It is no surprise that when anyone looks for innovation and technology, the first name that comes to their mind is of Japan. In yet another breakthrough, Japan may be too close to invent lab. Last year, it was declared that Japan will begin its clinical study of artificial red blood cells that can be stored for transfusion in times of emergency. This was released by Nara Medical University.

It is now in the process of developing artificial blood cells and aims to put these artificial cells into practical use by 2030. This would be world's first.

Also Read: How “Safe” Vaping Is Hooking A New Generation On Nicotine?

Lab-Grown Blood: Why Is This Happening?

Japan is battling a shrinking population, where the older population dominates the younger ones. In 2024, Japan had a record of high 36.25 million people aged 65 or older, representing 29.3% of the total population. This indicates a significantly larger proportion of elderly citizens as compared to the young population.

This has led to a shortage of blood supply, as older people cannot donate blood. As per the Red Cross Society, donors up to 65 years of age can donate blood. While there is no upper age limit, you must be in good health to meet other eligibility criteria.

A 1987 study published in JAMA titled Blood Donation by the Elderly: Clinical and Policy Considerations, notes that it is far more feasible for individuals within the age bracket of 66 to donate blood. Another comparative study from 2019, published in Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion Collaborative (BEST) Investigators noted that while there is no exclusion for older donors, the limit is solely based on their safety.

Also Read: World No Tobacco Day 2025 Theme

Another reason why this clinical study is being conducted is because white blood cells obtained form already donated blood can only be stored for less than a month at low temperatures. However, the artificial cells can be stored for two years at room temperature. As the artificial cells are also made from any blood type, they can be used without confirming a patients' blood type and could be administered even during transportation by ambulance, confirmed the researchers.

The university also said that if no side effects are confirmed with 400ml of administration, the trial will shift to examine the treatment's efficacy and safety.

Who Is Leading This Study?

A team led by Professor Hiromi Sakai of the Nara Medical University is leading this study. The approach involves extracting hemoglobin, which is the oxygen carrying molecule in the red blood cells from expired donor blood, and then encasing it in a protective shell to create stable, virus-free artificial red blood cells.

Also Read: Menstrual Hygiene Importance

How Artificial Blood is Different From Donated Blood?

The main difference lies in the absence of blood type, which further eliminates the need for compatibility testing. This is what makes it invaluable in the case of emergency.

Professor Teruyuki Komatsu of Chuo University is also leading the artificial oxygen carrier study. This uses albumin-encased hemoglobin to stabilize blood pressure and treat conditions like hemorrhage and stroke. For now, animal studies have shown promising results.

How Is Artificial Blood Made?

The process usually starts with stem cells. This is where special cells are that can in fact develop into different types of cell in your body. This includes red blood cells, platelets, or even skin cells.

Scientists use a specific type of cell called the haematopoietic stem cells, which can produce all types of blood cells, including the WBC, RBC, and platelets. They are then placed in a lab setting to turn these stem cells into blood cells.

Cedric Ghevaert, who is the professor of transfusion medicine at the University of Cambridge, explained that scientists are then able to "gene edit" the stem cells to boost blood production and remove blood group markers, as reported in Aljazeera.

Have Others Tried To Make Artificial Blood?

The United States military has invested $46m in developing ErythroMer, a synthetic blood substitute designed to be universally compatible and stable without refrigeration. The product is still under research.

In 2022, a clinical trial in the UK also marked a breakthrough where laboratory-grown red blood cells were transfused into human volunteers to assess their safety standards and longevity, as reports Aljazeera.

In 2013, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) estimated that producing a single unit of lab-grown blood cost over $90,000. Thanks to improvements in production techniques, that cost has now dropped to under $5,000 per unit. In contrast, hospitals in the U.S. paid an average of just $215 per unit for donated red blood cells in 2019.

US Health officials have declared Chagas disease, a potentially deadly infection spread by the ‘kissing bugs’, an epidemic. These bugs have been found in 32 states, and at least eight Americans have caught the disease from local transmission. This has led scientists to urge the CDC and the WHO to officially declare the illness as endemic in the U.S., which means it's a disease that is naturally present in the region. Experts believe that over 300,000 people in the U.S. may have Chagas disease, but very few of them know it.

