A new study led by the World Health Organization (WHO) has cautioned against the further health risks of alcohol. The latest data from WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) indicate that drinking alcohol—particularly beer and spirits—has now been convincingly implicated with a heightened risk of pancreatic cancer, independent of smoking history or sex.

This new research, based on a global cohort of nearly 2.5 million participants on four continents, is one of the largest of its type. It highlights a small but important link between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer—a particularly deadly cancer that is usually diagnosed too late to treat successfully.

Also Read: Japan Races To Develop World’s First Artificial Blood, Trials To Begin

Although alcohol is a confirmed carcinogen, its association with pancreatic cancer has long been a grey area, shrouded in controversy due to conflicting evidence and confounding by the role of tobacco smoking. The IARC study provides firmer evidence.

"Drinking alcohol is a recognized carcinogen, but up until now, evidence supporting the association with pancreatic cancer has been labeled as inconclusive," noted study senior author Pietro Ferrari, Head of the Nutrition and Metabolism Branch at WHO-IARC.

Drawing from pooled data from Asian, Australian, European, and North American epidemiological cohorts, the research sets up alcohol as an independent risk factor—a finding of significant significance, particularly for non-smokers who have unwittingly downplayed the effects of moderate to heavy drinking in the past.

Also Read: CDC No Longer Recommends COVID Vaccine For Kids And Pregnant Women - What Do Experts Think?

Does Risk Increases with Alcohol Quantity?

The research revealed a dose-response relationship: the more alcohol consumed, the higher the risk. Each additional 10 grams of alcohol per day—the equivalent of a small glass of wine or half a pint of beer—was associated with a 3% increase in pancreatic cancer risk.

In women, 15 to 30 grams per day (about one to two standard drinks) was associated with a 12% increased risk compared with light drinkers. In men, 30 to 60 grams per day (two to four drinks) was associated with a 15% increase in risk, and those who drank greater than 60 grams per day had a 36% increase in risk.

These numbers are especially worrisome considering that studies even on moderate drinking—popular and socially accepted, by the way—are calculable in damage.

One of the research's most significant revelations is that the alcohol-pancreatic cancer connection holds true even among non-smokers. This is an elimination of a generation-long hypothesis that tobacco was perhaps the major offender in past research.

Also Read: Female Cancer Crisis On An Increase, Climate Change Could Be Responsible

"Examination of our data revealed that the link exists even among non-smokers, and that alcohol in itself is an independent risk factor," Ferrari said.

The message is obvious: even smokers who don't smoke, but drink alcohol daily, are at increased risk of one of the most lethal cancers.

Why Pancreatic Cancer Is So Dangerous?

Pancreatic cancer accounts for about 3% of all cancers in the U.S. but is responsible for 7% of all cancer deaths, according to the American Cancer Society. This disproportionate fatality rate is largely due to its late detection.

The pancreas, a gland tucked behind the stomach, plays a vital role in digestion and blood sugar regulation. Unfortunately, its deep anatomical location often allows tumors to grow silently.

By the time symptoms such as jaundice, weight loss, or abdominal pain become apparent, the disease is usually in its advanced stages, with patients having few options for treatment and a poor prognosis.

Risk Factors of Pancreatic Cancer

Alcohol use is not the only risk factor for pancreatic cancer. Researchers and clinicians have long been aware of several other biological, lifestyle, and environmental risk factors, which include:

Smoking

Smoking also doubles the risk of cancer of the pancreas. Tobacco is one of the most common and preventable risk factors in the world despite campaign efforts on public health.

Chronic Pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis, frequently caused by years of heavy alcohol consumption or by gallstones, can develop into a pre-cancerous process. Inflammatory cells produce growth factors and toxins that cause DNA damage, which may eventually induce malignant transformation.

Family History and Genetic Predisposition

Even though the majority of pancreatic cancer patients lack a family history, genetic predisposition is a factor. Gene mutations such as BRCA2 and PALB2 are increasingly being researched for their contribution to pancreatic cancer risk.

Age, Gender, and Ethnicity

Age: The majority of pancreatic cancers are diagnosed between 60 to 80 years of age.

Gender: Men are more likely to be affected compared to women.

Race: Incidence among African Americans is greater than among whites, Asians, or Hispanics.

Diabetes and Diet

Type 2 diabetics are also at a somewhat higher risk. Furthermore, diets high in processed foods and sugary drinks may be linked to cancer risk, although more studies are required for final conclusions.

In spite of the strength of the WHO-IARC study, scientists emphasize the necessity for further studies to investigate other nuances—namely patterns of lifetime alcohol use, binge drinking, and exposure to alcohol in early life.

