Imagine fighting a virus only to find yourself in a silent, lifelong battle afterward. For many COVID-19 survivors, this nightmare is real, as 1 in 22 develops myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). This hidden pandemic of exhaustion, brain fog, and unrelenting fatigue sheds light on a growing health crisis desperately seeking attention and solutions.

As the world continues to grapple with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging health crisis is taking shape in its shadow. Known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), this complex and often misunderstood condition is increasingly being linked to SARS-CoV-2 infections. Recent research highlights that about 1 in 22 COVID-19 survivors face a significantly higher risk of developing ME/CFS, sparking concerns about a hidden pandemic of chronic illness.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome is an illness characterized by profound fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, cognitive impairment-a phenomenon often described as brain fog-and post-exertional malaise (PEM), where symptoms worsen after mental or physical exertion. Some patients with ME/CFS develop orthostatic intolerance, or the sudden drop in blood pressure when standing, further complicating their lives. Such severe cases may leave patients housebound.

A biological disorder, once labeled as a psychological condition, has now been proven to be something else. Though the exact mechanism is still not known, it does not have any FDA-approved treatments.

Recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, the study reveals that COVID-19 might be connected to ME/CFS. For this purpose, researchers analyzed the data of 11,785 U.S. adults who have contracted COVID-19 and then compared them to 1,439 individuals without any infection.

The findings were striking:

- Compared with uninfected individuals, the odds of COVID-19 survivors meeting diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS at 6 months after infection were 7.5 times greater.

- ME/CFS was diagnosed in around 4.5% of COVID-19 survivors, versus 0.6% among those who did not experience a history of infection.

- Long COVID symptoms were found to overlap considerably and were reported in 88.7% of people with ME/CFS after a history of infection with COVID-19.

These findings highlight the frightening fact that COVID-19 can potentially be a primary cause of new cases of ME/CFS and add another layer of complexity to the long-term health consequences of the pandemic.

Why ME/CFS is So Challenging to Diagnose and Treat

One of the biggest challenges in dealing with ME/CFS is its diagnostic complexity. Symptoms often overlap with other conditions, and there are no definitive biomarkers to confirm the diagnosis. This has historically led to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis.

Another point is that what causes ME/CFS is unknown. Though it has been established that infections such as SARS-CoV-2, Epstein-Barr virus, and Coxiella burnetii can provoke the condition, the pathways leading to the exact triggering are still being researched. Increasing evidence points toward the involvement of immune system imbalance, genetic factors, and impairment in energy metabolism.

Who is Most Risk?

Some groups of people are at higher risk than others:

• Women are more likely to contract ME/CFS than men, two to four times in most cases.
• The condition is diagnosed most among adolescents and young adults.
• ME/CFS may be caused by genetic factors since its development is likely if there is a family history of the disease.
• Adolescents with joint hypermobility are at an increased risk for ME/CFS, although it is not well understood.

Can CFS be treated?

While there is not a cure, many symptom-management approaches can make life dramatically better for persons affected by this condition. People with ME/CFS are given medication to assist in the resolution of headache, persistent pain, and trouble concentrating among other symptoms. Gentle manual technique by physical therapists helps to improve ease of movement and reduce both muscle and joint tension.

Activity management is another cornerstone of treatment, involving a delicate balance of rest and activity to avoid exacerbating symptoms, a common challenge for ME/CFS patients. Light aerobic exercise, when closely monitored, may be used to maintain physical fitness without exacerbating symptoms.

Psychological support is also equally important, through counseling and therapy, to alleviate the psychosocial burden of chronic disease. Sessions with a counselor or therapist will help the patients to cope with anxiety and depression often associated with ME/CFS.

Ultimately, an individualized approach is essential since the condition varies widely in its severity and triggers from one patient to another.

