They’ve survived the unthinkable—only to be left behind. Tens of thousands of people across the UK were infected with HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C after receiving contaminated blood products through the National Health Service (NHS) between the 1970s and early 1990s. Over 3,000 have died. Those who remain—living with irreversible health damage—say they are “waiting to die in limbo,” abandoned by a system that once harmed them and is now delaying their compensation.

The scandal is now one of the gravest failures in the history of public health and medical ethics in Britain. Yet even after a damning public inquiry and the announcement of a compensation package exceeding £11.8 billion, the process of justice remains painfully slow and exclusionary.

Also Read: FDA Approves New Covid Vaccine For Kids With Selective Eligibility

The infected blood scandal didn’t happen in a vacuum. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the UK faced a growing demand for clotting agents like Factor VIII, used to treat patients with conditions such as haemophilia. But with domestic supply falling short, the NHS began importing blood plasma—mainly from the United States.

Much of that plasma came from high-risk groups, including prisoners and intravenous drug users, who were often paid to donate. These donations were frequently contaminated with hepatitis viruses and HIV.

Shockingly, UK authorities continued using these high-risk blood products for years, even after risks were known. Blood donations were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991—18 months after the virus had already been identified.

What is The Human Cost Of Infected Blood Health Complications?

Over 30,000 NHS patients were exposed. Many were children. Some were subjected to medical trials without consent. The result? A generation of individuals living with chronic illnesses and systemic health complications that never should have happened.

HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C are life-altering conditions. Beyond the immediate risk of organ damage, liver failure, or immunosuppression, the emotional toll is immense. Survivors often live with persistent fatigue, neurological symptoms, chronic pain, and mental health challenges, including PTSD and anxiety. Stigma around HIV and hepatitis has also caused widespread social isolation.

Women infected through childbirth or transfusions during pregnancy face added burdens. Children of infected parents have lost caregivers. Many victims stayed silent for decades, fearing shame or professional consequences.

In 2017, the UK government finally launched a statutory inquiry into the scandal. The final report, released in May 2024, called out a pervasive cover-up by the NHS and government. The evidence was clear: thousands were knowingly exposed to risk. The response was too little, too late.

Also Read: South Asia Continues To Remain The 'Global Epicentre' Of Anemia Among Girls

Following the report, a multi-billion-pound compensation fund was announced but fast forward to mid-2025, and only 460 victims have received full compensation out of more than 2,000 invited to submit claims. Tens of thousands more are still waiting—even to be allowed to apply.

Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the public inquiry and British judge, was blunt in a supplemental 200-page report released in July 2025. “People are being harmed further,” he said. “Obvious injustices” include:

• Exclusion of victims infected with HIV before 1982
• Unrealistic evidence requirements for psychological harm
• Lack of consultation with victims during the design of the scheme

Rather than being centered around the people it aims to serve, the scheme was built behind closed doors—mirroring the secrecy that caused the original disaster.

How Compensation Delays Are Worsening Victims' Health Conditions

Here's what many don’t grasp: delayed compensation isn’t just a bureaucratic failure—it’s a health crisis.

Many victims are now elderly or seriously ill. Without financial support, they face barriers to adequate care, end-of-life support, and medical treatments not covered by the NHS. Mental health, too, has deteriorated among survivors, many of whom feel abandoned yet again.

The current criteria for proving psychological harm require evidence from a consultant psychiatrist with long-term treatment records. But in the 1980s and 90s, such services were rarely available, especially outside major cities. For many victims, disclosing their status even to medical professionals meant risking stigma, job loss, or personal rejection.

Requiring documentation they could never have safely obtained isn’t just unfair, it’s cruel.

What Happens to the Body When In Contact With Contaminated Blood?

To understand the scale of this injustice, it’s crucial to look at what infections like HIV and hepatitis do to the body:

HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) attacks the immune system, making the body vulnerable to other infections and certain cancers. Without treatment, it progresses to AIDS. Even with antiretroviral therapy, it can cause long-term fatigue, cognitive issues, cardiovascular problems, and reduced life expectancy.

Hepatitis B and C target the liver. Chronic infection can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Many infected individuals require lifelong antiviral medication and liver monitoring.

These viruses are spread through contact with infected blood, sexual fluids, or contaminated medical tools. Even a single exposure can lead to lifelong health consequences.

Despite allocating £11.8 billion, the UK government has been slow to implement recommendations. Sir Brian’s report calls for:

• Immediate eligibility for all victims, not just those invited
• Prioritization of elderly and severely ill survivors
• Acknowledgment of the stigma that prevented early care
• Transparency and involvement of affected families in ongoing decision-making

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has so far processed a fraction of the claims. Survivors continue to ask: if the government has known this was coming for years, why are we still waiting?

