inspired by the project’s hands-on nature and the support they receive from their supervisors. They have also attracted the interest of professional scientists and received invitations to leading research facilities, including the Centre for Synthetic Microbiology, jointly run by the University of Marburg and the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology in Germany. “It is so cool that we can do something to try to move the world in our school and at this age,” Mia says.After completing secondary school, Mia plans to study microbiology and pursue a career in medical research, focusing on Ebola and other infectious diseases. “This has been my dream for so long,” she says. Her friend Misha is interested in biological research with a focus on medicine. “I've gotten addicted to the process of going to the lab, planning out experiments, then failing, trying again,” Misha says. “I think there's just so much to be discovered, so much to be done.”The students' names and photos were published with the permission of their parents.Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Drought could fuel the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs as climate change worsens, new research suggests
A warming world may see more antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to new research that shows a link between aridity and antibiotic resistance today.
Norway's King Harald V's health has worsened, palace says
Norway's King Harald remains in hospital receiving antibiotics for a bloodstream bacterial infection.
10 years to solve a mystery—AI cracked it in just 48 hours - Futura-Sciences
10 Years, One Mystery—and a 48-Hour AI Revelation For the last ten years, a dedicated team at Imperial College London had thrown themselves into one of the most urgent battles in modern medicine: figuring out the mechanism that allows certain bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. The topic of ‘superbugs’—those...
Scientists discover how to turn gut bacteria into anti-aging factories
Researchers found that small doses of an antibiotic can coax gut bacteria into producing a life-extending compound. In worms, this led to longer lifespans, while mice showed healthier cholesterol and insulin changes. Because the drug stays in the gut, it avoids toxic side effects. The study points to a new way of promoting health by targeting microbes rather than the body itself.
UT San Antonio scientist highlights growing threat of antifungal resistance
For decades, scientists have studied antibiotic resistance, which is how bacteria evolve mechanisms to evade lifesaving drugs. Now, researchers are warning that a similar challenge is emerging among fungi, where resistance to frontline antifungal medications is making serious infections increasingly difficult to treat. Nathan Wiederhold, PharmD, director of the Fungus Testing Laboratory and professor […]
‘Keep away from the doctor’: a visit to an influencer’s wellness event, where the advice could kill
Barbara O’Neill, identified as a risk to public safety in Australia, dismisses antibiotics, vaccines and scientifically proven cancer treatment at UK conference
New guidance aims to guide UTI treatment in age of virtual health care
The guidelines will help clinicians determine whether patients seeking care via telehealth and virtual visits need urine tests or empiric antibiotics.
Two W.Va. health departments are offering a Lyme disease preventative antibiotic
Kanawha-Charleston, Fayette County health departments offer antibiotic to fight Lyme disease
Scientists capture how bacteria build their protective antibiotic-resistant barriers
Gram-negative bacteria are responsible for causing several infections that are hard to treat, owing to their high resistance to antibiotics.
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
Ada Yonath, Chemist and First Israeli Woman to Receive a Nobel, Dies at 87
Her mapping of the ribosome, which led to new designs for antibiotics, faced years of derision, as many scientists saw it as a dead-end effort.
From Antibiotic Discovery to the Role of Religion in Health, Pre-Med Student Has Already Investigated Major Questions in the Medical World
Hailey DeWalt is not slowing down as she approaches graduation
Sulfonamide resistance as a global one health challenge
The Journal of Antibiotics - Sulfonamide resistance as a global one health challenge
Common medications may change your gut for years
Common medications may reshape the gut microbiome long after the last dose is taken. In a study of more than 2,500 people, researchers found lasting microbial changes linked not only to antibiotics, but also to antidepressants, beta-blockers, acid-reducing drugs, and benzodiazepines. Some effects were still detectable years later, suggesting past medication use may strongly influence the gut bacteria people carry today.
Southcoast Health antibiotic stewardship program earns recognition
Southcoast Health earns a national designation for its efforts to ensure safe and effective antibiotic use.
Scientists are building viruses from scratch to fight superbugs
Researchers from New England Biolabs (NEB®) and Yale University describe the first fully synthetic bacteriophage engineering system for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, an antibiotic-resistant bacterium of global concern, in a new PNAS study. The system is enabled by NEB’s High-Complexity Golden Gate Assembly (HC-GGA) platform. In this method, researchers engineer bacteriophages synthetically using sequence data rather than bacteriophage isolates.
