Senator Cory Broker, a Democrat from New Jersey delivered the longest recorded speech in Senate history. This has surpassed Strom Thurmond's 1957 filibuster against civil rights legislation. Booker's speech lasted for over 24 hours and was indeed a passionate critique of Trump administration's healthcare policies, especially its proposed cuts to Medicaid and other essential health programs.

His speech was framed as a moral stand against what he described as a 'healthcare crisis' in the United States.

The Democrat's marathon address was a symbolic protest against President Donald Trump, where he warned of the "grave and urgent" moment in American history. It went on for 25 hour and four minutes. The speech started at 7pm on Monday, where he vowed to speak as long as he is "physically able" to and ended past sunset on Tuesday, at 8.05 pm.

What Was The 25-hour Speech All About?

Booker began his speech not just tied to a specific bill but aimed to delay a vote on a Democratic-led measure to overturn Trump's tariffs on Canada. His decision to speak for such an extended period was also symbolic. He opposed the idea that the longest Senate speech was held by a segregationist.

His speech was heavily focused on healthcare policy and was addressed at Trump administration's efforts to cut funding for key health programs. These included:

Medicaid Cuts: He condemned Trump's budget proposals which sought to significantly reduce Medicaid funding. He argued that such cuts could harm low-income Americans and people with disabilities.

Access to Affordable Care: He also criticized the administration's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which he said had expanded healthcare access for millions.

Maternal and Child Health: He then went on to highlight how cuts to government health programs would disproportionately affect pregnant women, infants, and children in vulnerable communities.

Pharmaceutical Industry Influence: He also spoke abut the rising cost of prescribed drugs. He accused the administration of failing to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions.

Policies That Booker Opposed

The main focus of his speech was his opposition to Trump's repeated attempts to weaken the healthcare protections. He argued that the administration's policies often prioritized tax cuts for the wealthy, hinting that Trump administration operates like a business and not like the government of the people. These tax cuts for wealthy are made at the expense of funding essential health services. He also denounced Trump's efforts to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, which he said would strip millions of Americans of healthcare coverage.

What Was The Reaction Like?

As Booker went on record, there were cheers everywhere in the Senate chamber. He also acknowledged Thurmond's legacy while emphasizing that he stood in defiance of the policies Thurmond had supported. Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also praised his stamina and message and called it "tour de force".

The White House dismissed the speech, calling it a "publicity stunt" and referencing a precious moment when Booker declared "I am Spartacus" during Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

In all, Booker remained firm in his belief that this was indeed a "moral moment" and it required action. His record-breaking speech was not just about policy, but more than that. It was about defending fundamental right to healthcare for all Americans.

“This is not right or left, it is right or wrong,” he declared. “This is not a partisan moment. It is a moral moment. Where do you stand?”

Danish multinational pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk has launched Wegovy in Thailand, marking the entry of its hugely popular weight loss drug in Southeast Asian market. First launched in 2021, Wegovy helped make Novo Nordisk Europe's most valuable listed company until recently, worth $615 billion at its peak. Wegovy is a semaglutide shot, which means that it is a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

"We actually received the Thai FDA approval already in 2023," said Enrico Canal Bruland, vice president and general manager of Novo's Thai subsidiary. He noted that Novo was making Wegovy available in Thailand ahead of rival Eli Lilly's Zepbound. Wegovy is currently available for prescription in private hospitals around the country and will be available soon in public hospitals. Notably, Bruland declined to provide details on Wegovy's pricing in Thailand, which has a population of around 66 million, or Novo Nordisk's plans for expansion into other Southeast Asian markets.

Notably, the most popular GLP-1 agonist Ozempic was also created by Novo Nordisk. Earlier this month, the pharma giant expanded its research in the field diabetes and weight loss drug and announced that its diabetes pill, Rybelsus, demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in a late-stage trial. The findings pave the way for the medication to become a new treatment option for people living with both diabetes and heart disease.

How Do Semaglutides Work?

Semglutide is the synthetic version of GLP-1—a natural hormone produced in the intestines that regulates blood sugar, appetite, and digestion. Now, every time you eat, your body produces various hormones, including GLP-1. These are called Post nutrition hormones, and help you absorb the energy you just consumed.