While this scandal is rooted in the UK, the message applies globally- trust in healthcare systems is fragile. Once broken, it’s hard to rebuild.

Scandals like this shake confidence in public health not just in transfusions, but in vaccines, medications, and institutional care. When victims are sidelined, when compensation is delayed, and when transparency is lacking, the public loses faith.

We mark age by birthdays, but inside our bodies, every organ is on its own clock. And according to new research out of Stanford University, your brain’s biological age might be the best single predictor of how long you’ll live.

The study, published in Nature Medicine, examined over 44,000 adults aged 40 to 70 using a blood test that assesses biological aging across 11 organs. Among all, the brain stood out. Individuals with biologically "younger" brains lived significantly longer—and were far less likely to develop diseases like Alzheimer’s—than those with “aged” brains, regardless of their chronological age.

Researchers at Stanford Medicine analyzed data from the UK Biobank, using a unique blood test that assesses protein signatures—molecules in the blood produced by specific organs. By matching these protein levels to organ-specific aging profiles, they generated biological age scores for 11 systems, including the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, immune system, and more.

What they found was clear: the more aged your organs are biologically, the higher your risk of disease and premature death. But among all organs studied, the brain’s age had the strongest correlation with longevity.

Participants with “extremely aged” brains—defined as those in the top 7% of biological aging for their chronological age—were nearly twice as likely to die within the next 15 years as those with average-aged brains. On the flip side, people with “extremely youthful” brains had a 40% lower risk of dying in that same period.

“The brain is the gatekeeper of longevity,” said Dr. Tony Wyss-Coray, lead neuroscientist on the study. “If you've got an old brain, you have an increased likelihood of mortality. If you've got a young brain, you're probably going to live longer.”

The implications go beyond just living longer—they also relate to quality of life. Participants with youthful brains had a 74% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s, while those with aged brains were over three times more likely to receive a diagnosis.

This suggests that tracking biological brain age could be a powerful tool for predicting and potentially preventing neurodegenerative diseases.

How Does Brain Aging Happen and Can We Slow It Down?

Several lifestyle and environmental factors may accelerate brain aging. These include:

• Chronic stress
• Poor diet
• Lack of sleep
• Sedentary behavior
• Excess alcohol or drug use
• Unmanaged health conditions like obesity or hypertension

On the flip side, regular physical activity, a balanced diet rich in omega-3s and antioxidants, quality sleep, social connection, and lifelong learning have all been associated with better cognitive outcomes and reduced brain aging.

There’s also emerging evidence that certain medications, supplements, or even dietary patterns may help preserve brain youthfulness—but more research is needed.

Currently, most people go to the doctor only when something feels wrong. But Dr. Wyss-Coray and his team envision a future where aging biomarkers guide proactive interventions—years before disease appears.

“We’re trying to shift from sick care to health care,” he explains. “We want to intervene before people develop organ-specific disease.” In practice, this could look like:

• Annual blood tests tracking organ-specific biological ages
• Earlier screenings for Alzheimer’s, cardiovascular disease, or cancer
• Tailored lifestyle plans to target the most at-risk organs
• Use of approved drugs to “rejuvenate” aging organs

While still in development, the team believes this test could be commercially available within 2–3 years, focusing first on the brain, heart, and immune system—the organs most closely linked to age-related disease and death.

Perhaps the most important insight from this study is that aging isn’t uniform. You could be 55 on paper, have the heart of a 40-year-old, but the brain of a 70-year-old—and that brain age may be what ultimately determines your health trajectory.

One in four people in the study had at least one “extremely aged” or “extremely youthful” organ, and many had multiple. That level of variation highlights the importance of individualized assessment over blanket assumptions about health based solely on chronological age.

What Can You Do Right Now To Stop This?

While the science is still evolving, here are steps you can take today to support a healthier, more youthful brain:

Stay mentally active: Read, learn, play memory games

Exercise regularly: Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week

Get quality sleep: 7–9 hours a night, consistently

Eat brain-friendly foods: Leafy greens, fatty fish, berries, nuts, whole grains

Manage stress: Try mindfulness, yoga, or breathwork

Avoid toxins: Limit alcohol, quit smoking, monitor environmental exposures

Stay socially engaged: Connection matters as much as cognition

This new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the state of your brain today can forecast the state of your future health. While birthdays will always mark the passage of time, science may soon give us a much deeper—and more actionable—way to measure how well we’re really aging. In the near future, checking your “brain age” might be as routine as getting your cholesterol tested. And it could change everything about how we approach aging and longevity.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted full approval to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, for children aged 6 months to 11 years — but with a critical condition: it’s only approved for those with underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. This decision marks a shift in the federal approach to pediatric vaccinations, with implications that stretch beyond individual health to the national conversation around public trust in vaccines.