Recognizing how long-term patterns of behavior affect cancer development could guide more successful public health interventions and early detection.

Pancreatic Cancer Symptoms

Pancreatic cancer signs and symptoms are often vague and non-specific, so early diagnosis can be difficult. Some of the most important ones to be aware of are:

• Upper abdominal pain that could radiate to the back
• Weight loss that is unexplained
• Jaundice (yellowish skin and eyes)
• Floating or pale stools
• Dark-colored urine
• Diabetes that develops suddenly
• Weakness and fatigue

Anyone who has these symptoms on a regular basis should see a healthcare provider right away. Early diagnosis, while uncommon, dramatically enhances treatment success.

Public health institutions would in turn need to reassess alcohol consumption recommendations, particularly those that have earlier defined "moderate drinking" as risk-free.

While alcohol is inextricably tied to much social and cultural activity across the globe, the increasing evidence of its carcinogenicity—now adding pancreatic cancer to the list—requires a more conservative narrative.

The WHO-conducted research brings strong evidence that alcohol is not only a liver-destroying substance; it's also a powerful causative factor in one of the deadliest forms of cancer, even among individuals who have never smoked.

Mitochondrial Disease: In a groundbreaking development in reproductive medicine, researchers in the U.K. announced that eight healthy babies have been born using an experimental technique involving DNA from three people.

The method was developed to help prevent mothers from passing on devastating mitochondrial diseases to their children — conditions that can lead to seizures, muscle weakness, organ failure, developmental delays, and even death.

This scientific milestone was detailed in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

Experts from Newcastle University in the U.K. and Monash University in Australia conducted the procedures, which used a technique known as mitochondrial donation treatment. The technique replaces faulty mitochondria, which are the tiny energy-producing structures in cells, with healthy ones from a donor.

What Is Mitochondrial DNA?

While most of our DNA is stored in the nucleus of our cells and inherited equally from both parents, a small but vital portion resides in the mitochondria and comes solely from the mother. Mutations in this mitochondrial DNA can lead to serious, and often fatal, genetic disorders in children.

During the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, it is sometimes possible to detect these mutations early. However, in rare cases, such mutations go undetected — which is where mitochondrial donation becomes important.

In this method, scientists transfer the nuclear DNA from the mother's egg or embryo into a donor egg or embryo that contains healthy mitochondria but has had its own nuclear DNA removed. The resulting embryo contains nuclear DNA from the parents and mitochondrial DNA from a donor — essentially, the genetic input of three people.

A Scientific First Made Possible by Law

The U.K. became the first country in the world to legalize mitochondrial donation for clinical use in 2016, after years of ethical and scientific debates. Australia has also approved its use. However, the U.S. still prohibits any clinical research involving genetic modification of human embryos that could be inherited.

“This marks an important milestone,” said Dr. Zev Williams, director of the Columbia University Fertility Center in New York, who was not involved in the study. “Expanding the range of reproductive options will empower more couples to pursue safe and healthy pregnancies.”

As of now, 35 couples have been approved by the U.K.’s fertility regulator to undergo the procedure. Of the 22 patients treated in the reported study, eight babies have been born, and one more woman is still pregnant. Most of the children appear to be free of mitochondrial disease, though one child was found to have a slightly higher-than-expected level of abnormal mitochondria. Experts say this level is not currently cause for concern but will require monitoring.

A Tiny Donor Footprint

Despite the involvement of a third person, scientists emphasize that the genetic material from the donor is minimal. Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell expert at the Francis Crick Institute, noted that the donor’s mitochondrial DNA makes up less than 1% of the baby’s total genetic makeup — not enough to influence personal traits like appearance or personality.

“In fact, if you had a bone marrow transplant, you would carry much more of another person’s DNA,” he explained.

Hope for Families, But Questions Remain

The technology remains controversial in some circles. Critics warn that the long-term effects of such genetic manipulation are still unknown and could have unintended consequences for future generations. In the U.S., Congress has repeatedly blocked any government funding or approval of similar research.

Still, for many families, the promise of avoiding a life-threatening diagnosis is worth the risk.

Liz Curtis, whose daughter Lily died of mitochondrial disease in 2006 at just eight months old, now advocates for awareness and research. She founded the Lily Foundation in her daughter's memory and supports the work being done at Newcastle University.

Curtis said the diagnosis devastated her family. “Nobody could tell us what it was or how it would affect Lily. It was just a waiting game,” she recalled. “This new technique gives hope to families who’ve had very little of it.”

As science and ethics continue to evolve, the three-parent baby technique stands as a powerful, if complex, step forward in preventing inherited genetic illness.

