Elon Musk, the richest human being in the world and one of the most divisive personalities of our time, is now making headlines for more than his space exploration, AI plans, or electric cars. A new Wall Street Journal expose has highlighted Musk's ambitious pursuit of legacy creation through surrogacy and sperm donation—a move based on his pro-natalist ideology to "battle civilizational collapse" by becoming the father of a large family.

Musk has been said to have fathered at least 14 children with four known women, although insiders claim that number is much higher. The latest installment of this saga comes from conservative influencer Ashley St Clair, who says she gave birth to Musk's child through a highly planned and secretive agreement. From multimillion-dollar settlements to NDAs and courtroom exchanges, the tale is like a sci-fi novel of today—except it's real life, and it spawns ethical and health-related concerns surrounding the application of surrogacy and sperm donation.

Elon Musk is not new to controversy, but this time it's not Twitter (now X) or Tesla shares. As reported by St Clair and the WSJ, Musk has pursued women actively—sometimes within politically sympathetic social networks—asking them to have his children through conventional or surrogate means. The influencer reports being isolated during her pregnancy and being given a reported payment of as much as $15 million, in addition to $100,000 per month support—substantially cut afterward when she spoke out.

This is not the only instance. Pop singer Grimes, Musk's ex-partner, has given birth to three children with him, and Shivon Zilis, an executive at Neuralink, has given birth to twins. There is even talk of a Japanese government official asking Musk for his sperm to donate—a request that Musk allegedly fulfilled. One message, which Musk sent to St Clair, encapsulates the ulterior motive: "To reach legion-level before the apocalypse, we will need to use surrogates."

Though surrogacy per se is not new or immoral when consensual and medically controlled, the Musk model—if these claims are true—raises legitimate questions about power imbalance, consent, and commodification of birth. Paying women huge amounts of money for biological legacy creation, and requiring them to sign confidentiality contracts and waive naming rights, distorts conventional definitions of co-parenting and individual agency.

Additionally, there have been reports indicating that women reportedly were threatened with the withdrawal of financial support if they pursued legal assistance or public debate—creating even more ethical controversy surrounding Musk's practices.

Can Frequent Sperm Donation Be Dangerous?

In a controlled clinical setting, sperm donation is quite safe. Sperm banks that are licensed screen donors thoroughly for infectious diseases like HIV, hepatitis B and C, and syphilis, as well as for genetic defects that can be transmitted to children. Legal safeguards also protect donors from relinquishing parental rights, which in turn protects both the donor and recipient from future legal issues.

Yet, frequent or casual sperm donation, as some accounts indicate Musk might be doing, poses a number of serious health and legal hazards:

Inadequate medical screening can raise the risk of passing on genetic or infectious disease.

Legal uncertainties in casual arrangements can expose recipients to future parental claims or financial responsibility by the donor.

Ethical risks, like an unchecked number of children, might result in unintentional incest among half-siblings who are not aware that they share a parent—especially when donors father kids around the world anonymously.

Psychological Impacts on Donor-Conceived Children

There's also a psychological aspect to this reproductive phenomenon. Sperm donation children tend to struggle with questions of identity, particularly if they learn about their origins later in life. When secrecy is valued—as Musk supposedly demanded in birth certificates and NDA provisions—the emotional toll might be compounded. Studies have found that open communication about donor conception early on leads to healthier psychological outcomes.

While the U.S. permits a variety of surrogacy and sperm donation arrangements, laws differ internationally, and Musk's possible multi-national parentage only makes things more difficult. Nations such as the UK, for example, limit the number of families that one sperm donor can assist in creating (typically ten). Such a limit does not exist in Musk's case, potentially setting up hundreds of biological children without legal or social knowledge of each other.

Additionally, private contracts formed outside of regulation—such as those outlined in the WSJ article—can be questionable across states, leaving both parents and the children vulnerable to legal complications in the future.

Musk's comments imply genuine faith in reversing demographic decline by personal reproduction. He has posted on Twitter repeatedly about the "population collapse" being a greater problem than global warming, terming childbearing as a "moral obligation of the intelligent" but where reproductive freedom gets tied to tremendous wealth and social status, boundaries between vision and ego get confused.