Until now, Moderna’s pediatric vaccine had been administered under emergency use authorization (EUA), a fast-track mechanism used throughout the pandemic. Thursday’s announcement confirms the FDA has approved a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Spikevax in children under 12, marking the first COVID vaccine for kids in the U.S. to receive full licensure.

But the approval is narrow: it applies only to children with medical vulnerabilities — such as asthma, congenital heart disease, or immunocompromising conditions — who face higher risks of hospitalization or severe complications from COVID-19.

Also Read: UN Warns Millions Could Die By 2029 If US Cuts HIV Funding

This development aligns with evolving U.S. health policy, particularly since Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made sweeping changes to COVID-19 vaccine guidance earlier this year.

In May, RFK Jr. declared that routine COVID-19 vaccinations would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. The decision was not made in consultation with the broader scientific community or advisory boards, and it drew swift backlash from public health experts.

Compounding the controversy, Kennedy dismantled the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — the independent body of scientists that has advised U.S. vaccine policy for decades — and replaced all 17 members with just seven new appointees, many of whom have documented anti-vaccine stances.

Major medical organizations have since filed lawsuits, arguing that Kennedy’s directives ignore established science and pose a significant public health risk, particularly in light of data showing that infants and toddlers remain vulnerable to serious illness from COVID-19.

Here’s the thing — while healthy children may generally experience milder COVID-19 symptoms, they’re not immune from severe outcomes. In fact, babies under 6 months have the second-highest hospitalization rate for COVID-19, right behind adults aged 75 and older. And kids between 6 and 23 months are hospitalized at similar rates to adults in their early 60s, according to data recently presented to the ACIP before it was disbanded.

Also Read: Medical Memoir: Comeback Of Victorian Era Diseases – Why Are We Seeing A Rise In Long-Forgotten Diseases

Children under 6 months can’t be vaccinated. But those between 6 months and 11 years, especially those with health conditions, still benefit greatly from immunization. Moderna’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, emphasized the urgency, “COVID-19 continues to pose a significant potential threat to children, especially those with underlying medical conditions. Vaccination can be an important tool for protecting our youngest against severe disease and hospitalization.”

What the New Approval Means for Parents?

Parents of children aged 6 months to 11 years who fall into at-risk categories now have the option of a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine — not just one available under emergency use. For these families, the approval brings an added layer of reassurance about safety, efficacy, and regulatory oversight. According to Moderna:

• Children ages 6 to 23 months who haven’t previously received a COVID-19 vaccine will need two doses, spaced one month apart.
• Children over 2 years who have already been vaccinated, or are starting fresh, will need just one booster shot.

Moderna says its updated vaccine will be made available in time for the 2025-26 respiratory virus season.

Why Some Experts Still Recommend Vaccinating All Eligible Children?

While federal policy now limits vaccination recommendations, the CDC has kept the door open, stating that COVID-19 shots “remain an option” for healthy children if parents and their pediatricians agree it’s warranted. Vaccination doesn’t just prevent infection — it lowers the chance of serious outcomes like:

• MIS-C (Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children), a rare but severe complication
• Long COVID symptoms, which can include fatigue, cognitive issues, and respiratory problems

Transmission to vulnerable adults, such as grandparents or teachers with underlying conditions

Additionally, children who are vaccinated are less likely to miss school, more likely to safely participate in sports and social activities, and can contribute to broader community protection.

The selective nature of this FDA approval speaks to a deepening divide in how U.S. health policy is being shaped — one that pits evolving scientific data against a rising tide of political skepticism.

As the CDC continues to endorse COVID-19 vaccination for everyone aged 6 months and older, Kennedy’s reversal of longstanding recommendations has raised alarms among epidemiologists, pediatricians, and public health officials who warn that scaling back vaccine guidance may undermine public trust and increase risk for vulnerable populations.

Meanwhile, Moderna’s stock saw a modest 2% rise in premarket trading, signaling investor confidence in the vaccine’s continued relevance — especially for immunocompromised populations.

