A common but misunderstood vaginal infection that occurs in almost one in three women worldwide is now being re-evaluated as a sexually transmitted disease (STD), according to a new research. Bacterial vaginosis (BV), previously classified as a women's health problem, is often treated in isolation—excluding male sexual partners. But new evidence indicates that not treating both partners could be the explanation for why BV recurs at frighteningly high levels.

Bacterial vaginosis occurs when the vaginal microbiome experiences an imbalance, with a decline in protective bacteria and an increase in harmful bacterial species. This disruption can lead to an unpleasant fishy odor, unusual vaginal discharge, itching, or a burning sensation—although many women experience no symptoms at all. BV is commonly waved off as a simple imbalance and not a real health problem, but it is associated with serious risks such as higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STIs), pelvic inflammatory disease, and pregnancy-related complications like premature delivery and low birth weight.

Historically, BV has not been categorized as an STI because its etiological bacteria arise from within the body and not from outside pathogens. But with growing evidence, it now appears that this knowledge was limited, and sexual transmission might be a vital factor in recurrence of BV.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that recurrence rates of BV are high—approximately 50% of women have a relapse in the first six months following antibiotic treatment. Reinfection by untreated male partners is a primary cause of these recurrences. Studies have found BV-associated bacteria in the penile skin and male urethra, which supports the theory that men can reinfect their female partners with such bacteria.

An Australian randomized clinical trial supplied strong evidence in favor of the theory. In the study, 164 heterosexual monogamous couples in which the woman had BV were tested. The volunteers were put into two groups: a group where the woman was treated only and a group where both partners were treated. The findings were dramatic—BV recurrence rates fell to 35% in the partner-treatment group versus 63% in the single-woman treatment group. This indicates that treating male partners has a significant impact on preventing BV recurrence.

Why Current BV Treatment Approaches Are Not Working?

Most prior efforts at treating male partners for BV have not demonstrated significant female recurrence rate improvements. But these trials used oral antibiotics only, which might not be enough to completely clear the bacteria from male partners. The new Australian trial was different in that it used a combination therapy: men were given an oral antibiotic and a clindamycin cream to put on the penis. This two-pronged approach seems much more effective, and it shows that there should be a new standard of treatment.

Even with this strong evidence, however, most healthcare providers continue to fail to acknowledge BV as an STI. Infectious disease experts Jack Sobel and Christina Muzny, who did not participate in the research, state that BV is still inaccurately classified as a sexually unrelated condition. This false assumption denies appropriate treatment options that would decrease rates of recurrence and enhance women's long-term health.

Health Risks of Untreated Bacterial vaginosis

Although BV itself is not dangerous, if left untreated, infections can be dangerous. The World Health Organization (WHO) alerts that BV makes a woman more likely to get HIV and other STIs, such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. BV may also cause pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), an infection of the uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes, leading to infertility. These risks make it important to adopt a more holistic approach to diagnosing and treating BV.

Considering BV an STI would be a major change in the approach to treating this infection by the medical field. If BV were actually considered an STI, physicians would be incentivized to treat both sexual partners at the same time, and recurrence rates would decrease dramatically, as well as patient outcomes. This change would also work to de-stigmatize BV, moving it from being regarded as a hygiene problem to being recognized as a valid medical condition that can be treated appropriately.

"This effective intervention is cheap and brief and has the potential for the first time to not only enhance BV cure in women, but offers exciting new prospects for BV prevention, and prevention of the severe complications of BV," said Dr. Catriona Bradshaw, a clinician scientist at Monash University and lead author of the research.

More studies are required to validate these results in larger and more diverse populations, but the findings are encouraging. If subsequent studies confirm the sexual transmission theory, international health guidelines may one day be revised to incorporate this new knowledge.

The medical profession is now presented with the task of informing both patients and clinicians of these implications. Greater awareness can lead to improved treatment options, empowering women to become more proactive about their reproductive health as well as engaging male partners in the treatment process.

"It's time to begin the conversation," write Sobel and Muzny. With the promise of preventing recurrence and safeguarding against long-term health consequences, treating BV as an STI could be the answer to dramatically improving women's health globally.

Bacterial vaginosis is the most prevalent vaginal infection, yet it is largely misunderstood. The most recent studies indicate that BV must be categorized and treated as an STI, with the inclusion of male partners in the treatment regimen. This conceptual shift would aid in decreasing rates of recurrence, reduce the risk of complications, and ultimately enhance the health and well-being of millions of women globally. As discussion regarding BV is ongoing, it is crucial that healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients alike become aware of the need for a more holistic and inclusive treatment.

With the world continuing to inch away from the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fresh wave of infections is again causing concern—this time fueled by new subvariants of the Omicron variant. Southeast Asia, more so urban areas in Singapore, Hong Kong, and sections of India, is experiencing a rise in COVID-19 infections propelled by the JN.1 variant and its sub-lineages LF.7 and NB.1.8 but is it a new pandemic in the making?

