For decades, marriage has been widely regarded as a "protective" factor against many health conditions, ranging from heart disease to depression. The standard narrative has been that the married live longer, are healthier, and enjoy improved mental well-being than the unmarried. But what if that presumption, especially when it comes to cognitive health, doesn't quite hold up?

A new study in Alzheimer's & Dementia flips on its head this traditional wisdom. Married people are at much greater risk of dementia than divorced, widowed, or never-married adults, the 2025 study by Florida State University and the University of Montpellier researchers found.

The longitudinal study followed 24,107 older adults for 18 years. The participants ranged in age from 50 to 104 (mean age: 72) and were recruited through the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center, which has more than 42 Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers throughout the U.S. None of the participants had been diagnosed with dementia at the time of enrollment, although some showed symptoms of mild cognitive impairment.

The results were dramatic:

• Marrieds had a 50% greater risk of getting dementia than their unmarried counterparts.
• Never-married subjects had the lowest risk for dementia, although the difference was not statistically significant between them and divorced or widowed subjects.
• Even among the subjects who at the beginning presented with mild cognitive impairment, those who were not married were less likely to reach full dementia.
• Participants who lost their spouses in the course of the study demonstrated a reduced risk of developing dementia when compared with those who remained married.

The findings contradict the long-standing assertion that marriage invariably improves health and indicate that marital status might play a more complicated role in cognitive aging than heretofore assumed.

Why Might Unmarried People Fare Better Cognitively?

Although the researchers could not identify a single definitive explanation for these findings, they presented several plausible hypotheses.

One of the strongest findings was that never-married and unmarried people generally have more robust and varied social networks. They are more likely to have active friendships, be involved in their communities, and develop significant relationships outside of a marital bond.

Married people are less socially integrated and have less frequent, lower-quality interactions in their networks than are unmarried people," the authors of the study wrote.

Moreover, being single tends to demand a higher level of self-sufficiency, which prompts individuals to remain mentally active by taking care of their lives on their own. The psychological complexity and variety of experiences in the lives of unmarried individuals may possibly serve as a buffer against cognitive decline.

Rethinking the Health Benefits of Marriage

This research is part of a growing body of evidence challenging the general assumption that marriage is good for health all the time. Previous studies have consistently produced correlations between marriage and health, but these rarely control for confounding variables such as access to health care, resources, or prior health status.

Significantly, correlation is not causation. Just because married individuals often look healthier sometimes doesn't imply that marriage causes it. Instead, it might be that healthier individuals are likely to marry or that marriage gives economic and logistical benefits that support general health.

Actually, a 16-year Swiss study with more than 11,000 adults discovered that marriage did not benefit participants' health—and health actually reduced after marriage in some instances.

As populations in societies worldwide contend with aging populations and increasing rates of dementia, the results from this new study provide essential public health planning. Marriage as a protective factor assumptions may no longer be valid, particularly when estimating dementia risk among older adults.

The clinicians and policymakers can also be faced with the possibility of considering broader approaches that will enhance cognitive function in all the elderly, including those who are married and not married. Such initiatives can reinforce community ties, foster lifelong education, promote mental and physical stimulation, and provide support systems extending beyond the nuclear family structure.

As larger numbers of older persons become divorced, widowed, or never married, it will become crucial to know how these varied life circumstances influence brain health as the foundation of building equal-opportunity, effective health interventions.

Although this paper presents highly compelling findings, further investigation is required to disentangle the intricate dynamics among relationship quality, social connectedness, stress, lifestyle habits, and their roles in cognitive aging.

Is marital conflict stress a cause of cognitive decline? Does marriage caregiving wear down neurological well-being? Or is it the psychological autonomy fostered by the unmarried that is the secret protector against dementia? These are questions left open—and in need of exploration.

In a world in which marriage is so often idealized as the gold standard of a happy and fulfilling life, these findings serve as a bracing—and empowering—reminder- there is no single formula for aging well.

What if the one injection that is helping you lose weight and manage diabetes also protect you from cancer? That's the surprising promise emerging from a new study on GLP-1 drugs, drugs already drawing attention for their ability to battle obesity and regulate blood sugar. Now scientists have discovered a potential new advantage: a much reduced risk of cancers related to obesity.

