A baby has sadly died from whooping cough, also called pertussis. This is the first death from the illness in the UK this year. The baby's mother was not vaccinated during her pregnancy, which shows how important it is for a mother to get the vaccine to protect her new baby.

Whooping cough is a serious infection that causes severe, non-stop coughing fits. It's very dangerous for babies who are too young to have been vaccinated themselves. According to Gov UK, since 2013 to end of March 2025 32 infant deaths were reported, this case makes the toll of 33 babies who have died from whooping cough in the UK, and in 27 of those cases, the mother had not been vaccinated. The recent death, which happened between January and June 2025, is a powerful reminder of how deadly whooping cough can be for the youngest members of society.

What Is Whooping Cough?

Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a sickness that makes you cough a lot. It's caused by a type of germ called bacteria. The name "whooping cough" comes from the "whoop" sound you might make when you try to breathe in after a bad coughing fit. It's very easy to catch and can make anyone sick, but it's especially dangerous for babies who are too young to have been vaccinated. About half of all babies under one year old who get whooping cough need to go to the hospital.

How Does Whooping Cough Spread?

The germs that cause whooping cough spread from person to person when someone coughs, sneezes, or breathes close to another person. You can also sometimes get it by touching something with the germs on it and then touching your mouth or nose. Once you start coughing, you can spread the sickness to others for about two weeks. Taking medicine called antibiotics can help you stop being contagious sooner.

Also Read: Blood Thinner Shows Stronger Protection Against Heart Problems Than Standard Drug

Have UK Vaccination Rates Gone Down?

Health officials are very worried about fewer people getting vaccinated, a problem they believe grew after the COVID-19 pandemic. Data shows that none of the main childhood vaccines in England reached the recommended 95% vaccination goal last year. This goal is key for herd immunity, a situation where enough people are vaccinated that a disease can't spread easily, protecting those who can't get a vaccine.

For example, only 72.6% of pregnant women are currently vaccinated against whooping cough. Experts say that getting vaccinated during pregnancy is the best way to give newborns protection during their first few weeks of life, before they can get their own shot at eight weeks old.

Does Whooping Cough Pose A Public Health Threat?

The death from whooping cough is part of a bigger problem: low vaccination rates are allowing diseases that were once controlled to come back. The effects are already being seen with other illnesses. Because fewer children got the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine, there was a big increase in measles cases earlier this year, and one child died.

The number of five-year-olds who have received the MMR vaccine is the lowest it's been in over ten years. To fight this trend, the government is taking action. Starting in January 2026, a free chickenpox vaccine will be offered to all young children. The government also plans to start new campaigns to tell people about the safety and benefits of vaccines and to fight against false information.

What is The Best Way To Prevent Whooping Cough?

According to the MedlinePlus The best way to stop whooping cough is with a vaccine. In the U.S., there are two vaccines, DTaP and Tdap, that protect against it. It's also smart to keep babies and others who are at high risk away from anyone who is sick. You can also help prevent the spread of this sickness by:

• Washing your hands often.
• Not touching your face with unwashed hands.
• Cleaning and wiping down surfaces you touch a lot.
• Covering your coughs and sneezes with a tissue or your sleeve.
• Staying home when you are sick.

In the aftermath of the recent Minneapolis school shooting that left two children dead and 18 others injured, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested antidepressants may be partly to blame. Speaking on Fox & Friends, Kennedy linked selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) a common class of antidepressants to the shooter’s violence, even though authorities have not confirmed whether the assailant was taking any psychiatric medications.

Kennedy announced that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is launching new studies on psychiatric drugs and their potential connection to violent behavior. He emphasized so-called “black box warnings” that accompany certain medications, which note risks of suicidal thoughts, though not homicidal ideation.

His comments immediately sparked backlash among mental health experts, who argue that such claims are misleading, stigmatizing, and unsupported by evidence.

SSRIs—short for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—are among the most widely prescribed antidepressants in the world. They include familiar names such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and citalopram (Celexa). More than 1 in 10 Americans take them, most often for depression, anxiety, or related mood disorders.

The drugs work by increasing serotonin, a neurotransmitter that plays a role in mood regulation, emotional processing, and impulse control. By preventing serotonin from being reabsorbed too quickly, SSRIs maintain higher levels of the chemical in the brain, which can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety for many patients.