Are Long COVID and ME/CFS Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Long COVID shares a huge overlap with ME/CFS, leading researchers to investigate whether these are different presentations of a larger syndrome triggered by infection or other major health events. Similar symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and PEM point toward a common underlying mechanism though further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

The sobering reminder that the hidden pandemic of ME/CFS speaks to the far-reaching consequences of COVID-19. With millions of survivors at risk, the need for awareness, research, and compassionate care has never been greater. As we learn more about this complex condition, addressing it will require a concerted effort from the global healthcare community and society at large. Only then can we hope to alleviate the burden of this chronic illness and improve the lives of those affected.

Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006

Incidence and Prevalence of Post-COVID-19 Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Report from the Observational RECOVER-Adult Study. J GEN INTERN MED. 2025

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a public expert panel to review the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy, it re-opened a long-standing and highly charged conversation. At the center of the debate: how to weigh the risks of antidepressants to fetal development against the dangers of untreated maternal depression.

With no clear outcome or regulatory shift announced at the end of the meeting, the session highlighted just how divided experts remain over SSRIs—a class of drugs that includes some of the most commonly prescribed medications in the U.S., such as Prozac, Lexapro, and Zoloft.

The FDA forum, led by Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, brought together perinatal psychiatrists, developmental biologists, epidemiologists, obstetricians, and mental health clinicians. The focus? Whether SSRIs prescribed during pregnancy need stronger warnings, including a potential “black box” label—the FDA’s most serious caution.

Dr. Makary opened the session with a sobering observation: nearly one in four middle-aged American women is on an antidepressant, and approximately 5% of pregnant women are prescribed SSRIs. Despite the increasing use of these drugs, he pointed out that the broader mental health picture in the U.S. hasn’t improved. “The more antidepressants we prescribe, the more depression there is,” he said, urging a deeper look at root causes instead of pharmaceutical fixes alone.

Nine of the ten panelists had previously voiced public concerns about SSRI safety or expressed skepticism toward antidepressant efficacy. Many cited studies indicating potential neurodevelopmental risks in babies exposed to SSRIs in utero. These include associations with autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, and other cognitive challenges.

However, these claims were not universally accepted. Independent researchers and clinicians noted that several of the studies referenced lacked proper controls, making it difficult to determine whether adverse outcomes were caused by the medications, the underlying depression itself, or other unrelated factors like maternal stress, environmental exposures, or socioeconomic influences.

Critically, many of the panelists underemphasized—or ignored entirely—the well-documented risks of untreated perinatal depression. Suicide remains one of the leading causes of maternal death in the first year postpartum. Depression during pregnancy has also been associated with premature birth, low birth weight, and impaired bonding with the baby.

There’s no question SSRIs, like any medication, carry risk. But context matters. SSRIs aren’t prescribed casually; they’re part of a personalized treatment plan that often includes psychotherapy, lifestyle interventions, and close monitoring.

Experts caution against blanket restrictions or alarmist warnings. While acknowledging the importance of ongoing research and transparency in labeling, several physicians worry that exaggerated claims could have unintended consequences—mainly, deterring pregnant women from seeking care.

“We need to be careful not to scare patients away from treatment that might be lifesaving,” said one perinatal psychiatrist unaffiliated with the FDA panel. “Depression doesn’t disappear during pregnancy. For many women, it gets worse.”

The debate over SSRIs isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s unfolding against a backdrop of shifting political narratives around mental health, medication, and government oversight.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Health and Human Services Secretary under former President Trump, has been a vocal critic of SSRIs and other psychiatric medications. His “Make America Healthy Again” initiative frames SSRIs as part of a broader pharmaceutical overreach. He’s even gone so far as to claim a link between antidepressants and school shootings—an assertion for which no scientific evidence exists.

During the FDA panel discussion, one participant echoed Kennedy’s alarmist rhetoric, declaring, “Never before in human history have we chemically altered babies like this.” Comments like these, healthcare professionals argue, blur the line between evidence-based discussion and ideological fearmongering.

The reality on the ground is more nuanced. Clinicians treating pregnant patients with depression must weigh competing risks with every prescription. Factors like a woman’s mental health history, her past response to medications, current symptoms, support system, and overall health are all taken into account.

