Schizophrenia, a mental illness involving some 1% of the world's population has long resisted treatments that effectively tackle its cognitive impairments. But a new hero is in the offing, and it's one that few would have predicted: the llama. Scientists at France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique have designed short fragments of llama antibody 'nanobodies' that penetrate the blood-brain barrier and restore brain function in mice with schizophrenia-like impairments.

This study, published in Nature on July 23, shows that a single injection into mice can correct memory and behavioral impairments for nearly a week, offering a possible path to therapies that go beyond symptom management.

Existing antipsychotic drugs target hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking—but do little for cognitive symptoms: memory lapses, attention deficits, planning difficulties, and more. These impairments, which often begin in late adolescence or early adulthood, profoundly impact daily life and social integration.

Nanobodies, on the other hand, target the mGlu2 glutamate receptor directly, a neural pathway that is linked to cognitive control. The nanobody derived from llama—herein described as DN13–DN1—is highly specific and will not cause off-target activity, yet it can activate this essential receptor to restore brain signaling equilibrium in NMDA receptor hypofunction models.

One of the hardest problems in brain drug development is the blood–brain barrier—a physiological gatekeeper that blocks most therapies from reaching the brain. Traditional antibodies, although powerful, are too large to pass through.

Nanobodies, which are about one-tenth the size of conventional antibodies, proved to be small enough to permeate this barrier. In this study, they successfully reached brain regions responsible for cognition and maintained therapeutic levels for up to seven days after just one dose.

What Happened in Preclinical Tests?

The researchers tested DN13–DN1 in two mouse models with schizophrenia-like cognitive deficits:

Behavioral improvements: Mice treated with a single injection showed restored memory and decision-making in object recognition and spatial tests.

Sensory gating corrected: Sensorimotor gating—a process that filters out unnecessary stimuli—returned to normal, a function often impaired in schizophrenia.

Long-lasting effect: Benefits persisted for at least a week, far longer than typical drug effects in similar models.

Safety profile: No noticeable impact on basic motor function or brain receptor expression, suggesting a targeted and low-risk mechanism.

What This Means for Schizophrenia Patients?

“For humans obviously we don't know yet—but in mice, it’s sufficient to treat most deficits of schizophrenia,” said molecular biologist Jean-Philippe Pin, one of the study’s senior authors at the Institute of Functional Genomics in Montpellier, France.

If human trials follow the success seen in mice, nanobody-based therapies could extend beyond schizophrenia to other brain disorders that hinge on glutamate signaling—such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases. The researchers themselves emphasize that this is only a proof of concept. Next steps include:

• Humanization of nanobodies to prevent immune rejection
• Long-term safety and toxicity testing
• Large-scale production to meet clinical demand
• Funding and industrial partnerships to support early-phase trials

If all goes well, this research could mark a critical shift in mental health care—delivering medication that directly targets cognitive impairment, not just psychotic symptoms.

What makes this approach so revolutionary is its combination of precision, biodegradability, and ease of administration. Nanobodies are produced more efficiently than traditional antibodies, exert fewer off-target effects, and can be administered via standard injections instead of invasive delivery systems.

Moreover, their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier opens up possibilities for treatments of other neurological disorders—transforming a once-impenetrable challenge into a rapidly evolving frontier.

It’s hard to overstate how unexpected this discovery is: an animal known for its wool, not its neurology, yielding molecules with the potential to heal minds. But that’s exactly where science is advancing today.

As mental health specialists and patients await rigorous human testing, the implications are clear: nanobodies could finally deliver a therapy that addresses schizophrenia’s most stubborn challenges—cognition and quality of life. If the promise of llama-based treatments holds in human trials, we may be on the cusp of a new paradigm in psychiatric medicine—bridging immunology and neuroscience, one nanobody injection at a time.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains one of the most complex neurological conditions with no known cure. Affecting over 33,000 Australians and 2.8 million people globally, MS continues to baffle scientists and clinicians alike. While environmental factors, genetics, and viral infections have all been linked to MS, no single cause has been confirmed.

Now, a world-first study from the University of South Australia may finally crack part of the code. For the first time, researchers are using a genetic selection method called recall by genotype to understand why some people exposed to the same virus go on to develop MS while others don’t.

At the heart of the study is a long-suspected culprit: the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), best known for causing glandular fever. More than 90% of the global population gets infected with EBV at some point. Yet only a small fraction develop MS. That’s where the mystery lies- how can one virus lead to a life-altering autoimmune disease in a select few?