Scientists Discover Soil Bacteria Enzyme that Breaks Down Both Plastic and Antibiotics
Biologists studying how bacteria break down a new generation of plant-based bioplastics -- long-chain aliphatic polyesters -- have discovered an enzyme that can dismantle both plastic and antibiotics.
Sugar Amplifies Damage Done to Gut Health by Antibiotics
/PRNewswire/ -- Eating sweets while taking antibiotics may worsen the harm done by the drugs to the normal community of bacteria in the gut, a new study found....
UVA Health physician dispels common misconceptions about antibiotics
Studies suggest that the old clinical axiom that patients must finish the entire course of antibiotics when treating infections may call for more nuance.
AI just created a virus not found in nature and scientists are worried
The technique could lead to new treatments for antibiotic-resistant bugs, but some scientists say the technology could be misused
Ancient Killer Is Rapidly Gaining Resistance to Antibiotics, Scientists Warn
This is a global problem.
CVS is now filling pet prescriptions at its 9,000 pharmacies nationwide
The pharmacy chain will dispense select medications for dogs and cats, including antibiotics, insulin, and flea and tick treatments
Antibiotic recalled after cardboard particles found in solution
Patients given the drug in question could face an increased risk of blood vessel blockages or inflammation.
Everyday chemicals are quietly damaging beneficial gut bacteria
A large study has revealed that dozens of widely used chemicals can damage beneficial gut bacteria. Many of these substances, found in pesticides and everyday industrial products, were never thought to affect living organisms at all. When gut bacteria are stressed by these chemicals, some may also become resistant to antibiotics. The research raises new questions about how chemical exposure could be influencing human health behind the scenes.
FDA approves first new antibiotics to treat gonorrhea in decades, with hope to combat drug resistance
For the first time in decades, the US Food and Drug Administration has signed off on new antibiotics to fight gonorrhea. The approvals come at a critical moment: The sexually transmitted infection is growing harder to treat, and cases continue to climb nationwide.
Eureka! Scientists develop new way to detect breakthroughs in science
The history of science and technology is marked by major breakthroughs — the theory of evolution, the splitting of the atom, the development of antibiotics — and a research team including faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York, has developed a method to help pinpoint discoveries that reshaped the course of science. A study publishing in Science Advances on April 1 maps the landscape of innovation to identify disruptive studies and patents that challenge existing paradigms and inspire waves of follow-up research. The measure was developed by a team including Sadamori Kojaku, assistant professor of systems science and industrial engineering at Binghamton University, along with his colleagues Munjung Kim and Yong-Yeol Ahn at the University of Virginia.
The health of Norway's King Harald deteriorates over the weekend
King Harald of Norway's health has deteriorated, according to the royal palace. The 89-year-old monarch was admitted to the National Hospital a week ago and is receiving antibiotics for a bacterial blood infection.
Slashing sugar intake before antibiotics may save your microbiome
Antibiotics can reduce the diversity of microbes in your gut microbiome and lead to health problems, but a study in people with cancer has identified a potential solution
Microalgae could make a common antibiotic more effective
Scientists have turned microalgae into an unlikely drug-delivery vehicle, using it to boost the effectiveness of a common antibiotic.
Plague is stoppable. The next health threat may not be.