What Is Chagas Disease?

According to UCLA Health, Chagas disease, a potentially life-threatening condition, is most commonly spread by the “kissing bug,” which gets its name because it tends to bite people on the face while they sleep. After biting, the bug defecates on the skin, leaving behind a parasite called T. cruzi. When the person scratches the itchy bite, they accidentally rub the parasite into the wound, and that's how it enters the bloodstream. Chagas disease can also be passed from a pregnant person to their baby, through organ transplants and blood transfusions, or by eating uncooked food that has been contaminated with the parasite.

Is Chagas Disease Contagious?

No, the Cleveland Clinic explains that this disease cannot spread from person to person. Many people with Chagas disease have no symptoms at all, which is why it's often called a "silent disease." In the early stage, which lasts about two months, some people might experience a swollen eyelid, fever, or body aches, but these symptoms are easily mistaken for other common illnesses.

Over a person’s lifetime, about 20% of those infected will develop serious, long-term problems, most often affecting the heart. Chagas disease can slowly damage the heart, leading to an enlarged heart, heart failure, or even a heart attack. It can also cause digestive problems, like an enlarged colon.

What Are Signs And Symptoms of Chagas Disease?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Chagas disease happens in two main stages. For most people, the first stage goes unnoticed, but it can lead to very serious problems later on.

The First Stage

This early phase lasts for about two months after a person is infected. Most people have no symptoms at all, or they experience mild, general symptoms that could be caused by anything else, such as a fever, headache, muscle pain, or swelling. In rare cases, a person might see a specific sign, like a skin sore where they were bitten, or a purple swelling of one eyelid.

The Second Stage

The second stage of the disease can last for a person's entire life. During this time, the parasites hide mainly in the heart and muscles of the digestive system. About 10 to 30 years after being infected, up to a third of people will develop serious heart problems, and up to 1 in 10 will have digestive issues, such as an enlarged food pipe or colon. Over time, this can lead to an irregular heartbeat, slow heart failure, and in some cases, sudden death.

How To Treat Chagas Disease?

Anti-parasite medications are only effective at treating Chagas disease during its very early stage. Once the disease has been in the body for a while, there is no cure, though symptoms of heart failure can be managed with medication or even a heart transplant.

Doctors recommend that anyone who is from or has traveled to Latin America and begins to experience heart problems should be tested for Chagas disease. It's also worth noting that the U.S. blood supply has been tested for Chagas since 2007.

How Can We Prevent Chagas Disease?

WHO explains that because Chagas disease is carried by "kissing bugs" and is so widespread among wild animals throughout the Americas, it's not possible to completely wipe it out. Instead, public health efforts are focused on stopping the disease from spreading to humans, making sure infected people get diagnosed early, and providing them with lifelong medical care. To prevent the spread of Chagas disease, health organizations recommend a few key approaches:

Controlling the bugs

This is considered the most effective way to prevent the disease. It includes spraying homes and surrounding areas with bug-killing chemicals and making sure houses are built and kept clean to prevent the insects from living in cracks in the walls.

Personal protection

People can protect themselves with personal measures like using bed nets and practicing good hygiene when handling food.

Screening donors

Screening blood donors is necessary to prevent the disease from spreading through blood transfusions and organ transplants.

Checking newborns

It is also important to test newborns and other children of infected mothers, as the disease can be passed during pregnancy.

Martha's rule is a scheme rolled out in 2021 after the death of a 13-year-old, NHS has now declared that all acute inpatient sites will offer the service, that has now saved thousands of lives.

Martha’s rule was set up after the death of young Martha Mills who developed sepsis while she was under the care of King’s College Hospital under NHS Foundation Trust in south London in 2021.

Her death was a wakeup call for health authorities and her parents, both of whom had brought up their concerns regarding their daughter’s care multiple times, while they were completely ignored. Having this facility could help many families feel at ease and know that they can easily ask for second opinions.

Who Is Martha from Martha's Rule?