Dr. David Stacey, who leads the study, believes the answer may lie in our genes. “It’s like studying the immune system’s blueprint before the disease starts,” he said. The goal is to identify how individuals’ genetic make-up alters their immune response to EBV—and whether that difference tips the scale toward developing MS.

What Is the ‘Recall by Genotype’ Approach?

This isn’t just another observational study. The team is using an innovative approach known as recall by genotype, a first in MS research. In simple terms, they’ll analyze the DNA of more than 1,000 participants who have never been diagnosed with MS. These individuals will then be grouped into high-risk and low-risk categories based on their genetic predisposition to MS.

From there, researchers will compare how the immune systems in these two groups respond to EBV exposure.

“By grouping people based on their genetic profile, we expect to find those with a high genetic risk for MS will also show biological differences—even if they don’t have the disease,” explained Dr. Stacey.

This could help pinpoint biomarkers—early warning signs in the body that MS may be developing long before symptoms appear.

Why This Study Could Be a Game-Changer?

MS is a central nervous system autoimmune disorder. It causes the immune system to attack the protective sheath covering nerve fibers, resulting in symptoms like fatigue, muscle weakness, poor coordination, vision problems, and cognitive changes. But the progression of the disease is highly unpredictable.

This study, funded by MS Australia’s Incubator Grant program, aims to do more than just explain risk. It could transform the way we approach MS—shifting from reactive care to proactive detection and even prevention.

“If we can identify biological markers before symptoms begin, that opens up new possibilities for early interventions or therapies that could delay or stop disease progression altogether,” said Dr. Stacey.

Does High Genetic Risk Mean Someone Will Develop MS?

With genetic research comes another layer of complexity: how much risk information should be shared with participants? Dr. Stacey acknowledges that just because someone has a high genetic risk doesn’t mean they’ll definitely develop MS. That brings up ethical and legal challenges. “If we identify people who are at risk of developing MS, we need to consider how—and whether—to share that information, particularly as it may not yet be clinically actionable,” he said.

Part of the study will address these questions and help lay the groundwork for responsible, patient-centered practices in future genetic research.

While this study is based in Australia, its implications are far-reaching. MS is a leading cause of neurological disability among young adults worldwide. The hope is that by identifying the biological chain of events leading to MS, scientists can develop tools that apply globally—regardless of geography, ethnicity, or background.

According to Rohan Greenland, CEO of MS Australia, “Our mission is to accelerate research and improve outcomes for every person living with MS.” This project exemplifies that vision by targeting the earliest stages of the disease—before symptoms even appear.

If the pilot is successful, it will inform a much larger, more ambitious study. Researchers plan to refine how genetic risk scores are calculated, validate their findings across diverse populations, and develop standardized operating procedures for similar studies worldwide.

This could also inspire studies into other autoimmune conditions like lupus or type 1 diabetes, where viral triggers and genetic susceptibility are believed to intersect.

The world's first “recall by genotype” study in MS research is underway in Australia. By linking genetic risk to immune response against the Epstein-Barr virus, scientists aim to answer a longstanding medical mystery: why only some people develop MS. The findings could pave the way for earlier detection, targeted therapies, and ethical frameworks for sharing genetic information—all with global implications.

In a closely watched vote, the U.S. Senate confirmed Dr. Susan Monarez as the new Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), marking a pivotal moment for an agency under intense political and public scrutiny. The 51-47 confirmation made Monarez the first CDC director to be Senate-confirmed under new legislation passed in 2023. The appointment follows months of leadership vacuum and ideological rifts inside the CDC that have fueled uncertainty in public health circles.

Monarez now steps into a role that has become as much about crisis management and restoring public trust as it is about public health science.

Who Is Susan Monarez?

At 50, Dr. Susan Monarez brings a formidable résumé steeped in science, biosecurity, and federal health policy. She holds a PhD in microbiology and immunology from the University of Wisconsin and completed her postdoctoral training at Stanford University. Before joining the CDC, Monarez served as Deputy Director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a government agency known for funding innovative biomedical research.

Her career spans multiple federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). These roles have given her deep exposure to health innovation, disaster preparedness, and pandemic response policy.

Monarez has also led the development of national strategies to combat antibiotic resistance, close maternal health gaps, expand telehealth, and ensure the ethical use of health data. Her work has been consistently focused on bridging science and policy to tackle real-world health threats—both globally and domestically.

