Millions of people worldwide continue to experience symptoms weeks, months, or even years after an initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For more than four years, long COVID has remained one of the pandemic’s most perplexing mysteries. Yet, despite the global scale of the problem, there has been no objective way to confirm a diagnosis. Doctors have relied almost entirely on patient-reported symptoms and a process of elimination to rule out other causes.

That may be about to change. A team of researchers from the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), part of City of Hope, and the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center has identified a potential biomarker that could offer the first measurable, laboratory-based confirmation of long COVID. Their findings, published in the journal Infection, point to a new way of detecting the lingering footprint of the virus in the body — and with it, the possibility of changing how long COVID is diagnosed, studied, and treated.

Why Diagnosing Long COVID Is Difficult?

Long COVID is not a single, uniform illness. It’s a complex, post-viral condition with more than 200 possible symptoms, ranging from crushing fatigue and brain fog to shortness of breath, chest pain, and neurological changes. According to estimates, anywhere from 15% to over 40% of people infected with COVID-19 may experience lingering symptoms, depending on which definition is used.

That lack of standardization is a huge problem. A recent study analyzing definitions from five countries — the US, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, and Puerto Rico — found wildly different prevalence rates when the same patient dataset was assessed. Without an objective test, researchers struggle to identify who truly has long COVID, making large-scale studies inconsistent and slowing the development of targeted treatments.

William Stringer, M.D., a senior author of the new study and a Lundquist Institute investigator, explains the gap: “If a patient arrives in clinic and describes the persistence of typical signs and symptoms of long COVID, 12 weeks or more after COVID-19 infection, I give them a presumptive diagnosis. But I don’t have any blood tests or biomarkers to confirm this diagnosis.”

Also Read: Is 'Stratus' COVID Variant The Pandemic’s Next Chapter In 2025 With New Symptoms?

Traces of the Virus in Extracellular Vesicles

The new research zeroes in on extracellular vesicles (EVs) — microscopic packages released by cells to transport proteins, metabolites, and other materials throughout the body. These vesicles act like biological couriers, shuttling information from cell to cell.

Researchers collected and analyzed 56 blood samples from 14 long COVID patients over 12 weeks of aerobic exercise training, as part of an ongoing clinical trial. What they found was striking- 65 distinct protein fragments from SARS-CoV-2 inside the EVs, all originating from the virus’s Pp1ab protein.

This protein is an RNA replicase enzyme — crucial to the virus’s ability to copy itself and produce new viral particles — and is unique to SARS-CoV-2. It does not occur in uninfected human cells. “We thought that maybe if the virus is circulating or moving in the body, we should try to see if EVs are carrying those viral fragments,” says lead author Asghar Abbasi, Ph.D., of the Lundquist Institute.

Importantly, these viral peptides were detected in every patient, though not in every individual blood draw, and were absent in a separate control group using pre-pandemic EV samples. That suggests the biomarker may be specific to long COVID.

Could This Mean the Virus Lingers in the Human Body?

One of the most debated questions in long COVID research is whether the virus — or pieces of it — persist in the body long after the initial infection. Evidence has been mounting that SARS-CoV-2 may remain in certain tissues, creating “viral reservoirs” that could contribute to ongoing symptoms.

The new study supports this theory. The detection of Pp1ab fragments inside EVs hints that remnants of the virus might be traveling through the body, possibly reaching tissues without typical viral entry points, such as the brain. How this happens remains unknown. EVs may play a role in delivering these viral remnants to distant sites, potentially influencing symptoms.

Still, co-senior author Patrick Pirrotte, Ph.D., of TGen urges caution. “The molecular signal of the viral peptides was subtle and not consistently detected at every time point,” he notes. “We don’t yet know if exercise triggers the release of these proteins, if they come from a permanent reservoir, or if they’re simply leftover molecular ‘trash’ from past viral replication.”

If validated by further studies, this biomarker could be a game-changer for both clinical care and research.

For patients- An objective blood test could confirm a diagnosis and give legitimacy to those whose symptoms have been dismissed or attributed to other causes. It could also guide treatment decisions, help monitor disease progression, and potentially measure response to therapy.

For researchers- A biomarker could bring much-needed consistency to clinical trials. Right now, varying definitions and diagnostic criteria make it difficult to compare studies or determine which interventions truly work. With a measurable indicator, scientists could better select participants, study the underlying mechanisms, and test targeted treatments more effectively.