GLP-1 travels to your pancreas, prompting it to produce insulin. It also travels to the hypothalamus in your brain, which gives you the feeling of being full or satiated. Ozempic imitates this hormone, thereby, silencing the food chatter in the brain. Interestingly, for some people this food chatter is really quiet ( people with low appetite) and for others it is an outbrurst, (people who generally binge eat.) So with Ozempic, silencing this self-talk in the brain, people tend to lose their appetite and eventually weight.

However, it is important to note that losing weight includes not just fat but muscle as well. Losing too much muscle can lead to reduced strength and a shorter life span. Notably, records show that most people who start taking them stop it at 12 weeks; therefore, it is important for some but not for others.

Notably, last month, US pharma major Eli Lilly launched the obesity management drug Mounjaro in India at one-fifth of the US price. The company rolled out the drug in a single-dose vial following the marketing authorisation from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). It has been priced at Rs 3,500 for a 2.5 mg vial and Rs 4,375 for a 5 mg vial. "It is a first-of-its-kind treatment for obesity, overweight, and type 2 diabetes that activates both GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide) and GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) hormone receptors," the company said.

One moment, Dr Cornelius Sullivan was focused on a patient during surgery, and the next moment, he woke up in ambulance, headed to the emergency room.

According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Dr Sullivan had struck his head on a monitor that had been moved behind him in a surgery center. This serious accident had resulted in a two-night hospital stay and kept him away from work for weeks. However, this is not the first time he had suffered a work-related injury. This is, in fact, the third time this has happened, noted ASA.

"Boom Strikes"

These injuries are often called "boom strikes". These occur when anesthesiologists accidentally bump into operating room (OR) equipment that is mounted on fixed or moveable arms. These could be monitors, lights, or screens.

While any OR staff member could be hurt this way, anesthesiologists are particularly more vulnerable to such injuries. Their work requires them to operate in tight, also, often crowded spaces. It also requires them to move quickly during emergencies, which further increases the risk of collision with equipment.

Why The Problem Is Growing?

As per ASA, the risk of boom strikes have been on the rise. This is also because of an increase in sophisticated equipment being added to operating rooms and surgeries are also now performed in much smaller spaces.

As per a survey conducted by the organization, it was found that more than half of anesthesiologists reported experiencing at least one work-related injury, including head injuries. These numbers have highlighted the growing concern over physical safety in an already demanding and high-pressure environment.

Can New Guidelines Improve Safety?

In response to these alarming findings, the ASA has issued a new Statement on Anesthesiologist Head Injuries in Anesthetizing Locations.

The statement formally recognizes boom strikes as a serious occupational hazard and even a potential medical emergency — especially dangerous during outpatient procedures or in cases where no backup anesthesiologist is immediately available to take over patient care.

Dr. Mary Ann Vann, chair of ASA's Ad Hoc Committee on the Physical Demands of Anesthesiologists, also experienced a work-related head injury. Drawing from personal experience, Dr. Vann helped develop the new safety recommendations, aimed at preventing such incidents.

What Have Been The Key Recommendations?

The ASA outlined several measures to reduce the risk of head injuries among anesthesiologists, including:

Holding Regular Safety Meetings: OR teams should meet frequently to discuss safety concerns and review past incidents.

Creating Safety Teams: Special teams should be tasked with reviewing and tracking reports of boom strikes to identify patterns and solutions.

Involving Anesthesia Staff in Room Planning: Clinical anesthesia personnel should have a voice when designing or rearranging procedure rooms to ensure equipment placement considers movement and space needs.

Tracking Head Injuries: Systematic documentation of head injuries can help health systems better understand causes and outcomes, leading to more informed prevention strategies.

The ASA emphasized that head injuries in the OR are not just minor accidents but events that can have serious consequences for patient safety and anesthesiologists’ health.

By implementing the new guidelines and raising awareness, the ASA hopes to make operating rooms safer environments for all medical professionals — and ensure that anesthesiologists can continue their vital work without unnecessary risk.