Monarez’s confirmation ends a stretch of instability at the CDC, which has been operating without a permanent director since early 2025. The agency has faced major staff losses, widespread morale issues, and increasingly vocal political pressure. President Trump’s initial nominee, David Weldon, was withdrawn unexpectedly, and Monarez was named acting director in January before being formally nominated in March.

During her confirmation hearing, Monarez maintained a diplomatic stance affirming her support for vaccines and science-based policy—while skirting direct questions about her relationship with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose controversial antivaccine positions have sparked upheaval within the agency. Kennedy has taken bold steps to sideline CDC authority, including bypassing the agency earlier this year to roll back COVID-19 vaccine guidance for pregnant women and children.

That move underscored the new reality Monarez inherits: a CDC whose power and relevance in setting public health policy is being redefined in real-time.

At her Senate hearing, Monarez was clear about her priorities: rebuilding public confidence in the CDC, modernizing outdated data infrastructure, and preparing for future infectious disease threats. These are not minor tasks. The CDC has suffered from a credibility gap over the last several years, exacerbated by mixed messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic, political interference, and what many in the public saw as a lack of transparency.

“She brings decades of distinguished experience in health innovation, disaster preparedness, global health, and biosecurity to CDC,” the agency said in a social media post following the vote. “Dr. Monarez will lead efforts to prevent disease and respond to domestic and global health threats.”

But restoring trust will take more than credentials. The CDC’s internal structure and external messaging need overhauling to match the expectations of a more skeptical and divided public. Monarez is taking over an agency in flux—both scientifically and politically.

Science and Strategy Behind the Leader

Monarez’s scientific work reflects a global and future-forward perspective. She has spent her career at the intersection of technology and health policy, especially in biodefense and medical preparedness. At ARPA-H, she helped direct funding toward tools for rapid disease detection, AI-driven health diagnostics, and innovative solutions for behavioral health and maternal care disparities.

She has also been deeply involved in policy development at the national level, helping craft presidential action plans and leading interagency coordination on issues ranging from pandemic preparedness to organ transplantation reform. In previous roles, she worked directly on combating multi-drug-resistant infections and led international collaborations with the EU, Canada, France, and others on biosecurity measures.

This blend of strategic vision and scientific rigor is exactly what public health experts say the CDC needs now—particularly in an era where emerging infectious diseases, misinformation, and technology disruptions often collide.

What’s Next for the CDC Under Monarez?

Monarez is stepping into the role amid mounting public health challenges. Vaccine skepticism is on the rise, federal funding for the CDC is set to be slashed under the 2026 budget proposal, and chronic disease burdens continue to grow alongside new threats like drug-resistant bacteria and climate-related health crises.

Her immediate task will be internal stabilization—building back teams, reaffirming scientific values, and reestablishing CDC leadership across state and local public health departments. Externally, she must walk a careful line: maintaining scientific integrity while navigating a politically volatile environment.

Already, her ability to operate in this tension-filled space is under watch. While her academic and professional pedigree earns her respect in science circles, her willingness—or reluctance—to directly challenge political directives from Secretary Kennedy and the White House will define her legacy at the CDC.

Susan Monarez’s confirmation is more than a personnel change; it signals a recalibration of how public health leadership will work in today’s polarized environment. Her track record suggests she understands the complexity and weight of the role.

The real test now is whether she can reassert the CDC’s voice in public health, without becoming another casualty in the ongoing tug-of-war between science and politics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is ringing alarm bells over a potent, opioid-like substance that’s being sold in plain sight—often next to energy drinks, supplements, or flavored vapes. It’s called 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, and it’s a concentrated compound derived from the kratom plant.

You’ll find it in gummies, powdered drink mixes, flavored shots, and even ice cream cones. Sold mostly in gas stations, corner stores, and vape shops, these products look benign—but they’re not. According to the FDA, 7-OH has a high potential for abuse and no approved medical use. And now, after a sweeping scientific review, the agency is recommending that 7-OH products be added to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—in the same category as heroin and LSD.

Here’s what this means, why it’s happening now, and what consumers should understand before they reach for that "all-natural" stress-relief gummy at the checkout counter.

What Is 7-OH?

Kratom is a tropical tree that grows natively in Southeast Asia. Leaves of the tree were used for centuries as a traditional herbal medicine. In the United States, kratom has become popular as an unapproved pain, anxiety treatment, and even opioid withdrawal alternative therapy. Some 1.7 million Americans age 12 and up used kratom in 2021, federal data suggest.