The study leaves several unanswered questions. For one, it’s not yet clear whether these viral fragments are present in people who had COVID-19 but recovered without long-term symptoms. Without that comparison, it’s hard to know if the biomarker is unique to long COVID or simply a lingering byproduct of infection.

The mechanism is also murky, are these proteins signs of ongoing viral replication somewhere in the body, or are they debris being cleared out over time? And if they are part of an active process, could targeting them improve patient outcomes?

Until these issues are resolved, the biomarker is more of a promising lead than a definitive diagnostic tool.

Why Have We Not Fully Understood Long COVID?

Long COVID remains an evolving medical challenge. Despite years of research, we still don’t fully know what causes it, why it affects some people and not others, or how to predict recovery. Without a standardized definition, prevalence estimates vary widely, and with more than 800 million COVID cases worldwide, the potential number of patients is staggering.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US has proposed a definition that includes up to 200 symptoms and states that no single symptom can confirm or rule out a diagnosis. While comprehensive, some experts argue that narrowing the symptom list could make diagnosis more specific and practical for research and clinical use.

The researchers behind the new study are already planning follow-up work to test whether the biomarker appears in people who had COVID-19 without developing long COVID. They also aim to investigate whether its presence changes over time or in response to treatments.

If their findings hold, this biomarker could mark the start of a new chapter in the fight against long COVID — one where diagnosis is not just about listening to symptoms, but also about identifying a clear, measurable biological signal.

As Dr. Stringer puts it, “This raises the question: is this just continuing to take out the trash from the COVID-infected cell, or is this really ongoing replication someplace? That’s the mechanistic issue that needs to be resolved in future studies.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that the nationwide shortage of sodium chloride 0.9 percent intravenous (IV) saline solution, which is a critical medical supply used in hospitals and emergency care, has officially come to an end. The resolution marks a significant milestone in stabilizing the supply of one of the most essential tools in patient care.

Collaborative Effort to Restore Supply

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H., credited the resolution of the shortage to a coordinated effort between the FDA, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and industry partners. According to Makary, this multi-agency and cross-sector collaboration allowed for rapid action to address the supply gap that had strained healthcare facilities across the country.

To overcome the shortage, the FDA and its partners implemented several urgent measures. These included enabling the temporary import of IV saline solutions from approved international sources, expediting the review process for domestic manufacturing expansions, and extending expiry dates for existing products after rigorous safety assessments. This combination of strategies helped boost production capacity and prevent supply chain bottlenecks.

Impact on Hospitals and Patient Care

Sodium chloride 0.9 percent IV saline is used for hydration, administering medications, and treating dehydration and other critical conditions. The shortage, which had persisted for months, forced hospitals to ration supplies and find alternative solutions. Medical professionals often had to adjust treatment protocols or use smaller IV bags to stretch resources, a situation that placed additional strain on already burdened healthcare systems.

Now, with supplies back to normal levels, the FDA has confirmed that the product will be removed from its official Drug Shortage Database. Facilities are being advised to return to using FDA-approved products whenever available.

ALSO READ: The Truth About IV Drips: Are They Better Than Food Or Supplements?

Ongoing Efforts to Prevent Future Shortages

While celebrating the resolution, the FDA emphasized that its work to secure medical product availability is far from over. Makary stressed that the agency remains committed to addressing other ongoing shortages, including those affecting certain IV fluids.

“The FDA remains focused on doing all we can to help mitigate shortages and prevent them from occurring,” Makary said in a statement. “We will continue working diligently to monitor supply levels, anticipate potential disruptions, and support a robust, secure, and transparent supply chain for medical products.”

The agency’s strategy involves close monitoring of manufacturer reports, collaboration with other federal agencies, and engagement with the private sector to anticipate challenges before they escalate into full-scale shortages.

A Model for Crisis Response

Experts say the resolution of the saline shortage could serve as a model for responding to future disruptions in medical supply chains. By acting quickly, coordinating with multiple stakeholders, and making temporary regulatory adjustments, the FDA and its partners were able to restore availability without compromising patient safety.

Public health advocates note that the success also underscores the importance of maintaining diverse manufacturing sources, both domestically and internationally, to safeguard against sudden disruptions caused by disasters, supply chain issues, or unexpected surges in demand.