Like any medication, SSRIs come with side effects—such as nausea, sexual dysfunction, and insomnia—but they are generally considered safe and effective when prescribed appropriately.

Do SSRIs Increase the Risk of Violence?

The scientific debate around SSRIs and violence has persisted since Prozac first entered the U.S. market in 1988. Critics point to anecdotal reports of individuals committing violent acts while taking antidepressants. Advocates highlight the life-saving benefits for millions of people struggling with mental illness.

A 2015 study in PLOS Medicine added fuel to the controversy. Researchers from Karolinska Institutet and Oxford University analyzed data from 850,000 Swedes prescribed SSRIs between 2006 and 2009. They found that adolescents and young adults (ages 15–24) had a slightly higher risk of violent crime convictions while on SSRIs compared to when they were not taking the drugs. However, the same pattern was not seen in older adults.

Crucially, the authors emphasized that the findings did not prove causation. Other factors—such as the severity of underlying mental illness, substance use, or socioeconomic stress—could explain the association.

What is The Complex Relationship Between Serotonin and Aggression?

At the neurobiological level, serotonin is thought to regulate aggression, impulse control, and emotional expression. Preclinical studies in animals suggest serotonin dysfunction may increase aggression, while boosting serotonin activity can reduce violent behaviors.

Yet, human studies have painted a more complicated picture. Some evidence suggests SSRIs reduce aggression by stabilizing mood and improving impulse control. Others have linked the drugs to irritability or agitation in a small subset of patients, particularly young people in the early weeks of treatment.

Experts note that aggression, irritability, and “anger attacks” are not the same as premeditated violence or mass shootings. Most people taking SSRIs experience symptom relief not violent behavior.

The Risk of Oversimplification

Mental health professionals caution against attributing mass shootings to antidepressants without evidence. The vast majority of SSRI users do not become violent. In fact, untreated depression and other mood disorders are more strongly associated with suicide and, in rare cases, violence, than the medications designed to treat them.

“Blaming SSRIs risks pushing people away from effective treatment,” psychiatrists argue. “The bigger issue in the U.S. is access to mental health care, combined with easy access to firearms—not antidepressants.”

It’s also important to note that countries where SSRIs are prescribed widely, such as Sweden, Japan, and the United Kingdom, do not experience mass shootings on the scale seen in the United States.

Politics, Stigma, and the Public Narrative

Kennedy’s comments fall into a larger cultural debate over psychiatric drugs, medical freedom, and the root causes of mass violence. Linking SSRIs to school shootings can resonate with a public that is often skeptical of pharmaceutical companies and searching for simple explanations for horrific events.

But experts warn that such claims risk stigmatizing people with mental illness, many of whom rely on antidepressants to function in daily life. Stigma may discourage people from seeking help, leading to more untreated mental health conditions—the very scenario that can increase risks of self-harm or harm to others.

The Minneapolis Shooting

In the case of the Minneapolis assailant, identified as Robin Westman, there is no evidence yet that SSRIs played any role. Court documents show a history of depression and troubling behavior, including admiration for mass murderers. Westman turned the gun on himself after the attack.

Mental health struggles, social isolation, extremist ideologies, and access to firearms appear to be more relevant factors in this tragedy than unproven medication links.

While there is ongoing research into SSRIs and their rare side effects, the consensus in psychiatry is clear: SSRIs are not a driving factor in mass shootings. The risk of violence remains extremely low, and the benefits of treating depression and anxiety far outweigh potential harms for most patients.

Future studies may shed more light on vulnerable subgroups—such as adolescents beginning treatment—but these questions require careful, evidence-based investigation, not speculation in the wake of tragedy.

The Minneapolis shooting has reignited debates over antidepressants, violence, and public safety. While RFK Jr.’s claims highlight public concern, the science does not support blaming SSRIs for mass shootings.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The connection between antidepressants and violent behavior remains a subject of ongoing research, and no definitive conclusions should be drawn from individual cases. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional before starting, changing, or discontinuing any medication.

If you are struggling with your mental health: Please reach out to a qualified professional. In the U.S., you can dial 988 for the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline to get immediate support. You are not alone.