Parkinson’s disease is notoriously difficult to diagnose early. Most patients aren’t identified until visible motor symptoms—tremors, stiffness, and slowness—are already affecting their lives. By that point, neurodegeneration has usually been ongoing for years. But a new study out of the UK could be a game-changer: specially trained dogs have proven they can detect Parkinson’s disease with remarkable accuracy—just by sniffing skin swabs.

In controlled clinical trials, two dogs achieved sensitivities between 70–80% and specificities exceeding 90% in detecting Parkinson’s disease from the scent of sebum, an oily substance secreted by the skin. That’s not just impressive—it rivals many of today’s most advanced diagnostic tools.

Does Parkinson’s Has a Scent?

What exactly are dogs smelling? Turns out, Parkinson’s isn’t just a neurological disease. It also affects how the body metabolizes and produces oils on the skin. These changes lead to a unique profile of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—essentially odor molecules—that trained dogs can detect.

The research builds on previous anecdotal reports, including that of Joy Milne, a Scottish woman who famously detected a musky scent from her husband years before he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Scientists later confirmed that this scent wasn’t imaginary—it was chemically real. Dogs, with their 10,000x more sensitive noses, just happen to be better equipped than humans at picking it up.

How The Dogs Were Trained?

Researchers at the Universities of Bristol and Manchester collaborated with Medical Detection Dogs, a UK-based charity, to test whether Parkinson’s has a detectable odor signature. They began with 10 dogs and narrowed it down to two standouts: a male Golden Retriever and a Labrador-Golden mix.

Over the course of 38 to 53 weeks, these dogs were trained using 205 cotton swab samples collected from patients' backs—some with Parkinson’s, others without. Dogs were rewarded when they correctly identified samples from individuals with the disease. Importantly, the study was double-blind: neither the trainers nor the researchers knew which swabs were which during testing, ensuring unbiased results.

When the final test arrived—100 brand-new samples the dogs had never sniffed before—the animals performed exceptionally well. One dog hit 70% sensitivity and 90% specificity, while the other clocked in at 80% sensitivity and an astounding 98% specificity.

For context, that level of performance is on par with several existing diagnostic tests and better than previous scent-based trials involving cancers or infections.

Currently, there’s no blood test or brain scan that definitively diagnoses Parkinson’s early. Clinicians rely on watching for physical symptoms, which means by the time you’re diagnosed, significant damage may have already occurred.

Detection dogs could change that. By identifying Parkinson’s via skin swabs—before symptoms show up—these animals could help start the treatment process earlier, potentially slowing disease progression or improving long-term outcomes.

It’s especially meaningful in rural or underserved areas, where neurologists and movement disorder specialists are harder to access. A non-invasive, rapid screening tool—even if it’s a dog—could fill critical gaps.

Parkinson’s patients often develop seborrheic dermatitis, a condition that increases the production of sebum. In those with Parkinson’s, this sebum is chemically different. Dogs can detect those changes.

This builds on previous studies which have shown that diseases like cancer, malaria, and even COVID-19 can subtly change the body’s scent signature. The nose—particularly a canine one—may be among the most overlooked diagnostic tools in medicine.

And while dogs won’t be showing up in every clinic just yet, the data they provide is already helping researchers design electronic noses—devices that mimic canine olfaction and can detect VOCs in human sweat, sebum, or breath.

Are There Any Limitations Of This Kind Of Detection?

Of course, the idea of using dogs as diagnostic tools has its limits. Training a single dog takes nearly a year and is resource-intensive. Only a small number of dogs are temperamentally suited to this kind of highly focused scent work. And the study still doesn’t explain why some Parkinson’s patients’ samples were easier for dogs to detect than others.

Researchers also emphasize that dogs would not replace neurologists—but they could be used as a pre-screening tool, flagging individuals who should undergo further clinical evaluation.

The dogs in this study worked only with drug-naive patients—those who hadn’t yet started medications—meaning the scent signature they detected wasn’t masked or altered by pharmaceutical treatment. Future research may explore whether medication changes a patient’s odor profile or affects detection accuracy.

How Will This Change the Future of Parkinson’s Diagnosis?

Quite possibly, if scientists can isolate the exact VOCs that signal Parkinson’s—and replicate what dogs detect with sensors or lab tests—we could one day have a rapid, affordable, and non-invasive way to diagnose the disease long before traditional symptoms show up.

That would mark a sea change in Parkinson’s treatment strategy: from managing symptoms to preemptively addressing the disease at its earliest, most treatable stage.

Until then, we may just need to trust our four-legged friends to lead the way—nose first.

Dogs are proving to be more than just loyal companions—they’re potentially medical detectives. With their powerful noses, they may soon help detect Parkinson’s earlier than ever before, offering hope for millions living with or at risk of the disease.