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.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a deadly global health crisis despite being a curable disease. In 2023 alone, TB killed about 1.25 million people globally — more than any other infectious pathogen. While the ability of months- or years-long courses of antibiotics to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacteria that cause the disease, treatment success is not certain for all. In fact, in approximately 12% of patients, TB recurs even after treatment.

The major roadblock is that clinicians today lack a specific test to see if TB bacteria were completely removed from the body by treatment. Failing to have accurate monitoring mechanisms, doctors have to implement the same six-month treatment regimen in all patients and accept that some will be over-treated and some will be failures. However, all that may soon change, thanks of a breakthrough RNA-based TB detection test that Dr. Kayvan Zainabadi, assistant professor of molecular microbiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, and his India-based team are developing.

Modern TB treatment protocols are dependent on clinical experience and sputum-based diagnostic procedures that identify bacterial DNA. However, these procedures are fraught with limitations. Despite the successful treatment, residual bacterial DNA can continue to be present in the patient's system, resulting in false positives and making it difficult to clearly perceive the status of the disease.

This diagnostic imprecision compels physicians to remain with a "one-size-fits-all" six-month treatment regimen, even when evidence indicates that most patients might be cured earlier. Long-term exposure to highly effective antibiotics not only risks patients developing side effects but also places a heavy burden on healthcare systems, particularly in low-resource settings where TB is most prevalent.

Dr. Zainabadi’s research introduces a groundbreaking concept: using ribosomal RNA (rRNA) as a rapid, sensitive, and accurate marker of TB infection. Unlike DNA, RNA is inherently less stable and degrades quickly after bacterial death, minimizing the risk of false positives.

The innovation is aimed at the detection of the 16S rRNA of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which is a part essential to bacterial protein synthesis. Its prevalence in the cell makes it a prime target for detection even in small or difficult-to-access samples.

Significantly, this RNA-based method might overcome the sputum reliance that is sometimes tricky to obtain from high-risk populations such as children or HIV-infected individuals. Rather, less intrusive sample forms might be utilized, providing a more patient-centered, convenient, and scalable platform.

How Does It Work?

The RNA test operates by extracting 16S rRNA from patient samples and amplifying it using highly sensitive molecular methods. Since rRNA degrades quickly after bacterial cells die, detecting it gives real-time feedback regarding the presence of active TB infection — something DNA-based tests cannot consistently provide.

In practice, a sample would be taken from the patient (possibly from gastric fluid, blood, or other more readily accessible fluids) and run through the RNA detection system. If live bacteria are present, the 16S rRNA signature would show up in the test results, providing clinicians with an instant readout of disease activity.

The rapidity and precision of this methodology may significantly reduce diagnostic turnaround times from weeks or months to mere minutes or hours. This results in quicker clinical decisions, more targeted interventions, and substantial reductions in patient anxiety and healthcare expenditures.

Is It More Helpful Than Other Diagnostic Tests?

In comparison to conventional sputum microscopy and DNA-based molecular diagnostics, the RNA-based test has a number of revolutionary benefits.

First, its ability to target active infection — not just bacterial residue — prevents patients from being subjected to unnecessary or excessive treatment. This specificity is especially important in combating multidrug-resistant TB, where inappropriately using antibiotics exacerbates resistance problems.

Secondly, the fact that it can accept non-sputum samples makes it much more convenient. It is not possible for several children and immunocompromised individuals to produce sufficient sputum, and clinicians are left with the option of using invasive and less effective gastric lavage methods. An RNA-based test would equalize access to proper TB diagnosis among these high-risk populations.

Third, in the field of TB drug discovery, this test might be a game-changer. Rather than waiting two years to determine if a drug is effective, researchers would be able to monitor bacterial clearance in real-time, moving clinical trials forward more quickly and lowering costs.

Lastly, at a macro health systems level, a quick, precise, and less intrusive diagnostic device would be a game-changer for TB-endemic countries where resources are tightly constrained and the disease burden is highest.

The stakes are as high as they could possibly be. TB has continued to be a recalcitrant worldwide killer, too often fueled by diagnostic ambiguity and treatment inefficacy. An RNA-based diagnostic test such as the one Dr. Zainabadi and his colleagues are creating is not only an incremental step but a potential paradigm shift in how we combat the disease.

As the study continues, the expectation is that this new technology will not only revolutionize individual patient treatment but also redefine the public health sector in the global fight against tuberculosis.