Many OB-GYNs and psychiatrists recommend continuing SSRIs during pregnancy if the patient has a history of severe depression or has responded well to the medication. The cost of relapse—both emotionally and physically—can be high. In contrast, women with milder symptoms might consider tapering off or trying non-drug therapies under medical supervision.

And while some studies suggest a possible association between SSRI use and neurodevelopmental issues in children, the evidence is not conclusive. In many cases, what appears to be a risk may be confounded by the effects of the illness itself.

Despite the heated debate, the FDA did not announce any immediate regulatory action following the panel meeting. An agency spokesperson emphasized that the session was part of “broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards” in evaluating drug safety, particularly during sensitive periods like pregnancy.

Still, the session underscored a growing demand for more nuanced research and improved labeling that fully informs patients without generating unnecessary fear. The agency’s next steps remain unclear, but stakeholders on all sides agree: this is a conversation that’s far from over.

Can SSRIs Harm Unborn Babies?

The question of whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can harm unborn babies is complex—and not definitively answered. SSRIs are widely prescribed to manage depression and anxiety, including during pregnancy. But recent scrutiny by an FDA advisory panel has reignited concerns about their safety, particularly in the first trimester when fetal development is most vulnerable.

Studies over the years have linked SSRI use in pregnancy to a small but possible increased risk of complications such as low birth weight, premature birth, neonatal adaptation syndrome (withdrawal-like symptoms in newborns), and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN). Some data even suggest a potential link between early SSRI exposure and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism spectrum disorders, though these findings are inconclusive and often confounded by the severity of maternal depression itself.

On the flip side, untreated depression during pregnancy also carries serious risks—for both mother and child. It can lead to poor prenatal care, higher rates of substance use, inadequate nutrition, and increased risk of suicide or self-harm. These factors can impact fetal outcomes as well.

As public health agencies and professionals continue to assess the benefits and risks of SSRIs during pregnancy, one thing is clear: blanket judgments and politicized narratives don’t help patients. What pregnant individuals need is clear, evidence-based guidance—and compassionate, personalized care that prioritizes both maternal and fetal health.

The question of whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can harm unborn babies is complex—and not definitively answered. SSRIs are widely prescribed to manage depression and anxiety, including during pregnancy. But recent scrutiny by an FDA advisory panel has reignited concerns about their safety, particularly in the first trimester when fetal development is most vulnerable.

Studies over the years have linked SSRI use in pregnancy to a small but possible increased risk of complications such as low birth weight, premature birth, neonatal adaptation syndrome (withdrawal-like symptoms in newborns), and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN). Some data even suggest a potential link between early SSRI exposure and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism spectrum disorders, though these findings are inconclusive and often confounded by the severity of maternal depression itself.

On the flip side, untreated depression during pregnancy also carries serious risks—for both mother and child. It can lead to poor prenatal care, higher rates of substance use, inadequate nutrition, and increased risk of suicide or self-harm. These factors can impact fetal outcomes as well.

SSRIs aren’t inherently harmful, but their use during pregnancy must be carefully evaluated. For some, the benefits outweigh the risks—especially when mental health is at stake. Always consult a healthcare provider for personalized guidance.

The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is launching a renewed and urgent call to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of young people against the human papillomavirus (HPV)—a virus linked to cervical and multiple other cancers. Despite robust efforts in schools, data from the last three years reveals that more than 418,000 children in the UK left school without receiving the HPV vaccine, prompting a national outreach initiative targeting those now aged 16 to 25.

This large-scale effort is not just about catching up; it’s part of a far-reaching goal- eliminating cervical cancer in the UK by 2040. With HPV responsible for 99.7% of cervical cancer cases and also linked to cancers of the throat, anus, penis, vagina, and mouth, the campaign reflects a bold public health strategy rooted in decades of scientific progress.