The Texas House of Representatives has passed House Bill 25, permitting the over-the-counter sale of ivermectin, a medication that has been used for decades to treat parasitic illnesses. The bill passed Wednesday after almost three hours of discussion, on an 87-47 vote and one member who was present but not voting. If the bill passes the Senate, Texans would be able to buy ivermectin from pharmacists directly, as with other drugs such as Sudafed.

Ivermectin, which was first discovered in the 1970s by Japanese microbiologist Satoshi Ōmura, has been a reliable cure for parasitic diseases like river blindness, scabies, lice, and strongyloidiasis. Its impact on global health earned Ōmura and collaborator William Campbell the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The medication targets parasites by paralyzing and destroying them and disrupting their nerve and muscle functions.

Despite its long-standing medical credibility, ivermectin became a contentious topic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early laboratory studies suggested antiviral activity, prompting some to tout it as a COVID-19 treatment. Subsequent research, however, failed to show meaningful benefits for patients, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly emphasized that ivermectin is not authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. The FDA warns that abuse, especially with the veterinary form, can result in serious side effects such as seizures and coma.

Rep. Joanne Shofner, a Nacogdoches Republican, wrote the bill, which has been identified as a priority for Governor Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dustin Burrows during the Legislature's second special session. Texas would join Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Tennessee as the fifth state to allow the sale of ivermectin without a prescription. Supporters point to "medical freedom" as a driving factor, saying patients deserve the ability to use treatments they think can help them, especially when vaccines or conventional therapy are rejected or considered inadequate.

The passage of the bill is part of a larger movement of alternative medicine activists, fueled by social media sites that have promoted ivermectin for a host of off-label applications, from COVID-19 to cancer care.

Why Is Ivermectin So Popular?

Though the FDA-approved applications of ivermectin still only include parasitic diseases, it persists in showing up in alternative medicine forums. It turned into an icon of skepticism surrounding traditional medicine in the time of the pandemic, spurring demand long after vaccines had been found. In the present day, ivermectin is being researched for use in cancer, though evidence is currently narrow and inconclusive.

During the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, preliminary trials testing ivermectin combined with immunotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer were inconclusive: six of eight patients had disease progression, one showed partial response, and one had stable disease. Oncologists warn that promising laboratory results do not yet constitute clinican evidence for ivermectin in fighting cancer.

What Are The Safety and Regulatory Concerns of Ivermectin Drug?

The FDA emphasizes that ivermectin is safe when taken as prescribed for parasitic diseases, but inappropriately or in error, it can be hazardous. Veterinary products, usually in greatly higher concentrations, are quite hazardous to humans. Opponents caution that the sale of ivermectin over the counter may lead to self-medication, with resulting adverse events.

Further, public health practitioners observe that although OTC access would be attractive to individuals who desire control of medical choices, it would complicate pharmacist counseling and regulatory control. Patients would not necessarily know proper dosing, interactions with other drugs, or the hazard of off-label use.

The Texas debate brings attention to persistent tensions between patient autonomy and medical authority. Supporters of OTC access posit that adults must be capable of making intelligent decisions, pointing to past safety in parasitic disease treatment. Opponents suggest wider availability would worsen misinformation about COVID-19 and cancer claims.

Social media has raised the level of interest in ivermectin, frequently citing cherry-picked studies or anecdotal experience as proof of efficacy. This pattern reflects a larger challenge for public health: the tension between patient autonomy and evidence-based recommendations.

House Bill 25 now heads to the Texas Senate, where it will be determined. If passed, Texans could soon have simpler access to a drug with a complicated past adulated for its Nobel Prize-winning use as an anti-parasitic but contested for its unproven uses in viral infections and cancer.

Experts note that although ivermectin does have valid medical applications, it is not a panacea. Those looking to use it for off-label purposes should see qualified healthcare professionals in an effort to reduce risk.

Texas' possible shift towards over-the-counter sales of ivermectin points to a wider cultural and medical discussion: the interplay of individual choice, scientific evidence, and public safety. As ivermectin is an important agent against parasitic disease, its greater availability sparks concerns about prudent use, public health education, and the place of evidence in shaping medical practice.

This battle is hardly over, but Texans and Americans generally are paying close attention as politicians work out the balance between independence, control, and science.