Kratom has two major chemical constituents: mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). The more prevalent and weakly active of these is mitragynine, whereas 7-OH is significantly stronger—directly affecting the brain's mu-opioid receptors, just like morphine or codeine.

Some manufacturers have started isolating and concentrating 7-OH into high doses and selling it separately, completely bypassing the “natural” kratom leaf. These concentrated forms are not regulated, not approved, and far more dangerous than the kratom plant itself.

Why Has FDA Issued A Warning?

Unlike prescription opioids, 7-OH products are sold without a prescription or medical oversight, often labeled as supplements or energy enhancers. The FDA has found them being sold in brightly packaged gummies, fruity drinks, tablets, and “wellness shots,” frequently marketed to young people. Many of these items aren’t clearly labeled and may not disclose the amount of 7-OH they contain—or even that it’s included.

In June, the agency sent warning letters to seven companies for illegally selling 7-OH products in violation of federal law. These companies were selling 7-OH in various forms and often making unverified health claims, such as pain relief, anxiety treatment, or arthritis relief—without any scientific evidence to back them up.

According to FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, “7-OH is an opioid that can be more potent than morphine. We need regulation and public education to prevent another wave of the opioid epidemic.”

The FDA’s latest report includes a clear recommendation: Schedule 7-OH as a controlled substance under the CSA. If accepted, this would make it illegal to sell, distribute, or possess 7-OH without special DEA approval. It would also allow for criminal penalties for unauthorized use.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is now reviewing the recommendation. Before any action is finalized, a public comment period will be held, as required by federal law.

The agency made it clear that this action targets only 7-OH, not natural kratom leaf products. However, the distinction is critical, as 7-OH is not lawful in any food or dietary supplement in the United States. It has no FDA-approved uses, and when concentrated, it poses a high risk of abuse, addiction, and overdose.

What Makes 7-OH So Risky?

7-OH mimics the action of opioids in the brain by binding to the same mu-opioid receptors. While users may experience temporary relief from pain or anxiety, the effects can quickly lead to physical dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms—all hallmarks of substance use disorder (SUD). Some individuals using 7-OH have reported:

• Cravings and compulsive use
• Needing higher doses over time to feel the same effects
• Withdrawal symptoms when trying to stop
• Continued use despite serious personal or physical consequences

In rare cases, deaths have been reported in connection with kratom and 7-OH use, though many involved polydrug interactions, making it hard to isolate the role of 7-OH alone. Still, the FDA is not waiting for a full-blown crisis before acting.

Why Kratom Isn’t Safe Either?

While the FDA’s current push is focused on 7-OH, kratom as a whole remains under scrutiny. The agency has not approved any kratom-based drug for treating any condition, and it cannot legally be sold as a dietary supplement or added to food. Products containing kratom are considered “adulterated” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

That’s because, according to FDA analysis, there is insufficient evidence to guarantee that kratom—or its active compounds—can be safely used by consumers. The agency has linked kratom use to liver toxicity, seizures, and interactions with other medications.

The U.S. is still recovering from a devastating opioid crisis, and regulators are keen to avoid repeating history with a new, under-the-radar substance. 7-OH’s legal gray zone, paired with its accessibility and potent opioid-like effects, makes it especially dangerous.

The rise of vape shops and convenience store supplements has allowed these products to proliferate with minimal oversight. In many cases, they’re marketed using the same language as CBD or herbal wellness products—confusing consumers and bypassing safety checks.

“This isn’t just about one compound,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “It’s about building a framework that protects youth and families from unregulated, addictive substances dressed up as wellness solutions.”

What You Should Do as a Consumer?

The FDA is urging consumers to read labels carefully, avoid products that claim to contain kratom or 7-OH, and report adverse events. The agency is also encouraging healthcare professionals to speak openly with patients about supplement use—especially those purchased outside of pharmacies.

Until thorough research proves safety and effectiveness, the risks of 7-OH far outweigh any perceived benefits. Consumers looking for help with pain, anxiety, or substance use disorders should consult licensed medical professionals—not convenience store counters.

The push to regulate 7-OH underscores a growing challenge in public health: the intersection of wellness marketing, legal loopholes, and addictive substances. As agencies like the FDA and DEA step in, the public’s awareness and skepticism of “natural” supplements needs to catch up. Just because something is sold on a shelf doesn’t mean it’s safe.