As the United States battles its worst measles outbreak in decades, a disturbing controversy is brewing. Public health is being complicated not just by the virus's spread but also by the promotion of suspicious medical practices at the top levels of leadership. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., long-time critic of mandatory vaccinations and current Health Secretary, has openly endorsed a Texas physician who saw patients with children while actually infected with measles an action warned by health officials to potentially have devastating effects on public health.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported measles infections skyrocketed to 884 cases of confirmed infection in 29 states during 2025, with areas of concentration being Texas, New York, California, and other regions. Texas alone represents 646 cases, making it the center of the outbreak. Scarily, at least six states, Indiana and Ohio included, have shown outbreaks, a definition used when there are three or more linked cases. The increase has already killed at least three people, two of whom are young children.

The measles resurgence is a grim reminder of just how easily highly infectious measles can re-establish itself among populations, particularly if vaccination is below par. Deemed eradicated in the United States as far back as 2000, measles teeters on the cusp of endemically reintroducing itself today—a failure at public health for which increasing numbers of professionals presume vaccine hesitation lies at its center.

In recent interviews, Kennedy has doubled down on his views that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced protection. On Fox News, he wistfully remembered a day when "everybody got measles" and acquired lifelong immunity. It is true that measles infection normally provides lasting immunity, but the disease also poses serious risks, such as encephalitis, blindness, and death—risks that have been greatly diminished by vaccines.

Kennedy has posited that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine is capable of producing adverse reactions and should always be a question of individual choice and not one of public health mandate. Nonetheless, public health officials emphasize that the risks entailed by the vaccine are phenomenally low relative to the threat posed by the disease itself.

Controversy mounted when a video appeared depicting Dr. Ben Edwards, a Texas doctor, seeing patients while obviously infected with measles. Filmed in a pop-up clinic established by anti-vaccine activists, the video depicts Edwards affirming he came down with symptoms--including a rash and low-grade fever--a day before the footage was taken.

Even though he knew he was contagious, Edwards kept seeing patients without proper protective equipment, such as an N95 mask. Experts say this action probably infected countless people particularly children and their families with a potentially deadly virus.

Rather than condemning Edwards' actions, Kennedy greeted him days later and publicly endorsed him on social media as an "extraordinary healer." Together with another doctor, Edwards was praised for advocating alternative care such as vitamins and cod liver oil—none of which are shown to prevent or cure measles.

Risk of Misinformation

Top health experts have been quick to denounce both Edwards' behavior and Kennedy's support. Measles is one of the most infectious diseases known to science, with the virus able to remain in the air for up to two hours after an infected individual has vacated the room. People are infectious for a number of days before and after the rash has erupted.

Dr. Saad Omer, Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has declared the move "an egregious violation of basic public health principles," warning that endorsement by officials could encourage others to disregard safety measures and fuel outbreaks even further.

Worryingly, Dr. Edwards himself disclosed in the video that he'd been given numerous doses of MMR vaccine and yet had got measles, insisting that vaccine-acquired immunity "wears off." Health officials explain that whereas immunity would inevitably wane fractionally over years, two shots of MMR vaccine are approximately 97% effective in avertting measles.

Why Measles May Become Endemic?

The stakes are high. Recent research from Stanford University shows that even slight declines in vaccination rates could make measles endemic in the United States within two decades. A 10-percentage-point drop could lead to millions of cases over 25 years, reversing decades of public health progress.

The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted childhood immunizations worldwide, but vaccine hesitancy had already been increasing prior to 2020, driven by misinformation campaigns and politicized rhetoric. In a time when skepticism of health authorities is on the rise, the implications of such distrust could be disastrous.

Public health experts are calling for action now to slow the current epidemic and avoid future ones. Getting more people vaccinated—even by 5%—would dramatically decrease the number of future cases of measles, keep vulnerable groups such as infants and immunocompromised patients safe, and save lives.

Measles Prevention

Parents should feel free to discuss vaccine safety and effectiveness openly with pediatricians. Policymakers need to re-emphasize school-entry vaccine mandates and continue working to push back against lethal disinformation.

The MMR shot is still the gold standard of protection. The CDC recommends that children should get two doses and that travelers should make sure to get vaccinated a minimum of two weeks prior to traveling internationally. As this current outbreak proves, complacency is not an option.

As measles cases increase and public trust in vaccines erodes, America is at a crossroads. Leaders can be the voice of reason and protect communities—or fan confusion that gives preventable illnesses an opportunity to flourish. RFK Jr.'s recent actions and endorsements speak to the urgent need for evidence-based, clear leadership on public health. The most vulnerable depend on it.