Also Read: New Parkinson's Treatment Is Like A Pacemaker To The Brain

HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections globally. By age 45, about 80% of people—both men and women—will have contracted some form of HPV. While most of these infections are harmless and cleared naturally by the immune system, high-risk strains can linger and mutate healthy cells, leading to cancer.

In the cervix, HPV causes a gradual change in skin cells—a process called cervical dysplasia. This is where the transformation zone (the meeting point of squamous and glandular cells in the cervix) becomes the site of potential cancerous growth. If left unchecked, these abnormal cells can progress from CIN1 (mild dysplasia) to CIN2 or CIN3 (moderate to severe), and eventually become malignant.

What makes HPV particularly dangerous is its ability to evade apoptosis, the normal process where damaged cells self-destruct. Instead, it integrates its own genetic material into cervical cells, making them immortal and prone to uncontrollable growth.

In 2022 alone, 130,000 women across the European Economic Area (EEA)—which includes the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway—were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 14,000 died. Even more alarming are the HPV-related head and neck cancers, which impacted 86,000 people in the region, 74% of them men, causing about 26,000 deaths.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines cervical cancer elimination as fewer than four cases per 100,000 women. Current rates in the EEA sit at 56 per 100,000. Europe may reach the WHO's goal by 2050—but only if vaccination and screening efforts scale up dramatically.

The NHS is using every tool available to close this immunization gap. GP practices across England are now contacting unvaccinated individuals aged 16–25 through letters, emails, texts, and even the NHS App. The message is clear: one dose can save your life.

According to Dr. Amanda Doyle, NHS National Director of Primary Care and Community Services, "Too many lives are lost to cervical cancer… this vaccine is hugely important—not just for girls and women, but for boys and men too."

Previously, the vaccine required two doses, but as of 2023, a single dose is now recommended for most. This simplifies logistics and removes a barrier for many. National data from the 2023/24 academic year reveals progress, but also stark disparities. Among Year 10 students (ages 14–15):

• 76.7% of girls and 71.2% of boys were vaccinated.
• In Year 8 (ages 12–13), uptake was slightly lower: 72.9% of girls, 67.7% of boys.

Yet coverage varies dramatically by region:

• In London, Year 10 uptake for girls is just 64.9%, and only 58.9% for boys.
• In contrast, the South East boasts 82.7% (girls) and 77.3% (boys).
• At a hyperlocal level, places like Lambeth in London saw just 38.7% of girls vaccinated, compared to 97.6% in Northumberland.
• For boys, rates ranged from 28.2% (Lambeth) to 92.2% (West Berkshire).

This patchwork points to deep-rooted health inequalities—a challenge public health officials must address to ensure the vaccine’s promise reaches all communities.

Why It Is Important To Reinforce the Safety and Efficacy of the New Vaccine?

Since 2021, the UK has been administering an updated HPV vaccine that research shows is significantly more effective than earlier versions. Compared to the previous vaccine, the current one is expected to reduce women’s cancer cases by 16% and lower HPV-related deaths by 9%. What makes this advancement even more compelling is real-world data from England, which indicates the vaccine prevents up to 90% of cervical cancer cases. In practical terms, this means that for individuals who receive the vaccine before being exposed to the virus, the risk of developing cervical cancer is not just lowered—it’s almost entirely eliminated.

While cervical cancer remains the primary concern, the HPV vaccine offers protection against a wider range of serious health issues, including genital warts, anal cancer, penile cancer, and head and neck cancers—particularly those affecting the mouth and throat. This broader protection underscores the importance of vaccinating not just girls and women, but also boys and men. They face direct risks and also play a significant role in transmitting the virus to sexual partners, potentially putting others at risk for HPV-related cancers.

To accelerate progress, the NHS has outlined a clear roadmap in its 10-Year Health Plan. Key goals include achieving 90% HPV vaccine coverage among girls by 2040 and increasing participation in cervical screening programs. In a move to streamline access and engagement, the NHS recently rolled out a ‘ping and book’ system through its App, allowing eligible individuals to receive digital invitations and reminders for cervical screening appointments. Public health minister Ashley Dalton called the HPV vaccine “our most powerful tool” in eliminating cervical cancer but acknowledged that “there is still a long way to go” in reaching full coverage and equity.