The FDA’s announcement brings relief to healthcare providers nationwide, who have been navigating supply constraints for essential items over the past few years. With IV saline now in stable supply, hospitals can focus more on patient care without the added stress of product scarcity.

However, the agency cautions that vigilance is essential. The FDA will continue to work with manufacturers, monitor production levels, and apply lessons learned from this shortage to strengthen the overall resilience of the nation’s medical supply system.

Washington is gearing up to drop part two of its “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, and expectations are high. The first MAHA assessment, delivered to the White House this spring, framed a blunt thesis — American children are getting sicker, faster, and the drivers are mostly man-made. The follow-up “Strategy” report, due to be unveiled after it’s transmitted to the White House, is supposed to move from diagnosis to action. If you care about what kids eat, breathe, watch, and are prescribed, this matters.

Below is what the first report already established, what the new one is likely to do with it, and why the battles ahead won’t be tidy.

The White House’s MAHA Assessment was explicit: the United States faces a childhood chronic disease crisis and four forces are doing the heavy lifting — ultra-processed foods, cumulative chemical exposures, inactivity and chronic stress in a digital era, and over-medicalization of kids. It also laid out the machinery: an executive order created a Commission chaired by the Health and Human Services Secretary, tasked to deliver an assessment within 100 days and a strategy within 180 days, with the President’s senior health, science, and budget leaders named as members.

A few data points stood out. The Assessment claims more than 40 percent of U.S. children have at least one chronic condition; it attributes nearly 70 percent of kids’ calories to ultra-processed foods; and it argues that regulatory gaps allow cumulative chemical exposures to stack up in ways our policies haven’t kept pace with. It also points to soaring screen time, sleep loss, and stress, and warns that a culture of “treat first, ask later” has normalized aggressive medication in pediatrics.

The White House

That framing signals where the Strategy is headed. Let’s break it down into five likely reveals.

1) A push to de-normalize ultra-processed foods in federal programs

Expect the Strategy to take aim at ultra-processed foods (UPFs) across the programs Washington controls or influences — school meals, WIC, SNAP, and federal procurement. The Assessment spends an entire section on UPFs, arguing they displace nutrient-dense foods and expose kids to additives and sweeteners that track with obesity and metabolic disease. It cites the “nearly 70 percent” figure for children’s calories from UPFs and positions whole foods as the default standard. That sets up obvious levers: revising food specifications in school nutrition, tightening allowable additives in federally funded meals, and incentivizing regional supply chains for minimally processed foods.

Here’s what that could look like in practice: higher reimbursement tiers for scratch-cooked menus; procurement standards that limit defined UPF categories; clearer front-of-package transparency tied to federal vending or contracting; and pilot funds for districts to install basic cooking capacity. Because the Assessment explicitly links diet quality with chronic disease trajectories, the Strategy will likely argue these are health spend-avoidance, not just nutrition line items.

2) Chemicals: from single-substance safety to cumulative risk

Another likely pillar is an attempt to modernize how agencies evaluate environmental exposures. The Assessment flags that children are uniquely vulnerable to a growing “aggregation” of synthetic chemicals, and suggests current frameworks don’t adequately capture cumulative or mixture effects. Translation: don’t be surprised if the Strategy proposes a cross-agency effort to incorporate cumulative risk methodology, faster review cycles for chemicals common in food contact materials or school environments, and a more aggressive stance on data transparency around exposure sources.

Politically, this is the hottest burner. Farm groups already bristled at the Assessment’s references to studies linking common pesticides with cancer and liver problems. Expect the Strategy to thread the needle: phase-ins, exemptions for certain crops, and “safer substitution” funds for growers, while still signaling a turn away from chemicals with weak pediatric safety margins. The Assessment’s section on “corporate capture” and regulatory conflicts of interest previews tougher conflict-of-interest guardrails, which could extend to advisory panels and grantmaking.

3) Digital-age health: screen time, sleep, and movement standards with teeth

The Assessment ties a “decline of physical activity,” chronic stress, rising screen use, and sleep deprivation to worsening pediatric health. If the Strategy builds on that, look for concrete targets: daily movement minutes in schools, device-free windows for homework platforms, and funding for safe routes and after-school sport access in low-income districts. It may also propose standardizing sleep education and mental health screening in pediatric primary care tied to reimbursement, treating movement and sleep as vital signs rather than nice-to-haves.