The word plague is scary. Centuries ago, the Black Death killed tens of millions of people and changed the course of history. Plague still kills people around the world, and the word still evokes catastrophe. New fears of plague surfaced on October 2, when a lab worker in Irkutsk, Russia, died of pneumonia. Reports suggested that she may have contracted plague through a laboratory exposure. Understandably, people were alarmed. On October 7, the World Health Organization called for the Russian Federation to be transparent about what it knew. WHO issued an update on October 10. Russian authorities told WHO that testing did not identify plague and that investigations found no laboratory release. WHO said confidence in its risk assessment remained limited and that further clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory information was needed. The cause of the woman’s illness remains unknown, and WHO says a laboratory-associated exposure cannot be excluded. As I explained in a recent interview, this incident is very unlikely to lead to a pandemic. Plague is still active, including in the U.S., which sees a handful of cases each year. But it is a disease we can prevent and treat. Plague doesn’t spread readily, and it responds to antibiotics. The standard response—isolate the patient, trace contacts, and administer antibiotics and monitor for symptoms among contacts for seven days—works. We have even planned for antibiotic-resistant plague. At CDC, we developed a playbook for antibiotic-resistant plague and ran exercises on how to find and stop it. CDC guidance anticipates engineered resistance and recommends two different classes of antibiotics if there’s reason to suspect it. There is no evidence that resistance—or even confirmed plague—is involved in this incident. We have thought through how to address plague, but we’re not ready for the next major health threat that emerges from a lab or from animal spillover to humans. What should concern people is how little stands between the world and the next pathogen to get loose. Since peak COVID, epidemic preparedness has fallen off the political agenda, but the risk is greater than ever. More labs handle dangerous pathogens with more ways to make those pathogens deadlier, and more people live and work in close contact with animals. There are actions we can take now: We need better lab safety in every country. The number of labs that work with dangerous pathogens has increased worldwide over two decades, but there’s no enforceable international standard and no inspection regime; the Biological Weapons Convention, fifty years on, still has no verification mechanism. Labs that study dangerous germs need strong safety systems, training, and oversight. We need to reduce spillover events. Three in four emerging human infections start in animals, and there’s a lot we can do to reduce spillover risk, but the world is doing very little of it. Live-animal markets are one place to act. For instance, closing live-bird markets helped control H7N9 influenza in China. Reducing opportunities for people to encounter infected animals can prevent infections before they become outbreaks. In The Formula for Better Health, which is now out in paperback along with the hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook versions, I argue that labs do too many risky experiments with too many dangerous pathogens in too many institutions, and that every experiment should first answer one basic question: Is the likely benefit greater than the risk? Spillover risk can also be reduced: In the book, I discuss how Brazil cut its deforestation rate by 70% from 2004 to 2012 while increasing agricultural production and reducing risky contact between people and forest animals. We need faster detection and response. Delay costs lives. Strong surveillance, good labs, and trained responders can turn a single case into a small cluster of infections instead of an epidemic. Resolve to Save Lives has worked for nearly a decade to help countries find and stop outbreaks faster. The 7-1-7 target, which Resolve to Save Lives developed with partners in Uganda and elsewhere, provides a clear standard: detect within 7 days, notify within 1 day and complete all essential early response actions within 7 days. In Uganda’s Kasese district, for example, a review of a measles outbreak using 7-1-7 identified shortages of accessible funds, fuel, and vehicles that delayed the response. District leaders established funds they could access quickly. When, a few months later, the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever appeared, the district detected it in three days, notified authorities in one, and mounted an effective response in two. Only one case was confirmed, and the patient survived. Because funds were available before the emergency, authorities were prepared and able to act. This kind of preparation can’t wait until the next crisis begins. Plague is an old disease we that know how to stop. The next threat may be harder to recognize, harder to treat, and easier to spread. Safer labs, less risk of spillover, and faster outbreak detection and response need sustained investment now, while we still have time to prevent the next emergency. Share
No essential supplies in truce: Gaza’s healthcare system broken by Israel
Israel is not allowing antibiotics, IV solutions or surgical material to enter besieged Gaza despite 2-month ceasefire.
A new way to detect breakthroughs in science: Large-scale analysis reveals 'disruptive' innovations in research history
The history of science and technology is marked by major breakthroughs—the theory of evolution, the splitting of the atom, the development of antibiotics—and a research team including faculty at Binghamton ...