And that’s the real message here: the science is ready. The infrastructure exists. What’s missing is participation—from parents, from young adults, and from the health systems that must ensure equitable access.

The effort to eliminate cervical cancer is no longer a medical fantasy—it’s a public health reality within reach. But it will take collective action, clear messaging, and targeted strategies to overcome gaps in access and awareness.

If you're between 16 and 25 in England and missed the jab in school, this is your moment. If you're a parent, ask your child’s GP. If you're a policymaker, look at your region’s numbers because the truth is simple: a single vaccine dose today could save a life tomorrow.

In a major leap for Parkinson’s disease treatment, a new form of brain implant is transforming the way patients experience relief from symptoms like tremors, stiffness, and slowness of movement. Often likened to a “pacemaker for the brain,” this breakthrough, known as adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS), is being hailed as a personalized, real-time therapy that adjusts to the brain's needs moment by moment.

From Reluctance to Relief: One Patient’s Journey

As the Scientific American reports, Keith Krehbiel had lived with Parkinson’s disease for nearly 25 years before agreeing to undergo a surgery he had long avoided. In 2020, as his symptoms worsened, he reluctantly said yes to a deep brain stimulation (DBS) implant, unaware he’d soon be part of a historic medical trial.

Just as he was preparing for surgery, neurologist Helen Bronte-Stewart of Stanford University received approval to launch a new trial testing an upgraded form of DBS. She offered Krehbiel the chance to be the first participant. His response: “Boy, do I!”

Five years on, the clinical trial, known as ADAPT-PD, involving 68 participants is now under review for publication. But the initial results have already been powerful enough to earn regulatory approval in both the U.S. and Europe.

Also Read: Rakesh Roshan Undergoes Angioplasty, Shares Health Update And Asks People Over 40 To Get Regular CT Scan

What Makes Adaptive DBS Different?

As per the American Parkinson Disease Association (APDA), traditional DBS works by sending electrical impulses to parts of the brain that control movement, helping correct abnormal brain activity. But until now, it operated on fixed settings, adjusted manually by doctors based on patient feedback during clinic visits. That’s where adaptive DBS is changing the game.

This next-generation implant not only stimulates the brain but also listens to it. Using Medtronic’s BrainSense™ technology, the system continuously reads brain signals called local field potentials (LFPs), particularly in the beta-band frequency range, which has been linked to motor symptoms in Parkinson’s patients.

When the system detects brainwave patterns that suggest tremor, stiffness, or slowness, it automatically tweaks the stimulation levels in real-time.

“It’s like a smart pacemaker for the brain,” Bronte-Stewart explained. The goal is simple but revolutionary: deliver just the right amount of stimulation when it’s needed most, and ease off when it’s not.

A New Era for Parkinson’s Care

The implications of this adaptive technology are wide-reaching. APDA notes, over one million people in the U.S. and 1.2 million in Europe live with Parkinson’s, a progressive neurological disorder that often grows resistant to medications over time. While traditional DBS has helped around 200,000 patients worldwide, only 40,000 devices implanted since 2020 are equipped with the adaptive capability, and many of them haven’t even activated the feature yet.

With the ADAPT-PD trial results clearing regulatory hurdles, that’s poised to change. Krehbiel’s own experience is one reason why: after his surgery, his symptoms significantly improved, and his quality of life followed suit.

The benefits of adaptive DBS extend beyond Parkinson’s. Neurologists believe this “closed-loop” approach could also be effective for other movement disorders like Tourette’s syndrome, and even psychiatric conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and depression — though more trials are needed.

Experts believe the evolution of adaptive DBS is just beginning. Next on the horizon is the integration of artificial intelligence. By learning individual brain patterns, AI could help predict when symptoms are about to worsen, and adjust stimulation preemptively.