To avoid culture-war potholes, the Strategy will likely focus on harms that enjoy broad consensus — sleep debt, musculoskeletal issues, sedentary behavior — rather than content moderation. Still, you can expect language urging “age-appropriate design” and data-minimizing defaults for platforms used in schools.

4) Reining in over-medicalization: audit the incentives, elevate prevention

One of the Assessment’s most provocative claims is that American children are “on too much medicine,” driven in part by research, regulatory, and clinical incentives that reward treatment over prevention. That sets the stage for a Strategy that asks payers to reimburse prevention like care: nutrition counseling, family-based lifestyle interventions, metabolic screening for high-risk kids, and deprescribing reviews. Expect pilots that tie Medicaid and CHIP dollars to prevention outcomes, encourage collaborative care models, and require pediatric-specific evidence for high-volume prescribing categories.

Don’t be surprised if the Strategy also calls for stronger disclosure and firewall rules around financial conflicts in guideline writing and clinical education, consistent with the Assessment’s “revolving door” critique. The goal is not to stigmatize necessary medicine, but to flip default settings so the first move is to address root causes when appropriate.

5) A whole-of-government playbook — with deadlines and dashboards

The Assessment is clear about timelines: the Commission delivers an Assessment, then a Strategy. The Strategy’s credibility hinges on measurable targets, agency owners, and public reporting. Expect a “whole-of-government” matrix that assigns tasks to HHS, USDA, EPA, Education, VA, OMB, OSTP, and FDA leadership — the very roles listed in the Assessment — with 6-, 12-, and 24-month deliverables. Think: a public dashboard tracking UPF prevalence in school meals, children’s exposure biomarkers in national surveys, physical activity minutes, and antibiotic or stimulant prescribing trends in pediatrics.

Given the White House’s emphasis on “radical transparency” in the Assessment — and its explicit statement that the Strategy must be “grounded in a common scientific basis” — the rollout may include commitment to open datasets, independent replication grants, and rapid-cycle pilots with third-party evaluation. That’s how you translate rhetoric into durable policy.

The White House

What Could Spark The Biggest Debates And Controversies?

Two flashpoints are already visible. First, agriculture and chemical policy: any move perceived as undermining pesticide tools or vilifying mainstream farming will face hard pushback. Second, the food industry: voluntary pledges to tweak recipes won’t cut it for nutrition advocates, but mandatory standards risk court challenges and supply-chain friction. The Strategy’s reception will hinge on whether it pairs higher standards with real transition help — procurement guarantees for farmers, grants for school kitchens, and a phase-in timeline that’s realistic.

On screens and stress, expect fewer fireworks — parents, clinicians, and schools largely agree kids need more sleep and movement — but the implementation details matter. Unfunded mandates will stall; funded pilots with clear metrics can move.

How To Read The Report When It Releases?

When the Strategy drops, skip the slogans and scan for five things: specific agency actions, measurable targets, funding sources, timelines, and independent evaluation. If those are present — and aligned with the Assessment’s four drivers — you’re looking at more than a press conference.

If they’re vague, the headline risk is that the Strategy becomes another well-intended framework that fades by the next budget cycle.

The MAHA Assessment argued that kids’ health is failing not because we lack medical breakthroughs, but because daily exposures — to engineered foods, chemicals, screens, stress, and quick-fix prescribing — have outpaced our policies. The Strategy’s job is to reverse that equation with rules, incentives, and transparency that make the healthy choice the default in schools, clinics, and communities. If it delivers clear standards for food, modernized chemical risk policies, funded movement and sleep initiatives, and a rebalanced payment system that rewards prevention, it could mark a real turn.

Alcohol consumption in the United States has dropped to its lowest point in recorded history — and it’s not just because of shifting social trends. A growing body of research, changing public health advice, and generational attitudes are all fueling a nationwide reevaluation of drinking.

According to Gallup’s latest Consumption Habits survey, only 54% of American adults say they drink alcohol. That’s down from 58% in 2024, 62% in 2023, and below the previous record low of 55% in 1958. This decline is significant not just in percentage, but in cultural context — alcohol has been embedded in American social life for decades, from backyard barbecues to happy hours.