While the global use of GLP-1 agonists such as Saxenda and Byetta is gaining speed, this research unlocks a thrilling new era in preventive care. But just how do such medications function and why could they be protecting us against cancer?

After once being touted as miracle drugs for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 medications such as Saxenda and Byetta are now uncovering a new benefit: a reduced risk of cancer. New research in the journal eClinicalMedicine identifies that these initial weight-loss medications may have more to their credit than just reducing waistlines—they can cut the risk of developing obesity-linked cancers by a dramatic 41%.

This finding has the potential to change forever the way that we think about the wider ramifications of GLP-1 treatments, particularly in a world where metabolic diseases are closely associated with cancer susceptibility. But why might this new benefit exist? And how do these drugs actually work?

What Are GLP-1 Drugs and How Do They Work?

GLP-1 agonists (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) are a type of drug that mimics the effect of an endogenous hormone involved in the modulation of appetite, blood glucose levels, and digestion. Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, they've become very popular due to their capacity to cause weight loss by reducing hunger and slowing gastric emptying.

Drugs such as liraglutide (Saxenda) and exenatide (Byetta) are usually given through subcutaneous injection. Newer forms, including semaglutide (Ozempic) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), have greater efficacy in weight loss and metabolic control, although they were not part of this specific study.

GLP-1 acts via a cascade of hormonal action:

• It triggers the release of insulin from the pancreas, lowering blood sugar.
• It inhibits the release of glucagon, a hormone that increases blood sugar.
• It reduces the rate at which the stomach empties following meals.

Perhaps most importantly for managing weight, it sends satiety messages to the brain to make people feel fuller for longer.

Missing Link Between Cancer Risk and Obesity

Both type 2 diabetes and obesity are firmly established as risk factors for many forms of cancer, such as breast, colon, uterine, pancreatic, and liver cancer. This can be explained by the chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, and hormonal imbalance that accompany excess fat stores.

For their new study, scientists from Clalit Health Services in Tel Aviv, Israel, analyzed electronic health records of more than 6,300 adults age 24 and above. Everyone involved had both type 2 diabetes and obesity and received either GLP-1 medication or weight-loss surgery between 2010 and 2018. The group was followed through to December 2023 to record cancer diagnoses.

During a median follow-up of 7.5 years, approximately 300 individuals developed cancer of the obesity type—predominantly breast (26%), colon (16%), and uterus (15%).

GLP-1 vs. Surgery

Although bariatric surgery has been the obesity treatment gold standard for decades—and was in turn found to lower cancer risk—scientists discovered obesity-associated cancers were equal in both the surgery and GLP-1 groups. This was unexpected because surgery tends to induce greater and more immediate weight loss.

Still, additional statistical examination found that the GLP-1 medications offered a 41% lower risk of cancerous developments than surgery indicated that their anti-cancer benefit might extend beyond weight loss alone.

Reason Behind the Anti-Cancer Effect

According to co-lead researcher Dr. Dror Dicker, who heads the Obesity Clinic at Hasharon Hospital-Rabin Medical Center, the anti-cancer effects of GLP-1 drugs likely stem from multiple mechanisms. “Reducing inflammation, improving insulin sensitivity, and altering cellular growth pathways may all play a role,” he noted in a news release.

While more recent, more powerful GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic and Zepbound were not included in the study, researchers are convinced they may provide even stronger protective effects. However, additional long-term studies are necessary to determine their impacts on cancers that are not related to obesity.

Can It Change Cancer Treatment?

This new evidence indicates a paradigm shift of foundational importance in the way we think about metabolic health interventions. GLP-1 medications could soon be hailed not merely as weight-loss supplements or treatments for diabetes but as prevention against one of the world's most dreaded illnesses.

Nevertheless, prudence is still advisable. Long-term experience with these drugs is lacking, and their side effects, including nausea, gastrointestinal upset, and possible hazards for thyroid tumors, need to be weighed. A boxed warning is now placed on the list of the FDA for some GLP-1 drugs for thyroid C-cell tumors, although this has so far been seen most commonly in animal models.

With the worldwide obesity epidemic on the rise, so is the need to know how drugs such as GLP-1 agonists can change not only waistlines, but also long-term health endpoints. The notion that a single class of medication might lower the risk of cancer in addition to managing blood glucose and reducing appetite is revolutionary.

