For many men, the warmth of physical touch remains an uncharted territory. Men, under the unsaid burden of masculinity, often refrain from embracing others, especially other men. Women, on the other hand, are more prompt about hugs and kisses. Does this have an effect on their mental well being?

Yes, says Tiffany Field, Director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine. "Touch is the first, and the most intense, language we learn when we're very young, Touch might have more immediate impacts on words, she told NYT. The benefits of nonsexual touch is read like a 19th century tonic advertisement, except that the outcomes have been scientifically vetted. Primarily, touch has been found to lower the level of cortisol (stress hormone) in one's body. This implies its importance in a society where stress kills more young men than women.

When faced with stressors, men tend to turn cowboy, growing stoic, emotionally withdrawn and, too often, isolated. It is true that women receive higher levels of oxytocin — the calming, bonding hormone and neurotransmitter — when they are stressed, which enhances their ability to cope. However, research shows that levels of oxytocin in both genders rise when they receive affectionate touch from their partners or other closed ones.

But there are touch-averse cultures like America and touch-friendly cultures like Italy. India, lies somewhere in between. According to Jay Skidmore, former chairman of the psychology department of Seattle Pacific University, "Social-cultural trends in America have focused for decades on reducing touch." Meanwhile, many men self-police their hands around each other. According to experts, who spoke to NYT, the younger men are so very afraid of getting classified as homosexual that their first response to accidentally touching another man is No Homo! In older men, it is the same discomfort and fear. Sociologist Michael Kimmel, who studies masculinity, says touch between straight men can occur only when physical contact “magically loses its association with homosexuality"— as happens in sports.

'Skin Hunger' In Men

In 2022, Kory Floyd, a professor of communication at the University of Arizona, conducted a study on what he called "affection deprivation." The research was conducted on 500 participants. Throughout the research, he studied "skin hunger," discovering that the people who experienced this phenomenon were, among other things, more lonely, depressed, and had less social support. They also experienced more mood and anxiety disorders and an inability to interpret and express emotions. Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that a 2011 study from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, further found that among more than 1,000 heterosexual middle-aged and older married couples in five countries, hugging and kissing were more central to the happiness of men than they were to women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released three reports on Thursday that highlighted the clusters of medetomidine-related cases in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. These reports have raised alarm about the growing presence of this drug in street opioids and the potential complications it brings to treatment and recovery.

What Is Medetomidine?

As per the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT), it is an alpha-2 agonist, similar to clonidine and xylazine, that is used clinically as a sedative and analgesic. It is categorized as an NPS due to its novelty in use. The CDC in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report notes that it is a canine veterinary agent used for its anesthetic and analgesic properties.

However, the National Library of Medicine's study titled Classics in Chemical Neuroscience: Medetomidine has noted that this drug "has recently been detected in the illicit drug supply alongside fentanyl, xylazine, cocaine, and heroin, producing pronounced sedative effective that are not reversed by naloxone."

As per the latest CDC report released on May 1, twelve confirmed and 26 probable cases of medetomidine-involved overdose occurred in Chicago. Fentanyl was present in all blood specimens and drug samples that tested positive for medetomidine.

It was first identified in North America’s illicit opioid market in 2022, medetomidine is now showing up more frequently in mixtures with synthetic opioids—particularly fentanyl, the drug driving most overdose deaths in the U.S.

Why Is This Worrisome?

In May 2023, Chicago officials noticed a spike in overdose cases where naloxone—the standard overdose-reversal medication—did not work as expected. After investigation, the city's health department confirmed 12 cases involving medetomidine, with over 160 more suspected or probable cases, including one potential death. This marks the largest known medetomidine cluster to date.

The two other CDC reports focused on medetomidine withdrawal. In Philadelphia, testing revealed medetomidine in 72% of illegal opioid samples collected in late 2023, overtaking xylazine in frequency. Patients exposed to medetomidine experienced a distinctive type of drug withdrawal that didn’t respond to usual medications for fentanyl or xylazine. However, a related medication called dexmedetomidine showed some success in managing symptoms.

Pittsburgh reported 10 similar cases around the same time, suggesting the issue is not isolated to one area but may be spreading through regional drug supplies.

Why Does It Matter?

The presence of sedatives like medetomidine in illicit opioids creates several public health challenges:

Reduced effectiveness of naloxone: Standard treatment protocols for overdoses may not work when sedatives are involved, increasing the risk of death.

Complicated withdrawals: The addition of new, unregulated substances alters the withdrawal process, often making it harder to treat.

Lack of awareness and testing: Many emergency responders and clinics do not routinely test for medetomidine, which could delay proper care.