Interestingly, Gallup’s data suggests this drop isn’t being offset by other intoxicants like recreational cannabis, now legal in about half of U.S. states. Instead, it appears to be part of a deeper health-driven shift.

Why More Americans See Alcohol as a Health Risk?

For the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 2001, a majority of Americans — 53% — now believe that even moderate drinking is harmful. In 2015, that figure was just 28%. The change has been sharp, and it’s being driven largely by younger adults.

Among Americans aged 18 to 34, about two-thirds now believe that having “one or two drinks a day” carries health risks. Older adults are more cautious in their views only about half agree but that’s still a massive jump from the 20% who held this view a decade ago.

Part of the shift is fueled by stronger scientific consensus. In past decades, moderate alcohol consumption was often touted as beneficial for heart health- a belief rooted in flawed studies that couldn’t prove cause and effect. Now, research points to the opposite: alcohol increases the risk of at least seven cancers, contributes to liver disease, and has no safe consumption threshold.

Is The Pandemic Spike Behind The Decline?

It’s worth noting that the COVID-19 pandemic briefly reversed the downward drinking trend. During lockdowns, alcohol sales spiked and “quarantine cocktails” became a social media phenomenon. But once restrictions lifted, a correction began.

Inflation and higher interest rates have also played a role, making alcohol — particularly wine and spirits — more expensive. But public health messaging has been the stronger driver, with the U.S. Surgeon General earlier this year recommending warning labels on alcohol similar to those on cigarettes.

How Drinking Habits Are Changing?

It’s not only fewer people drinking — it’s also those who drink doing so less often.

Daily drinking is at a record low: Only 24% of drinkers had alcohol in the past 24 hours, the lowest in Gallup’s history.

Longer gaps between drinks: 40% of drinkers say it’s been more than a week since their last drink.

Lower overall intake: The average number of drinks per week has fallen to 2.8 — down from 3.8 last year and far from the 5.1 weekly drinks reported in 2003.

These numbers suggest that even people who haven’t sworn off alcohol entirely are moderating their intake more than ever.

Younger generations are leading the decline, and they’re doing so for different reasons than older Americans. Gen Z and younger millennials are generally more health-conscious, less tolerant of hangovers, and more open to “sober-curious” movements that normalize abstaining from alcohol in social settings.

Meanwhile, older Americans who may have lived through decades of conflicting health advice are slower to shift their beliefs, but still moving toward more cautious views.

As Lydia Saad, Gallup’s director of social research, notes, “Older folks may be a little more hardened to the whiplash of changing recommendations. Younger adults, on the other hand, are coming into adulthood already aware of alcohol’s risks.”

The U.S. isn’t alone in rethinking alcohol. Canada recently updated its guidelines to recommend no more than two drinks per week, citing cancer risk. The UK has lowered its safe drinking limit, and Australia has taken a similar approach. These changes reflect a growing international acknowledgment that alcohol, in any amount, carries health consequences.

This global trend is further reinforced by marketing shifts- non-alcoholic beer, wine, and spirits are now mainstream products, with sales growing far faster than their alcoholic counterparts.

If Americans continue to cut back, the shift could have meaningful health benefits. Lower alcohol consumption is linked to reduced rates of heart disease, liver damage, certain cancers, and accidents. However, experts caution that public health messaging must be clear and consistent past mixed signals have slowed behavioral change.

The U.S. federal government’s current guidelines still recommend up to two drinks per day for men and one for women, but those are under review. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has hinted at “big changes” in upcoming recommendations.

While the decline in drinking may sound like a public health win, it’s not guaranteed to continue at the same pace. Social habits, economic pressures, and cultural attitudes can shift quickly as seen during the pandemic.

Still, the fact that over half of Americans now view moderate drinking as harmful marks a cultural tipping point. A behavior once considered benign, even beneficial, is now increasingly viewed as risky, much like smoking transitioned from socially accepted to widely discouraged.

For alcohol producers, hospitality businesses, and policymakers, this changing relationship with alcohol isn’t just a health trend, it’s an economic and cultural shift that will reshape how Americans celebrate, socialize, and define wellness for years to come.

The American relationship with alcohol is changing more dramatically than at any point in the past 80 years. The driving force isn’t prohibition or moralizing it’s science, awareness, and a generation less interested in raising a glass if it comes at a cost to their health.