In 2018, the WHO introduced Disease X to its list of blueprint priority diseases. This was a forward-thinking decision, acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge in the "microbial soup" of our environment. Disease X was not merely a theoretical construct but a recognition that an unknown pathogen could emerge and disrupt global health systems.

"Disease X" has now become a rude reminder of human fragility. The World Health Organization (WHO) coined this term in 2018. Disease X, an unknown pathogen, may trigger a global pandemic. Such a hypothetical but alarmingly real concept is calling out to the governments, researchers, and health organizations to be prepared for anything.

Fast-forward to December 2024 a mysterious disease swept through the Panzi district in the Democratic Republic of Congo, killing 48 people. Fever, fatigue, and respiratory distress were the presenting features. Dubbed Disease X by the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the outbreak is an important lesson in early detection and swift response to unknown diseases. Subsequent analysis identified familiar pathogens and contributory factors, such as malnutrition and malaria.

What is Disease X?

Disease X is not attributed to any particular pathogen but is instead a placeholder for a future virus or bacteria with pandemic potential. Symptoms of Disease X are theoretical, but can be assumed as fever, respiratory distress, and gastrointestinal issues from previous outbreaks.

Possible Causes of Disease X

Zoonotic Spillovers: The transfer of pathogens from animals to humans, which is often worsened by deforestation and wildlife trade.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Overuse of antibiotics has led to the development of drug-resistant strains, which reduces the effectiveness of treatment.

Climate Change: Changing temperatures create conditions for new diseases to emerge and spread.

Globalization: Increased human mobility facilitates the rapid spread of pathogens across borders.

Historically, influenza and coronaviruses have proven their capability to cause a global health crisis. The recent swine flu pandemic in 2009 and the current outbreak of COVID-19 are good examples of unpredictable viral mutations and zoonotic transmission.

Past research into related pathogens has been extremely useful. For example, previous work on MERS and the coronavirus spike protein greatly expedited the production of COVID-19 vaccines. This underscores the need for proactive research into viral families with pandemic potential, including flaviviruses and coronaviruses.

Also Read: What Is COVID XEC Variant, The Strain That Is Spreading Fast In The West?

Preparing for the Unknowns of Disease X

The global response to Disease X must be multifaceted:

• Strengthening Surveillance Systems: Strong global monitoring networks will be able to detect outbreaks early, thus providing timely interventions.
• Investing in Flexible Vaccines: Advances in mRNA technology offer adaptable platforms for rapid vaccine development.
• Public Health Infrastructure: Building resilient healthcare systems capable of managing large-scale health crises.
• International Collaboration: Partnerships across nations can pool resources and expertise for effective responses.
• Public Awareness: Hygiene practices, vaccinations, and education are critical in mitigating disease spread.

Lessons from the Congo Outbreak

The outbreak in the Congo stands as a case study in working through the complexities of unknown diseases. While the area was very remote and presented a complex web of overlapping health issues, rapid deployment of health experts underscored the importance of preparedness, but also the gaps in infrastructure and logistical capabilities, which again underlined a need for much greater investment in global health systems.

Including Disease X in the WHO blueprint means shifting to proactionist health strategies. It's all about doing more work in researching prototype pathogens like flaviviruses and coronaviruses so as to prepare against the pandemics of the future. In a similar light, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been actively contributing, working to develop vaccines and therapies for major virus families and adapting to changes very fast once the threats surface.

Disease X is a cautionary tale, not a cause for panic. It is nature's unpredictability and the urgent need for preparedness. Governments, health organizations, and individuals must unite to strengthen surveillance systems, invest in research, and foster global cooperation.

As we move about in a world full of microbiological threats, the lessons of previous pandemics and foresight in initiatives like Disease X point the way to resilience. It simply depends upon the understanding that while we cannot predict anything in life, we can prepare for it.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. Consult a healthcare professional for personalized medical advice.

Prototype pathogen approach for pandemic preparedness: world on fire. JCI. 2020

First list of top emerging diseases likely to cause major epidemics. WHO. 2015

Not forever, but what if you could press pause on Alzheimer’s just long enough to enjoy a few more good years? That is the tantalising promise behind a new drug called lecanemab, hailed as a game-changer in the fight against dementia.

The drug has already been licensed for use in the UK after trials showed it could slow the pace of decline in people with early-stage Alzheimer’s. But new long-term findings are turning cautious hope into something stronger: patients who stayed on lecanemab for four years experienced a noticeable delay in the disease's progression. Some even showed no decline at all.

How It Works

In the initial 18-month trial, the drug delayed Alzheimer’s progression by just under six months. That might not sound like much, but it’s the long game that matters here. Among 478 patients who remained on the drug for four years, the average delay before their disease advanced to the next stage stretched to almost 11 months.

Even more striking: 69 per cent of those with low levels of tau saw no decline at all over the four years. And over half in that same group actually improved their cognitive scores.

A Slow Slide Instead of a Steep Drop

Typically, people with mild Alzheimer’s see their scores on memory and function tests worsen by one or two points each year. But for those taking lecanemab, the total decline across four years was just 1.75 points. That’s a major shift in the rhythm of the disease, changing it from a downhill tumble to a slow shuffle.

Professor Christopher Van Dyck, who led the study at Yale School of Medicine, puts it simply: “You will get worse over time, but it will take longer to get there.” That extra time could mean more independence, more connection with loved ones, and more living.

Why Early Treatment is Key

This makes a strong case for early diagnosis and intervention, which could shift the way we approach Alzheimer’s care. No longer is it just about managing symptoms; it’s about changing the trajectory of the disease.