Prof Elizabeth Streicher unravels the science behind drug-resistant TB
Prof Elizabeth Streicher of the Division of Molecular Biology and Human Genetics delivered her inaugural lecture on Tuesday 1 September 2026. Her research focuses on the transmission and spread of Tuberculosis (TB). Knowing where TB transmission is happening can help to stop it from spreading. Prof Elizabeth Streicher of the Division of Molecular Biology and Human Genetics in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences delivered her inaugural lecture on Tuesday 1 September 2026. The title of her lecture was Decoding tuberculosis: the evolution of technology, epidemiology and the Mycobacterium tuberculosis genome. Streicher explained to Corporate Communication and Marketing how molecular epidemiology (using genetic information to track how and why diseases spread through populations) has improved our understanding of where drug-resistant TB comes from, how it spreads and how drug resistance evolves within and between populations. Tell us more about your research and why you became interested in this specific field. Overall, our research group studies the genome (complete set of DNA instructions found in a cell) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacteria that cause tuberculosis (TB) disease. Various regions of the genome are interrogated to study different aspects of the disease. My main focus has been on the epidemiology of tuberculosis – how the bacteria’s genome changes over time and what this tells us about the transmission and spread of the disease. How would you describe the relevance of your work? If we understand how the bacteria that cause TB change and spread, it can assist in combating TB globally. How has molecular epidemiology helped improve our understanding of drug-resistant TB? Molecular epidemiology was very important in drug-resistant TB as it was originally believed that bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics would be less fit and not be able to transmit. But it was shown that they can transmit, and therefore have to be monitored to identify hotspots of transmission and outbreaks, etc. Can you tell us briefly about the spoligotyping technique and its advantages for studying drug-resistant TB? Spoligotyping (a molecular technique used to identify and track specific strains of TB bacteria) does not detect drug resistance, but since the technique is relatively quick to do, it can be very useful in real-time situations, e.g. to monitor outbreaks of drug resistance. Why are interrupting transmission chains and identifying genomic hotspots important for controlling the spread of TB? Knowing where TB transmission is happening can assist in allocating resources to those areas to stop future transmission and spread of TB. Higher education can be challenging. What keeps you motivated when things get tough? Students – how they are so passionate and dedicated to learning and contributing to research and society as a whole. What aspects of your work do you enjoy the most? Again, the students and colleagues! But also the fact that it is continuously changing and thereby we are learning and expanding our knowledge. In the end, I know that we contribute to a better society in our small way. Tell us something exciting about yourself that people would not expect. Even though I love hiking (day and multi-day hikes) and being outside, I really do not like camping! How do you spend your free time? I love hiking (wellbeing in nature) and like to watch most sports. ©Higher Education Media Services. Subscribe
New Guide Aims to Improve UTI Care as Telehealth Use Grows
By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterSUNDAY, Feb. 1, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Urinary tract infections, or UTIs, send millions of Americans to urgent care every year. But today, many people no longer see a doctor in person. Instead, they message their clinic, use video visits or fill out online forms to get antibiotics, sometimes ...
Lyme Primer: How the New HHS Strategy Stacks Up To Science
Experts support targeting ticks but caution against the long-term use of antibiotics.
Scientists infected a 'vagina on a chip' with gonorrhea — then cured it with a new antibiotic found by AI
To sift through 6 million molecules in pursuit of new gonorrhea treatments, researchers trained AI to select the best drug candidate and then tested it in a "vagina on a chip."
Scientists discover why some wounds refuse to heal
Scientists have uncovered a surprising reason why some chronic wounds refuse to heal, even when treated with antibiotics. A common bacterium found in long-lasting wounds does not just resist drugs. It actively releases damaging molecules that overwhelm skin cells and stop them from repairing tissue. Researchers discovered that neutralizing these harmful molecules with antioxidants allows skin cells to recover and restart healing.
Breakthrough CRISPR system could reverse antibiotic resistance crisis
Antibiotic resistance is racing toward a global crisis, with “superbugs” projected to cause over 10 million deaths annually by 2050. Now, scientists at UC San Diego have unveiled a powerful new CRISPR-based tool that doesn’t just fight resistant bacteria—it can actively strip away their drug resistance. Inspired by gene drives used in insects, the technology spreads a genetic “fix” through bacterial populations, even inside stubborn biofilms that shield microbes from antibiotics.
Policy mitigation, human drivers and health risks of antibiotics in global aquatic environments
Communications Earth & Environment - Antibiotic contamination in global aquatic environment exhibits significant regional disparities with low-and-middle income countries experiencing higher...
Resistance movement: how a play about penicillin brought the arts, science and politics together
Championed by a former chief medical officer, Lifeline is both a musical following Alexander Fleming’s discovery of the first antibiotic and a warning about the threat of superbugs in the present day