A rare fungus, deep in the Taiwanese forests, quietly harbors a secret that could soon revolutionize the way the medical community fights and treats cancer. Antrodia cinnamomea, or Taiwanofungus camphoratus, has been a part of traditional herbal medicine for centuries, valued for its medicinal properties. But modern research has uncovered something incredible: a particular sugar molecule found in this fungus can actually target and destroy cancerous cells.

Antrodia cinnamomea is highly unique, growing exclusively on a single species of endangered tree in Taiwan. Its scarcity in the wild makes it a rare find, yet its medicinal reputation has persisted for centuries. Traditionally used to boost immunity and improve liver health, the fungus is now under the scientific spotlight for its anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties.

National Taiwan University and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University researchers looked at a series of chemicals that the fungus produces, which are sulfate polysaccharides (SPS). The sugar molecules, also referred to as sulfated galactoglucans, bring glucose, galactose, and sulfate together into one complex molecule. SPS have been associated with anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer activities, but the mechanism had remained unclear until now.

Nature's Secret Against Cancer

For deeper study of these molecules, researchers grew A. cinnamomea in the lab, avoiding the necessity to extract it from the threatened trees. This made it possible to have controlled cultivation and extraction of SPS compounds as needed. The researchers designed technology to induce the fungus to accumulate higher levels of SPS, which can then be analyzed in detail for its bioactive content.

Among the compounds discovered, one of them stood out in particular—labeled N50 F2. In cell experiments, N50 F2 diminished inflammation markers while specifically suppressing lung cancer cells. The combined effect—both anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer—indicates that the fungus acts on more than one biological pathway and thus could be an attractive candidate for future treatments.

How Does This Impact and Improve Cancer Treatment?

Though these findings are so far limited to in vitro experiments (lab-grown cells), the implications are considerable. Inflammation has been identified as a factor in cancer development, so drugs that blunt inflammation while specifically killing cancer cells could be the foundation for extremely potent treatments.

This research demonstrates that A. cinnamomea SPS possesses intense anti-inflammatory activity and suppresses cancer cells in vitro," the scientists said in their article published in Carbohydrate Polymers.

The find serves to highlight the potential of researching natural compounds to combat cancer. Nature already harbors a number of substances employed in current oncology—ranging from plant-derived paclitaxel to components of scorpion venom. A. cinnamomea is part of an increasingly long list of organisms with possible breakthroughs, either by killing off cancer cells directly, stopping them from spreading, or making current therapies more effective.

Despite its promise, turning this discovery into a usable treatment will require extensive research. The step from lab-grown cells to clinical application is substantial. Safety, dosage, and efficacy in humans must all be rigorously tested.

However, the researchers are optimistic. “With a fully controlled production and extraction process, we are optimistic about future applications in both health supplements and clinical treatments,” says Chia-Chuan Chang, pharmaceutical scientist at National Taiwan University.

Lab cultivation in a controlled manner also enables the fungus to be grown sustainably, overcoming the ethical issue of harvesting it from vulnerable trees. This implies that even therapies developed in the future might easily be scaled without harming the unusual natural environments in which A. cinnamomea naturally occurs.

What Is The Importance of Natural Compounds in Cancer Treatment?

The identification of N50 F2 is illustrative of a trend in medical science more broadly: turning to nature to find answers that cannot be derived through synthetic chemistry. From around the world, scientists are scrounging fungi, plants, ocean creatures, and even tardigrades for compounds that can combat cancer. From examining these natural chemicals, researchers hope to develop treatments that are better targeted, with fewer side effects than conventional chemotherapy.

Antrodia cinnamomea's SPS compounds are noteworthy as they target both tumor growth and inflammation at the same time. Inflammation is a chronic feature of several cancers, such as lung, liver, and colon cancers. Targeting this pathway, N50 F2 could provide a multipronged strategy for disease control.

The journey from laboratory discovery to a clinically approved treatment is long, but this achievement is a crucial first step. Scientists have now a clear target: SPS molecules such as N50 F2. The future will include studies on animals, tests for toxicity, and ultimately, clinical trials in humans.

This study proves the potential of natural fungal compounds as a pharmaceutical," says Chang. "With further research, these compounds may someday be a major weapon against cancer.