This isn’t just another vaccine approval — it’s a mirror of where the U.S. stands on public health, science, and trust in institutions. With the FDA’s endorsement of Moderna’s Spikevax for select children, parents of vulnerable kids now have a fully approved safeguard.

The mixed messaging between the FDA, the CDC, and the federal health secretary may leave many families confused about what’s best for their children. In this climate, pediatricians will play a crucial role in helping families make informed decisions based on science, not politics.

For two decades, American-led investment through programs like PEPFAR (The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) has helped slash global AIDS-related deaths to their lowest levels in over 30 years. But this progress is now at serious risk. A sudden and sweeping withdrawal of U.S. foreign aid has triggered what the United Nations is calling a “systemic shock” to HIV response systems around the world.

According to a new UNAIDS report, if the funding gap remains unresolved, the world could see more than 4 million additional AIDS-related deaths and 6 million new HIV infections by 2029. The consequences are already visible — health facilities shuttered, supply chains broken, testing and treatment disrupted, and clinics in sub-Saharan Africa forced to halt vital HIV services.

In January, President Trump abruptly suspended all foreign aid and took steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). That move wiped out $4 billion in pledged HIV funding for 2025, including the backbone funding for programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, PEPFAR has been called the largest commitment by any country to fight a single disease. Since its inception, it has supported HIV testing for more than 84 million people and treatment for over 20 million. Countries like Nigeria, where 99.9% of the national HIV prevention budget was supported by PEPFAR, are now facing catastrophic disruption.

Andrew Hill, an HIV researcher at the University of Liverpool, criticized the U.S. government's abrupt move: “Any responsible government would have given advance warning so countries could plan,” he said. “Instead, patients were stranded, and clinics closed overnight.”

The Domino Effect

The fallout from the funding cut is widespread. UNAIDS has reported large-scale impacts: medical facilities without staff, vital medications running out, and HIV testing and surveillance collapsing in several regions.

The U.S. was the main funder of HIV data systems across Africa — from patient records to electronic surveillance systems. With that infrastructure now unsupported, global experts worry that tracking and controlling the spread of HIV is about to get significantly harder.

“Without reliable data about how HIV is spreading, it will be incredibly hard to stop it,” said Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Global Health Institute at Duke University.

What makes this funding crisis even more tragic is the timing. Just as the world reaches the brink of a possible HIV breakthrough, it may be losing the means to distribute it.

Gilead’s new injectable drug, Yeztugo, was approved by the U.S. FDA last month. Clinical trials suggest it is 100% effective at preventing HIV when administered twice a year. At a launch event, South Africa’s Health Minister, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi, emphasized its potential: “We will move mountains and rivers to make sure every adolescent girl who needs it will get it.”

Yet many countries may never see the drug. Gilead has promised low-cost generic versions for 120 poorer countries, but has notably excluded most of Latin America — where HIV rates are increasing, even if they are lower overall.

Peter Maybarduk, director at Public Citizen, called it a “threshold moment” in the fight against AIDS. But he fears it will be squandered: “We could be ending AIDS. Instead, the U.S. is abandoning the fight.”

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for roughly half of all new HIV infections globally. Even before the U.S. pullback, access to care and medication in the region was fragile and uneven.

Dr. Tom Ellman, with Doctors Without Borders in South Africa, put it bluntly: “There’s nothing we can do that will protect these countries from the sudden, vicious withdrawal of support from the U.S.”

While some nations have begun building domestic HIV response programs, the gap left by the U.S. is simply too wide. Prevention campaigns are faltering, awareness efforts have stalled, and many community-based initiatives have been forced to shut down or drastically scale back.

In 2004, AIDS claimed nearly 2 million lives globally. By 2024, that number had dropped to around 630,000, largely thanks to international funding and collaborative programs. But UNAIDS warns that without renewed support, these hard-won gains could unravel rapidly.

Geopolitical shifts, ongoing wars, and climate-related disruptions are already putting pressure on global health cooperation. The loss of the U.S. as a stabilizing force in the HIV response leaves many questioning what’s next.

The most vulnerable — young women, children, LGBTQ+ communities, and those in poverty — stand to lose the most.

UNAIDS and other global health leaders are urging the international community to step up. Whether through restoring U.S. funding or rallying alternative donors, a coordinated response is essential. Experts are also calling for pharmaceutical companies like Gilead to expand access and reduce costs, ensuring that breakthroughs don’t become tools of inequality.

The global AIDS fight is far from over. In fact, this moment may determine whether it's won or lost.

If nothing changes, the consequences are clear: millions of lives in the balance, and a public health crisis reborn from neglect.