What if you knew your loved one was getting sicker in the hospital, but no one was listening? That's the heartbreaking situation that led to Martha's Rule, a new system designed to make sure every patient's voice is heard.

In 2021, Martha was in the hospital for an injury. While she was there, she developed a serious and life-threatening condition called sepsis. Her family saw that she was getting sicker and sicker, and they frantically tried to get the doctors and nurses to listen to their fears. Sadly, they were not heard, and Martha passed away.

The rule was put in place when the authorities ruled out that young Martha may have survived if the doctors had identified the warning signs of her declining condition and transferred her into intensive care. Her parents, in their grief, decided to fight to make sure no other family would have to go through the same tragedy.

How Does Martha's Rule Work?

Martha's Rule is a way to make sure that patients, families, and caregivers can have their concerns heard and addressed in a hospital. It is being introduced for patients staying overnight in hospitals across England. The rule has three main parts:

• Patients will be asked daily how they are feeling, and their answers will be officially recorded.
• Hospital staff can, at any time, ask for an urgent review from a different team if they are worried about a patient but feel their concerns are not being listened to.
• Patients, their families, and caregivers will always have a way to ask for this urgent review as well. This will be clearly advertised in the hospital.

If a family member or patient feels worried about a worsening condition and their concerns are not being addressed by their main care team, they can call a dedicated number for a rapid review from a different, independent team.

Has Martha’s Rule Saved Anyone?

According to NHS UK, yes. From September 2024 to June 2025, there were 4,906 calls made to the helpline. The highest number of these calls, about 72%, came from patients and their families. Of all the calls, 2,132 were related to a patient's health getting worse quickly. Of those, 241 calls led to potentially life-saving changes in care, including:

• 93 urgent transfers to an intensive care unit.
• 49 transfers to a different hospital or a higher level of care.

For another 720 calls, the rule led to other important changes, such as starting a new medication like an antibiotic or getting a new scan. This data highlights just how important it is to listen to the concerns of patients and families.

How Martha’s Rule Makes Healthcare So Access?

After the positive results from the first year, the NHS began introducing Martha's Rule to all remaining hospitals in England in April 2025. This includes hospitals that treat adults and children. The program is also being tested in a small number of maternity and mental health units to see if it can be expanded even further.

Professor Meghana Pandit, NHS National Medical Director, said, “There have now been almost 5,000 calls made to the hotlines, with hundreds of potentially life-saving interventions triggered, which is why we are now expanding Martha’s Rule to all acute hospitals in England.”

The health officials acknowledge that, this mistake cost the life of a young girl, but keeping her spirit live through this rule and many others who have used this rule for their loved one. As Health and Social Care Secretary, Wes Streeting said, “No family should ever have to go through what Merope and Paul endured when they lost Martha, but her parents’ tireless campaigning has created a lasting legacy that is already having a potentially lifesaving impact across England.”

The U.S. vaccine advisory landscape is facing a seismic shift as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. moves to reshape the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). According to an internal CDC document reviewed by Reuters, Kennedy has nominated seven new members to the ACIP, following his controversial ousting of all 17 previous panelists in June. The move has drawn scrutiny from public health experts who fear that vaccine guidance could be increasingly influenced by political considerations rather than scientific consensus.

The ACIP has long been a cornerstone of U.S. vaccine policy, advising the CDC on which vaccines should be administered, to whom, and on what schedule after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. The committee’s recommendations form the basis for insurance coverage across the country and are integral to maintaining herd immunity and public trust in vaccines. Kennedy’s decision to fire all 17 members mid-year and replace them with a hand-picked cohort of eight advisers — one of whom has since left — marks an unprecedented intervention in the advisory process.

Among the seven prospective members named in the latest internal document is Dr. Raymond Pollak, a semi-retired transplant surgeon with a background in immunology. Pollak confirmed that he has been asked to serve on the panel but remains cautious. “I’m being considered pending the vetting process. If I was offered the position, I would think carefully about it,” he told reporters.