Most recent data from Southeast Asian health ministries reveal a sudden surge in cases of Covid-19 in Hong Kong, Singapore, China, and Thailand. In Singapore, the Ministry of Health's rare update—its first since nearly a year ago—recorded a 28% jump in weekly cases to 14,200 for the week to May 3. The daily hospital admissions have also increased about 30%.

The present surge in COVID-19 cases is being majorly spurred by new Omicron subvariants, most notably JN.1. That variant and its offspring LF.7 and NB.1.8, are being found highly contagious.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified JN.1 as a "variant of interest," subsequently promoting it to a "variant of concern." Nevertheless, world health authorities continue to assert that the public health risk is low at this point.

In a significant shift to America’s COVID-19 response strategy, the Trump administration has unveiled a new vaccine plan that narrows access to updated COVID-19 shots. Moving away from broad eligibility, the revised guidelines prioritize high-risk populations—particularly adults over 65 and individuals with underlying health conditions—while delaying vaccine access for millions of others pending further clinical trial data. This marks a pivotal moment in public health policy, reflecting growing debates within the scientific community about the necessity and effectiveness of repeated COVID-19 vaccinations for low-risk individuals. Here's what the global audience needs to know about the updated strategy.

The Trump administration has introduced a new strategy for the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine rollout that significantly shifts who gets vaccinated and how. While the public health community remains divided, the FDA is taking a more conservative approach to repeated dosing, citing insufficient data for low-risk individuals. This article breaks down the 10 most critical aspects of the new plan and what they mean for Americans heading into fall.

1. Fewer Americans Will Have Immediate Access to Updated COVID-19 Vaccines

Unlike previous years, the new plan scales back widespread eligibility. Only adults aged 65 and older, and individuals of any age with one or more risk factors, will be immediately eligible for updated COVID-19 vaccines this fall. Younger, healthy adults will need to wait for additional clinical trial data before receiving their shots.

2. A Broader and More Inclusive Definition of ‘High Risk’

The CDC and FDA define “high risk” in wide-ranging terms. This includes individuals with obesity (as determined by BMI), diabetes, heart disease, cancer, pregnancy, and even mental health conditions such as depression. This means that as many as 100 to 200 million Americans could still qualify for the vaccines under this revised definition.

3. Healthy, Low-Risk Americans Will Need More Proof of Benefit

One of the key changes is the requirement for more robust data before low-risk individuals can receive additional vaccine doses. According to FDA officials, this group—which includes people under 65 with no pre-existing conditions—will need randomized, controlled trial data to support vaccine approval. This marks a significant departure from the blanket vaccine eligibility seen during the earlier phases of the pandemic.

4. Scientific Uncertainty Over Repeated Doses Is a Driving Factor

In a joint article published Tuesday, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and vaccine chief Vinay Prasad questioned the clinical benefit of continued booster shots for those with prior COVID-19 infections and multiple vaccinations. They cited a lack of clear benefit for individuals like a “healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI” who has already had COVID-19 three times and received six doses.

5. Data Gaps and Low Uptake Have Pushed the Shift in Policy

Officials point to low public uptake of recent vaccine updates as a sign that both the public and many healthcare providers are skeptical. They emphasize that more rigorous scientific evidence is needed to justify continued mass vaccination, especially in populations that are already well-protected through prior infection or vaccination.

6. Vaccine Trials for Low-Risk Groups May Take Time

The FDA's requirement for additional trials raises the question: Can pharmaceutical companies conduct these studies in time for the fall rollout? Officials admit that it's unclear whether these trials can be completed quickly enough, especially since they would need to measure real-world outcomes against emerging variants.

7. Not All Years Will Require New Trials

Vinay Prasad noted that these rigorous trials won’t necessarily be required annually. Instead, they will likely be triggered when there is a substantial shift in the dominant circulating COVID-19 strain. This nuance allows for flexibility while maintaining scientific credibility.

8. Outside Experts Will Soon Vote on the Target Strain for New Shots

This Thursday, independent vaccine advisers will meet to determine which strain should be used for this year’s updated vaccines. Their recommendation will inform manufacturing and public health guidance. However, the real pivot will happen in June, when the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel votes on whether to adopt the FDA’s new framework.

9. CDC Approval Will Be the Final Step Before Implementation

Once the CDC panel votes, the recommendations will still require a final sign-off from the CDC Director. If approved, these guidelines will also influence which vaccines are covered by insurance, effectively determining public access and affordability.

10. The New Plan Balances Science With Regulatory Responsibility

At its core, the Trump administration’s revised plan is about aligning public health recommendations with high-quality scientific evidence. While this cautious approach could limit vaccine access in the short term, officials argue it strengthens trust and transparency around COVID-19 vaccination. As stated in the policy, this is about balancing “regulatory flexibility” with a “commitment to gold-standard science.”

This fall marks a new chapter in the U.S. COVID-19 response, one that veers away from blanket recommendations and toward a more targeted, risk-based approach. The Trump administration, through FDA and CDC coordination, is aiming to restore scientific rigor while also acknowledging public fatigue and skepticism.