In a move that would have seemed unthinkable just a decade ago, a new presidential administration is placing psychedelics front and center in its health policy agenda. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Congress that psychedelic-assisted therapy—long stigmatized and sidelined—is on track for federal approval “within 12 months.”

That timeline stunned even long-time advocates. But it aligns with a wider political shift, not just in progressive strongholds but also in conservative territories like Texas. Former Trump officials including ex-Governor Rick Perry and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins have expressed support for expanding access to psychedelics for treating PTSD, depression, and addiction.

The timing is no accident. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently dealt a heavy blow to advocates by rejecting MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD, citing concerns over research integrity. The decision was a major setback for the psychedelic movement—but it may also have sparked a political counter-response.

MDMA, also known as ecstasy, had long been the frontrunner in the race to integrate psychedelics into clinical medicine. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which backed MDMA research for decades, had hoped for a groundbreaking FDA approval this year.

Instead, FDA advisors voted overwhelmingly against it, criticizing data collection methods, researcher bias, and missing adverse event reports. One panelist described the trial environment as bordering on “cult-like.” Critics argued that while results appeared promising, the data lacked scientific rigor.

The agency hasn’t entirely shut the door on MDMA, but it's clear that any future approval will come with strict conditions—or require new clinical trials entirely.

Rather than retreating, psychedelic advocates now seem to be finding powerful allies. Kennedy’s endorsement of psychedelic therapies stems in part from personal experience—he’s spoken openly about family members and friends who found healing through these substances.

Meanwhile, Rick Perry and other Republican figures are pushing forward with state-level projects that bypass the slow-moving federal process. Texas recently approved $50 million to fund research into ibogaine, a powerful and controversial psychedelic derived from a West African plant.

Ibogaine remains a Schedule I substance, in the same legal category as heroin. But veterans and policymakers in Texas are betting on it to address the state’s opioid crisis and support those suffering from war-related trauma.

“It’s not just red states or blue states anymore—it’s veterans, families, people from across the spectrum who are saying: what we’re doing isn’t working,” said Bryan Hubbard, co-founder of Americans for Ibogaine.

What is The Ibogaine Experiment?

Ibogaine is not your typical psychedelic. While small studies suggest it may reset the brain’s reward system and break addictive cycles, it’s also known for severe side effects—including potentially lethal heart arrhythmias.

Veterans like Marcus Capone say it changed their lives. Capone, a former Navy SEAL, describes his first ibogaine experience as “a complete purge.” After years of therapy and medication, one session left him with “no more anxiety, no more depression.”

His nonprofit, VETS, has already sent over 1,000 veterans abroad for psychedelic treatment. But federal officials remain cautious. Former NIDA director Nora Volkow acknowledged ibogaine’s promise but warned it “would be dead in the water” for FDA approval in its current form due to toxicity risks.

Still, the National Institutes of Health is now supporting development of synthetic ibogaine analogs—evidence that even federal agencies are evolving.

Fast-Tracking Psychedelic Drug Approval—At What Cost?

FDA commissioner Marty Makary, who reports to RFK Jr., recently announced efforts to accelerate drug approvals that serve “American health interests.” One proposed framework could shrink the FDA’s review process from six months to just one.

Makary has also floated the idea of relaxing placebo-controlled trial requirements—controversial in psychedelic research because participants often know if they received the real drug. That change could open the door for faster results, but it also raises concerns about scientific integrity.

Critics like Yale psychiatrist Philip Corlett are sounding the alarm. “The public is ahead of the science right now,” he warns. “If RFK and others are serious, they should stick to the benchmarks of clinical research. Otherwise, this could backfire.”

What Happens to MDMA Now?

The future of MDMA therapy is uncertain. FDA regulators could override the advisory panel’s vote and approve the drug with new safeguards, such as risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS). Another possibility: conditional approval with a requirement for post-market research.

But there’s also a chance the drug could be shelved, at least temporarily, while Lykos—the company behind the MDMA trials—regroups and launches a new study. That could delay approval by years.

“The hope was that if we did the science right, the data would speak for itself,” said trial investigator Ingmar Gorman. “But that’s not how it played out.”

The psychedelic renaissance now finds itself in a paradox: increasingly mainstream and bipartisan in political circles, but still fragile in the eyes of regulatory science.

States like Texas and Oregon are forging ahead. Veterans and nonprofits are doing the groundwork. And the federal government, under a high-profile and controversial health secretary, appears willing to fast-track approval processes but speed and politics won’t substitute for rigorous evidence. If the next wave of psychedelic approvals is rushed or mishandled, it could risk discrediting therapies that millions of patients might one day benefit from.