Not a Cure, But a Clear Step Forward

Lecanemab isn’t a miracle cure. It doesn’t reverse Alzheimer’s, and it’s not suitable for all patients. But experts say it’s a major milestone. Reportedly, this is the first wave of disease-modifying treatments and there’s still plenty to understand.

Other Contenders in the Ring

Lecanemab isn’t the only drug showing promise. A similar treatment called donanemab was tested over a three-year period, though it was only administered for 18 months. Still, the results were encouraging: patients on the drug gained an extra six to 12 months before their disease progressed.

That might not sound earth-shattering, but in a condition where time is everything, even a few more months of clarity and connection can be priceless.

The research is still evolving, but the signs are encouraging. With continued trials, this could be the start of a new chapter in dementia treatment, one where patients and families have more time to prepare, more time to enjoy life, and more hope than ever before.

When 63-year-old John Starns slumped on a train station bench in Sevenoaks, drenched in sweat and struggling to stay upright, most passers-by assumed he was drunk. He looked wobbly, pale, and visibly disoriented. But what looked like an awkward case of public intoxication turned out to be something far more sinister: a brain tumour hiding behind symptoms commonly mistaken for vertigo.

From “It’s Just Vertigo” to “You Have a Brain Tumour”

Three months and one MRI scan later, John finally got the truth. He reportedly had a vestibular schwannoma, a rare, benign brain tumour sitting on the nerve that connects the brain to the inner ear. It was affecting his balance, hearing, and overall coordination, symptoms that, in hindsight, were never typical of garden-variety vertigo.

What is Vestibular Schwannoma?

That is why the symptoms can masquerade as something much less serious.

• Dizziness or vertigo
• Hearing loss in one ear
• Ringing or buzzing sounds (tinnitus)
• Poor sound localisation
• In more advanced cases, numbness on one side of the face

Because these tumours grow at a glacial pace, symptoms tend to hide for months or even years. According to Cancer Research UK, they account for around 8 per cent of all brain tumours, with risk increasing significantly after the age of 65. In rare cases, they are linked to a genetic condition called neurofibromatosis, which often causes tumours on both sides of the brain.

Why Dizziness Deserves a Second Look

For John, it was not just one woozy episode. It was a string of unsettling, spin-the-room moments that left him lying flat on his back, eyes squeezed shut, praying for the world to stop pirouetting. And while vertigo was the first suspect, his brain had other plans, like growing a tumour on his vestibulocochlear nerve.

That is the thing with dizziness: it is vague, common, and often misunderstood. It can signal anything from low blood pressure and ear infections to neurological conditions that need serious medical attention. But because it is so easy to dismiss and hard to describe without wildly gesturing, it often gets brushed under the rug until it insists on being noticed.

If you face dizziness, do not ignore it. Especially if the dizziness is intense, recurrent, or comes with sidekicks like hearing loss, balance issues, or ringing in your ears.

In a controversial move that has rattled the U.S. medical community, federal health officials have severed ties with more than half a dozen major medical organizations from participating in government vaccine advisory workgroups.

The decision, communicated via email on Thursday, disinvites top experts from these groups from contributing to the workgroups that support the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a key body that guides the nation’s vaccination policies.

Organizations affected include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and several others, many of whom have historically played a critical role in shaping vaccine guidelines.

“This is deeply concerning and distressing,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a renowned vaccine expert from Vanderbilt University who has been involved with ACIP workgroups for decades. “Removing these organizations will likely create conflicting messages about vaccine guidance. Patients might hear one thing from the government and another from their personal doctors.”

Longstanding Collaboration Ends Abruptly

For years, the ACIP has relied on a structured system where experts from various medical and scientific fields evaluate vaccine data and help draft recommendations. These recommendations, once approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), often inform clinical practice and determine insurance coverage.

But according to an email obtained by Bloomberg and confirmed by federal officials on Friday, the medical organizations are now being sidelined on the grounds that they are “special interest groups” and are assumed to carry a “bias” due to the populations they serve.

Dr. Schaffner defended the former system, highlighting how professional organizations offered practical insights on how recommendations could be realistically implemented in clinical settings. Importantly, all members were subject to conflict-of-interest vetting, ensuring objective guidance, he added.

Health Secretary Kennedy’s Sweeping Changes

This latest shake-up follows an earlier, unprecedented move in June when U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly dismissed the entire ACIP panel, accusing it of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers. Kennedy, a former leader in the anti-vaccine movement, has since appointed several known vaccine skeptics to the new committee.

Among the organizations removed from the workgroup process are the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, National Medical Association, and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

In a joint statement released Friday, the AMA and several of the disinvited organizations denounced the decision, calling it “irresponsible” and “dangerous to our nation’s health.” The statement warned that excluding their medical expertise “will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.”

The groups urged the administration to reverse the decision, emphasizing the importance of transparency and collaboration in public health decision-making.

Lawsuit and Fallout

Several of the ousted organizations had previously criticized Kennedy’s overhaul of the ACIP. Last month, three of them joined a lawsuit challenging the government’s decision to halt COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for most children and pregnant women, a policy shift that has been widely criticized by public health experts.

Meanwhile, newly appointed ACIP member Retsef Levi, a professor of business management with no formal medical background, defended the administration's direction on social media. Levi wrote that future workgroups would “engage experts from an even broader set of disciplines,” and claimed that membership would be based on “merit & expertise, not organizational affiliations with conflicts of interest.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not yet disclosed which experts will replace the disinvited members or when the new workgroups will begin operating.