Other appointees include Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine specialist in New Orleans; Dr. John Gaitanis, a pediatric neurologist; Dr. Catherine Stein, an epidemiology professor; Hillary Blackburn, a trained pharmacist; and Evelyn Griffin, an obstetrician-gynecologist. None of these professionals were immediately available for comment. Retsef Levi, PhD, will chair the newly restructured COVID-19 Immunization Workgroup, drawing particular concern from infectious disease specialists.

What Are The Concerns Over Panel Independence?

The rapid overhaul of ACIP has sparked widespread debate about the independence and credibility of the panel. Critics argue that Kennedy, a long-standing vaccine skeptic, has moved to stack the committee with individuals whose views align with his own. The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez last week further amplified these concerns. Monarez reportedly resisted policy changes advanced by Kennedy and was asked to merely rubber-stamp committee recommendations. Her departure prompted resignations from three top CDC officials, citing the secretary’s anti-vaccine policies as their reason.

Does This Pull The Stakes Down For Vaccine Policy in US?

The ACIP is scheduled to meet on September 18, with discussions likely to include recommendations for hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella-varicella, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, according to the Federal Register. Traditionally, the CDC director holds final approval over these recommendations. With the new panel in place, public health experts worry that guidance on critical vaccines — including COVID-19 immunizations — could diverge from established scientific evidence, potentially affecting millions of Americans.

Levi, who will lead the COVID-19 Immunization Workgroup, has previously expressed skepticism about mRNA COVID vaccines. In a 2023 video posted on social media, he asserted that all COVID mRNA vaccination programs “should stop immediately,” claiming that they failed to deliver on efficacy promises and caused “unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.” Such statements have alarmed epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, who warn that this rhetoric could erode public trust in vaccines and heighten vulnerability to preventable diseases.

Implications for Public Health and Vaccine Uptake

Public health experts emphasize that vaccine recommendations are not merely technical decisions; they have real-world consequences for community immunity, disease outbreaks, and healthcare costs. The credibility of ACIP is pivotal in maintaining high vaccination rates, especially for routine childhood immunizations and COVID-19 boosters. Should the panel’s guidance shift toward skepticism of established vaccines, experts fear a rise in vaccine hesitancy, lower immunization coverage, and a resurgence of preventable diseases.

Insurance coverage is closely tied to ACIP recommendations. Altering the panel’s guidance could potentially influence which vaccines are covered by public and private insurers, affecting accessibility and uptake. Given the ongoing threat of seasonal influenza, RSV, and COVID-19, changes to vaccine policy may have profound implications for hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, particularly among vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals.

Is There Too Much Political Interference in Health Policy-Making?

Kennedy’s actions are part of a broader national debate on the role of politics in public health. While previous ACIP appointments have been largely insulated from political influence, recent interventions signal a shift toward a more politicized approach to vaccine policy. Experts caution that such moves could undermine decades of public trust in the CDC, an institution that has long been regarded as the gold standard in epidemiology and disease prevention.

The revamp of ACIP also underscores tensions within the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Multiple top officials have resigned or been replaced in recent months, raising questions about institutional stability and the agency’s ability to respond effectively to public health crises.

The upcoming ACIP meeting on September 18 will be closely monitored by public health officials, epidemiologists, and the media. Key topics likely to be addressed include routine childhood vaccines, COVID-19 booster policies, and emerging infectious diseases such as RSV. Observers will be watching not just the committee’s recommendations but also the process by which they are finalized and approved.

Experts urge the public to remain vigilant and informed about vaccine guidance, noting that evidence-based practices remain critical for preventing disease outbreaks and safeguarding community health. While the political dynamics are evolving, the scientific principles underpinning immunization safety, efficacy, and population protection continue to be essential in maintaining public health.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment of seven new members to the CDC’s ACIP marks a turning point in U.S. vaccine policy. The unprecedented shake-up raises questions about the independence, credibility, and scientific rigor of the nation’s primary vaccine advisory body. With critical vaccine recommendations on the horizon, public health experts, policymakers, and citizens alike are bracing for the potential ramifications of a panel reshaped under political influence, highlighting the fragile balance between science and governance in safeguarding public health.