Additional research, particularly with next-generation GLP-1 drugs, will be necessary to more fully investigate and validate these benefits but for the time being, this study introduces an exhilarating and promising new chapter at the nexus of cancer prevention and obesity treatment.

Thousands of Indians die every year from heart disease. Now you may link it to high cholesterol and a lack of physical exercise, but the reality is different. According to researchers, these deaths are a result of exposure to a harmful chemical that is present in shampoos, food containers and all other common household plastic products.

A recent study published in The Lancet eBioMedicine has identified a significant link between exposure to di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)—a chemical commonly used to make plastics more flexible—and heart disease deaths. Surprisingly, among the 200 countries evaluated, India had the highest burden of DEHP-linked cardiovascular deaths and accounted for almost a third of the global mortalities.

What Is DEHP?

DEHP is prevalent in numerous household items, including food containers, medical equipment, toys, shampoos and lotions. The study, conducted by researchers at NYU Langone Health, analysed urine samples and environmental data from over 200 countries and territories. They found that in 2018, DEHP exposure was associated with around 356,238 deaths among individuals aged 55 to 64, accounting for over 13 per cent of global heart disease deaths in that age group. The researchers attributed India's elevated mortality to the rapid expansion of its plastics industry, widespread use of DEHP-containing products and weaker regulatory controls compared to some other nations.

It is estimated that chemicals in plastic were linked to nearly 350,000 heart disease deaths across the world in 2018. Adding to that, is this study published in the journal eBioMedicine, which estimated that roughly 13 per cent of cardiovascular deaths among 55- to 64-year-olds worldwide that year could be attributed to phthalates.

Where Are Phthalates are esters of phthalic acids, which are added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity. They are found in personal care products like shampoos and lotions as well as in food containers and packaging. It is also possible to ingest them through food, absorb them through skin from products containing them or breathe them from dust.

Study Shows Phthalates Increase Risk of Heart Diseases

Some studies have shown an association between phthalates and cardiovascular disease, but there isn’t strong evidence to show that the chemicals directly cause heart issues, said Sung Kyun Park, a professor of epidemiology and environmental sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. However, there is enough evidence that states that phthalates increase the risk of metabolic disorders like obesity and Type 2 diabetes, which can cause cardiovascular disease. One way phthalates may do this is by increasing oxidative stress—cell and tissue damage that happens when there are too many unstable molecules in the body—and by promoting inflammation.

US administration is slated to lay out a new approach to COVID vaccination at an event on Tuesday that could spell major changes in what is required to get regulatory approval for immunisations. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is featuring an upcoming town hall, set to begin Tuesday at 1 pm in Washington, titled "An evidence based approach to Covid vaccination." The two speakers listed are FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad, an outspoken critic of the drug industry who was recently appointed to lead the agency’s division that oversees vaccines.

This comes as the U.S. The Health and Human Services Department says it will require placebo testing of “all new vaccines.” In a statement to the Washington Post, the agency headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the new requirement “a radical departure from past practices.” It must be noted that Kennedy Jr. has been a blatant vaxxer.

Why is Covid Vaccination Still Important?

In contrast to the mRNA-based platforms of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, Novavax's vaccine is based on a recombinant protein platform—a technology that is akin to those employed in licensed vaccines such as hepatitis B. This technology could be desirable to those who were resistant to mRNA vaccines because they are worried about newer biotechnology.

Experts indicate that the Novavax vaccine might also be attractive in populations or regions where cold storage demands for mRNA vaccines have presented logistical problems. Yet with limited approval, this advantage won't necessarily come into full play under the existing rollout.

Who Can Actually Get The New Covid Vaccine?

The newly approved Novavax vaccine under the brand name Nuvaxovid will only be issued to:

Adults 65 and older

People aged 12 to 64 years with underlying health conditions

Such conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), include asthma, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and pregnancy. Behavioral and lifestyle risks like smoking, physical inactivity, and substance abuse also come under this category.

While the wide range of risk factors might limit the decision to many, most in the medical field find the ruling too restrictive. Former FDA Chief Scientist Jesse Goodman criticized the agency's limited approval publicly, saying, "The FDA approval process is intended to determine safety and efficacy, and permit access to approved vaccines. It is not where one makes policy suggestions for use of approved vaccines."