This development adds a new layer to the already complex U.S. opioid crisis. As drug suppliers continue to mix opioids with a variety of sedatives and adulterants, health officials face an evolving battle. Experts stress the importance of broader toxicology screening, continued research, and expanding the availability of alternative treatments like dexmedetomidine.

While medetomidine isn’t yet as widespread as fentanyl or xylazine, its growing presence in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh points to a potentially dangerous trend—one that will require urgent attention from both medical professionals and policymakers.

Receiving a vaccine booster in the same arm as the first dose triggers a faster and stronger immune response and helps the body build protection faster, a new study from Australian scientists has revealed. The findings could help improve vaccine strategies and may eventually lead to vaccines that need fewer boosters. The study was published in the journal Cell and finds that the immune system responds more quickly when both doses are given in the same arm.

Why Will It Work?

Researchers have reasoned that getting jabbed in the same arm works better because immune cells in nearby lymph nodes, which are the body's infection-fighting hubs, become "primed" after the first shot. When the booster arrives in the same spot, these cells spring into action and help produce stronger antibodies. "This is a fundamental discovery in how the immune system organises itself to respond better to external threats," said the study's co-senior author Tri Phan, director of the Precision Immunology Program at the Garvan Institute.

Researchers discovered this effect first in mice, then confirmed it in a clinical study involving 30 people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Those who had both doses in the same arm developed faster and more effective protection, especially against COVID-19 variants like Delta and Omicron. While both groups ended up with similar antibody levels after four weeks, the same-arm group gained protection more quickly, a potential game-changer during pandemic outbreaks.

"If you've had your COVID jabs in different arms, don't worry, our research shows that over time the difference in protection diminishes," said the study's co-senior author, Mee Ling Munier from the Kirby Institute.

How Do Vaccines Work?

The immune system has a wonderful layered system of defences, and when it comes to vaccines, two major defenses are activated. One of them is antibodies, which are proteins in the blood. Then you have something called cell-mediated immunity, which involves cells, usually T lymphocytes. You almost always get both. From a regulatory point of view, you often measure antibodies in people and basically know how effective a vaccine is in a population.

Microplastics pose a danger to the heart. While there is enough evidence to show that they clog arteries and exacerbate the risk of stroke, recent research has found that these teeny particles of plastic can trigger cardiovascular diseases. It is estimated that chemicals in plastic were linked to nearly 350,000 heart disease deaths across the world in 2018. Adding to that, is this study published in the journal eBioMedicine, which estimated that roughly 13 per cent of cardiovascular deaths among 55- to 64-year-olds worldwide that year could be attributed to phthalates.

Where Are Phthalates are esters of phthalic acids, which are added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity. They are found in personal care products like shampoos and lotions as well as in food containers and packaging. It is also possible to injest them through food, absorb them through skin from products containing them or breathe them from dust.

Some studies have shown an association between phthalates and cardiovascular disease, but there isn’t strong evidence to show that the chemicals directly cause heart issues, said Sung Kyun Park, a professor of epidemiology and environmental sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. However, there is enough evidence that states that phthalates increase the risk of metabolic disorders like obesity and Type 2 diabetes, which can cause cardiovascular disease. One way phthalates may do this is by increasing oxidative stress—cell and tissue damage that happens when there are too many unstable molecules in the body—and by promoting inflammation.

Microplastics: Explained

Microplastics are extremely small particles—often less than five millimetres in size—created when larger pieces of plastic break down. They can enter the human body in multiple ways: through the air we breathe, the food we eat, and even skin contact. An even smaller subset, known as nanoplastics, measures under 1,000 nanometers and is completely invisible to the naked eye. Because of their minuscule size, these particles can infiltrate tissues, organs, and potentially disrupt biological functions.

One Simple Way To Mitigate Risk Of Microplastics

Amid growing concerns about microplastic contamination, especially in drinking water, scientists have been working on practical ways to mitigate exposure. In 2024, a research team from Guangzhou Medical Centre made a breakthrough. They discovered that a common household activity—boiling water—can significantly reduce microplastic content in tap water.

According to the team, combining boiling with basic filtration can remove up to 90% of nanoplastic and microplastic particles (NMPs) from household water. However, the method’s effectiveness varied depending on the type of water used. In areas where tap water contains higher mineral content, commonly referred to as "hard water," the technique proved especially efficient.

The secret lies in limescale. As hard water is heated, it forms limescale—a chalky white substance—which appears to create a sticky layer that traps microplastic fragments. Researchers found this natural process enhanced the removal of plastic particles from water, offering a practical and affordable solution for most households.

While more research is needed to fully understand the long-term health effects of microplastics, early evidence suggests they may be more dangerous than previously thought—especially for cardiovascular health.