A forthcoming White House report on childhood diseases is stirring political tension, with farmers and several Republican lawmakers raising concerns about its potential impact on agriculture. The report, part of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is expected to be released Thursday and has already drawn criticism before its release.

A Promised Review Sparks Political Divide

President Donald Trump had pledged a 100-day review to investigate the impact of American lifestyle factors—including school lunches, medications, and food safety—on rising childhood health issues such as obesity, depression, and ADHD. The report, prepared by the MAHA Commission, is set to address these concerns. However, many in the farming community fear it could target glyphosate, a key pesticide ingredient used for decades.

On Wednesday, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley voiced concern on the Senate floor, stating that farmers are frustrated about being left out of the report’s development. “I hope there is nothing in the MAHA report that jeopardizes the food supply or the livelihood of farmers,” Grassley said.

Tensions Over Glyphosate

Glyphosate has long been considered essential by many farmers for weed control and soil preservation. Blake Hurst, a Missouri farmer and former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, emphasized, “There’s a reason why we still use it: It works.”

Kennedy has denied that the report unfairly targets agriculture. “There’s not a single word in [the report] that should worry the American farmer,” he said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.

Still, his past legal battles against glyphosate producers and support from anti-pesticide advocates have only intensified skepticism. A letter signed by 360 MAHA supporters—including farmers and former campaign staffers—called on the commission to hold the chemical industry accountable, citing growing evidence of health risks.

Internal and External Pressures

Dave Murphy, a former fundraiser for Kennedy’s presidential bid, claimed he submitted research on pesticides to the Trump administration for inclusion in the report. He also noted mounting political pressure around the final language of the document.

The MAHA Commission was established by executive order in February, with members including Kennedy, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya. Despite promises of “radical transparency,” no public meetings have been held, and only brief clips from a closed-door session in March have been released.

The White House has not commented on the report’s contents or its timeline for release, as reported by the Associated Press. The proposed federal budget includes a $500 million increase for the MAHA initiative, while also cutting funding for programs related to infectious disease prevention, maternal health, and medical research.

As the release approaches, debate continues over whether the MAHA report will prioritize children's health without sacrificing the interests of American agriculture.

The world is again gearing up as COVID-19 returns in many Asian cities, including Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand. Cases have also been reported in India. If experts are to be believed, it is the vaccines that have played a major role in prevention of the disease, especially during the peak time of the COVID-19 pandemic that started in December 2019.

While vaccines are a great way to protect oneself against something as contagious as COVID-19 virus, there could be another promising alternative to the traditional jabs. Scientists say that it could be more effective, safer, and better at stopping the virus.

The researchers from Yale University have found the nasal vaccine boosters could be safer to use and help target better protection against the respiratory diseases like COVID-19.

What Do The Findings Suggest?

The study is published in the journal Nature Immunology, which notes that while most vaccines and boosters get administered as injections direct in one's muscle tissues, protection from respiratory diseases like COVID-19 could be crucial through nasal shots.

As per the scientists, nasal vaccine boosters trigger strong immune defences directly in the respiratory tract. This happens even when the immune-boosting ingredients known as adjuvants are not available. "Our study shows how a simple viral protein antigen can boost respiratory tract immune responses against virus," said Dr Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology at Yale School of Medicine and senior author of the study.

“These data imply that viral proteins in nasal spray may be used as a safe way to promote antiviral immunity at the site of viral entry,” he added.

How Was The Study Conducted?

Scientists have explored a new vaccine strategy aimed at strengthening immunity against respiratory viruses like COVID-19. In their study, mice were first given a traditional mRNA COVID-19 vaccine through an injection in the muscle. Later, the same mice received a booster dose through the nose. The goal was to examine how booster shots—especially those using adjuvants (ingredients added to enhance immune response)—influence the body’s defense mechanisms. While adjuvants can make vaccines more effective, they also carry risks like inflammation and nerve swelling.

“We call this vaccine strategy ‘prime and spike,’” explained Dong-il Kwon, a postdoctoral fellow in Yale’s Department of Immunobiology. “The mice were first primed with an mRNA vaccine in the muscle and then given a nasal booster without any adjuvants.”

Interestingly, only the nasal booster led to a strong localized immune response. Unlike intramuscular shots, the nasal spray significantly increased levels of IgA—a type of antibody crucial for protecting mucosal surfaces such as the nose and lungs. These areas are typically the first to be attacked by respiratory viruses. When a second nasal booster was administered, IgA levels rose even higher, suggesting a compounding effect.

“These findings help explain why nasal boosters don’t need adjuvants to trigger strong mucosal immunity and offer a safer way to design vaccines against respiratory viruses,” Kwon noted.

Current COVID-19 vaccines do not generate much IgA in the respiratory tract, which may explain why vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the virus. This study suggests that nasal boosters could be a powerful tool in offering more complete and long-lasting protection where it's most needed.

Previously too, in the journal Science Advance, scientists noted that nasal vaccinations for respiratory diseases including COVID-19 could be far more effective. The previous study was based on an experiment conducted on hamsters, where the nasal vaccine was able to stop the transmission.